Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003-0714 PEC
r I V 0 — 1 8 � TF6191TEM MAY AFF PROPERTY PU UC 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 123.6 of the Vail Town Code on July 14, 2003, at PROOF OF PUBLICATION 2:00 R.M. the Town of Val M Building. Yn consideration ol: A request tar a conditional use permit, Pursuant to STATE OF COLORADO section 12.9C -3, Vail Town Code, to allow for a Parking Manageent Plan for the Vail Valley Medi- cal Center, locate at 181 W. Meadow Drivell-OM SS. E&F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. A pplioanT Vail Valley 'ad ' Canter, represent- COUNTY OF EAGLE panner: Ochs A request for a variance trOm Section 12-6D -6, setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition, located al 1668 west Gore Creek DrivelLot 47, Vail Village west 1 at Filing. Applicant: John and Bobby -Ann Houtsma 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 variance from section 12 -6H -6, setbacks, and 12 -81 Height, Vail Town Code, general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly to allow f an addtion, located at Manor Vail, 586 in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty -two consecutive weeks next prior to the first E Vats Valley onvalLot A, Vail Village 7th Filing• publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represented by United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amend - Bob McCleary ments thereof, and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices Planner warren Campbell and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. A request fo a final review of a coedytionad use nt to Section 12-7A -3, VadTown permit Pure—A t iur retail uses in a lodge to e>c of t0 of the total gross residential floor area of That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every me s t r ucture, located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Mead - E. number of said daily newspaper for the period of .... ... ...... consecutiv insertions; and that the first ow o ve Va 82lage M e rsgf Lots K & L, Applicant: Sonnenatp Properties Inc publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated ......... . . .. represent- ed by Braun Associates„ Inc. siren Campbell Planner: George Rutherf A.D. k dl: �. ...., that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper AA request t aiow fort >r+e recomme ndation to the Vail Town r / A.D...... a me nd m e nts to Title date .. . ....,... .......r ..�. c. ulationa Vail Town Code, and salting ""' 11, Sign Reg �••�� � � �����• ��� f orth In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this ... elo. f . day of ... LrF� . ...... Applicant: Town of Veit Plan Rev Matt Gannett The applications and iniormation about these Pro- posals are available for public inspection during ail Conn- regular business hours at then ofce, South ,,, munity Development Deparlme led ................. .. ................ L'e ^--....-----........ Frontage Road. t ent The public is iriviWr, to attend the Publisher pro Vail o D rientate evaWp on h DenOe° Ke and the -unity rile visits that precede the Public hea Please call (970} 479 -2138 for additional in#ormatton. Subscribed and sworn to befo m r e, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, age interp retation is availabis upon to Sign langu �f quest xnth Telephor f ort th e H Please aired, for this --- -....� -..L.. ---- day o ,...... ..... .- 478. Tonal any for the Hearing additional information, This notice published in the Vail Daily on June 27, 2003. Notary Public My Commission expires .... ... .,1.4 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • • PUBLIC MEETING Monday, .duly 14, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION C - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Erickson Shirley John Schofield Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Gary Hartman Site Visits: 1. Manor Vail Lodge — 595 E. Vail Valley Drive 2. Vail's Front Door and Vista Bahn Ski Yard 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 -9C -3, Vail Town Code, to allow for a Parking Management Plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 W. Meadow Drive /Lots E &F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs introduced the project, including staff's recommendation for approval. Dominic Mauriello, representing the Vail Valley Medical Center, described the Phase expansion of the Medical Center, during which a reduction in parking needs was demonstrated, Fox Higgins, of 'Boulder, was hired to study parking needs both prior to and after the expansion. The original hypothesis of a post - expansion reduction in parking did prove correct. • Rollie Kjesbo asked for confirmation that any employee has access to a bus pass. George Lamb had no questions other than confirming interesting valet procedures. Erickson Shirley commented that spaces be made available for other practices. Gary Hartman commented that the PEC retains the ability to call back the conditional use MEMBERS ABSENT At TO4YN OF 191L permit if necessary. Doug Cahill suggested an employee survey to measure effectiveness of alternative modes of transportation, preferences regarding trans., etc. Chas Bernhardt commented that according to his information, parking seemed to be 'very inadequate ". John Schofield reread notes from a 2001 meeting stating that a provision of Phase I confirmed additional parking to be added if phase 11 is not constructed. He went on to detail the growth of the center, quoting an employee "if you can't get in to the office by 8:30 on a March morning, you won't get a spot ". Valet seems to be necessary because of inadequate amounts of parking. Three hundred twenty nine were required at approval of Phase I in 2001. With the completion of Phase II, around 500 spaces were thought to be required in the end. - Dominic Mauriello commented that many alternatives for employee parking have already been suggested. Guest parking is covered by valet parking. Rollie Kjesbo commented that should a new practice come into existence a building permit will be applied for and new parking needs will be addressed. Dominic Mauriello stated the severity of regulations regarding hospital expansion and renovation. John Schofield suggested tabling. 0 Chas Bernhardt requested to see a survey demonstrating parking needs. Doug Cahill expressed interest in knowing how the alternative modes of transportation are being used. He then stated that the survey would be for the applicant's benefit and would help to actively correct VMC parking situation. The survey was deemed as possibly being helpful in making the PEC decision. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table to July 28, 2003. It was seconded by Doug Cahill. George Lamb stated that he would not have objected to voting in approval or a conditional use permit Rollie Kjesbo and Erickson Shirley agreed with George Lamb. Dominic Mauriello commented that the data in two weeks may not be substantially more than was provided today. Rollie Kjesbo made a motion to approve with 5 conditions. It was seconded by George Lamb. The vote was 4 -3, with Chas Bernhardt, John Schofield, and Doug Cahill, opposed. The conditions were as follows: 1. That should the Planning and Environmental Commission find that the proposed conditional use is being operated in violation of the conditions outlined herein, this conditional use permit may be revoked, as outlined in Section 12 -15 -5: Planning and Environmental Commission Action, Vail Town Code. 2. That the applicant shall comply with all of the elements of the parking management plan as outlined in the "Vail Valley Medical Center, Application for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit, Proposed Parking Management Plan, dated May 15, 2003," and as provided in Attachment A. Specifically, the following elements of the Parking Management Plan are: 1. Providing separate visitor (surface lot) and employee parking areas (parking structure) 2. Providing shuttle services to employees during peak times of the year (November to April) from down - valley areas 3_ Providing shuttle services to employees from Eagle, Gypsum, Summit County, and Lake County year -round 4. Providing free bus passes to medical center staff for transportation from areas within Eagle and Lake Counties 5. Maintaining current supply of parking on the campus 6. Providing valet services (free of charge) to visitors within the surface parking area Any subsequent amendments to such document shall require review and approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission. 3. That the conditional use permit expires after two years (expires on July 14, 2004) and the applicant must submit an additional conditional use permit application prior to the expiration date. 4, That the applicant must complete a survey of the employees and patients of the Vail Valley Medical Center to determine satisfaction with the parking management plan and to identify additional needs of where resources should be spent. 5. Any applications for a building permit to finish existing vacant space which would impact the parking requirements (i.e. additional hospital beds, additional medical practices, etc.) shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of an amendment to the approved parking management plan and conditional use permit. 2. 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 John Schofield prefaced that today's session was being treated as a worksession. Bill Gibson introduced the three scenarios that were considered in modifying GRFA calculations, bringing to bear each attachment of the memo and staff research that contributed. John Schofield presented a new proposal to the GRFA amendments and requested copies be made for public information. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners, questioned what the new option was that was introduced today. Russ Forrest commented that the new option was an alternative to the alternative presented at the last meeting. John Schofield confirmed that the new option is indeed a "hybrid" of previous staff memos from the last 4 -5 years. i Jim commented that the staff memo seemed to be a recommendation to the PEC. Bill Gibson seconded that staff is looking for a suggestion for minimizing GRFA confusion and additions, conversions, etc, i.e. a "flatter playing field" for all homeowners. Russ Forrest mentioned the desire to create the least amount of non - conforming spaces as possible. Alternative 1, do nothing to current regulations; 2 to amend GRFA to some other formula; 3 to not count basement space; 4 to come up with a flat number or percentage that applies according to zone and lot size. John Schofield voiced the issue that the current market is dictating larger home sizes. Jim Lamont stated the need for final GRFA calculations to be understandable for all types of homeowners and that one of the primary reasons for controlling density is to protect the environment. John Schofield mentioned that modification of the Design Review Guidelines may be necessary in order for environmental impacts to be lessened_ Russ Forrest mentioned the "point -based system" whereby square footage is added for certain building performance. Jim Lamont requested efficiency in the process, so that Vail knows how to calculate market value in the future. Vicki Pearson, the applicant, suggested renaming GRFA and commented on the ease which the staff memo lent to the proposal. PEG conversation continued with an easel and black marker, to mark progress of the worksession. Gary Hartman expressed interest in repealing all caveats (additions, conversions, etc) and verified that a final goal must be stated for such discussions to be effective. Gary Hart wanted clarification between what is actual and what is potential square footage. Bill Gibson clarified that Gross Floor Area, is everything, whereas GRFA is calculated differently and does not include all square footage. One of the largest problems with GRFA seems to be in the enforcement arena. Gary Hartman proposed taking crawl space out of the total GRFA calculation, provided that everything is counted. Vaulted space is counted as horizontal area (GRFA) because potential exists to fill in the space. George Ruther stated that staff comes up with a reasonable number that does not result in a net loss, but a net gain that gives the homeowner the freedom to make decision concerning the interior of the home. Doug Cahill mentioned that in terms of vaulted space, some usable floor footage may be lost. In terms of crawl space, footing must be measured. Mechanical rooms are determined to be subject to building and fire codes. If basements are counted as habitable space, there is less need to create unsafe mechanical and crawl spaces due to the fact that all square footage is counted. John Schofield asked if it would be suitable to make a modification to the building code, not the zoning code, regarding those types of unsafe spaces. John Schofield requested information from Building and Fire Officials to clarify safety of aforementioned spaces. Doug Cahill mentioned that those on a hillside do deserve a credit of some sort. He also verified that he would be in favor of keeping some sort of measurable floor area. 4 Chas Bernhardt asked Gary Hartman if volumetric measurement was proposed, which was not the case. He mentioned that he thought that nothing below grade should be considered in the final number and was not even convinced that some number should be the final goal. Seemed most simple to him to eliminate GRFA and give the DRB more "control" in order to retain the Valley's visual integrity using current restrictions, such as setback, height, and design criteria, to make this a simpler solution. Certain lots should not be granted distinctions according to slope (fairness). He concurred that building code regulations are the minimums and that as a first class resort; Vail should strive to improve upon the minimums. George Ruther clarified Chas Bernhardt's opinions regarding calculations (no below grade, smaller lots would not have GRFA limitations, more DRB bulk /mass design issues). Rollie Kjesbo prefers an incremental change to site coverage. A GRFA number related to all of the existing GRFA regulations will be difficult to regulate. He prefers that GRFA be used as a measurement to control issues other than size. He thought there should be a maximum height measurement for crawl spaces if everything is counted. Parking should be increased from more than 2.5 spaces per lot. So, eliminate GRFA and adjust accordingly. Basements should not be counted. George Lamb also agreed that GRFA should disappear and thinks that a basement, as long as safely constructed, should not be counted. He acknowledged the problem dealing with existing vs. new development. He thinks square footage should be easy enough to calculate that a "layman" could guess what size of a home he could have without hiring an architect. He clarified that by "bigger"; he meant that he would not like to create a situation that takes away potential from existing spaces. He agreed with Chas Bernhardt that a level playing field would be nearly impossible to create. He also thought the most important thing to know was general "what can I build" scenario. . Erickson Shirley expressed appreciation to the staff for considering the planning perspectives. However, mentioned that the need exists to distinguish measurements of below -grade vs. above -grade spaces. He mentioned his concern about what the market dictates, but thought that the homeowner should be allowed to take freedom within his/her own home, especially underground. He does not think that basement measurement or lack thereof will significantly change the structure of Town of Vail housing_ He thought that if the Town decides to count everything, huge credits must be added. He noted that the move "down valley" is an intense problem that is related to practical issues confronting the town. Therefore, he believed that not counting GRFA is a good idea, and thought that government should only be concerned with the outside appearance of homes, not interior possibilities. Russ Forest mentioned that the significant difference between Vail and down valley development is that lot sizes are much larger down valley. Erickson Shirley suggested that the basement is what makes the difference between places that are year -round attractive and places that are seasonally attractive. He agreed that getting opinions from fire marshals will be important. Russ Forest pointed out Attachment D, that homes will get substantially bigger with unlimited GRFA. George Ruther pointed out that the end page is the same both for planning staff and for the PEC, but it is difficult without sending development potential "through the roof', Erickson Shirley pointed out that the external part is important, and square footage is not. Some increase in outer size would be okay, but a large increase would not be preferable. So, how do we reach the same goals? John Schofield mentioned that not counting conversions and additions skewed the attachments substantially. He was initially in favor of eliminating GRFA, but now doesn't think it matters what counts. The one premise should be that nothing is taken away from anybody. Start with a baseline, then take a guess at what the interior conversion should be, which is the only number not defined, that varies. He wondered whether it mattered as to measurement of basements. George Ruther did not believe that including basements matters, if the numbers are adjusted accordingly. John Schofield concluded that everything should be included and the number be adjusted accordingly to compensate, (higher, that is). John Schofield referenced figure 2 as example for coming up with "the number ". Whatever existing GRFA, plus 254, plus credits, plus the number staff would come up with would be the new GRFA. So, why would someone put any underground? John Schofield would like to see staff carry his suggestion through and look at differently -sized lots based on his equation, He thought that basements should not start exceeding the footprint of the home. So, a stipulation should be created that regulates such. John Schofield would support eliminating GRFA, basically supporting volumetric controls, though not quite sure what. In sum, GRFA should be eliminated and a new, comprehensive ordinance should be created, that eliminates interior conversions. Non- conforming should not be created. Nothing should be taken away from the homeowner. Some sort of a basement number is going to be important to create. Another goal was deciphered as avoiding regulation of interior spaces. Input from Building and Fire was requested again. Architects and builders should be sought out to obtain information regarding new GRFA measurement that is simpler, more concise. General agreement is that if GRFA rules continue to exist, basements should be allowed to be added anyway. As John Schofield said, "out -of- sight, out -of- regulation" clause, Erickson Shirley said the goal is to create a formula that will have a similar size to today's regulations allow, plus a basement. Complete support of measuring to outside wall. Site coverage would take into account covered walkways, etc. and would include exterior finish materials such as masonry, etc. John Schofield expressed interest in keeping the site coverage measurements as similar as possible. There is agreement that there is no agreement on how to calculate GRFA. Gary Hartman asked the other Commissioners to clarify what they mean by a "new system" and getting rid of GRFA. Erickson Shirley asked if we need to recalculate parking based on what will be allowed in terms of new floor area. Discussion ensued on how different people will use their lot and parking cannot be based on lot size alone. John Schofield suggested that we go toward the FAR formula prior to coming up with new text language for the regulations. Focus will continue to be on the DRB creating standards that are restrictive in terms of visual bulk and mass. Erickson Shirley stated that it is important to communicate well to the public how the elimination or molding of GRFA calculations will change their town, especially visually. Finally, John Schofield mentioned the need to possibly incorporate into the final number room to grow alongside market rate and demand. Rollie Kjesbo mentioned that the home is already going to appear larger due to the possible lack of basement calculation. So, keep relatively similar home sizes. Motion: Rollie Kjesbo moved to table the item to August 11 Second: George Lamb Approved: 7 -0-0 3. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6, Setbacks, and 12 -6H -7, Height, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition, located at Manor Vail, 595 E. Vail Valley Drive /Lot A, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Bob McCleary Planner: Warren Campbell Warren Campbell introduced the project and described the memo in detail. Mr. Campbell detailed that staff could support the setback variance as several other properties zoned HDMF had been granted setback variances. However, he mentioned that staff could not support the height variance because there were no other properties to whom a variance had ever been granted within the HDMF zone. 6 Chip Melick, the architect for the project showed the site plan, describing in detail the northern half of the property and detailing the need to put parking underground and maximize green space in front of the Lodge. He also mentioned the end goal of aesthetically improving the front of the Lodges. He defended the height of Building F by illustrating that the grade drops off as it approaches Gore Creek and Mill Creek. A natural dip occurs at Building F. He mentioned that it is hard to decipher what the original grade, before the culvert, was installed. Warren Campbell mentioned, in response to Doug Cahill's question, that the height of the eave at the south side of the building was not in need of a variance. The ridge is not the highest point on the building, the height of the dormer (54'6 ") is the highest. There would be no variance for height if the grade was interpolated from the east to the west from the Texas Townhomes site to the Manor Vail site across the Mill Creek culvert. The center ridge line is the main question is the location of the original grade in terms of determining height within the footprint of the building. Chas Bernhardt stated that therefore, it is assumed that the original grade was higher than it is now. So, if the original grade appears to connect through, across the culvert, there is no need for a variance, Warren Campbell clarified that if that was the case there would still be a need for a variance as the eaves of the proposed dormers exceed 48 as measured to finished grade outside the footprint. Rollie Kjesbo commented about how the Tivoli increased their allowed height from 48 to 56, by going to an SDD. I* Chip Melick stated that the owner has not had a desire to rezone to a SDD. Rollie Kjesbo stated that he could not support this variance. George Lamb thought it was impossible to calculate what original grade was, since it is now manmade and probably diverted at some point. He did not think that a variance would be needed. Erickson Shirley stated that the criteria for granting a variance had not been met and therefore would not be in favor of granting a variance. Gary Hartman congratulated the architect on such a huge improvement to the site. He did not want to grant a variance, would rather the applicant return and consider an SDD. Doug Cahill also agreed on the huge improvement the site would experience with the proposed renovations and expressed concern about the original grade. Chas Bernhardt agreed on an SDD and agreed with Warren on calculating from existing grade. John Schofield mentioned the significant public benefits this project could bring to the community, which he thought more than offset the height considerations if an SDD was requested. Believed that where the grade is today is the most important aspect. Chip Melick responded that the hardship would be comprised of the manmade culvert which existed on the site. Warren Campbell responded that even if the contours came straight across from the Texas Townhomes that the eaves would still be over the 48 -foot maximum height and would still require a variance. 40 George Lamb asked if just the one building (F) could be converted to an SDD, with the rest of the Lodge remaining HDMF. George 'Ruther commented that it would be easier to convert the entire site, not just one building, though it could be done. He added that employee housing may be the Lodge's biggest issue. Erickson Shirley asked how the fee schedule works out if an SDD is applied for. Staff responded that the SDD fee was significantly more and staff would work in a spirit of cooperation with the applicant to move an SDD application along as swiftly as possible. The managing agent, Bob Mc Cleary, mentioned that he wanted to present the project at the annual owner's meeting in August at was hoping to have these approvals. George Ruther mentioned that the application might be able to be amended to meet the height requirements for the existing zoning. The eave overhang on the north side of the building is largest issue. George Ruther summarized the applicants options which were 1)consider an SDD 2)proceed with variance request 3)table the issue to help eliminate the need for the variance or reduce the need for the variance, according to George Ruther. The applicants asked which procedure would be best. John Schofield stated that a tabling would be a wise choice as it would give time to examine the SDD and proposal revision options in greater detail. The applicant requested a tabling. Motion: Gary Hartman, to table until July 28 meeting Second: Rollie Kjesbo Approved: 7 -0 4 A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7A -3, Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in a lodge in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure, located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George RutherNVarren Campbell George Ruther presented the project. The 10% limitation of eating and drinking establishments would be under a conditional use request if kept under 15% of the GRFA instead. The applicant wanted 12.5% to be accessory eating /drinking areas. Staff recommends approval subject to one condition: that the property owner and tenants prohibit loading activity from E Meadow Drive or from the private property nearby (see memo). 0 Dominic Mauriello, the applicant, is comfortable with the conditional use permit. Motion: Doug Cahill moved to approve the request as proposed (to 12,5 %) Second: Gary Hartman Approved: 7 -0 -0 5. A request for 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 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 5 th 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 parkin facility and public park" to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5 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). Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther George Ruther presented the application for Vail Resorts as the fourth of five work sessions. Staff requested that the commission listen to the presentation by the applicant and ask questions as necessary, after the presentation. A request for final review of the application was slated for August 11. Included in the packet (among many attachments) was an outline of the questions posed by the PEC on June 23, 2003. One more worksession, on July 28 is anticipated. Jay Peterson, the project representative, mentioned that the most pertinent persons for the project were in the room that evening to answer questions that were posed on June 23 Jay spoke about the substantial changes that had occurred in the past 7 -8 months of the project and requested from the PEC, approval of the project, because "it is too important to fail ", and additionally, because it "must be built ". He stressed that it was the PEC's job to see that the project be done as successfully as possible, for good. He encouraged the PEC to think of both the people in the room and others, who were unable to come, as to their welfare, the good of everybody. He also requested that questions be asked after the presentation of each of the eleven answers. Tom Braun presented the concept of central loading and traffic as a response to request from TOV staff, which is supposed to minimize truck and pedestrian conflict in the Village. Pointed out that there was only one location where central loading could be located and suggested that management issues will be worked out more thoroughly as the project moves along. He used Beaver Creek as an example of underground loading and delivery and stressed wide range of uses serviced by that one area (600 ft). The same 600 ft would service this concept as proposed for the Front Door project. Thought the final traffic analysis has not yet been completed, trip generation, traffic volumes, previous loading studies and other considerations delayed its progress. John Schofield asked if Four Seasons studies had contributed to Front Door research. He demonstrated that there is now a choice as to how load ingldelivery operations exit the village, due to the underground area. Venting was addressed as well: fans will beat the lowest level of the garage, noise will be directed away from the village core, 9 Questions were fielded regarding the loading and delivery section of the presentation. Jim Lamont questioned a protocol issue. Karen Romeo, on behalf of LuAnne Wells, requested to make a presentation after Vail Resorts. Jim Lamont returned to question whether or not trucks may be required to turn their engines off while on the street, thus prompting a decrease in diesel fumes and noise. Karen Romeo questioned the management of the facility, wondering if the design cannot meet the logistics of the facility. She felt that information was lacking regarding the management of the facility. Torn Braun addressed the concern of air quality by stating that trucks will turn off their engines and commented on the design and logistics by stating that management will be responsive as possible to any changes in the project. Erickson questioned who pays the cost of operating facilities. John Schofield requested that information become available by the next July worksession. Greg Hall responded that that would be a fairly optimistic request. The "what -if' scenarios sway the final product. John Schofield wanted good detail by the next meeting. Jay Peterson countered that the loading and delivery is very simple and effective and stated that costs could be compiled as to the operation of the facility.. Gary Hartmann asked if Beaver Creek had any concern over shared access of this loading and delivery space. Jay Peterson mentioned that trucks just watch for adjacent vehicles. There are dedicated delivery operations hours from lam to 4pm, sometimes 5pm. George Ruther mentioned that the two could have passed in the tunnel if necessary and suggested that perhaps the PEC could visit the BC delivery area during the next worksession. Spoke about the ease with which the operation existed. The trash, palettes. etc, seemed to be the biggest issue of two; the second being that the use was not always optimized. (e.g. van in a semi parking space). George urged that the Commission visit the site to see if issues are relevant. Doug Cahill agreed that Beaver Creek had good ideas, but wondered what percentage of loading is delivered under vs. above ground. Also wondered what size deliveries could be accommodated by the design. Gary Hartmann commented that the size was dictated simply by physical size of the human carrying the load. Day to day delivery would be hand - operated, Jack Hunn of Vail Resorts Development Company countered that the facility was retrofit to direct traffic. Chas Bernhardt stated that he had used the Beaver Creek facility successfully, but that it just needed steam - cleaning occasionally. 0 11 Rollie Kjesbo questioned the venting equipment noise levels. Bob Fitzgerald, from 4240 mentioned that sound standards and ventilation standards had already been addressed (50% of code quality without additional filtering). 10 John Schofield requested that Greg Hall bring in TOV standards for the TRC to the next meeting. George Lamb mentioned that the passing of a car and truck did not seem to be a problem. What if the two elevators break, however? Tom Braun mentioned that here was a third way out of the system as well, just in case. Erickson Shirley stressed the importance of the project "not failing ". He wanted to see the management plan, knowing that it could handle the loads and keep trucks from going into town. How is this new facility going to keep that from happening? Will the regulations be enforced? He also wondered about the financial aspects. John Schofield requested comparison for town of Vail structures and requested that George set up optional work session, semi open -house for the PEC and public to see a working facility. George and Jay consented to work out the logistics of that visit. Paul Johnson, representing Christiania, wanted to speak about loading and delivery. He mentioned that a water line was broken under Hanson Ranch Road last winter. Can the Christiania side, a blue spruce tree has become disfigured from truck traffic_ In addition, he mentioned that there has never been specified hours of operation. Trucks have occasionally been on Hanson Ranch Road as late as 7pm. Overall, the improvement through a distribution center is absolutely key to a walk able village. Tom Braun returned to talk about the Vista Bahn skier service. He stressed the hodgepodge of architecture, the skate park, the less- than - desirable restroom, ski storage facilities and the general change from the village plaza up to the Vista Bahn. A ski plaza would look better and provide a graceful transaction. Currently, a bottleneck is created. Congestion is created especially during the p.m. winter hours. A one story skier service building is proposed. A flatter walk to the Vista Bahn would be created, and the maze would be moved. Therefore, much more space is available to the skier getting on and off the mountain. He addressed the need to be able to host a ski race, and identified that the same functions needed in 9999 would be accommodated in the new plan. Questions were raised as to how access works from the mountain. Brian commented that there is room to board Vista Bahn from another run on the mountain. The challenge will be between the skier service building and the fence. Traffic patterns will be better analyzed by next summer, he assured the PEC. He stressed that Vail Resorts is trying to design a project to accommodate a race, not the other way around. Tom Braun continued, to speak about summertime use. He acknowledged the need to bring people to the upper end of Bridge Street. John Schofield asked about the current ski area size. Confusion ensued... probably about similar to 38000 sq ft. He requested to see that number in the end- Tom agreed and suggested that gross numbers are different than a space and how it is used, etc. One venue possibility was that of a concert venue. Doug Cahill asked about the grade change from the stage to the Vista Bahn which was determined to be nearly flat, or only a couple of feet. Summer usage was considered as well, in the form of bungee jumping, etc. The skier service building was detailed as just that... customer - oriented; all the amenities that the skier needs in one building (two stories detailed by types of use, plaza level, ski patrol lockers, employee area, etc.). He mentioned that ski storage would only be allowed on the first level of a building. The idea would be to provide that service at no cost. John Schofield asked about hours of operation, which would probably be between 8 am and 8 pm II Jay Peterson stressed the aspect of ski storage for the consumer, leading him to the village to peruse the area. So, where does the skier store his boots? A locker, or a basket, presumably. George Ruther mentioned that the size of the ski yard is 180 x 240, or 38,400 square feet. Public input was solicited. Tom Bonni, from Knight Planning services, representing Miss Wells, made a presentation regarding what he saw as a concern of civic importance. He mentioned that it is important to realize that the Vista Bahn ski yard is being restricted enough to lose certain functions. He stated that a more restrictively -sized building would be appropriate and better for the Town. The yard would be better if it remained large and the building remained small. John Schofield mentioned that the building looked like a box as opposed to Vail Mountain, which had shape and slope, etc. Erickson Shirley mentioned the need to see a relationship between the proposed building and any view corridor that might exist. Tom Bonni stressed that a view corridor existed either way, even if it was not specifically designated. