Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0609 PECUR PROPET9Vp THIS REN MBh U JC NO NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and EnviWil hoda putA rielheari g in accordance with S l ) Commission oi the Townection PROOF OF PUBLICATION 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Cade, an June 9, Build, at 2:d4 P.M. in the Town at Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: STATE OF COLORADO Parknggg and Loading, Vail Town from odento all wiia: 9 Vrail Raand ad7Lot C,^Va I village 2nd in the front setback iling Ipcated at SS. Applicant: Nine Vail Road Condominium Associ- ation and Nicow island Developmem, Inc. COUNTY OF EAGLE Planner: AatisonOchs A request for a conditional use Penn' to allow for a seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural Park, use, located at 530 S. Frontage d. Applicant: Town at VaiUAIPP, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail Daily, that the same daily newspa- Planner: Allison Ochs per printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a A request for a cwditionai use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5. conditional Uses, Vail Town general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly Code, to allow fora rivate outdoor recreational fa- in said Court g Lsnnof Eagle fora period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first Lion loaa+edshea4lsiF so L+°^ahead Malvrraa+ o, Vail Filing. publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the Ap scant Vail Resorts United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amend- Planner: Bili Gibson ments thereof, and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Courivi to amend the Town of Vail Streefscape and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. Master Plan and setting forth details in regard thereto. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every Hpptcant: Town of Vail, reprbaenfed by crag Planner. warren Campbeit number of said daily newspaper for the period of ................ consecutive insertions; and that the first The applications and information stout those prrr posals are available for public inspection during publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated �'". ....... regular business hours at the Town °t vati Com_- munfly Development Department office. 75 South Frontag=e Road The public is mused to attend the A.D. .'....--. . ....... and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper proNactation held in the Town 01 Vail Com- Win°opment Department offica and the dated.i, �.. ( -�.... A.D. ............f ...... site 970)s that precede alta public hearing. Please ji call visits that pec for additional information. / Sign language interpretation is available upon re In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this ..... .... day of..... �.....:..... .... ...... quest With 24-hour nouficadnn. Please call (e7o) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing impaired, for additional -Information. This notice pub4mhod in the) Vail Daily on May 23, ••. 2603. ..... ....... .. J„l....................... ... .. .. Publisher J Subscribed and sworn to before - Rte, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this .............1G.,,..... day of ,L., I4 /�1.� .....�•� .... . ... ...... ....... Notary Public My Commission expires .... !�../.,.. 0 • • THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE 000 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Code on Junt�."a 9, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a variance from Section 12-7A-11, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to allow for parking and loading in the front setback, located at 9 Vail Road/Lot C, Vail Village 2"d Filing, Applicant: Nine Vail Road Condominium Association and Nicolet Island Development, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use, located at 530 S. Frontage Road/Ford Park, Unplatted. Applicant: Town of Vail/AIPP, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-5, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a private outdoor recreational facility, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 151 Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant- Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Warren Campbell The applications and information about these proposals are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department office, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation held in the Town of Vail Community Development Department office and the site visits that precede the public hearing. Please call (970) 479-2136 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for additional information. This notice published in the Vail Daily on. May 23, 2003. 1 140 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO S.S. COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail Daily, that the same daily newspa- per printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1679, or any amend- ments thereof, and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of ......./....... consecut' a insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated ..... ...................... A.D....��......... and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper f r � , dat...... 4........... A.D......... ................ In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this ..... 1_6..... .... day of ........................ ..... L ....' . .................... Publisher Subscribed arydd wom to beforeintKa notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, �t// this ........................... day of:. ....-..� . % Notary Public My Commission expires ....... ...... '..(.`..�. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Mondry, duns 9, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Develop- ment Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits :1:00 pm 1. Ford Park - 530 S. Frontage Rd. 2. Front Door 3. Alpenrose - 100 E. Meadow Drive 4.9 Vail Road - 9 Vail Road 5. Lionshead Mall - 600 Lionshead Mall Driver: Goor�e NOTE: If the PEC hear ng extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 Pm 1.A request for a conditional use Per- mit, pursuant to section 12-7H-5, Ccrxlitinnal Uses, Vac Town Coda, to allow for a prtvate out- door recreational facility, located at 600 Uonshead MalvTract D, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: Bill Gibson 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No..6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow tar a change in use, to increase the GRFA and to increase the nurnberof dwelling units, located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 E. Mead- ow Drive/Lot O. Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Esta & Claus Fricke, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Matt Gannett 3. A request (or a variance from Section 12.7A -it, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to allow for parking and loading in the front set- back, located a kt 9 Vel RoadA-ot C, Veit Village 2nd Fling. Applicant: Nine Vail Road Condominium AsBrc- al on and Nicolet Island Development, Inc. planner: Allison Ochs 4. A request for a oondhional use Per- mit, to allow for a seasonal use to acc°mmodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use, to- caled at 530 S. Frontage RaadlFurd Park, Unplatted. Applicant: Town of Vail1AIPP, represented by Braun " o.claws, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs 5 A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amend- ments to amend Chapter 12-134 Requirements by Employee 1°lousing Unit (EMU) Types, Vail Town Code, to amend the Type If EHU require- ments and setfing forth details in regard thereto. ApplicanL AMS Developreent Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson 6_ A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Ce,,ml at pprioposed tend amend- ments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFAf r ulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single•Family Residential (SFR), Two-Fami- ty Residential ((R). Two -Family PrimarylSecondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC). Low Density Multipfa-Family (LDMF), Medium Density MvlG��lp�yyla•Famil (MDMF), High Density Multiple - ling lort(hHd t inregardthereto. districts, and set - Applicant Vied Pearson, 01.21. Planner: Bill Gibson 7. A request for a worksesslon to dis- cuss the following applications: a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Section 12-713 13, Density Control, Zoning Regula- tions;: a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a ,proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vait Village 5th Filing from Public Ac- commodation 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 Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdi- vision to Ski Base Recreation II zone district; a re- quest for a minor subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line be- tween Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th F4- ing; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Code of a proposed major subdivision, pur- suant to Section 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow furl' the platting of the 'trade parcel'; a request for a conditional use permit, pur- suant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a 'private off-street vehicle park- ing tacility and public pW to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing; a request for an exterior alleratior or modi- fication, pursuant to Section 12.715-7, Exterior At- temtfons or Modilicalions, Vail Town Code, to at - low for an addition to the Lodge at Vail: a request for a variance from Section 12-21-10, Develop- ment Restrlcted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to al- low 'Far the construction of multiple -family dwelling unite on slopes in excess of 40%: and a request for the establishment of an approved development to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front aid setting forth detaits in regard thereto. (A mare aomptete metes and bounds legal description Is WA We at the Town of Vail Community Devel- eposnt Deparirnent) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Pe- terson Planner: George Ruttier 8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Slreetscape Master Plan and settinc forth details in regard thereto. Applicant Town of Vail, repmsented by Greg Hali Planner: Warren Campbell 9_ A request for a conditwnat use per- mit, to allow for an outdoor dining dock, in accord- ance with Section 12-7B48, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Build, V, 333 Hanson Ranch RoadlLot C, Block 2, Vati Village 1 at Filing. Applicant: Rernonov & Company, Inc„ repre- senledby Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: DDI Gibson TABLED UNTIL JUNE 23, 2003 10. Appfovat of May 12, 2003 minutes 11. Information Update The applications and Information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regu- lar office hours in the project planner's office locat� ed at the Tuan of Valt Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please calf 47.4-21313 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon re- quest with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356. Telephone for the bearing Impaired, for in- formation. Community Development Department Published June 6, 2(103 in the Vaal Daily. Published in The Vail Daily June 6, 2003 • 18 w • 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, June 9, 2003 pt/jousl 0 . PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Ford 'Park — 530 S. Frontage: Rd. 2. Front Door 3. Alpenrose — 100 E. Meadow Drive 4. 9 Vail Road — 9 Vail Road 5. Lionshead Mall — 600 Lionshead Mall Driver: George 12:00 pm 1:00 pm NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a private outdoor recreational facility, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 15` Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: Bill Gibson 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, 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 Village Inn, 100 E. Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Edna & Claus Fricke, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Matt Gennett 3. A request for a variance from Section 12-7A-11, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to allow for parking and loading in the front setback, located at 9 Vail Road/Lot C, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Nine Vail Road Condominium Association and Nicolet Island Development, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs TOWN OF PAIL � 4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use, located at 530 S_ Frontage Road/Ford Park, Unplatted. Applicant: Town of Vail/AIPP, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs 5. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to amend Chapter 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Types, Vail Town Code, to amend the Type IC EHU requirements and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: AMS Development Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson 7. A request for a worksession to discuss the following applications: a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Section 12-713-13, Density Control, Zoning Regulations; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing from Public Accommodation 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 Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation II zone district; a requestfor a minor subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allowforthe relocation of the common property line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 51h Filing; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Code of a proposed major subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the "trade parcel"; a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a "private off-street vehicle parking facility and public park" to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing; a request for an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-78-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for 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 units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther $. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and setting forth details in regard thereto. 0 Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Warren Campbell • • 9. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an outdoor dining deck, in accordance with Section 12 -7B -4B, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1s` Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson TABLET? UNTIL JUNE 23, 2003 10. Approval of May 12, 2003 minutes 11. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published June 6, 2003 in the Vail Daily. 3 • n �J • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, June 9, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept, PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartman Site Visits MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Ford Park — 530 S. Frontage Rd. 2. Front door 3. Alpenrose — 100 E. Meadow Drive 4. 9 Vail Road — 9 Vail Road 5. Lionshead Mall — 600 Lionshead Mall Driver: George 12:00 pm 1:00 pm �o NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-5, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a private outdoor recreational facility, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Tract D, Vail Lionshead I" Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Gary Hartman SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH 6 CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall be prohibited from using outdoor lighting in association with the operation of the trampoline. 2. The applicant shall install a post and rail fence to enclose the trampoline area, in the same manner as approved by the 2002 conditional use permit and design review approval of the trampoline. 3. The applicant shall be prohibited from installing and displaying any form of advertising signage in association with the operation of the trampoline. 4. The applicant shall install decorative flower pots, in the same manner as approved by the 2002 conditional use permit and design review approval of the trampoline. 5. The dates of operation of the trampoline shall be mid-June 2003 through mid- September 2003 and mid-June 2004 through mid-September 2004. The hours of operation during these dates shall be 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Thursday, and 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM, Friday through Sunday. 6. This conditional use permit approval shall expire, and become null and void, on September 30, 2004. 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, 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 Village Inn, 100 E. Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Edna & Claus Fricke, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Matt Gennett MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0 RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That the applicant provides a detailed parking plan depicting where Alpenrose's parking spaces are on site, as well as those (3) required by the new residence, at the time of the first reading of the amending ordinance to the Vail Town Council. 3. A request for a variance from Section 12-7A-11, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to allow for parking and loading in the front setback, located at 9 Vail Road/Lot C, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Nine Vail Road Condominium Association and Nicolet Island Development, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4-2 (Schofield & Bernhardt opposed) APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: That prior to application for a building permit, the applicant must return to the Design Review Board for final review and approval of all improvements. 2. That the applicant shall revise the plans, subject to Design Review Board review and approval, to indicate 2 surface parking spaces and the minimum area required for a functional turnaround within the front setback, adjacent to West Meadow Drive. 4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use, located at 530 S. Frontage Road/Ford Park, Unplatted. 2 • • 1-1 Applicant: Town of Vail/AIPP, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH 5 CONDITIONS: That the applicant shall operate the proposed seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use, during the months of May 1 to November 15, annually. 2. That the applicant shall allow no more than one vehicle to be parked at Ford Park for the artist in residence. Any additional parking shall be accommodated at the Village parking structure. 3. That the applicant shall allow no exchange or trade of goods to occur within the limits of Ford Park, as prohibited by the Ford Park Management Plan. 4. That the applicant shall limit all vehicular delivery to the structure to the hours of 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. 5. That should the Planning and Environmental Commission find that the proposed conditional use is being operated in violation of the conditions outlined herein, or that the proposed conditional use is being operated in violation of any of the requirements of the Ford Park Management Plan, this conditional use permit may be revoked, as outlined in Section 12-16-5.- Planning 2-16-5:Planning and Environmental Commission Action, Vail Town Code. 5. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to amend Chapter 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Types, Vail Town Code, to amend the Type Il EHU requirements and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: AMS Development Inc. Planner. Bill Gibson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 6-1 (Kjesbo opposed) APPROVED WITH 4 CONDITIONS: 1. That for -sale Type II EHUs shall be a conditional use. 2. That Type II EHUs shall be required a minimum of one enclosed parking space and adequate additional storage, as determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission. 3. That Type II EHUs shall be physically and aesthetically integrated into a primary residence of the property. 4. That the minimum lot size required for a for -sale Type II EHU shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC),. Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL JUNE 23, 2003 7. A request for a worksession to discuss the following applications: a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Section 12-713-13, Density Control, Zoning Regulations; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5" Filing from Public Accommodation 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 Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation Il zone district; a request for a minor subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5'h Filing; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Code of a proposed major subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the "trade parcel"; a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a "private off-street vehicle parking facility and public park" to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5h Filing; a request for an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for 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 units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) 0 Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL JUNE 23, 2003 a. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Warren Campbell MOTION: Gary Hartman SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL JULY 14, 2003 9. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an outdoor dining deck, in accordance with Section 12 -7B -4B, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL JUNE 23, 2003 0 10. Approval of May 12, 2003 minutes 11. Information Update 4 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of flail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356. Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department :7 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-5, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a private outdoor recreational facility, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1" Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jeff Babb Planner: Bill Gibson 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts, represented by Jeff Babb, is requesting a conditional use permit, to allow for a private outdoor recreational facility (i.e. trampoline) adjacent to the Eagle Bahn Gondola in Lionshead. A similar conditional use permit proposal was approved for one year by the Planning and Environmental Commission on June 10, 2002. Based upon staff's review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the requested conditional use permit, subject to the findings noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST According to the informational materials submitted by the applicant, the proposed trampoline is an extreme sport jumping trampoline with a bungee cord system that safely propels jumpers up to 24 feet into the air. The specially designed harness and bungee cord system accelerates the users jumping ability and protects jumpers from injuries. The applicant is proposing to erect the trampoline on the area directly west of the Eagle Bahn Gondola. The operation of the trampoline will be for the summer season only and is intended to compliment the other existing recreational facilities already approved on the site. If approved, the applicant intends to begin operations of the trampoline in mid-June and cease operations in mid-September. The proposed hours of operation would be from 10:00 am — 6:00 pm weekdays and from 10:00 am — 9:00 pm weekends. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the proposed trampoline site is located on a property within the Lionshead Mixed Use I zone district. Pursuant to Section 12-71-1-5, Vail Town Code, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all levels of a building or outside of a building), private or public outdoor recreation facilities are allowed, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the 49 provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title (Zoning Regulations). 1 III. BACKGROUND 0 On June 10, 2002, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a similar conditional use permit for a trampoline adjacent to the Eagle Bahn Gondola. This conditional use permit is valid for one year from the date of the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision. Therefore, the applicant is re -applying for a conditional use permit to again allow for the installation of the trampoline for the 2003 summer season. The Design Review Board reviewed the design review application associated with this conditional use permit proposal at its June 4, 2003, public hearing. The Design Review Board approved the associated design review application contingent upon the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of this conditional use permit application. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/approval with conditions/denial of a conditional use permit. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. Conformance with development standards of zone district. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority of a conditional use permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. f!) Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code) Article 12-7H: LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 1 (LMU-1) DISTRICT 12-7H-1: PURPOSE: The Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple -family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. This District is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This Zone District was specifically developed to provide incentives forproperties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this Zone District include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any developmenUredevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrianlbicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. Section 12-7H-5: CONDITIONAL USES; GENERALLY (ON ALL LEVELS OF A BUILDING OR OUTSIDE OF A BUILDING) The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a • conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: 3 Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of this Title. Brew pubs. Goin -operated laundries. Commercial storage. Private outdoor recreation facilities, as a primary use. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities. Public or private parking lots. Public park and recreation facilities.. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Television stations. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. Chapter 12-16: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 12-16-1: PURPOSE, LIMITATIONS: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District Land Use Plan Designation: Tourist Commercial Current Land Use: Outdoor recreation ViI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING 4 • Land Use Zoning North: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District South: Open Space Outdoor Recreation District East: Open Space Natural Area Preservation District West: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District 4 • 0 VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of a conditional use permit are established by the Town Code. The proposed private outdoor recreational facility use is located within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District. Therefore, this proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code. A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Conditional Use Permit: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Staff believes that this proposal will expand the mixture of uses in the Lionshead area, as well as provide an additional recreational facility for visitors and residents of Vail to experience and enjoy. Like the miniature golf course and the climbing wall, the trampoline is a seasonal use during the summer months. It is intended to compliment the many other opportunities already in Town. Staff believes the use will comply with the proposed zone district in Lionshead and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, 40 transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that the proposed conditional use permit will not have any negative impacts on the above -referenced services. The past operations of the miniature golf course facility, climbing wall, and trampoline near the Eagle Bahn Gondola have proven to be positive recreational opportunities for the public. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The operation of the trampoline has proven to have had no negative impact upon traffic flow in the vicinity of the course. The Planning and Environmental Commission's previous requirement that the trampoline be setback a minimum of 30 feet from other facilities has been responsible for the safe and efficient flow of bicycle and pedestrian traffic through the area. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5 The trampoline is unique in its design in that it combines four round trampolines into a square utilizing one center supporting structure. The overall dimension of the proposed trampoline is approximately 33 feet square by 25 feet tall. The height of the trampoline is measured at the five supporting arms that accommodate the bungee cord jumping system. Staff does not believe that the scale and bulk of the trampoline will have any negative impacts on the character of the surrounding uses. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Outdoor Recreation zone district. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval with conditions for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a private outdoor recreational facility, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing, Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section Vlll of this memorandum and the evidence presented, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Commercial Core 1 (CC1) District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. F -I Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional use permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be prohibited from using outdoor lighting in association with the operation of the trampoline. 2. The applicant shall install a post and rail fence to enclose the trampoline area, in the same manner as approved by the 2002 conditional use permit and design review approval of the trampoline. 3. The applicant shall be prohibited from installing and displaying any form of advertising signage in association with the operation of the trampoline. 4. The applicant shall install decorative flower pots, in the same manner as approved by the 2002 conditional use permit and design review approval of the trampoline. 5. The dates of operation of the trampoline shall be mid-June 2003 through mid-September 2003 and mid-June 2004 through mid-September 2004. The hours of operation during these dates shall be 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Thursday, and 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM, Friday through Sunday. 6. This conditional use permit approval shall expire, and become null and void, on September 30, 2004. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Public Notice C. Applicant's letter of request D. Architectural plans L' 7 x,51 ��,,,._ ,tgf � ��r� k `w,✓t� � a. 'q,ma,�3y �� • J, ' - f r � T. - -.�� ir.,,-_ ... g tool. �if 1 � y .. f -. qq ..tea.} ae-y', �� �-' ��w i Y,,. Y . u .i . , •y + �:i` 4k ,� � y 1t '��'PfM 4 � �p �� •� tp i y+e� � � r'1h�''. (-3 ll n �� .!M i •� � � �.� Y ! � .�.-. a .Fit . � ��- ,� �t�h�Y'�Y+� .� r�"'.�-� } ��� �'� I } r �l r, Y!, -1 VO Vis- , r �7�,- a{ ,., . � � ;f qY .-w. W ��a4-�r-i si,. ��� 4• �} tr��.,�:.,,t1 .ft` �G � 4 �� �� �,M• .� � r �l�"„- � � rot �' '�_ ��' CL IM Uv IS gwm- C sr y 1 _ � � 9 • 7^ L as d �^� .. SF 1 � 1� 'fv���e Lua• . �� w r A y ti. a- THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE Attachment: B NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Code on ,June 9, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a variance from Section 12-7A-11, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to allow for parking and loading in the front setback, located at 9 Vail Road/Lot C, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Nine Vail Road Condominium Association and Nicolet Island Development, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use, located at 530 S. Frontage Road/Ford Park, Unplatted. Applicant: Town of Vail/AIPP, represented by Braun Associates, Inc_. Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses, Vail Town ode, to allow for a private outdoor recreational facility, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Tract D, Vail ionshead 1s1 Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and setting forth details in regard thereto. rApplicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Warren Campbell • The applications and information about these proposals are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department office, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation held in the Town of Vail Community Development Department office and the site visits that precede the public hearing. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for additional information. This notice published in the Vail Daily on May 23, 2003. 1 *VAIL TOW1V0 vVail. Attn: 5201 Vail, ining Property Owners: re Lodge and Conference Center Anderson, General Manager ionshead Circle 81657 W C North Americas #i Resort t • • vVail Project Description: Attachment: C North America's #p Resort - 1 Resorts, Inc. is seeking a 2 -year extension of the Conditional Use Permit to reinstall Salto Trampolino on the Gondola lawn area in Lionshead for summer usage in 2,003 2004. The current permit, obtained in the spring of 2002 expires May 31, 2003. also like to make some additional improvements to the area by constructing a e hardscape platform for the trampoline to be erected on. This platform would existing paver stone platform at the bottom of the Eagle Bahn Gondola. or this platform are as follows: 1 "A cl-- onsistent Iook to the area. 2 �A at sur ace to erect the trampoline system. 3 Small r'666t ons in maintenance time and water needed to maintain the sodded area. 4. Mr pleasant experience for the guest and the people who run the operation. As part of the current permit, fencing and flowers are required and those items would be put into service again with the new permit. Western Dowel post and rail fence will enclose the area and:several flower pots will surround the area. .' ..The proposed dikes andlimes of operations are as follows: 14 l ` y Mid — June 2(13 lhibAgh Mid — September 2003 r ' -10:00 AM to 6`04 PM."" Monday through Thursday AM to 9'OQ PM Friday through Sunday Mid —June 2004 through Mid —September 2004 i6 bbAM to 6:00 P-M;Monday through Thursday '1:Q0 AM to 9:00PN1Friday through Sunday The _ftrachc►n experieV.(0ygreat success during summer 2402 operations, brings a subst tv trnouunt of energy to the area and fits nicely with the other activities in this vicinii}�' I VAII, SEI AREA NORTH SCALE, r*aa' LIONSHEAD BASE AREA wusJaonacuvrz4.P:uoN SITE MAP R V.il A...�i.t,., Ion. RE.SOIZT PLANNTNCP N n a4 't+��Z♦Z+iZ+Z1gZ�+si � r�r.�.w-�� Z•Z♦yZ•=•y i+3Z♦Z♦y ♦ • 11 RED a • 7 ♦ '• + �13Z♦Z•�irZ♦? `fi • +•�ci �PZ{♦3fj �yZ+ ♦ s Z�ZiZliZ♦7 a ' - •i$i♦Z•3 s�PZ{•� • . 7tiOWWW ZW ►Z♦%��Ziii7YZ+Zr ♦ ♦ !PZi f ♦ 1iZiii3lsiz R1W ��Z�ZGCPZ+Z� 6=00,WZ•z•Wz•7 .iiyiz♦�izts�+ �z•yz ..Y��♦ • z+s�z.�zz•sz#z•'s#zata ji♦ l ♦��. f� �%�y R2 WN. �P i +z;•Z•�'l�'�.+Z•i '�{�•#�R�Ei�ei�P r i- f f '�Z+Z+2Z+3*7� • • s + • s i r ♦ • s + C+�Z�G�`a�{sji • i • . R ♦ • • '- i?ZZl�+7L+Ti�-+_ • • i • • i�.Z�y3Tt 'z+?Z�C�Z•33♦ ♦� • •►,iP,T P • • -a,i sem. UK-Aowmm =f • • • • a i • C{♦Zai{ =f79P MZ�sZiz�;• a s .. as : • ♦ " • ♦ • ' • ♦ 7 i MW iii ei Z�7 i • F, +►;iii.+.'���+yPZ♦�:�-�; • t 'C.► MA 66 t♦*_ r{.z�rrra ♦ ►. ♦ .�1r•� . • ♦ f . r�rP tsar♦.�..�.::zrz� ♦ • i • .. ryz♦i,�air. !={a7is • i • ��i��iZsZ; ILiy� i • • i • .� i • ♦ ♦ !a _�].yZ+Z♦��Z�♦Z�y'�=�•�i# � - = .'♦Z�+Z• �f�ia� # a ♦ �' ♦ 9�{♦ f C+ZayZ�+?Z♦i{iZ•YG+ZiZt�=��C'! • + - • • i ZR S+Z•.�Z+i"�R2ZiZ'{fZ1Z{tii Zi � t • ► s. ♦ a • .►��r7 E a r • • • ♦ •Zr • ♦ : ♦ ♦ • i♦ i 71. t• • ♦ • ♦ • ♦ ♦ • t • ♦ _ A � • i r it � ��• ahSCALE: r-zo, LIONSHEAD TRAMPOLINE r. e � • Fop° a a� ti t _• S u �„ ``tea _ - ` - �t 3 i 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12-7A-11, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to allow for parking and loading in the front setback, located at 9 Vail Road/Lot C, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Nine Vail Road Condominium Association and Nicolet Island Development, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs 1. SUMMARY The applicants, Nine Vail Road Condominium Association and Nicolet Island Development, Inc., have requested a variance from Section 12-7A-11, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to allow for parking and loading in the front setback, located at 9 Vail Road/Lot C, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Staff is recommending denial of the request, subject to the criteria and finding, outlined in Sections VIII and IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Nine Vail Road Condominium Association and Nicolet Island Development, Inc., have requested this variance from Section 12-7A-11, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to allow for parking in the front setback. The applicants' statement of request has been attached for reference (Attachment A). Section 12-7A-11 states: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least seventy five percent (75%) of the -required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. No at grade or above grade surface parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. Below grade underground structured parking and short term guest loading and drop off shall be permitted in the required front setback subject to the approval of the planning and environmental commission andlor the design review board. The application is in response to the proposed Four Seasons Resort development. The current access to four surface parking spaces is located on the Four Seasons Resort property. As part of the development application, the current access is proposed to be removed and the parking for Nine Vail Road relocated to West Meadow Drive. A vicinity map is attached for reference (Attachment B). As Nine Vail Road is currently non- conforming with regards to the number of required parking spaces, these parking spaces cannot be eliminated. Chapter 12-10, Off-street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code would require 38 parking spaces. However, there are currently 31 spaces provided for Nine 1 Vail Road. Three of the proposed parking spaces would be located in the required 20 ft front setback. Section 12-2-2, definitions, Vail Town Code, provides the following definition for a "front lot or site line": The boundary line of a lot or site adjoining a street which provides the primary access or street address of the site, or adjoining the primary access from a street to the lot or site. As a result, Nine Vail Road, according to the Zoning Regulations, has two front property lines: adjacent to Vail Road and adjacent to West Meadow Drive. As a result, there are two front setbacks for Nine Vail Road. Therefore, a variance is required to locate any surface parking in the area proposed. Reductions of the plans have been attached for reference (Attachment C). III. BACKGROUND Information regarding the original construction of Nine Vail Road is limited. According to the legal file with the Town of Vail Community Development Department, construction of Nine Vail Road, originally called the Holiday House, occurred in the early 1970s. Since that time, development activities on the site have been limited to minor exterior alterations. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Planning and Environmental Commission: 40 The PEC is_ responsible for evaluating a proposal for: Action; The PEC is responsible for final approvalldenial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. • 2 Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Zoning Regulations 12-7A-11: PARKING AND LOADING: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least seventy five percent (75/) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. No at grade or above grade surface parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. Below grade underground structured parking and short term guest loading and drop off shall be permitted in the required front setback subject to the approval of the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board. Section 12-17 Variances (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. 12-17-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION: Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the application. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application. A variance maybe revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to Is such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. 3 12-17-7: PERMIT APPROVAL. AND EFFECT: • Approval of the variance shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion within two (2) years from when the approval becomes final. 5treetscape Master Plan PRELIMINARY CONCEPTS The preliminary concepts for West Meadow Drive Focused on defining the existing pedestrian circulation patterns. This need to define the pedestrian circulation system led to the development of the following preliminary concepts. Use different paving treatments to create in -street pedestrian paths at the roadway level. This concept builds on the idea that part of the charm and fun of Vail is the ability to walk in the street. A street -level walk system is easier to maintain, but it was felt that the high volume of cars, buses and trucks using West Meadow Drive would create street -level pedestrian paths that would appear to create an even wider road without providing pedestrian safety. To construct sidewalks of equal width on both sides of the street. Since this is the pattern that most people are familiar with, it would be user friendly, but would result in relatively narrow walkways and increased pedestrians walking behind parked cars. In addition, it was felt that this system would do little to break up the monotony of the street. 0 It was obvious from the first design study that all of the proposed options for the streetscape improvement would need to leave the existing vehicular circulation patterns intact. This was due to the number of private homes on the street and the need to maintain adequate access for Town buses and emergency vehicles. PREFERRED STREETSCAPE PLAN The concept that received the broadest public support was to create a primary pedestrian path (10'-12' wide) on one side of the street and a smaller sidewalk (5' wide) on the other. The primary pedestrian path crosses from the north to the south side and then back again, to avoid the head -in parking. Curb and gutter would be used to define the street which has been narrowed to the minimum width of 26; curb -to -curb. Design Concept: Early on, it was recognized that, in Vail people enjoy walking in the street. Because of safety concerns along West Meadow Drive, it became essential to create a separation between the pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The concept is to, in essence, create a new pedestrian street that is designed in such a way that it will be a more exciting pedestrian space than the existing asphalt street. The design calls fro intense planting along the `pedestrian street" to bring back the landscape character which still exists immediately adjacent to Core Creek. This approach will also carry the landscape design 4 theme from West Meadow Drive through to East Lionshead Circle to strengthen the connection between Lionshead and the Village. A second design concept is to add to the pedestrian experience by creating an "artwalk" along this corridor. This idea will also compliment the existing artwork located on east Lionshead Circle. The intent is to involve artists and the neighborhood residents in the final design of the 'artwalk"to allow for site specific art pieces. The pedestrian street character is illustrated in Figure 7. The final plan, illustrated in figure &, includes a number of unique features: • All pedestrian paths be constructed with concrete unit pavers to clearly distinguish them from the roadway. The primary pedestrian path maybe a different color and/or style of unit paver than the minor walkway. Having a walkway width of 10' to 12' was thought to be important to allow groups of people to walk comfortably on the path (Figure 8). The width of the primary pedestrian path also makes it possible for the path to be plowed by a small truck or tractor. if this separated pedestrian system is to be successful in keeping pedestrians out of the roadway, it must be kept clear of snow throughout the winter. A 'pedestrian priority crosswalk" has been planned near the Holiday inn where the path crosses to the south to avoid head -in parking at the Skaal House and the Alphorn. This raised crosswalk keeps the pedestrian path at the same level as it crosses the street. The traffic is carried over the walkway by gently sloping ramps. Not only does this type of crosswalk give the pedestrian priority; it provides visual interest while slowing traffic. Design consideration should be given to maintenance and snow -plowing needs. • Seating is provided at regular intervals and at bus stops. Opportunities for public art should also be considered at these points. The seating must be designed with careful attention to location, views, landscaping, etc., to insure the seating will be used. A neighborhood entry feature has been designed at the beginning of West Meadow Drive, near the fire station, to act as a psychological deterrent to unnecessary vehicular traffic. The fire station apron provides an opportunity for these cars to turn around. While this treatment will only discourage the lost visitor from continuing west on Meadow Drive, it was felt to be a reasonable compromise between a card -activated gate or manned control gate. The Plan calls for extensive right-of-way landscaping to soften the corridor and reflect the landscape character of nearby Gore Creek. The landscaping should be used to add as much visual interest and natural character to the sidewalk and seating areas as possible. Dense plantings are proposed to create a sense of enclosure for this pedestrian corridor. Some landscaping on private property will be necessary to VI VII. Vill achieve this effect. Additionally, planters have been proposed east of the fire station to help define the roadway and reduce the amount of asphalt. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Public Accommodation Land Use Plan Designation: Transition Area Current Land Use: Residential Development Standard Allowed/Required Existing Proposed Lot Area: 10,000 sq. ft. 28,346 sq, ft. no change Setbacks: Front (Vail Road): 20 ft. 17 ft. no change Front (W. Meadow): 20 ft. 12 ft. no change Sides: 20 ft. 2 ft. no change Rear: 20 ft. 12 ft. no change Density: 16 du 27 du* no change *This property is nonconforming with regards to use as there are no au's. Landscape Area: 8,504 sq. ft. (30%) 11,368 sq. ft. (40%) 1 1,160 sq. ft. (39%) Hardscape Area, 1,701 sq. ft, (20%) 1,700 sq. ft. (15%) 1,428 sq. ft.(13%) Parking: 38 spaces 31 spaces no change SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that adding parking in the front setback will negatively impact the West Meadow Drive streetscape by allowing parking to be within 1 ft. of the front property line and 21 ft. of the edge of pavement. The proposed streetscape plan for West Meadow Drive encourages significant landscaping in the right-of-way and on private property, where necessary. As proposed, staff does not believe there to be adequate area for landscaping. While staff supports the idea of additional site walls to screen the surface parking area, the proposed walls also limit the opportunity for significant landscaping (i.e. 0 Land Use Zoning North: Mixed Use SDD #36 w/ Public Accommodation South: Mixed Use Public Accommodation Fire Station General Use East: Mixed Use SDD 46 w/ Public Accommodation West: Mixed Use SDD #36 w/ Public Accommodation CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that adding parking in the front setback will negatively impact the West Meadow Drive streetscape by allowing parking to be within 1 ft. of the front property line and 21 ft. of the edge of pavement. The proposed streetscape plan for West Meadow Drive encourages significant landscaping in the right-of-way and on private property, where necessary. As proposed, staff does not believe there to be adequate area for landscaping. While staff supports the idea of additional site walls to screen the surface parking area, the proposed walls also limit the opportunity for significant landscaping (i.e. 0 • large spruce trees.) The Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the associated Design Review application at their May 21, 2003, and June 4, 2003, hearings. The Design Review Board felt that other options should be explored in the design of the parking area. Specifically, they felt that locating additional parking along West Meadow Drive would negatively impact the pedestrian experience. The Design Review Board expressed great concern that there would not be adequate landscape buffering area to screen the proposed surface parking. Title 14, Vail Town Code, states (in part): Particular attention shall be given the landscape design of off-street parking lots to reduce adverse impacts upon living areas within the proposed development, upon adjacent properties, and upon public spaces with regard to noise, lights, and visual impact. At the June 4, 2003, Design Review Board hearing, the applicants presented a design which included 6 ft. site walls. The Title 14, Vial Town Code, states, in part: Fences, hedges, walls, and landscaping screens shall not exceed 3 ft. in height within any required front setback area, and shall not exceed 6 ft. in height in any other portion of the site, provided that higher fences, hedges, walls, or landscaping screens may be authorized by the Administrator when necessary to screen public utility equipment. A variance would be required for any wall in excess of 3 ft. in the setback. Staff believes that there are other opportunities for the applicants which will not negatively impact the pedestrian experience along West Meadow Drive. Staff believes that there may be alternative designs which, while still requiring a variance, would minimize the impacts to West Meadow Drive. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Many of the properties along West Meadow Drive currently have parking in the front setback and in the right-of-way, including the Alphorn, and the Skaal Haus. Both of these properties are residential uses, and are zoned High Density Multiple Family zone district. In addition, the First Bank of Vail, which is zoned Public Accommodation, also has parking located within the front setback. Finally, the Vail Fire Station, zoned General Use, also has parking located within the front setback and the right-of-way. All of these properties are existing non -conforming with regards to parking space location. These existing non -conformities have had negative impacts to the West Meadow Drive streetscape. Photos of the above-mentioned properties have been 7 I attached for reference (Attachment D). 0 Staff believes that the granting of this variance would be a grant special privilege as there are other options that exist for this property which would not require a variance of this nature. The proposed Four Seasons Resort has excess parking capacity in the proposed structure, which could be allocated to Nine Vail Road to replace the 4 surface parking spaces. In addition, staff believes that there are alternative designs which staff believes could be appropriate which would still require a variance. For example, staff believes that locating 2 parking spaces and the minimum area required for a turnaround in the front setback would allow for significant landscaping which would successfully screen the parking. The remaining 2 spaces could be located within the Four Seasons parking structure. While this option would still require a variance, staff believes that it would be the minimum deviation necessary without a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes that there will be no negative impact on light and air, distribution of population, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes that the elimination of the curb cut on Vail Road will positively impact the transportation and traffic facilities on Vail road. The parking area adjacent to West Meadow Drive has been designed to accommodate a forward motion for exiting, thus minimizing the impacts to West Meadow Drive. However, the proposed parking spaces will add vehicular trips to West Meadow Drive, which staff believes to be a negative impact to transportation and traffic facilities. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Staff believes that other options exist which would minimize or eliminate the need for a variance. Specifically, the parking could be relocated within the proposed Four Seasons parking structure. The Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the proposal to relocate the parking at the May 21, 2003, and dune 4, 2003, hearings. The Design Review Board was split in their opinion of the proposal. Some members felt. that with adequate landscaping and site walls, the proposal could improve the experience along West Meadow Drive and successfully tie in with the proposed West Meadow Drive streetscape improvements. Other members stated that adding surface parking in the front setback would be detrimental to the Town of Vail and did not believe that there would be adequate room to screen the parking area. I The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 8 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the request for a variance from Section 12-7A-11, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to allow for parking and loading in the front setback, located at Dine Vail Road/Lot C, Vail Village 2"d Filing. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance, the Community Development Department recommends that the following finding be made: 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the variance, staff recommends the following condition: 1. That prior to application for a building permit, the applicant must return to the Design Review Board for final review and approval of all improvements. 2. That the applicant shall revise the plans, subject to Design Review Board review and approval, to indicate 2 surface parking spaces and the minimum area required for a functional turnaround within the front setback, adjacent to West Meadow Drive. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's Statement of Request B. Vicinity Map C. Reductions of Plans D. Photos of Adjacent Properties E. Publication Notice • • 10 • 0 Attachment: A Z E H R E N AND ASSOCIATES, INC. May 9, 2003 Allison Ochs Department of Community Development Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Nine Vail Road Variance Application Allison: This letter is to describe the nature of the variance requested and the specific explanation, of why the variance is required and why the strict or literal interpretation of the specific regulation would result in a physical hardship or practical difficulty. Additionally, it is the intent of this letter to address items a. through d. as described in the application submittal requirements. The requested variance is an exception from Section 12- 7A-11 of the Vail Town Code excluding parking and loading from required front setback areas. Nine Vail Road Condominium Association currently has twenty-seven indoor parking spaces accessed from West Meadow Drive and four outdoor spaces accessed from the adjacent Chateau Vail site. No legal easement exists for vehicular access to these outdoor spaces rendering the parking unusable. Reasonable Engineering practice would not allow for access to the existing spaces within the current property boundaries along Vail Road. A strict or literal interpretation of the specific regulation would result in either: I , A further reduction of deficient parking standards on this site through elimination of the four spaces or; 2. Allowing the four spaces to be located within a front setback along West Meadow Drive as identified by town staff. Items a. through d. of the application submittal requirements: a. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The requested variance would have no effect on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity because it would utilize and existing curb cut and driveway on West Meadow Drive. 4 ARCHITECTURE • KANNING • INTERIORS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE P.Q. Box 1976 • Avon, Colorado 81620 • (970) 949-0257 • FAX (970) 949-1080 • e-mail: vailoffc@zehren,com - www.zehren.com Zehren and Associates, Inc Nine Vail Road 5/12/2003. 20021471.01 Variance Criteria b. The degree to which relief or from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege_ Relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation would be necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Other sates within the vicinity that currently allow for parking within the front setback area in violation of the zoning code are the Vail Fire Station, mail Village Inn, Alphorn Condominium, Skaal Haus Condominium, and Meadow Vail Place Condominium. c. The effect of the variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic, facilities, utilities, and public safety. There would be no effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, facilities, or utilities. The effects of the variance on traffic and public safety would be beneficial in that an existing curb cut, driveway, and intersection would be eliminated from Vail Road, • a higher speed, higher capacity thoroughfare. d. How the request complies with the adopted Town of Vail planning policies and development objectives. The request complies with the adopted planning polices and development objectives in that it would provide for: • Public improvements on Vail Road funded with private money. • Increased vehicular and pedestrian safety along Vail Road. • Integration of public and private streetscape improvements along West Meadow Drive_ • Neither an increase nor decrease in compliance with adopted parking standards (required number of spaces). Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns regarding the information presented. Additionally, if you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Timothy R. Losa, A.I.A. Senior Associate Zehren & Associates, Inc. Attachment: B Attachment: C 0 Attachment: D p0004685.jpg(2536x1024x24bjpeg) �J • • -3"�a PC 46 ''TMs. ;, 4. :.E.�.,,.�7ti; . .r'.` .r ,....a+'i'� ..lir'. � �:.�.t� �► w 2` IY POW f 4 h - r e z .. � �4 G r 1 I i Ar ��_�_� � ���•v.� � of ' � �•- � , � , 6T, Ln . r 77 t �� pp - o- 17 p0004694.jpg(1536x1024x24bjpe9) • • • • 0 • p0004605.j pg (1536x 1024x24b jpL.g ) fail Gateway Plaza Condominium #ssn 'OBox 19157 kvon, CO 81620 )AB Investment Inc Vb/a Holiday Inn Chateau Vail ' O Box 11939 )enver, CO 80211-0939 Village Inn Place - Phase III Condominium Assn 100 E Meadow Dr Vail, CO 81657 Moellentine Land Co LLC 461 Fifth Street New York, NY 10017 'yman, Sylvia Rebeca c/o Johnson, 3rown & Speigel Gary A. Syman - Azita Raji Family �ttn: Brenda Brown Trust 00 Bishop St A5 27 Windward Rd Atlanta, GA 30318 Belvedere, CA 94920 tillage Inn Place - Phase V ,ondominiurn Assn 00 E Meadow Dr Tail, CO 81657 IS Condominium Assn 0403 W Colfax Ave .akewood, CO 80215 IVIP 502 -603 Annaway Dr Edina, MN 55436 lilla Cortina Condominium Assn '0 Box 1012 Tail, CO 81658 Jinn Lamont . Vail Village HOA P O Box. 73 Recliff, CO 81649 Gail M. & Stephen R. Rineberg 7475 Gainey Ranch Rd 9E Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Staufer Commercial LLC 100 E Meadow Dr Vail, CO 81657 Sannenalp Properties Inc 20 Vail Rd Vail, CO 81657 Meadow Vail Place Condominium sssn Dayzner Corp NV .4 W Meadow Dr 100 E Meadow Dr `ail, CO 81657 Vail, CO 81657 hco Vail Inc /o Slifer Mgmt 43 E Meadow Dr Ste 360 'ail, CO 81657 )sakis LLC /o Watson & Co Inc 0670 E Bethany Dr Bldg 4 aurora, CO 80014 ClaggettlRey Gallery LLC 100 E Meadow Dr Vail, CO 81657 Hanlon Family Partnership 385 Gore Creek Dr Vail, CO 81657 Attachment: E Village Inn Place - Phase IV Condominium Assn 100 E Meadow Dr Vail, CO 81657 Vail Fire Protection District Vail, CO 81657 Vail Village Inn Plaza Condominium Assn 143 E Meadows Dr Vail, CO 81657 Beaver Road Inc E c/o Vail Realty & Rental Mgmt b 302 E Gore Creek Dr Vail, CO 81657 Edna N. & Claus W. Fricke P O Box 1557 Eagle, CO 81631-1557 Vail Corp POBox 7 Vail, CO 81658 Vail 108 Ltd c/o Westar Bank Admin Center P O Box 1210 Gypsum, CO 81637 Masters Gallery At Vail LLC 70 S Potomac St Aurora, CO 80012 Red Sands Corp c/o Vail Home Rentals Inc 143 E Meadow Dr Ste 397 Vail, CO 81657 Luis P. & Huguette D. B ustamante Robert M. Euwer & Barbara D. Obering Irrevocable Trust c/o Vail Realty & Rental Mgmt Euwer Revocable Trust 5251 DTC Parkway 425 302 Hanson Ranch Rd 7E Gallup St Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Vail, CO 81657 Litt eton, CO 80120 Maureen T. O Dea 16450 W Sunset Blvd 302 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 Linda C. Dickinson Qualified Personal Residence Trust 9200 Hollyoak Dr Bethesda, MD 20814 David G. & Cathy L. Crane c/o D.G. Crane 2485 Broadway San Francisco, CA 94115 Thomas F. Sheridan, Vincent D. Walsh 1808 Swann St NW *ington, DC 20009 Ponch Inc - Trio Inc c/o Jefferson P Knoght PA 777 Bricknell Ave #1070 Miami, FL 33131 Eugene, Jr & Sue B. Mercy 1111 Park Ave New York, NY 10128 Vail 44 Corp 44 Meadow Dr 44 Vaal, CO 81657 Meadow Place Inc c/o Invicta America Attn: Suzette P O Box 551600 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33355 PO pricles Realty Inc 44 W Meadow Dr Vail, CO 81657 William A. & Ronnie N. Potter 1130 Park Ave New York, NY 10128 William W. Graham 11661 San Vincente Blvd 401 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Margaret T. Fuller 5123 S Perry Cir Littleton, CO 80123 RL Exempt Corp c/o Frederick S. Otto POBox 3149 Vail, CO 81658 Charlene Caruso Revocable Living JAF Industrial Dev Trust P O Box 6688 2428 N 12th Ct Somerset, NJ 08875-6688 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33304 Judith & Joel Baker 20 Dolma Rd Scarsdale, NY 10583 James W. & Ellen V. Pinkard 3440 Youngfield St Ste 351 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Pericles Realty Inc c/o Otto Peterson & Post P O Box 3149 Vail, CO 81658 Spraddle Creek Properties Inc. c/o James B. Newman 150 Government St Ste 2000 Mobile, AL 36602 Hilda O. Farrill Avila Attn: B. Brandon Ansbacher House Jennet St George Town Grand Cayman Cayman Islands BWI Seviher Corp c/o Burke Mgmt P O Box 2631 Vail, CO 81658 William &. Ann F. Loper 22 W Meadow Dr 360 Vail, CO 81657 Michael S. & Iris Smith 2 Sedwick Dr Englewood, CO 80110 Richard T Liebhaber and Kirsten E Liebhaber Personal Res. Trust P O Box 8210 McLean, VA 22106-8210 Meek Family Trust John F. & Jerris P. Ferguson, Terry O. Meek 5326 Clayhill Dr Springfield, MO 65804 David William Hanna Trustee 575M LLC c/o Hanna Capital Management, Inc 18 Springfield Ln 620 Newport Center Dr Ste 500 Sarasota Springs, NY 12866 Newport Beach, CA 92660 lail Sundial LP /o Russell Standard 'OBox 479 3ridgeville, PA 15017 lail Gateway LLC World Financial Center 2th FL Jew York, NY 10285-1200 /ail PBK LLC 92 Mill Creek Cir fail, CO 81657 ames R_ & Karen W. Johnson 9 Churchill Rd 'ittsburgh, PA 15235 )lane Gamnel Lighthall .293 W Oberlin Dr )enver, CO 80235 :laws W. Fricke Revocable Trust ;dna N. Fricke Revocable Trust '0Box 1557 ;agle, CO 81631-1557 White River Acquisition Corp c/o Manuel Martinez WW Consulting Group 905 Bricknell. Bay Dr Ste 230 Miami, FL 33131 Whitebay Marketing Ltd c/o George D. Perlman Holland & Knight 701 Bricknell Ave Ste 3000 Miami, Fl 33131 GGG LLC P0Box 5963 Vail, CO 81658 Vail Gateway Plaza 12 Vail Rd Ste 600 Vail, CO 81657 Leo Palmas 2775 Iris Ave Boulder, CO 80304 Timberline Commercial Holdings LLC 12 Vail Rd 600 Vail, CO 81657 Kilmur LLC P O Box 5963 Vail, CO 81658 Vail Village Inn Inc 100 E Meadow Dr 33 Vail, CO 81657 Meadow Drive Ventures Inc Patricia Ann Gabriel P O Box 2767 P O Box 268 Mobile, Al 36652 Paramus, NJ 07653-0268 Karin Wagner Revocable Inter Vivos Trust Karin Wagner Trustee 405 Bontona Ave Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 'ylvan.M. & Frances Tobin Daymer Corp NV 01 Cheswold Ln 5-D 950 Red Sandstone Rd 26 laverford, PA 19041 Vail, CO 81657 .nest III & Lisa Jane Scheller 51 Benner Rd Allentown, PA 18104 Villiam P. & Lynda B. Johnson 75 Inca Parkway 3oulder, CO 80303 ilvia Ito de Zaragoza '0 Box 220349 'I Paso, TX 79913 Carol G. Jones trustee 268 Litchford CT St Louis, MO 63141 Michael P. & Patricia J. Glinsky 3200 Cherry Creek S Dr Ste 230 Denver, CO 80209 Gary J. & Dorothy Farrell Cordes 2B Trentino Rd, Turranurra 2074 NSW Australia Staufer Commercial LLC 100 E Meadow Dr 31 Vail, CO 81657 Marvin J. & Karole A. Frank 2430 N Orchard Chicago, II. 60614 Guiseppe & Mercedes Cecchi 1700 Moore St Ste 2020 Arlington, VA 22209 Vail Village Inn Associates c/o Copperthwaite & Co P O Box 61349 Denver, CO 80206 • 302 VVI Inc 0 c/o Fred Otto - Otto Peterson & Post P O Box 3149 Vail, CO 81658 Barbara Weinstein A.J. Property Trust Michael J. Zaremba 78 Joyce Rd 6200 Plymouth Ct c/o Dreyer Edmonds &Assoc. Per iew, NY 11803 355 S Grand Ave Ste 4150 Downers Grove, IL 60516 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3103 Richard T. Liebhaber 4725 Ltd Oliver M. & Diana L. Kearney P O Box 8210 80 W7565 Spanish Bay Dr Chan McLean, VA 22106-8210 n 78th St Ste 133hassen, MN 55317 Las Vegas, NV 89113 C Kirk D. Huffard Daymer Corp NV Chris J. & Jennifer A. Anderson 8 Maher Ave 103 Anemone Dr Vai, CO 81657 Greenwich, CT 06830-5617 ai E Meadow Dr Boulder, CO 80302 Patricia Ann Gabriel Paul A. & Penelope N. Leseur John & Rebecca Moore 1 E Ridgewood Ave` Somerset Bridge, Sandys SBBX p 0 Box 728 Paramus, NJ 07653 P O Box SB90 Del Mar, CA 92024-0728 Bermuda Staufer CommJames E. & Jeanne Gustafsonercial LLC Town of Vail p O Box 5 100 E Meadow Dr c/o Finance 010 Dept Norwalk, 01 06856 V CO 81657 75 S Frontage Rd Vail, CO 81657 Colando CO Alexander Family Trust Floyd L. & Elaine E. English Priv Antonio Chedraui SIN Judy Lynne Alexander Trustee 571 Millbrook Dr Col Encinal 91180 Xalapa Veracruz 2121 N Frontage Rd W Ste 254 Downers Grove, IL 60516 Mexico Vail, CO 81657 Barbara & Charles Dillman S.C. Geroca Lario Inc 18316 Mainsail Pointe 100 E Meadow Dr 101 c/o Vail Village Inn Cornelius, NC 28031 Vail, CO 81657 100 E Meadow Dr Vali, CO 81657 Red Sands Corp Kinney L. Johnson Lublan S.A. c/o Vail Home Rentals Inc I100 Hornsilver Cir c/o Banco International SA 143 E Meadow Dr Ste 397 Vail, CO 81657 437 Madison Ave 17th Fl Vail, CO 81657 New York, NY 10022 Raymond J & Mealnie Rutter Charles M. Harmon, Jr. - Traditions Family UDT Enchanted Mesa Exempt Corp LP Raymond J Rutter Trustee c/o Frederick S. Otto 11380 Long Meadow Dr 760 Via Lido Nord P O Box 3149 W Palm Beach, FL 33414 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Vail, CO 81658 c/o Bustamante, Luis Pedro A. & Adelaida Petunia Douglas Deane Hall, Jr. PqLtd ao Ramirez 2000 E 12th Avenue Priv. San Isadro 44 Cond. Caparra. Classic Ph -2 Box 4 Col. Reform Social, Del Miguel 105 Ortegon Ave Denver, CO 80206 11650 Mexico DF Guaynabo PR 00966 Jerardo Schroeder Gonzalez - DE 'atricia Inzunza Schroeder 1 Tunapuna Ln ;oronado, CA 92118 roger L. Reisher ;400 Cherry Creek S Dr #405 )enver, CO 80209-3258 '-buck Lipcon )ne Biscayne Tower 'cite 2480 Miami, FL 33131 A.J. Property Trust c/o Dreyer Edmonds & Assoc 355 S Grand Ave Ste 4150 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3103 Jeff Moellentine Alpine Standard 28 S Frontage Rd Vail, CO 81657 Firstbank of Vail 17 Vail Rd Vail, CO 81657 Charles Lipcon 430 N Marshra Dr Key Biscayne, FL 33149 0 Cl THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Code on June 9, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a variance from Section 12-7A-11, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to allow *for parking and loading in the front setback, located at 9 Vail Road/Lot C, Vail Village 2"0 Filing. Applicant: Nine Vail Road Condominium Association and Nicolet Island Development, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use, located at 530 S. Frontage Road/Ford Park, Unplatted. Applicant: Town of Vail/AIPP, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a private outdoor recreational facility, located at 600 Lionshead Mail/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 15' Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Warren Campbell The applications and information about these proposals are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department office, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation held in the Town of Vail Community Development Department office and the site visits that precede the public hearing, Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for additional information. This notice published in the Vail Daily on May 2.3, 2003. *Y,41L 1 TOWA. ' Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM ��] r Department of Community development TOR, OF V�I� 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us Project Name: AIPP Artist in Residence PEC Number: PEC030027 Project Description: Modifications and change of use to existing structure in Ford Park Participants: OWNER TOWN OF VAIL 05/12/2003 Phone: C/O FINANCE DEPT 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 License: APPLICANT Braun Associates/Dominic Mau05/12/2003 Phone: 926-7575 KH Webb Design Workshop POB 2658 Edwards, CO 81632 License: Project Address: 841 VAIL VALLEY DR VAIL Location: Ford Park Vail Ree Program office/equipm Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE FILING 7 Parcel Number: 210108100002 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: Bernhardt Vote: 7-0 Date of Approval: 06/09/2003 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: CON0005935 1. That the applicant shall operate the proposed seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use, during the months of May 1 to November 15, annually. 