Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0728 PECPlanning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 1 V't�rfr� 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us Project Name: Houtsma Residence PEC Number: PEC030030 Project Description: New front entrance and new garage Participants: OWNER HOUTSMA JOHN C. & BOBBI-ANN 06/16/2003 Phone: 4795 S LAFAYETTE CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE CO 80110 License: APPLICANT HOUTSMA JOHN C. & BOBBI-ANN 06/16/2003 Phone: 476-3809/390-1402 4795 S LAFAYETTE CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE CO Joni Taylor 80110 License: Project Address: 1876 GORE CREEK DR VAIL 1068 West Gore Creek Drive Location: Legal Description: Lot: 47 Block: Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE WEST FIL 1 Parcel Number: 210312307017 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Hartman Action: APPROVED Second By: Bernhardt Vote: 7-0 Date of Approval: 08/07/2003 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: CON0006017 1. That the applicant surveys in the location of the garage foundation and roof eave line prior to construction, to ensure that no improvements are constructed off-site. A foundation Improvement Location Certificate must be submitted by the applicants for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to a framing inspection. 2. That the applicant receives a revocable right-of-way permit for the landscaping in the right-of-way, prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. That the applicant replaces all transplanted landscaping which fails to survive two growing seasons, with new landscape material of similar size and quality. 4. That the applicant submits a Design Review Board application for all improvements in accordance with Chapter 12-11, Design Review and Chapter 12-21. Hazards, Vail Town Code. All improvements must be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to construction activity on the site. 5. That the driveway width is modified by the applicant to a maximum width of 24 ft. and the driveway must accommodate the required turnaround as West Gore Creek Drive is a bus route. These modifications shall be provided as past of the Design Review Board application. Planner: Allison Ochs • 0 PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 w PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail Daily, that the same daily newspa- per printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks nest 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 published in the regular and entire issue of every umber of said daily newspaper for the period of .......... ..f ... consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated .......� �/.... %/................... A.D.... and that the last publicajtion of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated .....M �......... A.D..... ^n. ........... In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this ...........%.... day of ......... ............ ..... ........... . _ Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, < �f ... day of ...�- )/ � this ....................... � Notary Public My Commission expires...................�....''.��� 40 THIS rrEM MAY AFFECTYOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12.3-6 of the Vail Town Code on July 28. 2003. at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, In consideration of. A request for a wmksession to discuss a proposed major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12- 76-7, Exterior Alterations Or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a lobby and elevator addi- tion to the Lodge Tower South Condominiums, lo- cated at 164 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B. & C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Lodge Tower South Condominium As- sociation, represented by Stan Cope Planner: George Ruther A request for a variance from Section 12-21- 14E(2), Restrictions In Specific Zones On Exces- sive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for the con- struction of drive ways and surface parking in ex- cess of 10% of the total site area, located at 2388 Garmisch DriveJLot 9, Block G, Vail Das Schone 2nd Filing. Applicant: Snow Now, LLC, represented by John G. Martin Planner: Bili Gibson A request for a variance from Sedon 12.6D-6, Setbacks, and.. 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code. to z0aw far a residential and garage addi- tion, located at 1868 west Gore Creek Drive/Lot 47, Vail Village West 1st Filing. Applicant: John and Bobbi -Ann Houtsma Planner: Allison Ochs The applications and information about these pro- posals are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town of Vail Com- munity Development Department office, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation held in the Town of Vail Com. munity, Development Department office and the site visits that precede the public hearing. Please tail (97011479-2138 for additional information_ Sign Sanguage interpretation is availaNe upon re- quest with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the hearing Impaired, lot additional information. This notice published in the Vaid Daily on July 11, 2003. THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE MIMI vf%vgw 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 ,duly 28, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.. In consideration of: A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations Or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a lobby and elevator addition to the Lodge Tower South Condominiums, located at 164 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing . Applicant: Lodge Tower South Condominium Association, represented by Stan Cope Planner: George Ruther A request for a variance from Section 12-21-14E(2), Restrictions In Specific Zones On Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of drive ways and surface parking in excess of 10% of the total site area, located at 2388 Garmisch Drive/Lot 9, Block G, Vail Das Schone 2"d Filing. Applicant: Snow Now, LLC, represented by John G. Martin Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, and 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential and garage 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 40 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 July 11, 2003. 1 TOWN OF YAIL • I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail Daily, that the same daily newspa- per printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 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 published in the regular and entire issue of every umber of said daily newspaper for the period of ............. consecutiv Insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated .........� 9,r, ........... A.D...�Q.0. 3....... and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper cat....... A.Q....... ............... eti� . 19S. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this ....CV. day of .... .. ..... ...... :....-�o.. .................... ... .. .............. ... ........ Pu lisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this ........, ...... day o ........ r ..� 4r4� ( � f . .......ic, ............ Notary Public My Commission expires.. }.. lr..... 0 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a variance from Section 12-60,-6, Setbacks, and 12-60-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to atlow for a residential and ga- rage addition, located at 1868 West Gore Creek DrivelLol 47, Vail Village West 1st Filing. Applicant John and Bobbi -Ann Houtsma Planner: Allison Ochs 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and 12-61-1-7, Height, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, lo- cated at Manor Vail, 595 E. Vail Valley Drive,Lot A, Vail Village 71h Filing. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Bob McCleary Planner: Warren Campbell 3. A request for a variance tram Section 12-21-14E(2). Restrictions in Specific Zones On Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of driveways and surface parking in excess of 10% of the total site area, located at 2368 Garmisch Drive&crl 9. Block G, Vail Das Schone 2nd Filing. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL Nj� d Q (] PUBLIC E5MNG _I v .l ,! Monday, July 28, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Develop- - mens. (Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENTMEMBERS ABSENT PROOF OF PUBLICATION Site Visits: 1. Beaver Creek loading and delivery facility- (op- (op- .STATE OF COLORADO tional) 10:00 am (van departs from the Community Deve4opmenl Department) 2. Vail's Front Door - Vail Village 1:00 pm SS. 3. Lodge Tower - 164 Gore Creek Dr. 4, Snownow LLC - 2388 Garmisch COUNTY OF EAGLE 5. Houtsma - 186B West Gore Creek Dr. Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail Daily, that the same daily newspa- per printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 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 published in the regular and entire issue of every umber of said daily newspaper for the period of ............. consecutiv Insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated .........� 9,r, ........... A.D...�Q.0. 3....... and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper cat....... A.Q....... ............... eti� . 19S. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this ....CV. day of .... .. ..... ...... :....-�o.. .................... ... .. .............. ... ........ Pu lisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this ........, ...... day o ........ r ..� 4r4� ( � f . .......ic, ............ Notary Public My Commission expires.. }.. lr..... 0 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a variance from Section 12-60,-6, Setbacks, and 12-60-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to atlow for a residential and ga- rage addition, located at 1868 West Gore Creek DrivelLol 47, Vail Village West 1st Filing. Applicant John and Bobbi -Ann Houtsma Planner: Allison Ochs 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and 12-61-1-7, Height, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, lo- cated at Manor Vail, 595 E. Vail Valley Drive,Lot A, Vail Village 71h Filing. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Bob McCleary Planner: Warren Campbell 3. A request for a variance tram Section 12-21-14E(2). Restrictions in Specific Zones On Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of driveways and surface parking in excess of 10% of the total site area, located at 2368 Garmisch Drive&crl 9. Block G, Vail Das Schone 2nd Filing. Appsicani: Snow Now, LLC, represented by more complete metes and bounds legal description John G. Martin rs availab4e at the Town of Vail Community Davel- Planner: Bili Gibson opment Department) 4. A request for a werksession to dis- cuss a proposed major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12.7B-7, Exterior Alterations Or Modifi- cations, Vail Town Code, to allow for a ktbby and elevator addition to the Lodge Tower South Con- dominiums, 'located at 164 rare Creek DrNalLots A, B, & C. Block SC, Vail Village First Filing . Applicant Lodge Tower South Condominium As- soclation, represented by Stan Cope Planner: George Rusher 5. A request for a racommandation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Sec- tion 1278-13, Density Control, Zoning Regula- tions: a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing from Public Ac- commodation zone district (PA) to Parking zone district (P); a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the proposed zoning of an unplatted parcel of land commonly referred to as the 'trade parcel" and Lots 1 &. 2, Mill Crack Sutftli- vision to Ski Base Recreation 11 zone district; a ra- gqrest for a minor subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, S.tdvision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line be- tween Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 51h Fit- ing: a request lot a racommandatWn to the Vail Town Code of a proposed major subdivision, pur- suam 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, pur- suant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a 'private off-street vehicle park- ing facility and public park' to be construeled and operated on Lots P3& J, Black 5A, Veil Village 51h Filing: a request sof an exterior alteration or modr iicatfon, pursuant to Section 1278-7, 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 Gode, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations. to al- low for the construction of mulfipte family dwelling units an elopes in excess of 40%: and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of lairs Front Door. and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Pe- terson Planner: George Author 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Stmetscape Master Plan and setting forlh details in regard thereto. AppliCanl Town of Vail, represented by Greg Halt Planner Warren Campbell TABLED To AUGUST 11, 2003 7. A request for a conditional use per- mit, to allow for an outdoor dining deck, In accord- ance with Section 12-7B-48, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code. located at the Vista Bahn Build - Ing. 333 Hanson Ranch ROad/L01 C. Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company. Inc., repre- sented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED TO AUGUST 11, 2003 B.Approval of July 14, 2003 minutes 9.Information Update The applications and Information about the propos- als are available for public inspeetl6n during regu- lar office hours In the project planner's office locat- ed at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 Sou0e Frontage Road. Please call 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_ Comrtunity Development Department Published July 25, 2003 In the Vail Daily. Published in The Vail Daily July 25, 2003 • 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION to PUBLIC MEETING Monday, July 28, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION ! - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Doug Cahill Chas Bernhardt Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartman Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT George Lamb (left at 6:30 pm) 1. Beaver Creek loading and delivery facility- (optional) (van departs from the Community Development Department) 2. Vail's Front Door —Vail Village 3_ Lodge Tower -164 Gore Creek Dr. 4. Snownow LLC — 2388 Garmisch 6_ Houtsma — 1868 West Gore Creek Dr, Driver: George 12:00 pm 10:00 am 1:00 pm 0 * 13 NOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, and 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential and garage 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 MOTION: Gary Hartman SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 7-0 Approved with 5 conditions: 1. That the applicant surveys in the location of the garage foundation and roof eave line prior to construction, to ensure that no improvements are constructed off-site. A foundation Improvement Location Certificate must be submitted by the applicants for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to a framing inspection. 2. That the applicant receives a revocable right-of-way permit for the landscaping in the right-of-way, prior to issuance of a building permit. 1 TO ty OF MIG � 3_ That the applicant replaces all transplanted landscaping which fails to survive two growing seasons, with new landscape material of similar size and quality. 4. That the applicant submits a Design Review Board application for all improvements in accordance with Chapter 12-11, Design Review and Chapter 12-21. Hazards, Vail Town Code. All improvements must be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to construction activity on the site. 5. That the driveway width is modified by the applicant to a maximum width of 24 ft. and the driveway must accommodate the required turnaround as West Gore Creek Drive is a bus route. These modifications shall be provided as part of the Design Review Board application_ 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-21-14E(2), Restrictions In Specific Zones On Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of driveways and surface parking in excess of 10/4 of the total site area, located at 2388 Garmisch Drive/Lot 9, Block G, Vail Das Schone 2nd Filing. Applicant: Snow Now, LLC, represented by John G. Martin Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 7-0 Approved with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a copy of an executed access easement with the owners of Lots 8 and 10, Vail Das Schone, Filing 2, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-78-7, Exterior Alterations Or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a lobby and elevator addition to the Lodge Tower South Condominiums, located at 164 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing . Applicant: Lodge Tower South Condominium Association, represented by Stan Cope Planner: George Ruther WORKSESSION — No vote 4. A request for 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'h 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'h Filing; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Code of a proposed major subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the "trade parcel'; a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a "private off-street vehicle parkin 91 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 011 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: 6-0 Tabled to August 11, 2003 5. A request for a variance from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and 12-6H-7, Height, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential 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: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0 Tabled to August 11, 2003 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Warren Campbell MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0 Tabled to August 11, 2003 7. 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 MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0 Tabled to August 11, 2003 8. Approval of July 14, 2003 minutes MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6-0 Approved with modifications 9. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published July 25, 2003 in the Vail Daily. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, July 28, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION ! - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Cahill John Schofield Erickson Shirley George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartmann Chas Bernhardt Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Beaver Creek loading and delivery facility- (optional) (van departs from the Community Development Department) 2. Vail's Front Door — Vail Village 3. Lodge Tower —164 Gore Creek Dr. 4. Snownow LLC — 2388 Garmisch 5. Houtsma — 1868 'West Gore Creek Dr. Driver: George 12:00 pm 10:00 am 1:00 pm �o NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m,, the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, and 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential and garage 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 Allison Ochs gave a presentation per the staff report. Donna Schultz-Caynoski, with Sonnenalp Real Estate and presenter of the project, introduced the purchaser. Paul Mussin, the prospected purchaser asked about the notch on the garage drawn on his second set of plans. He wondered if he could get additional square footage out of that. John Schofield mentioned that the applicant would be the one who needed to revise the plans. TOWN OF V4 Ll �� Allison Ochs stated that additional square footage, especially to go into a setback, would need the modification of the applicant and could require additional variances_ John Schofield stated that to modify this application, the current owner/applicant would need to be present. Mrs. Holm, an adjacent property owner, requested tabling the application. She mentioned that she did not understand the variance. The place where the garage was supposed to go seems too small a place for the garage to be placed. She wanted verification that the entire garage is going in the front of the house. Allison Ochs mentioned that the original variance was approved in 1995, and it expired, which is why the applicant is reapplying today. Mrs. Holm reiterated her fear of the tree coming down and again expressed interest in seeking consul with an attorney. George Lamb commented that a garage and enclosed parking is positive. The landscape also seemed to be an advantage. He was not in favor of a side setback variance. Rollie Kjesbo agreed that he did not approve of a side setback variance Erickson Shirley and Gary Hartman had no comments. Doug Cahill asked why the previous design was not being endorsed. Allison Ochs mentioned that the footprint was the exact same as in 1995, but that there were modifications to the interior of the house. Chas Bernhardt had no comment. The neighbor, Mrs_ Holm, returned to say that the plans they proposed never took place but were approved. John Schofield stated that the previous approval was one that would be upheld. The applicant demonstrated that there is a physical hardship with the slope and previous county annexations, etc. He mentioned that there were grounds for granting a variance as similar variances have been granted in the past. Motion: Gary Hartman, to approve, the site coverage variance with the conditions and findings as outlined in the staff memorandum Second: Chas Bernhardt Vote: 7-0-0 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-21-14E(2), Restrictions In Specific Zones On Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of driveways and surface parking in excess of 10% of the total site area, located at 2388 Garmisch Drive/Lot 9, Block G, Vail Das Schone 2nd Filing, Applicant: Snow Now, LLC, represented by John G. Martin Planner: Bill Gibson The variance was introduced by Bill Gibson. Several nonconformities exist, A prima rylsecondary residence was proposed for lot 9, on which a driveway currently exists. A 10% maximum for parking and driveway areas currently exists. The applicant is requesting that his site be viewed as having a hardship since the driveway services lot 10 as 2 well. Staff was recommending approval of the variance. John Schofield asked for public input. Pete, a neighbor who owns property east of the lot, mentioned that the road in question had been used since 1970 and requested that the driveway remain open for their use. Bill Gibson mentioned that the easement between the adjoining property owners and the applicant would be drawn up to ensure continued access. Erickson Shirley mentioned that the legal rights, easements, etc. between the property owners were not affected by PEC decisions. Another neighbor, Norma Brotten, expressed concern about the increase in parking from 10-30%. She was told that there would be garages on top and three units, vs. 2 units with garages on top. Bill Gibson clarified that the 30% was to accommodate the existing driveway and that garages are being proposed. He relayed that copies of the plans were available for her perusal. Norma expressed more concern about the steepness of the slope and the erosion concerns. She was also concerned about the easement because she needed to repair her roof. Doug clarified that the applicant's plan was necessary. John Schofield mentioned that the grade of the driveway would actually improve. Erickson Shirley mentioned that the DRB would further address her aesthetic concerns concerning the driveway. The applicant was still not present. Gary Hartmann expressed agreement with the lot proving a hardship. Doug Cahill mentioned that the access conditions would improve with this proposal. Chas Bernhardt, George Lamb and Rollie Kjesbo had no additional comment. Erickson Shirlye clarified that the PEC was not at all affecting easement rights, but that those rights were between property owners, etc. John Schofield agreed with the hardship and the percentage of driveway coverage was justified by the fact that the driveway served three lots. He suggested that a condition be added of an agreed -to easement between the property owners. Motion: Doug Cahill, to approve, with the condition that before building permit, an access easement is agreed upon by the owners of lots 8,9,10. Second: George Lamb, to approve with the above condition Vote: 7-0-0 is 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations Or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a lobby and elevator addition to the Lodge Tower South Condominiums, located at 164 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing . Applicant: Lodge Tower South Condominium Association, represented by Stan Cope is Planner: George Ruther Gary Hartmann recused himself from item 3 of the project as he had some previous involvement with the project. George Ruther introduced the project. Tim Losa, representing the applicant, showed the existing Lodge loading dock and tower. He mentioned that the Lodge Tower circulation would be through the back side. Basically, the new development would include a new loading dock at the western end of the building. Traffic circulation to the parking garage would be from the front door, through the new garage, then exiting in the same direction. New office and lobby space would also be included. Again, an elevator, trash chute and closet for the floor above as well_ The extent of other developments had not been decided upon yet. Erickson Shirley asked what the request from PEC would be. Tim Lasa mentioned that it would be for an exterior alteration. John Schofield asked if the applicant had thought of the implications of needing an easement or two. The applicant responded that easements had been negotiated, between the condo assoc and Vail Resorts. The impacts to the Lodge tower condo were minimal; therefore, the easements were negotiated, should the town agree. 