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners, stated that his comments were basically directly from the board of directors. He felt unsure that the applicant even understood the scope of the project. Jim said that free ski storage and bus service combined would be a great combination. He said that there were many reasons that the loading and delivery service served many different purposes. Short -term ski storage would also not detract from any other similar business, since there is none. This keeps the customer in the corridor, spending money, buying drinks, etc. As to the placement of the stage at the most constrained location, an uphill audience would be getting much sound both from the highway and the performer. Is there another option for that? Also, how many people will fill that space how often? He is very concerned about the "dark notion ", if there is no discretionary use for spaces. Special events planning should be included as well in this plan. Rollie Kjesbo asked if the free ski storage would be free five years from now. It will be on the main level, and free. It has the capacity to store 2000 pairs of skis. How much area for the ski baskets"? Brian McCartney commented about 400 square feet and mentioned that it was modeled after the Lionshead model, with baskets stacked all the way to the ceiling in addition to day lockers. Rollie Kjesbo mentioned that it seemed there was an issue with having two separate buildings. The club member is looking for a different level of service than that of a regular skier. Jay Peterson mentioned that the access to One Vail Place needed to be on the surface per the request of Miss Wells. George Lamb mentioned concern about the congestion that might arise because of all the uses. Erickson Shirley agreed with the idea that there would be too much congestion. He thought that there would need to be some clause to "lock" Vail Resorts into the free ski storage deal and thinks that the uses are already in existence in that area_ He was concerned that Vail might be restricting its ability to hold races more than once every ten years, provided that future owners might want to do that. Gary Hartmann asked what the plans were for the building during the summer season. Brian McCartney mentioned that a children's camp, or bike shops would be used. The coffee 12 shop would contain a glass wall that could open up with a mall -style enclosure gate and some outdoor seating, Doug Cahill expressed concern that there was not going to be much of a gain in space, not even considering the increased amount of use that was going to take place. Thought that there should be more room in the park for both summer and winter uses and wanted to make sure that people were not walking uphill. Did not think there was enough room to last for 40 years. Chas Bernhardt agreed in the skier services convenience and the grade improvement and thinks that it will remain too crowded, especially considering some of his past personal experiences. John Schofield encouraged Vail Resorts to pay close attention to the flow and traffic patterns of the area in question_ Jim Lamont interrupted to say that in the 70's the Forest Service allowed this parcel to be annexed to the town, giving the public control over its uses. Then termed illegitimate, it was de- annexed from the town, then brought back into the town, etc. Jay Peterson disagreed. Lynn Fritzlen mentioned that the 19,000 foot building massing was too large for the other buildings in the area and requested that either the PEC or the DRB consider building massing for the area. Tom Braun stated that streetscape issues such as sidewalk heat/melt systems would be the responsibility of the Town in the long run. Checkpoint Charlie has been offered to be rebuilt by Vail Resorts. The advantage of keeping Checkpoint Charlie in this location would be multi- faceted: adding restrooms, guiding lost tourists, deflecting vehicles from coming down to the checkpoint. Tom addressed the issue of height, through stepping the buildings, with the zoning of the area set at around 40'. A variance had been requested to accommodate the 40% slope, which was constituted as a hardship. John Schofield asked about geological reports, to be seen in two weeks and requested to see those slopes post - construction. Tom Braun addressed parking requirements, which are currently proposed at 49 spaces. The total requirement would be 79. They would actually provide 220. So, there would be 141 extra spaces. Jay Peterson mentioned that this takes some of the pressure off of the garages by allowing employees, etc to park there. This would help minimize demand on the town for parking during the winter. Tom Braun spoke about employee housing. Currently the plan is to initiate the project in spring `04 and complete it in spring '06. Only ten employees need to be accommodated. Mill Creek Road would tie in with the existing road and which would be maintained by the project. Karen Romeo, on behalf of Ms. Wells, requested that the PEC hear their input regardless of the late hour. She agreed on the project's importance and the lack of information that she felt did not exist, The model was outdated, she said. There was no environmental impact report for the 14 delivery spaces and expressed that no management plan had yet been presented. Tom Bonni returned to speak about the allowed uses. He mentioned that Ski Base II zoning allowed for a wide range of uses in this area. He said that uses should not be an extension of the uses on Bridge Street. He expressed concern about how the traffic would maneuver at the busy intersection of One Vail Place. Mentioned that 14 loading bays may be too many, especially since there may be other loading locations elsewhere in the town in the future. The traffic pattern of the hand trucks leaving the facility is important and tunneling the connection 1) would be bad since it connects to other pedestrian places. Would like to see the underground connection to the east and further to the north. Forest Service access would be too visible during the summer. Construction impacts would be substantial. How would the pedestrian access extending from the east be continuous and not merge with the roadbed? Believed that a ski plaza should be open, like the mountain, with village spaces more intimate and thought that the Vista Bahn ski yard is too large and congested. Concluded with accolades for Ms. Wells and her concern for the area and its pending improvement. Jim Lamont, Vail Village, hoped that all understood what it was like to be often heard and never listened to. Relayed to the PEC that the project's success lay in the PEC's hands. Mentioned that the traffic analysis was the last issue to be resolved thoroughly. Believed that this project would satisfy more concerns than any other project he had seen. Said that he had seen the project positively respond to dialogue and suggestions. Mentioned appreciation at the PEC's neutral stance. Mentioned that he would possible go into retirement to get the loading and delivery issue resolved (jokingly). The number of parking spots was a debatable issue, but if the underground space can be proved environmentally responsible, it is a plan for future generations. "Failure will only come if we fail to communicate ". Gary Hartmann asked about the parking for residences. Jay Peterson mentioned that they have a separate area. No spaces except the residential ones will be sold. The surface space will be replaced. Doug Cahill expressed interest that Checkpoint Charlie would be visually diverted. Not a fan of more trees being killed for more reports. The model is outdated. Jay Peterson said that it is just the skier services building. Ms. Wells stated that covering the backside of the building was not a possibility, wants the plaza kept open. Chas Bernhardt questioned the impacts on Vail Road. Jay Peterson mentioned that Vail Resorts had just arrived on a number with the TOV that specified traffic counts, which contributed to the lack of traffic studies today. A traffic report would be available for the July 28 meeting. Rollie Kjesbo had issues with the use of the public space. Believed that the streetscape works well. Does not have problems with the height. The amount of parking helps the overall situation. George Lamb mentioned the importance of the DRB in future decisions. Erickson Shirley did not have a problem with the height of the buildings. He tried to imagine the impact of the building groupings, however. How will it appear? How will it feel? If a big building is desired, make it less obvious and less congested. The spots that are proposed will definitely be beneficial. In regard to the traffic problem, he felt that the PEC holds much responsibility in regulating that issue. John Schofield felt that one more worksession was probably not going to be enough. What about at least two more? He expressed interest in the size of the ski yard in relation to the building and how it was going to function... exact sizes and functions, please. Regarding loading and delivery, arrangements should be made to visit Beaver Creek. The traffic study should be present before discussing it. The snow melt system should be detailed by the town through a set of specs. The slope variance would not need a full geologic report, but a good survey. Also wants pre and post — building slopes and an off -site improvements plan. Motion: Doug Cahill moved to table the item for further discussion until July 28 14 Second: Rollie Kjesbo Approved: 7 -0 -0 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett Matt Gennett introduced the code and the purpose of the worksession, especially chapter 4/5 which relayed the most significant changes of the code to date. Sign Manufacturers will be looking at the changes. (The public has departed, with no further comment ). John S. wanted to see input from the sign companies. What about appeal process? That is the same, from last recommendation. Chas thought that the merchants would have the most and the most important input of any group. Doug asked if they had input on frontages, etc. Mentioned the importance of enforcement. George Ruther mentioned that enforcement is tough because the Town only has one code enforcement officer, who is very busy with cases, much less the sign violations that are in constant existence. This code amendment process was begun due to the community survey that blamed signage for the flea- market like visual result that the Town was sporting. 0 Erickson mentioned that getting merchant input was important regarding both enforcement and design. The merchants want to see a higher level of enforcement, re: Matt. Worksession ended until next meeting 7. 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 1 51 Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson Tabled to July 28, 2003 Motion: by Doug Cahill to table next four items on agenda Second: by Rollie Kjesbo to table next four items on agenda 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 Tabled to July 28, 2003 Motion: by Doug Cahill Second: by Rollie Kjesbo Vote: 7 -0 15 9. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition, located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive /Lot 47, Vail Village West 1 st Filing. Applicant: John and Bobbi -Ann Houtsma Planner: Allison Ochs Tabled to July 28, 2003 10. Approval of June 23, 2003 minutes Change to minutes: page one, pat D comments were abbreviated far too much: people want bigger houses. Erickson wanted to amend the quote he stated about bigger houses — want better housing product, not necessarily bigger. Master plan updating? George mentioned that it is in the work plan. Erickson mentioned that the trail system, bike paths, etc. is not being followed enough. Many of the ideas are not working; it is not organized and lacks signage. Being a mountain community, Vail needs to adhere to the master plan more than it currently does. George mentioned that every single memo has referenced the master plan. Erickson has trouble with the way it is being implemented. Motion: John Schofield Second: George Lamb Approved: 7 -0 -0 11. Information Update No news. George instructed everyone to go home. Motion: to adjourn, by Rollie Kjesbo Second: to adjourn, by George Lamb Approved: 7 -0 -0 Meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm 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 July 11, 2003 in the Vail Daily. • 16 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE pkj NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town 6t� Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Vail Town Code on July 14, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, In consideration of:� P 9 A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3, Vail Town Code, to allow for a Parking Management Plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 W. Meadow Drive /Lots E &F, Vail Village 2 r ' a Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition, located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive /Lot 47, Vail Village West 1 Filing. Applicant: John and Bobbi -Ann Houtsma Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6, Setbacks, and 12 -6H -7, Height, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition, located at Manor Vail, 595 E. Vail Valley Drive /Lot A, Vail Village 7tn Filing, Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Bob McCleary Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7A -3, Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in a lodge in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure, located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett 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 .June 27, 2003. • TOWNY O Y YAtL Ll STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE try {i PROOF OF PUBLICATION SS. I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail wily, 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, 1879, 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 pu // blished in the regular and entire issue of every *umber of said daily newspaper for the period of ...... 1,,....... consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated �...A .... ................ A. D, 5...... and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper I � dated ........ A.D. .............. in witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this .. day of ...... r - ............ I ............. ..... ... ........... ublisher Subscribed and swom to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, tate of Colorado, this ........ ..... day of ... e!...... 2 N .. r _ — Notary Public My Commission expires .. .... ....... �� 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL I' COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION f - Community Developt ment Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 Plot MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT r Site Visits :1:00 pm 1, Manor Vail Lodge —595 E. Vail Valley Drive 2. Front Door Driver: George NOTE- H the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m„ the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Cham- bers 2:00 pm 1. A rawest for a conditional use per- mit, pursuant to Section 12 -gC -3. Vail Town Code, to allow for a Parking Management Plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 161 W. Meadow arlvelLots E &F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represent- ed by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amend• menu to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, VW Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two-Fami- ly Residential (R)., Two - Family PrimarylS®wndary Resldent€aC (PS), Residential Cluster (RCI, Low Density Multipple- FamVly (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple - Familyy (MDMF), High Density Multiple - Family HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and set- ling fort details in regard ihorelo.. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson 3. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6, Sed)acks, and 12 -61-1-7, Heigh, Vail Tmn Code, to allow for an addition, located at Manor Vail,-595 E. Vail Valley Drive/Lot A, Vail VlF lags, 7th Filing. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, rElpresented by Bob McCleary Planner: Warren Campbell 4 A request for a final review of a cori lional use permit, pursuant 10 Section 12 -7A3, Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in a Lodge in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure, located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E Meadow Drive, and t32 E. Meadow Drivell-ots K & L, Block SE., Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.. represent- ed by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George FluthsrMamen Campbell 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Sao - lion 12.78.13, Density Control, Zoning Regula- lions; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A. Vail Village 5th Filing Freon Public Ac- commodation zone district (PA) to Parking zone district JP); a request for a recommendatlon to the Vail Town Council toy the proposed zoning of an unplahed parcel of land commonly referred to as the - trade parcel' and Lots 1 & 2, MITI Creek Subdi- vision to Ski Base Recreation II zone district; a re- quesl for a minor subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common proporty line be- tween Lots P3 & J. Block 5A, Vail VlMge 5th Fil- ing; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Code of a proposed major subdivision, pur- suant le Section 13 -3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for 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 tot a `priva'Ie off - street vehicle park- ing facility and public park` to be constructed and operated on Lela P3& J, Block 5A. Vail Village 5th J°� IL J Filing; a request for an exterior alteration of modt- ticabon, pursuant to Section 12 -78-7, Exterior Al- terations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to al- low for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for a variance from Section 12- 21 -10, Develop- ment Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to al- low 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 mains and bounds legal description is avallable at the Town of Vail Community Dever- opment Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Pe- terson Planner: George Ruther 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to aflow for text amend - ments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Cade, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett 7. A request for a conditional use per - mri, to allow for an outdoor dMing deck, in accord- ance with Section 12- 76.48, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Baha Build- ing, 333 Hanson Ranch Road'Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant Remonov & Company. Inc., repre. sented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson Tabed to July 28, 2003 3. 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: Wdrret Campl?ell Tabed to July 28, 2003 9. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6Da8. Setbacks, Vail Town Code, . to allow for an addition, located at 18&8 West Gore Creak Driv./Lot 47, Vail Villags West 1st Filing. Applicant: John and RDW -Ann Houtsma Planner: Allison Ochs Tabled to July 28, 2003 16, Approval of June 9, 2003 minutes it. 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 Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Ptease cal! 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon re- quest with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356. Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for in formation. Community Doollar eM Department pitwished July 11, 2003 in the Vail Daily • V • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Erickson Shirley John Schofield Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Gary Hartman EMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. Manor Vail Lodge — 595 E. Vail Valley Drive 2. Vail's Front Door and Vista Bahn Ski Yard Driver: George 1 * 3 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 -9C -3, Vail Town Code, to allow for a Parking Management Plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 W. Meadow Drive /Lots E &F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Doug Cahill TABLED TO JULY 28, 2003 Motion failed MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: George Lamb APPROVED WITH 5 CONDITIONS: by Braun Associates, Inc. VOTE: 3 -4 VOTE: 4 -3 That should the Planning and Environmental Commission find that the proposed conditional use is being operated in violation of the conditions outlined herein, this conditional use permit may be revoked, as outlined in Section 12 -16 -5: Planning and Environmental Commission Action, Vail Town Code. is 2_ That the applicant shall comply with all of the elements of the parking management plan as outlined in the "Vail Valley Medical Center, Application for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit, Proposed Parking Management Plan, Y I� d� 1 TOW11 OF FAIL dated May 15, 2003," and as provided in Attachment A. Specifically, the following elements of the Parking Management Plan are: 1. Providing separate visitor (surface lot) and employee parking areas (parking structure) 2. Providing shuttle services to employees during peak times of the year (November to April) from down - valley areas 3. Providing shuttle services to employees from Eagle, Gypsum, Summit County, and Lake County year -round 4. Providing free bus passes to medical center staff for transportation from areas within Eagle and Lake Counties 5. Maintaining current supply of parking on the campus 6. Providing valet services (free of charge) to visitors within the surface parking area Any subsequent amendments to such document shall require review and approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission. 3. That the conditional use permit expires after two years (expires on July 14, 2004) and the applicant must submit an additional conditional use permit application prior to the expiration date. 4. That the applicant must complete a survey of the employees and patients of the Vail Valley Medical Center to determine satisfaction with the parking management plan and to identify additional needs of where resources should be spent. 5. Any applications for a building permit to finish existing vacant space which would impact the parking requirements (i.e. additional hospital beds, additional medical practices, etc.) shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of an amendment to the approved parking management plan and conditional use permit. 2. 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: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED TO AUGUST 11, 2003 3. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6, Setbacks, and 12 -6H -7, Height, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition, located at Manor Vail, 595 E. Vail Valley Drive /Lot A, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Bob McCleary Planner: Warren Campbell MOTION: Gary Hartman SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0 TABLED TO JULY 28, 2003 r� 9 2 4 A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7A -3, Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in a lodge in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure, located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow 10 Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther=arren Campbell MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE: 7 -0 APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: That the property owner or his tenant(s) be strictly prohibited from allowing any loading and delivery activity to occur to the Sonnenalp Hotel or Swiss Chalet properties from East Meadow Drive (public right of way) or from the private property immediately adjacent to and along East Meadow Drive to the accessory eating, drinking and retail establishment uses permitted under this conditional use permit. 5. A request for 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 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 EI 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 th 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 5 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). Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED TO JULY 28, 2003 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett WORKSESSION — NO VOTE 00 7. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an outdoor dining deck, in accordance with Section 12- 7B - 48, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED TO JULY 28, 2003 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 TABLED TO JULY 28, 2003 9. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition, located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive /Lot 47, Vail Village West 1 st Filing. Applicant: John and Bobbi -Ann Houtsma Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED TO JULY 28, 2003 10. Approval of June 23, 2003 minutes MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 7 -0 APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS 11. Information Update Meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm 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 July 11, 2003 in the Vail Daily. • • L: 4 Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 TO 1'4r[V'1 OF VAIL tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us Project Name: Vail Valley Medical Center PEC Number: PECO30029 Project Description: Participants: amendment fo conditional Use permit to approve parking management OWNER VAIL CLINIC INC 181 W MEADOW DR VAIL CO 81657 License: APPLICANT Braun Associates Inc License: Project Address: 181 W MEADOW DR VAIL 05/ 19/2OD3 Phone: 05/19/2003 Phone: Location: Legal Description: Lot: E &F Block: Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE FILING 2 Parcel Number: 210107101013 Comments: BOARD /STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: Lamb Vote: 4 -3 Date of Approval: 07/14/2003 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: CON0005993 1. That should the Planning and Environmental Commission find that the proposed conditional use is being operated in violation of the conditions outlined herein, this conditional use permit may be revoked, as outlined in Section 12 -16 -5: Planning and Environmental Commission Action, Vail Town Code. 2. That the applicant shall comply with all of the elements of the parking management plan as outlined in the "Vail Valley Medical Center, Application for 49 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit, Proposed Parking Management Plan, dated May 15, 2003," and as provided in Attachment A. Specifically, the following elements of the Parking Management Plan are: 1. Providing separate visitor (surface lot) and employee parking areas (parking structure) 2. Providing shuttle services to employees during peak times of the year (November to April) from down - valley areas 3. Providing shuttle services to employees from Eagle, Gypsum, Summit County, and Lake County year -round 4. Providing free bus passes to medical center staff for transportation from areas within Eagle and Lake Counties 5. Maintaining current supply of parking on the campus 6. Providing valet services (free of charge) to visitors within the surface parking a rea Any subsequent amendments to such document shall require review and approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission. I That the conditional use permit expires after two years (expires on July 14, 2004) and the applicant must submit an additional conditional use permit application prior to the expiration date. 4. That the applicant must complete a survey of the employees and patients of the Vail Valley Medical Center to determine satisfaction with the parking management plan and to identify additional needs of where resources should be spent. 5. Any applications for a building permit to finish existing vacant space which would impact the parking requirements (i.e. additional hospital beds, additional medical practices, etc.) shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of an amendment to the approved parking management plan and conditional use permit, Planner: Allison Ochs PEC Fee Paid: $550.00 0 C] MEMORANDUM ORIGINAL TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 14, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3, Vail Town Code, to allow for a Parking Management. Plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 W. Meadow Drive /Lots E &F, Vail Village 2n Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs I. SUMMARY The applicant, the Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun Associates, Inc., is requesting a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3, Vail Town Code, to allow for a Parking Management Plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 W. Meadow Drive /Lots E &F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. The request is in response to a condition of approval of the May 14, 2001, conditional use permit allowing for an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center. The Community Development Department is recommending approval of the conditional use permit request, with the findings and conditions as outlined in Section IX of this memorandum. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, the Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun Associates, Inc., has submitted a request for an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow for a parking management plan. The request is in response to a condition of approval for the May 14, 2001, conditional use permit allowing for an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center. That condition stated: That the permit expires 5131103 and the applicant must return to address the parking for Phase 1. This condition was based on the belief of the Planning and Environmental Commission that parking needed to be addressed as part of the Vail Valley Medical Center Phase 11 expansion. However, if Phase 11 did not occur within 2 years, the Planning and Environmental Commission felt that the current parking situation as impacted by the Phase I expansion must be addressed. The applicant has submitted a parking analysis and management plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center. This has been attached for reference (Attachment A). Generally, the traffic analysis that was completed by Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC, indicates that the peak traffic volumes and the parking utilization have decreased since the Phase I improvements were completed. It concludes by stating: The parking existing on site (329 spaces) has adequate capacity to serve the existing uses and improvements at the Vail Valley Medical Center. Additionally, the managed parking plan (including valet parking) further maximizes the parking potential of the site. The proposed parking management plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center has been provided by Braun Associates, Inc. Specifically, the elements of the parking management plan include: • Providing separate visitor (surface lot) and employee parking areas (parking structure) • Providing shuttle services to employees during peak times of the year (November to April) from down - valley areas • Providing shuttle services to employees from Eagle, Gypsum, Summit County, and Lake County year -round • Providing free bus passes to medical center staff for transportation from areas within 'Eagle and Lake Counties • Maintaining current supply of parking on the campus • Providing valet services (free of charge) to visitors within the surface parking area III. BACKGROUND The original clinic was constructed in 1967, and the Vail Valley Medical Center has been added over the years as the Town of Vail has grown. The expansion approved in 2001, added approximately 22,866 sq. ft. of new floor area to the medical center. The addition included the following key elements: • Improved obstetric facilities • Improved outpatient facilities • Reduction in the materials storage facilities and an associated reduction in staff levels on the Vail campus • Reduction in the parking space requirements for the site. At the time of the 20001 Phase I expansion, the Planning and Environmental Commission also reviewed the Phase II Master Plan. A description of the Phase 11 elements is included in Attachment B. IV. 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. 40 2 Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approvalldeniaVapproval 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. 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. • 3 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. 12 -9C -5: Development Standards. A. Prescribed By Planning And Environmental Commission: In the 1 0 general use district, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as prescribed by the planning and environmental commission: 1. Lot area and site dimensions. 2. Setbacks. 3_ Building height. 4. Density control. 5. Site coverage. 6. Landscaping and site development. 7. Parking and loading. B. Reviewed By Planning And Environmental Commission. Development standards shall be proposed by the applicant as a part of a conditional use permit application. Site specific development standards shall then be determined by the planning and environmental commission during the review of the conditional use request in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title. 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: 401 0 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. The Vail Land Use Plan designates this property as "Transition ", which is described as the following: Transition The transition designation applies to the area between Lionshead and the Vail Village. The activities and site design of this area is aimed at encouraging pedestrian flow through the area and strengthening the connection between the two commercial cores. Appropriate activities include hotels, lodging, and other tourist oriented residential units, ancillary retail and restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other types of civic and culturally oriented uses, and the adjacent properties to the north. This designation would include the right -of -way of West Meadow Drive, and the adjacent properties to the north. V1. ZONING ANALYSIS No changes are proposed at this time. However, a zoning analysis of the Phase I improvements have been is provided for reference. In addition, a vicinity map has been attached for reference (Attachment B). Zoning: General Use zone district Land Use Plan Designation: Transition Area Current Land Use: Medical Facility Development Standards Phase I Expansion Lot area /site dimensions: 166,007 sf13.811 acres Setbacks: Front: 22' Side (w): 39' Side (e): 34' Rear: 29' Building height: 53' (top of mechanical screening) Density control: NIA Site Coverage: 3,460 sq. ft. Parking and loading: 329 parking spaces (excludes valet) VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Mixed Use Special Development District # 14 South: Residential Primary /Secondary East: Residential High Density Multiple Family West: Public /Recreational General Use l:, 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: 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. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the Vail Valley Medical Center property is zoned General Use District. Hospitals, medical facilities and other similar uses are allowed in the General Use zone district subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The proposed parking management plan has been provided to meet the Planning and Environmental Commission's condition of approval regarding the Phase I expansion of the Vail Valley Medical Center. The main purpose of the Phase I expansion was to improve medical services in the Vail Valley and had minimum impact on the overall capacity of the hospital. In fact, the removal of a number of uses from the site actually reduced the number of vehicular trips to and from the site. Staff believes that the parking management plan furthers the development objectives of the Town by successfully managing the parking demands of the Vail Valley Medical Center, without impact to public parking facilities. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that the proposed parking management plan for the 40 Vail Valley Medical Center will have no impact on light and air, distribution of population, utilities, schools, parks and recreation N facilities, and other public facilities needs. The impacts were reviewed as part of the conditional use permit for the Phase I expansion of the Vail Valley Medical Center. The traffic analysis provided by Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC, indicates there to be a reduction in peak traffic volumes and parking utilization since the implementation of Phase I improvements, Staff believes that the parking management plan will have a positive impact on transportation facilities. 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 Phase I improvments improved the automotive and pedestrian safety and access with the addition to the medical center. A number of uses, including materials management employees, medical office employees, medical office exam rooms, transportation department employees, and the Urgent Care Center, have been removed from the site, thus reducing the number of vehicular trips as indicated by the traffic analysis. The parking management plan includes the following elements; • Providing separate visitor (surface lot) and employee parking areas (parking structure) • Providing shuttle services to employees during peak times of the year (November to April) from down - valley areas • Providing shuttle services to employees from Eagle, Gypsum, Summit County, and Lake County year -round • Providing free bus passes to medical center staff for transportation from areas within Eagle and Lake Counties • Maintaining current supply of parking on the campus • Providing valet services (free of charge) to visitors within the surface parking area Staff believes that the combination of these elements of the parking management plan will have a positive impact on the above - referenced 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. As this is a review of a parking management plan, there is no effect on the above - referenced criteria. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 49 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 provisions of the code. use would comply with each of the applicable conditional use permit section of the zoning IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow for a Parking Management Plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 W. Meadow Drive /Lots E &F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Staff's recommendation 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. 4. That the applicant has complied with the condition imposed by the Planning and Environmental Commission on May 14, 2001, in the issuance of the conditional use permit for the Phase I addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional use permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: That should the Planning and Environmental Commission find that the proposed conditional use is being operated in violation of the conditions outlined herein, this conditional use permit may be 0 • L«3 revoked, as outlined in Section 12 -16 -5: Planning and Environmental Commission ,fiction, Vail Town Code. 2. That the applicant shall comply with all of the elements of the parking management plan as outlined in the "Vail Valley Medical Center, Application for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit, Proposed Parking Management Plan, dated May 15, 2003," and as provided in Attachment A. Specifically, the following elements of the Parking Management Plan are: 1. Providing separate visitor (surface lot) and employee parking areas (parking structure) 2. Providing shuttle services to employees during peak times of the year (November to April) from down - valley areas 3. Providing shuttle services to employees from Eagle, Gypsum, Summit County, and Lake County year -round 4. Providing free bus passes to medical center staff for transportation from areas within Eagle and Lake Counties 5. Maintaining current supply of parking on the campus 6. Providing valet services (free of charge) to visitors within the surface parking area Any subsequent amendments to such document shall require review and approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vail Valley Medical Center, Application for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit, Proposed Parking Management Plan, dated May 15, 2003 B. Vicinity Map C. Adjacents 49 R Attachment: A , Vail Valley Medical Center Conditional Use Permit Proposed Parking Management Plan May 15, 2003 0 C] • A pp.Hcation for Amendment to • I. Introduction/ Background On May 14, 2001 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a redevelopment of a portion of the Vail Valley Medical Center known as the Phase 1 addition. The proposed addition removed an existing structure and provided for a new obstetrics facility (Women and Children's Center -- 2" floor) and new ambulatory surgery center (outpatient surgery on the 3` floor).. During the approval process for Phase 1 the PEC raised concerns about the sufficiency of parking on the site. VVMC maintained that the changes occurring on the campus including the reduction in staff, the relocation of medical office facilities off campus, and the reduced services provided on -site were reducing the traffic to the site and the demand for parking. Most notably, the Materials Management Department was relocated to the Edwards campus. Due to concerns about the assumptions being made about parking, the PEC placed a condition on the approval of Phase 1 which requires the VVMC to return to the PEC for review of a parking management plan if the Phase 2 project (which included additional structured parking) was not underway by May 31, 2003. Phase 2 of the redevelopment project is not moving forward as quickly as anticipated for reasons out of VVMC's control. Issues contributing to the delay of Phase 2 are the economy (fund raising efforts are not as successful due to the downturn of the economy, the war, etc.) and the uncertainty of joint venture efforts. VVMC is returning to the PEC with a traffic and parking analysis and parking management plan for the Vail campus. The results of the traffic and parking analysis confirm the assertions made during the approval of Phase 1, namely that due to the reduction in services provided and due to the relocation of numerous medical offices and service off of the campus, the demand for parking has been reduced. The available parking on -site is adequate to accommodate the need generated. II. Evaluation of Phase 1 A. Phase 1 Expansion The VVMC site includes approximately 169,450 sq. ft. (including the 22,866 sq. ft. (gross) Phase 1 addition to the hospital). The Phase 1 project was essentially a demolition of a two -story structure (originally constructed in 1972) and replacement with a three -story building. The new structure improved the quality of spaces for out- patient surgery and obstetrics. The Phase 1 expansion had little effect on the overall capacity of the hospital. The expansion instead improved the overall quality of patient areas with little increase in capacity. As part of the Phase 1 expansion the first floor of the new building was to remain vacant and be used for storage. At the time of application this area was not yet U Vii! Va➢ley Medical Center — Parking Management Plan Braun Associates, Inc. programmed and was intended to be used as transition space as uses in other portions of the hospital were moved to accommodate the Phase 2 expansion. In working with staff, it was determined that the space could be occupied as long as equivalent square footage elsewhere in the hospital were vacated (maintained as vacant or for storage) and as long as the uses moved were not new uses in the hospital (i.e., existing users). The Steadman Hawkins Foundation is in the process of occupying the first floor area of the Phase 1 expansion and is vacating a larger area in the basement of the hospital for a net decrease in usable sq. ft. in the hospital. B. Reduced Parking Demand In conjunction with the Phase 1 improvements and the completion of the Edwards medical campus, many uses and activities located on the Vail campus have been shifted to the Edwards campus or to other facilities in Vail and Edwards (i.e., Gateway Building, WestStar Building, etc.). One significant change is the removal of "materials management" from the Vail campus. This means that the majority of large trucks that deliver supplies to the Vail campus are now delivering materials to a central receiving and distribution center at the Edwards facility. Supplies needed in Vail are now delivered with smaller vans as needed. Not only did this represent a -reduction in loading and delivery needs but also a reduction of staff support for this function. Another major change to the Vail campus was in the reduction of medical office uses. The reassignment of several medical offices to the Edwards campus and other facilities in Vail and Edwards reduced the number of staff and patients utilizing parking facilities on the site thus improving parking availability and reducing traffic to the site. Probably the most significant change affecting visitors to the Vail Campus is the new Urgent Care Center in Edwards. This facility captures a significant amount of the traffic that used to come to the emergency room at the Vail Campus from down - valley. All of these changes have reduced the need for parking on the Vail campus. C. Parking and Traffic Data Analysis VVMC engaged the services of the Fox Higgins Transportation Group to analyze traffic and parking on the VVMC campus. They analyzed the conditions that existed before the Phase 1 redevelopment began and compared that to new data collected after completion of the Phase 1 redevelopment. Their report is attached for reference. 40 Vail VaUey Medical Center — Parking Management Plan 2 Braun Associates, Inc. r� Their report analyzed data collected in March 1999 (pre -Phase 1 redevelopment), March 2002 (pre -Phase 1 redevelopment), and March 2003 (post -Phase 1 redevelopment). Their report confirms the assumptions and recommendations made during the approval of the Phase 1 redevelopment, namely that due to the reductions being made to staffing and services the traffic and parking demand would be reduced on- campus. This pre -Phase 1 redevelopment report is attached for reference. The analysis of the traffic numbers shows a reduction in traffic to the site by 28% (from 2002 count) and 21% (from 1999 count). That reduction relates to a reduction in parking need. Additionally, Fox Higgins also analyzed parking count data taken before and after the Phase 1 redevelopment. That analysis shows that of the 329 available parking spaces, only 294 were in use (in the worst case), thus leaving 35 spaces available. The analysis also showed a 2% overall reduction in total cars parked on -site. D. Current Parking Management In order to m aximiz e and make the most efficient use of the parking facilities, VVMC implements a parking management strategy that has been extremely successful. The hospital provides a free valet service and employs full- -tirne staff to monitor the visitor parking area. With this valet service, VVMC is able to ensure that every visitor is able to find available parking on the campus. This management approach has been in operation for the last five years and has proven to be very successful. VVMC has not received parking complaints from visitors in the last five years, since this valet service was implemented. While the parking data suggested that is there are still additional parking spaces available on the campus during peak times of the day, the management of parking can further expand the capacity of the parking supply. This allows sufficient additional capacity on the site to handle any peak periods that might occur. Additionally, during peak times of the year (November through April) VVMC offers a free shuttle service to its employees from a park and ride service located at the Edwards campus. Shuttles are provided to the outlying areas including Eagle /Gypsum, S ummi t County, and Leadville year around. There are also periodic shuttles during the day that medical center staff can utilize for transportation to the maul campus. • Fail valley Medical Center — Parking Management Plan Braun Associates, Inc. • E. Parking and Traffic Conclusions As stated in the parking and traffic analysis prepared by Fox Higgins, the parking need and traffic to the VVMC campus has reduced since the Phase 1 development. The hospital is adequately parking all employees and visitors to the site with the current parking supply. Additionally, the valet service provides additional capacity to the parking facilities and the shuttle services help to reduce the overall parking demand. Vail Valley Medical Center also provides free county bus passes to any staff for transportation from areas within Eagle and Lake Counties. IIL Proposed Parking Management Plan The following is the proposed parking management plan for the VVMC. This plan will be permanently in place to help reduce parking need and provide additional capacity at the hospital as needed. In general VVMC will continue to manage its parking as it has for the past five years. That includes: • Providing separate visitor (surface lot) and employee parking areas (parking structure) • Providing shuttle services to employees during peals times of the year (November — April) from down valley areas • Providing shuttle services to employees from Eagle /Gypsum, Summit County, and Lake County year -round • Providing free bus passes to medical center staff for transportation from areas within Eagle and Lake Counties • Maintaining current supply of parking on the campus • Providing valet services (free of charge) to visitors within the surface parking area If the operation and management of the parking facilities change in a significant way or the uses within the hospital change in a way that significantly impacts the parking capacity, VVMC will be required to return to the Town and /or PEC for review and approval. 40 Vail Valley Medical Center -- Parking Management Plan 4 Braun Associates, Inc. 0 IV. Conditional Use Permit Criteria Below is the criteria used by the staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission when reviewing a request for a Conditional Use Permit. We have addressed each of these criteria and find that the proposal fully complies with each. A. The effect of the use on fight and air, distribution ofpopularion, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Our Analysis: The Vail Valley Medical Center is part of the public or quasi- public infrastructure of the Town and the county. Approximately one -half of the services provided at this medical center service directly those needs of the permanent population. Without such a facility located in our community many would be required to travel to Denver or elsewhere to receive quality health care. It is largely the growth in demand placed on this facility by the local population that has created a need for improved obstetrics and out patient surgery facilities. The VVMC has responded to these demands for service with the Phase 1 addition, completed in 2002. The proposed addition has had little impact on utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities. Transportation facilities have not been negatively impacted by the Phase 1 addition because of the overall net reduction in the number of trips to the site by employees, the reduction in the number of deliveries by large trucks to the facility, and the reduction in medical office and hospital services provided onsite. The existing parking facilities located on -site and the parking management plan being provided for the uses on -site will allow the medical center to operate in an efficient manner thus creating a compatible relationship to other uses in the neighborhood. A Effect upon traffic u4th particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic Row and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Our Analysis: The Phase 1 addition had little if any impact on these issues. The addition, given the uses that were removed from the site (materials management employees, medical office employees, medical office exam rooms, transportation department employees, Urgent Care Center in Edwards, etc.) actually reduced the number of vehicles corning to the site as evidenced by the traffic study provided. Large delivery vehicles (especially semi - trailer) trips have all but been eliminated from the site. The hospital • Vail Valle} Medical Center — Parking Management Plan Braun Associates, Inc. has a parking management program, which allows visitors to the hospital to be valet parked and therefore the VVMC is able to accommodate visitors to the site in an efficient and effective manner. The proposed parking management plan documents the activities and operations that have been in place at the medical center since the new addition was completed. During the past 6 months since the Phase 1 addition was completed, the VVMC has been able to show its ability to manage parking on its campus which accommodates its employees and visitors. The parking and traffic analysis also documents the reduction in traffic to and from the since which directly impacts parking resources. The proposed plan is consistent with this criterion. C. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to he located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Our Analysis: The VVMC site has long been a medical facility characterized by hospital and medical office uses. The property to the north of the hospital, the Evergreen Lodge, is a large, 7 -story lodge and condominium facility. To the east is the Weststar Bank building, a 3 to 4 -story office building. Also to the east is the Skaal Hus, a 2 -story condominium project. The VVMC campus is bordered on the south by West Meadow Drive. Beyond West Meadow Drive to the south are single - family homes. The property to the west of the VVMC is the Dobson Ice Arena and the Library. The existing VVMC facility is comprised of a series of one, two, and three -story structures that have been connected over the years. The current access to, way finding, and location of these buildings is very inefficient, not to mention confusing to the visitor. The Phase 1 addition improved the circulation pattern within the hospital and added an additional story to an existing two -story building. The addition is within the bulk and scale of the existing facility while improving the overall design and aesthetics of the campus. The addition and related parking management plan will have little impact on the surrounding uses with respect to the bulk, mass, and character of the area. 0 `'ail Valley Medical Center — Parking Management Plan � Braun Associates, Inc. • V. Land Use Plan Goals Below is a list of Goals from the Vail Land Use Plan that are applicable to the VVMC. The Phase 1 addition was found to be consistent with these goals as the proposal is responding to the needs of the community, is being developed in an area where development is currently located, and is upgrading an older building and improving upon its character. These goals also apply to the proposed parking management plan, which allows the medical center to operate efficiently and effectively. 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 both 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. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 6. Community Services 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. Vail Talley Medical Center — Parking Management Plan Braun Associates, Inc. 7 MAY -19 -03 MON 10 :34 FOX HIGGINS GROUP FAX NO. 3037722329 P,01 FOX T R AN S PC R TAT I O N G R O UP May 19, 2003 crw101a ANALYSISWID Mr. Dominic Mauriello, AICP Braun Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 2558 Edwards, CO 81632 RE: Traffic Analysis for the Vail Valley Medical Center Dear Dominic: The Fox Higgins Transportation Group has prepared a traffic and parking analysis of the existing Vail Valley Medical Center to identify traffic volumes and parking demands on the site before and after Phase I renovations were in place. The medical center is located between S. Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive. The facility has recently undergone modifications to its operations and uses known as the Phase I improvements. These improvements involved the relocation of several existing operations to a new facility in Edwards and the renovation of existing obstetrics and surgery areas. With the Phase I improvements, the daily delivery of supplies were anticipated to significantly be reduced by moving the materials management operations and medical office uses to the Edwards facility. This traffic and parking study compares data collected at the medical facility before the improvements were in place to determine any net changes in traffic characteristics with the Phase I conditions. This analysis concludes that there has been a significant reduction in traffic from the existing conditions prior to the Phase I redevelopment. The parking demand on site has also experienced a reduction since the redevelopment of the medical center. Existing Traffic Conditions The medical center site is located between the S. Frontage Road and Meadow drive. Two parking areas are located on the site. A surface parking lot containing 120 parking spaces accessed by Meadow Drive is used as the primary visitor access and emergency access to the medical facility. At times of peak parking utilization, parking spaces in the surface lot are maximized by valet parking. The medical facility parking demands are maintained on the site at all times. A parking structure with 209 spaces serves the hospital staff parking demands with access from the S. Frontage Road. The parking structure is currently gated for controlled access. W. Meadow Drive is a two -lane roadway with sidewalks along the north side at the hospital frontage. The posted speed limit along Meadow Drive is 15 miles per hour. W. Meadow Drive serves all modes No P.O. BOX 1 9788, BOULDER, COLORADO] 80302-276E3 PHONE: 303 -652 -3571 ■ FAX: 303.772-2329 OR 303-652 -6574 MAY -19 -03 M0N 10:35 FOX � IGG I NS GROUP FAX NO, 30377'P2329 P.02 Mn Dominic Mauriello, AICP Page 2 May 19, 2003 of transportation including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use. S. Frontage Road is a three -lane roadway adjacent to the hospital parking structure and widens to a 5 -lane section east of the hospital access. The S. Frontage Road is planned for future widening to a 5 -lane section west of the hospital access. The existing hospital parking structure access curb cut along S. Frontage Road is wide and currently shared with the adjacent commercial use parking lot access. Traffic Count Data In order to compare current traffic characteristics of the facility to operations prior to the Phase I improvements, vehicle turning movement counts were collected at the two site access intersections on a Friday in March 2003. The data was collected in the morning peak hour period (7:30 - 8.30 AM) and evening peak hour period (3:30 - 5:30 PM) at site access locations. Parking utilization data was also collected in the surface lot and parking structure at peak parking periods of 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM. This data was compared to previous data collected at the medical facility in March 2002 and March 1999 prior to the Phase I improvements to determine any changes in traffic characteristics with the modifications to the site operations. Parking utilization data was only collected in 2003 and 1999. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the traffic count and parking utilization data for the facility at each count period. Figure 1 illustrates the peak hour volumes at the site access intersections for all three years. The results of the traffic count data show that there has been a net decrease of 21% to 28% in traffic volumes at the site access points since completion of the Phase I improvements. The parking utilization of the site has experienced a decrease in parking demand of 2% since the Phase I improvements were implemented. It should be noted that parking counts taken in 1 999 and 2003 reflect that the parking areas were never occupied at maximum capacities (e.g. in excess of 30 spaces unoccupied). Conclusion The Vail Valley Medical Center peak traffic volumes at the site access points and parking utilization have decreased since implementation of the Phase I improvements. This decrease is primarily a result of relocating several of the medical facility operations (e.g. Urgent Care facility at Edwards Medical Center), private medical practices moving offsite, and storage areas to the Edwards facility as included in the Phase I improvements. Therefore, the parking existing on site (329 spaces) has adequate capacity to serve the existing uses and improvements at the Vail Valley Medical Center. Additionally, the managed parking plan (including valet parking) further maximizes the parking potential of the site. Sincerely, Fox Higgins Transportati n Group, LLC Ann Higgins, AICP Principal Attachments: Table 1 -Hospital Driveway Traffic Count Comparison Table 2 - Hospital Parking Demand Comparison Figure 1 - Existing Historical Traffic Counts MAY -19 -03 M ON 10 :36 C5 , Q is V d d r e Z O 0 K. r{ x L.1 , L ' FOB{ HIGGINS GROUP F CS f4 Q. C W 'rte O M O a 0 m d m FAX NO, 3037 c O �L d a C 0 0 Q C 1.r CL N Q CV !� C N N M _ 10R CO CA N N iV h o N " to M O 7 p Q p � v CO N H co m r RV O O N � M r N r a O x L C. CJ fs ti � LL ' a �` cn L o L L. m a Zi V � N n =° C � G M a N r U U ca Q 0 ILA t? P T a Lo C7 Op r N T Q O m N V 2 2 CS f4 Q. C W 'rte O M O a 0 m d m FAX NO, 3037 c O �L d a C 0 0 Q C 1.r CL N Q CV m C . Q � Cs C fl y C G m m 1� P. 03 s m Q a 0 • • !� C N N M h o N " to M O 7 p Q p � v CO N O r O T re � O O C4 L C. CJ � a �` cn L o L L. m a. Zi V � n =° C � G M a N r U U ca m C . Q � Cs C fl y C G m m 1� P. 03 s m Q a 0 • • MAY- 19 - 03 MON 10:36 FOX HIS IN GROUP � 0 0 FAX , 303772-2329 P.04 \ g \ � v � ( / � ^ 8 2 CD a LL 9 t/ / @ w, > . CO U. § � � � 6 « F- 0) = z \ - � 0 f © 1 » 2 3: / _ \ ��.� o � Cc — 2 � a w � x C) Ln � « + 7N �. Cb nwiavIll 3 [gZ /33] ( #± /Z[) #g /2# ) N /O] (Z /0) [/[ § | � 2 , �; � • . co m * e X � | t 13 | U. . 11- J 0 iu . Attachment: B ri C� THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPF' PUBLIC NOTICE Attachment, C 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 July 14, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3, Vail Town Code, to allow for a Parking Management Plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 W. Meadow Drive /Lots E &F, Vail Village 2 "d Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner. Allison Ochs A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition, located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive /Lot 47, Vail Village West 1' Filing. Applicant: John and Bobbi -Ann Houtsma Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6, Setbacks, and 12 -6H -7, Height, Vail Town Code, . to allow for an addition, located at Manor Vail, 595 E. Vail Valley Drive/Lot A, Vail Village 7`" Filing. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Bob McCleary Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7A -3, Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in a lodge in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure, located at 20 Vail Road, fit E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow DrivelLots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 $t Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett 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) 47.9 -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. l 1 This notice published in the Vail Daily on June 27, 2003. T f • TOWN O *W& Vail Valley Medical Center ,Dist of Adjacent Property Owners May 2003 DUDZINSKI, KATHERINE W. 3309 CANADIAN PKWY FT COLLINS, CO 80524 MCENNALLY, PETER & JUDITH 143 OAKS AVE DEE WHY NSW 2099 AUSTRALIA CAPUTO, STEVEN J. & CATHERINE L. 24 VIKING DR ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 -7001 TAKTON, MARJORIE J. TRUST 1505 GREENWAY TERRACE ELM GROVE, WI 53122 -1612 FLINN, LAWRENCE, JR 209 TACONIC RD GREENWICH, CT 06831 ALTI CORP 3655 NOBEL DR STE 260 SAN DIEGO, CA 92122 Bank Buildin VAIL 108 LTD C/O WESTSTAR BANK ADMIN CENTER PO BOX 1210 GYPSUM, CO 81637 • • • Vail Valley Medical Center ,List of Adjacent Property Owners May 2003 EUGENE & LORRAINE PETRACCA ASSOC LLC 933 PORT WASHINGTON BLVD BOX 230 PORT WASHINGTON, NY 11070 HOCHGESANG, ANTHONY C. & KAREN H. - GIBBS, SHERRY M_ & STEVEN M. 596 W PRESTWICK WAY CASTLE ROCK, CO 80104 -2761 CAVANAUGH, GEORGE D. & MARY K. 2470 COUNTRY CLUB LOOP WESTMINSTER, CO 80234 HAINES, JANET L. 28 FAIRWAY LN GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 AMEN, PAUL D. 3202 COUNTRY CLUB PKWY CASTLE ROCK, CO 80104 LOPEZ, LAURA J. & CARLOS M. CIO ECLAC - SANTIAGO PO BOX 5750 NEW YORK, NY 10163 -5750 SALLERSON, PETER L. 300 E 85TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10028 PETRACCA, EUGENE & LORRAINE -JT 13 WOODS RD NEW FAIRFIELD, CT 06812 SULLIVAN, SHAWN M. 150 N WACKER DR 612 CHICAGO, IL 60606 Skaal Hus SUSAN H. SCHULTZ REVOCABLE TRUST SUSAN H. SCHULTZ TRUSTEE 6495 IDEAL AVE N MAHTOMEDI, MN 55115 NORRIS, JOAN M. 141 W MEADOW DR 2 VAIL, CO 81657 ANDERSON, RONALD V. & WILMA L. 722 NEBRASKA AVE 1101 HOLTON, KS 66436 Vail Valley Medical Center List of Adjacent Property Owners May 2003 Vail Associates VAIL CORP PO BOX 7 VAIL, CO 81658 Everqreen (Vail Inn) Condo Owners JOHN & MARY ANN RUSSO FAMILY LP 488 MADISON AVE TOMS RIVER, NJ 08753 GAMBRILL, MONA MARIE OLEAN- 22 INWOOD CLOSE PAGAT BERMUDA PG05 STEWART, JOHN & SUETTA PO BOX 740266 BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33474 -0266 SEPIC, JIM & CARMEN -JT 6075 W MERCER WY MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 SCHICKLI, JEANNE HLAVKA 345 E 94TH ST APT 17A NEW YORK, NY 10128 RUBIN, ALAN & LAURA 11208 BLACK HORSE CT POTOMAC, MD 20854 NELSON, GARY S. & ANN N. -JT PO BOX 146 STANLEY, ND 58784 -0146 WHITE, DAVID A.J.G. & MARGOT L. BOX HM 1541 HAMILTON BERMUDA HMFX KORT, GREGORIO & HAYDEE C. -JT 4 COUNTRY CLUB VILLAGE PUEBLO, CO 81008 -1634 MALONEY, KENNETH J. 371 GARDEN CITY DR CRANSTON, RI 02920 • 0 Vail Valley Medical Center List of Adjacent Property Owners Nfay 2003 Meadow Drive Residences DOUGLAS, MORGAN D., JR & CATHERINE E. 142 W MEADOW DR VAIL, CO 81657 MAUD B. DUKE QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST 5550 S STEELE ST LITTLETON. CO 80121 SHWAYDER, IRVING J. 1900 E GIRARD PL 1501 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 LAPIN, MERVYN 232 W MEADOW DR VAIL, CO 81657 KEPNER, H.F. - HALEY, A.D. - MARTZ, M. - HOLMAN, R. & R. - BEAUREGARD, M. 3033 E 1 STAVE #810 DENVER, CO 80206 COLVA CORP NV C/O CENTURY 21 AT VAIL FAO BOX 7390 AVON, CO 81620 HURTT, CALEB B. & MARYAN F. 272 W MEADOW DR VAIL, CO 81657 KING, JAMES U., JR 11931 WICKCHESTER LN STE 401 HOUSTON, TX 77043 Vail International VAIL INTERNATIONAL CONDO ASSOC 300 E LIONSHEAD CIR VAIL, CO 81657 Evergreen Lodoe EVERGREEN LODGE AT VAIL LTD 12211 W ALAMEDA PKWY STE 202 LAKEWOOD, CO 80228 �1 L_J 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 14, 2003 SUBJECT: 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) zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson SUMMARY The applicants, Vicki Pearson, et.al., are requesting text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the existing Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations within Vail's residential zone districts. These text amendments modify the GRFA definitions and calculations, and exclude basements from GRFA. Based upon staff's 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 proposed text amendments, subject to the findings noted in Section VII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST 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 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. Per the Planning and Environmental Commission's direction, staff has drafted proposed text amendments (see Attachment A) to modify the GRFA regulations as follows: • GRFA measured from the outside of the exterior walls. • Basement areas excluded from GRFA calculations. • Vaulted spaces included as GRFA. • Airlocks included as GRFA. • Stairs included as GRFA in multiple- family structures. • "Interior Conversion" GRFA bonus provisions repealed. TOWNO FYntt, I1.1. BACKGROUND 0 The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed this request at its October 14, 2002, January 27, March 24, June 9, and June 23, 2003, public hearings. Additionally, staff facilitated focus group discussions addressing these proposed text amendments on May 22 and June 5, 2003. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS Floor Area Zoning Regulations Fundamental functions of a zoning ordinance are to control land use activities in each specific zone district by regulating the allowable uses, the density and intensity of those uses, and the bulk (size) of the structures accommodating those uses. Zoning density controls answer the question "how many ?" of that allowed land use activity is appropriate for a site (example: number of units per acre). Intensity controls answer the question "how much ?" of that land use activity is appropriate for a site (example: building floor area compared to lot size). Bulk controls further answer the questions of "how ?" and "where ?" a land use activity occurs on a site (example: property Fine setback, building height, site coverage, etc.). The Town of Vail's gross residential floor area regulations are essentially a modified version of a common zoning control known as "floor area ratio" or FAR. FAR is a ratio of the square footage of a building compared to the square footage of a lot size. FAR is an intensity control used to measure "how much" of a land use activity is on a site. FAR is a zoning regulation most commonly applied to commercial zone districts, however„ in many communities it is also applied to residential zone districts. The relationship of FAR to density and intensity of land use activity can be described with the following example: the impacts of a small 200 sq. ft. road -side fruit stand on a 2 acre site differs significantly from those of a 50,000 sq. ft. supermarket grocery store located on that same 2 acre site. While the fruit stand and the supermarket grocery store are the same commercial activity (i.e. retail sale of grocery products) and have the same density (i.e. 1 business per 2 acres); the intensities of the two uses are dramatically different. This concept of intensity also applies to residential land uses. The greater the intensity of a residential use (i.e. the greater the square footage) the greater the potential impacts of that use. These impacts are numerous and range from aesthetic impacts such as visual building bulk /mass; to physical site impacts such as driveway /parking impervious area demands; to utility and other public service demands. The Town of Vail's existing gross residential floor area (GRFA) regulations are intentionally codified within the "DENSITY" sections of each residential zone district chapter of the zoning ordinance. This organization of the Town's zoning regulations acknowledges the relationship between the size of a residential use (i.e. GRFA) and the density /intensity impacts of that residential use. In addition to being used as a zoning intensity control, FAR regulations are a common zoning bulk control used to quantify building size with a single measurement, rather than 40 describing the building with multiple measurements such as height and building site coverage. The relationship between the Town of Vail's GRFA regulations and zoning bulk controls are acknowledged in the purpose section of Chapter 1215, Gross Residential Floor Area, Vail Town Code, which reads as follows: PA This chapter is intended to control and limit the size, bulk, and mass of residential structures within the town. Gross residential floor area (GRFA) regulation is an effective tool for limiting the size of residential structures and ensuring that residential structures are developed in an environmentally sensitive manner by allowing adequate air and light in residential areas and districts. Within the Town of Vail it has historically been accepted that some form of floor area limit regulation is necessary to control the intensity and bulk of residential activities in conjunction with the Town's other zoning controls (i.e. density, setbacks, height, site coverage, landscape area, design guidelines, etc.). In terms of general development potential, Vail's current GRFA regulations are often the most restrictive of the Town's zoning controls for many residential properties, especially those residential properties larger than 20,000 sq. ft in area. The premise that a floor area zoning regulation within the Town of Vail is both necessary and appropriate is one of the fundamental underlying philosophical issues related to these proposed GRFA text amendments. Staff has concluded that a residential floor area limit, such as GRFA, is a valid intensity and bulk control within the Town of Vail that serves a compelling public purpose. A traditional FAR zoning regulation is a simple ratio of floor area square footage compared to lot area square footage, with relatively simple definitions of floor area and lot area. The Town of Vail's current GRFA regulations have been refined and amended numerous times which has resulted in floor area regulations with various bonuses, credits, exclusions, and exceptions. Staff believes the cumulative effect of these amendments has created a floor area regulation that is no longer simple to define, calculate, understand, implement, or enforce. While staff accepts the philosophical premise that a residential floor area regulation is valid and necessary within the Town of Vail; staff does not believe that the Town's current GRFA regulations appropriately achieve the intended public purpose of floor area controls. Additional Research ATTACHMENTS _B & C On June 23, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission directed staff to further research the distribution of parcels 2:20,000 sq. ft. in size subject to GRFA regulations within the Town of Vail (see Attachment B). Based upon a 1996 evaluation of GRFA impacts on home sizes by Braun and Associates, the development potential for residential lots of 20,000 sq. ft. and larger are most significantly impacted by the Town's GRFA regulations (see Attachment C). For reference, the enclosed lot distribution map includes an overlay of the debris flow, rock fall, and avalanche hazards within the Town of Vail. A property owner's ability to mitigate all these hazards, except red avalanche hazards, will negate most impacts of these hazards on development potential. ATTACHMENT D Staff has prepared an evaluation of the maximum floor area potentials created by possible GRFA text amendments to exclude basements from GRFA calculations and possible text amendments to eliminate GRFA limits (see Attachment D). This evaluation compares the overall floor area potential of properties in the Single - Family, Two - Family Primary/Secondary, Low Density Multiple - Family, and High Density Multiple- Family do residential zone districts for lots ranging in size from 10,000 sq. ft. to over one acre. 3 This evaluation does not address "250 Ordinance" GRFA bonuses; the "interior conversion" GRFA bonuses; nor unique site constraints such as flood plain, excessive slopes, and red avalanche hazards. Staff has prepared this evaluation for research purposes only, and acknowledges the unlikelihood that all residential structures will be constructed to these maximums. However, this evaluation does identify the significant impacts that text amendments excluding basement areas from GRFA calculations or eliminating GRFA limits may have on the potential intensity and bulk of residential activities in Vail. A TTACHMENT E Staff has also prepared an evaluation of 25 properties within the Town of Vail to find a sampling of the amount of basement/crawlspace area, vaulted area, and exterior wall area within existing homes (see Attachment E). Proposed Text Amendments On June 23, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission direct staff to further examine possible text amendments to the Town's current GRFA regulations to simplify the GRFA provisions and to exclude basements from GRFA calculations. Staff has drafted possible text amendments (see Attachment A) that address the following: • GRFA measured from the outside of the exterior walls. • Basement areas excluded from GRFA calculations. • Vaulted spaces count as GRFA. • Airlocks count as GRFA. • Stairs count as GRFA in multiple - family structures. • "Interior Conversion" provisions repealed. • No change to the GRFA allocation formulas. Proposed Text Amendment Evaluation The following is a brief summary of staff's evaluation of the pro's and con's of the proposed GRFA text amendments and an evaluation of the alignment of the proposed amendments with the Planning and Environmental Commission's accepted GRFA reform principles: Pro's • Doesn't effect other Town zoning regulations. • Doesn't adversely affect local property values. • Encourages better design than eliminating GRFA (doesn't encourage flat roofs or box - shaped buildings). • Treats neighboring properties within the same zone district equally. • Less of an attractive nuisance for illegal construction. Con's • Sizes of homes will increase. • Creates a new regulatory system. • Further complicates the GRFA regulations. • Continues to regulate interior spaces. • Loop holes can be exploited. • May require significant adjustments to the GRFA formulas. C • 10 Conformance with the accepted reform principles: • GRFA reforms should be simpler to understand, implement, and enforce: NO • GRFA reforms should be equitable: YES • GRFA reforms should address related Town zoning regulations: YES • GRFA reforms should not negatively impact property sales or values: YES • Government should not regulate the interior use of homes: NO • GRFA reforms should improve compliance with building and fire codes: YES • GRFA reforms should not dramatically increase development potential: YES Additional Amendments for Consideration "Interior Conversion" repeal Staff is requesting direction from the Planning and Environmental Commission concerning the possible repeal of the "interior conversion" GRFA bonus. The "interior conversion" allows dwelling units existing prior to August 5, 1997, which meet or exceed their GRFA limits to convert existing interior crawlspaces and vaulted spaces to additional GRFA. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend that the Town Council adopt GRFA text amendments that calculate vaulted areas as GRFA and exclude basements and crawlspaces as GRFA, staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission consider repealing the "interior conversion" GRFA bonus as crawlspaces and vaulted spaces will be evaluated differently than under the existing zoning regulations. Conformance with the accepted reform principles: • GRFA reforms should be simpler to understand, implements and enforce: YES • GRFA reforms should be equitable: YES • GRFA reforms should address related Town zoning regulations: YES • GRFA reforms should not negatively impact property sales or values: YES • Government should not regulate the interior use of homes: YES • GRFA reforms should improve compliance with building and fire codes: YES • GRFA reforms should not dramatically increase development potential. YES "250 Ordinance" repeal Staff is requesting direction from the Planning and Environmental Commission concerning the possible repeal of the °250 Ordinance" GRFA bonus. The "250 Ordinance" grants residential dwelling units existing prior to November 30, 1995, a one- time GRFA bonus of 250 sq. ft. Dwelling units approved or constructed after November 30, 1995, are not eligible for this GRFA bonus. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend the Town Council repeal the "250 Ordinance ", staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission consider applying this bonus equally to all residential properties by increasing the GRFA allocations of each residential zone district by 250 sq. ft. for each constructed dwelling unit. Conformance with the accepted reform principles: • GRFA reforms should be simpler to understand, implement, and enforce: YES • GRFA reforms should be equitable: YES • GRFA reforms should address related Town zoning regulations: YES 0 • GRFA reforms should not negatively impact property sales or values: YES • Government should not regulate the interior use of homes: YES • GRFA reforms should improve compliance with building and fire codes: YES • GRFA reforms should not dramatically increase development potential: YES 5 GRFA allocation formula adjustments Staff is requesting direction from the Planning and Environmental Commission concerning possible adjustments to the GRFA allocation formulas, should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend the Town Council adopt GRFA text amendments which count vaulted areas and exterior wall area as GRFA. Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission consider increasing the GRFA allocations of each residential zone district by an appropriate amount to compensate for vault areas and wall areas not previously defined as GRFA. Please refer to the staff's evaluation of basementicrawlspace area, vaulted area, and exterior wall areas in existing homes (see Attachment E). Conformance with the accepted reform principles: • GRFA reforms should be simpler to understand, implement, and enforce: YES • GRFA reforms should be equitable: YES • GRFA reforms should address related Town zoning regulations: YES • GRFA reforms should not negatively impact property sales or values. YES • Government should not regulate the interior use of homes: YES • GRFA reforms should improve compliance with building and fire codes: YES • GRFA reforms should not dramatically increase development potential: YES Parking requirements Staff is requesting direction from the Planning and Environmental Commission concerning residential parking requirements. The provisions of Section 12- 10 -10, Parking Requirement Schedule, Vail Town Code, require parking for dwelling units located outside the "Commercial Core Areas" on the following schedule. If GRFA is 500 sq.ft. or less /dwelling unit = 1.5 spaces per unit If GRFA is 500 sq.ft. to 2,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit = 2 spaces per dwelling unit If GRFA is over 2,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit = 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit Staff is recommending that the Planning and Environmental Commission consider retaining this graduated parking schedule for multiple - family residential development and employee housing units. Additionally, the Commission should consider implementing a flat parking schedule of three parking spaces per single - family or two- family dwelling unit. Staff does not recommend that the Commission consider parking requirements based upon bedroom numbers, as a principle of these GRFA reforms is to limit the government's regulation of interior uses within a dwelling. Sample parking regulations from other communities have been attached for reference (see Attachment F). Amnesty provisions Staff is currently working with the Town Attorney to draft amnesty provisions to allow dwelling units with illegal, non - conforming construction to be brought into conformance with any proposed GRFA text amendments without penalty. V. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Planninq and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for forwarding a recommendation to the Town Council of a text amendment. 9 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 5. 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 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 conditionsldenial of a text amendment. The Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment. I . The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no 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. 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. 7 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. Vl. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12 Vail Town Code) Chapter 12 -1: Title, Purpose and Applicability 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. Article 12 -6A: Hillside Residential (HR) district 12 -6A -1: PURPOSE: The hillside 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 hillside 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 low density high quality residential development of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12 -6A -8: DENSITY CONTROL: B. Gross Residential Floor Area: 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a. Twenty (20) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first twenty one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780) square feet of site area; plus b. Five (5) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over twenty one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780) square feet. 2. In addition to the above, four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit. 3. On any site containing two (2) dwelling units, one of the units shall not exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA). This unit shall not be subdivided or sold separately from the main dwelling unit. This unit may be integrated into the main dwelling unit or may be integrated within a garage structure serving the main unit, but shall not be a separate freestanding structure. to 0 Article 12 -66: Single - Family Residential (SFR) district 12 -6B -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. 12 -6B -8: DENSITY CONTROL: B. Gross Residential Floor Area: 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a. Twenty five (25) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first twelve thousand five hundred (12,500) square feet of site area; plus b. Ten (10) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over twelve thousand five hundred (12,500) square feet. 2. in addition to the above, four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit. 3. No single - family residential lot except those located entirely in the red hazard avalanche zone or the flood plain shall be so restricted that it cannot be occupied by one single - family dwelling. Article 12 -6C: Two - Family Residential (R) district 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. 12 -6C -8: DENSITY CONTROL: B. Gross Residential Floor Area: 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a. Twenty five (25) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for 40 each one hundred (100) square feet of the first fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of site area, plus b. Ten (10) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15,000) 10.1 square feet, not to exceed thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet of site area; plus c. Five (5) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet. 2. In addition to the above, four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit. Article 12 -6D: Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PIS) district 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- 12-6D-8: DENSITY CONTROL: B. Gross Residential Floor Area: 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a. Twenty five (25) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of site area; plus b. Ten (10) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not to exceed thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet of site area; plus c, Five (5) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet. 2. in addition to the above, four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit. Article 12 -6E: Residential Cluster (RC) District 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 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 IN residential occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12 -6E -8: DENSITY CONTROL: A. Gross Residential Floor Area: Not more than twenty five (25) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area; provided, however, that single- family and two - family dwelling units constructed in the residential cluster district shall be entitled to an additional two hundred twenty five (225) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) per constructed dwelling unit. Total density shall not exceed six (6) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. A dwelling unit in a multiple- family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one -third (113) of the total floor area of the dwelling. Article 12 -6F: Low Density Multiple- Family Residential (LDMF) District 12 -6F -1: 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. 12 -6F -8: DENSITY CONTROL: A. Gross Residential Floor Area: Not more than thirty (30) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area; provided, however, that single- family and two- family dwelling units constructed in the low density residential district shall be entitled to an additional two hundred twenty five (225) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) per constructed dwelling unit. Total density shall not exceed nine (9) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. A dwelling unit in a multiple - family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one -third (113) of the total floor area of the dwelling. Article 12 -6G: Medium Density Multiple - Family Residential (MDMF) District 12 -6G -1: PURPOSE. The medium density multiple- family district is intended to provide sites for multiple - family dwellings at densities to a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The medium density multiple - family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with multiple- family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, and where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the district. 11 12 -6G -8: DENSITY CONTROL: A. Gross Residential Floor Area: Not more than thirty five (35) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area; provided, however, that single - family and two- family dwelling units constructed in the medium density residential district shall be entitled to an additional two hundred twenty five (225) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) per constructed dwelling unit. Total density shall not exceed eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. A dwelling unit in a multiple- family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one -third (113) of the total floor area of the dwelling. Article 12 -6H: High Density Multiple - Family Residential (HDMF) District 12 -6H -1: PURPOSE: The high density multiple- family district is intended to provide sites for multiple - family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same districts The high density multiple- family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the district. 12 -6H -8: DENSITY CONTROL: Not more than sixty (60) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (1010 square feet of buildable site area. Not more than sixty (60) square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area for any conditional use listed in section 12 -61-1-3 of this article. Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. Each accommodation unit shall be counted as one -half (112) of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. A dwelling unit in a multiple- family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one -third (113) of the total floor area of the dwelling. Article 12 -61: Housing (H) District 12 -61 -1: PURPOSE: The housing district is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zoning districts. It is necessary in this district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12 -1 -2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses, 411 • 12 which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the district. The housing district is intended to ensure that employee housing permitted in the district is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses. 12- 61 -10. OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A. Prescribed By Planning And Environmental Commission: In the H district, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as proposed by the applicant, as prescribed by the planning and environmental commission, and as adopted on the approved development plan: 1. Lot area and site dimensions. 2. Building height. 3. Density control (including gross residential floor area). 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. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing development areas (infill areas). 4.2 increased density in the Core areas is acceptable as long as the existing character of each area is preserved through the implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 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. r - 1 13 VII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 0 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). A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Text Amendment: The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments further the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; however, staff believes that modifying the definitions and calculations of GRFA, without excluding basement areas from the GRFA calculations, will more appropriately address this factor than the proposed text amendments. 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 will better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the development objectives of the Town; however, staff believes that modifying the definitions and calculations of GRFA, without excluding basement areas from the GRFA calculations, will more appropriately address this factor than the proposed text amendments. 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 believes that the Town's existing GRFA regulations are no longer appropriate given the complexities, inequalities, and inefficiencies of the regulations that now exist due to the significant number of text amendments that have occurred over the past several years. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff believes that the proposed text amendments provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; however, staff believes that modifying the definitions and calculations of GRFA, without excluding basement areas from the GRFA calculations, will more appropriately address this factor than the proposed text amendments. 0 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. 14 B. 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. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION While staff accepts the philosophical premise that a residential floor area regulation is valid and necessary within the Town of Vail; staff does not believe that the Town's current GRFA regulations appropriately achieve the intended public purposes of floor area controls. Therefore, staff recommends the existing GRFA regulations be modified in the following manner: • GRFA measured from the outside of the exterior walls. • Vaulted spaces included as GRFA. • Airlocks included as GRFA. • Stairs included as GRFA in multiple- family structures_ "Interior Conversion" GRFA bonus provisions repealed. • "250 Ordinance" GRFA bonus provisions repealed. • GRFA allocation formulas increased to compensate for "250 Ordinance" GRFA bonus, exterior wall areas, and below grade basement areas. Staff does not believe that basement areas of residential structures should be excluded from the Town's GRFA calculations. Instead staff believes that basements should continue to be GRFA, however, the amount of allowable GRFA being allocated by the zoning ordinance should be increase by an appropriate amount to facilitate the construction of basements in new and existing homes should the homeowner choose to construct such a space. This amount of increase may be based upon an equivalency of all, or a portion of, the allowable site coverage area for a site. Therefore, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of denial to the Town Council for the 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. `N Staff's 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: 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. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft text amendments B. Parcels ?20,000 sq.ft. subject to GRFA regulations C. Braun and Associates maximum floor area scenarios (excerpt) D. Sample maximum floor area scenarios E. Sample basementicrawlspace, vault, and wall area calculations F. Sample parking regulations • 16 Attachment: A 40 The proposed text amendments are as follows: (deletions are shown in strike44#ladditions are shown bold) 12 -2 -2: DEFINITION AREAWAY: A sunken area affording access, air, and light to a basement door or window. FLOOR AREA, GROSS: The total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including siding, stucco, stone or brick masonry, and other similar exterior wall finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, vaulted spaces, basements, crawlspaces, interior walls, elevator shafts, stairwells, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical chases, vents, storage areas, and other similar areas. I N Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA): The total gross floor area of a residential use of a structure, as further defined by Chapter 15 of this Title. 12 -15 -3: DEFINITION, CALCULATION, AND EXCLUSIONS: A Gress Residenti I Floor /5 Def' l��� r,tnl r,uaFe feGtage n levels f r t yr v a reevivea rnc�'7 i' - i r r rrc[t tcrii ice rTC a rt�' tias� t rred a the ins fare of the exterior ill ' �r�{�. - ��- F�c�vr cv vT the ��ruc arW�c yr rrn, r�ci.az rvr W /� c � ,��,{ {� {� } ^� Sheetreedr plaster anrd nether similar wall finishes . � F= k shell in6 bu t4iot Y1�.`timi" to elevator s hafts -and st airwells at- eac*+4 lefts frrenla -b ay +. �inrtews meehanir+al kvr c.�.�vatctr — .� s t airwe ll s u.. , , G #as n�ents and storage areas Attic es an rned OF GOVere rt d- c-ks� r - s nereheC terra , __ s - Q shall b-Yset rd ref ln'El{ d ed in GRFA i 4 they meet the pmyisi�� bseGtien ! er A2 ref this neetien A. Definition 1. Gross Floor Area: The total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including siding, stucco, stone or brick masonry, and other similar exterior wall finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, vaulted spaces, basements, crawlspaces, interior walls, elevator shafts, stairwells, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical chases, vents, storage areas, and other similar areas. 2. Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA): The total gross floor area of a residential use of a structure, as further defined by sub - section 12 -15 -3113 below. B. Gross Residential Floor Area Calculations and Exclusions: 1. Single- Family, Two - Family, And Primary/Secondary Structures: Within buildings containing two (2) or fewer dwelling units, the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. GRFA shall be GaIGUlated by FneaswFing the total sq I feetage of a bu ilding a forth in the d eit iGR above Cvrliided areas asset ferth hefeiR — , h tne be d ed Gted from total sq Sara fn n}anec` a. Enclosed garages of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two (2) spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this title. b. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet (6) or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. Attic area created by construction of a roof with truss -type members will be excluded from calculation as GRFA, provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches (30 ") apart. .. net s rea an tw elve 42+s qua - feet -- _ d_ a_ O f the f assembly abeve. c. Portions of the gross floor area of a structure located entirely below existing and finished grade as measured at the underside of the structural floor members of the floor /ceiling assembly above. Walkout type areaways shall not be considered below grade; however, window type areaways meeting the minimum requirements of the adopted building code may be considered below grade at the discretion of the Administrator. rt Roofed OF nr.iee Fed deck r,rshes term sT -- pa eF similar features n + na nets writ y h . nn me 3 } � I`l1 ov rinr walls sort a minimum n p 1 4�- r�9t-iess- tha ilar r T- rfrcr per{ eat (` 5%) of the li perrrma�retec ef` area of said dec po mp, ter n nntin or similar tur-e- s e_, pFaAAded-t-he-e�--conti and fully anon from floor to roiling With an allOWaRGe f a Fa ili ng o f up t o4or t y-four-iriGhes (44 ") in heig d. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar features or spaces with no more than three (3) exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than twenty five percent (25 %) of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space, provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to forty four inches (44 ") in height and support posts with a diameter of eighteen inches (18 ") or less which are spaced no closer than ten feet (1 d') apart. The space between the posts shall be measured from the outer surface of the post. 2. Multiple- Family Structures: Within buildings containing more than two (2) allowable dwellings or accommodation units, the following additional areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring 2 the total square footage of a building as set forth herein. Excluded areas as set forth shall then be deducted from the total square footage: a. Enclosed garages to accommodate on -site parking requirements. b. All or part of the following spaces, provided such spaces are common spaces: (1) Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and air locks. (2) Common lobby areas. (3) Common enclosed recreation facilities. (4) Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems, solar rock storage areas, or other mechanical systems. (5) Common closet and storage areas, providing access to such areas is from common hallways only. (6) Meeting and convention facilities. (7) Office space, provided such space is used exclusively for the management and operation of on -site facilities. (8) Floor area to be used in a type III "employee housing unit (EHU)" as defined and restricted by chapter 13 of this title. an aGeemmedatir.n er dwelliRg i ini# n-ett ha& -d -_�� -th€? autdo9Fs- . Q V6F I apP i Rg s iMin an nnonmme dotion IEn #��e A Uli•t shall only b counted at the le wrest level e. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet (5) or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. Attic areas created by construction of a roof with truss -type members will be excluded from calculation as GRFA, provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches (30 ") apart. f Grawlsp GGesslble through aR epeRing not g reater than twelve (4 r ose feat in area wi f feet (5') or I of noilino height as measured from the uFfa e (1 f-t he�h to the i pd of ntri GIt r fln m-e-mb of the floor eiling assembly above f. Portions of the gross floor area of a structure located entirely below existing and finished grade as measured at the underside of the structural floor members of the floorlceiiing assembly above. Walk -out type areaways shall not be considered below grade; however, window type areaways meeting the minimum requirements of the adopted building code may be considered below grade at the discretion of the Administrator. g. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar features or spaces with no more than three (3) exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than twenty five percent (25 %) of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space, provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to forty four inches (44 ") in height and support posts with a diameter of eighteen inches (18 ") or less which are spaced no closer than ten feet (10') apart. The space between the posts shall be measured from the outer surface of the post_ C. Additional Calculation Provisions: 1. Walls: a-Rtterief w alls aFe iRGlYded a r 1 F-A -cola "la br^ . For two- family and primary/secondary structures, common party walls shall be considered exterior walls. For the purpose of calculating GRFA, one -half (1!2) the total horizontal area of the ,party wall shall be attributed to each dwelling unit. 2. Greenhouse Windows: Greenhouse windows (self - supporting windows) shall not be counted as GRFA. "Greenhouse windows" are defined according to the following criteria: a. Distance Above Inside Floor Level: In order for a window to be considered a greenhouse window, a minimum distance of thirty six inches (36") must be provided between the bottom of the window and the floor surface, as measured on the inside face of the building wall. (Floor surface shall not include steps necessary to meet building code egress requirements) The thirty six inch (36 ") minimum was chosen because it locates the window too high to be comfortably used as a window seat and because it allows for a typical four foot (4') high greenhouse window to be used in a room with an eight foot (8') ceiling height. b. Projection: No greenhouse window may protrude more than eighteen inches (18 ") from the exterior surface of the building. This distance allows for adequate relief for appearance purposes, without substantially adding to the mass and bulk of the building. c. Construction Characteristics: All greenhouse windows shall be self - supporting and shall not require special framing or construction methods for support, with the exception that brackets below the window may be allowed provided they die into the wall of the building at a forty five degree (45 angle. A small roof over the window may also be allowed provided the overhang is limited to four inches (4 ") beyond the window plane. d. Dimensional Requirement: No greenhouse window shall have a total window surface area greater than forty four (44) square feet_ This figure was derived on the assumption that the maximum height of a window, in an average sized room, is four feet (4') and the maximum width for a four foot (4') high self- supporting window is between six feet (6 ') and eight feet (8') (approximately 32 square feet). Since the window would protrude no more than eighteen inches (18 "), the addition of side windows would bring the overall window area to approximately forty four (44) square feet. e. Quantity: Up to two (2) greenhouse windows will be allowed per dwelling unit, however, the forty four (44) square foot size limitation will apply to the combined area of the two (2) windows. f. Site Coverage: Greenhouse windows do not count as site coverage. 4 0 3. Vaulted Spaces: Vaulted spaces and areas "open to below" without the potential for being infilled and used as additional gross residential floor area are not included in GRFA calculations. 4. Garage Credit: a. Allowable garage area is awarded on a "per space basis ", with a maximum of two (2) spaces per allowable unit. Each garage space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. All floor area included in the garage credit shall be contiguous to a vehicular space. b. Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in the garage and which are twenty five percent (25 %) or more open to the garage area shall be included as garage credit. c. Garage space in excess of the allowable garage credit shall be counted as GRFA. 5 Crawl a n d Attic Space: ('ravel aGe r y "stepped f i rn; lo#on" hazard mi}ina#inn r �a�- r,�sp�s- erected— �����u„�.� � i� , e o ther ' r - ri I - c �i'i _e ngir{ eerinq- req_uir$'ment #hat hnc -a #n #-al height iR exGes M1 e five feet (5 may be exrluded #om GRFA calculations at the diSGretio the l dMinic#r.a#nr b. If a roof structure is designed utilizing a nontruss system, and spaces greater than five feet (5) in height result, these areas shall not be counted as GRFA if all of the following criteria are met: (1) The area cannot be accessed directly from a habitable area within the same building level; (2) The area shall have the minimum access required by the building code from the level below (6 square foot opening maximum); (3) The attic space shall not have a structural floor capable of supporting a "live load" greater than forty (40) pounds per square foot, and the "floor" of the attic space cannot not be improved with decking; (4) It must be demonstrated by the architect that a "truss-type" or similar structural system cannot be utilized as defined in the definition of GRFA; and (5) It will be necessary that a structural element (i.e., collar -tie) be utilized when rafters are used for the roof system. In an unusual situation, such as when a bearing ridge system is used, the staff will review the space for compliance with this policy. 6. Primary /Secondary Units: a_ The four hundred twenty five (425) square foot credit per unit shall be applied to each unit after the sixty /forty (60/40) split has been calculated (i.e., the secondary unit shall be limited to 40 percent of the total GRFA plus 425 square feet). b. On primarylsecondary and two - family lots, GRFA is calculated based on the entire lot. A P I pGsei: The interior eo yer„ section of this _chapter , l {la 4 , e I Ice of into rinr spaGes with! ell'Rg Hrnits tha t-mee t or expee_d the a ewaWe gfes r�klpntial floor a e (G R F - I - ) . T�- ur AA k- __ arhinirnr7 her nlln for the GGnsrersien of existing interior sp r erh a va Ilterd snares rraRxrlsnacns and othef- interior- ffi R tO fleeF area PF the hulk and moon n } ldi nn its Ret MGr eased This nroyic� ion is W eR d e d t at p_exi5 tine homes where reside desi to expand the amnl Iot of u aTle snare in the interior of a home. he tnr .sS- also re Genn' ha n r T �operty -eFs h ave - son }tdiFq e � rmits Th provi n i al intenrderd to rGr11 Inn the nner erreprn r.f 'nt rinr he eilydintr �riendev -em cu iGe m Gavin renGe of n t vrn�vrRg aGtfv4" hr rilydinn permits anrd thereby fu rther preteGtinn the hea l fl- _ vT �I vre eels Rc� errs I rip I , we ef the UftttY. a. ■. ORI 2 Per th e - purpos e - of th se Gt'e R e�x st m �s J _6nit" shall nn aRy r�t}w ,t N-- emit ih� a�.r huc' - GVnytrYlGterl rinr to �l�I : w C i y T Jt — arty eCTlNi e h^ hn c r �-i &sue d - a hI IildiRg nnrm i tprior -t August 5, 1 g 7, eF has de SIgR r ew hnarrd anproya n rio F to Augus , 1997 �. ap d�ar� Sr- ,1 . N app! ti _an to thin nennn shell hn mac until h ntil c• ,t tm , a _ � fY i ei. ra (_RPA has been ronstn rrte d on the property or a apap katiAp Is p Fesently penning in moil lRGtinn Wi T app' natinp to - Add fleeF area that l"R fi lize e s� allowable GRFA for the nrre c3rFtr i i Annlratnn to tine „ be v^RstruGted l utili� � ^ ��t -fl i��lf- t�t�ilS -5 v r g-thB- f fea_e y ume of the building that is in nvisten Ge prior to A 94M - 5,4 -9 , date [J. stn IntuT _a r� - erinr ad to eyiStinn structures built after th o � �a�tive date heFe4 J [IR •S[ []V[ [ aft [ '[� 4 Will nGt - „.�- r be n interior Gnnersinns Examples of hew r Peer area Gan he r= �c - o� lic.�ible -fo r y, [r feesed RdLr the nrn�ri&kN f tht o i S Se G'tiGR 1R I e th as aRV8y rsinn of evistinn basement Gr GrawlgpaGes ttG GRF the addition of lofts within the building troll em,a._Q, t eX & Rg b I Iilydir-en anr) t n+rers of ether existin error sp_,U_Gms sI IGh as stnru a r-e� GRF-A: 3 Ppepesals f GWCA pI Irsl rant to -t T r is sertinn rney involve evterier rn e dAGatiGn - & - 9 bu ildings , howe[r sI h difi Ir meo of increase he bui bu IIS< and e�tifa er vc+�.,r�t - It"�ll n i the vr rrr�.r�.z��`�a ��. A moss of the idinn CVampin f exte F;er merifi i deatGRG WNG are c r c r s� - vr- n 3ktst'lf� -T'� l R s-0 I�. �[-[ i.' rvmsrecr ci-orr� -rrrrr T � F$I,�, ,er$d�$ irrGrea buddi bulk a n d me .s. - +a'r e {4�id-mt'ted t er# : �$ e +� ° paf4ui'9H - tJf any e*& exterior recalls of t he hI Iilydinn reg ra4ing- rG t - w e GG. t . - e - e ` be permitted in order to al r e g r@diRg _ shall be .. ar t o ' L e @Feas = G G ^ ' • Examples-o - s s s - but are the- addition ... dee w s.rr • - S .G •G. +� - - - - CC AN -3 - : C G V 4/"1111- ar ea within n garage th g Inally approved }hrnl le- � }�p�agpy lr credit may nn} he rnnerted to !�RF nr Fs rant to }his Se tKon. • •" •y "Y p D r a - to th - - 0 . ! - departmeRt AppiiGatiORS f or ifiteF C, ORVefSiORS r ■ A allowed %A.OIthA_'_-t ameriding the r prev o th SDDHewever, e : - • * s 'GS - e z ss- propeFty op G paFGe i n dHp subd e- G G. exam the - GWRP_Fq_' Shal be require is ean be e4 R- e-foFr-(:�-of-a_4jett oV appr ova l oF sign .. y.iG • u riu 11 r. I'^° �nfre:mattsn and plans as et fo rth and req by subset ien 12 e f this }idle nr as rye+ + e , rminerl b the depart y men} of , n l . eMm nikl,� deyelepmnnd staff LSnnlir RtC"eed . . the . r .' I- - -tui so t hat s t a # non identify-.}h e x in}i l 1, b lil4i i nm nnlr nnlrr arlrlitiens that have n_l.ni lrrerl after the rniral of this rhan}er �P-Fopesals- deeme b- y4 khe- departmeilt- of -c—om as T i y deve'�e -st t.�, « )e4r– £Q o nne Wi }his certinn an.rl all annlinn hln Znninn la �d elrel n n m nll ant re nt 11r, tl,B♦°-I,�44 he annrnlrerl by the rlepartmerlt of snmml Inity delreln ment or shall hn fnnrlarlt -tt t Fe- xn:- up��vvz-' {� �N 4� 1 ' ` -� '/ �} f l �d � al C - �t •1 -I t ruer 1 I of this 441 Ti . t o 4o c r lmmPllr With this sertien Gr appllnable zoning aR eyelnnm©nt re gu l a_ }, l onJ shall deied: M7:77: w • C dft ma - 01 • Is fi ti 4'G ► E N , cc L 6• L 19 E o Q i ZE r c rgi m vs � v r+ N N CD V I!il: LL v m 5 ,�, '5 •O ? 