2. That the applicant shall allow no more than one vehicle to be parked at Ford Park for the artist in residence. Any additional parking shall be accommodated at the Village parking structure. 3. That the applicant shall allow no exchange or trade of goods to occur within the limits of Ford Park, as prohibited by the Ford Park Management Plan. 4. That the applicant shall limit all vehicular delivery to the structure to the hours of 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. 5. That should the Planning and Environmental Commission find that the proposed conditional use is being operated in violation of the conditions outlined herein, or that the proposed conditional use is being operated in violation of any of the requirements of the Ford Park Management Plan, this conditional use permit may be revoked, as outlined in Section 12-16-5: Planning and Environmental Commission Action, Vail Town Code. Planner: Allison Ochs s PEC Fee Paid: $0.00 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use, located at 530 S. Frontage Road/Ford Park, Unplatted. Applicant: Town of Vail/AIPP, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs I. SUMMARY The Town of Vail Art in Public Places Board is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a "seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use." Specifically, the request is to allow for an artist in residence studio at Ford Park. The Town of Vail Community Development Department is recommending approval of the conditional use permit request, subject to the criteria and findings as outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum. IL DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail Art in Public Places Board, represented by Braun Associates, Inc., has submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow for a seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use, at 530 S. Frontage Road/Ford Park, unplatted. A copy of the applicant's request is attached for reference (Attachment A). The request for the conditional use permit is to accommodate an artist in residence program at Ford Park. A vicinity map has been attached for reference (Attachment B). The artist in residence program will provide studio space for artists around the state and country and offers educational opportunities to the public. The use will occur in an existing structure, which is currently used for storage by the Vail Recreation District. The applicant has also submitted a Design Review Board application to do some improvements to the existing building. Reductions of the plans have been attached for reference (Attachment C). 111. BACKGROUND In 1973, the Town of Vail purchased the 39 acre Antholz Ranch for $3,300,000, and in 1977, the property was designated as the Gerald R. Ford Park, known as Ford 'Park. Ford Park contains many uses, including, but not limited to, softball fields, tennis courts, soccer fields, live performances, alpine gardens, historical structures, nature center, walking paths, picnic pavilion, playground, IV administrative offices, parking, special events, bicycling, fishing, and white water sports. In 1985, the Town of Vail adopted the Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan. The master pian was adopted to establish guidelines for the implementation of future improvements at each park. The first major structure to be completed in Ford Park was the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater, which was completed in July of 1987. There are currently four main organizations operating in Ford Park: the Town of Vail, the Vail Recreation District, the Alpine Garden Foundation, and the Vail Valley Foundation. The entire site is owned by the Town of Vail, while the other three organizations hold a lease or license agreement to operate their facilities and programs within the park. In 1997, the Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan was amended to include the Ford Park Management Plan. The Ford Park Management Plan is intended to supplement the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan, and the Ford Park Management Plan takes precedence over the 1985 master plan. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, applications for a conditional use permit will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for acceptability of use and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/denial/approval with conditions of conditional use permits. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. E • 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a conditional use permit but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memorandum containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. 0 V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Zoning Regulations Staff has reviewed the planning documents of the Town of Vail and has provided a synopsis of the applicable documents below. Title 12 of the Vail Town Code, provides the following with regards to the conditional use permit request: General Use Zone District 12-9C-1: Purpose: The general use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi - public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. The general use district is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi -public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. Chapter 12-11-6: Park Design Guidelines (in part) 3 A. Purpose: These guidelines shall be used by the design review board in reviewing any proposals for the development of town park land. The guidelines shall be used in conjunction with the general design review guidelines found in title 14 of this code. It is the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible to the individual designer while at the same time encouraging park development that will complement the natural beauty of our park land. The purpose of the guidelines is to provide continuity in the character of the parks which will be developed over many years. The guidelines will provide consistent design criteria to maintain the quality of town parks through all phases of development. B. Building Materials And Design: 1. General: a. Natural materials are strongly encouraged in park construction. Materials and detailing must complement the park's environment as well as be functional and attractive. b. Materials and designs should be chosen that are economical to maintain. 2. Stone: Natural rock should be used for architectural features such as exposed building walls and small retaining walls. Sandy gray and brown colors are encouraged, as they blend in with the natural environment. Construction should minimize exposed mortar, and detailing should reflect concern for local climatic conditions. 3. Pedestrian Walks; Plazas: Impervious surfacing may be used to emphasize important features or pedestrian areas. Natural materials and colors are encouraged, as they blend in well with wood, stone and plant materials. Asphalt is discouraged except when necessary for bike paths and parking areas. 4. Children's Play Areas: Children's play areas are to be designed with challenge and safety in mind. Multi-level play structures, tunnels, and other climbing apparatus are to be designed to excite and to encourage free expression. Native landscaping materials shall be incorporated into the play areas to soften and blend into the environment. Plant materials shall be provided for the enclosure of the play areas and for summer shading. Play areas shall be oriented to take advantage of warm winter exposure and to utilize natural buffers from the wind. 5. Visual Impact: a. Structures, shelters, or other site buildings shall be designed in a low profile or be set into slope areas to reduce their vertical dominance upon the site. j b. Major architectural structures shall be designed and accented to attract visitors without becoming a distracting visual element to other visitors of the park or to adjacent developments. -' 4 C. Landscaping, Site Planning: 1. General: a. Plantings should be used to soften the edge between developed and natural park areas and to heavily screen conflicting adjacent uses. Such plantings unify developed and natural areas as well as provide a protective buffer where the adjacent land uses conflict with recreational activities. As an example, gently sloping lawns are desirable for picnic areas and open field play. Irrigated and manicured lawn areas can transition into natural areas through the use of native grasses and shrubs. Fences shall be discouraged between active and passive areas. b. Noise -generating and active play areas should be integrated together and placed away from passive or natural areas. Needed service facilities, such as restrooms, drinking fountains, etc., should be located in or adjacent to activities with a high user demand. 2. Views: Plantings and site work should be used to direct views by framing interesting and attractive features such as distant mountain ranges, ponds, or Gore Creek. Visual screens of plant materials may be used to close off undesired views such as the interstate, frontage roads, or neighboring development. 3. Accent Plantings And Materials: In areas of special interest or activity, and in pedestrian areas, plantings should be used to provide color, texture, form and scent to highlight and emphasize the special character of these places. Horizontal ground plane textures such as native shrubs, ground covers, colored pavers, and smooth boulders may also be used to complement the environment. 4. Lighting: If site lighting is deemed appropriate, the lighting should provide for clear visibility while at the same time eliminating any glare within the park or on adjacent properties. Lighting fixtures shall be as subtle as possible so that they blend in with the natural park setting. A lighting plan designating location and appropriate styles of lighting shall be designed for each park that requires site lighting. 5. Signage: Any signs within the park shall conform to a unified park signage program. Private signs are prohibited from the park. E. Site Preservation And Maintenance: 1. Site Preservation: Open meadows of native grasses and flowers, and permanent stands of evergreens should be maintained in undeveloped areas of the parks. 2. Site Revegetation: Natural areas that are disturbed during construction shall be vegetated to encourage plant associations that develop naturally on the site. Revegetation should match preexisting conditions as closely as possible. 3. Erosion Control: E a. Temporary erosion control measures during construction, and permanent control measures after construction shall be established to prevent sediment pollution of the creek and to stabilize disturbed areas. Straw bales shall be used for temporary control measures and jute netting should be used to permanently stabilize slopes. Any park projects shall be required to include a site preservation program during construction phases. b. Limits of site disturbance shall be clearly and physically defined as well as enforced in order to minimize disturbance to other areas in the park. Vail Land Use Plan Staff has reviewed the various planning documents and determined that the following sections of the Vail Land Use Plan are relevant to this conditional use permit request: 2. Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. 2.5 The community should improve non -skier recreational options to improve year-round tourism. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. The Vail Land Use Plan designates Ford Park as "Park." This land use designation is described as follows: Parks Included in this category are town owned parcels intended for both active recreation activities such as athletic fields, golf courses and playgrounds, as well as areas for various passive recreation activities. Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan The Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan was adopted by the Town of Vail in 1985. The primary purpose of the master plan is to guide the future development of these parks and establish guidelines for the implementation of improvements. The plan establishes conceptual plans for the development of the parks, and states the following with regards to the conceptual plans: i Significant aspects of the final Conceptual Plans included. N • Location of high use facilities away from those of a more passive nature, i.e., children's play area vs. stream -side picnic. • Adaptation of major structures to the site topography such as stepping the pool complex into upper bench slope. • Continuous bike/pedestrian paths through the Parks with additional stream crossing points for increased accessibility. • Parking areas adjacent to Frontage Road and separtatied from areas with children. • Berms and landscape buffers are used for protective screening and to create a feeling of privacy in activity spaces. Southern orientation of winter use facilities such as the pool complex and parking areas to increase passive solar heating and snow removal. • Orientation of pond areas to take advantage of water sources and winter shade patterns. The Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Pian also provides for park development and landscape character. Specifically, the plan states: The planning of Ford and Donovan Parks has carefully considered the preservation and retention of the Gore Greek and its natural character, in contrast to the creation and maintenance of a totally manicured landscape. A careful blend of maintained active recreational areas and natural passive areas has been achieved to accommodate the diverse pleasures and interests of this mountain community. Staff has reviewed the Design Criteria outlined in the Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan and believes the following to be applicable to the conditional use permit request: Site Preservation The quality of the existing sites in regard to Gore Creek and existing plant communities is reinforced through the removal of creek debris, undesirable man-made elements, scrub undergrowth, diseased and damaged plant specimens. Extending these preservation programs into projected phase development helps to keep future maintenance costs low by preventing undesirable growth and park user practices. In addition, outside interest groups whose projects are included in the Master Plan should be required to maintain a site preservation program during their construction phase. Definition of Activity Spaces Spaces for different recreational activities are enclosed by land forms, structures, or plantings. By defining these spaces and creating mass and contrast, visual landmarks are formed to assist visitors in movement on the site. Accent In areas of special interest or activity, and in pedestrian areas, plantings provide color, texture, form and scent to highlight and emphasize the iri special character of these places. Vertical architectural elements such as shade structures and play apparatus are colored to blend harmoniously with the surrounding landscape. Horizontal groundplant textures such as native shrubs, groundcovers, colored pavers, and smooth boulders are also use to compliment the environment. Site Guidelines Alternative building materials and construction techniques which would be used to achieve a park -like mountain theme environment were investigated. The resulting vocabulary of designed elements should be considered a "family" of materials and details which are in harmony with the environment. During the construction phase, materials should be chosen and construction methods used which adhere to the following general guidelines: Appropriateness • Materials and detailing fit into the Park's environment and is both inviting and functional. Compatibility • Construction materials expressive of natural and native material, not contrasting. Flexibility • Materials and techniques able to adapt to future expansion needs and programs. Continuity Common materials theme with interrelated forms and color Maintenance • Reasonable but realistic in cost with ease of accomplishment, and consideration of long-term maintenance expenditures. Structures, shelters, or other site buildings are designed in a low `profile" or are set into slope areas to reduce their vertical dominance upon the site. Construction materials should be harmonious with other materials being used on the site. Ford Park Management Plan In 1997, the Town of Vail adopted the Ford Park Management Plan, an Amendment to the Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan. The Ford Park Management Plan is intended to guide the outcome of future development and improvement proposals through the implementation of six major goals: 1. Preservation and protection 2. Reduction of vehicular intrusions 3. Reduction of conflicts between venues 4. Resolution of parking and Frontage Road access problems 5. improvement of pedestrian circulation 6. Delineation of financial responsibilities The Ford Park Management Plan takes precedence over the Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan where conflicts or discrepancies occur. Staff has reviewed the Ford Park Management Plan and believes the following goals and objectives to be applicable to this proposal: Goal #1 Preserve and protect Ford Park Objectives: 1.1: Limit future development. Action Step 1.1.1: Draft a new ordinance to exclude those uses listed in Ordinance No. f% Series of 1973, now considered to be inappropriate and to redefine allowable uses within Ford Park. Policy Statement 1: The following uses that are allowed and prohibited for Ford Park shall take precedence over Section 18.36.030 of the Municipal Code concerning the General Use Zone District: Allowed Uses • Park and greenbelt • Bicycle and hiking trails • Children's playground • Outdoor amphitheater • Botanical gardens • Environmental, educational, and historical centers • Picnic areas • Recreation and athletic facilities • Transportation systems and other public utility easements • Parking • Administrative offices Prohibited uses • Ski lift and related facilities • Exchange or trade • Civic center, convention/conference center, public schools, gymnasium, and assembly hall • Swimming pools • Equestrian trails • Type 111 and IV employee housing Goal #2: Reduce vehicular intrusions in, and their impact on, the park. Objectives: 2.1: Reduce the demand for vehicular intrusions into the park. 9 Action Step 2.1.1: Provide additional on-site storage facilities within the Amphitheater, Alpine Garden and Recreation District areas to reduce and control the frequency of delivery and service vehicle intrusions into the park. Action Step 2.1.2: Improve traffic gate operations and restrictions on both the east and west access roads to eliminate unnecessary and unauthorized vehicular intrusions into the park. Policy Statement 7. Vehicular encroachment into the park will be minimized The only vehicular uses allowed in the park are for: maintenance; delivery of goods and materials too large or heavy to be carried by non -motorized means; access for people with disabilities or limited mobility; public transportation; and emergency services. 2.2: Reduce the conflicts between vehicles and park users.. Action Step 2.2.1: Coordinate delivery schedules to reduce the frequency of delivery and service vehicle intrusions into the park during peak use time periods. Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan does provide guidance with regards to Ford Park. The Vail Village Master Plan states: Ford Park is the major municipal recreational amenity for the Vail Village area. With the completion of millions of dollars worth of improvements to the lower bench of Ford Park in recent years, the park contains a wide variety of both active and passive recreational opportunities. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: General Use zone district Land Use Plan Designation: Park Current Land Use: Park VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Residential High Density Multiple Family South: Residential High Density Multiple Family/SDD East: Park Outdoor Recreation West: Residential High Density Multiple Family Vlll. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Conditional use permits are regulated by Chapter 12-16 of the Vail Town Code. According to Section 12-16-1, Vail Town Code: 9 10 In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Through the adoption of the Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan and the Ford Park Management Plan, the Town of Vail has identified specific development objectives for Ford Park. A complete analysis of the applicable sections of these documents 40 are included in Section V of this memorandum. Staff believes that the proposed use is compatible with the development objectives the Town has identified for Ford Park. Specifically, the Ford Park Management Plan identifies "environmental, educational, and historical centers" as an allowed use in Ford Park. Goal #2 of the Ford Park Management Plan is to: Reduce vehicular intrusions in, and their impact on, the park. This goal includes actions to minimize the need for vehicular intrusions and limiting access into the park. The applicant has agreed to limit the hours of delivery to the artist in residence studio. Staff believes that minimizing vehicular trips and limiting hours of delivery to the use furthers the development objectives as outlined in Goal #2 of the Ford Park Management Plan. Staff also believes that the proposed improvements to the existing structure are compatible with the Design Criteria as outlined in the Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan and as provided in Section V of this memorandum. In addition, the purpose of the General Use zone district has been provided in Section V of this 0 memorandum. It states, in part: 11 The general use district is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi -public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate fight, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. Staff believes that the proposed conditional use permit to allow for a seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use furthers the development objectives of the Town of Vail, as specifically stated in the Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan, the Ford Park Management Plan, and the General Use zone district. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. As the proposed use is to be located in an existing structure, staff believes that there will be no impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, and schools. The structure is currently used for storage for the Vail Recreation District. This equipment that is currently stored in the structure will be relocated to a location at the Public Warks Shops. Because the equipment that is being stored is softball equipment and currently requires a vehicle to access, staff believes that relocating this to the Public Works Shops will not increase vehicular traffic. It will decrease vehicular intrusions into the park to pick up the softball equipment, via the pedestrian path and will instead relocate the vehicular access to the parking lot by the softball fields. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes that the proposed use will have no negative impact to traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. However, staff has concerns about the pedestrian safety along the bike path when deliveries are required for the artist in residence studio. The applicant has agreed to limit vehicular delivery to the proposed studio to goods and material too large or too heavy to be carried by non -motorized means, and to limit the hours of vehicular delivery to the hours of 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. In addition, the applicant has agreed to limit the parking for this use to one parking space at Ford Park. These limitations are included in the recommended 12 conditions of approval as outlined in Section IX of this memorandum. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The use is proposed to be located in an existing building in Ford Park. The modifications proposed to the building include general maintenance, the addition of a patio and trellis, and improvements to make the building ADA compliant. Staff believes that the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to the surrounding uses to be appropriate. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. Staff believes that the proposed conditional use complies with the Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Pian and Ford Park Management Plan. The applicable sections of these documents are provided in Section V of this staff memorandum. Specifically, both plans encourage educational and cultural uses to occur in the park, with specific limitations particularly dealing with vehicular intrusions into the park. Staff believes that the applicant has met the intent and purposes of the erald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan and the Ford Park Management Plan. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of a Alk conditional use permit, to allow for a conditional use permit, to allow for a seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use, located at 530 S. Frontage Road/Ford Park, Unplatted. Staff's recommendation 13 is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional use permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: 1. That the applicant shall operate the proposed seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use, during the months of May 1 to November 30, annually. 2. That the applicant shall allow no more than one vehicle to be parked at Ford Park for the artist in residence. Any additional parking shall be accommodated at the Village parking structure. 3. That the applicant shall allow no exchange or trade of goods to occur within the limits of Ford Park, as prohibited by the Ford Park Management Plan. 4. That the applicant shall limit all vehicular delivery to the structure to the hours of 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. 5. That should the Planning and Environmental Commission find that the proposed conditional use is being operated in violation of the conditions outlined herein, or that the proposed conditional use is being operated in violation of any of the requirements of the Ford Park Management Plan, this conditional use permit may be revoked, as outlined in Section 12-16-5: Planning and Environmental Commission Action, Vail Town Code. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's Letter of Request B. Vicinity Map C. Reductions of the Plans D. Adjacenis 14 J 0 • • Art In Public Places Artist in Residence Studio Ford Park Applica tion .for Conditional Use Permit May 12, 2003 Attachment; A Applicant and Consultant Director Applicant Art in Public Places Board 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Leslie Fickling, AIPP Coordinator Planners Braun Associates, Inc. PO Box 2658 0105 Edwards Village Blvd. Suite C-209 Edwards, CO 81632 Dominic F. Mauriello, AICD Thomas A. Braun, AICP Architect K. H. Webb Architects 953 South Frontage Road, Suite 216 Vail, CO 81657 Kyle H. Webb, AIA Landscape Architect DesignWorkshop 953 South Frontage Road, Suite 102 Vail, CO 81657 Robert Matsuda, Landscape Architect Pedro Campos, Landscape Architect 0 I. Project QvenTiew A. Summary of Proposal The AIPP has been working with local benefactors to develop an artist in residence program. NEDBO Construction, Braun and Associates, Kyle Webb Architects, Design Workshop and other committed individuals have or will donate their time and expertise to the refurbishment of the existing building. This program brings artists from around the state and country and provides them with studio space to work in. Additionally, the program offers educational opportunities to the public. Visitors will be able to view the creation of art work as it occurs. We hope to encourage the interest of young people and expect the VRD's Camp Vail to take advantage of having a professional artist in Ford Park. AIPP may be able to partner with the Alpine Gardens to conduct workshops on a variety of art related subjects including botanical illustration which may generate income for both organizations. The AIPP Board is proposing to convert an existing structure located within Ford Park for this educational and cultural facility. The existing structure, located at the intersection of the main Ford Park drive and the pedestrian path leading to Manor Vail, is currently being used for storage by the Vail Recreation District. This structure will be restored and upgraded to create the studio and work area. The building will also be provided with running water and electricity and will be made ADA accessible. The proposed use of the structure will occur during the summer months only. B. Approval Process Ford Park is currently zoned General Use which allows educational and cultural facilities with the approval of a conditional use permit. Additionally, the property is governed by the Ford Park Management Plan. The management plan also lists educational and historical centers as an allowable use within Ford Park. A conditional use permit must be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and a Design Review application must be approved by the DRB to allow the proposed use and improvements to the structure. Additionally, since this project is located on Town of Vail property the Town Council must authorize the use of Town property. 