0 Erickson Shirley asked why the alteration was coming to PEC. George Ruther responded that improvements of this magnitude were required to come to PEC. In addition, a subdivision application would replat a portion of the property to a deeded lot under the Lodge Tower. Also, the possibility exists that density and site coverage variances may need to be addressed as well. Erickson Shirley asked if there were any height issues. George Ruther said "not that he was aware of'. John Schofield asked about timing. The applicant mentioned that one phase would be adequate. John Schofield verified that he was asking about approval process time frame and clarified that one more worksession would be needed. Doug Cahill asked about additional site coverage issues. The applicant responded that there would be issues due to the fact that there were 34 years left on the lease. Erickson Shirley asked about the existing height issues- Would that increase? George Ruther. said no, but that site coverage would likely increase. The subdivision of the property would be the nemesis of the project, in his view, which would be dealt with in time. M The applicant mentioned that their primary concern was in the functionality of the project. Jay Peterson, of Vail Resorts, expressed little concern, even support of the Tower's plans. He said the common loading and delivery was already addressed. According to Jay, the subdivision aspect had been present since 1972. John Schofield asked for more specific public input. There was no public input Item 4 on the agenda was then asked to be addressed. Rollie Kjesbo asked about a footing easement to take space over the property line. The applicant replied that the space between the foundation walls would basically remain unused, so why not ask for an easement, through storage lockers? George Lamb also expressed that the situation seemed awkward. He was in favor of granting a footing easement as well. Jay Peterson mentioned that the ground lease had already addressed that issue. John Schofield said that the different zone districts were going to have to be addressed and asked for a resolution to the problem - Rollie Kjesbo asked why the applicant wanted his own loading dock. He asked why couldn't the applicant share the Front Door project's loading dock and would there not be space constraints? The applicant stated that the distance down the tunnel would be too lengthy to ferry trash. John Schofield agreed with the concern about crowding. Erickson Shirley agreed with the issue. He did not understand the rationale of the dock. Stan Cope, the managing agent, mentioned that to move a dumpster took serious moving apparatus. He mentioned that the mass did not need to be placed on the west end of the building and there was a desire not to interfere with guest activities. Stan said the compactor was intended to be placed on the loading dock, to be emptied twice a week. John Schofield urged staff to address that issue more thoroughly. Erickson Shirley expressed the need to understand the project a bit more. George Ruther agreed to bring in further information at the appropriate time. Doug Cahill asked that the above and below grade spaces be illustrated thoroughly. Five minute break until item number 4. 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Section 12- 7B-13, Density Control, Zoning Regulations; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing from Public Accommodation zone district (PA) to Parking zone district (P); a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the proposed zoning of an unplatted parcel of land commonly referred to as the "trade parcel" and Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation II zone district; a request for a minor subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, 5 Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Code of a proposed major subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the "trade parcel"; a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a "private off-street vehicle parking facility and public park" to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5 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, Vail Resorts, introduced the project, stating that several issues from the last meeting had been resolved; specifically the traffic analysis. Tom Braun talked first about the skier services yard. Erickson Shirley asked about the purple color, wondering where ticket transactions would be taking place. John Schofield mentioned that 6 or 7 windows would be in existence, but wasn't sure how many windows currently existed. The ski storage would be dropped to garden level, in order to meet the definition of the code. He went on to address the changes to the ski yard. Erickson first asked about ski storage and whether lockers and baskets were proposed? Torn Braun explained the ski storage. He continued to explain how the ski yard would function in terms of the maze to the lift and where people would click out of their boots. He then discussed the ability to host a ski race and setup the ski yard for a ski race. He then continued to discuss the possibilities for hosting summer functions. Erickson Shirley asked if the plan was to put a trampoline, putt -putt golf, and climbing wall in the summer ski yard. Tom Braun said that they currently do not plan to place those functions there at this time. He said that those uses would require a conditional use in the future if they wished to pursue them in the yard. Jim Lamont asked about how many people could fit in that area. Tom Braun stated that there are accepted areas in which people feel comfortable, however, he did not have those numbers on hand, but he believed that 15 feet per person was accepted throughout the industry. Jim Lamont asked if the ski yard would be able to handle the same, more, or less people than previous years ski races have occurred. Chas Bernhardt stated that at 15 square feet per person, approximately 4,000 people could fit in the proposed space. Jim Lamont asked if the roof material on the base lodge had changed. 6 Tom Braun stated that it was still sod. Sybil Novas, special events planning, thanked Vail Resorts for looking at this area so well. She stated that the turf should be sturdy enough for foot traffic. She asked if concession space was available and can you get a tractor trailer onto the site for larger events? Jay Peterson stated how large rigs could get on site Karen Romeo, representing LuAnne Wells, stated that the most disturbing issue is that this building will take up one-third of the site. She asked why does the existing ticket booth need to converted to retail under One Vail Place? She felt this change unnecessarily increases the size of the building. Tom Boni from Knight Planning Services, representing LuAnne Wells, gave a presentation regarding public spaces. He discussed the narrowness of the site and the impacts on views. He felt as much of the site as possible should go below grade. He stated that everything above ground affects the fabric of the area. Karen Romeo had two final thoughts. She feels the building be reduced in size once again and expressed concern over the official, designated view corridors. She mentioned the town code's address of the corridors, which are meant to foster civic pride and should be preserved. She urged the PEC to remember the intent of such corridors. LuAnne Wells was very concerned about the size of the "one massive, huge building" and stated that the entrance to "the best mountain in the world" should be taken more seriously. She said a flat roofed building that takes 113 to'12 of the ski yard is not acceptable and hoped that the Well's team's proposal would be taken more seriously. Jay Peterson answered to say that part of the concept of the building was in part dictated by the owners of One Vail Road. He said that originally, sod was thought of, which required a flat roof. He said that the entire concept was to allow their view to be upon a vista, or a meadow, thus the flat roof. He mentioned that if the flat roof was no longer a criteria, then different options could be explored. He mentioned that the feeling will always exist that less is better and bigger is worse. Jay said that the services that will be provided in that building would be skier services and are necessary and that ski school and ticket sales would also be incorporated in that building. Erickson Shirley asked how VR would respond to relocating some of the services into the One Vail Building. Jay Peterson agreed that that would be an expensive proposition and that there would need to be some return. He said that the building and its contents exist as a matter of convenience and that at some point, the building could get too small and would then become a mistake. He said that if the roof program has changed, the building could be broken up a bit more and designed slightly differently. John Schofield requested further input. Steve Riden spoke further about not wanting a large structure in front of One Vail Road. He said that one of the solutions was to create a sod roof structure. He felt that the building still seemed too close, and too high. He brought up the fact that four or five feet of snow could be present on this roof as well. Erickson Shirley asked if the sod roof was still a priority for the owners? 7 Steve Riden said no, but that a better solution than this building was still required. Basically, none of the owners want to look at the roof of another building from their own building, regardless of the material. John Schofield asked about surface access for the owners. Steve Riden said that that was the initial conversation that was addressed but the surface access still wants to be maintained.. Murray Hemminger., a resident since 1963, representing a company from Italy, TX began to talk about monolithic domes, and mentioned their safety aspects. He said he gave a packet to George to explain the dome and its positive incorporation into the project. Ten minute break for consultation. John Schofield convened the meeting for PEC input. Gary Hartmann mentioned that the ski yard itself is not changing and said that the ski yard is getting slightly bigger because the Vista Bahn is being taken out of the equation. He said that as for view corridors, the view corridor under discussion is already being impacted by existing uses. He said that as far as the general scale of the building, the design as it stands has several pros and cons and that the current size blends it into the ski yard, making the mass disappear. Gary said that the cons include that a sod roof can be done very badly in addition to being done very well_ The sod roof never integrates into natural grade. A small scale building brings continuity to the area, whereas a large building integrates a new size and scale_ A small scale building with a traditional roof might be preferable. However, those roof pitches may be higher, impacting views for condo owners and others. Doug Cahill mentioned that the ski yard area had vastly improved. He asked about the existing grade of where the pavers are....would that carry on into the proposed first floor elevation? John Schofield asked for sections. Chas Bernhardt said that the overlays were helpful in visualizing the project's changes and layout, alleviating his concerns from before. His other concern centered on the fact that moving the building back without giving up the road was unfair. He encouraged VR to put as much under grade as possible, lowering the building, perhaps stepping up the western section, and overall, making more people happy. George Lamb mentioned that the ski yard improvements were substantial: good. He said the idea to remove sod might be a possibility that is positive and that moving the activity is a good idea, to open things up. When a consensus for a building is arrived at, he mentioned that view corridors should remain protected. The tunnel enclosure proved to be a problem, he said. He thought that the interplay could work between delivery people, guests, etc. HE said a grading plan would make sense, making things easier to understand and that the coffee area seems to conflict with the majority of the building's uses. George asked if that use could go elsewhere? Rollie Kjesbo liked the ski yard and the reduction in building size. He worried about the 4000 square feet club level. If the view corridor is too much of a problem, put the driveway to One Vail Place underground. Erickson Shirley mentioned disappointment that the land was not staked during site visits as it was hard for him to imagine footprints, etc. He mentioned that the view corridors must be protected, but how was he supposed to accurately judge the project without the stakes being placed? He said that the notion of competition, town vs. resort development, is different in different places. Vail needs to be careful, he said, not to sacrifice the community at the sake of competition with other ski areas. The issue of grade was important to him, because of its longevity. He felt that Vail must continue to be able to host large-scale events and asked how is the grade going to affect the ski races and the racers? Will this affect Vail's ability to host ski races and will the Vista Bahn turn into a 6 -seater lift? .lack Hunn said no. Erickson stated that regarding the alley, won't handcarts create noise? He stated that may create a greater burden on One Vail Place than necessary. Regarding ticket sales windows, the impact on residents would be too great. He said the skier services. Building should house the ticket window on the side so that owners endure less impact. The architecture of the skier services building seems to have been driven by the owners of One Vail Place. The architecture should be driven instead by the TOV. The community's best interest should be of prime importance. Perhaps the building could be "broken up and moved around". Delete the parts of the building that are not necessarily integral. The design submitted by Wells was nice, he said. The architecture should be that of postcard quality. In spite of the concerns of the residents, he thought the most important thing to do was to create a wonderful piece of architecture. "The better it looks, the bigger it can be". As for view corridors, they were perhaps not very accurately portrayed. The PEC should look at establishing the view corridors, having the property staked, etc. John Schofield asked for the sections again. George Ruther responded that the sections were not available, but the revised grading plain is would help. Chas Bernhardt commented that ticketing was ill -placed. He felt that in the early morning in the middle of winter, that location is going to be coldest. He said that 7,660 would be the square footage of basic necessities and all other operations should be put underground, John Schofield stated that no matter what, someone is going to be unhappy. John urged the applicant to do what worked and what would be approved by PEC, basically. He requested that accurate and revised information be present at the next worksession. Regarding the ski yard, the numbers were reflective of what he thought and that the function of the site will be adequate at high stress times. He said that the racing concerns are not particularly worrisome and as far as the size of the building, some elements are not in the applicant's control. He felt that to have a small building serving a club takes up a lot of room and perhaps the road could "go away" and one building would suffice. He believed that the sod roof still has merit and that without sod, the pitch must be raised, views are affected. He said that he would like to see the size of the Gold Peak building and the number of skiers it services, vs the size of this building and the number of skiers it services. John felt that hand cart noise would be minimal. Erickson Shirley said that his point was not about the length of the finish line, but about how the grading impacts the course and asked would Vail still be able to host big-time ski races? Jack Hunn said yes, that VR was in support of ski races_ He asked if he could clarify the placement of the ticket window as it was moved to accommodate an area for the customers, a waiting area. Many members of the PEC expressed that they liked the way it was currently designed. Chas mentioned that he was just thinking of the owners in terms of their comfort. Doug Cahill asked about the elevation of that area. I Erickson Shirley mentioned that the windows should be on the side and stated that the applicant must have difficulty with the variation among the members of the PEC. Jack Hunn asked what the preference was for the ticket windows. Gary, Doug, Chas, George, and Rollie, liked the windows as they were currently proposed. Erickson thought that the placement was not particularly good. Jay Peterson rose and said that the idea of roofing the corridor deals with bulk and mass. He said that the area was proposed to be roofed for neighbor -reasons, but that perhaps was not so necessary anymore. He mentioned that traffic could be mixed and was perhaps a non-event. He felt that the open air would give the carts the opportunity to disperse, rather than be confined, therefore lending more flexibility. He then asked for input from the Commission. Erickson Shirley asked why that area was covered. Jack Hunn said that it was in response to a request to mitigate noise, etc PEC poll; George, Rollie, Erickson, Gary, Doug (could you bring the elevator out of another building? Jack said not really) agreed that the corridor should not be covered. Tom Braun rose to talk about the traffic engineering. He wanted to address concerns regarding Vail Road and the traffic it would begin to generate. He mentioned that how the facility was to be run once it was in place was the Town's responsibility. Bob Hazlitt, traffic engineer with Kimley-Horn expressed interest in adding clarity to the project through the traffic analysis. He reviewed the conclusions of the traffic report. John Schofield asked about whether the analysis took into account all the redevelopment. Bill said yes. Chas Bernhardt asked if the engineer had ever worked with the TGV before? (i.e. what was the result of the traffic studies at the base of Golden Peak?) Greg Hall said that Golden Peak was studied for the 150 busiest day of the year but he did not know the specifics of the report Doug Cahill asked about the Sonnenalp redevelopment. Tom Braun mentioned that traffic analysis for the development was taken into effect. A net reduction on Vail Road was shown from the Sonnenalp project. Erickson Shirley asked about Lots P3 & J. John Schofield asked for public comment. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Assocation, asked about trucks already having made deliveries. Jay Peterson mentioned that VR had counted those as repeat trips. Erickson Shirley clarified that he wanted to know how to answer when asked about traffic. Jay Peterson responded that worst-case scenario was again the standard in their strategies. 10 Erickson Shirley stated that he wanted to make sure that he clarified everything, absolutely and with conviction and strategy. Lynne Fritzlen mentioned that she read available information. She felt that the turning movement and conflict should be addressed. Gwen Scalpello mentioned that she was interested in the other corner of Vail Road, which is where she lives. What was the peak of the peak in terms of time of day? Greg Hall spoke briefly about exit traffic from the facility. He stated that there are other loading an delivery options, but that traffic was going to be generated among delivery vehicles. He expressed interest in looking at intersections, thereby addressing Lynne Fritzlen's concern, which John Schofield agreed with. Tom commented that an assessment of that issue would be covered next time. Jim Lamont returned to comment that the overall traffic projections might need to include the Golden Peak traffic surveys. Stan Cope, managing agent of Lodge Tower, said that his was probably the only building that was affected on all sides by loading and delivery. He mentioned that because parking was going to be controlled, the Tower would experience much of the change, but was still not particularly bothered by the end result. He was glad to hear that the congestion was not going to increase, in spite of the fact that noise may increase_ He was in support of the traffic study and flow of loading and delivery. Karen Romeo; attorney for LuAnne Wells, had just picked up the data for the traffic study. She mentioned that they had been kind enough to work with the PEC's schedule. She asked for a final hearing, John Schofield mentioned that it would need another worksession. PEC comment: George Lamb said that flexibility was built into the existing road system, fortunately. Rollie Kjesbo said that the loading and delivery would be a great gain for the village core. He hoped that the engineer's traffic prediction was factual. Erickson Shirley mentioned that truck trips through town should be limited as much as possible due to the streetscape plans and the money being put into the new loading and delivery area. He also thought that it would be good to hear from merchants, businesses in town. Gary Hartmann asked if the loading and delivery could be restricted to Vail Road, thus separating the I and D from the pedestrian core. Doug Cahill asked if the 330 additional trips still kept the traffic survey in the same status. Bill said that the status was the same. 0 Doug asked what incentives the deliverers have to hand cart their loads. Greg mentioned that town policy could regulate that. Chas Bernhardt asked Jim Lamont who he considered himself a representative for? For the merchants? Jim replied "...... um no". Chas would like to see the Town lease the loading area. John Schofield said that the PEC was obviously skeptical of the results. He mentioned that Lynne's concern would be addressed. As far as the management plan, it was not firm enough. A fairly short transition period should be expected and education should occur quickly. The next draft should be more specific about ownership, finances, etc. He thought that it should not be owned and operated by Vail Resorts. He agreed that input was needed from the merchant community regarding ownership, etc. Lynne Fritzlen asked if the decrease in loading and delivery spaces is correct. John Schofield mentioned that the 14 spaces is a good number, as sometimes traffic engineers "are not always perfect" and therefore, it is better to have adequate capacity for the future. Jim Lamont mentioned that demand may increase due to increased success of the plan. He mentioned that he didn't want to "shave the plan too thin" and asked what about Vail Valley Drive on the bad days? He said that the TOV's participation in the traffic survey was helpful. He was confident that after seeing Beaver Greek's facility, too much may be made out of the current situation. Erickson Shirley asked if it was Greg's understanding that the Town should not manage this? Greg Hall mentioned that an increase in costs in order to manage the project could be prohibitive and it was a concern from the Council's standpoint to add a large layer of is operating costs. Erickson Shirley said that the PEC would prefer the facility be managed by someone other than Vail Associates, who would also prefer not to run the dev, according to Jack. Greg Hall reiterated that the TOV would have an influence regarding management. Steve Riden asked about the relation of the traffic study to the architecture. George Lamb left at 6:20pm John Schofield said that the impacts of parking and similar improvements should be looked at, in terms of off site impact. John asked that the applicant address the off-site parking impacts to the TOV, in spite of Vail Resorts feeling that parking would not be affected. Erickson Shirley asked that whatever amount of parking is required in the future should be mentioned in more than a letter. Jay Peterson stated that the public parking problem is created by the TOV and needs to be solved by such and that problem needs to be done regardless of whether this project goes forward or not. Erickson Shirley reiterated that some portion of the project be dedicated to future parking needs. John asked if publication criteria needed to be done then_ George Ruther said yes. 12 George Ruther said that 4 applications would be required to vote on P3 & J. ! Erickson asked if anyone was going to address a change in the streetscape plan. George Ruther said that the PEC seemed clear in accepting the off-site improvements east of the Christiania, etc. Erickson asked again that if improvements made changes to the streetscape plan, did they know about them? John Schofield mentioned that streetscape was in a different category and would not be voted on Aug. 11. Jay Peterson said that the areas they committed to do would be tied into the "Streetscape Plan Andy Littman, Wells Team, clarified that the effort was on behalf of instituting a quality project for the Town. He agreed that a Golden Peak repeat was not desired. He asked that the project be reasonably complete and workable, with quality architecture, etc. He also stated that having a great race park is indeed important. He wanted to set a vote for development, and a time table as well. John Schofield clarified that a "piecemeal approach" had been taken already. Andy returned that an incremental voting system is important. Erickson asked Jay for the traffic piece of earlier discussions. John Schofield told Andy and Karen that they should receive a copy of George's letter from the 21 st. Doug voiced appreciation for the Wells Team. Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: Chas Bernhardt TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 11, 2003 5. A request for a variance from Section 12-61-1-6, Setbacks, and 12-6H-7, Height, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential 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 TABLED TO AUGUST 11, 2003 Vote 7-0- to table all remaining topics until Aug 11, 2003. 6. 