'x z x a` 05 a CD _ 0 m C1 i N h O L C o 19 02 J yy a 4 -0 B Zia y Q 1 9 tl 4 y V +t: N D ' D _ O D IN d O N ' u L w m� tip$ f co �Eb y ~ • F \ x a r Attachment: C E. Impact of GRFA and Coverage • Staff reviewed how GRFA and site coverage work together and what would happen if one or the other were eliminated. Staff calculated GRFA, with credits, and site coverage for lots ranging from 8 „000 sq ft to over 60,000 square feet. Figure 1 below displays the effect of GRFA and site coverage. The dark solid line indicates existing GRFA with credits. The "No GRFA” lines reflect the ran of how big a home could be if site coverage and building height were the only limiting factors. The No GRFA (low) line assumes that a developer would use 100% of the allowable site coverage.far the 1 st floor and the massing above the 1 st floor would be 50% of the site coverage (i.e the massing on the first floor). The No GRFA (high) line assumes that a developer would use 100% of the allowable site coverage for the 1 st floor and the massing above the 1 st floor would be 80% of the site coverage (i.e the massing on the first floor). Based on this review of GRFA and site coverage it appears that site coverage is the more limiting factor on lots smaller than 16,000 square feet. Once lot sizes exceed 20,000 square feet, then GRFA is clearly the controlling factor in terms of bulk and mass. If GRFA were eliminated, a significantly larger home could be constructed on the larger lots in Town. For example, a 40,000 square foot lot could have a 12,000 to 14,000 square foot structure without GRFA. With GRFA, a building could only be as large as 7,800 square feet in size (with credits). Therefore, GRFA does control massing on larger lots in the Town of Vail. 5 0 TABLE 1 LOT SIZES IN THE TOWN OF VAIL 0 VI. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Figure f Z5 O �5 v o ® v p O O O p 0 O p a o 2 p o ° a - S 0 a 8 0 - m T v m_ cv u� N N N N N L7 M (h Lot k9a (sq IQ Floor Area Compari si on A. Alternative 1 _ Keep GRFA and allow Interior Modifications: GPFA + Credh s • - - • NO GRFA (Low) • - — No GRFA ("gh) This alternative would keep the existing GRFA system but would allow existing homes to exceed their maximum allowable GRFA if the proposed modification had no changes to the exterior of the home. This alternative would address one of the major issues in this analysis of allowing homeowners to modify the interior of their home and utilize existing crawl spaces vaulted areas. The major considerations with Alternative 1 are: 1) If Alternative 1 applied to homes built in the future, home builders could build a home within the allowable GRFA, and then after receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, they could completely redo the interior and exceed their GRFA limit. In other words, people could design vaulted spaces in anticipation of creating additional floor area after a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Property owners could create larger vaulted areas and thus a larger building mass, while planning to fill it in at a later time. Under this scenario, staff questions whether GRFA still has value in controlling bulk and mass. If Alternative 1 is considered to be the preferred alternative, then staff strongly recommends that it only apply to homes built prior to the date of this change to the regulations. • 6 0 o O 0� o p S$ 8 a o $ o a I e� 07 C V It O N fI} Ln kn [�D �sao© 20.OW Q ts,aoa m a S ta,oco 0: 0 VI. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Figure f Z5 O �5 v o ® v p O O O p 0 O p a o 2 p o ° a - S 0 a 8 0 - m T v m_ cv u� N N N N N L7 M (h Lot k9a (sq IQ Floor Area Compari si on A. Alternative 1 _ Keep GRFA and allow Interior Modifications: GPFA + Credh s • - - • NO GRFA (Low) • - — No GRFA ("gh) This alternative would keep the existing GRFA system but would allow existing homes to exceed their maximum allowable GRFA if the proposed modification had no changes to the exterior of the home. This alternative would address one of the major issues in this analysis of allowing homeowners to modify the interior of their home and utilize existing crawl spaces vaulted areas. The major considerations with Alternative 1 are: 1) If Alternative 1 applied to homes built in the future, home builders could build a home within the allowable GRFA, and then after receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, they could completely redo the interior and exceed their GRFA limit. In other words, people could design vaulted spaces in anticipation of creating additional floor area after a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Property owners could create larger vaulted areas and thus a larger building mass, while planning to fill it in at a later time. Under this scenario, staff questions whether GRFA still has value in controlling bulk and mass. If Alternative 1 is considered to be the preferred alternative, then staff strongly recommends that it only apply to homes built prior to the date of this change to the regulations. • 6 0 o O 0� o p S$ 8 a o $ o a I e� 07 C V It O N fI} Ln kn [�D s C ao e. o o a a c5 0 0 4 CD CD - o ti - C7 O O C� Q OD G 0 LO C5 t''') - C. � CD O CD CJ m j CD O_ CD CC C N ° '" Li? m ca CS a7 CD d T sn IM > Q r C 0 tD CJ) 4C7 rr C-0 (.0 Cs7 O. LL � m ST m m �i m m N U 4 LL 1O m m M m p m Q C O p o`o m m O is O ° m dmJ ro m O 1 60 Q 2 U U o fl3 o CT o [t! O U O 0 CD CD CD ° 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 ° CD C5 C] O 0 co O C3 O co � L'1 C tYl N O C7 � o rs c CST It Ca to m v r CN (D LO �t �? r M N C� C> o CT o o CD ; Ca o o ° o 0 0 h- Lo .Cf7 C,7 LCJ t4- 0 :Lo N C7.. .:..... FC C? .. rtuu.`ai 0 C rJ rJ Ci �" ©,rw O O D CDO 6 Q 0 fl m C] 4 C7 c'7 � Q M Q O Q M CD CT 0 M C O CO L6 M c CO CST r Sm"' r d' LO M lM m M T N C3 O CD u7' CD co CD 0 co tr Q O N ti: to, Ln 4 ' N 1*- .,.;.... ' _�� . 4 0 Lo CT] O CD" c9' M CV N l 4 O O 0 0 �? ° O O O r° a O O O ° O C3 O Q C] M CT O O M 0 M 0 O CD M (D 0 O 0 M_ C? 1 C d' -1 N _ CST C (D C? CD 0 CT C.7 (D CD r- CO ' O CC h 04T m d' '+'°. L[] 'tf' C3 I`- ' co ''d` Nr Cl 0 CD CD CD P ° ° ° 6 0 0 CD O O O 0 O Co O co C7 N cr ( Q Ln (:, N CV to m m CD r Cl) M — in co (Y) fv (N � M 06 N C? Q O 0 0 ° O O O a ° (=) O O \° n CT.. 0 O 0 co Q C7 t7 C7 0 O 00 co R r r., 0p LO N ti 47 N N M '– Z) :: S'7 N Cfl ° ° ° C7 O N O N N C7 N O N P6 4 it N CD V) cl N T N C7 r Cy7 N Lo CT Q) fL 117 m O f6 c d U fl' m Q OT m R�7 m O U O C 0 0 4! N m v U t m O O Z Q W [p � W f- � N ch U o CV CT Q) fL 117 m O f6 c d U fl' m Q OT m R�7 m O U O C 0 0 4! N m v U t m O O ° N N to CD U C U CL N m L7 m O y C Q . 0) m N m L a C O N 3 C c 0 CD C a� N C 'CT m O LO fq y fl! �1 "CT m In m a 0 x • • • _ c J LU m j ^ CT Q LL m ca CS a7 9 a ¢ [D o (D C L U LU Q m J F- Z LU LL �' sn IM > Q r C 0 P 0 x - .w ^ 0 U C7 w H Z LU _ LL 6T _E C 7 {� N 0 rn W qCj m L) cc CL O. LL � m ST m m �i m m N U 4 LL 1O m m M m p m Q C O p o`o m m O is O ° m dmJ ro m O 1 60 Q 2 U U o fl3 o CT o [t! O U O ° N N to CD U C U CL N m L7 m O y C Q . 0) m N m L a C O N 3 C c 0 CD C a� N C 'CT m O LO fq y fl! �1 "CT m In m a 0 x • • • • O CD Q C3 p O dd "C C7 d L0 d Lf3 97 0 Le O N 0 c o 4 Ci:3 c� d CO s- N m tp tt �- 0 CD U IC ..0 Cam . d _. CD CD O R. O CD . �: Cam CD ° ° O 0 0 O 0 ° 0 0 0 d O (D C9 O CO 0 CGS to (O O Crs � O Cfl 11 co C cc CGS It 0 CO W 'qt r N Ci3 in M ° G d Q LO r Lo LC7 r c1 N C7 LO LO Im Lo n LO ° LO O Lfl ° E a lf) fir. , `O ?a3 co LO C47 �. [' C7 C�7 p. u: . . ['9 CC? `:',�;,, ai crs Lci r O d •. C7 - ' 0 C7 ° O - d C7 s '? , 6 . C7 . Ll'J. d LO !f] CS N N >. Yw . 6 0 O d d .. :: O C7 O �? 0 0 O ° ° O d Q C C) r 0 d O +r ° d O O C7 Y O O O C) C CCS CGS [7 to LA CO N N t • o C) 0 0 O - O O © .? o C7 d .° ° ° C7 0 o N C3 I+ O C 0 n ° 0 Le O N 0 c O C7 0 m ti r to c7 co f� Sto jo O SL7 •- - c`7:. �"' R. M ul C'7 Lo jr) �. N t ) to A N in- ° ° G d Q LO C3 Lo LC7 a UD C7 LO LO Im O 't oci N O cc <t to CGS Oc ti CV (N r M 0 c7 N co ai crs Lci r O d •. C7 - ' 0 C7 ° O - d C7 C7 0 C3 ° ° 6 . C7 . Ll'J. d LO !f] CS LC:) d . 1.0 LCS Co > r .. :: M : N..- Lc) CO I;C) F R • U7 z 2 O U W Cn {T da Ca S9 `w CS L) 0 ® cn N O O N LL fr- C) QS 3 0 N c (D U ff c 0 a U m C as v N m !aJ CL co L aa) l 0 m ° a) m d U G C m fl CL m d m 0 fl tT L W Ca a) m 0 N c a7 U a 0 4n Z3 x N C m a) Cn m Z m 2 m 0 0 (a 0 a C9 r/J m d U C 1= CC) Q ro a� a 6 G LL X O w F- J 2 F- Z W 0 IL U- LL C7 C/J X a v 4 LL CD Ca 7 m Q 0 Ca 4 CJ L a LL C7 CU 0 c as i 3 U C7' C (9 S a 0- 0 CD rn a� a U 0 CU u f] V N Cn m m U C m w `m 4 O i ° a) UY m CD CD U C c U a) C1 m a� co 0 0 t~ C C? �7 cq a5 72 m N CO 0 N C= O _ a} y t `fl G 0 70 m m O LO N t!S W m a c rn 0 f O O C3 O O d 0 O O O C O 0 0 o O 0 CD ^� ° O O r 0 •- m r O r- C� r Cn CD ;t LO N � 4n .t m Lfl 0 O N N cT L 4 J a : LC] N u'9 r Lo ,. - © N t- O Lt) -: U") , M h- . r Lo M Ltd Co r - co Cy .. cr �- N d C'] Oct .: • O to N tD Q 0 eLi b LO 4 O N Q N ° tC) N b 0' LL) N .P CD d 0 U N ti ° © 4 N Q N LO O N L V. Q N" w 0 r r N r '�r r CD N CD Lo N M rry r IT Q 0 , ;. Lo L7 ,. d t _ ° ..:. .. . ... . ..' - 0 Lt> .? 0 d L'7 : Lo *� O to N N Liz L7 N V') t� ° C:) N P- o il) N - Q CA iL on r r L 0 N '4 r M C? ' Co t"7= Ln N CP ...: ... tN m ° C7 O b U') C) 0 C O N Lo C+ a N O u7 N ° 0 O 0 u7 a N L• O In N C4 'd N_ LLD C> N 1-- to 0 O m m C) O m r OS C 07 O Q to 0 Lo ° N O o Ln Lo O O C7 b N d C'] Oct N R O to N tD r b V N O P1 M CD Lq Lo N ti Ln W d t N LA P M r N r t7 _. m O - .. .. :' LL7 - L7 Lf3 0 v) d L(} C? L Lt} o Q O N <) 'c3 t'� C* Ln N CP C7 a) tN m ° C7 N fl- - tr U5 Qo �0�_ to 0 U->0_ O N CA N a! ° N CG O Cl N O ° o 0 c N cc! f` ° '0 m N r It co N Lo M IT 00 .- CO r Co N co sr Cl ° L Q L(, :. Q O. (D ua N.. o O 0 , Ifl G) 4=� Cs Z O @ � N N Z O o d @ @ w W m to a r'�i a Q <L Q. C? @ A m ca O c U Q N C O . 7 @ C @ E (D E m m N C m m U c m m 4 @ @ CL o c m 0 o p O c Lei C m N cr C Q @ v @ G t71 Q @ p > U U "@ c o LL a_ m m c m e U 4 N Q m m o aa) m c m t pp c[s `o :3 O D O Q lL ui �+ W r LL z a � m cr P Lu LU j C� O o @ CL m A LL- m p t'J o m to 0 acr is Q U 0 m U c c Q? i CD a m m m 0 O • • 00 0 O Ln Q ca c� o o C) `: O LO CD {ti ti ° a Ln LO - Ln. b. Ln o co CD r- Q Cl) m y a r m r` ca n. Lo LE) .1 r� N oi 'cr — M r-- co M Ct N N n N N LO N ( Ci) O Q Q O 0 Q 0 00 c 0 C] 0 0 a G 0 0 0 Ca 0 0 0 0 Elf O C3 0 W 0 O C C C r L() 7 N Co 0 v Co M T N N r M N CV 7 r N co 0 CD O Lj) a) \° O O o O O O - - ` ° O r.[) Q N Cl) ° a LO Ln ° LO O U) 0 N 0 CD CD � O N N � N O N Lo O O O o 00 - O .. . U) L 0 .., O O O a LC) 0 N N d l() !t7 Lr7 O tf) co O (ei CA oo (ti m Co v N w v M M T T N T r M 00 T (D o ° ° O LO O r- 2`- O In Lo ul (D V) o rl o CQ as Q r r~ o r- LU W m Ln CD LC) cry co CU Ln M M N r T N r T N.. CD — Ln 0 CD O O 0 -CD 4> O O O Ca O O O O ( O C3 0 ° O O Cl co 0 0 0 u) u) r o 0 0 m O 0 0 O r N Lt7' I� N r ('7 m N (h' M N T T r T N Ln r C7 0 '. O O' O ° O O. O ° O b O �? o C3 C) O LO to a a a - Q Q Q C G oc rn t- oc rn r• . � ti Lto a) CA C) rf 10 O Cn O O) 0 c M 00 000 loo o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° O o co ( � o (n m " o o v_ to ao Cn v v 0 co OD v CD v m T T T [T C? C7 0 a a CD , , C] -' O o ,? O ' O t 0 0 o Ln Ln O Q b CD o a ° co o r* � N ' r- T m Ln "I V n CD Cx9 N (37 #` Co CrJ O M O O 6 0 O 0 CD Q O Q' ° Q O 0 a C) O ° C7 O O O Q O c O CD N Cl) y) N (D oc m C N c co N tD rl cli co m M I- LO M T r r M N O O CJ LO Lf) C (D O O ° 0 0 0 ° l C3 Ln C r� r`+ O LO U ) Lr) a Liz lt�'f O LO W N OD ED to CO M r T N N Z +C Q rs v� Z J y rn W lA W Z X CO m 4�i W is .. 2 N O N I W l 0 ID H m c 40) <? 0 W 0 (7 . 4 J r N 2 CT O Q •Cry U .�., F- C Q O Z Q1 0. N to IL ^ N W .-.. e C) N UD J y p U N J y N J u�i w m U) C 75 ~ o @ W F v F 9 < in w N U. Ix L d C) z O w U Z C Ix �. U i? 0 N N ai Iq 47 d C9 O � fp Lo — c N 0 a w D C (U y O M N w m s N . @ w e s N a d Z O O O m 4 LL. p C 4q Q LL m p C CCL o N E @ Q 2' m O (0 p W 2 W . CU 'y C C C C LU Cp N m N M cu m m 2 C1) p Lff r Z` U w w- r 2 0 w — = 2 2 5 c c Tir w � W U! i0 r.+ a • • w ��pp ttpp F ✓� � N _ Cv � � A �: b P C= �. � Gam..' O Z LL x V p � N i ♦ 'R ♦ X f X N X. � X T 7 X � O X N X K Y © E ID AR Y X N i� w 7R ♦ ilk M M it R X f X w X f E 11� N N [V N IM N P4 [d N C N N S X a w , � G* Y '�T y r y r n q X X Y] X O X �Lf y e O X M 7R F X X F W X M X +A X X O ys m X ® X Yl X ♦ X g X Y X lih X X ve 3el VV N N a Y y Y � � O �N � p y 1ptp� yo Y �p V� cp �q T� O O P app 01 p i0 4 f C t3 tl N EV Pi -W N m N N d; i7 i7 N m N N Mi N e`i 'it N 3� y y � vt p X q X X p X at 7 X e X O X p X 3 X CCCU N tV N N N R N N N R N R R R N A N N J `Z Q LL � O� ✓j' �. M A O � m {p N N eN� U ♦ M ♦ m R �p vl Y M 8 eH Cl ! 1f1 tmp iP Y p h 4 O iO Nf �fJ 4 N e R r m + O q Nf IA ili m N C] 4 a O M O �Mp O t�3 A d F {may YI T � 0 7 u v u O LL N M N N Ili T 1fi 1q T 1p R A M T W m lql 1 1 m � b s g � g K � 3 M N �Ay�9 la pe N � P O Y Q M1 � N �AyI '� tD Y t Ill e Q A 175 pp� O m p� tV 1tf R M 1 �p Zv A p tD pM��Op r M Yf t CC O C t0 n MI e0 M 1n vi vi vi 4i Y w Pi -IF q; wi C f � LC y m S }, 175 c c O Y c d S c c tqe 0. c c Ix tl G1 n O M 6 O ® R N O T Qi Ci m In t N W 4"i O T ® N 4Aa A D f0 Y5 Q+ O h N O M T A. Ki IV �1yy ' ♦ M N N N N N N m N N N M M N a N pl }p �j to to • Lei miw N P - N yCp7 fCi G N y *• O ri N (�� t'S O ���[[['m {n Y5 w .2 N N 1� ' S _• fA J S C O C s S O S o w o o 0 O O O iB O S tB g p 15 IS l3 S N E S a` ® $ U r m m m ' m_ qm z I • • Attachment: F r: Parking Standards Comparison Aspen In multi- family 1 mixed use zone districts, parking is calculated based on number of bedrooms: 0.7 spaces per bedroom. For units considered as a Lodge use, parking is also based on number of bedrooms: I space per bedroom. Single - family and duplex residential units are required 2 spaces per unit. Avon: Single - Family: 2 spaces per unit, & 3 spaces per unit over 2,500 sq ft. Duplex: same as single family. Multi - family: Studios are required 1 space, one - bedroom units require 1.5 spaces, and all others require 2 spaces. Dublin, Ohio: One or two - family units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit. Housing for the elderly: I space per dwelling unit. All other dwelling units: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Eagle County: Single - Family or Duplex: 3 spaces per unit. Mobile Home units: 2 spaces per Mobile Home site. Multi - family: 1 bedroom & studios need 2 spaces per unit; 2 to 3 bedroom units need 2.5 spaces per unit; 4 or more bedrooms need 3 spaces per unit. • • Jackson, Wyoming_ Single Family: 2 spaces per dwelling unit plus .5 spaces per guest unit. Studio /Accessory Residential units: 1.25 spaces per unit. One bedroom apartment: 1.75 spaces per unit. Two bedroom apartment: 2 spaces per unit. Three bedroom apartment: 2.5 spaces per unit. Four bedroom apartment: 3 spaces per unit. Ketchum, Idaho: One space per studios and one bedroom units, two parking spaces for 2 -3 bedroom units, 3 spaces for all others. 0 Snowmass: Single Family: 1 space per bedroom with a minimum of 2 spaces. Multi family: 1 space per bedroom; 1 space per studio; 1.5 spaces per bedroom in a "restricted" unit. • t t TO FROM DATE MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department July 14, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12 -61-1-6, Setbacks, and 12 -6H -7, Height, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition, located at Manor Vail, 595 E. Vail Valley Drive/Lot A, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Chip Melick Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUMMARY The applicant, Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Chip Melick, is requesting variances from Sectionsl2 -6H -6 (Setbacks) and 12 -6H -7 (Height), Vail Town Code, located at Manor Vail. 595 E. Vail Valley Drive/Lot A, Vail Village 7th Filing. The variances are requested to allow the applicant to construct a fifth story on top of Buildings D, E, and F. The proposed additional story on each Go building includes the addition of a total of six new dwelling units and six new accommodation units. A portion of Building D is currently located within the 20 foot setback and the addition of a fifth story will increase the bulk and mass within the setback. Building F currently has lower level units with walkout basements which put the height of the building over the permitted 48 -foot height for sloping roofs with the addition of a fifth story. Staff is recommending approval of the requested setback variance as a practical difficulty exists and would not constitute a grant of special privilege to this individual property. Staff is recommending denial of the requested height variance as neither a practical difficulty nor hardship exists and would constitute a grant of special privilege. Iii. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Chip Melick, is proposing to add a fifth story to Buildings D, E, and F which are the three buildings located furthest north on the site surrounding the existing pool as seen on the vicinity map (Attachment A). The addition of an additional story would add two dwelling units to each building with two accompanying accommodation units totaling 15,162 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for the three buildings. The proposal also includes the construction of a below ground parking structure for 144 parking spaces with a park located on top in the location of the current parking lot, The applicant, in a letter dated July 3, 2003, has detailed the proposed goals and addresses the requested variances (Attachment B). The addition of a fifth story to Building D requires a variance from the rear setback as it would add 18.6 square feet of GRFA into the required 20 -foot setback. Building D currently encroaches into the 20 -foot setback approximately 7 feet with a total of 86.6 square feet of GRFA in the setback. As proposed. The fifth story would bring the total square footage of GRFA within the setback up to 105.2 square feet. Building F differs from Buildings D and E as it has a basement level with units having walkouts to Gore Creek. Buildings D and E have basements which house mechanical rooms and only extend under a small portion of the overall footprint. The proposed additional story will put Building F over the maximum permitted height of 48 feet for a sloped roof in the High Density Multiple- Family District. The design, as proposed, would be at a height of 54.6 feet on the eave of the north dormer which springs off the main roof ridge, which is the highest point above the interpolated existing grade. Reduced copies of the proposed site plan, floor plans, and elevations for Buildings D, E, and F are attached to this memorandum (Attachment C). III. BACKGROUND • Buildings D, E, and F were constructed in Eagle County in 1963 and 1964 and were incorporated as a part of the original Town of Vail. • On January 27, 1977, the Planning Commission approved a variance to allow for the construction of a single story circulation hallway addition 8 feet into the setback on Building B. • On July 19, 1977, through Resolution 12, Series of 1977, the Vail Town Council conveyed Town right -of -way which ran through the Manor Vail property. The conveyed right -of -way was to be used for pedestrian access to Gerald R. Ford Park and was not to count towards lot area for determining GRFA. • On May 7, 1 991, through Resolution 12, Series of 1 991, the Vail Town Council granted to Manor Vail the right to utilize the previously conveyed right -of -way towards calculating development potential. • On May 13, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a minor subdivision to remove a lot line between Lot A and Lot B on the Manor Vail property to allow for the construction of an expanded lobby. • On April 12, 1993, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a setback variance at the Manor Vail Lodge to allow for the construction of dumpster enclosure. • On December 17,1997, the Design Review Board approved a 1,655 square foot addition to the conference area at the Manor Vail Lodge. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES The PEC is responsible for evaluatine 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. I The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 2 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_ Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Councii evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRR erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the hoard'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 Title 12 Town of Vail Zoning Regulations 12 -6H High Density Multiple- Family (HDMF) District (in part) 12 -6H -1: PURPOSE: The high density multiple- family district is intended to provide sites for multiple - family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The high density multiple - family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the district. (Ord. 37(1980) § 6: Ord. 30(1977) § 6: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.100) 12- 61-I -2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district: Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments, located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10 %) of the total gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. Multiple- family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and condominium dwellings. (Ord. 50(1978) § 20: Ord. 19(1976) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.200) 12 -61-1-6: SETBACKS: 3 The minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20'), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20'). (Ord. 50(1978) § 2) 12 -6H -7: HEIGHT: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet (46). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty eight feet (48'). (Ord. 37(1980) § 2) 12 -6H -8: DENSITY CONTROL: Not more than sixty (60) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Not more than sixty (60) square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area for any conditional use listed in section 12 -6H -3 of this article. Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. Each accommodation unit shall be counted as one -half (112) of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. A dwelling unit in a multiple- family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one -third (11 /3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. (Ord. 31 (2001) §§ 3, 5: Ord. 50(1978) § 19: Ord. 12(1977) § 2) 1'2 -6H -9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed fifty five percent (55 %) of the total site area. (Ord. 17(1991) § 6: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.507) 12- 6H -10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least thirty percent (30 %) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15') with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 19(1976) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.509) 12- 6H -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 %n) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. No parking shall be located in any required front setback area. (Ord_ 19(1976) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.510) 12 -17 Variances (in part) 12 -17 -1: PURPOSE: A_ Reasons For Seeking Variance: In orderto prevent orto 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. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each district, including lot area and site dimensions, 4 setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements; or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits ", and by section 12 -3 -7, "Amendment" of this title. (Ord. $(1973) § 19.100) 12 -17 -6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 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. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 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 or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. (Ord. 8(1973) § 19.600) 5 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 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 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. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. The Vail Village Master Plan addresses many aspects of development in Vail Village. One aspect it address is building height. The plan states that the goal, in terms of building height, is to maintain a concentration of low scale buildings within the core with larger buildings along the northern periphery. A map depicting appropriate building heights on individual properties was included in the plan and is attached to this memorandum (Attachment D). VI. SITE ANALYSIS Legal Description: Lot A, Vail Village 7th Filing. A Zoning: High Density Multiple - Family District Land Use Plan Designation: Village Master Plan Current Land Use: Condominiums/Lodging Development Standard Allowed Existing Proposed Lot Area: 10,000 sq. ft. 236,966.4 sq.ft. 236,966.4 sq.ft. Buildable Area: 2.32,750.9 sq.ft. 232,750.9 sq.ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 8' No Change Sides: 20' 207100' No Change Rear: 20' 1' No Change Building Height: 48' 32' 54.6' Density: 25 units /acre 18.6 units /acre 20.9 units /acre 133.5 D.U.s 99.5 D.U.s 111.5 D.U.s (76 D.U.s /47 A.U.$) (82 D.U.s /59 A.U.$) GRFA: 139,650.53 sq. ft. 121,365.4 sq. ft. 136,527.6 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 130,331.5 sq.ft. 66,995 sq.ft. 91,181 sq.ft. (55 %) (23.510) (38.510) Landscape Area: 70,959.2 sq.ft. (30 %) 77,146 sq.ft. 100,796 sq.ft. (30 %) (32.6 %) (42.5 %) Parking: 215 spaces 220 spaces 291 spaces VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Public Park General Use District South: Commercial Ski Base Recreation District East. Public Park General Use District West: Open Space /Residential Outdoor Recreation District/High Density Multiple - Family VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Rec3ardina the Setback Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Setback The proposed addition of a fifth story on Building D adds 18.6 square feet of additional GRFA into the required 20 -foot setback. There is currently 86.6 7 square feet of GRFA existing within the setback for the four existing floors of Building D. according to research of Town files, other properties currently zoned High Density Multiple - Family (HDMF) have been issued setback variances. Several of those properties include the Evergreen Lodge and Apollo Park. The Evergreen Lodge encroaches on the Mill Creek and Frontage Road setbacks. Apollo Park was granted a variance to allow for a zero setback on February 10, 1972. Many of the properties zoned HDMF were constructed prior to annexation into the Town and possess multiple nonconformities such as excess GRFA and number of dwelling units in excess of that permitted under HDMF zoning. Staff feels that the granting of a setback variance would not be a grant of special privilege as other properties within the HDMF District have been granted setback variances previously. The proposal as submitted has several minor items which will need to be addressed prior to submittal for final review as they do not meet the requirements of the Code. Those items include the location of the proposed parking structure within the 30 -foot Mill Creek setback and the location of a proposed walkway in the 100 -year floodplain along Mill Creek. These items have no bearing on the requested variances. However, staff wanted to make the applicant aware of the issues as soon as possible. Height The proposed addition of a fifth story on Building F requires the granting of a height variance to allow the proposal to exceed the 48 -foot maximum height permitted under HDMF zoning. Staff performed extensive research on all the properties zoned HDMF within the Town and was unable to find the granting of a variance for height to any property. However, multiple properties exceed the maximum height of 48 feet as they were constructed prior to being annexed into the Town, The Evergreen Lodge tower is currently at a height of 72 feet and rezoned to Special Development District #14 on February 6, 1990, in order to obtain additional GRFA on the site. Other properties over 48 feet in height include the Lodge at Lionshead with a height of 51 feet, Vail International, the Wren, and the Alphorn. Specific heights are not known for Vail International, the Wren, and the Alphorn as they were constructed prior to annexation into the Town, but all three files reference the fact that they exceed 48 feet in height. The development site as the applicant points out slopes toward Gore Creek and Mill Creek in the area where Building F is located. It is the applicant's belief that the slope of the site in this area necessitated the walkout unit design of Building F. Although the existing grades prior to development are not known it appears that at least two feet of dirt was excavated to create the functioning walkout basements. The provided sun /shade analysis shows that a portion of the property to the west would be cast under shade (Attachment E). As stated in Section V of this memorandum, the Vail Village Master Plan, which is to serve as a guideline to the board, identifies this site as having the potential for 5 to 6 story buildings. Staff believes that although the site does in fact slope towards both Gore Greek and Mill Greek that neither a hardship or practical difficulty exists. Although many properties currently have heights in excess of 48 feet staff believes that the granting of a variance to this property would be a grant of special privilege as no recently constructed project has been afforded a height variance. Staff also believes that the granting of a height variance may adversely affect neighboring properties in terms of view and sun /shade impacts. 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. Setback It has been determined through research of existing properties zoned HDMF that several properties have been granted variances to allow for encroachments into required setbacks. Staff believes that the granting of the variance for the encroachment of the fifth story into the setback would not constitute a granting of special privilege and would be consistent with those granted for other properties within the district. Height The requested height variance does not exhibit any hardship or practical difficulty related to existing conditions on the site. Upon researching other properties zoned HDMF in the Town it was discovered that while many existing structures exceed the 48 -foot height maximum they were all constructed prior to annexation into the Town and are nonconforming. Staff was unable to find any recent construction which was granted a height variance in HDMF. Staff believes that the purpose of any requested variance is to minimize the impact that the granting of such a variance will create. Staff further believes there are other options which may exist for lessening the impact of the proposed addition of a fifth floor on Building F. For example different roof forms such as shed dormers could be utilized, a roof pitch less than that proposed could be utilized, or reducing head height in the proposed units. The option of creating a Special Development District (SDD) exists as well. Both Pinos del Norte and the Evergreen Lodge have created SDDs in order to gain development rights in excess of that permitted under HDMF zoning. Therefore, staff believes that granting approval of a height variance would be a granting of special priviledge not afforded to other properties. All properties zoned HDMF with redevelopment potential would be required to meet the HDMF zoning requirements. 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. Setback 9 Staff believes that the granting of the setback variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Height Staff believes that granting the height variance could pose negative impacts on light and air. The enclosed sun /shade analysis depicts the increased impacts on the neighboring property (Attachment E). 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. As stated in Section III Manor Vail was constructed under Eagle County development standards in 1963 and 1964. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 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. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IX_ STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request fora variance from Section 12 -61-1-6 (Setbacks) to allow for the addition of a fifth story to encroach 7 feet into the required 20 -foot setback. Staff's recommendation 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: a) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege 10 inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. b) 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. c) 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. d) 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. The Community Development Department recommends denial of the request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -7 (Height) to allow for the maximum height of Building F to exceed 48 feet. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section Vill of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: a) That the granting of the variance will constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. b) 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. c) There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. d) The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Letter from the applicant dated July 3, 2003 C. Reduced site plans, floor plans, and elevations D. Vail Village Master Plan Building Height Plan E. Sun /Shade Analysis F. Publication Notice and Affidavit of Publication 11 61 r ', + i C. _ f IL r LL AM W r .t A � i g . 5k`s J ° °r::i 1 L.na �+ ° t -, �,• .�� � . '�. 4, ..' � �+�- .''r�•. {� � .t ;' yam, + •s �� 3.:. _ lt� , . . . . . . OR" F dr i A _ f 3 I t d © 3 fi-- Ln I . k -' Vi a. . � � } a � to � !`..T.S- ve \ �.T R} +, -� S ... '�. k • 9 /" i F 1 o IL t a n " a �'• F '+ )t I L f 6 � ,a. .. k� �^° -„�F } to l 4,• s7.�- � r+ r � �q ',"'� V Attachment: A y � O M E L I C K A S S O C I A T E S I NC MANOR VAIL LODGE — VARIANCE HARDSHIPS FOR HEIGHT LIMITATION ON BUILDING F AND SETBACK ON BUILDING D - 7/3/03 PROJECT GOALS The goals for Buildings D, E and F are to remodel the exterior to a mountain lodge theme while maintaining the aesthetic sameness that they currently enjoy, and to add a floor for a total of six dwelling units to Buildings D, E and F. Each building has some subtle differences to provide some individuality, yet each remains part of one whole that defines the north edge of the property. These subtle differences include a change in color, a different entry roof truss, or a different railing treatment. In addition to the aesthetics of these buildings, Manor Vail Lodge is upgrading the egress stairs and adding ADA accessible elevators. The goal for the site is to expand on the open space. This is being accomplished by replacing the surface parking with below grade structured parking, adding gardens and stone walls to encapsulate the entire parking 40 structure, and relocating the maintenance sheds that are attached to buildings D and E to the underground parking structure. The addition of a floor to buildings D, E and F, instead of infilling between the buildings, is planned for 6 total dwelling units in order to maintain the existing open space between the buildings and to provide access and site lines to the Gore Creek. The Ford Park Access is being maintained and enhanced with the addition of the gardens directly to the north. Parking for 144 spaces is being accommodated with two levels of structured parking below grade. Parking is being provided for the current number of existing spaces plus 15 spaces for the additional dwelling units. The public will also benefit with the addition of 56 parking spaces. HEI GHT LIMITATION - MAINTAINING CONSISTENCY OF BUILDINGS D. E. F Buildings D, E and F are located along the north property line of the Manor Vail Lodge and are identical in appearance from all the views from the south. The existence of a lower walkout level at Building F is not apparent until you walk around to the north side of Building F. This is due to the consistency of the grades on the south side and in between the adjacent buildings. The lower level walkout elevation was dictated by the culvert drainage elevation that daylights to the Gore Creek at the north property line. The strict interpretation CJ 4512 LARIMER ST A R C H I T E C T U R E SUITE FOUR HUNDRED I N T E R 1 O R 3 DE NV'E11 C0 $0202 P L A N N I N G T E L 303.534.1930 WWW.MELICK.COM FAX 303.534.1991 .Attachment. U Manor Vail Lodge — Variance Request Page Two of the height limitation from this grade creates a practical difficulty which is inconsistent with the objective of the height limitation ordinance. To get Building F to fit within the height limitation, calculated by the interpolated grade, will require eliminating the entire upper level that is planned for Buildings D, E and F. As a result, if this ordinance is strictly enforced, Building F will be one story less than the current identical appearing Buildings D and E to the east as seen from the south. The roof lines of the three buildings that look exactly the same will become vastly different due to the lower walkout elevation. HEIGHT LIMITATION - LOW DRAINAGE AND FLOOD PLAIN The walk out level on the north side of Building F is lower than the surrounding building sites due to the drainage culvert elevation that feeds into Gore Creek at the north property line. This culvert drainage elevation is also the only point on the property where the 100 year flood plain crosses the property line. The building site to the west of the drainage culvert is approximately five feet above the walkout grade to the north of Building F and to the east of the drainage culvert. The building site of Building E to the east is approximately 10 feet above the building site of Building F. The building site of Building D to the east is 14.5 feet above the walkout elevation to the north of Building F. The walkout elevation is not consistent with the surrounding grade of the adjacent properties along the north property line. The elevation to the south of Buildings E and F are the same. The culvert drainage elevation creates an interpolated grade on the interior of Building F that does not occur on Buildings D and E. Buildings D and E both are within the 48 foot height limitation. Building D, E and F are currently all the same height on the south sides of the buildings. At the time of construction, it also was impractical to construct the north walkout elevation at the some elevation on the south side-of the building due to the lower north existing grade elevation. This elevation would have made a walkout at that elevation nonexistent due to the layback required for the fill relative due to close proximity to the property line. The hardship caused by the culvert drainage elevation to the north of Building F does not occur on the adjacent properties due to the drainage easement and culvert drainage elevation thereby creating an exceptional condition that does not apply in general to other properties in the same zone. BUILDING SETBACK — BUILDING FOOTPRINT EXISTING CONDITION triangular portion of the northeast corner of Building D is currently into the rear yard setback of 20 feet, by 38 square feet. Our plans are to extend the existing footprint of the building up to the new floor level. The strict interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulation will result in unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance by cutting a triangular chunk out of the corner of the building that already is sitting in the setback. h 4111 r • I L _-.A Manor Vail Lodge - Variance Request Page Three SUMMARY The strict interpretation of the height limitation will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of the other properties in the same district due to the culvert drainage elevation into the Gore Creek. The culvert drainage elevation creates an exceptional condition that does not apply in general to other properties in the same zone. n a � • 4 Lil Attachment: C r • t r v.TS no.XVm 'x�Xnro rare �rX .o XXO� 411M lYX Y 1P1 fi po �`77L7�� 1Fl1 Xpi1X'lI lY 3i f� o! i' �� F it =ii p 1 1,1 1 € k GXS X99 @a1 0 S J f ,. !