0 MPP — Artist in Residence Studio Braun Associates, Inc. 1 H. Conditional Use Permit Criteria 0 Below is the criteria used by the staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission when reviewing a request for a Conditional Use Permit. Each criterion has been addressed and we find that the proposal fully complies with each. 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the toum. Our Analysis: The proposed use of this existing structure is consistent with the desire of the town to create a dynamic and exciting recreational, educational, and cultural center within Ford Park. Since an existing structure is being utilized no new visual impacts will be created within the park. The proposed studio is consistent with the Ford Park Management Plan and the development objectives of the Town of Vail. 2. The ffect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other dublie fact°k&s needs. Our Analysis:, The proposed use of this existing structure will have little, if any, effect on these criteria. The :facility will provide an enhancement of the cultural and educational activities currently occurring within Ford Park. The proposed facility will be an ancillary or accessory use within the park thus having little impact on transportation facilities. 3. Effect upon tic urith particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safely and convenience, trafc flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking arras. Our Analysis: The proposed use is being located within a pedestrianized area of Ford Park. There will be no vehicular access to or parking at the facility. The existing parking for Ford Park located along the South Frontage Road and the Vail Village Transportation Center provide all of the parking for Ford Parr. Therefore, the proposed use will have little, if any, impact on this criterion. AIPP — Artist in Residence Studio 0 Braun Associates, Inc. 2 I • 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, ineludmg the scale and bulk of theproposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Cour Analvsis: The proposed use is being located within an existing structure and therefore will have no impacts on the scale and bulk of the area or the facility. The proposed use as an artist's studio and educational and cultural center is compatible with the other cultural, educational, and recreational uses currently located within Ford Park, III. Land Use Plan Goals Below is a list of Goals from the Vail Land Use Plan that are applicable to the proposed request. 1. General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve bath the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 1.11 Town owned lands shall not be sold to a private entity, long term leased to a private entity or converted to a private use without a public hearing process. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2. Sher/Tourist Concerns 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. AIPP — Artist in Residence Studio 3 Braun Associates, Inc. 2.5 The communityshould un rove non -skier recreational options to improve ear -round p p l� �' tourism. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. • AIPP — Artist in Residence Studio Braun Associates, Inc. 4 051 312003 04:12 570-926-757E BRAUN ASSOCIATES PAGE 01 I ,le ■ I- IABIRAUN ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING ar,d COMM'JNFFY :);-M O MINT May 13, 2003 Allison Ochs, AICD y Planner 1l 1, Tawe o F Val 1. 75 South Frotage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: AIPP — Ford Park .proposal Deal- Allison: Pursuant to your request, this letter describes why an amendment to the Ford Park Management Plan/Master Plan is not required for the proposed Artist in. Residence Studio in Ford Park and yj hole the proposal is consistent with these plans. z The stated purpose of the combined ma.n.agement plan. and master plan is to guide future uses and development. proposals in Ford Park. The purpose was to provide a list of permitted uses, gLddelines for future development, limitations on the number, of leaseholders, and to identify buffer/protection zones. The Ford Park Management Plan and Master Plan was not intended to be a "master development plan" requiring amendment as Uses and facilities are modified. over the years, but rather it was intended to be a general, guiding docurnent as with the - 'Down's other master planning documents. The proposed use as an artist in resideiace studio, is an educational and cultural center located -within an existing historic building. The artist will create and display artwork within the facility as well as conduct workshops for children and ad,_Llts. The use is complementary to the other cultural, recreational, and cultural facilities within the park, namely the performing arts center and the Alpine Gardens. The proposed use is crmsistent with. the following policy statements contained within the plan: • Policy statement l provides a list of allowable uses including enviror:menta.l, educational, and historic centers. The proposed use, as an educational and cultural facility, fits nicely within this listed category. rdwardsWlap Center Suite C-209 Rn. - 970.576.7575 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Fax - 570., 26,7576 Post 0 rc Sox 2658 www.braunassocizies,com Edwards: Colorado 81632 05/13/2003 94:12 970-526-7576 BRAUN ASSOCIATES PAGE 02 • Policy statement 2 states that new or chanted facilities and uses will not he permitted to curtail existing public uses and facilities within the park. The renovated facility will provide additional public use of a facility that is currently used. f0T storage. The proposed use as an artist studio will provide the public with an opportunity to view and leam about art as it is being created on-site. The proposal. is consistent with this policy, w Policy sta.ternrzut 3 states tl,nt the Town will not allow additional leaseholders within the park beyond those currently existing. The applicant for the proposed use is the Town, a current leaseholder and therefore the proposed use is consistent with this policy, • Police statemcnt 4 states that the new uses and structures will be reviewed for compliance with design criteriaand site guidelines and that the use; will be judged according to the recreational, educational, or social benefit they bring to the community. The use is proposed to be located within an existing structure within the park witl-k only minor changes to the architecture (i.e., mailitaining its current historic character). The proposed use will enhance the educational and social character of the park by adding an additional, 1 cultural amenity. The proposed use is consistent with this Policy. i ■ The proposed use is also consistent tivi.tl, policy staternents 5 — 1.5. i I hope this letter helps to clarify the nature of the proposed use and how the proposal is consistent with the Ford Park. Managemem an.d Master Plan. If you have any questions, please call me at 326-7575, gDom'FkMaWrielloVLCP is LJ _ - v aa -Attachment: B � - �-''"• Mv J U QLL 1 < lot T C . stiQ4 1j - S ± a ;A •.. `fir y r.� r SiW ';rt 'v 0 ,_. :�; ., 21 C a- ARTIST 1N RESIDENCE STUDIO JOB Pius den Pini, calomw Attachment: C • �i k h. w e b b c r e h I t e c t r p c i 1S1 MD IIOYllH 1910 W@ . 91R 111 . W. _ 00 Ii D j Ir 4u]F1 170.m)vLvj T 5 M z M LA zM Q N z T Q m °m " z M r a- ARTIST 1N RESIDENCE STUDIO JOB Pius den Pini, calomw Attachment: C • �i k h. w e b b c r e h I t e c t r p c i 1S1 MD IIOYllH 1910 W@ . 91R 111 . W. _ 00 Ii D j Ir 4u]F1 170.m)vLvj • • • I I M -== ARTIST IN RESIDENCE STUDIO k b W e b b a r G h I t e c t s p c FORD PARA C I1JL [DFDRADD ut mmr ronue pus wia . M M. to . m nest 6 A } M"IM nlnrjllw1 MANOR VAIL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 595 E VAIL VALLEY DR VAIL, CO 81657 THE WREN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 500 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD ` VAIL, :CO 81657 TOWN OF VAIL 75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, CO 81657 PINOS DEL NORTE CONDOMINIUM ' C/O TOM NOONAN PO BOX 69 VAIL, CO 816585F,ZW THAIN, JOHN A. & CARMEN M 350 PURCHASE ST RYE, NY 10580 APOLLO PARK ASSOCIATION 442 S FRONTAGE RD " VAIL, CO 81657 THE KINGDOM OF LAMONT C/O JIM LAMONT PO BOX 73 REDCLIFF, CO 81649 • 1W • 0 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Code on June 9, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a variance from Section 12-7A-11, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to allow for parking and loading in the front setback, located at 9 Vail Road/Lot C, Vail Village 2"d Filing. Applicant: Nine Vail Road Condominium Association and Nicolet Island Development, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use, located at 530 S. Frontage Road/Ford Park, Unplatted. Applicant: Town of Vail/AIPP, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a private outdoor recreational facility, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1" Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Warren Campbell The applications and information about these proposals are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department office, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation held in the Town of Vail Community Development Department office and the site visits that precede the public hearing. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for additional information. This notice published in the Vail Daily on May 23, 2003. 1 T'OR'N OF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: ,June 9, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to amend Section 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Types, Vail Town Code, to amend the Type II EHU requirements and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: AMS Development, Inc., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Bill Gibson SUMMARY The applicant, AMS Development, Inc_, represented by Greg Amsden is requesting a text amendment to Section 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Types, Vail Town Code, to amend the Type II EHU requirements. Based upon staffs review of the criteria in Section VI of this memorandum, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of denial to the Town Council of the requested text amendments, subject to the findings noted in Section VII of this memorandum. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, AMS Development, Inc., is proposing text amendments to Section 12-13- 4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Types, Vail Town Code, to amend the Type II EHU requirements. Based upon discussions from the Planning and Environmental Commission's April 14, April 28, and May 12, 2003, public hearings, the applicant has revised the proposed text amendment application (see Attachment A). The applicant is now proposing two amendments to the Town's Type ll EHU requirements: 1) to allow Type 11 EHUs to be sold or transferred separately and 2) to amend the maximum gross residential floor area (GRFA) limit from 1,200 sq. ft. to 25% of the total allowable GRFA for the site with a maximum of 1,500 sq. ft. The specific proposed text amendments are as follows: (deletions are shown in s+��e through/additions are shown bold) • w CL n LU I-- 2 D 0 Z fia Q TZw w d CL w in U) Z w uj D a W cr) CV N :7 0 • C fn 7� N Q) U) ' 'Q LL.3 CD O fid) 0 O 0 N 0 c t in — �w _�_ m d) . �Nu±M y —mZ� cr 7 c OLCLL1�.• 311.10 'X co N CD d7 O U ep Yi 0 ©� "ooO "U 49 S Ei air E o _ C33 cn CL 3 - sn c0 a 0 c) CL ca (D 4) cm cm c6 0 m � Q O [TS -D L 117 Q? .00 O 4 N w0r. C, C Q) y m co C _O .0 m NU3� � . Q) BE -4`��� o ~ mw Cq 'Q) Cr cp E 0 10 C� Q O `s O t Cr f0 �A 0 U Ix p) c O N m v Q� Q) Q 0 c6 ��� .0 C y y 0 O 'C7 U M w lid L d) 0 CL OCM C1 ca m �p oN Q L) 2 Q C U) m Ln LLLL m DS mLY '� Q C LL] N •2 .� Q) dY ?+ O d)m•7m O. C l7) •m L �y O Fa := S m C a).— 7�. Z; +N O H m � N O C uw) ca r.p Ll.f O 0 Q O .O a [.k ti w y C 0 f7. G d) LLl CD C. p G N m '0 9 E d Q�� "O Co d O O� N m m w CL 4) m m m m m 0 h H m: �+ O Q u 3 LL C.) F m -0 5 o m c6 Uj M :a C m CA U C' T ca O V C O d) to N CL :3 O O Q) m Q) .L [7) Q - UU}0'LLCYCL_ ¢O w cua F� N :7 0 • • III. BACKGROUND In September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create Chapter 13 (Employee Housing) which provides for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts. In April of 2000, the Town Council passed Ordinance 6, Series of 2000, to repeal and reenact this chapter and provide additional incentives for the creation of employee housing in Vail. Type li EHUs are allowed as a conditional use on properties with conforming lots sizes in the Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PIS), and Agriculture and Open Space (A) districts, which account for approximately 788 lots within the Town of Vail. Since 1994 the Town of Vail has approved more than 20 Type II EHUs on these properties. The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed and discussed this proposal at its April 14, April 28, and May 12, 2003, public hearings. Based upon discussions from these previous public hearings, the applicant has revised the proposed text amendment application (see Attachment A). IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for forwarding a recommendation of approval/approval with conditions/denial to the Town Council of a text amendment. The Planning & Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and 6. Such other factors and criteria the Commission deems applicable to the proposed text amendment. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority of a text amendment or conditional use permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether 3 or not the Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. The Town Council is responsible for final approval/approval with conditions/denial of a text amendment. The Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memorandum containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Type II EHUs are allowed as conditional uses in the Single -Family Residential, Two - Family Residential, Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential, and Agriculture and Open Space Districts. Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code) Chapter 12-1: Title, Purpose and Applicability (in part) 12-1-2. PURPOSE. A. General. These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. 4 0 Chapter 12-2: Definitions (in part) EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT (EHU): A dwelling unit which shall not be leased or rented for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be occupied by at least one person who is an employee. For the purposes of this definition "employee" shall mean a person who works an average of thirty (30) hours per week or more on a year round basis in Eagle County, Colorado. Article 12-613: Single -Family Residential (SFR) district (in part) 12-65-1: PURPOSE: The single-family residential district is intended to provide sites for low density single-family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district The single-family residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. Article 12-6C: Two -Family Residential (R) district (in part) 12-6C-1: PURPOSE: The two-family residential district is intended to provide sites for low density single family or two-family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district The two-family residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. Article 12-6D: Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PIS) district (in part) 12-6D-1: PURPOSE: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. Article 12-6E: Residential Cluster (RC) district (in part) 12-6E-1: PURPOSE: The residential cluster district is intended to provide sites for single-family, two- family, and multiple -family dwellings at a density not exceeding six (6) dwelling 40 units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The residential cluster district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with residential occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards - 5 Article 12-6F: Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF) district (in part) • 12 -6F -I.- PURPOSE: The low density multiple -family district is intended to provide sites for single- family, two-family and multiple -family dwellings at a density not exceeding nine (9) dwelling units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The low density multiple -family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with low density occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Article 12-8A: Agriculture and Open Space (A) district (in part) 12-8A-1: PURPOSE: The Agricultural and Open Space District is intended to preserve agricultural, undeveloped, or open space lands from intensive development while permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential use consistent with agricultural and open space objectives. Parks, schools, and certain types of private recreational facilities and institutions also are suitable uses in the Agricultural and Open Space District, provided that the sites of these uses remain predominantly open. Site development standards are intended to preclude intensive urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of the District. Chapter 12-13: Employee Housing (in part) • 12-13-9: PURPOSE: The Town's economy is largely tourist based and the health of this economy is premised on exemplary service for Vail's guests. Vail's ability to provide such service is dependent upon a strong, high quality and consistently available work force. To achieve such a work force, the community must work to provide quality living and working conditions. Availability and affordability of housing plays a critical role in creating quality living and working conditions for the community's work force. The Town recognizes a permanent, year-round population plays an important role in sustaining a healthy, viable community. Further, the Town recognizes its role in conjunction with the private sector in ensuring housing is available. The Town Council may pursue additional incentives administratively to encourage the development of employee housing units. These incentives may include, but are not limited to, cash vouchers, fee waivers, tax abatement and in- kind services to owners and creators of employee housing units. The Town or the Town's designee may maintain a registry and create lists of all deed restricted housing units created in the Town to assist employers and those seeking housing. Vail Land Use Plan Chapter 11 a Land Use Plan Goals/Policies 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing development areas (infill areas). 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community_ Chapter VI — Proposed Land Use LDR Low Density Residential: This category includes single-family detached homes and two family dwelling units. Density of development within this category iwould typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutionalfpublic uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. MDR Medium Density Residential. The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutionallpublic uses such as parks and open space, churches, and fire stations. OS Open Space: Passive recreation areas such as greenbelts, stream corridors and drainageways are the types of areas in this category. Hillside which were classified as undevelopable due to high hazards and slopes over 40% are also included within this area. These hillside areas would still be allowed types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres, for areas in agricultural zoning. Also, permitted in this area would be institutional/public uses. VI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria and factors for consideration for a request of a text amendment are established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-3, Vail Town Code (Ordinance No. 4, Series 2002). 7 A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Text Amendment: 0 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the generaland specific purposes of the Zoning (Regulations; and, A Type II EHU is a conditional use within the Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PIS), and Agriculture and Open Space (A) zone districts. The purpose of each of these zone districts is noted above in Section V of this memorandum. A purpose of each of these zone districts is to accommodate "low density" residential uses such as single-family and/or two-family residential dwelling units. Currently the provisions of Section 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type, Vail Town Code, specifically allow a Type II EHUs as a third dwelling unit on a property and exclude a Type II EHUs from counting as density in these zone districts, since Type II EHUs are currently intended to function as a "caretaker' type apartment that is subordinate and accessory to a principle residential dwelling unit. Staff believes that these proposed text amendments may alter the existing subordinate or accessory nature of Type II EHUs and elevate these units to a principle use of a property. Staff does believe that the revised text amendments are more consistent with the goals or objectives of the Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family ! Residential (R), Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PIS), and Agriculture and Open Space (A) zone districts than the applicant's subsequent . text amendments proposal. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and, 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 Vail Land Use Plan, as noted in Section V of this memorandum. However, a Type Il EHU is a conditional use within the Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), and Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PIS) zone districts, Properties located within these zone districts are typically designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) by the Land Use Plan, A Type 11 EHU is also a conditional use within the Agriculture and Open Space (A) zone district, and properties within this district are typically designated as Open Space (OS) by the Land Use Plan. Staff believes that the proposed text amendments may alter the nature, intent, and character of Type 11 EHUs. Staff believes that these proposed text amendments may alter the existing subordinate or accessory nature of Type II EHUs and elevate these units to a principle use of a property. Staff believes that the proposed text amendments may convert Type II EHUs into a third dwelling unit and density for zoning purposes; which result in a "medium density" residential development rather than the "low density" residential development intended by the Town's current regulations. r•3 The Vail Land Use Plan describes the "Low Density Residential" land use designation as residential development "typically not to exceed 3 structures per buildable acre" and the Open Space designation as recreation areas, agricultural uses, and limited residential development "such as one unit per 35 acres." Currently a lot within the Single -Family (SFR) Residential zone district meeting the minimum required lot size of 12,500 sq. ft. is permitted a residential density of approximately 3.5 units per acre by zoning_ The addition of a Type 11 EHU functioning as a principle dwelling unit on the lot will increase the residential density of this property to approximately 7 units per acre. Similarly a lot within the Two -Family Residential (R) or Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (P/S) zone districts meeting the minimum required lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. is permitted a residential density of approximately 5.8 units per acre by zoning, and the addition of a Type II EHU functioning as a principle dwelling unit on the lot will increase the residential density of this property to approximately 8.7 units per acre. Staff does not believe that these increased residential densities are in conformance with the objectives of the "Low Density Residential" and "Open Space" land use designations. Staff does not believe that the revised text amendments better implement and better achieve the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that a proposal of this nature is more compatible with the development objectives of the Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation and the Residential Cluster (RC) and Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF) zone districts. 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and, Staff does not believe that conditions have changed substantially since the adoption of Section 12-13-4, Vail Town Code; that Section 12-134, Vail Town Code, is no longer appropriate; nor that Section 12-13-4, Vail Town Code, is inapplicable. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and, By essentially allowing a triplex type structures on duplex zoned properties, staff believes that the proposed text amendments may alter the nature, intent, and character of Type II EHUs in such a manner that does not provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations that are consistent with the Town of Vail master plans and development objectives. Staff believes that a proposal of this nature is more harmonious with the development objectives of the Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation and the Residential Cluster (RC) and Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF) zone districts. 5. Such other factors and, criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. A an S. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before forwarding a recommendation of approval for of a text amendment: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of denial to the Vail Town Council for the proposed text amendments to Section 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Types, Vail Town Code, to amend the Type It EHU requirements and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staffs recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: That the amendments are not consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are not compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendments do not further the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and I That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, but do not promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that do not conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's revised Letter of Request 10 • MAY -27-2803 09:03 FROM:RMSDEN DAUIS &FOWLER 9704768637 TO:9704792452 AMS Developmcnl Inc. 500 S. frontage Reuel Fast, Stc. 1.12 Vail, CO. 81557 May 27, 2003 Town of Vail Inept. of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO. 81657 12E: Application for Text Amendment to Chapter 12-13-4 Requirements by Employee Houss,ing Unk Type Attachment: A Current Type 1I Employee Rousing allows -for a third unit, up to 1,200 sq.tt. in size, to be constructed upon a primary -secondary lot containing more than 14,000 sq.11.. This unit is required to be an PHU and must be a rental unit under the current zoning regulations. The applicant is requesting no additional density in this amendment. The applicant wishes to modify the code on lots exceeding 20,000 sq.1 to allow for resale of the EHU, if constructed, and to increase the size limitation to 25% of the sum ofthe total CR1FA and credits allowed, up to a maximum of 1,500 sq, ft.. REQUESTED AMLNUMENT Type 1.1 EHU 1, Ownership/Transference Add the following language: "The EHU may be sold or transferred as a separate unit subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The EHU, if approved for resale, shall be bath physically and aesthetically integrated into the primary secondary structure under consideration' The applicant recommends that the Planning and Environmental Conunission ("PPC") establish a minimum lot sue of 20,000 sq.ft. as a guideline for consideration of such "resale" EHU's under the conditional use process. The establishment of this guideline shall allow PEC flexibility in consideration of each application as it applies to surrounding,property types and uses. Voice, (970)479-(1337 = MAICa0_V il.net Fax 070)-479-6278 MAY -27-2003 09:08 FROM:AMSDEN DRUIS &FOWLER 9704768637 T0:9704792452 P.3/3 Purpose Encourage and promote development of employee housing units by the private sector. This would provide a profit incentive to developers to construct additional EHU's witbin the Town of Vail. Under current: zoninl; Code, there is no incentive to create the additional EHU on lots exceeding 14,000 square feet. 2. Garage/Storage Requirement Withdraw teat amendment request_ I Maximum GRFA Amend the Maximum GR YA requirement for Type 1T EHU's Lts follows: "On EHU's that intended to he sold or transferred, the nwximam size shall be25 % of the sum of the total GRFA and credits allowed for the site, but under no circtmtsiacnc:e shall the size of the EIW exceed .1,500 sq.. ft. " Purpose Diversify the occupant type in Vail's employee housing base. Larger unit size lends itself to more permanent occupancy, There is no current local's housing that addresses middle-income professionals (salespeople, attorneys, town planners, young, doctors, etc.). This occupant type is important to improving the lackluster local economy. Many local professionals desire to live in the Town of Vail, but much of the free-market housing is very dated. (sage and floor plans), thus they migrate down valley looking for better selection. The 1.500 sq.ft. maximum would allow for a large 2 -bedroom or moderate sized 3 -bedroom. floor plan. Thank you for your tii-re and consideration. M, Sincerely, AMS Development, Trac. Gregory M. Amsden, President 0 • C MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community [development DATE: June 9, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson I. SUMMARY On May 22, 2003, and June 5, 2003, the Town staff facilitated a GRFA reform focus group discussion with approximately 20 local architects, builders, developers, home owners, planners, and reators. Additionally, on June 4, 2003, the Town staff discussed the proposed GRFA text amendments with the Design Review Board. The purpose of this memorandum is for Town staff to inform the Planning and Environmental Commission of the comments from the focus group and Design Review Board discussions, and for the Commission to give staff additional direction concerning the proposed GRFA text amendments. ]I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUES The applicants, Vicki Pearson, et.al., are proposing text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hiilside Residential (HR), Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts. Ill. BACKGROUND The Planning and Environmental Commission has reviewed this request at its October 14, 2002; January 27, 2003; and March 24, 2003, public hearings (see Attachment A). TOWA WAIL IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS • The following is a brief summary of the June 4, 2003, Design Review Board comments concerning the proposed GRFA text amendments: • Apprehensive about eliminating GRFA limits in the residential zone district. • Eliminating GRFA limits will place a greater burden on the Design Review Board to control bulk, which may be difficult only using design guidelines. • Updating the existing design guidelines with photographic examples may be helpful regardless of any changes to the GRFA regulations, as long as the existing flexibility of the guidelines is maintained. • The Design Review Board's decisions can be subjective, and should not be made more subjective by eliminating GRFA limits. • Significant increase in development potential on larger lots is a concern. • Simplified form of GRFA or an FAR (floor area ratio) should be maintained. • Simplified form of GRFA or FAR should be measured from the exterior of a building and basement areas (as defined by the building code) may be excluded. On May 22, 2003, Town staff facilitated a focus group discussion about the proposed GRFA amendments. The focus group discussion focused on establishing a set of GRFA reform guiding "principles" and identifying the different GRFA reform alternatives. The following is a summary of the May 22, 2003, GRFA reform focus group comments: Identified GRFA reform "principles": the existing GRFA regulations need to be reformed. GRFA reforms must be more simple to understand, implement, and enforce. GRFA reforms must treat neighboring properties equally (must be equitable). GRFA reforms must address all other impacted Town zoning regulations. Government should be removed from regulating the interior use of homes. GRFA reforms should not negatively impact property sales or values. GRFA reforms should improve compliance to building codes and life/safety issues. GRFA reform should not alter the character of existing neighborhoods (this item was not completely agreed upon, as many individual expressed that change in neighborhood character will occur regardless on any change to GRFA regulations, i.e. real- estate market changes, architectural trends, etc.). Identified GRFA reform alternatives: - No changes to existing GRFA regulations. - eliminate GRFA and adjust site coverage and/or design guidelines. - simplified FAR (floor area ration). keep existing GRFA, but exclude basements and mechanical areas. convert from GRFA to a volumetric measurement system. require GRFA certification by a licensed architect (this alternative was determined to not be feasible). Pa On June 5, 2003, Town staff facilitated an additional focus group discussion pertaining to the proposed GRFA amendments. The focus group discussion included reviewing and agreeing upon the previously identified GRFA reform guiding "principles" and GRFA reform alternatives. The discussion then focus primarily on identifying the pro's and con's of each GRFA reform alternative and then evaluating each alternative for conformance to the accepted guiding "principles." The following is a summary of the May 22, 2003, GRFA reform focus group comments: • Accepted GRFA reform "principles": - GRFA reforms should be simpler to understand, implement, and enforce. - GRFA reforms should be equitable. - GRFA reforms should address related Town zoning regulations. - GRFA reforms should not negatively impact property sales or values. - Government should not regulate the interior use of homes. - GRFA reforms should improve compliance with building and fire codes. - GRFA reforms should not dramatically increase development potential. 