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_ 10 Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Warren Campbell TABLED TO AUGUST 11, 2003 13 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" Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED TO AUGUST 11, 2003 8. Approval of July 14, 2003 minutes Correction: bottom of page 2, the numbers don't add up. Erickson was in favor and John was opposed. Also, same page, John's 2001 comments needed to be fixed in accordance. Page 6, changes could be given later. Page 14, the slopes of front door project were wanted for post and pre construction. Motion: Chas B, to approve as revised Second: Doug, to approve as revised Vote: 6-0-0 9. Information Update Motion: by Rollie, to adjourn Second: by Chas, to adjourn Vote: 6-0-0 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. Community Development Department Published July 25, 2003 in the Vail Daily. • 14 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 28, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, and 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential and garage addition, located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 47, Vail Village West 1st Filing. Applicant: John and Bobbi -Ann Houtsma Planner: Allison Ochs 1. SUMMARY The applicants, John and Bobbi -Ann Houtsma, are requesting a variance from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, to allow for a garage addition in excess of the allowable site coverage. A similar variance request for this property was approved in 1995 by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Community Development Department is recommending approval of the variance request, subject to the conditions and findings as outlined in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, John and Bobbi -Ann Houtsma, are proposing to construct a one- story garage addition to their house, located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 47, Vail Village West 1st Filing. The proposal includes the addition of a two -car garage and a new porch. At this time, no other improvements are proposed. A vicinity map has been attached for reference (Attachment A). The proposal requires a site coverage variance. The house is located on a steep slope, in excess of 30%, which requires that the maximum site coverage allowance is 15% of the total site area. In this case, the site coverage allowed is 1,657 sq. ft. The applicants are proposing 1,819 sq. ft. or 16.5% site coverage. Because the slopes are in excess of 30%, the garage is permitted to be located in the front setback at the discretion of the Design Review Board. The applicants were also originally proposing to locate a portion of the garage in the side setback. However, the applicants have revised the plans to eliminate the side setback encroachment, and that request has subsequently been withdrawn. The applicants' statement of request and reductions of the proposed plans have been attached for reference (Attachments B and C). 0 BACKGROUND 0 According to the Town of Vail legal file for this property, the house at 1968 West Gore Creek Drive 1 Lot 47, Vail Village West First Filing, was approved by Eagle County in 1979. The neighborhood was subsequently annexed in 1986. In 1995, the applicants requested a site coverage variance to allow for a garage addition and a new front entrance to the house. The Planning and Environmental Commission approved the request with the following conditions: That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall submit and record a Type I Employee Housing Unit deed restriction on the property to allow for the expansion of the existing residence. 2. That the applicant survey in the location of the garage foundation and roof eave line prior to construction, to ensure that no improvements are constructed off-site. 3. That the applicant receives a revocable right-of-way permit for the landscaping in the right-of-way, prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. That the applicant replace all transplanted landscaping which fails to survive two growing seasons, with new landscape material of similar size and quality. A copy of the staff memorandum and minutes from the 1995 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting have been attached for reference (Attachment D). is At the time, there were two dwelling units on the site. In the Primary/Secondary zone district, only one dwelling unit is permitted on lots less than 14,000 sq. ft., unless one unit is deed restricted as a Type I employee housing unit. Subsequently, the applicants have eliminated one kitchen. Therefore, the site now complies with allowable density and the Type I deed restriction is no longer necessary. Also, when the variance was approved, additional improvements were proposed for the structure. At this time, the applicants are proposing only to add the garage and, because the garage impacts the entry, a modification to the front entry, Staff has researched similar variance requests in order to provide the Planning and Environmental Commission with additional background information. A summary of that research is provided below: Ricci Residence, 2576 Davos Trail ( February, 19951 At the Ricci Residence, the applicant requested a site coverage variance for 4.7% (526.5 sq. ft. of additional site coverage). The applicant proposed to use the additional site coverage to create an enlarged 2 -car garage, as well as add a small amount of additional GRFA to the existing residence. The PEC approved the applicant's site coverage variance request. Dean/Rousch Residence, 2942 Bellflower (July 1993): At the Dean/Rousch residence, the applicants requested a 3.56% site coverage variance (287 square feet), a setback variance (4 feet into a 20 -foot setback), and a wall height 2 variance. The request for site coverage and wall height variances were approved by the PEC, but the setback variance for GRFA was denied. It should be noted that the staff recommended denial of the variances, but the PEC approved it. The interior dimensions of the garage were 22.5 by 22.5 feet, and the area of the garage calculated for site coverage was 576 square feet. Taylor Residence, 2409 Chamonix Road (May 1993): At the Taylor residence, the applicant requested and was granted a site coverage variance for 1.3% (122 square feet) in order to construct a garage and building connection on the property. It should be noted that the allowed site coverage on this lot is 20% (not 15%), and the applicant was also granted a variance to construct the garage in the front setback (the slope on this lot did not exceed 30%). The approved interior dimensions of the two -car garage were 21 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area of 420 square feet. The garage contributed 462 square feet toward site coverage. Mumma Residence, 1886 West Gore Creek Drive (February 1993): At the Mumma residence, the applicant requested and was granted a 1 % site coverage variance in order to construct a garage addition on a lot that exceeds 30% slope. The 1% overage on site coverage amounted to approximately 99 square feet. The interior dimensions of the approved garage measure 20 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area of 400 square feet. The garage contributed 442 square feet toward site coverage. Small Residence, 4238 Nugget Lane (September 1992): At the Small residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setback variances in order to construct a garage and GRFA addition. The interior dimensions of the approved garage measure 22 feet 8 -inches by 22 feet 3 -inches (504 square feet). Please note that a site coverage variance was not necessary as a part of this request. Testwuide Residence, 898 Red Sandstone Circle (Auqust 1992): At the Testwuide residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setback variances in order to construct a garage addition to the existing residence. The approved garage had interior dimensions of 21.5 feet by 24 feet, with a total interior area of 516 square feet. Please note that a site coverage variance was not necessary as part of this request. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES A. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 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 IM special privilege. 0 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. The Design Review Board has no review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. The Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the Design Review Board proposal for: 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings 2. Flitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 4. Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequate provision for snow storage on-site 6. Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms 8. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures 10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11. Location and design of satellite dishes 12. Provision of outdoor lighting APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12: Zoning Regulations Section 12-6D: Two Family Primary/Secondary Zone District (in part) 12-6D-1: Purpose: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards - EI 0 Chapter 12-21: Hazard Regulations (in part) 12-21-14: Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes: The following additional special restrictions or requirements shall apply to development on any lot in a hillside residential, single-family residential, two- family residential or two-family primary/secondary residential zone district where the average slope of the site beneath the existing or proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty percent (30°l): E. Site coverage as it pertains to this chapter, as permitted by sections 12- 6A-9, 12-6B-9, 12-6C-9 and 12-6D-9 of this title, is amended as follows: 1. Not more than fifteen percent (15%) of the site area may be covered by buildings, except in conjunction with a type I employee housing unit in accordance with chapter 13 of this title, in which case not more than twenty percent (209/) of the site area may be covered by buildings; and 2. Not more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area may be covered by driveways and surface parking. K. Setbacks, as they apply to this chapter, as required by sections 12-6A-6, 12-6B-6, 12-6C-6 and 12-6D-6 of this title, are amended as follows: there shall be no required front setback for garages, except as may be required by the design review board. Garages located in the front setback, as provided for in this section, shall be limited to one story in height (not to exceed 10 feet) with the addition of a pitched or flat roof and subject to review and approval by the design review board. L. Retaining walls up to six feet (6) in height may be permitted in the setback by the design review board when associated with a permitted garage as referenced in subsection K of this section. Chapter 12-17: Variances (in part) 12-17-1: Purpose: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with 40 respect to the development standards prescribed for each district, including lot area and site dimensions, 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. Vail Land Use Plan Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal: The land use designation, as stated in the Vail Land Use Plan, is Low Density Residential. According to the Vail Land Use Plan, this designation is described as follows: Low Density Residential This category includes single-family detached homes and two family dwelling units. Density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional/public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. In addition, staff has identified the followings goals and objectives from the Vail Land Use Plan which staff believes are applicable to this request: 0 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. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 5. Residential 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. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Single family residence Hazards: Slopes in excess of 30% Lot Area: 11,047 sq. ft. 49 0 Development Standard Allowed/Required Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. 1.5 ft. Sides: 15 ft./15 ft. 11.5 ft.*/43 ft. Rear: 15 ft. 63 ft. - Building Height: max. 33' (slope)/30' (flat) X33 ft. Density: 1 du 1 du GRFA: 3,187 sq. ft. 2,272 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 1,657 sq. ft. (15%) 1,819 sq. ft. (16.5%) Landscape Area: 6,628 sq. ft. (min) 8,388 sq. ft. Parking Spaces 3 spaces 3 spaces (2 enclosed) *denotes existing non -conformity VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS C. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Site Coverage Variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicants are proposing to add a garage in the front setback, which is permitted by 12-21-14: Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, subject to Design Review Board approval. The request for the garage addition requires a site coverage variance. Staff believes that the proposal will not have a negative impact to other uses or structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the garage addition will be a benefit to the neighborhood, by eliminating surface parking and creating 2 enclosed parking spaces. The existing parking spaces are located partially in the Town of Vail right-of-way and staff believes that the elimination of this surface parking in the right-of-way is a benefit to the neighborhood and the Town of Vail. According to the survey 40 provided, the proposed garage will be located 11 ft. from West Land Use Zoning North: Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary South: Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary East: Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary West: Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS C. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Site Coverage Variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicants are proposing to add a garage in the front setback, which is permitted by 12-21-14: Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, subject to Design Review Board approval. The request for the garage addition requires a site coverage variance. Staff believes that the proposal will not have a negative impact to other uses or structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the garage addition will be a benefit to the neighborhood, by eliminating surface parking and creating 2 enclosed parking spaces. The existing parking spaces are located partially in the Town of Vail right-of-way and staff believes that the elimination of this surface parking in the right-of-way is a benefit to the neighborhood and the Town of Vail. According to the survey 40 provided, the proposed garage will be located 11 ft. from West Gore Creek Drive and 1.5 ft. off the property line. Staff believes 40 this to be an adequate separation from the right-of-way. As is required by Chapter 12-21, Hazards, Vail Town Code, the proposal includes a one-story garage addition, not to exceed 10 ft. in height, with the addition of a pitched roof. The bulk and mass associated with the proposal is similar in scale to the bulk and mass of surrounding homes. In addition, the applicant has revised their proposal and maintained a separation of 15 ft. from the eastern property line, thus minimizing any impacts to the adjacent property. Staff believes that the proposed addition will have a positive impact on, and is compatible with, other existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 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. Similar site coverage variances have been granted to allow for the addition of enclosed parking. Staff has traditionally supported site coverage variance requests when associated with the construction of enclosed parking. 40 Staff has researched as to the site coverage on existing structures in the vicinity. The majority of the near -by lots are non -conforming with regards to minimum lot size, and many have slopes in excess of 30%. The staff had researched projects in which similar site coverage variance requests were made, and has summarized them in Section III of this memorandum. Because similar variances have been granted from this regulation, in the vicinity, and in this zone district, staff believes that the granting of this variance would not be a grant of special privilege. The applicants have also revised the plans to eliminate the side setback encroachment and have proposed a very modest sized garage (495 sq. ft.) to minimize the amount of deviation required for this variance, while still meeting their parking needs. In addition, the applicant has revised their plans to eliminate any encroachment into the 15 ft. side setback, as originally proposed. In the past, staff has requested that each variance request be for the minimum amount of deviation from Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, necessary in order to attain the needs of the applicant. Staff believes that the requested variance is the minimum deviation needed from the setback requirements, while still meeting the parking needs of the applicants. 0 • • 40 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal, if constructed, on the above - referenced criteria. Staff believes that the proposed elimination of surface parking partially located in the Town of Vail right-of-way, will have a positive impact on the above -referenced criteria. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. D. 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 for a variance from 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential and garage addition, located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 47, Vail Village West 1st Filing.. 9 X. 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: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a granting 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. 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. 4. 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. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the variance request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. That the applicants survey in the location of the garage foundation and roof eave line prior to construction, to ensure that no improvements are constructed off-site. A foundation Improvement Location Certificate must be submitted by the applicants for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to a framing inspection. 2. That the applicants receive a revocable right-of-way permit for the landscaping in the right-of-way, prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. That the applicants replace all transplanted landscaping which fails to survive two growing seasons, with new landscape material of similar size and quality. 4. That the applicants submit a Design Review Board application for all improvements in accordance with Chapter 12-11, Design Review and Chapter 12-21. Hazards, Vail Town Code. All improvements must be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to construction activity on the site. 5. That the driveway width is modified to a maximum width of 24 ft. and the driveway must accommodate the required turnaround as West Gore Creek Drive is a bus route. These modifications shall be provided as part of the design Review Board application. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicants' Statement of Request 10 • • 0 9 C. Reductions of the Proposal D. Memo and Minutes of the 1995 Planning and Environmental Commission hearing E. Public Hearing Notice 11 RiY Y 7i q¢!'y� A n yr. 17 V3 17 41 ' %• 71 - - r;,It�a� .• r.�'�1, +moi':. •�� ur VA r e �g ..-,.,.,. ter- .._- -•. -i' aTCL {0) s. .. m �:� y. � _ __, 1 •tet.. - '� •..r#.� ..'� Y' W 7 Aw Y y t yv �i f { r ` w _ y :h • tro s r , Sof . �`��_. • �? i �• ��'i _ dui' - {• Y. "'- J J { �4, �, ' f , 1' V Attachment: $ 0 June 13, 2003 To: The Planning and Environmental Commission Vail, Colorado From: John and Bobbi Ann Houtsma A REQUEST FOR A VARIENCE AT 1868 W. Gore Creek Drive, Vail, Colorado To whom it may concern: In 1995 we received a variance to construct a garage on our property_ Due to several reasons, we did not ever construct the garage and the variance has expired. We are now applying for the same, identical variance to construct the exact same garage as we received approval for in 1995. We are attaching the "Memorandum" dated August 14, 2003 from George Ruther, Town Planner. In the attached "Memorandum" a detailed explanation outlines our request and the specific regulations involved that the Town of Vail approved in 1995. In the "Memorandum" the following written statements are addressed: 1. Other requests that have been approved in the neighborhood for the same variance. 2. Cars will be taken off the street parking. 3. The plans show that the garage will aesthetically improve the design of the home. 4. In the "Memorandum" it was identified that it will not negatively affect the distribution and transportation in the area. Please let us know if there is any other information we can provide you. Thank you. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, J and Bobbi Ann Houtsma Attachment; C • lilt P-1 I I I �� u ,. �� �. 1 Q m fl . I.] .1. -'... -. .. to • lilt P-1 I I I �� u ,. 7 a ,�. � �... � ,. . . �r „`��� � ,,,s ``,. �:�r Apr. .�i=' ,¢r.�,,r: Attachment: D 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 14, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an addition to the Houtsma Residence, located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 47, Vail Village West 1 st Filing. Applicants: John and Bobbi Ann Houtsma Planner: George Ruther DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, John and Bobbi Ann Houtsma are proposing to construct a new front entrance and an attached, one story, two -car garage to their residence located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive. The proposed new front entry addition would be located within the boundaries of the setbacks on the property. The attached, one story, two -car garage, however, would be located in the front setback. The proposed garage is permitted in the front setback pursuant to Section 18.69 (Hazard Regulations) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, since the percent slope beneath the existing structure and the proposed structure and parking area exceeds 30%. Additionally, since the slope of the property exceeds 30%, the site is restricted to 15% site coverage. Based upon a lot size of 10,977 sq. ft., the applicants are allowed 1,646 sq. ft_, or 15% site coverage. The plans submitted propose a total site coverage on the property of 1, 829 sq. ft,, or 16.6%. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a site coverage variance of 1.6% from Section 18.69 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicants are also proposing other upgrades to the property in addition to the new front entrance and the two -car garage. The applicants are proposing to pave the existing gravel driveway, as well as add landscaping in the northwest and northeast comers of the property, where none currently exists. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to add a river rock chimney to the street elevation of the structure. Also to be added will be a modest dormer addition on the street elevation and an expanded deck to the west elevation of the structure. Further proposed for the entire residence will be shutters and new windows in various locations to provide additional interest and fenestration to the building. II. BACKGROUND The staff had researched projects in which similar site coverage variance requests were made, and has summarized them below: Ricci Residence. 2576 Davos Trail Februacy, 1995: At the Ricci Residence, the applicant requested a site coverage variance for 4.7% (526.5 sq. ft. of additional site coverage). The applicant proposed to use the additional site coverage to create an enlarged 2 -ear garage, as well as add a small amount of additional GRFA to the existing residence. The PEC approved the applicant's site coverage variance request. Fo\everyone\per_\memcs\hout.5ma_814 DeanlRousch Residence 2942 Bellflower (July 1993: At the DeanlRousch residence, the applicants requested a 3.56% site coverage variance (287 square feet), a setback variance (4 feet into a 20 -foot setback), and a wall height variance. The request for site coverage and wail height variances were approved by the PEC, but the setback variance for GRFA was denied. It should be noted that the staff recommended denial of the variances, but the PEC approved it. The interior dimensions of the garage were 22.5 by 22.5 feet, and the area of the garage calculated for site coverage was 576 square feet. Taylor Residence, 2409 Chamonix Road LMaY 1993}: At the Taylor residence, the applicant requested and was granted a site coverage variance for 1.3% (122 square feet) in order to construct a garage and building connection on the property, li should be noted that the allowed site coverage on this lot is 20% (not 15%), and the applicant was also granted a variance to construct the garage in the front setback (the slope on this lot did not exceed 30%). The approved interior dimensions of the two -car garage were 21 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area of 420 square feet. The garage contributed 462 square feet toward site coverage. Mumma Residence, 1886 West Gore Creek Drive (February 1993): At the Mumma residence, the applicant requested and was granted a 1% site coverage variance in order to construct a garage addition on a lot that exceeds 30% slope. The 1 % overage on site coverage amounted to approximately 99 square feet. The interior dimensions of the approved garage measure 20 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area of 400 square feet. The garage contributed 442 square feet toward site coverage. Smail Residence. 4238 Nu et Lane (September 1992): At the Smail residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setback variances in order to construct a garage and GRFA addition. The interior dimensions of the approved garage measure 22 feet 8 -inches by 22 feet 3 -inches (504 square feet). Please note that a site coverage variance was not necessary as a ,part of this request. Testwuide Residence 898 Red Sandstone Circle (August 123a2: At the Testwuide residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setback variances in order to construct a garage addition to the existing residence. The approved garage had interior dimensions of 21.5 feet by 24 feet, with a total interior area of 516 square feet. Please nate that a site coverage variance was not necessary as part of this request. • F:',everyone\t)ec\memcs\hout5ma.814 2 Ili. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 10,977 square feet Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Allowed Proposed GRFA: 3,594 sq. ft. 2,421 sq.ft. Setbacks- Front: 20' Front: 1.5 Sides: 15'115' Sides: 15', 35' Rear: 15' Rear: 58' Site Coverage: 15% or 1,646 sq. ft- 16.6% or 1,829 sq. ft Landscaping: 60% or 6,582 sq. ft. 77% or 8,437 sq. ft. Retaining Wall Heights: 6 feet (max.) 4 feet Parking: 4 spaces required 4 spaces proposed IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS • Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested site coverage variance based on the following factors-.- A, actors: A, Consideration of Factors: 1, The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed addition will be compatible with the surrounding development. The additional mass and bulk associated with this proposal is similar in scale to the mass and bulk of surrounding homes in the area. The applicants are proposing to locate the garage 1.5 feet off of the front property line. The proposed location will result in a distance of 11 feet from the edge of the asphalt . Public Works has acknowledged that foundation plantings are possible in the right-of-way. Staff would like to point out that the applicant is proposing to provide substantial upgrades to the existing property which, in Staff's opinion, result in a structure that is quite compatible to the existing structures in the area, 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 grant of special privilege. Staff has traditionally supported site coverage variance requests when F:\everyone\aec\memos\hout5ma.9_4 3 associated with the construction of enclosed parking. Staff believes that it is beneficial to the community to allow individuals to construct garages, as it typically improves the appearance of the site and the surrounding area as a whole. In this case, the applicant will be eliminating 2 exterior parking spaces with the construction of the new 2 -car garage. Staff has worked with the applicant and the architect to minimize the amount of the variance needed to construct the proposed garage (495 sq. ft.). In the past, Staff has requested that each variance request be for the minimum amount of site coverage necessary in order to attain the desires of the applicant. Staff believes that the relief from a strict interpretation and enforcement of the site coverage regulation is reasonable in this instance. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal, if constructed, on the above referenced criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 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: 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. 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this variance. It is Staffs belief that the applicant has met the criteria and findings A, 1, 2 and 3 and that findings B1, B2 and B3, a,b and c have been met_ Specifically, it is Staff's opinion that finding B 3b has been met in that the area in which the applicant is proposing the new construction will not take place on those areas of the site that currently exist at greater than 30% slope. The intent of restricting the site coverage on this property to 15% is to reduce the amount of site disturbance generally associated with _..everyone\pec\memos\houosma.El,4 4 i construction on steep lots. As the applicant is proposing to limit all new construction to that area 7I which has already been disturbed due to the original construction, the intent of restricting site coverage, and therefore I'imiting site disturbance, has been met by the applicant. Additionally, it is Staffs belief that findings B1 and B2 have been met in that the applicant's proposed 495 sq. ft. garage is considerably less than the 1200 sq. ft. garage credit allowed for a residence on a Primary/Secondary zoned lot. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the applicant's site coverage variance request, Staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: • 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall submit and record a Type I Employee Housing Unit deed restriction on the property to allow for the expansion of the existing residence. 2. That the applicant survey in the location of the garage foundation and roof eave line prior to construction, to ensure that no improvements are constructed off-site. 3. That the applicant receive a revocable right-of-way permit for the landscaping in the right-of-way, prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. That the applicant replace all transplanted landscaping which fails to survive two growing seasons, with neve landscape material of similar size and quality. .:\everyone\PF=\memo=lhautsma.814 5 ;ZCv •.. _.�.. QQt'1fQ703'311'A-• ;w' �� {`L � � � 1'I� � td � �.'S n ��,• 5�," F-' 7 . _ �3Af8Q ;F338J 3NQ9 ilf P9P1. si [l � i � f i � � q; L 1 • I � +fa 'r.. �—• :3JN3BIS3Y Yl[Sl!?QN f s��L+�'�li�t !I��I! ' 4 r•.. ' v • I LCL uo at 124 Neu ,,,v. 4. N r ti IL a �s a 7 p uz o 00 qqa W iW°u°occtcQ?!f —0 qtzz IN z B - � F � —�r a 7 Al x N 'q C.1 ° .-7 -• ad J 5 5 7 n+a -.� j Cs d �,h e1yh ..F�r r rt: k I' x N 'q C.1 ° .-7 -• ad J 5 5 7 n+a -.� j Cs d �,h e1yh ..F�r r rt: k I' ..F�r r rt: k I' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 14, 1995 0 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Bob Armour Dalton Williams Susan Connelly Henry Pratt Mike Mollica Jeff Bowen Andy Knudtsen Greg Moffet Randy Stouder Kevin Deighan George Ruther Greg Amsden Russell Forrest Judy Rodriguez Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Bob Armour at 2:05 p.m. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for additions to the existing residence located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 47, Vail Village West Filing #1. Applicant: John and Bobbi Ann Houtsma Planner:. George Ruther George Ruther gave a description of the request and explained that it was on the DRB agenda for 8/16/95. He stated that Staff was recommending approval of the request with four conditions. The applicant, Bobbi Ann Houtsma stated that this was the only design they could come up with for a new garage. Bob Armour reiterated that the landscaping along the road needed_ to be maintained by the applicant. Kevin Deighan had no concerns with the request. Greg Moffet agreed with George Ruther as far as the applicant meeting the criteria and findings. Greg Amsden had no problem with the request. Henry Pratt had no problem with the request. Jeff Bowen commended the applicant for creating employee housing, while improving the residence. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 14, 19°5 1 0 Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the request for a site coverage variance with the conditions as stated in the Staff memo. = The motion was seconded by Greg Moffet. All voted unanimously in favor, with a vote of 6-0. 2. A request for a Conditional Use Permit t4 aIlow the Vail Valley Medical Center to park a mobile catheter lab/trailer, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E& F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Dan Feeney Planner: Randy Stouder Jeff Bowen stated he would not step down regarding this request. Randy Stouder gave an overview of the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Staff has recommended approval with conditions, since the applicant has met the CUP criteria. The Staff felt the landscaping condition was important, as well as revisiting the approval after one year. Landscaping Option A calls for six large evergreens to be placed on the north side of the lab. Option B revised the proposal by suggesting a mixture of trees, perhaps smaller in size with an increased quantity providing a wider belt of landscape screening. Dan Feeney had comments on the Staff s conditions. To have the lab gone by 4pm might be hard to comply with, since a heavy patient load might cause a delay. A heavy patient load could lead to bringing the lab back a second time. Bob Armour asked if the lab would be brought in more than once per month. Dan Feeney stated yes; but no more than three times per month total. Dan Feeney said an exception must be made for running the generator during a power outage for patient safety. Bob Armour stated that the one year re-evaluation would be a review of how smoothly the operation was going, Randy Stouder, likewise, stated that this re-evaluation was to review operational procedures and would not be used to revoke the CUP unless major problems arose. Henry Pratt said that the purpose of the one year term was not to revoke the CUP, but would be a chance to fine tune the agreement; i.e, to change operating hours or respond to complaints. Ray McMahan was uneasy with the one year re-evaluation and wanted assurance that the term would be at least three to five years. Greg Moffet said perhaps the condition could be reworded. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August14,1995 2 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 28, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12-21-14E(2), Restrictions In Specific Zones On Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of driveways and surface parking in excess of 10% of the total site area, located at 2388 Garmisch Drive/Loft 9, Block G, Vail Das Schone 2nd Filing. Applicant: Snow Now, LLC, represented by John G. Martin Planner: Bill Gibson I. SUMMARY The applicant, Snow Now, LLC, represented by John G. Martin, is requesting a variance from Section 12-21-14E(2), Restrictions In Specific Zones On Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of driveways and surface parking in excess of 10% of the total site area, located at 2388 Garmisch Drive (see Attachment B). Based upon Staffs review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented,. the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request subject to the findings noted in Section IX of this memorandum. IL DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing to construct a new primary/secondary residence at 2388 Garmisch Drive. The property has steep existing grades and is currently undeveloped. An existing driveway on the site currently provides access to the adjoining properties located both to the west and east of this site (i.e. lots Lot 8 and 10, Block G, Vail Das Schone 2nd a=iling). The existing driveway is 5,635 sq. ft. in area (26% of the lot area). The adjoining Lots 8 and 10 were both developed under Eagle County jurisdiction, later annexed into the Town of Vail, and are currently legally non -conforming in regard to many of Vail's development standards. The existing driveway was constructed without formal easement agreements granting the adjoining properties access through this site. The applicant is proposing to make improvements to the existing driveway to bring the driveway into conformance with Town of Vail engineering standards. The applicant is also proposing to grant easements to the adjoining Lots 8 and 10 for access through Lot 9. The applicant is also proposing to construct a new primary/secondary residence on this site and provide a total of three new surface parking spaces. The total area of the proposed driveway and the new surface parking spaces is 6,486 sq. fit. (30% of the total site area). Architectural plans of the applicant's proposal have been attached for reference (see Attachment D). This site has existing grades in excess of 30% and is therefore subject to the provisions of Section 12-21-14 (RESTRICTIONS IN SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE SLOPES), Vail Town Code. Section 12-21-14, Vail Town Code, requires that (in part): Not more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area may be covered by driveways and surface parking. Section 12-21-14, Vail Town Code, limits the amount of driveway and parking area on this site to 2,149 sq. ft. (10%). The existing driveway providing access to Lots 8 and 10 is 5,635 sq. ft. in area (26% of the total site area). Therefore, even though Lot 9 is currently undeveloped, it is non -conforming in regard to the driveway and surface parking area requirements of Section 12-21-14, Vail Town Code. The applicant is proposing to increase the non -conformity of this site by making improvements to the existing driveway and constructing three new surface parking spaces for a total area of 6,486 sq. ft. (30% of the total site area). A copy of the applicant's letter of request has been attached for reference (see Attachment C). III. BACKGROUND The applicant's proposal to construct a new primarylsecondary residence at 2388 Garmisch Drive was conceptually reviewed by the Town of Vail Design Review Board at its July 16, 2003, public hearing. The proposal is currently scheduled for final review by the Design Review Board at its August 6, 2003, public hearing. At its July 16, 2003, conceptual review of this proposal the Design Review Board stated no objection to the proposed driveway or parking areas. The Board's only recommendation to the applicant concerning the driveway design was to increase the amount of proposed landscape plantings to improve the appearance of the hillside and to screen the driveway and associated retaining walls. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for acceptability of use and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/denial/approval with conditions of conditional use permits and variances. 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. 0 2 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. Conformance with development standards of zone district Lot area Setbacks Building Height Density GRFA Site coverage Landscape area Parking and loading Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority on a conditional use permit or variance, 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 overtum 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 40 findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. W V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS 0 Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Chapter 12-6D: Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District (in part) 12-6D-1: PURPOSE: The two-family primaryfsecondary 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. Chapter 12-17: Variances (in part) 12-17-1: Purpose: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such is 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, 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. Chapter 12-21: Hazard Regulations (in part) 12-21-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this Chapter is to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of flood plains, avalanche paths, 49 steep slopes and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land 4 areas which may be subject to flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geological sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. 12-21-14: RESTRICTIONS IN SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE SCOPES: The following additional special restrictions or requirements shall apply to development on any lot in a hillside residential, single-family residential, two-family residential or two-family primarylsecondary residential zone district where the average slope of the site beneath the existing or proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty percent (30°x):... E. Site coverage as it pertains to this chapter, as permitted by sections 12-6A-9, 12-6B-9, 12-6C-9 and 12-6D-9 of this title, is amended as follows: 1. Not more than fifteen percent (15f) of the site area may be covered by buildings, except in conjunction with a type I employee housing unit in accordance with chapter 13 of this title, in which case not more than twenty percent (200) of the site area may be covered by buildings; and 2. Not more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area may be covered by driveways and surface parking. V1. SiTE ANALYSIS Lot Area: 21,492 sq. ft. (0.49 acres) Zoning: Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PIS) Land Use Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Current Land Use: Undeveloped Dement Standard Allowed/Required Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. >20 ft. Sides: 15 ft. 115 ft. >15 ft. I >15 ft. Rear: 15 ft. >15 ft. Building Height: max. 33 ft. (slope)/30 ft.(flat) X33 ft. Density: 2 units + 1 Type II EHU 2 units GRFA: 5,249 sq.ft. 4,637 sq.ft. 5 Site Coverage: Landscape Area: Parking: Primary Unit Secondary Unit 3,223 sq.ft. (15%) 12,896 sq.ft. (60%) 3 spaces 3 spaces Vill. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING 3,035 sq.ft. (14%) 13,000 sq.ft. (60%) 4 spaces (2 surface) 3 spaces (1 surface) Land Use Zoning North: Low -Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary South: Low -Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary East: Medium -Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary West: Medium -Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Vlll. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed driveway and parking areas will accommodate vehicular access and parking for this site and provide access to Lots 8 and 10. Staff believes that the proposed driveway and parking areas are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and that the applicant's proposed improvements to the existing driveway will be beneficial to the existing and potential uses and structures on the adjoining Lots 8 and 10. Additionally, Staff believes that maintaining access to Lots 8, 9, and 10 through the existing, common driveway will create less site disturbance than requiring each property to construct a separate driveway connection to Garmisch Drive. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff does not believe that the topography of the site constitutes an extraordinary circumstance or exceptional condition. Other properties in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PIS) District with similar topographic conditions have been successfully developed without variances. Staff does believe the presence of the existing driveway on this site that provides access to two adjoining properties is an extraordinary circumstance and exceptional condition. Staff also believes the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the me • C: • zoning regulations necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity among sites in the vicinity and within the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PIS) District. Therefore, Staff does not believe this proposal will constitute a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes that this variance will facilitate the applicant's proposed improvements to the existing driveway that will improve both traffic flow and public safety on Lots 8, 9, and 10 and on Garmisch Drive. Staff does not believe that the proposed variance will have a significant negative impact on light and air, distribution of population, public facilities, and utilities. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. 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. 7 IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 0 The Community Development Department recommends approval of a variance from Section 12-21-14E(2), Restrictions In Specific Zones On Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of driveways and surface parking in excess of 10% of the total site area, located at 2388 Garmisch Drive/Lot 9, Block G, Vail Das Schone 2nd Filing. Staffs 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: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a granting 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, 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. 4. 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. 0 X. ATTACHMENTS A. Public Hearing Notice B. Vicinity Map C. Applicant's Letter of Request D. Architectural Plans 0 • - if � # lf�•. ✓ � } . SII _ J 1 ( - * Y d 44 Nv-fir' 4. Or ✓ �� s S - a 1-.? r'i�• � � ^tet . . - - A • �- THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE Attachment: A 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 28, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations Or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a lobby and elevator addition to the Lodge Tower South Condominiums, located at 164 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B. & C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Lodge Tower South Condominium Association, represented by Stan Cope Planner: George Ruther A request for a variance from Section 12-21-14E(2), Restrictions In Specific Zones On Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of drive ways and surface parking in excess of 10% of the total site area, located at 2388 Garmisch Drive/Lot 9, Block G, Vail Das Schone 2"d Filing. Applicant: Snow Now, LLC, represented by John G. Martin Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, and 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential and garage 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 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 July 11, 2003. 1 .�J 4YAIL7VWN 4F 0 • r-1 L --.A A g C.n x M -I 1-1 m �t- ei 0 �.f N — ?S. Su w�. eq 4 3 eVCD a on ,Z h N Q In to do tv N WIT N �{ N N N a 40 � N 01 V N in N r. Ncv N N¢ ei M ti w o► � +n en en r V n ?it CY In a N tinonpa �v 44 in f� N N n tp�d wl N m rY i � � �} _. �] N -- in C%l N 'd N h en N V r• OD r r- Ky N r in it U Q O O O O O O O O 6 O O O O O O O O N m N O O O O O O O C7 O m m V rte, # co m LL C) P O Q O O O O O O O OO O # N N N N N N N N N N M (O N N N N N } m m m m IX Il OC LL' CC CG Ci � w' Q' [] ❑ ❑ � LY fY CC 0 O ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ w CC CC ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cn Cn T Cn cn Ul m cn UQ Cn 0 O O cUn w w 4 tL Of D� x CC x = C� q� D 4 4 Q CC w CY C� Q Q Q Q Q Q < Q Q Q 2 S 2 Q Q Q 4 �" C7 t7 C} K9 C7 C7 C7 C7 (9 C� U U U C7 V' C7 (cJ w w w m w m w w w m rn m n r- r r• N N N N r- n r- r- C M (O CD CL N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NM N N N N N N w w w w w w w Z 4 J d Q d¢ J Q� u U V u U v U U3 rn Ua to cn cn cn U V U (=3 U U U U Q Q Q d w w w w ww w w w w w ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ M CL CL CL w M (L CL CL J J J J J J J Un 4 Q¢ d Q d a a> O Z c:, i7 m 0 J F LU Y Occ U) ❑ Q m W Q 2 to J Z LL)� _ O ❑ LU W m Ld O -6 Q Q Q 0- Z Z fl 0 -i O ❑ a ' Q ❑ CC 0 a Z E T< L OW27 Z z z d 1 0 ff O❑ p LU 1 U W J Z J 0 of x Q' Cn z¢ ¢ d m U US Ln c6 w w w (o U) va :if it: Lli W w w w w w w-jz F- CG G3 w H w Z U O © O Q w fl U N Q ZZ iL' LqC fl U U o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O N m 1l - M M N N N C'J N N cNp N � MPI- LO'1 � '�' n LO CD (4 ti m a0C) p 0 Uw" O 4_7 d; ;z rn 3 r(- w M M Cl) co 'o M M O 0) 0) � W fes- r- N M M M M M M M 00 C3 X C0 X W Of W s0Y W � � � � T � W W m 0 0 0 N 3 C) O ,7 • t 11111k 111111111,111111111 WIRECKI, THEODORE S., MD PC qUTIREMENT PLAN 140 ALBION ST NVER, CO 80220 I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II JONES, RONALD A. 2428 GARMISCH DR APT 2 VAIL, CO 81657 111111111111111.111111111 HALLER, ULRICH PETER PO BOX 3502 VAIL, CO 81658 I IIIIf1111l11111111111111 HINE, WILLIAM J. & JANET M. 2418 GARMISCH DR 1 VAIL, CO 81657 1111111111111111111111111 JONES, RONALD A 2428 GARMISCH DR APT 2 VAIL, CO 81657 I I I I 11111111111111 I I II I II BENNETT, PHILIP - YARE, MARK 2121 N FRONTAGE RD 181 VAIL, CO 81657 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111111111111 -JT SOLEM, SUSAN M. PO BOX 2621 VAIL, CO 81658 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II JONES, RONALD A. 2428 GARMISCH DR APT 2 VAIL, CO 81657 IIIIIII111111111i111i1111 SURIDIS, ALAN J. 25 LANARK RD YONKERS, NY 10705 1111111111111 f 11111111111 1111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111 t BROTEN, NORMAN H. & CHARLOTTE. SCHWARTZ, DAVID B. & ABBY S. - OZERSKY, DAVID % NORMAN H. BROTEN 810 4 -AVENUE FRIEDMAN, STEWART & HINDI 668 FL. 124 QUARTERDECK MALL JAMESTOWN, ND 58401 CINCINNATI, OH 45215 MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111111 I 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II SANDS, PAUL, RICHARD D. & LANES, ANDREW & CAROL A. -J WIRTH, G. HUDSON MARGARITA S. -JT 2369 C: 1153 DETROIT ST 3540 MERLE LN 4r, CO 81657 DENVER, CO 80206 NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I II MILLER, RICHARD D. 1400 CORAL WY MIAMI, FL 33145 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EARLE, JAMES H. & DEBERAH J. 2407 GARMISCH DR VAIL, CO 81657 Attachment: C Snownow LLC 500 S. Frontage Road East, Suite 112 Vail, Colorado 81657 July 9, 2003 Town of Vail Community Development C/o Bill Gibson 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO. 81657 RE: Request for Variance — Section 12-21-14 Planning and Environmental Commission 2388 Garmisch Drive (Lot 9, Vail Das Schone Filing 2) Dear Bill: Attached is an application for review of the above referenced variance by the Planning and Environmental Commission on July 28, 2003. The properties to the east and west of the subject property were constructed in the early 1970's when West Vail was part of Eagle County. A driveway was originally built to service a fourplex at 2418 Garmisch Drive (Building 1, Alpen Chalets). Later, a duplex was constructed at 2398 Garmisch Drive (Alpen Chalet duplex) and another fourplex was built at 2378 Garmisch Drive (Building 2, Alpen Chalets). The owners of 2378 Garmisch Drive used a roughed -in road grade, without any formal easement, to access their fourplex. Although the owners of these adjacent properties have been crossing the subject property without any recorded easements, such access has been contested by previous owners of the subject property. The driveways have been in existence for approximately thirty years. The area covered by the pre-existing driveways on the subject property is approximately 5,635 square feel, The applicant is proposing a duplex structure on the lower half of the site that will utilize the existing driveways and preserve physical access to adjacent properties. The applicant will be bringing the existing driveway up to current development standards with regard to slope and width, thus the request for the additional site coverage total of 6,486 sq.ft. The applicant will also be recording a formal easement, to be executed by all property owners of Buildings 1 and 2, Alpen Chalets, the Alpen Chalet duplex and the subject property addressing the use and maintenance of the existing and modified driveways. Reason For Variance Pursuant to Section 12-21-14 of the Town of Vail Code, the maximum driveway area permitted on this site shall not exceed 10% of the lot size , or 2,149 sq.fl. The applicant proposes to use the Voice: (970)-476-8610 A Colorado Limited UaWity Company Fax: (970)-476-8637 existing driveways on the site, but current development standards require slope modifications, turn radius modifications and widening (per Public Works and Fire Department). The variance is required as a strict or literal interpretation of the specific regulation would result in a physical hardship and practical difficulties for adjacent property owners in that access for fire protection would be dramatically effected if the applicant constructed a duplex on the upper half of the site and eliminated the eastern half of the existing driveways. Criteria For Granting Variance The granting of the requested variance will enhance existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity by providing better fire protection, legal access and a driveway that conforms to current development standards (including pavement and drainage). Adjacent property owners use the effected driveway areas on a daily basis, thus the overall positive effects associated with this variance will be substantial. The granting of the requested variance will not be a grant of special privilege as the existing driveway surface is a pre-existing condition and the applicant is only requesting the amount of site coverage necessary to accommodate current day development standards, which will make the driveway compatible and uniform to other properties in the vicinity. The granting of the requested variance will have little or no effect on the light and air, distribution of population or utilities. The granting of the requested variance will improve vehicular circulation and dramatically improve fire protection and public safety for the property owners utilizing the driveway under consideration. The granting of the requested variance will specifically comply with adopted Town of Vail planning policies and development objectives. If you have any questions concerning this requested variance, don't hesitate to contact me at (970)-476-861(}.1 believe the proposed development of 2388 Garmisch Drive will help solve numerous access and fire department issues that have been outstanding and unresolved for the past three decades. Sincerely, mm f - 1WsW{ Attachment: D t ��li ztS i Y X5 I Ell I I i t ��li ztS i Y X5 • LTV Roe Ri�7 suo!!ul) D �6 sod A°�aPf�ll�'l�a�'°rali r3grmg, 1 ww F Fz ��•. lit, aR F% UY LIL IN :l t ESE — { 4i I�;c:O4 IRArri 1Q S Q I I z -+ — Ki not uj a r a J ' M p OOHIP Y' r s` o JU'°•Q ���'4 � 'tea i � I� • � � '�� r� y . s 0 f 1;in 9 NJ jo mm T R le - 0 f • am -M-AW." lam"a -liU 9'wgM'FA-JG 4WAft Mg 6�►a��a� Zed Mau f7 LL 9 w IL 9L moa ;risw1p"is of � lki i i men ,�„ tnoturrt �t �e�t Y-�fff�o4 ibN waI�At*MR16w s ® IRM ed �-?