� 8 r i f r l � � t Y 6 3l * I r • r 04TV1I0'IQ:J'l1VA _ 3A1�iQA3'TIb'ATIb"A.L55+'3S6S •— — �°'. °.. Spa ' i( le�'�' €t.`i!I €Iri€e �i €�.�i�l��� li _ 3:T 9'C SONTITHflll OICIf1.I.S `T ...... ROCIO'I'IIVA UON`r W V I y R M rr i ar w" f i 4 i i i! b i Y 4 i i t a b 0 4 b b q 4 O b e�t3 HIM, 14 z .R B E lit ti Q CL 4 �, O• C6 - '� j W iiiiYfG605�9y77Sxf�� 7 cn Y Y �66E�13i_�4e�eS9`3 6 �f 3 � Q LH ��S,Sc�$4I��eEat C &Be�R�R�FSc� I z®®WC��� $I t1 �3gggqgFx HIiiaax55��.Ci333���I I/ ---------- - _ Immul ob 0 ~ \ _ Immul ob 0 OaVHOrIO0 'UVA aArd(I AaTTVA rITVA.ISVa 965 j 2,y a 'a SONJaIjIfIg OjanLS aD(10'I'II 5 11 OGV'dOgOD'UVA — 3ARI(I AT3TIVA ffVA.LSV3s6S QQ: 9f]CIO'I'ITVA'dONTVW r K � rrw V m r � e 1 = P 1 i I e I : a x � I � i 6 ry — — I a i I ! I F � E a I a 6 8 g k = � yy I 5 3 59 I � 6 8 I z I z S @ 5i V 4J - - 1 - - P Ll I z ; 4 • • oav"do "nVA aAM(l,kH=A MVA IM ;65 -4:y Tcl SoNicrufla oi(ifu 9111111111111 ROGO'l -TIVA'dONVW 0 M ----- — ------ go so on :I- �Fl i E I I ff a I LUA ul , ]Fl�ll Ll 0(2Wmm'UV& — gArd@&a-IWwMVAlSVa 565 ]$2` soNicriIBDc[fuS SgGOl'IlVA£ONVW 0 7 , ■ | � | ■ . | | ..... . ■ � � -. � . ■ � § K at� �| ! , 7r-1 t, N � ! � . � � � � | [■ . . , . � ��■ ' | | , � � 2� ' ' | | | ! � § � \ 7 , � � ■ . | OaVWOr']00�HVA RMUCE A=A TVA IM 96 9 W H'ci SoNiailfig oicuus aO(10'1'IIVA'dONVW 'A rl I aI1.rdC A3TTVA'IIHA1WR 969 •--= ' °:..., .,. ' of i�� @ij �i a o r- aOCO'I'fc'A 2 O&TVN L E 4 z © ' a\7 *II i VAr\1f��s�1 IM r � gy } 000aaoaa OaV'dOIOD'I VA RAMa A.TIIV'A'AVAISVH SSS 3 V 3'a SIDNICI'IMS OICIf S SJQO'I'ITVA 2I0N' W l' J? 9 �tl cc�ooQaoo� • • OQVHO7oO'UVA ••" — 3 ; �Q ^ +Q t °fCEQ a.'I 3Ard(a A3 IIVASSV3565 u] w a `a somcmng oran.l.s 7TV A ' dONVW HOGOI � U i I----------------------- --- - -+ . r 1 I I , .I L I i i s I I I ' I� I i I i i it fi I I + I I I � � le• ; i i I 1 I II � I I di I I C ___ L 1 � I I g 8 , I Q ----------------- "`.3C 6 I � I I I +s li IL I :uni: _ma 6 UV& _ _- • . $4 / | 9AI X =n MV , s % a2y s`SOO�EOS | IN Ri \\ 99GO'I 51V& 2ONV1q | , L O .O O � � ! It . | ! � . i . it \ ) ) k § | O I ' | | � 0 0 oav 77m": aM'da xR `II V A VA 1WH 969 � =��19�` !'i w $ co 2y 3 ` i SZ)Nl m y O �O IC � In C. . T I � , w S LLJ Z0QO 1 i Il QXVW O a _ � I I I I � I � a it n � r s I �i 5 it i It I t a 1 I r a a a F . o � 0 � rr .... , . o imus C .11 , `: I1 SN±� f11�� �I � I oT0 _ � �� •',' ■I IW : aw �s�sw.w�a� °.zi����.■,r �7a.��.�o ■ a�r :��s.�'i� lira �i�:li4.l�w� �%.�i: oil r r T. - Nftw Flit 4 a�r arw��e.., �L�tkwa ".�r►t.�ws`•a�w`.�.rin +rr t�•f i"y�`�slr, •a�� �a •ir+� a�i. . Nrt. �:wt,l�il�►.�ws.�rrdlira�wt.�r� 1 nor► 1� ° �� o a00000 • • • 4 4 oavucrio:) ■ a . s Oicms aD C ( OI MVA UO 7! a Il t�!■ ° lI I•I is It IIl�e_ Q. 0 , ° p> nr • i�� 1.���1.7 � 1.��_ra � Raa��s i� n I, NA i l m � M row L. w. Y� Yri 'Y�e Yom! YM! Yr� ` ►�! s�' ■- 1room I■ I I ■ . r Yw. �� 'Fi I ` - Ir I' FM _ i � �:' +i Y �'i� s � + *Y +.;� ! 1�`I y�i♦ Y �' /� r *i �r T 'gr I�■ I �.p �� �� te r•,,;., i a ` 00000 - I�H�rY1y�Y����sS_!�►'3sl� C��y�Y�liGY1 i� � � OCVUOrlOD"UVA 3Ai2 G ATI'IVA 969 f El' i I! f�glf ' g ce) RO(IO'r ITVA No ........... CD r, E 0 2 _a .o 0�!��OQDO 0 • • mo i t jj .. W-10 0 1 2 1 .2 1 L = j Ad .. W-10 0 LL- L � D i 0 0 4 4 A • G• - dO NVW o I lip 0 a �� If �� g N A I �1 vu's. �r'.'i J IM,,i:� r \r I a lima MW �- Ias - � - -- �� II I •.liG�ru'.lr� ti�.1M� "w.'fwa�'ii oaooaaao O6YH0100'"UVA �pal•!F�`�1�aE� — - 9AI'4aARTWA7[rVA.LSVUOS � . ro„ F4 6 t � ��t� 1 1i _ CV 3 3 8 V SJNicuriff azan.l.s Q Ei�.F;�� { p �� e 9 a q 3 l�¢ F! x 90001 MYA 'dON'A W • . FFi�l�3 of 9 f ai {� o- - a A i _ ,.. �I 4 �� 44444444 • L 4 ocrvvorI03"IIgA HAxda.i3TIVA'FTVAISVH96S " - =' 7 �li�t'jt m aOao 'I 'I rVA 'dON'VW ..........•.•..•• piiyy{{ ii LL r °8 gg !� • ¢M�!! f n Y � IIF I 8 y 1 f. Y 1 2 t a � y K y W D i pp ®gp �gg 000000aa aAl A.2nlVA'IIVA.LM 96S . "- '" _ s f N � w t q � 21 a !T � S } � �T N ry I c ni � n r s � •.•••••••••i1• ...... � y { ��ei 1` ;; 1F � pr r� LL. 3�.J 41L! 1 11 V A Q�lY V Y�1 If�ilif l�1�5�1CFia� I ' �R U kK ai a �a of 10 0 0 O 0$ 90 Q p; ,p a ® 0 fl 0 0 --- - - 90 - - -- O a oi O 0 s 0 a p I 01 �p p A 10 a6 go fl ®1 0 o! 0 0 o 0 3` • • 0 ` aAr�a JLR'r m+ A.LSVase s -- �1� 9� d- R9aoz 1 dON'v w , ................ CD - r rN r / I r r a - - - -- ------------ - - - - -- - - - - - -- - �a TMT r a.M r _ r I I i _ r - r I r r I r 4 E r I r r . . r I r � I E � I I I g � 7 p �{ OOD ODOOG� 0 0 0 OCIVHO'ICO'UVA ........... ahrH(I AaTWA PHVA IM SK Vd'(I SONIMIfIla OIGIUS 'df)C[0'1'frVA'HONVW 7 1,n < 1, 0 G - — - — - 0 OT,rHmm :w - a . aAFda Ia7w&'UVa1 ■� �. -' 2 -4 + a` SSNUaMS OlafU§ \ ; l� ., . agGM �A k0� ,.. . 1!i O - - � �- - � | , � r , � � � , r § 6� §\ ]k! 7 ral � ! S§B@@k8 0@B 0 00 N OuVUOz00 EGUG AT Ev & OVA Inq 56S •- 3 ' `Q SiJI.IIcruf H C]Imus .................. ROGC I'IIHIL 2I01TV'N I liIN � No I I 1 r r r� �J D 0 xo �z n .1. I I,p'I� I MI R� a ja 0 ' $ Bpi lo Goo J GC O • • t I ; i 1LLI' x� ,� UJ u i ; I 1 T H'EIG Ca J R." f m 4 �I =v w 1�1 ,0 � -j � L � E _ w cu m CL m 'k CL �G $ \2 % /� 7� }a (\ \\ \� \� m / I\ (E ƒ� § 6 I t [Q ( \� � � \ IL 7 * 2 § § I \_} \ \ 6 dcm y e; LU _ w ^ � _ 3) 'k a "\ ;ate / \§(( k «£� 0 • c . . , U) + Q `I • cm Q J' C CL J as N � OLJ 0 c C 13 C y, N }_ 3 7 W N , � �' C � N m q± � w 3 �� 4J C- rn�� CL it 3 c� ® q Z3 q v y tin Q) N C C q} >ri T le) cy r1l f7 W Lo .}J 'N N d l6 'a Yu N ., SS $ D �' E ZJ O ? tq 3 S L- N TSQ N qL Q D D q U c {J N s N#J 4 � 01y � m0 ZS a.0 U h c N Q1 43 C L E 67 N d N M c N N 4-3 N q v L E � 4 N 4) L 3r = O . e N a 4w o W- W .c �? 3 L L R +-� 4) v +� a.a V c 10 a�j L N E to z3 c W s N a3 E 3 ' R - W a N - :3 -4J Z: L Q N N W -P Y Q N C r_ o @ 1 4 L 40 4} M M 0 M 4J wu N L1 . o V U 1 D() - O W M m E t- a. D 4- L Q) 8 � a C7 °t �' � 4J L m s � � 3 4. � >' 3 L c � � d �4) � +, , U N 4-1 QS X S] .s E D ±J W m 3 o D E Q? U C1. +J ko = C W pL) In E 4- Sf 4 41 J SD 4- - L Q _ XQ Q a. - 6 Q N D O FJ U N 1" }J Q 4 C 00 C T le) cy r1l f7 ., qa +L v c W D q � N Q) c N Q1 °0 O O 7 LL L c 93 S E +] C C lu @ C Q5 R G D LL L "b C�J X N N N CS N L C,5 U r_ 1 4 L 40 4} M M 0 M 4J wu N in m� v v a t- to 4) ��T x+' °t �-U 6. 4-1 'O Z� ro� m U 3 'e U '� �m,�� N *J q}, Q? U E N Q! 'D S Ill L. c N - L E 4I 1� c a +J 10 L G7 3 +3 4. lf9 L .0 Q 4LI c Ln N D c L N N - V E T r _3 a tl� N C1 .�, ]. Q! 4l1 c E O �... LL l3 't 1G tp 9 (�3 N mot D u IZ QL _� N D@ C1 N a1 T x X C W O Cl O b .� G c CL d 'S3 SJ N L W a N D Q1 # ra N -C W t L O f� an C2 U R Q IL! L l- Z: _ 6 U (L (L (L. In In 4- J 3: q U7 oc to N IL L CL CL O u C CL Ca i 6� k U sJ 3 a ka, � W$ N E .+ p c c L fl Q Ta G L +1 U Q D� S LL�91 H Q 3 u _ Z LL L L L 4-3 -� 1SS � W L C- ' _p CL a L � L � L C � U � H C3 Q? L7 Q7 L.� N Sa E Q1 c c 5) c N v � O a QJ N N L a� D m -,�, oL) N q ,A. q �"' Q tl W N a i6 S E a_t L v L E c -L4 Q) T1 " 83 E uu O. Q. ar.l ° m a� W a q�.2 out ° 0 H � tf? Q 0 {L 1 I C {L Lo n LA LU co m0 V' 44 V V 40 I.,1 J Z4 11 ti� j? I� �� � � L Z Lu 4 Rj 0111/111 fur) f M it 1Y fl M ib I I lit �J)j I I z LU Lu C ra • F. • Attachment: D C BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN Generally speaking, it is the goal of this Plan to maintain the concentration of low scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (aloe the Frontage Road g g ), as depicted in the Building Height Profile Plan, This pattern has already been established and in some cases these larger structures along the Frontage Road serve to frame views over Vail Village to Vail Fountain. The Building Height Plan also strives, in some areas, to preserve major views from public right-of- ways. Building heights greatly influence the character of the built environment in the Village. This is particularly true in the Village Core where typical building heights of three to four stories establish a pleasing human scale. The building heights expressed on this Illustrative Plan are intended to provide general guidelines. Additional study should be made during specific project review relative to a building's height impact on the streetscape and relationship to surrounding structures. Specific design considerations on building heights are found in the Sub -Area section of this Plan and in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. A 31 • • Attachment, E THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE 1S 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 July 14, 2003, at 2:90 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3, Vail Town Code, to allow for a Parking Management Plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 161 W. Meadow Drive /Lots E&F, Vail Village 2 I Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun Associates, Inc, Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition, located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive /Lot 47, Vail Village West 1" Filing. Applicant: John and Bobbi -Ann Houtsma Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6, Setbacks, and 12 -6H -7, Height, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition, located at Manor Vail, 595 E. Vail Valley Drive /Lot A, Vail Village 7"' Filing. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Bob McCleary Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7A -3, Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in a lodge in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure, located at 29 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village I" Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett 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 June 27, 2003. _ , -C) r� Attachment: F TO IM OF MAIL 0 .3 7 Ca U.S.POSTAGE 6587 vi RT I ON 500 �. �ro��a�� K� � VA CIO 0 -3 7 J �S. P OSTA G E 5 B mETER 8065876 c16 �'6u�nl P�� cd�s 2))z 0 .3 7 3 METER U.S% . P 0 S T A G E Z065376 om U&/) 91q j W � 2/ q6ultaq 1 6,6 Sl3o CT 0 - Q 6 5876 2JI T U)tW77 TX 741bz rrlrnL �ern ktWCMc,,-- &aQ1.Jaq FL N�LJ y0r �, N `I 37 )s METER U.S.P037ACE co 81658761 • )WI IT 11V(- -6 x d 6 i'o T �l &;iv I* N� �- , Ao 166,�02 J4 6 043 ETER - C U.S.POSTAGE rrlrnL �ern ktWCMc,,-- &aQ1.Jaq FL N�LJ y0r �, N `I 37 )s METER U.S.P037ACE co 81658761 • )WI IT 11V(- -6 x d 6 i'o T �l &;iv I* N� �- , Ao 166,�02 ,All-- -� - _ `37�_�� t , re METER ,• C 8C +a587o.`��,'�1, f 6�k U.A63 U V I AA1 WU S7 Y z 1 P. tA 16s- UAl ATIA E" N, CA `� LfbZ i p -3 7 I Zsl _ f c o �� M =TEFt U S.POST G; Lie tJ � bLbv P � . 736-5 lei $fib rB TEA � �� 806587b ��•S.PG I ^G ALL S&Man/& Ga)lN r9k8a� • y.�y �'o,�E C�� Del �'�G 57 _ .f A �jr ER co � ` I U,S.PQSTAGE E0+�5876 +, PA U 0 .3 7 4 .12 METER CO 8065876 L3.S•PC9STAGE �IN t 35a R.o clxa� S4 )o58a 'J; 4.37 L c) 8065876� l �• S • PflSTr � G£ f ` Woria�t MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 14, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7A -3, Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in a lodge in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structures, located at 20 Vail Road, fit E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 1' Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Planner: George Ruther E. SUMMARY The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for accessory eating, drinking, and retail establishment use in excess of ten percent (10 %) of the total gross residential floor area of the Sonnenalp Hotel and Swiss Chalet, located at 20 Vail Road and 82 East Meadow Drive. Staff's evaluation of the criteria for review of this conditional use permit is outlined in Section Vi;ll of this memorandum. Upon review of the proposal and the applicable criteria, Staff is recommending that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request with one condition of approval. The complete staff recommendation is described in Section 1X of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for accessory eating, drinking, and retail establishment use in excess of ten percent (10 %) of the total gross residential floor area of the Sonnenalp Hotel and Swiss Chalet, located at 20 Vail Road and 82 East Meadow Drive. According to the proposal submitted by the applicant's representative, up to 16,92.5 square feet, or 12.5 %fl, of the total gross residential floor area of the structures, will be accessory eating, drinking, or retail uses within the main structure or structures on the Sonnenalp Hotel /Swiss Chalet development site. The total square footage is comprised of 6,050 square feet of existing accessory area (Bully Ranch, Ludwig's, etc.) and 10,875 square of new accessory eating, drinking and retail area. The new square footage will be located primarily along the north side of the development site, adjacent to East Meadow Drive. Pursuant to Section 12 -7A -2 of the Vail Town Code permits accessory eating, drinking, and retail establishment uses to occupy up to ten percent (10 %) of the total gross residential floor area on the main structure or structures on the site as a permitted use. However, Section 12 -7A -3, Vail Town Code, allows accessory eating, drinking, and retail establishment use to exceed ten percent (10 %) of the total gross residential floor area, but 1 not.-m'pre than fifteen percent (15 %), of the total gross residential floor area of the main struct6re or stru�Aur ;Qn the site, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with *e provisions prescribed in Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations. III, BACKGROUND Can May 12, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a request for the redevelopment of the Sonnenalp Hotel and Swiss Chalet properties. In granting their final approval, the Commission placed six conditions on the approval. One of the conditions requires that the applicant reappears before the Planning and Environmental Commission at a future date for consideration of a conditional use permit allowing the total area of accessory eating, drinking and retail uses on the site to exceed ten percent (10 %) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site, in order for the approval to be valid. On June 3, 2003, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2003, upon second reading, and thus amending the Vail Town Code, permitting accessory eating, drinking and retail establishment uses in a lodge to exceed ten percent (10 %), but not more than fifteen percent (15 %), of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on a site in the Public Accommodation zone district. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOGIES 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 2 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. 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) 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 reviewprocess 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 forconditional use permits shall be denied. 12 -16 -8: PERMIT APPROVAL AND EFFECT: Approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two (2) years from when the approval becomes final. Vail Vil4q_Q 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 3 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 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. As noted on page 35 of the Master Plan, 'It is important to note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for these proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Plan. " 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 relevant stated goals of the Vail Village 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. Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 0 4 Objective 1.3: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 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. Objective 2.4: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. Objective 2.5: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 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. 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. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Mixed Use Special Development District No. 6 5 South: Open Space Natural Area Preservation District East: Mixed Use Commercial Core II West: Mixed Use Public Accommodation/High Density Multiple Family Vll. SITE ANALYSIS Legal Description: Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing Zoning: Public Accommodation (PA) District Land Use Plan Designation: Village Master Plan Current Land Use: Mixed Use Lot Size: 2.788 acresl121,445 square feet Development Standard Allowed Proposed Density (dwelling units/acre): 69 DUs (25 /acre) 8DUs (2.9/acre) Accommodation Units (AUs): unlimited 123 AUs (35 new) Fractional Fee Units (FFUs): unlimited 14 FFUs Cross Residential Floor Area: Cross Residential Floor Area: (70% AUs) (30% DUs) Retail Area: 182,168 sq. ft. or Up to 150% 54,498 sq. ft min. 23,356 sq. ft. max. 13,518 sq. ft. or 11 135,184 sq. ft. or 111% 54,785 sq. ft (70.3 %) 23,069 sq. ft (29.6 %) M 16,925 sq. f#. or 12.5 % Site Coverage (max.): 78,939 sq. ft. or 65% 76,039 sq. ft. or 63% Landscape Area (min.): 36,433 sq. ft. or 30% 36,433 sq. ft. or 30% hardscape (20 %) 7,287 sq. ft (max.) 12,715 sq. ft. or 35% softscape (80 %) 29,146 sq. ft.(min.) 23,718 sq. ft. or 65% Setbacks: 20 ft. minimum Varies unless approved (see development plan) otherwise by the PEC Gore Creek Setback: 50 ft. minimum > 50 ft. Parking: 134 spaces 134 spaces Loading: 4 bays 4 bays Height: 48 ft. maximum < 48 ft. VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of a conditional use permit are established by the Town Code. 6 0 Consideration of Factors Regarding the Conditional Use Permit 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Staff believes the use of more than ten percent (10 %), and up to 16,925 square feet, or 12.5 %, of the total gross residential floor area of the structures on the site is in concert with the Town's general development objectives and more specifically those objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan as identified in Section V of this memorandum. The proposal, as submitted, would implement the Town's goal of improving and enhancing the retail area along East Meadow Drive. The proposed plan places retail frontage along the entire length of East Meadow Drive at the street level which creates a more desirable pedestrian area and enhances the pedestrian connection between the Vail Village and Lionshead commercial core areas. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that this proposal, as designed, will have minimal, if any, negative effect on the above described criteria. • 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes that the proposed uses will have few, if any, negative effects upon traffic congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and snow removal from the streets. Staff recommends, however, that while an adequate on site loading and delivery facility has been approved with the redevelopment proposal for this site, that the Commission places a condition on this conditional use permit request strictly prohibiting any loading and delivery activity to the applicant's property from East Meadow Drive or the adjacent private property. Staff believes that if loading and delivery were allowed to occur, even on the most limited of basis, the negative effects of that activity on East Meadow Drive would be detrimental to the traffic flow and pedestrian circulation along East Meadow Drive, and therefore, must be avoided. 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. Staff believes that the proposed conditional use permit request will result in many positive aspects for the Town and that the character of the area will be enhanced as a result of the proposed improvements. As this site is adjacent to East Meadow Drive, staff believes the new retail area will be an amenity to the Town and will improve the pedestrian experience along East Meadow Drive. Further, 7 staff believes that the additional square footage and use is compatible with the existing and potential uses in the vicinity of the Sonnenalp Hotel and the Swiss Chalet. As indicated in Section VI of this memorandum, the proposed development site is bordered on three of four sides by existing or potential mixed use developments. Staff believes that the proposed use is in concert with the surrounding uses. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before rg antinn 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 Public Accommodation 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 of a . conditional use permit, to allow for retail uses in a lodge in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structures, located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 5' Filing. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section Vill 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 Public Accommodation (PA) 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 this conditional use permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the following condition: 1. That the property owner or his tenant(s) be strictly prohibited from allowing any loading and delivery activity to occur to the Sonnenalp Hotel or Swiss Chalet properties from East Meadow Drive (public right of way) or from the private property immediately adjacent to and along East Meadow Drive to the accessory eating, 9 drinking and retail establishment uses permitted under this conditional use permit. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity map B. Applicant's letter of request C. Reduced floor plans D. list of adjacent property owners • Sonnenalp Redevelopment Adjacent Property Owners List July 2003 DORE, WILLIAM J. C/O DORE' FAMILY OFFICE 5151 SAN FELIPE ST STE 900 HOUSTON, TX 77056 -3607 l BILLUPS, M. & LA -LEWIS L,B.- MANNIX, FB - BILLUPS, JAMES S. III TRUSTEE 8301 BROADWAY STE 319 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78209 l 7REVINA LP 600 5TH AVE 8TH FL NEW YORK, NY 10020 l VAIL CORP PO PDX 7 VAIL, CO 81658 l HIBBERD, FRED, JR 45 SKYLINE JACKSON, WY 83001 l FIRST BANK OF VAIL CIO FIRSTBANK HOLDING CO PO BOX 150097 LAKEWOOD, CO 80215 l KOVENER, RONALD R. & CAROLYN O. 2266 E CAPE COD DR BLOOMINGTON, IN 47401 l KNIGHT, MARK E_ C/O KNIGHT OIL TOOLS FOUET RD LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 l REISHER, ROGER L. 2400 CHERRY CREEK S DR #405 DENVER, CO 80209 -3258 l 333 TRUST MARILENA PIRAS TRUSTEE 415 STEELE ST DENVER, CO 802064416 1 VAIL RELIGIOUS FOUNDATION INC % REV. DON SIMONTON r� u Attachment: C 19 VAIL RD VAIL, CO 81657 VAIL VILLAGE INN INC 100 E MEADOW DR #33 VAIL, CO 81657 1 VAIL VILLAGE INN PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION PHASE 1 AND 2 CIO SLIFER MANAGEMENT 143 EAST MEADOW DR. VAIL, CO 81657 D VAIL VILLAGE INN PLAZA. CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION PHASE 3 AND 5 CIO JOSEPH STAUFER 100 EAST MEADOW DR. VAIL, CO 81657 1 HOLIDAY HOUSE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C/O RICHARD SCAPELLO 9 VAIL ROAD VAIL, CO 81657 CROSSROADS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 143 EAST MEADOW DRIVE, SUITE 499A VAIL, CO 81657 BISHOP PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOC % PHILLIPS & ASSOC INC PO BOX 1403 VAIL, CO 81658 RIVER HOUSE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION PO BOX 3459 VAIL, CO 81657 B. B. & C. PTNSHP CIO JACK CURTIN 757 S VINE DENVER, CO 80209 1 VILLAGE CENTER ASSOC 124 WILLOW BRIDGE RD VAIL, CO 81657 1 VILLAGE CENTER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C/O SIERRA MANAGEMENT PO BOX 3842 VAIL, CO 81658 J JACOBS, WILLIAM T., JR 2001 W JEFFERSON ST JOLIET, IL 60435 a H AMILTON, DAVID R. & CATI- IARINE C. 1500 N LAKE SHORE DR CHICAGO, IL 60610 1 ZALE, DONALD & BARBARA JEAN 3102 MAPLE AVE STE 100 DALLAS, TX 75201 1 FREDERICK R. MAYER QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST 1702 WAZEE ST DENVER, CO 80202 1 RIVER HOUSE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION PO BOX 2015 EDWARDS, CO 81632 1 SITZMARK AT VAIL INC 183 GORE CREEK DR VAIL, CO, 81657 1 EDELWEISS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 103 WILLOW PLACE VAIL, CO 81657 1 TALISMAN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 62 E MEADOW DR VAIL, CO 81657 a � II aaYSwio��ivn ,yv.ow.r IiJFll ,�'� 11 IDYIILA I& 1 �Y 1' �Ia � r "i� ` .p V O � ss y w t u V NiMoiMay M I Cf� H I 4 TOA "DS �? I I I ` i1i r + 4 , { g r l rw � _ ' ;;t� � 7 17, IIJOS3�1 d 1 N3NIVOS 1111 11 ' � �LLsl. d £ Is 8 # Q • Attachment. B rI I RAVIBIRAUI N ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 14, 2QOi George Ruther, AICP Chief of Planning Town of frail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 51657 Re: Sonnenalp Redevelopment — Criteria for Retail Over 10 Dear George: We have addressed the criteria required for a conditional use permit with regard to exceeding the 10% limitation on retail as allowed by the Public Accommodation zone district. Below is our analysis. Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Comm (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: • a. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. Our Analvsis: The reta areas art pr oposed in an area of the Vaal Village that bas Geer? andicatcd 1?1f ells Tory ?'.r master plar rnin . g documents as areas appropriate for rni ved rare lod ging, relaill commercial and residential arses lae przrpo.red.ctrrJCt » res corstafrrit ?� the retail square fooAa,,ge conrf�I) ivifll Me PA .Zone district and rvit6 the Toavn's development standards. The proposed amorarnt of retail area implemenis the Tonvn's de mlopnaent objectives f?y enhancing the retail environment alonb Last Meadonv Drive. b. 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. Our Analysis: The proposed n demlopmrnt plan implemews the To?vn's {pal of having a rrital retail area aloe Tart Alradon) Drim. The Land Use Plan, the Vail Village 147a.rterNan, and tlae Streelrcape 7l!frr.rte? flan all rrfear rcrlrail irarprr? ?rcr�ac?7rr alon ?b the .ronath .ride of Last 14�Iradory Dri ?�c. T1Je pro,��o,rcd �lranr ir�cl ?ader ncnv ,rtrr;et lrrrml ��tuil urru, l�tail storefitrnats ure r.'srclrAdcrl on lL,e ennti� Mcadoru Dram fronlaSe rrf llrc So?nnnena0 anling and the Snviss Chalet n desiralale pedestrian Edwards Village Centel, Suite C -209 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Post Off ce Box 2658 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Attachment: A Ph. - 974.926.7575 Fax - 974.926.7576 www.braunassociales.com flow acrd strengthening of the connection laetaveen the T'illabe core and I.iors.rlaead. Since the proposed irarprowrnents are located in the retail core of Vail the proposed retail area will have little, if aria, impacts relating to she above list of criteria. c. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snoNv from the street and parking areas. Our Analysis: Thcraposed retail area mill signa Canl'r Zrr?plYlrJe the flaw of p edcstrz a ns along this retail corridor lay providing safe and protected areas away f om vehicular and transit vehicles. The additional retail area will have little in the way of increased vehicular traffic and therefore have little, if any, ir*act on the above criteria. d. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bull: of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Our Analysis: This area of the Vaal Village is chara by multi - stork+ residential lodgan& and commercial buildings developed ai close prox rrat�y to the street. The proposed Swiss Chalet and Sonnenalp B uildings are consistent with the character of the area an terns of use, physical scale, and b u lk. Addataonallj; the proposed retail areas are consistent with the Toxn's .Zoning code, development standards, and designguidelinec Tlae proposed retail arroas hey to reduce tlae perceived bulk acrd mass of the building bringing the building to a more pedestrian scale. We believe the proposed retail square footage is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and that we have adequately addressed the conditional use permit criteria. e ly Don F. Mauriello, AIC 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 14, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to present "Vail's Front Door" proposal; 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 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 15, 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 51h 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 0 %; 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 requested a worksession with the Planning & Environmental Commission to discuss VaWs Front Door project. The applicant and staff are asking the Commission to listen to a presentation on the proposed site development improvements. Upon completion of the presentation, staff is requesting that Commission engages in a discussion with the staff and applicant and provide their input and feedback on the proposed improvements in 0 anticipation of a final review of the proposal at the August 11, 2003, public hearing of the Planning & Environmental Commission. 11. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC), represented by Jay Peterson, is requesting a worksession meeting with the Planning & Environmental Commission to continue discussions regarding Vail's f=ront Door project. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the applicant an opportunity to more formally present their plans for the development of Vail's Front Door project to the Commission and to allow the Commission to engage in a discussion with the staff and applicant and provide their input and feedback on the proposed improvements. The staff and applicant are requesting that the Commission listen to a presentation on the project proposal and engage in a discussion with the staff and applicant and provide their input and feedback on the proposed improvements, in anticipation of a final review of the proposal at the August 11, 2003, public hearing of the Planning & Environmental Commission. Ill. BACKGROUND On January 6, 2003, the Community Development Department received the applicant's submittal of 14 development review applications to facilitate the redevelopment of Vail's Front Door project. On February 10 and 24, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held worksessions to discuss the applicant's proposal and requests to amend various planning documents of the Town of Vail On March 10, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission vote unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval of the applicant's request to amend the Vail Land Use Plan, Vail Village Master Plan, and the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations to the Vail Town Council. On April 1, 2003, the Vail Town Council approved Resolutions No. 2 and 3, Series of 2003, amending the Vail Land Use Plan and Vail Village Master Plan, and approved Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2003, amending the Town of Vail Zoning Regulation, upon first reading. On April 14, 2003. the Planning and Environmental Commissicn held a worksession to discussed the proposed plans for improvements to Lots P3 and J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5'' Filing (Vail Park). On April 15, 2003, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2003, amending the Town of Vail Zoning Regulation, upon second reading. On June 9, 2003, the Plannin g and Environmental Commission held a worksession to continue discussions on the proposed plans for improvements to Lots P3 and J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5' Filing (Vail Park). The Commission 2 tabled the final review of the four development, review _applications directly associated with the Vail Park improvements until the July 14, 2003, public hearing of the Planning and Environmental Commission. On June 23, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss the proposed improvements and development applications associated with the Vista Bahn Ski and Vail's f=ront Door project. Upon presentation of the proposed plans, the Commission accepted public comment and then provided feedback to the applicant. In providing feedback to the applicant, the Commission raised a number of questions. The applicant and staff agreed to provide answers to those questions at the July 14, 2003 meeting. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zoning Regulations Chapter 8 Open Space and Recreation Districts ARTICLE E. SKI BASE/RECREATION 2 (SBR2) DISTRICT SECTION: 12 -8E -1: Purpose 12 -8E -2: Permitted Uses 12 -8E -3: Conditional Uses 12 -8E =4: Accessory Uses 12 -8E -5: Location of Business Activity 12 -8E -6: Development Plan 12 -8E -7: Development Review Procedures 12 -8E -8: Submittal Requirements 12 -8E -9: Design Criteria 12- 8E -10: Lot Area 12- 8E -11: Setbacks 12- 8E -12: Height 12- 8E -13: Density Control 12- 8E -14: Site Coverage 12- 8E -15: Landscaping and Site Development 12- 8E -16: Parking Plan and Program 12- 8E -17: Mitigation of Development Impacts 12- 8E -18: Amendment Procedures 12- 8E -19: Time Requirements 12 -8E -1: PURPOSE: The Ski Base /Recreation 2 District is intended to provide sites for facilities, activities and uses necessary for and appurtenant to the operation of a ski mountain. A variety of other facilities, uses and activities, including but not limited to residential, public and semi - public uses and special community events typically associated with a vibrant resort community are also permitted within the District. The Ski Base /Recreation 2 District is �J intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional uses throughout the District. In order to achieve this objective and to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses, all permitted uses, development and activity within the District shall be subject to approval of a comprehensive development plan in accordance with the provisions of this Article. Furthermore, due to the likelihood of this District being located at the base of Vail Mountain, and upon some of the most critical and important lands to the future success and resort character of the Town, development within this District shall be evaluated based upon its ability to meet the specific purposes of this Title and to provide "compelling public benefits which further the public interests" that go beyond any economic benefits to the landowner. 12 -8E -2: PERMITTED USES: A. The following uses shall be permitted within the Ski Base/ Recreation 2 District: 1. Ski base- oriented uses including the following: Ski trails Ski lifts and tows Ski racing facilities 4 0 Snowmaking facilities Skier and guest services including but not limited to uses such as basket rental, lockers, ski repair, ski rental, lift ticket sales, public restrooms, information/activity desk Ski school facilities Ski patrol facilities Commercial ski storage on the basement or garden level of a building Retail stores and establishments Special community events, including but not limited to ski races, festivals, concerts, and recreational, cultural and educational programs and associated improvements /facilities, subject to the issuance of a Special Events License. 2. Eating and drinking establishments including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises Coffee shop Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants Cocktail lounges and bars 3. Residential Uses including the following: Single- family residential dwelling units Two - family residential dwelling units Multi - family residential dwelling units Accommodation units 5 4. Lodges 6. Private or public off - street vehicle parking structures 7. Private or public off- street loading facilities 8. Public parks and outdoor recreation facilities 12 -BE -3: CONDITIONAL USES: i The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Ski Base /Recreation 2 District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapterl6 of this Title: 1. Brew pubs 2. Fractional fee units 3. Private and public clubs 4. Public utility and public service uses 5. Outdoor dining decks and patios 6. Type III employee housing units as provided in chapter 13 of this title 7.. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional or permitted uses described in this chapter, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12- 3-4 of this Title. 