3 • Additional comments included: - GRFA has not effectively controlled bulk and mass, and there are many ways to increase house sizes without increasing GRFA calculations. - GRFA does effectively control bulk and mass. - bulk and mass controls are necessary, but not using a square footage limit- - existing GRFA regulations are confusing. - market value will determine house sizes. - GRFA increase house values by limiting "supply" in a market of unlimited demand. - site coverage, building height, and setbacks control bulk and mass, not GRFA. - the design guidelines should be more specific, but still allow flexibility. - Vail's design review process is better than the other local areas. - Eagle County floor area definitions should be considered. - developers will always maximize their development potential. - basements and crawlspaces should not count in GRFA or FAR. - a single, maximum GRFA number should be considered, i.e. Lionshead. - the GRFA credits should be eliminated. - GRFA should be calculated from the outside of a building's walls. - GRFA regulations are essential to preserving the sizes of homes constructed today. - The Town's building height regulations need to be modified to address steep sloped lots. - If GRFA is eliminated there is no need for both a Two -Family and a Two -Family Primary/Secondary zone district. - Volumetric measuring technology needs to be explored further. On June 5, 2003, Town staff facilitated an additional focus group discussion pertaining to the proposed GRFA amendments. The focus group discussion included reviewing and agreeing upon the previously identified GRFA reform guiding "principles" and GRFA reform alternatives. The discussion then focus primarily on identifying the pro's and con's of each GRFA reform alternative and then evaluating each alternative for conformance to the accepted guiding "principles." The following is a summary of the May 22, 2003, GRFA reform focus group comments: • Accepted GRFA reform "principles": - GRFA reforms should be simpler to understand, implement, and enforce. - GRFA reforms should be equitable. - GRFA reforms should address related Town zoning regulations. - GRFA reforms should not negatively impact property sales or values. - Government should not regulate the interior use of homes. - GRFA reforms should improve compliance with building and fire codes. - GRFA reforms should not dramatically increase development potential. 3 Accepted GRFA reform alternatives: No changes to the existing GRFA regulations. Eliminate GRFA (including adjusting other regulations such as site coverage and design guidelines). Convert to a volumetric measurement system. Simplify the existing GRFA regulations (including options such as not counting below -grade spaces as GRFA, measuring GRFA from the outside face of exterior walls, and simplifying the calculations by eliminating credits, etc.). Evaluation of GRFA reform alternatives: - No change to the existing GRFA regulations was unanimously eliminated as a viable alternative. - Converting to a volumetric system was unanimously eliminated as a viable alternative due to its complexity. - Eliminating GRFA was considered a viable alternative: o Pro's: ■ Simplifies the architectural design process. ■ Simplifies the review process. • Eliminates illegal construction and encourages safer construction. ■ May encourage improved safety. ■ Treats neighbors equally. • Allows homeowners to utilize existing house volumes. ■ Doesn't adversely affect property values. ■ Eliminates government regulation of interior uses. o Con's: ■ More pressure on the Design Review Board to control the size of homes. ■ Encourages flat roofs to maximize volume. ■ Encourages "office building" like box - shaped homes. ■ Increases site disturbance. ■ Impacts numerous other Town regulations. ■ Significant increase in development potential unless other regulations are changed. ■ Requires adjustments to site coverage and/or building height calculations and design guidelines. Simplifying GRFA (including not counting below -grade spaces as GRFA, measuring GRFA from the outside of exterior walls, and simplifying the calculations) was considered the best alternative: o Pro's: ■ Maintains the existing system. ■ Simplifies the review process. ■ Doesn't effect other Town regulations. ■ Doesn't adversely affect property values. • Doesn't significantly increase development potential. • Encourages better design than eliminating GRFA (doesn't encourage flat roofs or box - shaped buildings). • Treats neighbors equally. • Less incentive for illegal construction. • Much less regulation of interior uses. • More politically acceptable alternative. o Con's: • Continues to regulate interior uses. • Some loop holes can still be exploited. ■ Some details of how to simplify GRFA are unresolved. • Additional comments included: - Good design principles should drive the architecture of a home not a zoning regulation. - Interior conversions for all homes, regardless of the date they were constructed, should be considered. - Currently a developer hits only one road block in term of development standards (i.e. GRFA or site coverage, etc.); but without a GRFA limit a developer will hit several road blocks at the same time including setbacks, site coverage, height, etc.; thus 40 creating a larger and less attractive building. - The existing garage credits should not be changed. - Building height regulations should be revised at a later date. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION At this time, the Community Development Department is not making a recommendation for approval or denial of the proposed text amendments. The Community Development Department is requesting that, based upon this information, the Planning and Environmental Commission give staff further direction on the following: Does the Commission agree with the focus group's accepted GRFA reform principles? Are there any other principles that the Commission feels should be considered? Does the Commission agree with the focus group's identified GRFA reform alternatives? Are there any other alternatives that the Commission feels should be considered? • Does the Commission agree with the focus group's evaluation of the reform alternatives? - What are the pro's and con's of the different GRFA alternatives? - What are the unintended consequences of making a GRFA policy change? - What "loopholes" are created by the GRFA reform alternatives? Does the Commission agree with the focus group's selection of a preferred GRFA reform alternative? What alternative does the Commission prefer? - If GRFA is modified, what details of the text amendments will need to be addressed further? - What additional information does the Commission need for future discussions of this proposal? Vi. ATTACHMENTS A. March 24, 2002, Planning and Environmental Commission minutes (excerpt) • - 0 R, Attachment: A 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES (EXCERPT) Monday, March 24, 2003 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson reviewed the staff memo and stated that staff is requesting additional direction on this application. Vicki Pearson reviewed the intent behind the application. She stated that people should be able to maximize what they do underneath a building and within their ishell. Estacquio Cortina agreed with Vicki Pearson's position. He felt this could improve the economic vitality of Vail by creating more flexibility for the developer Jim Lamont stated that his organization would be open to meeting with the applicants group. He felt that a longer discussion is needed. Jim feels the County has a good process for policy change. He said he has not been impressed with the dialogue with staff. Erickson Shirley questioned Jim's commentary. Jim Lamont indicated his opposition to the process. Carol Cook, a local real estate agent, stated this policy change in GRFA would help intent improvements on private property and also felt that the GRFA formula is complicated to understand. Larry 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 complicated. He also believes that people are illegally creating floor area and they are doing it without building permits and creating unsafe situations. 40 Larry thanked the staff and the applicant for the thoughful work that was done. Gwen Scapello stated that she was a real estate agent and that in her previous community her community took measures to protect the older 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 felt site coverage and design guidelines can effectively deal with bulk and mass. She did feel that we should closely look at removal of GRFA for multi -family zone districts. She felt that GRFA does work against safety in mechanical spaces. Lynne also stated that FAR has been around for a while and it could be simpler. Lynne stated that we need to project the built environment, while creating more flexibility. John Schofield asked Lynne whether our DRB regulations are adequate to control bulk and mass. Lynn Fritzlen thought we would still need some quantitative standards to effectively control bulk and mass. Steve Ridden admitted that he has cleverly worked around the regulations. He felt it would be ok to put more on the DRB and give them better standards for reviewing applications. He argued to make regulations more qualitative vs. quantitative. Steve stated that we need better standards with the design review process. 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 to create new solutions. Kyle also stated that eliminating GRFA would increase property values at the end of the day. Chuck Baker asked about staffs response on this issue. Russell Forrest responded to that question and restated some of the concerns expressed in the staff memo. A developer stated that a formula is needed to rely on and stated that he would be concerned if site coverage was reduced. Steve Ridden stated that we need to think about EHUs further and he questioned whether the EHU incentive was effective. Lynne Fritzlen suggested making all sub grade not count towards GRFA Gary Hartman said he believes there is a simpler solution. He stated that he wished Jim Lamont would have stayed. He said his recommendation is to eliminate GRFA and use the existing guidelines, but with more specific bulk and mass guidelines and we may want to consider a max limit on GRFA or setbacks. Doug Cahill encouraged the public to provide their comments to staff and stated we should have maximums on GRFA. Doug believes we need to keep the same basic mass and we need to keep some measure of floor area to reduce the complexity of this change. 2 Chas Bernhardt said he felt it was good that people in the community can come forward and suggest changes in the code, as it was part of the democratic process. He said subterranean space should not count towards GRFA. He felt that there should be a limit to bedrooms or that bedrooms should be connected to parking and generally felt the other development parameters work well. Rollie Kjesbo said he believes we should do a way with GRFA, but don't reduce site coverage on all lots. He indicated that we should study lot sizes more and evaluate a max of FAR and/or site coverage. Erickson Shirley said he can not make sense of GRFA today. He does not feel it is logical that you can not have basements in the Town of Vail. He felt that the argument that eliminating GRFA would destabilize the real estate market is not valid. John Schofield said anything that has been changed 13 times has a problem. He said setbacks, height, and site coverage create the box and GRFA controls what goes on in the box. He also asked staff to discuss this with DRB to ask, if in their opinion, if they have enough regulations to control bulk and mass. He said if GRFA is eliminated then we need a specific parking requirement, with a portion of that parking being covered. John asked for more specific information on lots and their development potential, especially the large lots in the Town of Vail. John also reiterated the Housing Authority that GRFA does not impact EHUs. John asked on page 7 of the memo, about net floor area and how to address parking and also asked about a net floor area definition. John was concerned that GRFA has created a safety issue and an equity issue and we also need to create an amnesty issue. John suggested we look at options for a cap on FAR and we look at site coverage on larger lots. The PEC indicated their support unanimously to eliminate GRFA, with the condition that staff make recommendations on how to change other development and or design guidelines to keep building in line with bulk and mass of existing homes today. Lynne Fritzlen asked that we evaluate graphically the trade-offs between the various tools. Chas Bernhardt only believes we need to worry about larger lots and felt a maximum cap on floor area is a good approach. Rollie Kjesbo still wondered about the trade-off with how to approach the alternatives and wanted more information on those trade-offs. Erickson Shirley believes there are adequate protections for the smaller lots and the issue is on larger lots. Erickson believes we still need good criteria and objective standards for reviewing projects if we eliminate GRFA. John Schofield was also open to an adjustment of site coverage and/or landscaping. He said DRB may need some additional tools to regulate bulk and mass. 3 Rollie Kjesbo made a motion to table this to the April 28, 2003 meeting. • Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 4 • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss the fallowing applications: a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Section 12- 78-13, Density Control, Zoning Regulations; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing from Public Accommodation 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 Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation II zone district; a request for a minor subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Code of a proposed major subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the "trade parcel"; a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a "private off-street vehicle parking facility and public park" to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing; a request for an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for 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 units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther I. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Jay Peterson, has submitted four development review applications to the Town of Vail Community Development Department to facilitate the redevelopment of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing. The applicant has submitted the applications to allow for the construction of Vail Park and a new 134 space private underground parking structure in Vail Village. Staff is recommending approval of each of the applicant's development review applications with the conditions listed in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC), represented by Jay Peterson, has submitted four development review applications to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Each of the applications are intended to facilitate the redevelopment of a paved parking lot on Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing and build a new public park (Vail Park) and an above -ground/ underground, private off-street vehicle parking facility. The four applications include; • A major subdivision of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing, • An amendment to the Official ,Zoning Map of the Town of Vail to rezone Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing from the Public Accommodation (PA) district to the Parking (P) District, • A conditional use permit to allow for a `public park"in the Parking District, and • A conditional use permit to allow for a 'private off-street vehicle parking structure" According to the applicant's written statement submitted with the application, the proposed redevelopment of Lots P3 & J is intended to address two major goals: To upgrade existing conditions of the site by replacing the majority of the existing surface parking lot with a neighborhood park; and To provide an additional source of parking for the surrounding neighborhood and the greater Vail community. This development concept is in keeping with the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan. The upgrading of this site has been a long-standing goal of the Town. The Vail Village Master Plan specifically identifies this "as appropriate for park/open space and/or central loading and delivery facilities" The proposed development of Lots P3 & J includes the construction of a sub -surface parking structure containing 108 parking spaces. The uppermost plate of the parking structure will be located at approximately the same grade elevation as the existing gravel parking lot. The uppermost level of the structure will be dedicated for the exclusive use of the Christiania Lodge, in accordance with an existing contractual agreement between the applicant and the Christiania Lodge. Vehicular access to the upper level will be from Hanson Ranch Road and access to the parking structure will be through a garage door located along Gore Creek Drive. Pedestrian circulation to and from the below grade portions of the parking structure will be via a small on - grade building containing a set of stairs and an elevator. A vicinity map of the development site and surrounding area has been attached for reference (Attachment A) • A reduced copy of the proposed plans and the proposed major subdivision final plat has been attached for reference (Attachment B). III. BACKGROUND In 1965, Lots P3 & J were created by the adoption of the Vail Village 5th Filing Subdivision. As platted, Lot P3 and Lot J are separated by a 25 -foot wide Town of Vail right-of-way. For reasons that are not clear in the Town's property files, a road (Hanson Ranch Road Chute) was constructed outside of the right-of-way on the westernmost portion of Lot P3. Until now, this discrepancy has never been addressed. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, Lot P3 is located in the Parking (P) District and Lot J is located in the Public Accommodation (PA) District. Notwithstanding the zoning, these two lots have historically been used for surface parking. On April 14, 2003, VRDC appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission for a worksession meeting to discuss the proposed plans for the redevelopment of Lots P3 & J with the Commission. At the time, the applicant was proposing to incorporate four loading and delivery spaces into the parking structure to provide a dispersed loading and delivery facility for the businesses in Vail Village. A copy of the approved Planning and Environmental Commission April 14, 2003 meeting minutes have been attached for reference (Attachment C). IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BODIES Major Subdivision Planning and Environmental Commission; The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a major subdivision. Specifically the code states: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. (1997 Code: Ord. 2(1983) § 1 0 Staff: 0 The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: The Town Council is also responsible for accepting land for public right of way in a Major Subdivision. Rezoninq Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is advisory to the Town Council. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority on zoning/rezonings. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of a zoning/rezoning. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. Conditional Use Permit Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/denial/approval with conditions of conditional use permits. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 4 0 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a conditional use permit but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memorandum containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 13 Subdivision Regulations Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Vail Town Code establishes the review process and criteria for a major subdivision proposed in the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Chapter 13-3 {Major Subdivision} of the Town Code, the first step in the review process is for the applicant to meet with a Town Planner to discuss the preliminary plan. The next step in the review process shall be a formal consideration of the preliminary plan by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant shall make a presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. The presentation and public hearing shall be in accordance with Section 12-3-6 (Hearings) of the Vail Town Code. The burden of proof that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the zoning Code and other pertinent regulations shall lie upon the applicant. In reviewing the plan, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to: 1. Subdivision Control; 2. Densities proposed; 3. Regulations; 4. Ordinances, resolutions and other applicable documents; 5. Environmental Integrity; 6. Compatibility with surrounding land uses; and 7. Effects upon the aesthetics of the Town and surrounding land uses. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date of the review of the preliminary plan to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions or modifications, the major subdivision request. Within ten days of making a decision on the request, the staff shall forward the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision to the Vail Town Council. The Council may appeal the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. The appeal must be placed within seventeen days of Planning and Environmental Commission's action. If the Council appeals the Planning and Environmental Commission's action, the Council shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. The Council shall have thirty days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the Planning and Environmental Commission decision. The appeal hearing shall be held during a regularly scheduled council meeting. The final step in the review process of a major subdivision request, after Planning and Environmental Commission preliminary plan review, is the review of the final plat. At any time within one year after the Planning and Environmental Commission has taken action on the preliminary plan, a final plat shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The staff shall schedule a final review of the final plat. The final review shall occur at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. The review criteria for a final plat are the same as those used in reviewing the preliminary plan as contained in Section 13-3-4 of the Subdivision Regulations. The Town of Vail has the ability to require certain improvements when approving a major subdivision. The following improvements shall be required by the applicant unless otherwise waived by the zoning administrator, Planning and Environmental Commission, or Council: 1. Paved streets and parking lots; 2. Bicycle and pedestrian path linked with the town system and within the subdivision itself; 3. Traffic control signs, signals or devices; 4. Street lights; 5. Landscaping; 6. Water lines and fire hydrants; 7. Sanitary sewer lines; 8. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers; 9. Bridges and culverts; 10. Electric lines; 11. Telephone lines; 12. Natural gas lines; 13. Other improvements not specifically mentioned above but found necessary by the Town Engineer due to the nature of the subdivision. Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code) Parking District (P) 12-98-1: PURPOSE: The Parking District is intended to provide sites for private or public unstructured off-street vehicle parking and conditionally to provide for private or public off-street vehicle parking structures and private or public parks and recreational facilities. The Parking District is intended to allow such uses while ensuring adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each valid use in adjacent areas. 12-9B-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the P District: Private or public unstructured off-street vehicle parking. 12-9B-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Major arcade. Private or public off-street vehicle parking structures. Private or public parks and recreational facilities. Public uses, private office and commercial uses that are transportation, tourist or Town related and that are accessory to a parking structure. Temporary construction staging sites. For the purposes of this Section, a temporary construction staging site shall mean a site on which, for a temporary period of time, construction materials, heavy construction equipment, vehicles and construction trailers may be stored. Type III employee housing units (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title. 12-913-4: ACCESSORY USES: Minor arcade. L Chapter 12-16: Conditional Use Permits • 12-16-1: PURPOSE: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. Town of Vail Land Use Plan Chapter Il — Land Use Plan Goals/Policies 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community, and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. According to the Official Town of Vail Land Use Plan map, the applicant's proposed redevelopment site is located with the "Vail Village Master Plan" land use category. Pursuant to the Pian, the "Vail Village Master Plan" land use category description, K "Vail Village has been designated separately as a mixed use area and accounts for 77 acres or about 2% of the Plan area. This area has not been analyzed in this Plan document because the Vail Vimge Master Plan study addressed this area specifically in more detail." Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan The Town of Vail is in the process of preparing a revision to the adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The original Master Plan is an outgrowth of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The Guide Plan was created in 1982 to give guidance to the overall physical development for the Village. In addition to providing broad design guidelines, the Guide Plan suggested specific physical improvements for the Village. Improvements such as new plazas, new landscape area, etc. Along with the construction of these public improvements included proposals to complete numerous private sector improvements. Improvements such as building additions outdoor deck expansions, and facade improvements. The Streetscape Master Plan was written in part to provide clear design direction for coordinated public/private improvements. According to the Master Plan, the purpose of the plan is to provide a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvements that: 1. is supported by the community; 2. enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and 3. emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order to create an excellent pedestrian experience. Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whole. It is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly, this Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. Furthermore, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and along with the Guide Plan, it underscores the importance of the relationship between the built environment and public spaces. Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. While there is a certain amount of overlap between these six goals, each focuses on a particular aspect of the Village and the community as a whole. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of 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 stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in implementing capital improvement projects. The Vail Village Master Plan's objectives and policy statements address key issues relative to growth and development. These statements establish much of the context within which future development proposals are evaluated. In implementing the Plan, the objectives and policies are used in conjunction with a number of graphic planning elements that together comprise this Plan. While the objectives and policies establish a general framework, the graphic plans provide more specific direction regarding public improvements or development potential on a particular piece of property. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. The most significant elements of the Master Pian are the goals, objectives, policies and action steps. They are the working tools of the Master Plan. They establish the broad framework and vision, but also layout the specific policies and action steps that will be used to implement the Plan. As noted on page 35 of the Master Plan, "It is important to note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for those proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Flan." Staff believes this statement re-emphasizes that the Master Plan is a general document providing advisory guidelines to aid the Town in analyzing development proposals and that full compliance is not required in order for a project to be approved. The stated goals of the Vail Village Master Plan are: Coal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. Canal #? Objective 1.3: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town.. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 10 0 Objective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Objective 3.2: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. Objective 3.4: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. Objective 4.1: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspaces and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type pf open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. Objective 5.1: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. Objective 6.1: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. Objective 6.2: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically pleasing resort setting. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan This Guide Plan represents collective ideas about functional and aesthetic objectives for Vail Village. Diagrammatic in nature, the Guide Plan is intended to suggest the nature of improvements desired. It is based on a number of urban design criteria determined to be appropriate for guiding change in the Vail Village. The Guide plan is intended to be a guide for current planning in both the public and private sectors. VI. ZONING ANALYSIS Legal Description: Lots P3 and J, Block 5A, Vail Village Fifth Filing Zoning: Parking (P) District Land Use Designation: Vail Village Master Plan Lot Size: 16,858 sq. ft.10.387 acre Development Standard Parking: Allowed Unlimited VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Proposed 134 spaces Land Use Zoning North: Residential High Density Multiple Family South. Residential/Lodging SDD No. 28 (Christiania Lodge) East: Residential High Density Multiple Family West: Mixed Use Commercial Core I VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Major Subdivision Chapter 3, Major Subdivision, Title 13 Subdivision Regulations, of the Vail Town Code prescribe the review criteria for a request for a major subdivision. Pursuant to Section 13-3-7, Review Criteria for Final Plat, Vail Town Code, the criteria for reviewing the final plat shall be as contained in Section 13-3-4 of the Subdivision Regulations. According to Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Criteria: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town" The purpose of the proposed major subdivision is to correct an error in the location of the Hanson Ranch Road Chute versus the location of the platted Town of Vail right- of-way. As platted, the 25 -foot wide right-of-way connects Gore Creek Drive to Hanson Ranch Road across the center portion of Lot P3. The Hanson Ranch Road Chute, as constructed, is located on the westernmost portion of Lot P3 entirely outside of the platted right-of-way. To resolve this discrepancy, the applicant is proposing to vacate the existing right-of-way and plat a new right-of-way underneath the Hanson Ranch Road Chute. The new right-of-way will be 40 -feet wide and located on the westernmost portion of Lot P3. Staff has reviewed the application for a major subdivision to vacate and re -plat the Hanson Ranch Road Chute right-of-way. Upon review of the proposed final plat, staff finds that the proposal complies with the criteria prescribed for a major subdivision application. 12 • A reduced copy of the proposed final plat for Lots P3 & J has been attached for reference (Attachment B). Amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail (rezoning) Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, Title 12, Zoning Title, of the Vail Town Code authorizes amendments to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, in part, ,.an application to amend the district boundaries of the Zoning Map may be initiated by petition of any resident or property owner in the Town." Furthermore, Section 12-3-7 C prescribes the criteria and findings the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider with respect to a request to amend the Zoning Map. The applicant is seeking a recommendation of approval to rezone Lot J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing, from the Public Accommodation (PA) District to the Parking (P). According to Section 12-3-7 C, of the Vail Town Code, Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: 1. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and Section of this memorandum outlines all of the goals and policies implemented or that are relevant to the proposed rezoning of Lots P3 and J. The proposed rezoning specifically implements the Vail Village Master Plan Sub -Area Policy 7-1 which states that, "development of this site should be restricted to parking and other public purpose uses". According to Section 12-9B-1 of the Zoning Regulations, the purpose of the Parking (P) District is intended to, 'To provide sites for private or public unstructured off-street vehicle parking and conditionally to provide for private or public off-street vehicle parking structures and private or public parks and recreational facilities. The larking District is intended to allow such uses while ensuring adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each valid use in adjacent areas." The proposed rezoning and proposed development plan is consistent and compatible with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and the Town's development objectives. 13 2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the Town's adopted planning documents; and The Parking (P) District establishes zoning that is more consistent with both existing and proposed uses on the parcel. The proposed use of the property will remain as parking with the addition of a public park area. The property is surrounded by residential and lodging uses and parking for those uses. The proposed zoning and use of the property (parking and public park) is consistent with the existing and potential uses in the area and is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and The Parking (P) District is consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. The proposed zone district implements specific goals of the Vail Village Master Plan by restricting the use of the land for parking, loading, and neighborhood park uses. Staff believes that the proposed re -zoning presents a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship with land uses in the area consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and The proposed re -zoning establishes one consistent zoning for the property. Part of the parcel is currently zoned Parking (P) District and the proposed re -zoning simply extends that zone district to another portion of the site. This re -zoning will create a zone district consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. The proposed re -zoning and development plan provide for the development of an orderly viable community consistent with the Town's development interests as expressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. 5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and Given the developed nature of the property and the findings of the Environmental Impact Report, the proposed project will not result in adverse impacts to the environment including water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides, or other natural features. The project will result in beneficial impacts resulting from properly designed structures, drainage facilities, and additional vegetation being added to the site. 14 6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. The Parking (P) District is proposed for the subject property. The proposed zone district is consistent with the intended purpose of that zone district. The proposed use of the property is a structured parking and loading area and a public park. All of the proposed uses are listed in the purpose statement and the list of allowable and conditional uses for the Parking (P) District. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. The use of the property for more than two decades has been parking. However, the zoning designation of a portion of the property has been Public Accommodation for the same period of time. The Vail Village Master Plan identifies the property as being appropriate for parking. The existing zone district does not appear to be consistent with the envisioned use of the property and is perhaps no longer appropriate. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. Conditional Use Permits The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town Code. Upon approval of the request to amend the Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the proposed project will be located within the Parking (P) District. Therefore, this proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. A. Consideration of Factors Regarding Conditional Use Permits: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Public Park The proposed public park is intended to provide an open space or green space opportunity for residents and guest in Vail Village. As designed, the park will sit atop the underground parking structure. The park design incorporates a small grassed lawn area into the gently sloping hillside. No active recreation is contemplated and therefore concerns of excessive noise from organized activities is unlikely to occur. The landscape design of the park is intended to complement the proposed streetscape design and existing uses in the immediate vicinity. Staff believes that the use and benefits of Vail Park are analogous to Bishop Park which is located 15 on the west end of Vail Village. Staff believes that the proposed use of the site as a public park will have a positive impact on the development objectives of the Town. Private Off-street Parking Structure The proposed use of the site as a structured parking lot implements the long-term goals of the Town and neighbors as expressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. According to the Vail Village Master Pian, this site is an appropriate location for a parking facility and other public uses such as a neighborhood park. The use of the site as a structured parking facility will no doubt increase the number of vehicle trips into the area. Staff believes that an increase in vehicle trips could potentially have negative impacts on the surrounding uses in the immediate vicinity. That said, however, staff believes that the current use of the site for parking and loading/delivery already negatively impacts the area and is detrimental to the development objectives of the Town. Overall, staff believes that the proposal for a private parking structure on this site is in compliance with the development objectives of the Town. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Public Park The use of site for a neighborhood park will have positive impacts on the above-described criteria. Specifically, the park will provide yet another outdoor opportunity for the residents and guests of the Town of Vail. Historically, parks in the Town of Vail are heavily used by the residents and guests of Vail and one of the most popular public amenities in Town. Staff believes that the proposed use will have little, if any, negative effects on the above-described criteria. Private Off-street Parking Structure The proposed use of the site for parking will have few, if any, negative impacts on the above-described criteria. The proposed parking use will provide much needed parking in a more efficient and orderly manner than currently exists on the site. The private parking structure will act to reduce the demand for parking on the public parking facilities in Town and thus increase the amount of available parking to the general public. As an underground facility, the parking use of the site will not impede upon the availability of light and air to the surrounding in the vicinity of the site. Staff believes that the proposal for a private off-street parking structure complies with the above-described criteria. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, control, access, maneuverability, and removal of street and parking areas. 16 to congestion, traffic flow and snow from the • Public Park The public park will have no negative impacts on the above-described criteria. If anything, the use of the site for a public park will have significant positive effects on the above-described criteria. Staff believes that the proposal for a public park complies with the above-described criteria. Private Off-street Parking Structure The proposed redevelopment of this site to construct a private parking structure will improve traffic flow, vehicular and pedestrian safety, vehicular maneuverability, and snow removal. The current use of the site and right-of-way for loading and delivery creates many unsafe situations and creates traffic congestion. The proposed plan removes all loading and delivery from this site in Town and replaces with a short-term skier drop off area. It is clear that the removal of the loading and delivery activity will have significant positive effects on the above-described criteria, staff remains reluctant that the same negative effects created by the delivery trucks will not be reintroduced by the skier drop off traffic. Staff does believe, however, that regardless of the provision of the skier drop off area, the activity will continue regardless. Staff believes that the proposed plan will improve pedestrian safety and circulation in the area through the construction of new pedestrian sidewalks and stairs. Overall, staff believes that the proposed private off-street parking structure complies with the above-described criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Public Park The public park will be essentially constructed on the grade of the existing surface parking. With the exception of the elevator building, no above grade structures will be constructed on the site. The height of the elevator building has been held to the minimum necessary to accommodate the uses of the building. The design of the building has been proposed to be compatible with the structures and uses on the adjoining properties. As the park is designed to be only a small neighborhood park for passive recreation with no organized active recreation facilities proposed, staff believes that the use will have minimal, if any negative effects upon the character of the area. If anything, staff believes that the park will only improve the existing character of the area and provide an open space amenity to the residents and guests of the town. Private Off-street Parking Structure The underground parking structure will largely conceal the use of the site for parking and the associated activities below grade and out of sight of the adjacent uses. While a 26 space, surface parking lot will remain, the surface lot will be landscaped and screened from view to the extent possible. Currently, little, if any landscaping is on the site and all the parking is in full view at all times. The main garage entrance to the 17 IX. parking structure is designed with an operable door to minimize the negative effects that an entrance to a parking structure can create. The exposed exterior walls of the structure are to be covered in stone to better blend into the character of Vail Village. All exterior lighting on the parking garage entrance will be required to comply with the Town's adopted outdoor lighting regulations and approved by the Design Review Board. The design of the parking structure is such that it is as low as possible and buried into the hillside. Overall, staff believes that the proposed private parking structure improve the existing character of the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Major Subdivision The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 3, Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the vacation and relocation of the dedicated Town of Vail right-of- way on Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5,h Filing. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: "The Planning and Environmental Commission recommends approval to the Vail Town Council of the proposed major subdivision and finds that the major subdivision application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. Specifically, the Commission finds that the major subdivision resolves a historical error in the location of the Hanson Ranch Road Chute versus the platted Town of Vail right-of-way location. Through this final plat the Hanson Ranch Road Chute will be properly located in a platted Town of Vail right-of-way. " Amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of an amendment to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, pursuant to Chapter 3, Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to rezone Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 51h Filing. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: "Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a zone district boundary amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives 18 and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. Conditional Use Permit The Community Development Department recommends approval for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9B-3, Conditional Uses-, Vail Town Code, to allow for a 'public park" and a `private off-street vehicle parking structure', located at 360 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5t'' Filing. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vlli of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes is of the Parking (P) District, 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve or forward a recommendation of approval of the applicant's to the Vail Town Council, staff recommends that the Commission makes the following conditions a part of the approval: 1. That the approval of the condition use permits to allow for a public park and a private off-street vehicle parking structure becomes effective upon second reading of an amending ordinance rezoning Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5`°' Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) District to Parking (P) District. Should an amending ordinance not be approved by the Vail Town Council, the approval of the conditional use permits shall become null and void upon the passage of a motion denying the amending ordinance. 2. That the applicant submits a revised set of plans for review and approval by the Director of Public Works to the Town of Vail Community Development Department addressing each of the comments provided by the Town of Vail 19 0 Public Works Department, prior to first reading of an ordinance amending the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map. 3. That the applicant submits an off-site improvements plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department illustrating the limits of construction of all off-site improvements, as required by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission, prior to first reading of an ordinance amending the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map. 4. That the approval of the condition use permits to allow for a public park and a private off-street vehicle parking structure becomes effective upon the approval of the proposed major subdivision of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5t' Filing by the Vail Town Council. Should the proposed major subdivision not be approved by the Vail Town Council, the approval of the conditional use permits shall become null and void upon the passage of a motion denying the major subdivision. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. A reduced copy of the proposed plans and the proposed major subdivision final plat C. A copy of the approved Planning and Environmental Commission April 14, 2003 meeting minutes 20 C] • tf 1N3WH3V1.11'l Orr, � � Y ,i � .q�•, �� - 5,v ..-t 'c�''' .� ,�, � i�. v� .A`-.j S }f �., Y� _� � ih�. t • " �' S a „C,,.. � , �#' �;; to � � /' ,.` f r .s"m�•° CL , s y yyy i '.f �'� � ♦t I/.W�. �: �- W~ r _ v"i v tg aM+6 ,r. >w�'y4`;1C}- .'�ti• iei ; ,� f - `i�as.J '�6* Am va /IFis �. lit r 'L ; :r t t• a loll �! r _ i ry R i t r -��1- r.: r ry�.X' fix' x. •� > fir. 1 r ' . . ��'- • C7 E Attachment: B a w w s n p r a Yill Ertl + . if rpI r I" 1 IIF 91M IIIIIIIIIIIIIlI, +�N�I�u���ill;������❑ fit e 91M IIIIIIIIIIIIIlI, +�N�I�u���ill;������❑ t: L� • VAIL'S F DOOR l ••arraa��=; ggisgqiigqi; tI{�gl1�ppl�' ���ec)gs�a Illlll �=07i��i �l�gig�! kt Ali f'i�if �1��l��A-i■ VAIL'S F DOOR l 4 4 f t 4` VAIL'S F DOOR l M -f N 0 4A �� 3 Illllllllllllffi ++1d4i�� [��S❑ \\�� \� \�. � Nk§� • 0 ,� i,;VANS VT DOOR] 4�T 9 TMIllllllllllllffi ++Ioldiui ���,i0 • • W ; r � � � VAWS F4 D04R �J • 0 t L < J111 H I VAn!S DOC?R • • �f. li I F4� Dti `i 9 l dr 1 • • 0 r � 6D O v to 1 ans to D n� �buhb NpBYit'pg'E - 72.88' a �c�'3 Is to 0 ��Yb 6 A �,0 t 4 v CO �• "Zi � r to o " � � I b CIO� CHUTE ROAD fa' iq ewuy i o * Nfl89I' 0.5E - 84.48' l R s Z _ NJ X CA I to 1 ans to S QC h y b n� �buhb to a �c�'3 Is to 0 ��Yb nsb A �,0 t 4 v CO �• "Zi � r to o " � � I b CIO� I 'yard � y NJ X CA I l 1 ans r 1 ��Yb f CD O I $ ➢ i l R s Z _ Approved 4128143 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 40 PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2403 PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartman Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Vail Mountain School — 3000 Boothfalls Road 2, Sonnenalp-- 20 Vail Road 3. Vail Park (P3&J) — Hanson Ranch Road Driver: George 12:00 pm 1:00 pm 0 W11 -D NOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm Swearing in of reappointed PEC members John Schofield (4t'' term), Chas Bernhardt (3'd term) and Doug Cahill (3`d term) -Pam Brandmeyer on behalf of Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk. 2. Election of 2003 Chair -- Vice-Chair — George Lamb nominated John Schofield for Chairman and Erickson Shirley for Vice -chair. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0, with John Schofield abstaining. 3. A request for a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses; Generally, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to a previously approved development plan for a private school and educational institution, and setting for details in regard thereto, located at 3000 Boothfalls Road/Lot 1, Vail Mountain School Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Associates Planner: Russell Forrest John Schofield, Rollie Kjesbo, and George Lamb disclosed connections to the Vail Mountain Attachment: C VA TOWN OF 1L1L Approved 4/28/03 Rollie Kjesbo made a motion to forward the proposed text amendment to Council with a change made to make PEC the authority and "larger" changed to "varying," In addition, forwarded a recommendation to the Town Council to consider alternative ways to encourage a centralized loading and delivery facility, including a pay -in -lieu process. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Doug Cahill was not in the room. 6. A request for a worksession to discuss the following applications: a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Section 12-7B-13, Density Control, Zoning Regulations; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing from Public Accommodation 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 Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation II zone district; a request for a minor subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 51h Filing; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Code of a proposed major subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the "trade parcel'; a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a "private off-street vehicle parking facility and public park" to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5t6 Filing; a request for an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for 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 units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's f=ront Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther Erickson Shirley noted that he has placed a deposit on a parking space in this project; however, he does not feel that this will bias his review and will not be a conflict of interest. George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum, Jay Peterson presented an overview of the applicant's proposal, with the primary changes made since the last presentation to the PEC, to include the relocation of a skier drop-off area and loading area. Erickson Shirley asked the applicant to clarify the height of the proposed building. The applicant responded that the height was approximately 22 feet and would not impact the existing view corridor. John Schofield asked the applicant to examine multiple traffic circulation patterns. Erickson Shirley asked where a third delivery vehicle will stage when the two bays are in use. Jay Peterson responded that a third vehicle will not be allowed to stage in this area. Doug Cahill asked if the chute would be heated. X Approved 4128103 Jay Peterson responded that it would not be due to the logistics of starting and ending the snowmelt locations. 49 Jim Lamont commented on the proposal. He noted that the whole circulation needs to be further examined with specifically, that the number of bays and their location need to be part of a larger loading/delivery plan. He noted concerns about the design of the north fagade. He also commented that the parking use of this lot has been around since the late 19E0's. He mentioned that the proposed park might be open to the public, but is a privately owned property parcel and that some neighboring property owners would like to see that the Town design and maintain the park as a public privately owned park. Jay Peterson noted that the additional loading bay was to be a benefit to the Town and the surrounding property owners. Erickson Shirley questioned who will maintain this property. Jay Peterson noted that the loading area would function as a separate condo unit to be owned by another entity — possibly the Town. Jay also envisioned that the Parking Structure Condo Association may retain ownership and control of the park itself. Gary Hartman questioned if the surface parking will be part of this Parking Structure Condo Association and if the surface space could be incorporated into the structure. Jay Peterson responded that was not a financially viable alternative. Gary Hartman noted the importance of examining this proposal in overall loading/delivery discussions for the Village. Doug Cahill asked about the noise generated from the parking structure ventilation system. He also asked about on-site maintenance or supervisors on the site. Jay Peterson noted that the Parking Structure Condo Association would probably take on that responsibility. Erickson Shirley questioned who will pay for the construction. Jay Peterson responded that it is not the Town, but the specifics of who pays, that has not been determined. Chas Bernhardt commented that he likes the project and would like to see more bays. He also noted that if constructed with stone, the bay will be attractive. Rollie Kjesbo asked for further clarification of the project funding. George Lamb noted that his concerns are more related to the actual logistics of the loading/delivery. Erickson Shirley noted his concerns that the parking space owners are paying for the park and loading bays in addition to the parking spaces. He also noted concern about forcing parking owners to navigate around the loading bays. He also commented that the sound of the ventilation system should not detract from the use of the park. John Schofield summarized that some of the remaining issues include; further examination of traffic flow and condo ownership of the loading bay. He said some of the benefits include removal of traffic from the adjoining streets and close -in parking for local residence business owners. John 10 Approved 4128103 also noted that a pay in lieu fee should be examined for maintenance and possibly construction to spread the cost to those benefiting from the proposal. He commented that conceptual management plans should be submitted with the next PEC review. He also commented that the chute should be redesigned to be safer. Doug Cahill made a motion to table this until May 12, 2003. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to amend Chapter 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Types, Vail Town Code, to amend the Type 11 EHU requirements and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: AMS Development Inc. Planner. Bill Gibson Bill Gibson made a presentation per the staff memorandum Greg Amsden presented the proposed text amendments and said the existing regulations create a gap in the market, in terms of the type of employees that will occupy EHUs. He said this amendment creates a new incentive to construct EHUs and fill a niche in the market need and that this text amendment creates a private -sector funding source to build EHUs. He said this amended use will likely occur in West Vail and Matterhorn areas and it is unlikely to occur in "high dollar' neighborhoods. He said this type of unit will provide housing opportunities for local middle-income professionals and diversify the housing base. Greg then explained how, in his opinion, this amendment complies with the text amendment criteria. There was no public comment. Rollie Kjesbo stated he thought that this amendment would be making a duplex 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 to create. He said this is the right direction, but it would be hard to regulate and that DRB may be inadequate to address the unintended consequences. He questioned how to do this? Erickson Shirley asked who would be eligible to live in these units. He said he is in favor of broadening the opportunities of housing types and shares some of Rollie's concerns regarding DRB issues. Gary Hartman applauded Greg's efforts and he stated that it is important to dictate a size cap on the EHUs. Doug Cahill thought this would likely occur in West Vail and also applauded Greg's efforts. He asked how the streetscape of garage doors would be addressed and that a maximum cap is needed. He said the one car garage limit should be changed and mentioned that it will change the appearance of the neighborhood. Chas Bernhardt thought this was a great idea, but feels it needs further consideration to successfully implement. He said he is uncomfortable with the concept as proposed, but feels more study is needed. He too asked about the garage doors and to continue with this idea. John Schofield stated that the PEC needed input from the housing authority and DRB. He shares a concern with regard to density. He felt there needed to be an amendment to the 300 square foot 11 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works Planner: Warren Campbell SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The proposal is to discuss the adoption of a proposed addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan which elaborates in greater design detail the sub -areas concerning Vail Village and Meadow Drive streetscapes. At the request of the applicant and staff, the purpose of this meeting is for the Planning and Environmental Commission to hold a worksession to discuss the proposed addendum. At this time, the Community Development Department is not making a recommendation for approval or denial of the proposed addendum. The Community Development. Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission considers the evidence and testimony presented, provides direction to the applicant and staff, and then tables this item for further discussion to its next regularly scheduled public hearing on Monday, June 23, 2003. 11. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works, is requesting a work session with the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the adoption of a proposed addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an opportunity for the Planning and Environmental Commission to review the details of the proposed addendum and to discuss implementation scenarios for the plan through future development. The proposed addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan will address the sub -areas identified in the Plan as "West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive — Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road, East Meadow Drive — Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Road, and the Village Core." The addendum is proposed to facilitate the culmination of ideas for updates and refinement which evolved from multiple meetings held over the past year by a focus group which included several members of the Town Council and business owners. A document from the applicant has been included which further discusses the purpose of the proposed addendum (Attachment A). r1 III. BACKGROUND 0 The Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan was adopted on November 20, 1991. The purpose of the plan as stated within the document is to: "... provide a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for Streetscape improvement that. 1) is supported by the community; 2) enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and 3) emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order to create an excellent pedestrian experience. " The Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide for developing detailed Streetscape improvements. The Plan emphasizes that 'the report and drawings outline conceptual design ideas. " In order to develop the conceptual design ideas the study area was divided into six sub -areas. Those sub -areas are East Lionshead Circle and Library/ice Arena Plaza, West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive — Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road, East Meadow Drive — Willow Bridge Road to Slifer Plaza, East Village, and Village Core. Each sub -area of the plan focused on several aspects of streetscape design and was organized into sections which covered: • Existing Conditions • Character Circulation — Vehicular/Pedestrian • Paving/Drainage • Site Amenities • Landscaping • Utilities/Lighting • Streetscape Improvements + Preliminary Concepts • The Preferred Streetscape Plan — Pedestrian circulation/landscaping and site amenities • Costs In 1998, work began on the detail drawings for West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive— Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road, East Meadow Drive — Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Road sub -areas and ended in 1999 when the addendum was put on hold due to lack of resources to carry the project forward. In 2001, a focus group was assembled to begin the process of reexamining the detailed streetscape plans for West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive—Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road, East Meadow Drive— Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Road. It was also determined that the focus group should create detailed plans for The Village Core sub -area. Below is a brief timeline of the process which occurred to develop the proposed East and West Meadow Drive streetscape addendum: January 9, 2001 Town Council meeting Project kick-off discussion with Town Council regarding project pals and nivianc. 