&a-aa, A.CC F-.4 XPi C1Q • -- 7nI/J0 tin.swy n�-aa �ili1B{ � �4RYlL Mumma 4- J vv :94 '"AWN 9v J29mmN palis � t t t t 0 I • • auau `dPl`+Q�Jw p °O°iF � 4a 4J X8'6 )1 .u�.e.w y'k'telff �I IdRSYIY 6 w ►a lSHEFI .4 16�l0ir Qp1 a7 Mam" auolf+ay RPM- y�tl O ,ny - ,�•� ,rc Z 0 w+a -M 1 ire w m. °PTF IRL'A9 Jam! —�— Z op[ i D4)s PeQ LnA `'JMKtft X18 `6 AM LV woo°9nPT a �aa+ar .I •.. .I ;fJI .Fb LL Yi 4 • n 0 owe —1 °.ate �nrurrt1� 6Q �dDl 9v 0 *^ / / ' / / ' ^ 0 *^ / | � ! / 0 "MOD FqAwj ma IRV&ffi KOH Atog ov . P2pFLw-ww*9uwf • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 28, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations Or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a lobby and elevator addition to the Lodge Tower South Condominiums, located at 164 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing . Applicant: Lodge Tower South Condominium Association, represented by Stan Cope Planner: George Ruther SUMMARY The applicant, Lodge Tower South Condominium Association, represented by Stan Cope, has requested a worksession with the Planning & Environmental Commission to discuss a proposed major exterior alteration to the Lodge Tower South Condominiums, located at 164 Gore Creek Drive. As this is a worksession, the applicant is not requesting a formal decision. Instead, the applicant is requesting that the Commission listens to a brief presentation on the applicant's conceptual plans and provides any input the Commission may have at this time. A more formal application will be submitted at a future date. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Lodge Tower South Condominium Association, represented by Stan Cope, has requested a worksession with the Planning & Environmental Commission to discuss a proposed major exterior alteration to the Lodge Tower South Condominiums, located at 164 Gore Creek Drive. As this is a worksession, the applicant is not requesting a formal decision. Instead, the applicant is requesting that the Commission listens to a brief presentation on the applicant's conceptual plans and provides any input the Commission may have at this time. A more formal application will be submitted at a future date. The purpose of this worksession is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present conceptual plans for a major exterior alteration to the Lodge Tower South Condominiums. An application was submitted at this time to allow the applicant, staff, adjacent property owner (Vail Resorts), and the Commission an opportunity to consider the applicant's proposal in light of the development applications Vail Resorts Development Company has submitted for development on the adjoining land to south of the Lodge Tower. Both staff and the applicant see this as an opportunity to consider both development application (Vail Resort Development Company and Lodge Tower South Condominium Association) simultaneously in an effort to prevent or identify any potential conflicts between the two projects. The key elements of the applicant's proposal include: • A new lobby addition • A new below grade owner storage locker area • A new elevator and stair tower • A new loading and delivery facility on the west end of the building • A new means of access into the underground parking structure • A new office, administration and common area A reduced copy of the proposed conceptual plans have been attached for reference (attachment A) A vicinity map illustrating the location of the development site has been attached for reference (attachment B) Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession, the Community Development Department will not be making a recommendation at this time.. Staff will, however, provide a formal recommendation with proposed conditions at the time of final review. IV. ATTACHMENTS 9 A. A Deduced Copy of the Proposed Conceptual Plans B. A Vicinity Map • 2 I' - L -1 ilii 1y o ^ a ]' ��•9�$q�p�� y�E ��b b ¢�c� �! �1 i i�t # � � `3 ?� a ■ v f d 5 sPIP A � � wn ey � ead ag 11ZRIP. bg���agrglgil1 11gIto ��; ■ e .a • � s e f. t' 'RS -S ATTACHMENT B agolet,s cn 04 Y 1 ° ■� Asn dL Y _ .-. * 7 ori F'b � ct� 7 •',f' p, LLJ f 44 � =► - :�- �-" • � �� q r ' � � �, ,ice � �� _ . ,� ,-kms " 'F .,{.;i`3 `_ �:i ;. ^�q��q•16"�'f'4��'' � �roza� fig. rtYfM �_� ~ ' 1 - !•lf -.F / +Cyd{ �ai•�2 �y 4 w � - ��• �� .�may+ r �s �; .�>J. �i` 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 28, 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 5th Filing from Public Accommodation zone district (PA) to Parking zone district (P); a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the proposed zoning of an unplatted parcel of land commonly referred to as the "trade parcel" and Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation II zone district; a request for a minor subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Code of a proposed major subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the "trade parcel"; a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a "private off-street vehicle parking facility and public park" to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing; a request for an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Val 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 SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Jay Peterson, has requested a fourth worksession with the Planning & Environmental Commission to discuss Vail's Front Door project. The applicant and staff are asking the Commission to listen to a presentation of the proposed loading and delivery management plan, the findings of the required traffic report, and the response to the numerous questions raised at the July 14th worksession meeting of the Planning & Environmental Commission. Upon completion of the presentation, staff is requesting that the Commission engages 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. II. 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 Front 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 applicant and staff are asking the Commission to listen to a presentation on the proposed Vail Village Loading and Delivery 5 -Year Management Plan, the findings of the Vail's Front Door Traffic Study, the conclusions of the VaH's Front Door Environmental Impact Report (FIR), and the responses to the numerous questions raised at the July 14 worksession meeting of the Planning & Environmental Commission, as outlined in the written letter from Braun Associates, Inc., dated July 28, 2003. 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 voted 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 Commission held a worksession to discussed the proposed plans for improvements to Lots P3 and J, Block 5A, Vail Village 51h Filing (Vail Park). i 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. 2 On June 9, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to continue discussions on the proposed plans for improvements to Lots P3 and J, Block 5A, Vail Village 51h Filing (Vail Park). The Commission 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 Front 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. On July 14, 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 Front 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 28, 2003 worksession meeting. The more significant issues raised by the Commission and public were questions regarding traffic impacts, loading and delivery operations and management, and the summer and winter programming of the Vista Bahn ski yard. 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 0 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 0 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 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 4 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 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 i 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 5 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 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 12-8E-3: CONDITIONAL USES: 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: 0 6 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. 12-8E-5: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: 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 -8E-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 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. 7 B. Application 0 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 shall 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. C. Contents 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 is - 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 8 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 development plan application. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or 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, bulls, 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, I 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 on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 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/Recreat on 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'. 10 0 12-8E-13: DENSITY CONTROL (DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE/GRFA): 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: In the Ski Base/Recreation 2 District, landscaping requirements shall be as indicated on the approved development plan. 12-8E-16: PARKING/LOADING PLAN 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 redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off-site impacts. 12-8E-18: AMENDMENT PROCEDURES Minor Amendments: 1. Minor amendments are modifications to building plans, site or landscape 2. Ell 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 (5) 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, common areas and other nonresidential floor area. 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. 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 (29) days from the date of the staff's decision on the requested amendment. 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. Major Amendments: 12 • U 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 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. B. Approval Voided: 13 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 Pursuant to Section 12-8E-17, Mitigation of Development Impacts, Ski Base Recreation II zone district, Vail Town Code, "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 0 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 tracVbank improvements, public art improvements, parking, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large-scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off-site impacts." The applicant has proposed a number of various public improvements to mitigate the possible impacts of the new ski base area development. Those improvements include deed -restricted -employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, a central loading and delivery facility to service the southerly portion of Vail Village, streetscape improvements, and public art improvements. The staff has requested a final mitigation of development impacts improvement plan. 0 14 a • Are there any additional improvements that the Commission finds necessary to directly mitigate the impacts of the ski base area development? Based upon the information contained in the environmental impact report, is there additional information necessary in order for the Commission to evaluate the impacts of the proposed project? If so, what additional information is needed? The Director of public Works has determined the preferred traffic circulation patterns. What input, if any, does the Commission have on the proposed pattern of traffic flow? The applicant has revised the site plan and enlarged the area of the Vista Bahn ski yard. Do the revised improvements address the concerns of the Commission? What additional changes may be required? Is there any additional information the Commission needs to evaluate the proposed ski yard improvements and functions? Staff has forwarded a list describing additional information needed and correction required to the plans. What additional information does the Commission require as the evaluation of the development application continues? VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession, the Community Development Department will not be making a recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a formal recommendation with proposed conditions at the time of final review. Staff is anticipating a request for a final review by the applicant at the August 11, 2003, meeting of the Planning & Environmental Commission. VII. ATTACHMENTS A. Vail's Front Door Traffic Study, dated July, 2003 B. Vail Village Loading & Delivery 5 -Year Management Plan, July 22, 2003 C. Vail's Front Door Environmental Impact Report (EIR) D. Letter from Braun Associates, Inc. dated July 28,2003 E. Letter to Tom Braun and Jay Peterson, dated July 21, 2003 15 Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Dail, Colorado 811557 970-479-2138 FAX970-479-2452 www.ci.vail.co.us July 21, 2003 Torn Braun Edwards Village Center, Suite C-209 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard P.O. Box 2658 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Jay Peterson Bailey & Peterson 108 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Vail's Front Door Project I* Dear Tom and Jay, The Town of Vail Community Development Department has completed a preliminary review of the proposed plans that have been submitted by your office on behalf of the Vail Resort Development Company. The purpose of my letter is to provide you with a list of issues or questions that must be addressed prior to final review of the proposed application for the development of Vail's Front Door project. Please address the following issue or questions: o Please submit an updated adjacent property owner list. The current list is now nearly eight months old. o Please submit an illustration indicating the impacts of the proposed development on View Corridor ##2, as defined in the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. o Please submit a traffic report indicating the potential impacts of additional vehicle and truck trips to the development site. The report shall include traffic trips from all points along Vail Road from the Main Vail Roundabout to the development site. o Please review the proposed plans and reconcile the information on the plans sheets. As the plans currently exist, there is conflicting information on the various sheets of plans (ie, grading) o Please submit a retaining wall detail for the Forest Service access road on the east side of the underground structure. o Please indicate the proposed sight distance triangle for each intersection and driveway affected by the development proposal. The sight distance standards can be located in the Town of Vail Development Standards Handbook. o Please increase the right turn out turning radius from the underground structure to accommodate the turning radius of a 65 -foot semi tractor and trailer. o Please amend the appropriate plans to indicate the proposed location of the bike/pedestrian path through the development site. I W RECYCLEDPAPER o Please label and quantify the proposed parking spaces on the parking level pians to indicate valet, compact, or standard spaces. o The grading plans and all other appropriate plans shall include all top -of -wall (tow) and bottom of wall (bow) elevations. o Please indicate on the appropriate plan sheets all match -lines for off-site and street improvements. o Please review the proposed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and amend as necessary to address all revisions to the proposal to date and submit 12 amended copies to the Town of Community Development Department o Please revise the proposed plans to indicate a reduction in the number of steps and the slope of the sidewalk grade along the existing walk from Founder's Plaza to north to Gore Creek Drive_ o Please review the proposed plans to verify the need for retaining walls on the west side of Vail Road near the southeast corner of the Riva Ridge South property corner, at the existing evergreen trees. o The Town of Vail has requested the dedication of Private Ship Park to the Town of Vail as part of the proposed annexation and major subdivision approval process. Please revise the proposed plans to reflect this exchange of land. o Please submit a revised off site improvements plan. The purpose of the plan is to visually illustrate the off site improvements proposed by the applicant. This document shall be a separate document and not incorporated into any other plan sheet (ie landscape plan) o Please submit a proposed traffic circulation plan. The purpose of this plan is to visually illustrate the turning movements and the flow of all modes of transportation in and around the development. o Please submit a proposed management plan for the operation of the loading and delivery facility in the lower level of the parking structure. A final plan will be required for review and approval of the proposed approved development plan. o Please submit noise level statistics for the ventilation system of the Town of Vail Transportation Center. This information will be used in the evaluation of the proposed underground parking structure ventilation system. o Please amend the proposed plans to indicate a larger Vista Bahn ski yard area. As designed, the area is prone to congestion and overcrowding.. o Per Town of Vail development review application requirements, please stake the proposed building locations, property corners, and centerlines of vehicular access points for the worksession hearing on Monday, July 28, 2003. o Please submit the amended physical model to the Community Development Department by noon on Friday, July 25, 2003. o Please submit a report prepared by a licensed geologic engineer attesting to the slope conditions of the site prior to and proposed post -construction conditions. o Please add a second exit out of the loading and delivery hand truck tunnel onto the ski plaza in the area between the proposed skier services building and One Vail Place, o Please revise the turning radii and entrance gate location tot eh residence club units to ensure adequate fire truck access and maneuverability. o Please revise the turning radii and parking lot configuration of the Lodge at Vail to ensure adequate motor coach bus access and maneuverability. o Please revise the stair configuration at the southeast corner of the ski club building to provide a minimum of a five-foot wide landing at the bottom of the stair and a through sidewalk connection to the stairs leading down to the lower level of the Lodge at Vail. o Please revise the plans to illustrate a change in paving surface materials at all pedestrian crosswalks. The crosswalk paving material shall match the adjacent sidewalk material. If the material of the sidewalk is the same at the roadway or driveway, then a change in paving pattern shall be illustrated instead of a change in material. o Please revise the plans to increase the size of the four exterior parking spaces outside the entrance to the One Vail Place parking garage. The minimum size shall be 9' x 19'. o Please revise the plans to illustrate a relocated bike/pedestrian path along the frontage of the skier services building_ The new path shall connect into the existing path to the east and continue through the development site to the vehicular access road to the ski club building. o Please revise the plans and remove the proposed three sets of stairs located at the southeast corner of the skier services building. Upon removing the proposed stair, the proposed grades shall be revised to provide a maximum slope on the bike/pedestrian path of 5%. o Please revise the plans to provide a minimum distance of 15 feet between the skier services building and outer edge of the bike/pedestrian path. o Please revise the plans to relocate the proposed electrical transformer location from the Vista Bahn Plaza to an alternate location. Upon relocating the transformers, please submit detail architectural drawings illustrating the proposed screening design. o Per Town of Vail submittal requirements, please include a complete legend on the proposed landscape plan. The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale as the site plan(s) and include a detailed legend, listing the type and size of all proposed landscaping, o Please review a Town of Vail Design Review Board application and ensure that all the necessary information, as listed on the application, is included on the proposed plans (ie, site and grading plan, landscape plan, topographic survey, architectural floor plans, architectural elevations, architectural details, lighting plan) o Please review a Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission application for a development plan approval and ensure that all the necessary information, as Iisted on the application, is included on the proposed plans. o Please revise the driveway and garage entrance design for residential unit #6. As designed, the required 20 -foot centerline turning radius can not be achieved. o Please submit a sign application for the proposed comprehensive sign program for the development. The sign program shall include all informational, directional, and advertising signage for the development. o Please revise the plans to illustrate a section of pedestrian sidewalk along the southside of Vail Road between Forest Road and the proposed entrance to the residential units and the ski club building. o Please review the plans, revising where necessary, all proposed site walls and retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height. The only exceptions to this requirement shall be the walls associated with the entrance and exit for the public access road through the underground structure. o Please revise the plans and remove the proposed pedestrian walkway from the private residence east of the Vista Bahn ski yard (Head residence) to the Town of Vail bike/pedestrian path. o Please revise the plans to illustrate a step in the retaining walls at the east entrance/exit of the underground structure. The upper most step in the wall shall be a maximum of six feet in height. You are currently scheduled for a final review of the proposed development of Vail's Front Door project on Monday, August 11, 2003. In order to remain on the agenda for the August 11 ' meeting you will need to submit all of the above-described information to the Town of Vail Community Development Department by no later than Friday, August 1, 2003. Should you have any questions or concerns with regard to the information addressed in this letter, please do not hesitate to call. I can be reached by telephone at (970) 479-2.145. Sincerely, George Ruther, AICP Chief of Planning Town of Vail n PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 25, 2003 Mr. George Ruther Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81632 RE: Val I's Front Door Follow-up from 7/14 PEC Work Session Dear George: As you know, the Planning Commission raised a number of questions and made requests for additional information during their July 14"' discussion of Vail's Front Door. The two main points of discussion pertained to the proposed skier service building and the re- designed ski yard (Vista Bahn Park) and to traffic and loading. The following is brief summary of how these and other issues have been addressed. Ski Yard/Vista Bahn Park The PEC expressed concerns regarding the size of the proposed skier service