12 -8E -4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Ski Base /Recreation 2 District: Accessory uses customarily incidental to permitted and conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof. Ski school offices, sales, and activities Ski patrol offices Skier and guest service employee offices, locker rooms, and meeting rooms Swimming pools, patios or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted uses. 40 12 -8E -5: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: 6 A. Limitations; Exception: All offices, retail sales, and commercial ski storage conducted in the Ski. Base /Recreation 2 (SBR2) district shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for approved special community events, outdoor display of goods, and outdoor restaurant seating. B. Outdoor Displays. The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. 12 -$E -6: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: A. Development Plan Required Prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within the Ski Base /Recreation 2 District, there shall be an approved development plan for said District or portion thereof. An approved development plan shall be the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of land within the district. A i development plan shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Development standards including setbacks, site coverage, landscaping, density (GRFA) and parking shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of the approved development plan. This determination is to be made based on the proposed development plan's compliance with the design criteria outlined in Section 12- 8E -9 of this Article. B. Application An application for approval of a development plan may be filed by any owner of property within the Ski Base /Recreation 2 district or his (her) agent or authorized representative. The application shall be made on a form provided by the Department of Community Development and shall include. a legal description of the property, a list of names and mailing addresses of all adjacent property owners and written consent of owners of all property to be included in the development plan, or their agents or authorized representatives. The application small be accompanied by submittal requirements outlined in Section 12 -8E -8 A. of this Article and a development plan as outlined in Section 12 -8E -6 C. of this Article. 7 C. Contents 49 The development plan shall be comprised of materials submitted in accordance with Section 12 -8E -8 A. of this Article. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters within which land in the district may be developed. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, off - street parking /loading plan, off -site improvements plan, preliminary open space /landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory uses. 12 -8E -7: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES: A. Pre - Application Conference Prior to submittal of a formal application for a development plan, the applicant shall hold a pre - application conference with the Department of Community Development. The purpose of this meeting shall be to discuss the goals of the proposed development plan, the relationship of the proposal to applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, and the review procedure that will be followed for the application. B. PEC Conducts Final Review The final review of a proposed development plan shall be by the Planning and Environmental Commission at either a regularly scheduled meeting or a special meeting. Prior to this meeting, and at the discretion of the Administrator, a worksession may be held with the applicant, staff and the Planning and' Environmental Commission to discuss development plan. A report of the Department of Community Development staff's findings and recommendations shall be presented at a public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the development plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -8E -9 of this Article. 12 -8E -8: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: A. Information and Materials Required The Administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an approved l development plan application. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or 8 0 modified by the Administrator or the Planning and Environmental Commission if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required is not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the Vail Comprehensive Plan. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the Administrator and filed in the Department of Community Development. 12 -8E -9: DESIGN CRITERIA: The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved: A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural And /Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and /or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the development plan is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing 0 on and off -site traffic circulation. 9 H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the development plan. J. Annexed Lands: Conformity with the terms of an annexation agreement and demonstration of a compelling public benefit which furthers the public interest. 12- 8E -10: LOT AREA: The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable site area. 12- 8E -11: SETBACKS: In the Ski Base /Recreation 2 District, front, side and rear setbacks shall be as indicated on the approved development plan. 12- 8E -12: HEIGHT: In the Ski Base /Recreation 2 District buildings shall range in height from 0'— 43' and be indicated on the approved development plan. All development shall comply with the building height guidelines found in the Vail Village Master Plan Conceptual Building Height Plan. In no instance, however, shall the maximum building height exceed 43'. 12- 8E -13: DENSITY CONTROL (DWELLING UNITS PER ACREIGRFA): Total density shall not exceed eight (8) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. The total allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) shall as indicated on the approved development plan. 12- 8E -14: SITE COVERAGE: In the Ski Base /Recreation 2 District, site coverage shall be as indicated on the approved development plan. 12- 8E -15: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: 10 0 In the Ski Base /Recreation 2 District, landscaping requirements shall be as indicated on the approved development plan. 12- 8E -16: PARKING /LOADING FLAN AND PROGRAM: Off- street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. At least 95% of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings, and as approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission in review of the development plan. The off- street parking and loading plan shall be indicated on and described in the approved development plan. 12- 8E -17: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS Property owners /developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off -site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed- restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, loading /delivery, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank improvements, public art improvements, parking, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large -scale red evelopment/development projects which produce substantial off -site impacts. 12- 8E -18: AMENDMENT PROCEDURES A. Minor Amendments: Minor amendments are modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved development plan, and are consistent with the design criteria of this Article. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, variations of not more than five feet (6) to approved setbacks and /or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the development site; or changes to gross floor area of not more than five percent (5 %) of the approved square footage of residential floor area or retail, office, 0 common areas and other nonresidential floor area. 2. Minor amendments consistent with the design criteria outlined in Section 12 -8E -9 of this Article may be approved by the Department of Community Development. All minor amendments shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of Community Development. 3. Notification of a proposed minor amendment, and a report of staff action of said request, shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the district that may be affected by the amendment. Affected properties shall be as determined by the Department of Community Development. Notifications shall be postmarked no later than five (5) days following staff action on the amendment request and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time and date of when the Planning and Environmental Commission will be informed of the staff decision. In all cases the report to the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be made within twenty (23) days from the date of the staff's decision on the requested amendment. 4, Appeals of staff decisions may be filed by adjacent property owners, owners of property within the district, the applicant, Planning and Environmental Commission members or members of the Town Council as outlined in Section 12 -3 -3 of this Title. B. Major Amendments: 1. Major amendments are any proposal to change uses; increases to residential floor area greater than 5% of the approved square footage; increases to retail, office, or common floor area greater than 5 % of the approved square footage; increases or decreases to the number of dwelling, accommodation, or fractional fee club units; any request to modify, enlarge or expand the boundary of an approved development plan and any amendment to the approved development plan that is not a minor amendment as determined by the Administrator and defined in this Article 2. Requests for major amendments to an approved development plan shall be evaluated based upon the degree of deviation of the amendment from 12 the basic intent and character of the approved development plan and reviewed in accordance with the procedures described in Section 12 -8E -7 of this Article. All major amendments shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of Community Development. 3. Owners of all property requesting the amendment, or their agents or authorized representatives, shall sign the application. Notification of the proposed amendment shall be made to owners of all property adjacent to the property requesting the proposed amendment, owners of all property adjacent to the district, and owners of all property within the district that may be affected by the proposed amendment (as determined by the Department of Community Development). Notification procedures shall be as outlined in subsection 12 -3 -6C of this Title. 12- 8E -19: TIME REQUIREMENTS A. Start of Construction; Completion: The developer must begin initial construction of the development plan within three (3) years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the development plan is to be developed in phases, the developer must begin construction of subsequent phases within one year of the completion of the previous phase. S. Approval Voided: If the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the development plan or any stage of the development plan within the time limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the approval of said development plan shall be void. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the development plan upon submittal of an application to re- establish the development plan following the procedures outlined in Section 12 -8E -7 of this Article. V. DISCUSSION ISSUES • The applicant and staff are asking the Commission to listen to a presentation on the proposed site development improvements. Upon completion of the presentation, staff is requesting that Commission engages in a discussion with the staff and applicant and provide their 13 e input and feedback on the proposed improvements in anticipation of a final review of the proposal at the July 14, 2003, public hearing of the Planning & Environmental Commission. • At the June 23, 2003, meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commission, a number of questions were raised by members of the public and the Commission. A copy of a memorandum entitled, Vail's Front Door Follow-up Questions from June 23rd PEC Meeting, has been attached for reference. VI. A'TTACHMENT'S A. Revised Vail's Front Door Plans B. Vail's Front Door Follow-up Questions from June 23 T d PEC Meeting, • • 14 f� y I <• Vail Village Loading and Delive 5 Year Management Pla Executive Summary Content List of Figures 1. introduction 2. Existing Conditions 2.1. Current Practices 2.2. Delivery & Traffic Information 3- Objectives for Improved Loading & Delivery 3.1. Loading & Delivery 3 .2. Village Merchants 3 .3. Suppliers 3.4. Impact to Residents 3.5. Impact to Guests 4 . General Policies for Loading & Delivery 4.1. Management Agreements 4 - Operations 4 . 3 . Maintenance 4.4. Signing & Communications 4 . 5 . Supplier Responsibilities 4.6. Hazardous Materials 4.7. impact Mitigation 4.8. Cost Sharing 5. Implementation Strategy 5.1. Loading &Delivery Demand Projections 5.2. Facilities Construction Schedule 5.3- Coordination with Streetscape and other construction 5.4. Implementation Schedule 5.5. Revenue Sources 5.5.1.. Taxes 5 . 5 . 2 . Fees 5.5.3. Other sources 5 . 8 . Supplier Incentives and Disincentives 5.7. Checkpoint Charlie & Other Areas Issues Vail Village t oadr`n 5 Year Management p a nlivery Outline Outline: 7 July 2003 Page 1 of 3 �* page l �. \.� ;g 6. Front -Door Facility Management 6.1. Facility Operations 6 1 1 use of Facilities tion 6 1 2 Flours of Op 6.1.3. Vehicle Restrictions 6 Security Issues 6.1.5. Logistics 6.1. Delivery Bay Designations 6.1.5.2. Overflow issues 6.1.5.3. 'Entry & Exit Issues 6.1.5.4. Dispersing Deliveries issues 6,1.5.5. Delivery Queuing 6.1.5.6• Communications 6.1. Extreme Situations 6.1.6. Operations Management 6.1.6.1 _ Manager 6.1.5.2. Roles of the Town 6.1.6.3. Roles of Building owner 6.1.6.4. Roles of the Village Merchants 62. Facility Maintenance 6.2.1. Building Maintenance 6.2-1 Janitorial Services M Equipment 6.2,1.2 Elevator s Material Build 6.2.1.3. Sp 1 s 6.2.2, Equipment Mainte cations Eq p nance ui merit 6 1. communi 6.2.2. unloading Equipment 6 Dispersing Equipment 6.2.3, Maintenance Management 6.2. Manager 6.2.3.2. Roles of the Town 6 2 3 3 Roles of Building Owner 6.2. Roles of the Village Merchants 6 Supplier lssues 6.3.1, communications 6.3.2_ Responsibilities 6.3.2.1. 'Notices & Queuing 6.3.2.2. Permitting 6,3. 2,3, Violatlon of Policy Issues Page 2 of 3 . • U Vail Vilage Load'N &Delivery 5 year Manag ement Plan outline % page 3 6.4. Cost Issues 6.4.1, Operations Costs 6.1.2. Maintenance Costs 6.1.3. Special Fees 6.1.4. Violations 6.1.5. Responsibility for Costs 7. Summary Vail Village Loading & Delivery 5 Year Management Plan Outline Page 3 of 3 • i "o • PHI j o-a t. GC7L3�GtV 344 1 $ Eli 'QQpp w3w F C'¢ i}ww � 611h 1T. S�iYi LS y 4 }} 333 aG. H i. O e te er�<ee ctgl.� ^q cm _ - eeoa p . & pp ,ec.�'�tYSS�°_� G oa o5 2 4 ?� o� S, @PAN �o_ w v a Ar a3 a�ih v�+�www NSi a i�wv`�i w K QaF r' }} n n VV KKaC6KKKR�K >TTT i� {f 1, t 1 HIM 1151 , 11 till cal' 2 t ' i f F E 7 {$� ss � ai e1e1 E z P.i o C y r� `o� I z u f e ri it I t tr I . I t It i i=iriri r r er rr r t # 't E 2 r sl: J ° ;X JE d Lti t d FB�d M x SYf 9 isex#3 c rrcc ;5 '� {� d � #8 �'` " _1 C) �zQ U c � ors o �oax� t� two wQV�x � 6 z P.i o C y r� `o� I z u f e ri it I t tr I . I t It i i=iriri r r er rr r t # 't E 2 r sl: J ° ;X JE d Lti t d FB�d M x SYf 9 isex#3 c rrcc ;5 '� {� d � #8 �'` " i 4 111 -do 0 C, ZW-4 SXVA MAN _� yam, d � �' � I ���.. � s������ MAN • ob 0 0 C P is. I i 0 dY / / � F t .. AYE ! I 1 r UOOCilN-Mljs,'JTVA QOOL.I J-NO I- .TIV i 1,13 J L] 1 � ' • Ll .J -- r z 14 Y x a ` " Y �: ?� axe !", �' , . i* '900cl 1100YUJI S.=A I !. -! li El r � Q a � .tax r a l to . • • \� < ( \ JOSS ` �� ; ±���G � \ � k . B t �b \ k2§ k�kj ! t H ; §!ra $ 2 k/ J ®® � C W � W W W G� Q p s &ALL W 0 [!fl b l i ! 4 T Q I 5 S 8 R2 �1 U { 3� iWY Z3 V [!fl 0 V o� c � V N � 1 I 1 I ` e r i � yl m 1 G •�r LL M� ! j w CCC m o 7 4 W Z ; P o� w N m b l i ! 0 V o� c � V N � 1 I 1 I ` e r i � yl m 1 G •�r LL M� ! j w CCC m o 7 4 W Z ; P o� w N m • F7 Woci JINTO U-4 SITVA f I A � e Ln • • p n z 4gig_.I. U00C & gs,MVA a 1f' 1 ' _ 111 � } 5 4 i� �'' .� � °'•yr. •' 4 R Z Y All QQ F•� r ,, _ - b'"' � �:i.i a \�1\ � �`�'a� I ��; •�. \� 4, � t � �a3 Gs r rl ! ! a I m rr r! r *� , , °"'— �S J aai 'a •r: ° '� r „ Uj 0.1>1 04 x f f � � r r ` a' t _ � `I! „ •r"�R . I ) f ) 1 r l ' f. {x.. ) I I ma I. Lo f 7 j !- r t LV C� W = C N� 4 ! I t o � 'Ifi} E l ie e � 'EE 5 !! I ( r��f 3��+ `E Ifill;' a o C) c I J 10 �, A S] -01VA s E Iii Eta ESE Elf s ! I 1 ! r. y it . €r. r r r ]q J IV A if / ff .. Pt q y j ' ` _ ter. � � `\�� - >•� F t 4 e l r �r + �._, — � s �Aj t 5 � e � � f pr 1'f � p I i6 . 1 r �aR .. i C'"• � �' �: � r / > f �'� �, jEla 9� C � . �{ t f1 10HII �� IN Q j ' Jlfrr> Jr! e �,11 J J J /Jr ✓rrrrJr -- i�. _ ¢ i y �� ,L � it r•3 �= '�:� s • {{.,��''J p J J f f! J r � �� � : ' ilt 1 / j r {�4� f• {1 v - 900C A • "��`��l�l t � � VA Jill ,, �' 1 `� rr 'r�.'' ii <''' r / � J r 1. �- �' €��{ € (Giir�"{� LLJ i l,lr f l! + � iy�l +r f�r �! ��! r I 1 I fr +l rJ / I ! r r J r! UOOQ .I.i OUd S,' IY'b A ` IJ 11 [;��I�i�f Es fd8 ff Q z • • WoQ 1_�o� sin UK • • , .. 0 � p - 0 \ \ -- � ^ o " . � ` ` ` �Iooci S,77VA \ \ -- � ^ o " . � ` ` ` • OCT Om SPIV; • • - do Z- 0 - • • I * • V �5 a Y pq � I 1 ' i .-- u Q � .7 G i ± i w � r _ — - _- -- --- --- � I jj i f � Y I 1� I i g i i NLIM t h � m C Z�o 1 ' -- Lj ^ '= '~ � 9 0 U000 INTOU-j S, MVA ' -- Lj ^ '= '~ � 9 0 • • I f ■ 1 m • Wocl S. I f ■ 1 m • Hill �IOOCI ITK 3,91VA • 'ffOO(I I-KOU3 SiTEVA o J I €>v � I �� �� s k 41 ZG 6 • • I;KO)uS,'HVA Ilh! !illifi!l `Ti c :� 0 • HMO • • Kli 7-0 a • 1 1 I ly I I dOOG I NIQU 3, �4 - UVA • Kli 7-0 a • fis'; 06 i eh z gilt T-54 I !E:d • • !cj Ct ay �F =s!l ?!�� - �Iooc 1111TOU--2 si 1 1TVA fis'; 06 i eh z gilt T-54 I !E:d • • !cj Ct ay • • Ej� E . t 1 2 p e I - i!nl U00a JN70)jj S,ffVA Ej� E . t 1 2 p e I - i!nl I ke IT 7 • •� r R I IWO I I d b � l : I I gy p, O 7' • W k k k k i NN k 6'I •� r R I IWO I I d b � l : I I gy p, O 7' • W • • 6 Ig li n C Z N g$56 q $R • 2 00(i .I.IvOUJ s'lir A 6 Ig li n C Z N g$56 q $R • 1, r� �Fs , g :7 • 0 IOOQ JINOU4 Sl h I g $ h j j Ili 1, r� �Fs , g :7 • 0 Y a / S• / M • h ' Eli �E� aF 0 �i y �.EK L� [l it r .. r r r z z • • • i �i y �.EK L� [l it r .. r r r z z • • • _ ' ^� i | �r __ -�, Ev 1 141 U00C IN 011.1 "lly ' ^� i | �r __ � '- ' ' 0 � . . Ln 0 f g i� v �E fill g i • mre�gar. rm IN f .. a r • �o fit ', E llif L—J • I &I NOW-11 I I i I F! • '11, ! I' � �l Ali ` �j � ��� � � # z � ., �oocl_NMlJS,HVA I &I NOW-11 I I i I F! • # P + � r y � i r a + + t a d - iu�>' ' h+ �P�g �� ul �. %I 4� � ■ii� �r11, }� e � firm E • 9 • '° YK 0 # P + � r y � i r a + + t a d - iu�>' ' h+ �P�g �� ul �. %I 4� � ■ii� �r11, }� e � firm E • 9 • '° YK � A live i S I! 1 11 lillh- • �100(1 IN OU-4 31 - IFVA 1 1 El zill live i S I! 1 11 lillh- • UOO(IINIOUJS4TfVA I���� � X11 �, 1 ���� �� zz • • ( • -:oocl INox-q s,"lIVA ( • vWe 6 V • • / ` • Follo Vail's Prong questions fro oar m The follou,in Jun 23rd PEC Afeeting r g are res ponses a the P C, at their June 23rdto questions raised d . s July 14" k 5e et ng and addi t p. C, of V w°r This s discussion aiI's information will be presented T1�FFIC AND CENT l ' How will the load L Lp� G F.�G�ITy will flow from the ci�acilit b e ma naged, Village?' v'hat ar th a mana g e ment and ge. - logistics of how deliveries Pects — sta#i oPeration of and g, hours the Central load the Tov'n are ' of o peration adi ng facili Town becau ust a few ° , maintena nce tY involve removi use it represents f these The succe ' costs and the roles o any different ng loading true an °PPor� nit ss Of this facili f Vail Resorts necessary. t© create fr the y to achiev ty is irri oPeratio the f ac il ity Village Core. °along- standin P °meant to th ex p ns function e tY, it is e Given the g goal of acts. Town sta ffciently and Provide de i mportant to V magnitude of inves ffhas p ovide ailReso tment With the To t plan for the fac I tly prepared the range of benefits the that loading i n finalizin outline of ele comm di ng i�t is anticipated that Vail Rents to be include g this din The l ogstics orts will s work clo evaluated ofhow l over the loadi will #low y location oft past fe accessible b he Ioadin f a ci lity. s, Whiles the facility to Y vehicul g facility is very desirable h oM v�ally the Village has been alternative ar streets Perspectives the routes were that do not impact on the periphery The proposed C onsidered mPact the Village Phery Of the their outlets for h o ore , a Village direct route and the mi cili l oadin g t to the ct the facility `via number of g fa the An excellent mode m2 pact it will have onllage were selected b Village village is fo I for ho Pede ecause o f and in Be �' a central L ' that Provides aver Creek lo facilit the pedest Y can Village. Diaa ce loath k. Located be serve a d peestri - orie rig for most Heath Villa an �r comparison s ofho , thi of the build' Village HaII is a four_ba rated Of s this mod facility works mgs in th c Y facility approach ass of the Beaver wi th Vail Villa , the area served b °f the Beaver Greek Can be succ ek oPeratiage will be provided at Y the facility and a essfully inc °rpera"o iPro vides a s g ind a EC k session Iron . 2 Vail Village. that th same What are Proposed load- afftc im plication s ° f i facility and tzncok ae -p alect, Spec all illc in and out of theVill gee,Pect to the Vail's Fron #Door Response #o FEC Ques tion s from 6/23/03 As an element of the initial Front Door submittal in January, a traffic report was completed which identified the trip generation expected by the project. This analysis evaluated trips expected to be generated by the proposed ski club and the thirteen residences_ Since that time, the loading facility evolved into what is currently proposed and their last meeting the PEC raised questions with respect to how traffic will specifically affect Vail Road. Not long after the last PEC meeting, the traffic consultant for the Front Door began working on an expanded traffic report to address these two considerations. In order to complete this analysis traffic counts on Vail Road were needed. Counts obtained from the Town's transportation consultant were quite dated and as such a counter was place on Vail Road July 5, 6 and 7. Complications developed in obtaining the data from the counters in a timely manner and as such time has not allowed for this analysis to be completed. An overview of the traffic analysis will be provided at the PEC's July 14` meeting and the revised traffic report will be presented at an upcoming PEC meeting. 3. How will the loading facility be vented? The design of the ventilation system for the loading facility has not been completed. However, the following outlines the basic elements of this system. The system will be designed to run continuously at a minimal speed in order to maintain a negative pressure in the loading dock area. The fans will have variable frequency drives to modulate the fans as necessary, minimizing run time at full -speed which in turn will reduce noise generation. Silencers will be utilized in the ductwork downstream of the exhaust fans to decrease airborne sound transmission to adjacent spaces and at the exhaust discharge point. The discharge point will be incorporated into the ski club building and be designed as an element of the chimney. VISTA BAHN PLAZA AND SK,1[ER SERVICE BUILDING 4. How will the Vista Bahn plaza function as compared to the existing plaza, what types of activities can be accommodated in the proposed space during summer months, can the base area still accommodate ski races? Vail Resort's goal in re- designing the Vista Bahn Plaza is to create a gateway to Vail Mountain that from an aesthetic standpoint is of high quality, from a functional standpoint is efficient and easy for our guests to use, and from a physical design standpoint will allow the Plaza to be used as a venue for community events throughout the year. Proposed improvements to this important portal to the ski is mountain involve better definition of spaces, improved guest service via the skier service building, eliminating the "bottleneck" at the existing ticket windows, Vail's Front Door Response to PEC Questions from 6/23/03 minimizing the "hike up" from the existing plaza to the lift, providing better flow on to and off the ski mountain, and introducing features that will strengthen this area as a year around gathering place. A variety of plans and diagrams have been prepared in response to questions raised by the PEC and these will be presented on July 10. These plans will demonstrate that the proposed plaza provides not only more usable space but also improved circulation for the daily operation of the ski mountain. A diagram demonstrating how a ski race can be handled and conceptual diagrams for how summer time events can be staged will also be presented. 5. What are the specific uses within the skier service building? The goal of the skier service building is to provide improved service to the guest. As such, the majority of uses within the proposed building are geared specifically toward providing unproved facilities and services. Nearly the entire lower level of the building is comprised of offices, meeting rooms, storage and lockers for mountain operations, ski school and ski patrol — all vital elements of running Vail Mountain. The majority of the main level is devoted to ski school and lift ticket sales (along with related back of the house functions), public restrooms, basket and ski storage, and circulation. Approximately 5,000 square feet of the building will be used for a ski rental shop and a coffee shop. This represents approximately 15% of the total building area. 6. How will ski storage work and still comply with zoning? As described above, providing quality and convenient service to the guest is the primary goal of the skier service building. In order to achieve this goal, ski storage for different groups will occur within the skier service building, all of which will be consistent with uses permitted by the Ski Base/Recreation 2 zone district (the district that is proposed for this property). Overnight ski storage will be provided to guests of the Lodge at Vail and to residents and guests of the Lodge South. In addition, both overnight and short-term (i.e. storage of skis over lunch or apr6s ski) ski storage will be provided to the public. This service is considered essential in order to offer the best possible service to our guests. It is also seen as a benefit to the Village as a whole in that when skis are in Vail Village, the skier will be in Vail Village with the end result being more activity and vitality in the Village. For this service to operate efficiently, which it must, storage needs to occur on the maim level of the building. In order to prevent any conflicts with zoning regulations that do not permit "commercial ski storage" on the ground floor of a building, Vail Resorts plans to offer overnight ski storage at no charge. Vail's Front Door Response to PEC Questions from 6123/03 VAIL VILLAGE STREETSCAPE 7. What are the logistics of how heat will be provided to the proposed streets /sidewalks to be heated? The question of how heat will be provided to heat melt systems proposed by the Front Door project extend far beyond just this project. Over the years other developments have installed, participated in, or will be installing heat melt systems on public property or for public purposes (i.e. Austria Haus, Vail Mountain Lodge, Sonnenalp). This raises the question of whether the developer should be required to just install the system or also be required to also operate it over the long term. Further, if the developer is to pay for the operation of the system, how does the Town control its operation (i.e. what does the Town do if a private system fails or if an owner decides to not run the system ?). In meetings with Greg Hall, it was agreed that the developer's obligation should be limited to installing the system. An appropriate analogy is when a developer is required to install other more traditional "public improvements" such as water lines or roads, once completed they are conveyed to the Town for acceptance and ongoing operation. It was determined by Town Staff that heat melt systems should be treated the same way. Further, it was determined that there are significant advantages to the Town operating (and thereby controlling) heat melt systems. 8. What is the resolution of the proposed re- design of Checkpoint Charlie? Vail Resorts has agreed to design and construct a new Checkpoint Charlie. The issue that needs to be resolved with Greg Hall is the location of the checkpoint. As proposed by Vail Resorts, Checkpoint Charlie would be re- designed but would remain in its current location. Checkpoint Charlie provides the greatest potential benefit to the Village at its current location which will allow the facility to not only provide traffic control, but also serve as an information booth. This later function will be enhanced by Vail Resorts commitment to include public restrooms at this location. Vail Resorts has met with Greg Hall since the last PEC meeting, however no resolution was reached. Vail Resorts will continue to work with Greg on this issue. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS 9. What are building heights of proposed residences? The Ski Base/Recreation 2 zone district allows for building heights of up to 43' (Ski Base/Rec 2 is the zone district proposed to be applied to the Front Door property. Sheet R 1.08 of the Front Door plan set provides both ridge and cave heights of all six Vail's Front Door Response to PEC Questions from 6/23/03 4 I residential buildings. All buildings conform to the 43' height limit and in only a few cases are proposed building heights 40 -41 The existing topography of the site slopes roughly from the southwest to the north. east. In response to this condition, buildings are designed to step with the contours. This results in a typical conditions where the uphill side of the building will read as roughly two to two and one -half stories and the downhill side of the building will read as three stories. This condition is depicted in the Front Door plan set on sheets R 2.01 and R 2.02. 10. How is variance to 40% slope regulations justified? The hazard regulations section of the Town's zoning code states that "no structure shall be built on a slope of 40% or greater except in the Single- Family Residential, Two- Family or Primary /Secondary zone districts ". It is assumed that the intent of this regulation is to prevent development on steep slopes that may potentially be unstable or present other hazardous conditions. While the code obviously makes a distinction by allowing structures in the low- density residential zone districts, taken literally this provision of the code prohibits development on slopes greater than 40 %. The code does, however, allow for requests for variances to this standard with such requests to be reviewed in accordance with typical variance procedures (i.e. demonstrate hardship, special privilege, etc.). The residences are proposed to be located on an approximately two -acre tract referred to as Mill Creek Parcels I and 2. Natural areas of the site in excess of 40% slope have been calculated and comprise a total of 4,222 square feet, or only 4.7% of the entire site. The variance request is necessary due to the location of these areas that exceed 40 % slope. While comprising only a small portion of the site, the areas in excess of 40% create a physical separation between other flat, buildable portions of the parcel, hence creating a physical hardship. Without relief from this standard, approximately 1/3 of the site would be rendered unbuildable. This is analogous to a natural site condition such as mature trees or wetlands creating a hardship to justify a variance to property setbacks. Another factor to consider in regard to this variance request is that geotechnical reports conclude that the site can be developed without creating geologic hazards and that when completed, the project will result in the removal of areas in excess of 40% slope from the site. 11. What is the breakdown of parking requirements for the Front Door, how much parking is being provided and how is the use of proposed parking to be "allocated "? The Front Door includes a total of 220 parking spaces. The project will remove 30 existing surface spaces behind the Lodge at Vail, resulting in a net gain of 190 new parking spaces. The parking requirement for the project, based on the Town's zoning code, is 48.99 spaces. The 141 spaces over and above code requirements will be utilized by members of the proposed skier club (95) and to provide additional parking Vail's Front Door Response to PEC Questions from 6123/03 for the Lodge at Vail and for Vail Resort's employees. The attached spread sheet outlines in detail the parking requirements, parking provided and parking allocation. PUBLIC PARKING 12. How is Front Door addressing public parking problem? As described above, the Front Door provides a total of 190 new parking spaces. The P3 &J project will provide a total of 96 new spaces (148 new spaces in the structure less the removal of 12 existing surface spaces), for a total of 286 new parking spaces — of which 237 are not required by code. These 237 new spaces will provide parking for users that are not associated with the parking requirement for the development proposed by the Front Door project. For example, day skiers (ski club members), Vail Resorts employees and Vail Village homeowners will utilize these new spaces -- it is very likely that each of these groups currently park in the Village Parking structure, on the Frontage Road or in other public parking areas. These 237 new "excess" spaces will directly lessen the demand on other public parking facilities and in doing so contribute significantly to Vail's public parking problem. Vail Resorts has also been working with the Town staff on other solutions to public parking. For example, Vail Resorts has offered to donate $4.3 million toward the Town's construction of an additional parking deck on the Lionshead Parking Structure. Other alternatives for Vail Resort's participation in addressing public parking could include the construction of new parking on the Holy Cross site or to participate with the Town on the development of seasonal parking on Ford Park. Vail Resort's has outlined these and other parking alternatives in a May 15, 2003 letter from Adam Aron to the Vail Town Council. Given the PEC's interest in public parking, it is suggested that a separate work session be held at which time Russ Forrest could present an update as to how the Town (and Vail Resorts) has been addressing this concern. MILL CREED ROAD 13. Does the Mill Creek Road access work still work with the new location of the Vista Bahn? Mill Creek Road provides mountain access during summer months and the same corridor is an important ski way between Golden Peak and Vail Village during the ski season. The re- located Vista Bahn and associated grading has been designed in order to maintain the use of this corridor. Sheet SD -1.060 of the Front Door plan set depicts how the use of this road/skyway will be maintained. VaiI's Front Door Response to PEC Questions from 6123103 EMPLOYEE HOUSING 14. If employee housing is to be provided as part of the North Day Lot, what is phasing plan for when employee housing will be provided? As per the standards used by the Town to calculate employee housing requirements the Front Door project generates a requirement to provide housing for approximately 8 employees. It is Vail Resort's intention to accommodate this requirement with the construction of new employee housing units on the North Day Lot. While firm construction schedules are still being developed (and cannot be finalized until among other things, project approvals are obtained from the Town), it is anticipated that the Front Door will construction will begin in the Spring of 2004 and not be completed (i.e. the time at which land uses are in place that create the need for the housing) until the winter of 2006. North Day Lot construction is planned to begin in 2005 with completion in the fall of 2006. This would bring the employee housing on line at the same time the employee need is created at the Front Door. In this event the North Day Lot is not complete when the Front Door is finished, an alternative for satisfying employee housing requirements would be for Vail Resorts to provide short term leases for the required employee housing units until such time that the North Day Lot is completed. • Vail's Front Door Response to PEC Questions from 6/23/03 �1 N N N - 00 0, � oo 4 "oo 00 c, C% �6 a N ooc - � p �j LO cn 6J t44 [n t44 V) t4-1 v7 '44 n t44 to •. '` r C7 O CD O O , a. . (D CD O O O O +� (V N CV N cV :w M (� U-) Ln Lo Lo O V 4^ Ltf C N d" Ln V OD M r� N - I:t (V M i .7 r a V [$ CG � Q O O^. 4� 464 y p En a W ;zj vUi fj ' U G iU.. \. bz �. U U U lu U xC`, .ICJ' v to 4 4 � w ; c� U v �O u 1 UV v� �,� Li LtL • 3' xx 0 g0 Z 3 4 D 00 V � A _m S 0 0 s O D w w n 0 3 rr W 7\—T.CK r�D O w O a> 5 r r N 3 :7 ro rD to c 0 rD rD o O C r n � 0 �' ° ro ® aa' rD r CD =r O o `o fDD CL w Q ro off= D a� cra' �i m n. q S CA N p, r N Q = w W waq t T rD N p C O S m r 0 m O Q d LA r M 7 3 Ln . r) O ro� u E; w w C D rD 3 M o M to S .%r r� Q C = O tD rD ro rn cn o rD ro rD 0 S11 G7 rr r " < _' T C � '--F M rD .� F = S O rD (A r-F � r�-f � rD 'U1 (� f � S O 3 rD CL w ' o (D S 1 w w M. �O 0 � �. rn - a rn 4n rD O C rD Yi T a r`h O M' r-r c .