2 • • • • January 18, 2001 Design Review Board Project kick-off discussion with meeting DRB regarding design arameters. January 22, 2001 Planning and Project kick-off meeting with PEC Environmental to discuss design parameters. Commission meeting Feb 26 — Mar 2, Design Dialog 21 two-hour public sessions to 2001 gain understanding of community desires, issues, and concerns. Friday, March 2, Open Houses Presentation and discussion of 2001 conceptual design created during Design Dialog. Mar 2 — June 1, Concept development Concept development of two 2001 viable concepts by design team. Week of July 4, Open House Forum Developed concepts presented to 2001 the community. Comments documented. July 17, 2001 Town Council presentation Town council selected the 2016 Solution and directed design team to advance to final design. August 13, 2001 PEC presentation August 15, 2001 DRB presentation November 30, 2001 Meeting with Landowner Public session with East Meadow group Drive landowners to present and discuss design progress. February 6, 2002 DRB Presentation DRB work session to present and discuss design progress. April 11, 2002 Meeting with Business Public session with East Meadow owners Drive business owners to present and discuss design progress. May 1, 2002 Office review Office review of preliminary construction documents with design team. May 9, 2002 Meeting with Landowner Public session with East Meadow group Drive landowners to present and discuss design progress, July 16, 2002 Town Council presentation Presentation of Final Design for East and West Meadow Drive to Town Council. Project placed on indefinite hold due to design and cost concerns. Bellow is a brief timeline of the process which occurred to develop the proposed Vail Village streetscape addendum. June 18, 2002 Town Council Presentation to authorize design Presentation process, establish goals, objectives, and project givens s June 26-28, 2002 Community focus groups 10 community focus groups to review site issues, opportunities, and constraints July 11, 2002 Community Meeting Community meeting to review initial site program and opportunities July 26, 2002 Community Meeting Developed concepts presented to the community. Comments documented. August 6, 2002 Town Council presentation Town Council presentation of snowmelt study and options August 8, 2002 Community Meeting Developed concepts presented to the community. Comments documented. August 22, 2002 Community Meeting Developed concepts presented to the community. Comments documented. September 3, 2002 Town Council presentation Town Council presentation of design concepts, initial costs, and snowmelt report. Project placed on hold due to cost concerns. September 6, 2002 Community Meeting Final design concepts presented to the community. Comments documented. October 10, 2002 Town Council Design Meeting with Town Council Committee Meeting Representatives to review project objectives, issues, and constraints October 21, 2002 Town Council Design Site visits to the neighboring resort Committee Meeting communities of Keystone, Breckenridge, and Copper Mountain. Comments documented. November 7, 2002 Town Council Design Revised concepts presented to Committee Meeting the committee. Comments documented. November 21, 2002 Town Council Design Revised concepts presented to Committee Meeting the committee. Comments documented. December 12, 2002 Town Council Design Revised concepts presented to Committee Meeting the committee. Comments documented. December 80, 2002 Homeowner's Association Revised design concepts Meeting presented to the community. January 3, 2003 Town of Vail Community Revised design concepts Meeting displayed for community input. • • 0 January 30, 2003 Office Review Office review of design development documents with desi n team. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Town of Vail Master Plan Updates: Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the .PEC for compliance with the goals and objectives of the existing plan, them by the DRB for compliance of design standards, and final approval by the Town Council. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: Action: The DRIB has NO review authority on Town of Vail Master Plan Updates. The DRB shall review the final plans when decisions on the specific materials have been made prior to the start of construction. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations and Master Plans. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any master plan update or revision. Town Council:. Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial on Town of Vail Master Plan amendments. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan The original Master Plan is an outgrowth of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The Guide Plan was created in 1982 to give guidance to the overall physical development for the Village. In addition to providing broad design guidelines, the Guide Plan suggested specific physical improvements far the Village. Improvements such as new plazas, new landscape area, etc. Along with the construction of these public improvements included proposals to complete numerous private sector improvements. Improvements such as building additions outdoor deck expansions, and fagade improvements. The Streetscape Master Plan was written in part to provide clear design direction for coordinated public/private improvements. According to the Master Plan, the purpose of the plan is to provide a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvements that: 1. is supported by the community; 2. enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and 3. emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order to create an excellent pedestrian experience. Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Pian is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whole. It is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly, this Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. Furthermore, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. While there is a certain amount of overlap between these six goals, each focuses on a particular aspect of the Village and the community as a whole. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village, A series of 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 stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in implementing capital improvement projects. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. The most significant elements of the Master Plan are the goals, objectives, policies and action steps. They are the working tools of the Master Plan. They establish the broad framework and vision, but also layout the specific policies and action steps that will be used to implement the Plan. The stated goals of the Vail Village Master Plan which are related to the Streetscape Master plan are: Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 0 Objective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Objective 3.2: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. Objective 3.4: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. Objective 4.1: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspaces and pocket .parks. Recognize the different roles of each type pf open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. Objective 5.1: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan This Guide Plan represents collective ideas about functional and aesthetic objectives for Vail Village. Diagrammatic in nature, the Guide Plan is intended to suggest the nature of improvements desired. It is based on a number of urban design criteria determined to be appropriate for guiding change in the Vail Village. The Guide plan is intended to be a guide for current planning in both the public and private sectors. Vail Village Design Considerations The Town of Vail adopted the Vail Village Design Considerations in 1980. The Design Considerations were revised in 1993. The Design Considerations are considered an integral part of the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. The Design Considerations are intended to: guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential qualities of the Village; • serve as design guidelines instead of rigid rules of development, and • help influence the form and design of buildings. The Vail Village Design Considerations are divided into two categories (urban design considerations and architectural/landscape considerations): 1. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 7 These considerations relate to general, large-scale land use planning issues, as well as form considerations which affect more than one property or even whole areas. These considerations are primarily the purview of the Planning and Environmental Commission. A. PEDESTRIAN IZATION A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many of the improvements recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans, and accompanying Design Considerations, are to reinforce and expand the quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village. Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets (bus routes, delivery access), a totally care -free pedestrian system is not achievable throughout the entire Village. Therefore, several levels of pedestrian ization have been identified. C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: 1. Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and park greenspaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. Infill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infill development to create new commercial activity generators to give streetlife and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes. It is not intended to enclose all Village streets with buildings as in the core areas. Nor is it desirable to leave pedestrian streets in the open in somewhat undefined condition evident in many other areas of Vail. Rather, it is desired to have a variety of open and enclosed spaces, both built and landscaped, which create a strong framework for pedestrian walks, as well as visual interest and activity. D. STREET ENCLOSURE While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, they should provide a "comfortable" enclosure for the street. Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whose walls are formed by the buildings. The shape and feel of these `rooms" are created by the variety of heights and massing (3-dimensional variations), which give much of the visual interest and pedestrian scale unique to Vail. Very general rules, about the perception of exterior spaces have been developed by designers, based on the characteristics of human vision. They suggest that: ,.an external enclosure is most comfortable when its walls are approximately 1/2 as high as the width of the space enclosed; if the ratio falls to 114 or less, the space seems unenclosed; and if the height is greater than the width it comes to resemble a canyon". In actual application, facades are seldom uniform in height on both sides of the street, nor is this desired. Thus, some latitude is appropriate in the application of this 112. to 1 ratio. Using the average facade height on both sides will generally still be a guide to the comfortableness of the enclosure being created. In some instances, the "canyon" effect is acceptable and even desirable. For example, as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces, to give variety to the walking experience. For sun/shade reasons it is often advantageous to orient any longer segments in a north/south direction. Long canyon streets in an east/west direction should generally be discouraged. When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special consideration should be given to create a well-defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the "canyon" effect. Canopies, awnings, arcades and building extensions can all create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from the upper building heights and "canyon" effect. E. STREET EDGE Buildings in the Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street. Unlike many American towns, there are no standard setback requirements for buildings in Vail Village. Consistent with the desire for intimate pedestrian scale, placement of portions of a building at or near the property line is allowed and encouraged to give strong definition to the pedestrian streets. This is not to imply continuous building frontage along the property line. A strong street edge is important for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades over too long a distance tends to be monotonous. With only a few exceptions in the Village, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscaped areas, give the life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel - Where buildings jog to create activity pockets, other 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 points for gathering, resting, orienting and should be distributed throughout the Village with due consideration to spacing, sun access, opportunities for views and pedestrian activity. 'ROPOSED TOWN OF VAIL STREETSGAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM he proposed addendum does not seek to change the intent or concepts presented in the 0 adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The goal of the addendum is to develop the ideas set forth in the flan in greater detail (ie., selecting locations for plantings, public art, and paver treatments). The key elements of the proposed addendum include: • The creation of a landmark at the west end of 'West Gore Creek Drive, near the present location of Checkpoint Charlie; • A series of cascading water features along the east side of Wall Street; • Changes to the Children's Fountain Plaza which include a softer edge which would allow for people to walk into the fountain and sit on boulders staggered around the area; • Founder's Plaza would be changed to include greater landscaping and to provide for better pedestrian gathering opportunities; • A relocated Checkpoint Charlie; • A great deal of the Vail Village would have pavers installed with some areas being heated; • Paver sidewalks would be installed along East and West Meadow Drive along with plantings to provide a greater connection between Vail Village and Lionshead and to bring greater pedestrian traffic down Meadow Drive; • The potential to close off East Meadow Drive from Vail Road to Willow Road would be incorporated for special events throughout the year; • The plan includes provisions for shifting existing bus stops to better locations; • Provisions to remove the existing traffic control gates and use other traffic calming devices such as necking the road down and paver texture and color changes; and • Public art is strategically located to provide interest and draw pedestrians into areas which are neglected. The above list does not include all the details found in the addendum for Meadow Drive Streetscape improvements. A draft copy of the Meadow Drive Addendum dated July, 2002 is attached for reference (Attachment B). Beginning on page eight of the draft addendum there is a list of Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan recommendations and how they were changed during final design. Also attached, to aid in the understanding of the proposed plan changes, is a copy of the power point presentation given to the Vail Town Council on May 20, 2003 (Attachment C). A draft copy of Village Core Addendum is in the process of being drafted and is not included with this memorandum. A copy will be included at the time of final review of the proposed addendums. Staff has several questions which we would like to get input and feedback on from the Planning and Environmental Commission. Below are several statements discussing an idea with question(s) following. Staff believes that the adoption of an addendum, rather than updating the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, is the appropriate way to address the creation of more detailed design drawings. As mentioned, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan was intended to serve as a guide to future implementation of the conceptual concepts found in the Plan. Integrating the changes into the document would prove difficult in terms of the reformatting of all items which need to be stricken or altered. • IN Does the Planning and Environmental Commission agree that the adoption of an addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan is the proper way to address the adoption of detailed design plans or should it be incorporated into the existing document? With several previous and recent development projects there has been debate between Town officials and developers regarding the extent to which a project should be required to implement the elements of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and who should bear the burden of their cost. The existing Plan provides the following language to guide Town officials regarding private development and implementation: As private property in Vail is being redeveloped andfor upgraded, an opportunity exists for many of the proposed Master Plan improvements to be done in conjunction with or entirely by private property owners. For example, the improvements in the Gore Creek Promenade were funded in this manner. There is no way to predict which property will be redeveloped, therefore, each application for redevelopment will need to be reviewed to determine what streetscape improvements can be completed as part of the private construction. " The above statement does not provide for any definitive requirements regarding the construction of streetscape improvements and who accepts the financial burden. Due to the vague nature of this statement staff is proposing to include a more detailed and refined implementation strategy in the proposed addendum. The crafting of language for an implementation strategy prior to obtaining feedback would require staff to make several policy assumptions. Although the Planning and Environmental Commission is not responsible for adoption of the proposed changes it will be responsible for implementation of any adopted revisions and deciding to what extent a private developer should construct and fund streetscape improvements to mitigate the development impacts of their proposal. Therefore the input of the Planning and Environmental Commission is being sought so that it can be forwarded on to Town Council. Staff believes that with feedback on the following questions staff can create several scenarios for implementing the streetscape improvements to bring to the next meeting. • When should a private developer be required to install streetscape improvements in conjunction with a development proposal? • How much of the streetscape improvements should a private developer be required to install? • How much of the of the streetscape improvements should a developer be required to fund? • Should a private developer be required to construct or fund streetscape improvements on the Town of Vail right-of-way from their property boundary to the centerline of the road for the length of their project frontage? • Should bonds for streetscape improvements be accepted by the Town of Vail for those streetscape improvement elements from the property line to the center line of the road which were not to be constructed with the overall proposed project due to adjacent properties not having initiated streetscape improvements? What, if any, time period is acceptable to expect that the improvements would be constructed through neighboring private re- development or Town initiated projects? Should a developer's bond be refunded after a period of time if no improvements were made on the adjacent sites? • What is the Town's responsibility when a private developer proposes redevelopment of a property in terms of funding and providing direction on the extent of streetscape improvements needed to mitigate development impacts? • Within what timeframe should the Town fund and install elements of the streetscape which work in conjunction with those proposed by a developer if a bond is accepted as a part of a redevelopment proposal? • What statements, scenarios, and criteria should be included in the implementation language to help the Planning and Environmental Commission make determinations on how a proposed development's impacts should be mitigated through construction or funding of streetscape improvements by a developer? • Does the Planning and Environmental Commission have any further input on this or any other related topic? VII. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: • There are several criteria which staff has found successful in reviewing amendments and addendums to existing Town of Vail Master Plans. The criteria provide a logical and rational set of standards for determining the validity and need for an amendment or addendum. The criteria are as follows:. 1. Have conditions changed since the adoption of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan? The Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan was adopted on November 20, 1991. Conditions have changed slightly as development has continued to occur and in many instances portions of the Plan have been implemented. The Plan was created to provide conceptual design ideas. Each time the elements were implemented either by the Town or private development the constructed elements do not always match identically what was called for in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan but meet the intent and follow the concepts of the plan. Some existing examples include Mayor's Park and the Vail Valley Drive reconstruction. 2. Is the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan in error? Neither the applicant nor staff believes any portion of the Town of Vail Streetscape Plan to be in error. Staff believes the concepts and ideas found in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan are still valid. The proposed addendum only expands on those concepts in detail and adapts them to the existing conditions. 12 • 3. Is the addition, deletion, or change to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan in concert with the Plan in general? The applicant and staff believe that the proposed addendum is in concert with the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The addendum takes the existing conceptual ideas and drawings from the Plan and provides the necessary information need to create construction drawings. A complaint of private developers when asked to construct all or portions of their site according to the Plan is that there is not enough detail to estimate costs. Several times the Town has had problems providing a developer with the necessary information to develop construction drawings and cost estimates. This addendum and others to follow, will provide needed information to developers at the initial stages of design and provide a plan by which staff can give guidance to developers. Another purpose of the addendum is an improved and clarified implementation section. The goal being to provide language which better assists Town decision makers in dealing with private development. Vlll. STAFF RECOMMENDATION At the request of the applicant and staff, the purpose of this meeting is for the Planning and Environmental Commission to hold a worksession to discuss the proposed addendum. At this time, the Community Development Department is not making a recommendation for approval or denial of the proposed request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission considers the evidence and testimony presented, provides direction to the applicant and staff, and then tables this item for further discussion to its next regularly scheduled public hearing on Monday, June 23, 2003. Ix. ATTACHMENTS A. Copy of purpose statement for the addendum from applicant dated June 4, 2003 B. Draft of Meadow Drive Addendum dated July, 2002 C. Copy of May 20, 2003 power point presentation given to the Vail Town Council 13 Town of Vail is Streetscape Master Plan Addendum June 4, 2003 Purpose of the Addendum: The Vail Village and Meadow Drive Streetscape projects represent the next steps of a 20 year planning effort to upgrade and enhance the physical character and pedestrian experience of Vail. The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, 1982, began the process of developing quality public/private improvements for the Vail Village. Its purpose was to give guidance to the overall physical development of the Vail Village and created the existing framework of plazas, landscape areas, building facades. With active comma pity involvement, the planning efforts were refined through the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, 1991. The purpose of the Vail Streetscape Master Plan as a guiding document was to give the pedestrian environment the same comprehensive design and quality of materials that the Town's architectural standards had achieved. It provided a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvements to enrich the aesthetic appearance of the Town with an emphasis on craftsmanship and creative design to create an excellent pedestrian experience. An objective of the Streetscape Master Plan included a conceptual design for streetscape improvements that could be used for phased implementation, privately sponsored improvements on public land associated with an adjacent building redevelopment, and special development districts and joint public/private projects. The Vail Village and Meadow Drive Streetscape Design projects, 2003, with additional public involvement, develop the concepts originating in the previous planning efforts into a comprehensive and complete streetscape design. The purposes and objectives of the planning effort have and will remain consistent throughout these projects. These include phased and cooperative implementation, high levels of quality and character, and beautiful and interesting public spaces, intersections, and focal points which enhance the pedestrian experience. 0 The Town of Vail has undertaken extensive design and public processes to rehabilitate Vail Village and Meadow Drive. Driving the Vail Village project is the need to replace utilities and the desire to consolidate construction in the Village for minimal impact to businesses and residents. Meadow Drive rehabilitation is largely driven by the need for a good connection between the Village and Lionshead, needed improvements to the street infrastructure, and the anticipated private redevelopment along the Drive. Attachment: A • q Attachment: B 0 • N ^Q cz .1� m . v 60 1� '.W i..ti au Q tT1 '> Qi n 0 bfD at 14-1 M CU d ✓ Q fl U H � • N ^Q cz .1� m . v 60 Q ct b • b bfD at � w QS QJ GJ y w n 'i Qy a 'n .6d ,ua ci rtr Cy "� .� bQ .� fl u .> W ' �1 v v�]cu (� P,P-4Ta M cu .. • • • • c � E od 1-I a w d `-4 p �v a -� cu w o ru •r�-t tAp X-( w cca >.:A N A U C1S 617 S�! U a 0 164 G Ci) 0 w �G o� G u u] by Ql #+ Q r-+ ON a � u o in a i .;j �s w 4-J cv Qj ci 41 4; C Ri P, "' cn cu 0 q"j m C a 5fu � b0 r � I. j� > > U 9 A+ 4 #Qy d ++ co co a > 0 ro 0 � g. F 3 ---4 a 0 v� • C, ri 03 ren " a o a "Ink ,v cc 00 CYN ow IU -4 1.4 FU bO Ag) CU aj GL id, y . k" 0 cu ca p" y, a p O a Q "r3 O a G uUO, ON O v a a al �c a I nui 0 o, °r •ts v a �-, • o k � sts v? Au Cl. P-0 � h'tv o n+ bo 04 a U to 0 U s�.� (Jpj� b0 "C� G! & d a O w u rdi + Gam! QJ cm a a Cl) a a" cryo u u bL1� a� y' 1.4o a , 2 .0 > 0 ' bO ' n a H v v" a o a Q> v 4 ami- o p y a ' -0 1.. w "0 � a . cy a ( O N 0 Id � cv � � � a � cis (U � a � © u to tj 0 0 a aoi 4-4 o� cabb x.5(U cu.5 .9bo � OM © W W o .0 •• v, p •� ua•A a s a c • a d '3 uo o G, oa ¢"����> g�� c u 4 0 a �• v 0) >� to m v w v U �N C)04a o � 3 0 o ry p�°4 C)cn a' N co a+ as '" A] (IJ cu g z714 0, bA °;w v r,E 4J Or. o `a u a a� •� :� Ey y civ �, �✓ � as b0,U ti Ch F �w +; Q -' o`"w © aj ` U)o cu o tv as v cu Q) Ln O aA ; t cz o b. � ca co a bO m Y cu a7 O x 'd W w vs b �j sn .W O ns Q cz A H33�,wH2 w° 0 w e • o o 4bO j �i .5 04 q. e� lu t6 a 0 0 ho a� ;� 14 ° b cru a v d d6Y5 v� _ z ' o > u o 0 Q � p � w to 17 �4 0 U .2 4-k Y bO p p ,ami . .� bfl4 �. o � � A cf U 0 w e • • C A z F v w R, a o ' o A c a 0 C -) T3 o �, o W Q) bv o b bo o El LO co bo v cis Oy.� U W � Cd 7 � � A o Cd v cis 0 to ed � W i� ba � v > .cin 69 .r. �+ L Q CLU C? m cd be � o � O , 4bbor+0 r aU � � W o v� u v m Y3 to O . 0 4 3 o n o O O `° V N R1 ro D O N O w a CUo C13 rn o © V G cu a � - .o o •n � v, cu O oo r+ w P sA aCU •� Cc) D o a o a� ►"' N '� 4J O 'CS O 4 G�, ca cJi O b v Q , y cu bo F- ci N o cu _ E:- > •�..% cV /^� VJ V i.�j 1 QJ a'o�' b °'0 o N COV ? oE -i O E- C14 L� C: • �.� 1�" I.` �`t✓ 0 L7 Cd [tS w 'moi Qr t4 f«��y U 0.J Cor QUj GJ Q) bo 'u 'GS EZ a, U r.. w Q" u ca o aJ � wcu QZ U �a� Q "" Q u cc Q3 rfl xv ' CS .�: z -a r 4T Q 3 Q aJ lu boo a� i x cuo f!1 eq x co Q7 *� fU rrrr Q w a ilY z a1 SaCZRS CJ h� w y 0.7"ef U .� � � � O v] • ftS UO ci 4 Q . v (1) Z45 aa- C � � L--� a • v., rn �.� 1�" I.` �`t✓ R bz 4 7 -� L7 Cd R bz 4 7 -� a a a#v a Xi w cU bo y Zn b cis � w � � o c +IS a`ni b y � b P•a (L � U l Q,1 N O O 'a by CZ p� 0 O �1 cti 'Xi E4 Um ami a ` o ' v "> 4 ho On�� cu> a 10,.a vs O -5 p t" cls � y �; `0 as v asu u ,a ; '� -d > � ay � � `C u ;�` C 'b � w �..� A~- co N (z m 0(13 x fin, .En u1 OJ Q O O om Cb 4-1 U5 U w ed cs OEa ca j •O �' ^� . 13j O m > ++ Its > Oi C) a ;m -4o al �. o c t m w a ago oR„ (1) 4 � '>v oai ® QJ y cn -4 X .y 0 H • • • • F Y CL ry a 3 co cn K'i�L Y 3y �F i LL LI r f 1 1 a i N a'�f'1 N?J7Y a 3 �l a t 3 b � � RS v � •�-• 73 v k3 o o v C3 G]r V] �✓ �% j G F Fa � ca uidd Qb tl 9u1 .m 4 u 000 u a-{3 a� 404 o °' wtcc v cu V CAH E°co -� ai s'~oQH co o a �w Qj 0 0.o ) o ° 0 ., a) x a, 104 +' " 04 L G a ° ccu am, aj . 0t bA � u s cc cu qu > a) ;� w R1 .ZS RS C3 U cu Q ' lu =f R3 [fin Rr Qfa cq cfi zr3 A • A as u y '�~ cu y 0 s Q 1 ° 3� �Ucz Jb 3� 5 �Qj, �64 > ` as la " o W u Q as cu cz x w CU aj N , u w '5 `A I il cc s� r� .c+ o� v *� m n cu cu a. Q p � 0 'a tu CD o o as �•+ CA v O �s � � ao ro ego • y .� ao � �.., °� cvv 3 ° � a vbO u � 'aja) obi cu o�0> a a 0 �+ s. r—I vcu G *� • � q� a © � cct cri cou cu 8 bo a 0 -0 v H m cu aj W �• �, a� ai u G1 v 7s Q `v U Uto u o a t7 rGf� a bO cu 0W cd �1u '�'> °'© �4 z a J 114 P, • �l .7 E i c in 3 s3 > co 0 c 2 ,U) U it d6 .>c) 0 i c in 3 s3 > co 0 c 2 ,U) U d6 .>c) 0 L) Ga Ty L .. ,A l 1 Al 1-4 CU in in ---------- L) —• u n, CU b0 CD L cu C1, as '+ p a �. i� acu U 4 - CU W bo T3 w O O aa. 'y �� O` a a rsA 'd as '"a v © U P r cry +' ani Q1-4 G�1 .UW w J %+ cv oj > 0 cu p w 10o C� y r. W GJ as b4 car, Ts O v ui a cls W �, 'w O u ami asp' .0 q '� ti a �] (� "d .£� acz s , m ari 's 0 sir OQ, a' O +a - ,� tZ Q ci b F typ 4 0 a O ;..ov d O a Q• w 5. n d 4-1 G ++ Q 4i [� G as *' R .� a � 'd a t O aS3 120.cu '� 't OBJ ccs m cc cv a ^4 � ��+ k a -may d U v a > CU sA w � O wc, aj' O > O O + w u O aj > U �Q � a � a u W 0 b a,, 'LS 4� cd aj u - y Cp cd ., �]0. Co q En w www � G v y F _J Ny % M w ,fir �A C +� � 9 J �. _ P e v a > CU sA w � O wc, aj' O > O O + w u O aj > U �Q � a � a u W 0 b a,, 'LS 4� cd aj u - y Cp cd ., �]0. Co q En w www � G v y F _J Ny % w ,fir IN v a > CU sA w � O wc, aj' O > O O + w u O aj > U �Q � a � a u W 0 b a,, 'LS 4� cd aj u - y Cp cd ., �]0. Co q En w www � G v y .'5 0 a y • cu � � v ca bbO ami ) Q a aa, a., . 