-1 N C3 w o v 3 � O O G w � O 3 rD Q- 3 o c Q � C N w p w O 3 En m FS • • ,o y ea m Q �n � W O - w o rp w m 3 M � wA 3 p+x� �� w rD F 3 Q 3 o � 0 © i a__ cn M' c n w �w n CD�aa C) it o o CL M �3• CD CL rD 03 +C rD r oo ° rD °, 3 3 w C rD ^+ p�Q w ; Q , CD E C 7C" o Q 3 Q rD w a_ 3' w '+ = 3 C rM _0°�' n -* rro ao 3 ro w �^' - I C;l rD p n o O CO �w rooa�z� � m s� � � � D Q W < bQ C ° ro ro Cs. Ln rn tn C Ln 0 O <,• vr4i (D rD w `< M C2 r+ 3 ° d ° O CF eD CL --�, 3 Cl a rD n �, o C L 3 � O n 2 w ?> o s*, 0 EL N O CL ^ . rD < rD a w < rD 3 C O CZ rD r 0 0 3 o N c3C$Y ro o � w� su M a C, C 0 rD � o cr >� ° �. CFO w CM rD .� n E rD o CD, cr m 0 CL T O 3 M = • n' L ,+ p n> O 0 � 7C• C CD CL rD Cz n .« Q 3 O o ro • za rD C �, n D o�rn a, 3 Q rD rD X CD n " n rD n. 3 TO rD rD rq ro rD w p w C C+ rD FD ° — rD -0 77 ul to C rD - -rD C7 C r CD .� w rD rD -i rD T C a� M -1 C' � � 3• 0 orQ CD w CD rD 0- 'C o rt 3 rD C cr„ rD rD r� M Lo Ln O p CZ' '�- rD CL rD w ` 3 1 0 - 0 rD "' c o- 9 3 r ��n 5m o w m rD 3 3 S 3= w a ID ti M 0 O - 0 y 3 O = rD 3 ?- �C CD 77 UQ a CJQ rD 3 su - w _m ° < n rD CL C r�r CD ,b O � - O M w O �3�a�3 o �_ Q w v, rD Q C° n `e r Ln > �� r) w c <; o rD rD a o CL n - 0 ° < O w c n rD V rD w ro as (D E z3 w ¢+ a Q Q- !v a + rD w n w 3 CZ C C g � a rD rD 3 rD = M � rD rS © +C < rD � C1 3 3 to F 3 0 3 C rD w Ca r' 3 w " < O w Q ° 3 3 D rD C rDrD 3 3 n 3 r-r Cl M • [Ln O r 3 rD aQ � � � �� fD �• G!� ro CL �D n o C rD V o 1 w = p c n 0 lu rD M o c ID M ch ° 3 m w ° CM v, o C Q �' c n rn � p Q w-, rD {p a s a� ° r 3 �-< = o P9 in E = = (D p C - m w = �° rD p rD 3: Z C rD CL C CL Q rD rD co co OL ate' rD W c CL r) p a C} W r�D p P � - rD rrDD cr r r�r Q r m Cr cD o u a r+ w in Ln 7 7D r) CM CD w rD w r4' rt ° rD rp rD to p S n 3 . * fl.. Q `i M pa fD rD s1 t rD rD w w a' p- cr a w x ,* CZ -d rD wC < O O M p T rD w Ca 3 rD C C7 3 p --I C7 4n 'O = Q< Q Q C r) m r D —1 - V j �• OI4 T r r O r+ _, 1 n O w :3 � w �_ (D n � D G- n Q w rD a Q' �. M � c c o p 9 su w --< 77 a _ 3 S' n a� f D rD p M S rD *= ?' -i ° r c CD tD � — rD -M w :r rD W 3 = Zs En n rD rD w o rD 3 t0 {+� t1 Q o = Q p r LS F 9 Q C w ' `e3 a UQ p O w rD cr 3 p c ro C "s fA A7 0 .; 0 Q Q r+ w .� 3 rD U) W .r t rD " C) 0; Aa rD :3 CD -n X a c s 14- �c o o' Q y p Y a �n W �., - Ll � ro O � Z3 Q o z ° o n� �O an o O- M ,,, M o CD [D X - { fD fD Q 6 � i o o fD m �fD BCD fG r� T �C7 -0 fD `< = dq CD D �. n S C rD O > (D a ttC, `= o �n C s c a fN n� w o M rD rD CD * - M n c Q cr T � Z ❑ o �'� r F F- cn ` ' C a PD M j " S Sl! rt Q � Can o rD o 0 ro + - rD U O rD p � c �' � w O � ❑ Cr CD CL n CL .�x t 4 t w �t : t �t s 4 m CL Ln • 0 0 c�. rD r. n rD c n� n n ro u� Q 3 O m ©p CT M < CL 3 w rCr m .nr (7Q rD fla w =F C) . w p o C v 0- A*. p < Q (DD � O -- -< Q Pp�a E7 rD L rD — rD N r C m CL C = C C- w Z (D r.L C �n o rD C L Q rL C Q, 'cs ' ora a n o r D 77 r* O C o `[ cn Ej R cm �•� o o' 3 a? `° w (7Q cr C CL C rD rD Un rD CL 0 =7 < d -0 rD �- 3 0 rD rD C? u) Ln n = - Ln 3 ° cr O FS rD 9a ' M C S D W f7 rD rD '� Q N En V) l 0 � E � \ / 0 rD w CL C%- / rD t R 2 \ § OIQ 2 lu / o f f n \ Ln 9 ) R \ 5 § \_ q O D 2 & w � _ rD M F, $ / � \ 2 2 2 7 • ! C e = . f � 0 2 § k § 7 5 ` § 0 CL { ? CL CL 2. CD w � 0 _ _ - 0 :3 2 3 $ 7 � # �. rD w cr CL 0 � � ° � 2 @ �\ 2 k « E 7 _ ƒ $ ± � / / � § / _ / \ lw c 0 � ::� < 0 5 m p CMD § § g ca E � ¥ E 5f $ cr {3 / q :3 (D Cr / \ � ® E (D k �O _� ? A) - ©O 0-5 F) | ^ » � 2 2.� ? U J$ .N < ° {O � � M 2q « �w M 3 « [ / : f 5 s $ 9 E £ / t _ \ \ & � � � C C En \ Ez 3 M 7 rD !Z� 7 ƒ3 f 2 E pr CL § U < k /& §/ � � � � 0 W d 1-0 -zI , 90 00 ll 0 �a A o� 1 J � C / •f • 1 1 F m S!i S a n c �c � is Fd N I t+y�x�F.n -^nu vr�aca! r arc: rrrrr sl , i i emu.- v ucavr 1 J � C / •f • 1 1 F m S!i S a n c �c � is Fd N VF a PD `1' 3 p r CA C (D O CL tv _ Z3 m7 � n cr° s Q„ C° �• 'r rn u 5' ra cn �- c" cra 1� 1� I' r 1 V I it VF a PD `1' 3 p r CA C (D O CL tv _ Z3 m7 � n cr° s Q„ C° �• 'r rn u 5' ra cn �- c" cra 1� 1� I' r 1 V N 1•. i N N CTI � W 1'h7 ro ro _M Q r w O n o w to �' n W 77 w — _ ro ro � — rD 3 ro O- C L C w o c p ri rD cn' n r�Dro� W: 3 �'`-'� 0co� `pro cx� act -�3 w - 01 rD - ` � • � r w� n rD �, 3 • c ro rD rD rD n rt rD 7 Cb p ro rD "' n to cm u>o Q D` <• o S co ro .� CD o w "h rD — 0 3 w Q `O w w_ ' j = w ZI 57 CD sv 0 c� < rD L crcl j o O S CT rD �" u w a o 0 Q v� rrD D n Cr o T a 0 � O rD cu rD q q M r 3. t3 3 of �7 L M W rD C ro a n CL S 0 CL M � w s CL x w 3 a. :3 0 0 < o O p C r �•r CD . 0 3 Q 0 rD o = - -1 - a �"+ r to S �- w rD w O :z [� -i w (D cD w m o° 0 rD r w w o Q `< a< o S O n -1 .* ro ro =. w a o CfQ R O S Ln fl.• O rD @ rn p 0 z 0 d 3 ° < et aro w ' RC w rr ZT En cmn ' rD w rD o S 0-0 0 () n CL C r� �[ > rD S LL y ro w p a C7Q rD n O z rD cz CL rD CL m rD C S _ M rD 0 rD n I � C N' w •� fD W rD E rD 0 w rp rD LA w �7 =.w S w p 0 R r S D Q w rD o p 3' .� rn = CD W -r N 3 n rD o n © _s O rD rD ' (D rr ro �. � ro N py p o rr C C w cn CL rD C CD W c7u -, � w rD rD o" QQ zr r . + 3 Q 'C r6 0 re V) ro o < rD I 0 0 M W o w rD rD 0 rD R u _ - O 3 0 ,w 3 0 o cn o, w �0n © `1' a C3 rD " ? rD ° w 7E7 CD m o o US •w w -0 ra �Sr�OD.tro [Q w urs n C7- A Ln o rD �� C p cwn � w g o n — 3 rod 0 W �aa C c 3 n �w p rD o O Q- ` C 3 m rD S 0 w w c IoM - nCL O s CrDD 0 �. 3 rD 0 Q ^* - 0 rD T7 r* Q ao (D M o r* rD aq � m X n CD m 0 Z m CTQ r« ry -� V m (DD ra a rD Ln 0 0 • 3 � 3 xry} + V o z n0 � 0 .a P r) t Y G CC = CM � X 77 cr s ro a' -' ro M � � W = o < n � CL C:r Q d vs cn C -' Cr. L!1 w :3 C3 rD = M M O r � co CL ca CL 3 � 3 xry} + V o z n0 � 0 .a P r) t Y G CC = CM 77 cr s ro a' -' ro M � � W = o < n � CL C:r Q d vs cn C -' w :3 C3 rD = M M O r � co CL ca CL �F— 'ca`° (D o n n C rD w �. o Q rD© o -v ro w 9 M 0 Crro W M w m ' w o= rD w � o " cra ° M C S CD C2. rD 1 ! • i • I n � rD w CL ca f�D t7 O fD CY < w su n n � r� � y �^ n M CL 7: N (D rip O -V � cis w r) ro ro m cn - w o m N W CL Vu w w* tp .� ro © w F4 IFD ro C m Ln rP E7 n � rD w CL ca f�D t7 O fD CY < w su n n � r� � y �^ n M CL 7: N i I • Vol O CD S d O r�D �' (� 3 - F> 1 r/ O O 'C O_ C p cn -p rD (� I D 'n sn rD ..O 3 M rn T rD Cr rD Q Q0 3 O r�� rD a w ' r) . �, � ., rD T« 3 m E � a ut Q „ 1 p S O Sv � ., S rm w W -� Ea 1 • 0 1 rD �? O Q y � sw tsr N � ril � w 3: t 0 is Z �a a n� V � Af � Q -4 IV^ En Ln CA 0- --i M cn O , i , fD (� a: Cr4 m • GJ7 � n 3G O _ � .•� ro K G r xs r* CrQ W fD ca fD CAD 0 r < W w O W (D s- CL Q -0 C Cii S CD 0 MEMORANDUM TO: The Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 14, 2003 SUBJECT A work session to update the PEC on progress with the new Title 11, Sign Regulations, and offer another opportunity for the public to respond. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett & Elisabeth Eckel 1. SUMMARY The purpose of this werksession is to highlight changes with the new Title 11 and provide an additional public forum to receive input on the latest draft. Copies of Chapters 4 and 5 of the new draft regulations are attached as reference to the portions of the new code that incorporate the use of graphics and are representative of the most significant changes with Title 11. 0 IL BACKGROUND AND GOALS OF REVISION The Town of Vail Sign Code was first adopted in 1973. Since that time there have been numerous revisions to the sign code. Major revisions that occurred in 1993 resulted in an increase of allowable sign area in 'West Vail, and more specifically, in the Commercial Core 3 (CC3) and Arterial Business Districts (ABD). In recent years, the sign code has been variously labeled as: a) Too complicated b) Difficult to enforce, and c) Lacking a purpose statement. The merchant community and staff have been working together on revisions to the existing code in order to correct the problems listed above. The Town Council has stated that total sign area should not be increased for the Vail and Lionshead villages based on the pedestrian nature of the villages. However, sign area could be increased in West Vail since those businesses depend on vehicular traffic versus pedestrian traffic. The following objectives have been achieved in developing a revised sign code: • Develop a clear purpose statement for the sign code. • Develop a new sign code, complete with graphics, for the Town of Vail that contributes to the Town's vision statement of being the "Premier Resort Community," Signage and display elements should add something to the Vail experience... not detract from it. Make the code easier to understand and implement. Make the code easier to enforce by the Town. III. ROLE OF REVIEW BODIES Town Council: The Vail Town Council has the final authority in reviewing and approving a sign code amendment. To change the Sign Code requires approval on two readings of an ordinance. Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC): The PEC has the responsibility to hear variances on a sign code application. Since the sign code is in Chapter 11 of the Town Code, the PEC does not need to make a formal recommendation_ Design Review Board (DRB): The DRB has primary responsibility to review and make final decisions on sign applications. Although the code does not require a formal recommendation from the Design Review Board, staff would appreciate forwarding a recommendation from the Design Review Board on the revised sign code to the Town Council. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TITLE 11, SIGN REGULATIONS, Vail Town Code • V. ITEMS OF INTEREST TO THE PEC: A. General Format: Part of the impetus behind the effort to draft a new sign code has been the need for an easier to follow set of regulations. The merchant community has stated that the existing code is too complicated for most people to readily understand and use it correctly. Therefore, it is difficult to actually know when and why a sign is in violation, for the town and public alike, and to adequately enforce the regulations. The layout and style of the new sign code draft is meant to make it easier to understand and enforce. The following outline demonstrates the proposed format and structure of the new sign code: Subject Description, Purpose and Applicability Chapter Administration ................ .................................................................... 2 Sign Application Procedures............... ...,...3 Business and Building Signs ................................................. ..............................4 U Design Guidelines and Standards ............................................ ........................._....5 Other Signs ..................................................................... ..............................6 SignPrograms .................................................................. ..............................7 Exempt, Prohibited and Non - Conforming Signs......... e................5 Variances . . ................ . ..................................................... .............................9 Violations and Enforcement ................................................. . ............................10 Definitions..................................................................... ..............................1 1 r1 t�J B. Chapter 4, Business and Building Signs: Attached for reference, Chapter 4 covers the majority of issues and questions related to obtaining a sign for a business in the Town of Vail. The major departures from the existing regulations with this chapter are the structure, and a reliance on graphics to make certain visual points as clear as possible. C. Chapter 5, Design Guidelines and Standards: Also attached, this chapter likewise utilizes graphics to illustrate various details associated with sign design and mounting. Graphics aside, the major difference between the design guideline chapter of the existing code and this new iteration is the distinction between language crafted as guidelines, using terms like should, and that of a standard, which is assertive with words such as shall. Standards are more suited to items such as lighting whereas guidelines are more applicable to topics like colors and materials. VI. ACTION REQUIRED BY THE PEC No action is required by the PEC for text amendments to TITLE 11, SIGN REGULATIONS. The purpose of this memorandum and work session is to present the new Chapters 4 and 5, as well as to offer the public another chance to give input on these amendments. VII. ATTACHMENTS A. Chapter 4, Business and Building Signs (from the new, draft version of Title 11 8 11, Sign Regulations), B_ Chapter 5, Design Guidelines and Standards (from the new, draft version of Title 11, Sign Regulations). Attachment: A CHAPT 4 BUSINESS & BUILDING SIGNS 11 -41: Purpose and Description 11 -4 -2: Sign Districts 11 -4 -3: Business Signs 11 -4 -4: Building Signs 11 -4 -1: PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION Business & Building Signs are those that display the name of the business and/or building and any graphic symbols or language pertinent to the advertised enterprise. The following chapter covers all of the information needed to obtain a Business or Building sign. 11 -4 -2: SIGN DISTRICTS Sign District 1: All of Vail except for property zoned ABD and CC3 Sign District 2: All property zoned ABD and CC3 Sign District 3: West Vail Interchange (CDOT right -of -way) KEYNIAP id .A SIGN DISTRICT - 2 (SD 2) - — 1 r 1 p F i TFh raF W.. 101.1 b", Ton. MY.i 013 NPOH,4.1. Y.! H'1p +14M .Fr.M Fh hr f...rbe I++ro— a11}, rho Imo H Vill iw u1 wamu ❑. •ee...eT .11 }• dnlrn -.hYe u++1tlnH Mr. b. 'IrAiik�lIk.' Sign District Map Sign District 1 - includes all Sign Districts not indicated as Sign District 2 or 3 Sign District 2 r V Interstate 70 * Sign District 2i Gore Creek SIGN DISTRICT - 3 (SD 3) West Vail 1 -70 Interchange (CDOT R.Q.W.) N MAR NOT TO S CALE • F - I L-,111 • 11 -4 -3: Business Signs Business Signs are those that display the name of the business and include any graphics or language that repre- sent the business. Allowable Sign Area The allowable sign area of any business sign is based upon the length of the lineal frontage(s) of the space occupied by the business, as detailed in the tables below: please note that "total sign area" includes the combined sign area of the total number of business signs of any one business (this does not include sale signs or business operation signs). Business Sign Sizes in Sign District 1 (SD 1) 0' - 12.99' Business Frontage Total Sign Area 0'-12.99' 10 sq. ft. 13'- 24.99' 12 sq. ft. 25' - 49.99' 14 sq. ft. 50'- 74.99' 16 sq. ft. 75'- 99.99' 18 sq. ft. 100'- 149.99' 22 sq. ft. 150'- 199.99' 30 sq. ft. 200'- 249.99' 40 sq. ft. 250' - 299.99' 50 sq. ft. 300' - 399.99' 60 sq. ft. 400 +sq, ft, 80 sq. ft. Business Sign Sizes in Sign District 2 (SD 2) Business Frontage Total Sign Area 0' - 12.99' 10 sq. ft. 13'- 24.99' 14 sq. ft. 25'- 49.99' 20 sq. ft. 50'- 74.99' 40 sq. ft. 75'- 99.99' 50 sq. ft. 100'- 149.99' 60 sq. ft. 150 199.99' 70 sq. ft. 200'- 249.99' 80 sq. ft. 250'- 299.99' 90 sq. ft. 300'- 399.99' 100 sq. ft. 400+ 120 sq. ft. Business Sign Sizes in Sign District 3 (SD 3) All Signs in Sign District 3 (SD 3) exist under the authority of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Measuring Business Frontage The following graphic illustrates how to measure the frontage of a business. Note: In order to be considered a frontage, that side of a building or business must have an entrance that opens onto a major pedestrian or vehicular way. Figure 1 contains three separate businesses, each sharing portions of a frontage with one or more other businesses. Business X has two frontages, frontage A (which parallels a major pedestrian/vehicular way and contains an entrance) and frontage B, upon which signs may be placed. Business Y has one frontage (C) upon which a sign may be placed and Business Z has one frontage (D) upon which a sign may be placed. All three businesses share portions of frontage E, which parallels a major pedestrian/vehicular way. Lengths A, B, C, and D each contain an entrance, which qualify them as frontages. Flgu Second floor businesses are subject to the same lineal frontage standards, zoning regulations, and property owner approval. Businesses that are below -grade or are without a frontage are allowed one sign with a maximum of four square feet (4 sq. ft.). Measurement of Sign Area Sign area is calculated by adding the combined area of two imaginary rectangles placed over the form of the text and graphics, as depicted in figure 2. Curvilinear, circular, organic, or other unique shapes are encouraged and will be measured in the same manner. • Figure 2 ....... area of rectangle 1 - - - - - - area of rectangle 2 total sign area Height regulations of business signs in Sign Districts 1 and 2: Menu display /Daily special boards: the top of the board must not extend more than 5 ft. from existing grade. Projecting /hanging signs: must have a minimum clearance of 8 ft. above pedestrian ways and a minimum clearance of 15 ft. above vehicular ways. No part of the sign shall extend over 25 ft. above existing grade. Wall signs: the top of the sign must not extend more than 25 ft. above existing grade. Window signs: the top of the sign must not extend more than 25 ft. above existing grade. Maximum Number /Area of business signs in Sign Districts 1 and 2: Wall and /or Proiectina /Hanaina Sians: One per business entrance on a major pedestrian or vehicular way with a maximum of 3 per business. Allowable sign area is based on total lineal frontage as listed at the beginning of this chapter. • 0 Menu Display /Daily Special Boards: Allowed at restaurant and real estate businesses only: one sign per business that may not exceed six square feet (6 sq. ft.). • Sale Signs: One sign, positioned Inside on a window or outside (on a display rack during shoulder- season only) of the business, with a maximum area of 1.5 square feet. Acceptable sale signage • Window Signs: Two (2) signs per business frontage not to exceed 15 % of total window area. Signs placed inside of a business, within 10' of a window and visible from the outside, will be counted toward total window sign quantity and area. Mullions that are less than 12" (12 inches) in width will not constitute as window separators. Neon and other gas - filled signage may only be placed further than 10' from the window if visible from the outside of the business. unacceptable fiber -optic sign placement Open /Closed signs 1.5 square feet of window signage only. attractive window signage Unacceptable sale signage Business Operation Signs: Two sq. ft. of window signage only: may include affiliations, hours of operation, and credit cards accepted. Sign Sizes The size of a bulding's total sign area, includes the text and graphics of each of its signs and varies with each building frontage (see table below), Building Signs in Sign Districts 1 and 2 Bldg. Frontage Allowed Total Sign Area 10' - 49.99' 20sq ft 50'— 74.99' 30sq ft 75'— 99.99' 40sq ft 100'— 149.99' 50sq ft 150' — 199.99' 50sq ft 200'— 249.99' 60sq ft 250'— 299.99' 60sq ft 300'— 399.99' 70sq ft 400+ 80sq ft Type 40 A building sign indicates the name of a building, which, in some cases, (such as a hotel or lodge) may be the same as the primary business and building owner. All building signs must comply with the regulations listed herein and are also subject to review by the Design Review Board, who reviews signage based on the criteria in Chapter 5 of this Title. Wall mounted The lineal frontage of a building is mea- sured in the same manner as that of a business, except that frontages are not delineated by inner divisions between tenant spaces_ T19 Bu N y "' 11 -4 -4: Building Signs Free- standing Quantity One (1) sign per building frontage on a major pedestrian or vehicular way. A maximum of two (2) signs are allowed if building has two frontages as defined in these regulations. In no instance will a building be entitled to more than two identification signs. If using two signs, signs must be applied to two separate building facades, (or placed on two separate frontages if freestanding), facing pedestrian and vehicular ways: subject to design review. Height If freestanding, no part of a building identification sign may be higher than 8' above existing grade. If wall- mounted, no part of a building identification sign may be higher than 25' above existing grade. Building Identification Names or dates of buildings, when etched into masonry, may exist in one location on any business or premise provided that each letter is not more than two inches (2 ") in height and the total engraved area occupies no more than three (3) square feet of the surface of the building. Attachment: B CHAPTER 5 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS SECTION: 11 -5 -1: Purpose 11 -5 -2: Design Guidelines 11 -5 -3: Design Standards 11 -5 -1: PURPOSE The Design Guidelines and Standards exist in order to provide the Town of Vail with attractive signage to enhance local streetscapes and to provide aesthetic consistency with both the built and natural environment. The guidelines and standards are intended to encourage expression and creativity. Be surrounded by landscaping: Landscaping, whenrequired, should be designed in harmony with surrounding natural landforms and native plants. 11 -5 -2 : DESIGN GUIDELINES Any sign erected within the Town of Vail is a communicative medium and should: A. Be consistent with Town scale and architecture: Sign location, configuration, design, and size should be aesthetically harmonious with the majestic mountain setting and the alpine village scale of the town.. B. Comply with the size of surrounding structures: The sign should not visually dominate the structure or business to which it belongs or the service that it represents. Appropriate sign size C. Be composed of natural materials: Sign materials should be predominately natural and may include the following materials: - Painted, stained, solid or carved wood - Brick - Stone - Wrought iron or metals such as copper or brass that have been treated to prevent reflective glare - Non - reflective glass and stained glass - Other naturally- textured building materials Plastic and other synthetic materials such as sign foam, vinyl or plexiglass (Lexan) are discouraged. D. Use natural colors: Earth tones: full spectrum of soil, clay and metallic colors Neutrals: off - whites to deep browns and blacks Bright colors should be used only as accents E F $ Creative use of wrought iron and natural colors • F. Use appropriate support structures: All signs and sign support structures, together with all of their braces, guys and anchors, should be kept in good repair. The display surfaces and hardware of all signs should be properly painted or posted at all times. 11 -5 -3: DESIGN STANDARDS Any sign erected within the Town of Vail shall conform to the following standards: A. Colors: Fluorescent, day -glo and neon colors shall be prohibited. B. Reflective Surfaces: Sign surfaces that are reflective are prohibited and shall Instead be comprised of matte or flat finishes. Reflective lettering • System G. Use creative graphics and lettering The creative use of depth, relief, shading and other pleasing textural qualities is generally encouraged. The guidelines that apply to general sign colors likewise apply to graphics and lettering. Creative use ofgraphics H. Use inconspicuous lighting: Lighting should be integrated into the overall design of the sign both in color and placement and should be of no greater illumination than is necessary to make the sign visible at night. Recessed light sources are encouraged. C. Lighting fixtures: Lighting must be white in color. Lighting fixtures shall not shine or reflect onto adjacent properties. Lighting sources shall not be directly visible to ,passing pedestrians or vehicles and shall be concealed in a manner such that direct light does not shine through any element of a sign. Internal illumination and fluorescent/neon light sources shall be prohibited. Unattractive Support System Attractive Support Unattractive visible lightftxture Attractive visible lightftrture D. Wind Pressure and Dead Load Requirements: Any sign, as defined throughout this Title, shall be designed to withstand wind pressures and receive dead loads as required at the time of construction in the most recent building code (IBC), as adopted by the Town of Vail and determined by the Chief Building Official, E. Sign Inspection: Each sign for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection and re- inspection (if necessary) by the Administrator. F. Electrical Wiring: Electrical wiring shall be conealed. In addition, all signs that contain electrical wiring shall be subject to the provisions of the adopted electrical code of the Town of Vail, and the electrical components shall bear the label of an approved testing agency. l_ Sign Maintenance All signs shall be kept in good repair: this includes replacement of lighting, re- painting when appropriate, and other actions that should be taken which con- tribute to attractive signage. poorly- maintained sign 0 G Right -of -Way: Right -of -way signs shall be constructed on private property outside of the town right -of -way and shall not project onto the town right -of -way except when permitted under a licensing agreement or a revocable right -of -way permit. H. Moving Parts: Signs that have or appear to have moving parts (aside from natural wind - induced movement)are prohibited. • Exposed wiring is not allowed 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 23, 2003 APPROVED PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Rollie Kjesbo George Lamb Erickson Shirley John Schofield Chas Benrhardt Doug Cahill Site Visits Vail's Front Door project • 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 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 L� Bill Gibson made a presentation per the staff memorandum. He outlined three possible GRFA amendment options for considerations. John Schofield reiterated the goals of this GRFA amendment process. The goal of the meeting is to evaluate the options and then further refine the proposal. Vicki Pearson described her intention behind submitting the GRFA amendment process. Pat Dauphinais stated his absolute opposition to GRFA as a concept. Pat said, "GRFA is my enemy!!" He urged the Commission to support the elimination of GRFA. Jim Lamont is opposed to a complete elimination of GRFA, and instead, supports a MEMBERS ABSENT Gary Hartman Mai T0U 41* Y 11L significant GRFA reform. He believes that some control and regulation is needed as a growth management tool. He stated that GRFA should be amended to eliminate the need to be a "criminal" to own property in Vail. 0 Doug Cahill felt that option A helped eliminate the conflicts with GRFA but ii does not address the issue of basement spaces. He believes that the size of homes should not get larger in terms of bulk and mass. He wants to see a basement regulation added to option A. He believes that the UBC definition of basement is a good starting point Chas Bernhardt stated that option C is a step in the right direction because other regulations will control the bulk and mass of a home. He wants to see parking requirements added to regulate the interior uses in the home. Chas felt that the DRB guidelines will control the aesthetics. Rollie Kjesbo stated that option B is his preferred alternative. He expressed a concern with the definition of basement, as it was not as simple as it may appear, and wants to see a very strict definition established. George Lamb stated that he preferred option B. He did not wish to see the creation of non- conforming lots and structures. He felt the previous 13 amendments to GRFA are a result of people wanting bigger homes. He favors the exclusion of basements from GRFA calculations. He expressed a concern with defining basements on steep lots. He feels a formula to quantify square footage is needed. George requested DRB input on how GRFA amendments would impact design. Erickson stated that GRFA amendments were needed because people want better houses. He believes that people are moving down valley to get bigger houses. He favors basements that are completely subterranean. He stated that basements do not create parking needs. Instead, bedrooms, for example, create a parking need. He feels that basements should be confined to the foot print of the house. Erickson believes that the standards for floor area allow people to do what they want in a less complicated way. The intent of this regulation is not to give people more square footage above grade. Above grade size of houses should remain similar. John Schofield stated that market changes are creating the need for GRFA amendments. He believed that a data base is needed to illustrate the impacts of the proposed changes. The data base will demonstrate the magnitude of the amendments. The data base shall include a review of all the development standards. John requested that staff prepare a definition for basement using the UBC definition as a starting point. He believed that amending site coverage may be needed. He stated that reforms to design guidelines are likely not needed. Erickson stated his frustration with the information provided in the recent staff memorandums. With the exception of Erickson, the Commission felt you could have a partial basement. The Commission provided the following comments with regard to developing the proposed GRFA amendment: Use most restrictive grade Look at Lionshead for guidance in determining grade. Look at parking as a whole through out the house, more spaces may be needed. An amnesty provision is needed. 0 Look to other communities for parking comparison. Doug Cahill moved to table a final recommendation on this item until the July 14.2003, meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commission. George Lamb seconded the motion 2. A request for a final review of 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 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 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 5' 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 5 th 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 Jay Peterson introduced several members of the team and went over a review of all the steps which have been completed to date. He then went over the steps which were still to come. He added that the residential units would be fee simple and not fractional fee as originally thought. He discussed the public improvements which would be constructed as a part of this project and added that they only wanted questions and comments today. Jay indicated that the applicant was not looking for a final vote. Tom Braun gave a presentation on the Front Door Project. He referred to the desire to have several worksessions in order to develop the plan with comments and concerns of the Board and public. Stated that there were some changes from the plan the Board saw in January. Many were subtle. The proposal is for a 30,000 square foot Base Lodge building of which over half of the square footage is below grade. There would be 300 memberships sold to the Ski Club with approximately 95 parking spaces. The Lodge at Vail would have an approximate 10,000 square foot addition and would include a spa and several suites. The 13 residences will be between 3,800 and 5,300 square feet. Underground parking will be provided. He than discussed that there are 14 loading bays providing while this is development proposal only requires five. He covered the mitigation of development impacts which included streetscape improvements, loading and delivery, heated streets and walkways, employee housing, etc. John Schofield asked that the applicant look at making Vail Road and Willow Road one- 3 4' Q-TA Karen Romeo, represents Luanne Wells, stated her team is not ready for crunch time as they only got the plans Friday afternoon and that they would like to have ample time to 0 discuss any problems before a vote. John Schofield stated that they too have not received the plan until Friday afternoon and that there would be at least two more work sessions. Karen Romeo continued with her clients concerns. According to Romeo, the first concern was with the Vista Bahn Plaza area and the fact that there is a building which occupies 50% of the available open space. She was also concerned over the loading and delivery. Tom Boni, from Knight Planning Services, representing Ms. Wells, had several concerns regarding delivery and how the hand trucks which will be used to deliver the goods. He also expressed concerns with the pedestrian movements, concern about the elimination of the small plaza behind One Vail Place and that he would like to see the plaza remain in order to keep the interconnection between Bridge Street and the new loading and delivery garage. Jim Lamont, representing Vail Village Homeowners, asked a question regarding several relocated transformers. He added that it is a good thing that Ms. Wells is willing to look at underground driveway as it will be more aesthetically pleasing. He then went on to discuss the relocated Check Point Charlie and traffic circulation in the area on Vail Road and Willow Road. Rollie Kjesbo asked a question regarding streetscape and the north side of the Lodge at Vail. 0 Jay Peterson stated that portions of the streetscape were a major project as there are elevation and grade changes. Rollie Kjesbo asked about the plans for Hanson Ranch Road from Bridge Street to the Hanson Ranch Chute. Jay Peterson stated that some of it will be heated. Rollie Kjesbo would like to see fractional units but understands the need and economics of it. He asked about the need for additional parking above and beyond the impact of the project_ George Lamb brought up several concerns regarding the circulation of ski races and stated that he would like to see more detail for the Vista Bahn Plaza. He expressed concern over who controls and monitors the loading and delivery. He was glad to see that the applicant and neighbors are working together. He also expressed concern over who his paying for heating after installation of the systems. Erickson Shirley stated that his only concern is along the lines of Ms. Wells'. He agrees that the skier service building is too large. He sees the other issue as being the cost and management of the loading and delivery areas. He is not certain what the impact will be in terms of increased numbers of visitors associated with this project and thinks this is a chance to deal with public parking because he feels this World Class Resort should be providing World Class Parking. Lastly, Erickson wants to see plans for dealing with the public parking problem and the increase created by this development. 40 Doug Cahill stated that several of his comments had already been covered. He asked about the height of the 13 residential building. He wants to see parking numbers for the 4 project and is concerned over the volume of hand trucks that it will take to unload all the goods 14 bays will allow. Doug would like to see the skier service building reduced in size 41 or shifted west. He thinks the traffic circulation is good as is and truck traffic should be kept off Willow Road. Chas Bernhardt stated that this is a spectacular project. He indicated that a traffic study for the core was needed as there are so many projects coming on line. He stated that most of his concerns had been addressed. Chas questioned what is the main goal for this whole development. Jay Peterson stated that the goal of the project is to turn Vail's back door into Vail's front door. He said that this project is for the Town and for Vail Resorts and brought up that the entire design has been made that Ms. Wells' demanded above grade access and now they are hearing something else. Chas Berhardt asked what was the expected increase in skier numbers with this project? Jay Peterson said the hope is to attract a different kind of skier and it is not expected to increase the number of skiers coming to Vail. Erickson Shirley asked what was the square footage of the Skier Services Building? Jack Hunn stated that the Ski shop was 4,000 sq.ft., Ski Storage 2,000 sq.ft., Lockers and Basket Storage 300 sq.ft., Coffee Shop 1,500 sq.ft., with Sharp Shooters, Ticket Sales and Ski School 2,600 -3,000 sq.ft.. John Schofield summarized all the comments. He felt that the ski yard has become very small and less functional and was concerned with the number of hand trucks used by the delivery portion. He said the Commission needed to see plans for handling public parking project and needed more detail on heated sidewalks in terms of maintenance and operation. John stated that he would like to see the entrance to the ski yard opened up. John felt that visitors don't know how to find the ski yard and lift and asked about EHU timing. John stated that he no problem with the fractional fee going to fee simple_ Jay Peterson feels that the applicant is addressing the public parking issue. Would like to see public parking put into a separate arena and not co- mingled with this project. Chas Bernhardt moved to table the item to July 14, 2003 meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Seconded by Rollie Kjesbo Vote 6 -0 3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an outdoor dining deck, in accordance with Section 12- 713-413, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL JULY 14, 2003 Approval of June 5, 2003 minutes Chas motion to approve Seconded by George Lamb 40 Vote 6 -0 5. Information Update — Town of Vail Master Plans Q Examination of Town of Vail adopted documents in order to develop a prioritized list for beginning the process of revising elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan —Warren Campbell No public Comment. John Schofield would like to set up an annual review of the adopted documents Doug Cahill Adjourn Rollie Seconded Vote 6 -0 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. 0 Community Development Department Published June 20, 2003 in the Vail. Daily. �J 0