00 bo IOU . ,. o b0AU3 to U HQ � :j 4 U] l � Q U as v 00, ° o J., o ° rn W cu v x v r ami w 03 en 1 w a Ed u � cu .v �; p F+ Tti d U ii W Uj > r-4 W p p O ' � p > '> v p a CZ Q U b .'5 0 a y • 0 i td � .4 ;'� e o~ � H (f] 0 o 2 cz •v Gi, y ai a v "o w -S SG O O bbU0o ti R3 ,� ^� • r. 'LS Cl. 3 o U N C). 'o u c� v ¢i a, rs v c� ai o (tl O � t U t4 CJ rg N N rr o � Q LO Ln ti .i m W U 42- C F. o y U ¢" C4 o O w 4' C O G ti w •� O L7 ' rr a� w CA v C F� cu r. 6 cj CL)u .) cri • �W a • e i b • • IN r5 O v60 -u +a R, 'm � cn � t7D � o •.. cu � o � w -jo u v . co 0 to c 0 cu F::L, a, -s ups ° amcluo 3s _ cu cu 3 a 4 rn r e� co P. V s L © o p aOi m i u eY^ny .y C -' NCzp yQ{ Q)cu o ba Q oo JEJ = `(1) u4 OCC > O to QY U O cn cn (h 45 O 0 0.1 Q L "CS V d C) V tu X Ln Lo 0 cu a u o x Cis V #+ +' N NCIS C �Q C O otz171 u O arM 0 L rl v 4 [li 0' ' 4 a ui N ts @3i o as S o o a w as +' o € 0 4" ca W a bA Sa O 3 w ° ,s acrs. i� p. A" o bbu ba41 bz 0 • 0 • • m G G O as � w° w as -.. �Q v 3 a, v 'C5 N U) R N W r p V} 4l w E t��U O N p P- -0 V r r -q • 0 • 0 • • e.i L Z bfl , A v tts m U3 7Z bA 0 m ctl e� 0 id +, in Q, gg A. 'o as €�, ¢ `'� civ a v bD cud 93 co s caau Co o ca 0cis� u 1 gb w 0 4' 41 0 r. N u� Q 4-1 �y LJ Uf71 F+ Q) u c*) • 9 • • tj �+ U o T+ Q v a N o 0 j ► r tS0 cn 0 3M W a g v a Uw oQ aoo > +' 4&) a � '(A o o Q cz ,F! a 0 W Av v aj cn m (5 � � � � � Imo^W♦, Q) .tj - cu �: c cc c- 4-1 cn a� W 4 � r•. 45 0 u bLo �V ? c b a o N O rn (3) 4- 2 i 4 - 24 • • • 0 CO e. m a o A •� rn Ee O r r , r 8 , , 9 CO e. m N Cf) P -A 0 VL 't3 x S3] *Lf T4 tQ Q RS d 1 � 43) V w••' U] cC •� ++ 45 a-+ V o�w cn � P ° CU v u 1 30 r, +, ba cts `z3 6 4-1 41 aj m b A A, as ani c 4 co ,C4tz a a ;-4 w � p � • bA cn Q � .� N QJ Qy -Q cu -1 Q; 4-1 CI cc cu i!J r-.cCd �+ SJ U) V OJ r cv "s 4 L'i N Cf) P -A 0 0 Attachment: C U 0 M O -4--+ Co O L- CL Q Cu L- 0 U O A O Cr N O U) U) U O L- 0 - Co O QL O_ 06 N E z3 Q3 5r i4 C) Cu N • • 06 c 0 v1 0 .w }jE MOMMEW }+E E 0 r---1.0 • t""+ V D cn -10000 W E _ C: L 0 v� rn -0 t ' T fW ry • • 0 • u Q) U r� a 1 3 0 A -0U '0 a 0) a Co 0 0 EL U) m 2i N c�3 W U} m CL c C� mo a� cn 0 0 CD NEa E E 0 U C: �a cu U cm u� Ll CU E 0 4-04-00 C:0 c� E 0 0 W 0 0 v, C) C: ._ w C U cn C: m 0 a U -0c 0 � 3 0 U 0 o 0 cn V �► a� .o C. 40- cn cn C: c� 3: 0 >1 V. QD 0. 0 0 • 9 lu Fa -5— � LA) U e ! IL All U CL 1 x a m AA 1e.__ s..! Gaskho!m''' " c Grashammer �. F �Y— u CCD hey CL s� f Yh^y'�gµ A 0 0 �� =sayer _ n -� • v� A -j L "-+ C) 0 ) E �i 4 0 (l T L� *-- O 0 • 4-a 4-0 r x x 0 ct w w C) m 0 m n -� • y • 0 0 n a_ O 4- 0) 0) ry E W W Z3 EE E i . ° 0 -0 � � v CU c� 0 0 • 0 cn cu (1) �. > C (j EQ L O a_ O ° a W � W W C ° }cn cn c c 11� LLL a (De-- co C U) w E a)° Q o O C U 'cn + r. L O \� I ° V) L C � V) a p a � ° cz - -L as -> � o = cz 0.( �-0 a)t) co U)a O 2 (D (4 >U t� E�� �_ co Qa .- (D > (n cy ° .Q CD c CU L V—f n) //---- C UC °C O a CU (> L C C Q .Q L- O C6 [0 , 21 -a ° a ©N o C U E O + [] 0 L () 0 to coJU)0-Q< 12 e d v G PG .p �iuG� f roa'�dV=Nti m EL .d 6 • • is -- 0 -j 4-- ❑.... C, O +U') c � NT .� C: 'a U Q 4.? ► C/) d- c Q 4- a C:) q) R ! . = U) C - C6 N C: • " .. {U 0 � -11-10 � � 4—r cu C � U Cl)C: 4- L!Jcu CU �o cn Oc �- _' 0 cn CU m CL C: > + -0 -6-1 cu 4-1 >a 0 a) L-. C: EZ 4-j cn 0 Co 4� Q cu Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM Department of Community Development TOM OF VAILFF 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.d.vail.coms Project Name: Trampoline PEC Number: PEC030028 Project Description: Participants: Trampoline - conditional use permit OWNER VAIL CORP 05/13/2003 Phone: PO BOX 7 VAIL CO 81658 License: APPLICANT VAIL CORP 05/13/2003 Phone: 479-4395 Jeff Babb POB 7 Vail, CO Bstubblefield@vailresorts.com 81658 . License: Project Address: Location: West of gondola next to golf/climb wall Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: VAIL LIONSHEAD FIL 1 Parcel Number: 210107207009 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Hartman Action: APPLIED Second By: Lamb Vote: 7-0 Date of Approval: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: CON0005925 The applicant shall be prohibited from using outdoor lighting in association with the operation of the trampoline. Cond:CON0005926 The applicant shall install a post and rail fence to enclose the trampoline area, in the same manner as approved by the 2002 conditional use permit and design review approval of the trampoline. Cond:CON0005927 The applicant shall be prohibited from installing and displaying any form of advertising signage in association with the operation of the trampoline. Cond: CON0005928 The applicant shall install decorative flower pots, in the same manner as approved by the 2002 conditional use permit and design review approval of the trampoline. Cond: CON0005929 The dates of operation of the trampoline shall be mid-June 2003 through mid-September 2003 and mid-June 2004 through mid-September 2004. The hours of operation during these dates shall be 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Thursday, and 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM, Friday through Sunday. Cond: CON0005930 This conditional use permit approval shall expire, and become null and void, on September 30, 2004. Planner: Bill Gibson • 0 PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 It PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 9, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOM MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartman Site Visits : EMBERS ABSENT 1. Ford Park — 530 S. Frontage Rd. 2. Front Door 3. Alpenrose — 100 E. Meadow Drive 4. 9 Vail Road — 9 Vail Road 5. Lionshead Mall — 600 Lionshead Mall Approved 6/23M 12:00 pm 1:00 pm Driver: George !a NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-5, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a private outdoor recreational facility, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 151 Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: Bil{ Gibson Bill Gibson gave an overview of the staff memo. Jeff Babb stated that he will let the proposal stand on its merits from last year. The Commission had no comments. Gary Hartman made a motion for approval with 6 conditions: 1. The applicant shall be prohibited from using outdoor lighting in association with the operation of the trampoline. Fi TOWNV OF VAIL Approved 6123103 2. The applicant shall install a post and rail fence to enclose the trampoline area, in the same manner as approved by the 2002 conditional use permit and design review approval of the trampoline_ 0 3. The applicant shall be prohibited from installing and displaying any form of advertising signage in association with the operation of the trampoline. 4. The applicant shall install decorative flower pots, in the same manner as approved by the 2002 conditional use permit and design review approval of the trampoline. 5. The dates of operation of the trampoline shall be mid-June 2003 through mid- September 2003 and mid-June 2004 through mid-September 2004. The hours of operation during these dates shall be 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Thursday, and 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM, Friday through Sunday. 6. This conditional use permit approval shall expire, and become null and void, on September 30, 2004. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, 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 Village Inn, 100 E. Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1' Filing. Applicant: Edna & Claus Fricke, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Matt Gennett Matt Gennett presented an overview of the staff memorandum, noting that the application is a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6. David Baum, representing the applicant, had nothing to add. Rollie Kjesbo asked about the parking mitigation. David Baum stated that he believed the owner was taking steps to address the parking. George Lamb expressed his concern regarding the parking situation. Erickson Shirley asked about the existing parking spaces and that none would be eliminated. Gary Hartman had nothing to add. Doug Cahill stated that an additional condition regarding the parking would be added to this proposal, which will require 3 additional parking spaces. Chas Bernhardt agreed with the other commissioners and stated that the 3 parking spaces would need to be deeded with this property. John Schofield stated that there should be a deed restriction on the parking spaces, so that it is deeded with this property and asked if a parking plan could be required of the applicant. Approved 6/23103 Matt Gennett stated that a parking plan could be a requirement. Doug Cahill clarified that with the 3 new parking spaces required, a parking plan needs to be submitted. Doug Cahill made a motion to recommend approval to the Town Council with 1 condition: That the applicant provides a detailed parking plan depicting where Alpenrose's parking spaces are on site, as well as those (3) required by the new residence, at the time of the first reading of the amending ordinance to the Vail Town Council. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion, The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 3. A request for a variance from Section 12-7A-11, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to allow for parking and loading in the front setback, located at 9 Vail Road/Lot C, Vail Village 2"d Filing. Applicant: Nine Vail Road Condominium Association and Nicolet Island Development, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Gary Hartman recused himself. Allison Ochs further detailed issues staff has with landscaping and front setbacks as detailed in the staff memorandum and said that staff is recommending denial of the applicant's proposal. TJ Brink, representing the applicant, gave an overview of existing parking and circulation conditions and the possible alternatives, including their preferred one, using a site plan made visible to the PEC. TJ Brink also described the situation with the existing transformer boxes and how they are working with Holy Cross Energy to find a workable solution to the unsightliness and logistical problems posed by their present location. Mr. Brink then went into the criteria of the Staff memo and how he believes those criteria are in fact being met. Gwen Scalpello, 9 Vail Road, presented an argument of how the proposed surface parking fits into the context and character of the neighborhood. She then summarized what she is asking is for 4 well -landscaped surface parking spaces. She further stated that she is not asking for much in regard to the 4 -Seasons proposal and that this concession is not too much to ask for considering the fact that she has a 3 -story wing to her building surrounded by very tall (proposed) buildings. Erickson Shirley then asked for clarification on the necessity for another curb cut. Gwen Scalpello answered the question using the site plan. Erickson Shirley asked Allison Ochs for staffs preferred alternative. Allison Ochs described staff's preferred alternative. Gwen Scalpello gave the reasons 9 Vail Road believes the logistics of staffs preferred alternative are an issue for the guest experience. TJ Brink added that those surface spots are only for overflow, 3 Approved 6/23103 11 Erickson Shirley then stated that people all over town work out deals to share and swap parking spaces thereby mitigating parking problems off-site. 40 TJ Brink stated why that will not work in this instance. John Schofield asked for public input, but received none. Doug Cahill agreed with the applicant's concerns and gave comments on several alternatives. He stated that adequate screening and landscaping is paramount considering the work to be done with the Streetscape plan and placing only three spaces instead of the four would enable adequate landscaping and screening, as well as a sidewalk realignment. He said he does not support the proposal as written. Chas Bernhardt said that parking is always an issue, especially in that area (9 Vail Road). Chas stated that he does not agree with the need for the 4 surface spaces being requested and he further stated that he does not support the application as proposed. Rollie Kjesbo stated he is in favor of staffs recommendation. George Lamb concurred with the comments thus far and said he appreciates where the applicant is coming from in terms of not having any spaces in the 4 Seasons, but that it is a viable solution and should be accepted. Erickson Shirley agreed with staffs recommendation and believes that the 4 Seasons will be true to their word and provide the requested 4 spaces. John Schofield stated that staff has offered an alternative that decreases the degree of variance being requested and that the Four Seasons has also been accommodating with their offer of spaces in their facility. He further stated that he thinks the applicant should go back and look at the alternatives. He said it is great that you folks are working together to try to resolve the situation, but the proposal is not supported. He then asked if there was any further question or comments from the board and went on to state the choices for Gwen - Doug Cahill made the motion to approve the applicant's request with the conditions listed in the staff memo: 1. That prior to application for a building permit, the applicant must return to the Design Review Board for final review and approval of all improvements. 2_ That the applicant shall revise the plans, subject to Design Review Board review and approval, to indicate 2 surface parking spaces and the minimum area required for a functional turnaround within the front setback, adjacent to West Meadow Drive, Erickson Shirley asked for clarification on the conditions. George Lamb seconded. John Schofield asked Gwen Scalpello for clarification on her intentions considering the modified approval, Rollie Kjesbo asked for clarification on what is being voted upon with the conditional approval. Allison Ochs provided clarification. is The motion passed by a vote of 4-2, with John Schofield and Chas Bernhardt opposed - 4 Approved 6/23/03 4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use, located at 530 S. Frontage Road/Ford Park, Unplatted. Applicant: Town of Vail/AIPP, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicants, stated he has nothing to add. Gary Hartman had no further comments. Doug Cahill stated he does not believe there should be any on-site parking at the building. Chas Bernhardt stated he likes the proposal and what it does for the building. Rollie Kjesbo had no further comment. George Lamb had nothing to add. Erickson Shirley liked the proposal. John Schofield stated he thinks it should extend only to November 15th of each year. Rollie Kjesbo made a motion for approval with 5 conditions: 1. That the applicant shall operate the proposed seasonal use to accommodate an educational, recreational, and cultural use, during the months of May 1 to November 15, annually. 2. That the applicant shall allow no more than one vehicle to be parked at Ford Park for the artist in residence. Any additional parking shall be accommodated at the Village parking structure. 3. That the applicant shall allow no exchange or trade of goods to occur within the limits of Ford Park, as prohibited by the Ford Park Management Plan. 4. That the applicant shall limit all vehicular delivery to the structure to the hours of 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. 5. That should the Planning and Environmental Commission find that the proposed conditional use is being operated in violation of the conditions outlined herein, or that the proposed conditional use is being operated in violation of any of the requirements of the Ford Park Management Plan, this conditional use permit may be revoked, as outlined in Section 12-16-5: Planning and Environmental Commission Action, Vail Town Code, Chas Bernhardt seconded. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 5. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to amend Chapter 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Types, Vail Town Code, to amend the Type II EHU requirements and setting forth details in regard thereto. Approved 6/23103 Applicant: AMS Development Inc, Planner: Bill Gibson 49 Bill Gibson gave an overview of the staff memorandum. Greg Amsden stated that density is not an issue in this discussion. The applicant is asking for only two changes to the definition of Type 11 EHUs. Greg continued and stated he does not agree with staffs reason for recommending denial of this application and said should the PEC be concerned with the size of the EHUs, the applicant is willing to delete that portion of the application. John Schofield then opened up to PEC discussion and deliberation with a preface outlining the discussion held during the pre -meeting. Rollie Kjesbo stated he believes it is more of a change in zoning and Type II EHUs were written in the way they were in order for them to be ancillary uses. George Lamb stated he is in favor of the concept but also sees the potential pitfalls of its application Erickson Shirley asked if the applicant tried to put together the comments and conditions of approval that have been discussed and developed thus far. Erickson stated that if the applicant would put together language that covers all of the comments and concerns voiced thus far that he could be in support of the proposal. Erickson further stated he does not want to keep on going through work sessions to discuss this over and over again and if staff is at a loggerhead with an applicant, you should say so and recommend denial, but offer language that would be acceptable if approved. Bill Gibson identified where the applicant's proposed language and staffs recommendation were noted in the staff memorandum. Gary Hartman said he is in favor of the concept, but feels there are conditions, such as one covered parking space, that must be incorporated with any approval. Doug Cahill agreed with all of Gary's comments and had nothing to add except that a minimum lot size, perhaps 25,000 feet, should be imposed. Chas Bernhardt stated he is in favor of the concept, but it needs more massaging and to sit down with staff to work it all out. John Schofield gave a recap of the thoughts expressed so far and the reasoning behind why some of those issues have been raised. He continued by summarizing how many Type 11 EHUs have been built thus far and why. He said that the floodgates will not open as a result of this application being approved as proposed, and it is the PEC's job to make sure that they do not. He said specifics should include a 25,000 sq. ft. lot size minimum, appropriate parking and storage be provided, and that the language concerning the EHU being physically and aesthetically integrated into the structure. John Schofield then ceded the Chair to Erickson Shirley so that he could make a motion. John Schofield then made a motion to approve the applicant's proposal with 4 conditions and language suggested by staff in the memorandum: 1. That for -sale Type 11 EHUs shall be a conditional use. 2. That Type 11 EHUs shall be required a minimum of one enclosed parking space and adequate additional storage, as determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission. 31 Approved 6/23103 3. That Type II EHUs shall be physically and aesthetically integrated into a primary residence of the property. 4. That the minimum lot size required for a for -sale Type 11 EHU shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Rollie Kjesbo opposed. Erickson Shirley ceded the chair back to John Schofield. The applicant asked for clarification concerning the motion. John Schofield gave clarification on what the PEC believes should be part of the standards and criteria. Staff also asked for clarification on the motion. John Schofield provided such. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF), Medium. Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Chas Bernhardt stated that he is in favor of eliminating GRFA and feels like the problems of any alternative will not be any worse than those today and wants to see the integrity of homes being built protected. Doug Cahill is in favor of simplifying GRFA and said to get rid of credits and would like to see a comfortable definition of basements if they are not to count. Gary Hartman would like to see GRFA go away and use setbacks, height, FAR and said that gross square footage should be used which would include everything such as garages, mechanical rooms, storage rooms, closet, etc_ Erickson Shirley feels like they have spoken about this before and would like to see some solid language for basements and such. He said he feels like this is going no where and feels like they can work through the basement question in terms of a definition. George Lamb stated that he attended the focus group meeting and felt that they were very beneficial and thought it was great to hear what others think of GRFA. Rollie Kjesbo stated that he also attended a focus group meeting and thought the Greg Cummings house was a good example and feels they should do away with GRFA. John Schofield stated that the focus group should be focusing on what and how GRFA should be eliminated and maintain the integrity of the homes being built. His goal is to approve a regulation Approved 6/23/03 which will work and not need to be changed in a couple years. He said that the Commission was clear about eliminating GRFA and put in place a system which protects homes as they are being built today and that the Commission still wants an analysis of the 200 lots and how they would be affected if GRFA was eliminated. 49 George Ruther asked a question regarding how slopes and hazards would be taken into accounts in the 200 lots. John Schofield explained his logic. George Ruther explained how slopes and other hazards are addressed in designing homes and how they affect the lot. Some hazards can be mitigated; others can not. John Schofield stated that volume measurement has many problems and it is not a good tool and to make the replacement simple and flexible. He said he shares Erickson's frustration that the project cannot move forward, however, going a little slower may produce something lasting. He feels that the DRB and PEC should have a joint worksession to ask DRB what they need to keep things in line if GRFA is eliminated. Doug Cahill asked to see some data on how many houses are maxed out on site coverage. John Schofield responded that a report was done earlier. George Ruther stated that lots over 21,000 square feet do not have site coverage as a restriction as much as smaller lots. Chas Bernhardt asked staff to look at all lots under 21,000 square feet and see that they have architectural integrity. 0 George Ruther stated that at the focus sessions, staff was surprised to hear architects speak to the positives of GRFA. John Schofield wants language drafted which will obtain good design and he also heard that basements should be excluded. George Ruther stated the issues regarding basements are not counting towards GRFA and it was discussed that leaks can be found in most language. Erickson Shirley reiterated that he just wants to see some language, so that the board can respond. John Schofield discussed the addition of an amnesty period for people may have illegal space they want to make legal. He then went through the questions in the staff report and gave guidance. The board gave a thumbs up on the questions. Chas Bernhardt stated that with setback, site coverage, and height, all we need to do is add an architectural integrity layer. George Ruther stated that GRFA is FAR in other communities and why does it not work here. Gary Hartman stated the difference is that an FAR does not have credits. 0 George Ruther continued that we give credits to people after they hit the limits of their buildable area. Bill Gibson asked if anyone had any design criteria language. N. Approved 6/23103 John Schofield stated specific language from the DRB is needed. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this application to June 23, 2003. The motion was seconded by George Lamb. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 7. A request for a worksession to discuss the following applications: a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Section 12-76-13, Density Control, Zoning Regulations; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 51h Filing from Public Accommodation 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 Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation II zone district; a request for a minor subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 51h Filing; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Code of a proposed major subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the "trade parcel'; a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a "private off-street vehicle parking facility and public park" to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing; a request for an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request fora 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 units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave a presentation per the staff report. Jay Peterson stated that he had nothing to add. The only change was that the loading and delivery spaces were removed. John Schofield asked Jay if the removed loading and delivery would show up in the Vail Front Door project. Jay Peterson stated, yes. Andy Litman, has an office in the Village and is representing Lwelyn Wells, who owns several units in the area who is not opposed to development, but is concerned over loading and delivery and how it is going to work. He said the first request would be to wait to vote on these conditional uses until they see Vail's Front Door, as he was concerned over how and where the 14 bays will work at Vail's Front Door. He was also concerned over consolidating all the loading and delivery until the information to make a good decision is present and finally, in looking at the transportation master plan the goal is to consider all sites. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowner's Association, said the Association has been in favor of revitalizing the Village and Lionshead and the two proposed large truck bays at this location would have caused problems, as all the movement could not take place on site. He said homeowners in the area have promoted vans and trucks being used for deliveries and he feels the project is well within the goals of the homeowner's association. He said the notion of a public park does not mean publicly I Approved 6123/03 funded, but accessible to the public. John Schofield asked Jim how the vehicle size should be addressed. Jim Lamont responded that the Swiss Chalet site and Vail's Front Door will be privately run. Jay Peterson talked about the need to get approval at the July 14, 2003 meeting and he is fine with the approval being contingent on Vail's Front Door. Rollie Kjesbo asked who would maintain the park? Jay Peterson said the condo association for parking space owners. Rollie Kjesbo asked who will control the small vehicle loading at this site. George Ruther stated that there is no loading & delivery on site and if it is felt that there needs to be space for vans and small trucks, we need to have that discussion. Chas Bernhardt suggested that maybe all the merchants should get together and purchase a spot to serve as small vehicle loading and delivery and share it. Jim Lamont stated that an option might be that the Town should purchase a space to serve as loading and delivery. Rollie Kjesbo asked about snow melt on Hanson Ranch Chute or sidewalk? Jay Peterson stated that the sidewalk is heated, but the road is not, unless it becomes a steeper grasde. Greg Hall stated that this slope would require heat if it were built today. George Lamb asked again about loading and delivery. Greg Hall addressed the question. Erickson Shirley had a concern over the narrowing of the area on Gore Creek, where vehicles currently park illegally and is concerned over enforcement of no parking. Jay Peterson spoke to the narrowing as a result of discussions with Greg Hall to not provide a large enough area to park and he also added that they could park in that space in the structure. Erickson Shirley asked if the space is occupied, where are they going to go. Discussion ensued regarding the heated pavers that will be there. Erickson Shirley brought up the idea of offering the spots up for resale to people in the area for first refusal by the condominium before opening the sale to just anyone. Jay Peterson stated that was the intention and a list will be kept by the association. Gary Hartman is glad to see loading and delivery gone, as he thought it was a bad idea and glad to see the plat will be cleaned up. Doug Cahill is glad to see the plat cleaned up. He mentioned the underground parking under the Hanson Range Chute and what the Town will receive for that use. in C Approved 6/23/03 Jay Peterson stated that that discussion will occur when you look at the off-site improvements beyond those required by this project. Doug Cahill said he would like to see the right of first refusal for people in the area whenever a parking space comes up for sale. Chas Bernhardt likes the project and thinks heating the surface deck and Hanson Range Chute should be done. Jay Peterson stated that walkways are heated and would like to come to a conclusion on the road with staff. John Schofield recapped the comments and talked about new language for maintenance and first refusal on resale of parking spaces. He asked Jim Lamont to provide some ideas on how loading and delivery should begin to be incorporated into these projects. Rollie Kjesbo made a motion to table this until June 23, 2003. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Warren Campbell Warren Campbell gave a brief presentation per the staff memorandum. Greg Hall gave a presentation on the history of the project. Joe Kracum gave presentation of the proposed West and East Meadow Drive streetscape designs. He identified how the proposal responds to the goals and needs of the neighborhood and Town. He said the new streetscape designs addresses pedestrian needs, drainage, traffic flow, and public plaza areas. Doug Cahill asked about the design of the Talisman parking lot. Joe Kracum stated that the design reluctantly allows vehicular access to the Talisman. Greg Hall commented that no gates on the street are a preferred alternative and stated that the street furnishings and lighting will be reviewed by the DRB. He made a presentation on the proposed Vail Village streetscape design with the major focus of the effort to improve the design along the Lodge Promenade and improve the connection from Meadow Drive to Gore Creek Drive and Vail Village. Greg discussed improvements to Wall Street and the Children's Fountain. Jim Lamont stated that the proposed plans are a vision for Vail and staff has delivered a qualitative plan that works for Vail. He said the question remains, however, how do we pay for these improvements, as all of these improvements are financially justifiable. Jim urged that the Commission to approve the project and that the Council fully fund this project. Gary Hartman was in favor of the master plan addendum and the plan must address the disconnect between Vail Village and the ski yard. Approved 6123103 Doug Cahill believed that this was a great master planning tool. He asked how the plan addressed the eastern most end of East Meadow Drive. Greg Hall talked about the improvements that Vail Mountain Lodge and the Mountain Haus have already installed and were recommended improvements. Chas Bernhardt asked what the main street surfaces would be? Greg Hall stated that most streets would be a form of decorative pavers. Rollie Kjesbo stated that he believed that the plan was on the right track and agreed with the use of a combination of paver materials. George Lamb believed that the most important aspect of the proposal was to ensure continuity amongst the improvements. Erickson Shirley stated that implementation was the key to the plan. He questioned the need to heat our streets. John Schofield commented that he agreed largely with the comments of Jim Lamont. He stated that funding and implementation were an unresolved issue. He asked for options for funding alternatives at the time of final review. John stated that snowmeit could be problematic in the absence of a coordinated operator. Gary Hartman made a motion to table this to July 14, 2003 George Lamb seconded this motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 9. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an outdoor dining deck, in accordance with Section 12 -7B -4B, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village I" Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL JUNE 23, 2003 10. Approval of May 12, 2003 minutes 11. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 12 • • •