yard, specifically with respect to the ski yard's ability to accommodate daily winter skier traffic and its ability to host ski races. In response to this concern, Vail Resorts has revisited the program and design of the proposed skier service building. This has resulted in a reduction in the overall size of the building which in turn has created a larger ski yard. The following new exhibits will be presented on the 2.8ffi: ■ Revised main level floor plan of the skier service building ■ Overlay comparison of the floor plan presented on the 14`t' and the new proposal ■ Existing conditions map of the ski yard ■ Overlay of the existing winter -time conditions of the ski yard and the new proposed ski yard ■ Revised illustrative plan of Vista Bahn Park ■ Revised concept diagram of how a ski race can be staged with the proposed design ■ Revised diagrams depicting summer time activities The exhibits will depict a re -design that we believe addresses PEC concerns regarding the size and function of the ski yard. In addition, the exhibits should also address other more specific PEC questions regarding how the proposed design directly compares (i.e. size) to existing conditions. Edwards Village Center, Suite C-209 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Post Office Box 2658 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Ph. - 970.926.7575 Fax - 970.926.7576 www.braunassociates.com Project Model Revisions to the model depicting chanes discussed above have been made. The model will be presented to the PEC on the 28` . Traffic and Loading A traffic analysis was submitted with our January 6 1 submittal_ In response to changes in the plan and to questions raised by staff and PEC, a revised traffic analysis has been prepared. This analysis addresses trip generation from the project, assesses the capacity of the surrounding road system and how new trip generation may affect such roadways, evaluates the loading demands of the Village and assesses the capacity of the Town's central loading and delivery system proposed as an element of the Front Door. The project's traffic consultant will be at Monday's meeting to present the findings of this analysis. The FEC also requested a management xIan for the proposed central loading facility. As discussed at the work session on the 14 , VR has proposed to provide this facility in response to requests by the Town. Once completed, it will be a town facility and as such, the management is most appropriately addressed by the Town. In response to the PEC's request, Greg Hall has prepared a draft management plan for the central loading facility. It is anticipated that Greg will be at the PEC's meeting on the 28`h to discuss this plan. Material provided to the PEG includes:. Revised Traffic Analysis (this report is included as an addendum to the previously submitted EIR for Vail's Front Door, dated 116/03) Draft Management Plan for Central Loading Facility (prepared by town staff) Air Qualily A question was raised regarding the potential impact on air quality firom the proposed central loading facility. The project's environmental consultant has prepared a response to this question. Material provided to the PEC includes: Revised Air Quaility Analysis (this report is included as an addendum to the previously submitted EIR for Vail's Front Door, dated 1/6/03) Town of Vail air quality and noise standards are included in the EIR Geologic Hazards In response to discussion of the proposed variance to 40%, the PEC requested a copy of the geologic hazards assessment of the site. Material provided to the PEC includes: ■ A geologic hazards study is included in Appendix D of the EIR provided to the PEC. A request was also made for a "post -construction" slope analysis of the proposed residences. Time did not allow for the preparation of this exhibit. It will be provided at the next FEC meeting. Public Parkin During discussion of the Front Door is addressing the public parking situation, the PEC requested a copy of the letter from Adam Aron to the town which addressed Vail Resort's commitments to work with the Town toward solving this problem. Material provided to the PEC includes: A copy of the May 15th letter is attached. We look forward to our next work session and the opportunity to present this information to the PEC. Thank you again for your ongoing assistance with this project. Sincerely, Thomas A. Braun CC: Jack Hunn Jay Peterson Robert Fitzgerald U VAIL RESORTS - May 15, 2003 Adam M. Aron Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Vail Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road tel. (470) 845-2326rax Vail, CO 81657 (470) 845-2470 adama@vailresorts_com Dear Council Members: When the Conference Center ballot measure was approved last November, Vail Resorts and the Town immediately set out to resolve the myriad issues that arise whenever a large-scale development transitions from concept to reality. The most difficult of these issues has been reconciling the Conference Center's construction with the shortage of skier and employee parking in Vail. With a multitude of needs for a limited amount of available land, it became apparent the development of the Conference Center and the current parking issues would have to be addressed in a collective and comprehensive fashion. Two areas of agreement are clear from our many discussions with the Town about these matters. First, we agree a Conference Center would energize the lodging and other businesses in Vail, especially during the non -ski seasons. Second, we each believe new skier parking should be provided to reduce Frontage Road parking and improve customer service. Vail Resorts acknowledges that, as owner of the ski resort, it has a responsibility to contribute to the achievement of these mutual goals. After extensive analysis, we have formulated alternative solutions that honor previous commitments to the Town and will further our shared vision for Vail's future. Before we spell out the details of these alternatives, however, a summary of the history behind them is necessary. BACKGROLWD As the Conference Center election campaign was proceeding, Vail Resorts was in the planning stage of its Lionshead redevelopment. Initially, it was contemplated the Conference Center would be located on our North Day Lot and the West Day Lot parking was to be relocated to the combined Holy Cross/Maintenance Yard Site which, for simplicity's sake, we refer to in this Letter as the "Holy Cross Site". Because of the physical constraints of the North Day Lot, it was later decided the Holy Cross Site was a preferable location for the Conference Center. Vail Resorts agreed to convey the Holy Cross Site to the Town subject to several conditions and contingencies including the requirement that an acceptable alternative site was identified for the existing uses on the Holy Cross Site and the West Day Lot. At the Town's request, Vail Resorts documented this commitment in its October 29, 2002 letter to the Town. During this pre- election period, there were discussions that the most efficient method for replacing the West Day Lot and Holy Cross Site parking would be through shared use of the Conference Center's structured parking. Under this shared use, it was our understanding Vail Resorts would have winter daytime access to the majority of the Conference Center's structured parking (winter daytime being the peak demand time for skier and employee parking and a time when few large conferences would be held). 0 Vail Resorts, Inc. - post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 . 137 Benchmark Road Avon, Colorado 81620 VAIL • BEAVER CREEK40 - BRECKENRIDGE • KEYSTONE4GRAND TETON • Vail Town Council May 15. 2003 In November, 2002, the voters approved the Conference Center ballot measure. Since the election, Vail Resorts, both independently and with Town staff, have analyzed and priced numerous different methods to resolve the parking shortage as it will be exacerbated once the Conference Center is operating. We have explored parking solutions at Ford Park (which alone can accommodate almost 700 surface spaces!), the Holy Cross Site, the Lionshead parking structure, Vail Resorts' Mintum storage lot, the Water and Sanitation District building and the Golden Peak rugby field among other sites. In formulating our final alternative resolutions, we have been attentive to cost (surface spaces are far less expensive than structured), traffic impacts, customer convenience and the current political climate. Also critical to any comprehensive parking analysis is quantifying Vail Resorts' employee parking requirements. Vail Resorts presently parks approximately 525 employees in Lionshead during the ski season daytime. These 525 spaces breakdown as follows: Current EmDlovee Parking in Lionshead West Day Lot 175 spaces ` Holy Cross Site 172 spaces North Day Lot 147 spaces Sunbird Lodge 42 spaces Gondola Building 29 spaces TOTAL 525 employee spaces Thus, any effective solution to the parking shortage must accommodate Vail Resorts' 525 ski season employees currently parking in Lionshead. It is our view that there is not a full appreciation for the cost to Vail Resorts of our commitment to contribute the Holy Cross Site for the Conference Center. In addition to donating a piece of land worth millions of dollars, our donation of the Holy Cross Site requires Vail Resorts to spend approximately $5.5 million to relocate our ski operations facilities off of the Holy Cross Site. Furthermore, in giving up our land, we lose the opportunity to relocate to the Holy Cross Site the employee cars currently parking on the West Day Lot and other Lionshead parking areas. It is for this reason that our offer to donate the Holy Cross Site required that Vail Resorts receive winter daytime use of some of the Conference Center spaces. Nevertheless, our commitment to incur all of these considerable expenses reflects our robust support for the Conference Center project. 2 Vail Town Council May 15. 2003 VAIL RESORTS, CURRENT OFFER: Conference Center is built on Holy Cross Site. In return for land, Vail Resorts gets winter daytime use of 300 of the 350 Conference Center spaces for employee parking. As a sweetener to our current offer, Vail Resorts would commit to spend an additional $250,000 to build 100 spaces on its Minturn parcel. Under this scenario, Vail Resorts' employee parking requirements are met as follows: Shared Conference Center spaces 300 spaces North Day Lot (as presently parked) 90 spaces (+ 17 guest spaces) Mintum Parcel 100 spaces Misc. spaces built in proposed Lionshead redevelopment 35 spaces 525 employee spaces New employee spaces created: 400 (3 00 in Conference Center garage, 100 in Minturn) Conference Center Spaces: 50 in winter daytime, 350 all other times New skier spaces created: 0 Cost to Others: $0 Non -budgeted cost to Conference Center: $0 Cost to Vail Resorts: $5.75 million ($5.5M to relocate ski operations from Holy Cross Site plus $250,000 for Minturn spaces) Pros: + Vail Resorts employee parking requirements are met * No cost to Others • No non -budgeted cost to Conference Center Cons: • No new skier parking • Conference Center may have insufficient winter daytime parking (50 spaces) ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS As a result of our efforts working with Town staff and the lodging community to identify methods to ease the parking shortage in Vail, Vail Resorts would like to propose an alternative solution to our current offer. Under our Alternative No. 1, Vail Resorts would spend the same $5.75 million we are committed to, but in a different way. If the Conference Center were moved to the Lionshead Hub Site, rather than "wasting" $5.5 million relocating existing ski operations facilities, we would spend $1.2 mullion building 300 surface spaces on the Holy Cross Site, $250,000 to build 100 Minturn spaces and we would donate $4.3 million to the Town to build a new 400 parking space plate atop the Lionshead parking structure., Even though Alternative No. 1 would have Vail Resorts paying 57% of the cost for new skier parking spaces in the Lionshead structure, we would propose the Town and/or conference center keep 100% of parking revenue from those new spaces (see Alternative No. 1). We also believe that by relocating the Conference Center to the Hub Site, the Conference Center will realize significant budget savings by not having to build structured parking on the Holy Cross Site. 3 • Vail Town Council May 15. 2003 A different Alternative, that is not necessarily ours, but stems from suggestions made by others, involves the possibility of utilizing Ford Park for winter parking_ We are certainly aware of and sensitive to the fact that any use of Ford Park for winter parking will have its proponents and detractors. Because there- are so few viable options for solving the skier parking shortage, however, we know that whether ultimately chosen by the Town or not, the Ford Park alternative will undoubtedly be in the forum of public debate. If the Town elects to pursue the use of Ford Park for skier parking, Vail Resorts would commit to paying a 57% share of the cost of building up to 680 surface spaces at Ford Park (see Alternative No. 2). ALTERNATIVE NO. 1: Conference Center is built on Lionshead Hub Site. Vail Resorts builds/retains 300 surface employee spaces on Holy Cross Site. Town and/or Others*, Conference Center and Vail Resorts share cost of new 400 space plate on Lionshead parking: garage at estimated cost of $10 million. Conference Center pays for and has year- round use of 100 new structured Lionshead spaces. Vail Resorts pays 57% and Others own and pay 43% of cost for 300 new Lionshead spaces. The ownership of the Vail Resorts paid -for spaces may be complex to optimize the accounting treatment of our $4.3 million contribution, however Vail Resorts would not lay significant claim to the parking revenue generated by these spaces. Vail Resorts pays for and builds 100 additional spaces on its Minturn parcel. IS Under Alternative No. 1, Vail Resorts' employee parking requirements are met as follows: Holy Cross Site 300 spaces North Day Lot (as presently parked) 90 spaces (plus 17 guest spaces) Mintum Parcel 100 spaces Misc. spaces built in proposed.Lionshead redevelopment 35 spaces 525 employee spaces New employee spaces created: 228 (128 new on Holy Cross, plus 172 retained on Holy Cross, plus 100 in Minturn) Conference Center Spaces: 100 winter weekend and winter holiday daytime: 700-1000 winter weekday and evenings; all the unused spaces in an expanded 1600 -space Lionshead structure at all other times New skier spaces created: 300 (in Lionshead garage when conference center in use), and 350-400 (when the conference center is not in use) Cost to Others*: $3.2 million (Others' 43% share of 30O Lionshead skier spaces) Cost to Conference Center*: $2.5 million (cost of 100 Lionshead spaces, offset by savings from current budget) Cost to Vail Resorts: $5.75 million ($4.3M as Vail Resorts' 57% share of 300 Lionshead spaces, $1.2M for 300 spaces on Holy Cross Site plus $2.50,000 for Minturn spaces) * Since Conference Center can use up to 1200 other spaces in the existing Lionshead structure owned by the Town of Vail in non -winter peak season times, Conference Center may be able to fund some of Others' share. Annual parking revenues may also be the source of (Others' share. 4 • Vail Town Council May 15. 2003 Pros: • 300 new skier spaces • Vail Resorts employee parking requirements are met • Conference Center has sufficient winter daytime parking • Conference Center has excess parking for large evening and non -ski season daytime events • Town may be able to issue bonds (backed by increased parking fees) to fund Others' $3.2 million share of parking structure • $2.5 million cost to Conference Center is offset by savings realized in not having to build structured parking on Holy Cross Site • Structured parking can still be built on Holy Cross Site at a later date if necessary Cons: • $3.2 million cost to Others (offset by increased parking revenue) ALTERNATIVE NO. 2: While this Alternative is not necessarily ours, it assumes the Town elects to have skier parking located on Ford. Park. Conference Center is built on Lionshead Hub Site and uses Lionshead structure for its parking. Vail Resorts builds/retains 300 surface employee spaces on Holy Cross Site at its expense. Also, Vail Resorts pays 57% and Others pay 43% for 680 skier spaces on surface at Ford Park at an estimated cost of $5.4 million (a fewer number of spaces may be built at Ford Park at a commensurably lower cost). Additionally, Vail Resorts pays for and builds 100 Minturn spaces. Under Alternative No. 2, Vail Resorts' employee parking requirements are met as follows: Holy Cross Site 300 spaces North Day Lot (as presently parked) 90 spaces (plus 17 guest spaces) Minturn Parcel 100 spaces Misc. spaces built in proposed Lionshead redevelopment 35 spaces 525 employee spaces New employee spaces created: 228 (12.8 new on Holy Cross, plus 172 retained on Holy Cross, plus 100 in Mintum) New skier spaces created: 680 (Ford Park surface spaces) Cost to Others*: $2.3 million (43% share of 680 Ford Park spaces) Cost to Conference Center: $0 Cost to Vail Resorts: $4.55 million ($3.1M as 57% share of Ford Park spaces, $1.2M for 300 spaces on Holy Cross Site plus $250,000 for Minturn spaces) Pros: • 680 new skier spaces • Vail Resorts employee parking requirements are met • Conference Center has ample winter day parking in existing Lionshead structure • Conference Center has excess parking for evening and non -ski season daytime events in existing Lionshead structure * See earlier note 5 0 L J Vail Town Council May 15.2003 • Town may be able to issue bonds (backed by increased parking fees) to fund Others' $2.3 million share of Ford Park spaces • Conference Center may realize savings by not having to build structured parking on Holy Cross Site: • Structured parking can still be built on Holy Cross Site or Lionshead structure at a later date if necessary Cons: • $2.3 million cost to Others' (offset by increased parking revenues) • Parking on Ford Park (also likely to require artificial playing surface to be installed on Ford Park fields) • Transportation needs to be provided for employees or skiers parking on Ford Park Unquestionably, each of these alternatives have their respective strengths and weaknesses. While we believe some alternatives are better than others, we are prepared to honor any of there. We leave it to the Town to choose which it deems best. Finally, I will not belabor the point of our company's current financial challenges. While we have outperformed many other travel and leisure companies over the last two difficult years, these economic times are trying for all in the resort industry. Given the challenges facing our industry, our willingness to commit land we own that is worth millions of dollars and an additional $5.75 million in cash reflects a recognition of the importance of these solutions and our resolve to make them a reality. We simply cannot afford to commit more capital to the parking/conference center resolution than we have committed here. The Town of Vail and its citizens deserve to have economic viability of their lodges and other businesses and improved parking for their guests. The proposals described in this Letter represent a means to achieving these ends. We hope you agree, and we welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters in greater detail in the very near fixture. Thank you for your consideration. ►0 dam M. Aron ' Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Vail Resorts 6 Traffic Impact Study Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment �- I Prepared for: Vaal Resorts Development Company 0 Kimley-Nom and Associates, Inc. 2003 067867.001 ©_ © Kmley-Hom and Associates, Inc. 9 • T R A F F I C S T U D Y Vai1.'s Front Door - Traffic Study Vail, Colorado Prepared for Vail Resorts Development Company 1.37 Benchmark Road P.O. Box 959 Avon, CO 81620 Prepared By Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 950 Seventeenth Street Suite 1050 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 228-2300 (303) 416-8678 FAX July 2003 l • NOTICE Please note that the findings contained in this report are based on the conditions at the time of the study. Should development occur that is significantly different than the assumptions that were made in the study, further review and analysis may need to be performed. This report has been prepared in accordance with the professional standard of care. No other warranties or guarantees, express or implied, are made or intended. This report has been prepared solely for Vail Resorts, and the Town of Vail, Colorado for the purpose stated herein and should not be relied upon by any other party for any other purpose. The conclusions in this report are based on the limited information described above. Any reliance on this report by any party other than Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail shall be without liability to Kinley-Horn and Associates, Inc. or its employees. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact us. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment Page ii l TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... ...................................................1 2.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Purpose and Need............................................................................................................................3 2.2 Project Description...........................................................................................................................3 3.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS......................................................................... 6 3.1 Existing Roadway Network and Conditions................................................................................6 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes along Vail Road....................................................................................6 3.3 Existing and Future Delivery Vehicle Volumes and Traffic Patterns.......................................6 4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS.......................................................................14 4.1 Trip Generation/ Automobiles.....................................................................................................14 4.2 Trip Generation/ Delivery Vehicles.............................................................................................16 4.3 Trip Distribution and Assignment/Automobiles......................................................................16 4.4 Trip Distribution and Assignment/ Delivery Vehicles.............................................................17 . 4.3 Total Background Plus Peak Season Site Generated Traffic....................................................20 5.0 TRAFFIC AND CENTRAL LOADING FACILITY OPERATIONS ANALYSES ....... 22 5.1 Roadway Segment/ Arterial Level of Service Analysis............................................................22 5.2 Delivery Demands and Observations.........................................................................................23 5.3 Delivery Elevator Capacity Discussion.......................................................................................24 6.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................... 28 APPENDICES Appendix A - Delivery Counts within Vail Village Appendix B - Trip Generation Worksheets Appendix C - Roadway Segment Analysis Worksheets Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Vail Resorts' .Front Door Redevelopment Page iii Z • LIST OF FIGURES Figure1- Site Location..............................................................................................................................4 Figure 2 - Service Area for the Central Loading Facility......................................................................5 Figure 3 - Existing Traffic Volumes.........................................................................................................7 Figure 4 - Truck Exiting Alternatives at Central Loading Facility....................................................10 Figure 5 - Existing Plus Approved Background Development.........................................................13 Figure 6 - Peak Season Site Generated Traffic......................................................................................19 Figure 7 - Peak Season Site Generated Traffic Plus Existing Traffic Volumes................................21 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment Page iv 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Vail Resorts has proposed a redevelopment project in Vail Village, commonly referred to as the Front Door. The Front Door involves a number of projects located at the base of Vail Mountain - an expansion of the Lodge at Vail to include remodeled hotel rooms and a new spa, a ski club, a skier service building, a re -designed ski yard, 13 dwelling units and a Town of Vail central delivery/loading facility. Another element of the Front Door project is the development of a public park and a parking structure at lots P3&J. A traffic analysis for P3&J has been prepared and submitted to the Town under separate cover. For the purposes of this report, the Front Door project is limited to the development located at the base of the mountain. This report has been prepared to provide the results of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. traffic analysis for the proposed Vail's Front Door development by Vail Resorts. Per the Town of Vail's request, trip generation calculations were conducted to determine the volume of new trips expected from the Front Door project. In addition, peak season holiday weekend daily delivery vehicle volumes were evaluated to address any possible increase or change in volumes. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to identify traffic generation characteristics, identify potential traffic related impacts on the local street system, to develop mitigation measures required for identified impacts, and to evaluate the conceptual design and operational feasibility of the central loading facility. During a peak holiday weekend, the Front Door is expected to generate approximately 63 new peak hour trips and 294 daily automobile trips added to the surrounding street network. Only a nominal increase in new delivery vehicle volume is expected from the Front Door. The proposed central loading facility will redistribute existing delivery vehicle traffic that will access Vail Village via Vail Road. It is anticipated that the existing deliveries occurring within the Village are anticipated to remain constant. However, the redevelopment project may increase the amount of goods each delivery vehicle will be transporting to the Village core. KimIey-Horn and Associates, Inc. Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment Page T New traffic generated by the Front Door will be successfully incorporated into the future traffic operations without any necessary roadway modifications. The existing street system can accommodate site generated traffic. The level of service (LOS) of Vail Road north of Meadow Drive is expected to be LOS C with or without the addition of peak season site generated traffic. The level of service of Vail Road south of Forest Road is expected to be LOS A with or without the addition of peak season site generated traffic. These are very acceptable level of service conditions. In addition, Vail Road north of Meadow Drive is expected to be at only approximately 63 percent of capacity. South of Forest Road, Mail Road is expected to be at only approximately 16 percent of capacity. The 14 delivery spaces proposed with this project are expected to be more than adequate to serve the demand of deliveries during the peak hour of the peak holiday weekend season. Based on this analysis, 12 delivery spaces are expected to adequately serve loading demands. By removing delivery vehicles from Gore Creek Drive, the pedestrian environment would be expected to improve through the Village core. • 49 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment Page 2 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose and Need Kinnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kirnley-Horn) has been retained by Vail Resorts to prepare this report to document the results of a 'Traffic Impact Study of future traffic conditions associated with the proposed redevelopment project in Vail Village located adjacent to the Lodge at Vail, herein referred to as the Front Door. The vicinity map illustrating the project location is shown in Figure 1. Per the Town of Vail's request, this report provides the results of trip generation calculations of new automobile trips expected from the project. In addition, daily delivery vehicle volumes were evaluated to address any possible increase or change in volumes and circulation. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to identify traffic generation characteristics, identify potential traffic related impacts on the local street system, to develop mitigation measures required for identified impacts, and to evaluate the conceptual design and operational 0 feasibility of the central loading facility. 2.2 Project Description The Front Door includes the following elements: • an expansion of the Lodge at Vail to include remodeled hotel rooms and a new spa • a ski club and associated parking for club members • a skier services building • 13 new residential units, and • a loading and delivery facility that will provide loading for the Front Door (and the Lodge at Vail) as well as Town of Vail central loading that will serve the core area of Vail Village. Figure 2 illustrates the areas within Vail Village that this central loading facility is expected to serve. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment Page 3 E7 0 LEGEND Study Area Key Segment N <=), FR'V" NM D67W7W VAIL'S FRONT DOOR VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 I ❑�� fCndAsHom I � and Associates, Inc. • �mn NORTH HTS 067667001 VAIL'S FRONT DOOR SERVICE AREA FOR THE FIGURE 2 CENTRAL LOADING FACILITY SY =n Kimsey-Hom and Associates, Inc. 3.0 DCISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS 3.1 Existing Roadway Network and Conditions Regional access to the proposed Front Door redevelopment area will be provided by 1-70. Primary access will be gained from Vail Road. Vail Road is a two lane roadway with a speed limit of 15 nines per hour. Vail Road becomes one-way at the Lodge and provides exiting traffic movements along Willow Road, which is also one-way. This in effect creates counter -clockwise traffic movements in this area of the village. 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes along Vail Road Counts were obtained from the Town of Vail for Vail Road north of Meadow Drive and south of Forest Road. Felsburg, Holt, & Ullevig, acting as the Town's Traffic Engineer provided daily volumes for a weekend day and weekday. These counts were conducted on Saturday, February 19, 2000, and Monday, February 21, 2000, which corresponded with President's Day Holiday weekend. A summary of these counts is illustrated in Figure 3. Recent counts were also conducted along Vail Road north of Meadow Drive and south of Forest Road on Saturday, July 5�h and Monday, July 7th, 2003. These counts actually reflected a decrease in traffic from the winter counts in February of 2000, therefore the winter counts were used within this analysis. The February 2000 counts and the existing counts represent both automobile and delivery vehicle traffic along Vail Road. 3.3 Existing and Future Delivery Vehicle Volumes and Traffic Patterns Delivery vehicles are currently allowed to enter the Village core via Vail Road to access Gore Creek Drive/International Bridge or via Vail Valley Drive and Hanson Ranch Road to access P3&J loading and delivery spaces. Deliveries then occur either at the Lodge or to the businesses throughout the Village. These delivery vehicles exit the Village core by using either Willow Road to the west, Willow Bridge Road to the north, or Gore Creek Drive to the east. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment page 6 • u LEGENr] Study Area Key Segment WKDY(SAT) Average Daily Traffic Volumes �xxxx Traffic Volumes Vehicles per Day (vpd) (both directions) >hV C� RTH M15 067867001 VAIL'S FRONT DOOR TRAFFIC COUNTS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2000 SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2000 FIGURE 3 n-Hnm and � and Associates, Inc. Delivery vehicle counts were conducted at the Town of VaiPs request to determine existing delivery vehicle volumes for Vail Village. Delivery vehicle counts were completed on July 3, 2002, from 6;00 a.m. until 6;00 p.m. at two stations along Gore Creek Drive. This is the time period during which deliveries are allowed in the area. One observation/ count point was conducted at Checkpoint Charlie, while the other observation/count point was conducted at the exit of the pedestrian area at the P3&J parking lot at Gore Creek Drive and Hanson Ranch Load. These counts were completed to determine the number of delivery vehicles using existing loading zones along Gore Creek Drive, within the main Lodge parking lot, through the rest of the pedestrian/ delivery zone area of the Village core and around the P3&J parking lot. Delivery vehicle counts and observations conducted at the Checkpoint Charlie Station included a count and time observation of deliveries into and out of the Lodge main parking lot, entrance time of delivery at Checkpoint Charlie, notation of whether or not the delivery was being made to The Lodge along Gore Creek Drive, and possible exit time along Willow Bridge road. The counts and observations conducted at P3&J included a count and time observation of vehicles exiting the delivery zone along Gore Creek Drive, as well as dwell time of delivery adjacent to the P3&J parking lot. In order to provide a conservative analysis, delivery vehicle counts were completed prior to the Fourth of July holiday long weekend on July 3, 2002. As requested by the Town of Vail, this date was selected assuming a higher demand for deliveries prior to a peak summer holiday weekend. The total number of deliveries to the Village at both locations on July 3rd was 83 vehicles (58 of these deliveries occurring at the Lodge and Checkpoint Charlie). This delivery vehicle volume was compared with additional peak season information provided from the Town of Vail during the winter that indicated that 108 daily deliveries were counted into and out of the Village on February 15 and 16, 2001. This information is included in Appendix A. Inspection of the delivery vehicle count volumes provided by the Town of Vail indicated that the winter season deliveries on a peak holiday weekend exceed those for a peak summer season holiday weekend. To ensure this data represented a peak condition, these counts were compared to additional information provided by the Town of Vail that stated Kimley-Horn and Associates, Tnc. 0 Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment Page 8 approximately 50 to 70 deliveries per day would be expected in Vail Village. This information is also included in Appendix A. Therefore, it can be assumed that the counts conducted in February of 2000 represent a peak season condition. Based upon observations during the peak summer season, 30 percent of deliveries occurred at P3&J and 70 percent passed through Checkpoint Charlie. Therefore, of the 108 delivery vehicles observed during the peak winter season, it can be assumed from the peak summer season observations that 32 would have been expected to occur at P3&J, while 76 would pass through Checkpoint Charlie and delivery on Gore Creek Drive or other pedestrian areas within the Village core. In the future, delivery vehicles are expected to continue to arrive to the Village area by Vail Road. In addition, current deliveries being made at the F3&J area are expected to be rerouted to Vail Road. All deliveries to the core area of the Village would then occur within the central loading and delivery facility being developed as part of the Front Door project This will reduce and potentially all but eliminate delivery vehicle traffic in the east village neighborhood along the pedestrian contained area of the Village. These delivery vehicles will then have the capability of exiting the loading facility and leaving the Village using Vail Road, Willow Road, Willow Bridge Road, or Gore Creek Drive as shown in Figure 4. For analysis purposes, this study evaluated the condition that all delivery vehicles would enter and exit using Vail. Road. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 0 Vail Resorts' Front Dora Redevelopment Page 9 CIS N75 067867001 3.4 Approved/Unbuilt Development Proximate to f=ront Door The Town of Vail requested that future traffic volumes from approved but un -built development be included in the analysis. Three recently approved yet un -built projects are located proximate to Vail Road. These include the new pour Seasons, Sonnenalp Resort expansion, and the new Vail Plaza Hotel. None of these developments are believed to significantly impact the existing traffic condition of Vail Road. The following provides a summary of each project. SonngDalp Resort The Sonnenalp Resort was approved for development by the Town of Vail in June of this year. The project includes the demolition of the existing Swiss Haus Hotel which contains 59 hotel rooms and 2 dwelling units. The existing building is being replaced with 8 condominiums and 14 fractional fee units with its own front desk and parte cochere. Access to this building will no longer be provided by Vail Road; instead access to the redeveloped Swiss Haus Hotel building will be provided directly from Willow Bridge Road. Additionally, the project includes an expansion to the existing Sonnenalp Hotel which adds 35 hotel rooms to the hotel. Access to the Sonnenalp Hotel will continue to be provided along Vail Road. However, there will be no new trips added to Vail Road due to this development as these trips were being previously generated by the 59 hotel rooms and 2 dwelling units at the Swiss Hotel. The new hotel rooms added to the Sonnenalp Hotel (35 rooms) are less than the 59 hotel rooms plus 2 dwelling units removed from the Swiss Haus thus resulting in a net decrease in traffic to Vail Road. Four Seasons In June of 2003 the Vail Four Seasons project was also approved by the Town, of Vail. This project is a redevelopment of the existing Chateau at Vail hotel and the Alpine Standard gas station/ automotive repair facility. The Chateau at Vail currently provides 120 rooms. The.Four Seasons project will include 119 hotel rooms, 66 beds of employee housing and 40 condominiums/ fractional fee units. The development of this project will include the removal of the Alpine Standard gas/automotive repair facility. It was determined in the traffic study completed previously for this development that there will be an overall decrease in the number Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc_ Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment Page I I of trips generated as a result of the approved project. In addition, with the development of the project site access will be removed completely from Vail Road. Vail Plaza Hotel According to a revised traffic report dated September 27, 1999, the Vail Plaza Hotel located on the east side of Vail Road is expected to generate approximately 415 net new daily trips along Vail Road, north of Meadow Drive. For the total traffic analysis, these traffic volumes were added to the existing daily traffic volumes in Figure 3 to determine the existing plus approved development volumes along Vail Road shown in Figure 5. • Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 0 Vail Resorts" Front Door Redevelopment Page 12 • • LEGEND Study Area Key Segment WKDY{SAT} Average Daily Traffic Vo47mes Traffic Volumes Vehicles per Day (vpd) (bath directions) NORTH M75 067887007 a VAIL'S FRONT DOOR EXISTING PLUS APPROVED BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES FIGURE 5 c andAssociates, � and ss aeiates, Inc. 4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS 4.1 Trip Generation /Automobiles Site -generated traffic estimates are determined through a process known as trip generation. Rates are applied to proposed land uses to estimate traffic generated by developments during a specific time interval. The acknowledged source for trip generation rates is the 6th Edition of the Trip Generation Report published by Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE has established trip rates in nationwide studies of similar land uses. Based upon a request from the Town of Vail for this study, Kindey-Horn used ITE Trip Generation Report trip rates that apply to Recreational Homes (260) for traffic associated with the development. Trip generation estimates for the Ski Club were developed based upon expected program development. The following paragraphs describe the project by development area, as well as project traffic volumes associated with the redevelopment project (calculations provided in Appendix B). Resort Residences A trip generation estimate has been prepared for the proposed 13 new resort residences at Vail Village using the ITE Land Use Code 260 - Recreational Homes. A trip generation worksheet showing trip generation rates and directional distribution of trips is attached to this report. The proposed residential units are expected to generate four (4) new peak hour trips, 42 daily weekday trips, and 40 daily Saturday trips. The spa is not expected to generate new vehicles to Vairs Front Door as this is anticipated to be an amenity to the hotel and skiers and will not be open to the public. As such, it will not attract outside trips. Therefore, trip generation calculations were not prepared for this use. Skier Services As in the case of the proposed spa, the new skier services facility is also anticipated to be an amenity to the hotel and skiers. However, the skier service building does generate a treed for 31 additional parking spaces to be used by employees_ It is estimated that approximately 90% of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 0 Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment .Page 14 these new employees will arrive during the peak hour, generating approximately 27 new peak hour trips with an overall daily estimate of 62 trips on weekdays and Saturdays. Resort Hotel Rooms Two new hotel rooms are proposed at the Lodge at Vail with the redevelopment project; however three existing rooms will be removed resulting in a net decrease of one hotel room. As such, no new traffic demand is created. Ski Club The proposed ski club is anticipated to have 300 members who will have parking privileges at the Front Door. These club members will be allocated 95 parking spaces within the parking structure behind Lodge. On a typical busy weekend day, all parking spaces are anticipated to be occupied. Therefore, the parking spaces are expected to attract 95 entering and 95 exiting, or 190 total trips per day. To determine the number of trips that would occur during a common peak hour, information was obtained relative to anticipated club member/ skier activity. Based upon information from Vail Resorts, it is expected that approximately 33 percent of skiers arrive 0 within a common peak hour. Therefore, the resultant trip generation for the Lodge Ski Club would be 32 vehicle trips during the peak hour. Triv Generation Summa The following table summarizes the estimated new traffic generation into Vail Village for the redevelopment. The trip generation worksheets are included in Appendix B. These calculations illustrate the rates used, directional distribution of trips, and number of daily trips. It can be expected that 63 new automobile trips would be generated during the peak hour and 294 new automobile trips daily. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 0 Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment Page 15 Front Door Redevelopment New Project Peak Season Traffic Generation Development Peak Hour Weekday Daily Saturday Dail Resort Residences 4 42 40 Resort Hotel Rooms 0 0 0 Skier Services Building 27 62 62 Ski Club 32 190 190 Total 63 294 292 4.2 Trip Generation/ Delivery Vehicles As there is no increase in delivery vehicle volume expected with the actual development of the project, no trips are expected to be added to the street network. The same number of delivery vehicles are anticipated to access the Village core in the future. However, due to the redevelopment project at the Lodge the amount of goods each delivery vehicle will be transporting to the core may increase. There is, however, an is expected shift in the delivery vehicle traffic volumes in the future with construction of the Town of Vail central loading/delivery facility. This is discussed within Section 4.4 regarding trip distribution and assignment of delivery vehicles. 4.3 Trip Distribution and Assignment/Automobiles It is expected that automobile traffic generated to the development at the Lodge would arrive and depart using Vail Road. Therefore, based upon the new trip generation, it could be expected that there would be an increase of 63 peak hour automobile trips on Vail Road_ This corresponds to an added 294 daily automobile trips to Vail Road. It is important to note that the majority of new trips generated by the project are seasonal in nature. For example, during the summer peak season very few trips would be expected as a result of the parking spaces associated with the ski club membership or the skier services building. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 0 Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment Page 16 4.4 Trip Distribution and Assignment/ Delivery Vehicles As discussed previously in Section 3.3, delivery vehicles are currently allowed to enter the Village core via Vail Road to access Gore Creek Drive/ International Bridge or via Vail Valley Drive and Hanson Ranch Road to access P3&J loading and delivery spaces. Deliveries then occur either at the Lodge or to the businesses throughout the Village. These delivery vehicles exit the Village core by using either Willow Road to the west, Willow Bridge Road to the north, or Gore Creek Drive to the east. There is an expected reroute of existing delivery vehicle movements in the Village area based upon the construction of the central loading facility. Since P3&J is proposed to no longer allow deliveries, the existing peak daily delivery volume of 32 vehicles would be rerouted to the central loading facility. This would be expected to add 32 daily entering delivery vehicle trips on Vail Road during peak conditions. Since the majority of delivery vehicles today do not exit the Village via Vail Road, this change in JO delivery vehicle circulation would add approximately 108 exiting daily trips on Vail Road during peak conditions. These exiting trips consist of the 32 exiting daily delivery vehicles rerouted from the removal of the P3&J facility and the 76 exiting daily delivery vehicles that currently exit either along Gore Creek Drive, Willow Bridge Road, or Willow Road. Therefore, during a winter season holiday weekend, there may be an additional 140 delivery vehicle trips occurring on Vail Road (32 entering and 108 exiting). Of course, it is important to note that these are not new trips to the street network, but rather rerouted trips. Further, these 140 daily trips have been removed from the surrounding street network on the east side of Vail Village. It can be expected that when considering the component of delivery time duration within the Village, the current proposal with the central loading and delivery facility would greatly decrease the "observed" volume of delivery vehicles in the Village. As there are other alternatives to distribute delivery vehicles throughout the system such as alternative exit points via Willow Circle, Willow Bridge Road, or Gore Creek Drive, exiting all delivery vehicles via Vail Road provides a conservative analysis. The final decision as to where delivery vehicles will Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 0 Vail Resorts' Front Doerr Redevelopment Page 17 be permitted to exit the central loading and delivery facility will be left up to the Town of Vail. Peak season site generated traffic is shown in Figure 6. • 0 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment Page 18 0 u LEGEND Study Area Key Segment WKDY(SAT) Average Daily Traffic Volumes Trade Volumes Vehicles per May (vpd) (both directions) N VAIL'S FRONT DOOR PEAK SEASON SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC NCaFRTH MFS 067867= 9 MM FIGURE 6 ©_©mley Hom and Associates, Inc. 4.3 Total Background Plus Peak Season Site Generated Traffic Peak season site generated traffic volumes including both new automobile trips and rerouted delivery vehicles were added to the background volumes in Figure 5 to represent estimated traffic conditions for full project development. Total traffic volumes for the entire planned Front Door Redevelopment project are illustrated in Figure 7. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Vail Resorts' Front Door RedeveloprnenI Page 20 LEGEND Study Area Key Segment WKDY(SAT) Average Daily Traffic Volumes +� Traffic Volumes Vehicles per Day (vpd) (bath direr ions) IV 4=:b F=:tTt)—i H1S 067867001 VAIL'S FRONT DOOR BACKGROUND PLUS SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 7 IE � © fiimisy-Horn I and Associates, Inc_ LJ 5.0 TRAFFIC AND CENTRAL LOADING FACILITY OPERATIONS ANALYSES Kirnley-Horn's analyses of traffic operations in the site vicinity were conducted to determine potential capacity deficiencies. The acknowledged source for determining overall capacity is the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. 5.1 Roadway Segment/Arterial Level of Service Analysis Roadway segment capacity analysis results are listed in terms of Level of Service (LOS). LCIS is a qualitative term describing operating conditions a driver will experience while traveling on a particular street during a particular time interval. It ranges from A (very little delay) to F (long delays and congestion). Based upon Kimley-Horn experience, LOS D or better is recommended as the measure of acceptable level of service during the peak hours. The roadway segment operations for background (without proposed action) and total (with proposed action) traffic peak -hour conditions were analyzed using the analysis methodologies found in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2000) program, Release 4.1 (calculations in Appendix C). Vail Road Capacity Level of Service Analysis The capacity of Vail Road given that it carries one lane of travel in each direction is 14,900 vehicles per day. This roadway currently has a daily traffic volume of 9,030 vehicles per day north of Meadow Drive and 1,920 vehicles per day south of Forest Road. With a projected peak day volume of 9,879 and 2,354 vehicles per day with development of the project north of Meadow Drive and south of Forest Road, respectively, all conditions result in an acceptable level of service of C and A, respectively. Since this roadway has a large amount of reserve capacity available, the possible highest demand, worst-case, conservative, increase in traffic results in a very acceptable level of service. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment Page 22 • 5.2 Delivery Demands and Observations As previously described in Section 3.3, the Town of Vail requested an analysis be conducted to determine existing delivery vehicle demands for the Vail's Front Door, as well as demands along Gore Creek Drive within the pedestrian core area of Vail Village. Therefore the July 3, 2002 survey data was used to determine delivery demands for the Village. These counts were analyzed to determine the maximum number of delivery vehicles that would be expected to occur at a given time throughout the day. Based upon the peak observations, it was determined that nine (9) deliveries occurred during the same time period on July 3, 2002, throughout the Village. This maximum delivery load occurred between 8:47 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. At the P3&J parking facility, five (5) deliveries were observed to occur during the same time period on July 3rd between 10:52 a.m and 11:02 a.m. On average, a demand of five (5) deliveries was observed at any given moment in time throughout the village. At the P3&J facility, this average was approximately three (3) delivery vehicles. This delivery vehicle count information is included in Appendix A. These results were evaluated with previous delivery studies that have been conducted for the Village. Two studies and information were evaluated and compared with the data collected for this report. The following paragraphs discuss the results of these previous studies. MK Centennial (now Washington Group) conducted a detailed study of delivery activity within the Village in 1999. This information is included in Appendix A. Results of this study determined the peak number of delivery vehicles along Gore Creek Drive, Willow Bridge Road, and Hanson Ranch Road was 12 delivery vehicles. Information was provided from the Town of Vail that indicated that 108 daily deliveries were counted along Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive on February 15th and 16th, 2001. To project the number of deliveries that would be expected at any given moment during the peak season from these daily delivery counts, the percentage of deliveries during the peak time period was calculated from the July 3, 2002 count and observation. It was observed on this date that the highest percentage of deliveries occurring at a given moment compared to the daily total yielded a total of 10.8 percent. Therefore, if 10.8 percent of the 108 delivery vehicles Kim ley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment Page 23 f counted during the peak winter season all delivered at the same moment in time, 12 delivery spaces would be required at the central loading facility. These counts and calculations are attached in Appendix A. Therefore, based upon information provided from previous studies, it is believed that the demand for deliveries is approximately 12 loading and delivery spaces during peak winter and summer :months. Since the facility should account for the peak period, 12 delivery spaces are recommended. It is understood that at the request of Town of Vail staff, current plans for the Front Door provide 14 delivery vehicle spaces. Based on the analysis above, 14 spaces exceed what is necessary to serve the village during peak delivery times in the winter and summer. It should also be noted that data used to conclude 12 spaces are sufficient to serve the Village core area was based largely on survey information of existing deliveries during times when truck deliveries in the Village were confined to a few hours each day. Because of these time restrictions deliveries were "compressed" resulting in higher delivery vehicle trips. Delivery time restrictions have skewed this data. It is expected that the central loading and delivery facility will be open between ten and twelve hours each day and as such will allow for deliveries to be dispersed throughout the day. Given this, 12 spaces available throughout the day is probably in excess of what is actually needed to serve deliveries occurring within Vail Village. 5.3 Delivery Elevator Capacity Discussion Kimley-Horn has reviewed the site Iayout for the central loading facility based on the rune 20, 2003 submittal to the Town of Vail and the central loading study. A preliminary analysis has been performed to determine the feasibility of the site layout for transporting goods from the loading facility to the various destinations throughout the Village. The analysis included the following assumptions: . Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc_ Vail Resorts" Front Door Redevelopment ,Page 24 • List of Assumptions Used to Evaluate Elevator Capacity Parameter Value Assumed Elevator Trip Time 55 seconds round trip Elevator Capacity 1 Hand Truck Per Trip Elevator Loading Configuration Front and Rear Entry/Exit Elevator Door Width At least 3 feet wide Cargo Movement Method Hand Truck Only Typical Walk Speed with Hand Truck 230 feet per minute Hand Truck Load Time 5 minutes Cargo Handover Time 5 minutes Number of Deliveries per Truck 1.5 Maximum Delivery Distance 1000 feet Based on the above assumptions the maximum trip time it would take from the moment a truck pulls up to the dock until the driver is back behind the wheel can be estimated as shown below. This analysis assumes it takes one minute to reach the elevator from the truck loading position, the driver spends a minute behind the wheel logging the delivery, and the elevator is in the ,wrong" position when the delivery person pushes the button. These are all very conservative assumptions to demonstrate worst case scenarios. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 0 Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment Page 25 Typical Delivery Time Table Event Estimated Time Hand Truck. Load Time 5 minutes Travel to Elevator Queue 1 minute Elevator Trip including wait time 55 seconds Walk to Delivery Location 1000 ft/230 ft/min = 4.4 minutes Handover Delivery 5 minutes Walls Back to Elevator 1000 ft/ 230 ft/ min = 4.4 minutes Elevator Trip including wait time 55 seconds Walk Back to Delivery Truck 1 minute Load Hand Truck and Log Delivery 2 minutes Total Delivery Time 24.5 minutes The above assumptions are meant to estimate a worst case scenario. If we assume that an average delivery takes approximately 75% of the time and that each truck makes 1.5 deliveries • the average delivery vehicle dwell time per loading bay would be 27.5 minutes. This means, on average, a delivery vehicle can be expected to occupy one loading space for approximately 28 minutes. This means that each loading space could accommodate 2 delivery vehicles per hour. If the central loading facility is designed with a total of 14 loading bays, the total number of trucks that could be accommodated within the central loading facility per one hour period would be 28. From the delivery vehicle counts conducted on July 3, 2002 at both the P3&J facility and Checkpoint Charlie, it was found that on average each delivery vehicle was parked for approximately 30 minutes within the Village. Based on the 14 loading bays planned at the central loading facility, the total number of delivery vehicles that could be accommodated within this system would be 28. Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. 0 Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment Page 26 Therefore, it is believed based on both future loading assumptions and the existing delivery system within Vail Village that all deliveries can be accommodated during the peak season with 14 loading bays within the central loading and delivery facility. • Kimky-Horn and Associates, Inc. 0 Vat! Resorts' Front Boor Redevelopment Page 27 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis presented in this report, Kimley-Horn believes the proposed Vail Resorts Front Door Redevelopment will be successfully incorporated into the future traffic operations without any necessary roadway modifications. The existing street system can accommodate site generated traffic. The level of service (LOS) of Vail Road north of Meadow Drive is expected to be LOS C with or without the addition of project traffic. The LOS of Vail Road south of Forest Road is expected to be LOS A with or without the addition of project traffic. This is a very acceptable level of service condition. In addition, Vail Road north of Meadow Derive is expected to be at only approximately 63 percent of capacity. South of Forest Road, Vail Road is expected to be at only approximately 16 percent of capacity. The 14 delivery spaces proposed with this project are expected to be more than adequate to serve the demand of deliveries during the peak hour of the peak holiday weekend season. Based on this analysis, 12 delivery spaces are expected to adequately serve loading demands. By removing delivery vehicles from Gore Creek Drive, the pedestrian environment would be expected to improve through the Village core. It is important to recognize that this study assigned all project traffic to Vail Road to provide a conservative analysis for this roadway. It is expected that based upon the location of the loading facility, four alternatives are available for exiting delivery vehicles, which include Willow Road, Willow Bridge Road, Gore Creek Drive and Vail Road. This would likely distribute delivery vehicle volumes to existing conditions. It is recommended that the Town of Vail determine the best strategy for the distribution of delivery vehicle movements. In addition, this distribution could be continually monitored and modified in the future as necessary. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 0 Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment Page 2& • APPENDIX A Delivery Vehicle Counts u • • Vehicle Type Time In Vehicles Entering Main Lodge and Checkpoint Charlie on 713/02 Enter Location Time Out Exit Location Service Lodge? Length (feet) Slmmrock Foods 6:44 Checkpoint Chadie 8:30 Gore no 40 White Van 7:08 Lodge (Main) 7:15 Lodge (Main) main entrance 18 Italco Foods 7:25 Checkpoint Charlie 8:20 Gore no 30 BFI Garbage 7:32 Checkpoint Charlie 9:07 Gore no 25 Val Honey Wagon 7:40 Checkpoint Charlie 8:16 Gore no 25 Sintorrs Dairy 8:07 Checkpoint Charlie 8:26 Gore no 30 Coors Truck 8:09 Lodge (Main) 9:35 Lodge (Main) main entrance 30 Coors Truck 9:35 Checkpoint Charlie 10:38 Gore no 30 Budweiser Van 8:10 Checkpoint Charlie 9:32 Gore no • is Wine Truck 8:15 Lodge (Main) 6:35 Lodge (Main) main entrance 30 Wine Truck 8:35 Checkpoint Charlie 9:12 Gore no 30 BFI Garbage 8:20 Checkpoint Charlie 8:47 Hansen no 25 While Delivery Truck 8:20 Checkpoint Charlie 8:35 Wilow Bridge Road no 30 Seattle Fish Co. 8:43 Lodge (Main) 8:58 Lodge (Main) main entrance 30 Seattle Fish Co. 8:58 Checkpoint Charlie 9:15 Gore no 30 Meadow Gaal 8:45 Lodge (Main) 9:10 Lodge (Main) main entrance 30 Meadow Gold 9:10 Checkpoint Charlie 9:35 Willow Bridge Road no 30 Soo -White LinenfUniform 8:46 Checkpoint Charlie 9:30 Gore Creek Frontage stopped along Gore in front of lodge is Sno-White LinentUniform 9:30 Gore Creek Frontage 9:57 Gore no 16 Naliornal Velvet Dry Cleaners 8:47 Lodge (Main) 8:53 Ledge (Main) main entrance 18 National Velvet Dry Cleaners 8:53 Checkpoint Charlie 9:00 Gore no 18 Miler Lite 8:47 Checkpoint Charlie 9:07 Gore Creek Frontage stopped along Gore in front of lodge 30 Miler Lite 9:07 Gore Creek Frontage 9:31 Gore no 30 Italco Foods 9:14 Lodge (Main) 9:24 Lodge (Main) main entrance 30 Blank White Van 9:29 Checkpoint Charge 9:68 Gore no 30 Three Leaf Clover Truck 9:42 Lodge (Main) 9:55 Lodge {Main) main entrance 30 Gorsuch LTD White Tiuck 9:45 CheckpoirtCharlie 11:11 Gore no 30 Three Leaf Clover Truck 9:55 Checkpoint Chadie 9:57 Gore no 30 American Linen 9:55 Lodge (Main) 1127 Gore main entrance 18 Western Slope Laundry 9:57 Checkpoint Charlie 10:07 Lodge (Main) stopped along Gore in front of lodge 18 Blank White Truck (1636022) 10:OD Checkpoint Charlie 10:19 Gore no 30 Northeast While Truck 10:09 Lodge (Main) 11:05 Willow Bridge Road main entrance 30 Sinton's Dairy 10:10 Checkpoint Charlie 14:47 Gore stopped along Gore in front of lodge 30 UPS 10:50 Checkpoint Charlie 14:01 Gore no 30 Slifer Designs 10:55 Checkpcirt Charlie 11:07 Gore no 18 GMC Savanna While Van 10:67 Checkpoint Charlie 11:10 Gore stopped along Gore in front of lodge 48 White Van 11:04 Checkpoint Charlie 11:20 Willow Bridge Road no 18 UPS 11:1 d Checkpoint Charlie 11:20 Willow Bridge Road no 30 Sitonts Dairy 11:14 Checkpoint Charlie 11:30 Willow Bridge Road no 30 Val Honey Wagon 11:20 Checkpoint Charlie 11:31 Gore no 25 White Truck (Penske) 11:29 Checkpoint Charlie 12:Z7 Gore no 30 Willow River Natural Cheese 11:47 Checkpoint Charlie 12:00 Willow Bridge Road no 30 RAC Transport 12:10 Lodge (Main) 12:15 Lodge (Main) main entrance 30 Beer Truck 12:17 Lodge (Main) 12:22 Willow Bridge Road main entrance 30 Upholestry 12:22 Checkpoint. Charlie 12.32 Willow Bridge Road no 18 Retriever Air Freight 12:35 Checkpoint Charlie 12:44 Willow Bridge Road no 30 American Linen 12:54 Checkpoint Charlie 13:16 Willow Bridge Road no 18 Troy Dry Cleaners 13:19 Checkpoint Charlie 13:21 Wlflow Bridge Road no 18 Florist 14:D5 Checkpoint Charlie 14:22 Checkpoint no 18 UPS 14:12 Checkpoint Charlie 14:40 Willow Bridge Road no 30 UPS 14:18 Lodge (Main) 14:34 Willow Bridge Road main entrance 30 Floral Designs 14:42 Checkpoint Charlie 14:44 Checkpoint no 18 Plain White Pick -Up 15:03 Checkpoint Charlie 15:07 Willow Bridge Road no 18 .Breeze Ski Rental Van 15.13 Checkpoint Charlie 15:20 Willow Bridge Road no 18 Red Bull Energy Drink 15:45 Checkpoint Charlie 16:00 Willow Bridge Road no 18 DoWery7ruck 16:25 Checkpoint Charlie 16:35 Checkpoint no 30 Delivery Van 16:25 Checkpoint Charlie 16:30 Checkpoint no is URS 17:00 Lode Main 17:09 hire main entrance 30 nuuays M,"' ep—e crump Pew P� Count Summary Statistics Average Truck Length Overall 30 Average Truck Length During Peak 30 Number of 18 It Tracks 20 Number of 25 ft Trucks 4 Number of 30 it Trucks 33 Number of 35 ft Trucks 0 Number of 40 ft Trucks 1 RAverageDewery Vehicle Dwell Time 0:29 Total Number of Deliveries 5B • • Vehicles Entering at P3&J on 713102 Vehicle Type Time In Time Out Exit Location Length (ft) Budweiser Minivan 8:17 8:32 Gore 18 Valley Honey Wagon garbage 8:24 8:24 Gore 35 Christy Sports 9:25 9:31 Gore 30 Miller Lite 9:32 11:22 Gore 30 Budweiser 9:32 11:32 Gore 30 Meadow Gold 9:40 9:54 Gore 30 UPS 9:42 9:54 Gore 30 Summit Laundry 9:57 10:05 Gore 18 ©live Oil (Calabria) 10:05 10:37 Gore 30 Jim's Formal Wear 10:07 10:07 Gore 18 Spartan 10:27 10:40 P3&J 40 Dana White Truck 10:43 11:46 Gore 30 Green Van 10:52 11:02 Gore * 18 American Linen 11:51 12:23 Gore 18 Yellow Truck 11:58 13:22 Gore 30 Michael Shea's 12:00 12:02 Gore 30 Outback Builders 13:23 13:58 Gore 18 White Pick -Up 14:25 15:03 Gore 18 Christy Sports 14:49 14:56 Gore 30 Qwest 15:12 15:31 Gore 18 Breeze Ski Rental Van 15:17 15:42 Gore 18 Red Bull Energy Drink 15:31 15:42 Gore 18 White Truck 15:53 15:53 Gore 30 Summit Commercial Laundry 16:51 16:56 Gore 18 USPS 10:54 12:38 Gore * 18 ' indicates arrivaVdeparture during peak period Count Summary Statistics Average Truck Length Overall 25 Average Truck Length During Peak 30 Number of 18 ft Trucks 12 Number of 30 ft Trucks 11 Number of 35 ft Trucks 1 Number of 40 ft Trucks 1 Average Dwell Time 0:30 Total Number of Deliveries 25 LJ 0 Hula .30 ' Ue 1 b. by r -m rru Total Delivery Demand 8.00 am to 3:00 pm rel U01.)4 I u-3UJ"-+M M fG r. thz• U4 nnvll nrntfnn 2115/01 2/16101 Hanson Ranch Gore Creek Both Sites Hanson Ranch Gore Creek Bath Sites Road Drive 55 Road Drive Vehicle Glass 1 34 21 55 19 23 42 2 6 0 6 7 1 8 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 13 0 13 9 2 11 5 6 0 6 4 0 4 6 9 3 12 11 1 12 7 2 0 2 2 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 4 12 8 2 10 Totals 80 28 106 60 29 89 • Sap -02-02 10:02am From - T -619 P.05106 F-600 Parking Parking in Vail Village is only for permitted vehicles. Vehicles without the correct permit or vehicles who exceed the limits of their permit will be ticked. During a three week period MK Centennial observed the permitted parking zones within Vail Village and found the following occupancy rates presented in table 4. Table 4 - Vail Village Parking Study The town of Vail provides no free parking within Vail Village. There is a parking structure north of the'Village'far '�isitors., with'7 -15 rein. spaces for loading and delivery purposes. The rates for parking +ii teail Village structure are presented in table 5. ' Table 5 - Vail Parking Structure Rates v -w Time Parked in St;uc re Rete 8:00 7:00 8.00 9:00 10.00 :y11'.00 Ut Opaces- Street Name z r �:• '. ,'.6 6 to hours CoreCreek Dr. 7 to S hours $10 " 9 # of Trucks Parked 5 =' 11 hours $12 11 to is # of Cars Parked 4 6 24 hours 9 6 Free # of Spaces Available 9 7 $ 7 Willow Bridge Rd. 2' 2 of Trucks Parked 1 3 4 103 # of Cats Parked 4 6 .'3i :, . : , # m S aces Available 5 0 .. .. r Hanson Flinch Rd. ` d . , ... , v • # of Trucks Perked 0 2 1. ;' 1 0�;.-`.� 3 # of Gars Parked 1 :: d. ti �0 1 0 # of Spaces Available 2 1 # Bridge SL of Trucks Parked 3 .• 2 2 : -.3 " 1 4 N/A # of Cars Parked 4 6 6 S 3 4 3 # of Spaces Available 1 0 -.0 2 304 Gore Creek Or.>" . �' # of Trucks Parked 0 :,. ;.. 0 0 1 3 3 2 2 4 # of Cars Parked r.. 1 .- 0 t 0 # of Spaces Available •`''3 ' 3 ' Actual number of spaces vara ue't+D differentiation in vehicle sizes, The town of Vail provides no free parking within Vail Village. There is a parking structure north of the'Village'far '�isitors., with'7 -15 rein. spaces for loading and delivery purposes. The rates for parking +ii teail Village structure are presented in table 5. ' Table 5 - Vail Parking Structure Rates v -w Time Parked in St;uc re Rete �A 3' 7' 4 nour5 hours $& 4 to 5 hours 57 5 to 6 hours 6 to 7 hours $g 7 to S hours $10 B to 9 hours $11 9 to 11 hours $12 11 to is hours _ 113 15 to Lost Ticket - 24 hours $14 $14 ErMv and exit 109tween 3pm - 3am Free �A S heet2 Elm" KlmleyHom 1 aW Associates, Inc. Project Vail Village Subject Peak number of delivery vehicles Designed by FAG Date July 17, 2003_ _ Job No. 067887001 Checked by Sheet No. 1 of 1 PEAK NUMBER OF DELIVERY VEHICLES From delivery vehicle counts obtained July 3, 2002, it was determined that 83 vehicles made deliveries to Vail Village. The peak number of delivery vehicles present on the site at any given time that day was 9 vehicles. This is 10.8% of the daily delivery vehicles. Counts conducted during the winter at Vail Village indicate a total of 216 in and out delivery vehicle trips, which is 108 round trip deliveries. Using the peak percentage obtained from the July 3rd counts, a peak number of 12 delivery vehicles can be expected in the winter. Based on an average dwell time of thirty minutes per delivery vehicle from observations July 3, 2002 and 12 delivery bays to accommodate the maximum number of deliveries it can be assumed that approximately 24 deliveries will occur per hour. (30 min per vehicle = 2 vehicles per hour => 2 vehicles per hour " 12 storage bays = 24 vehicles per hour) This equates to approximately one delivery vehicle every 2.5 minutes. 0 Page 1 Sap -0g-02 10:0zam From- T-6}9 P. 06/06 F-801 Skier Drop-off Acti�vif p y Skier drop-off and pick-up activity takes place along Hanson Ranch Road just south of the P'3 & J lot. Approximately 15 -20 vehicles are involved in skier drag off activity during each daily peak (am & pm). There are a number of other vehicles, mainly cars that use the Hanson Ranch Road illegal access into the Village on this segment. Loading and Delivery activity —� There are approximately 50 - 70 truck deliveries per day in Vail Village, Trucks delivering goods to the Village originate from a variety of sources and deliver .a variety of goods. A list of delivery trucks, their size, and type of goods delivered is found In. Appendix A. There are so many different types of businesses being served by the delivery trucks that it is not passible to define typical delivery patterns. Through Mterviews'ivith _trucking firms, and observations it is estimated that approximately 65% of the truck deliveries are unique to the restaurants. Table 2 documents establishments in the village and their corresponding square footage. Table 2 - Vail Village restaurants and lodges and their correspondiing square footage i Busi es5 e Blu's Restaurant ' S - Ft. 1224 seats 76 # ra+] s Brid a Street Charlie`s •.900 Christiania Lode 46 Club Chelsea 2400 .,130 Club, The Garcons Saloon 20001 60001 75 1601 Gasthof Granshammer, Inc. 1 28 Gorsuch Ltd. :,.-10000 Lancelot inn. Inc, . ' Left Hank Restaurant 4000 3000 125 90 Lode @ Vail Foodtl3ev. Lied a 0, Vail Othei":•L�.. `... Lod a Vail Retail ,4° Lodge Vaih'The 116 Los Ami bs:,/2F1' _. 14010 112F 83 May Palacd'Restaurant 3000 120 moguls�r' , 94 Nick's : ' 2800 59 Ore House --f 3800 114 Pe is Restaurant & Bar 157 Red.Lioh, The 67001 232 Russell's 2700 110 Sarah's Loun a 60 Sitzmark Lodge, The 1 35 Sweet Basil 100 Tivoli Lod e, The 50 U the Creek Sar & Grill 1600 70 Vail Villa e Club 11620 116 ndetta's 620(] 120 15 • APPENDIX B Trip Generation Worksheets 0 • • 0 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Prosect Vail's Front Door Subject Trip Generation Summary for Project _ Designed by EAG Date July 17, 2.003 Job No. 067867001 Checked by Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Residence Club at Vail's Front Door Trip Generation 13 units generate an additional 4 peak hour trips, 42 weekday daily, and 40 Saturday daily (from previous calculation sheet) Ski Club Membership Trip Generation 285 proposed ski club members with 95 parking spaces. All 100% of parking spaces are expected to be occupied. It can be expected that 33% of all trips arriving will occur during common peak hour per Vail Resorts Information. Therefore, it is assummed that 95 club members would be generated on any given Saturday. 190 daily trips (one entering and one exiting per club member) Of these 95 club members attracted, 33% would arrive during the common peak hour resulting in 32 peak hour trips (95 members per day x 0.33 arrive in peak hour) Skier Services Building and Other Parking A total of 31 parking spaces are expected to be provided for the new skier services building to be used by the Lodge at Vail or by Vail Resorts employees. All 100% of parking spaces are expected to be occupied on any given day. 62 daily trips (31 spaces x 2, (1 entering and 1 exiting)) It can be expected that 90% of all trips arriving will occur during common peak hour per Vail Resorts Information_ Therefore, it can be assumed that 27 trips will occur during the peak hour. (31 spaces x 0.9 arrive in peak hour) Total Pro'ect Trip Generation Peak Flour 4 peak hour trips for residential units 32 peak hour trips for ski club members 27 peak hour trips for skier services building 63 Total Peak Hour Trips Weekday Baily 42 peak hour trips for residential units 190 peak hour trips for ski club members 62 peak hour trips for skier services building 294 Total Peak Hour Trips Saturday Daily 40 peak hour trips for residential units 190 peak hour trips for ski club members 62 peak hour trips for skier services building 292 Total Peak Hour Trips • • CMFI and As ocl�iates, Inc. Project Vail Village Subject Trip Generation Designed by EAG Date July 15, 2003 Jab No. 067867.001 Checked by Date Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition, Fitted Curve Equations Land Use Code - Recreational Hames (260) Independant Variable - Dwelling Units (X) X = 13 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 477) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 41% ent. 59% exit. (T) = 0.26 (X) T = 4 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.26 " (13.0) 2 entering 2 exiting Weekday— (page 469) Daily Weekday (T) = 3.16 (X) (T) = 3.16 " (13.0) Saturday. (pane 474) 2 + 2 = 4 Directional Distribution; 50% ent. 50% exit. T = 42 Average Vehicle Trip Ends 21 entering 21 exiting 21 + 21 = 42 Directional Distribution: 50% ent. 50% exit. (T) = 3.07 (X) T = 40 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 3.07 ' (13.0) 20 entering 20 exiting 20 + 20 = 40 :7 APPENDIX C Roadway Segment Analysis Worksheets 0 HCS2000: Two -Lane Highways Release 4.1e Phone: Fax: E -Mail: Two -Way Two -Lane Highway Segment Analysis Analyst EAG Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Date Performed 7/15/2003 Analysis Time Period Existing Weekday Highway Vail Drive From/To North of East Meadow Drive Jurisdiction Town of Vail Analysis Year 2003 Description 067867001 - Vail's Front Door Input Data Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 6.0 ft Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 % Segment length 0.5 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 % Terrain type Level % No -passing zones 0 % Grade_ Length mi Access points/mi 4 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 903 vehlh Directional split 60 / 40 % Average Travel Speed Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.2 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, 0.996 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1030 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 618 pc/h Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free -Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 65,0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 0.0 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 1.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 64.0 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 56,0 mi/h Percent Time-Spent-Followi Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.1 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.998 ,..Iwo -way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1028 pc/h Waghest directional split proportion (note -2) 617 se percent time -spent -following, BPTSF 59.5 % Adj.for directional distribution and no -passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time -spent -fallowing, PTSF 59.5 % Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS C Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.32 Peak 15 -min vehicle -miles of travel, VMT15 128 veh-mi Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60 452 veh-mi Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15 2.3 veh-h Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. • 11 • • HCS2000: Two -Lane Highways Release 4.1 c Phone: Fax: E -Mail: Two -Way Two -Lane Highway Segment Analysis Analyst EAG Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Date Performed 7/15/2003 Analysis Time Period Existing Saturday Highway Vail Drive From/To North of East Meadow Drive ,Jurisdiction Town of Vail Analysis Year 2003 Description 067867001 - Vail's Front Door nput Data Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 6.0 ft Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 % Segment length 0.5 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 % Terrain type Level % No -passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 4 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 854 veh/h Directional split 60 1 40 % Average Travel Sp Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.2 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, 0.996 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 974 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 584 pc/h Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free -Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 65.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 0.0 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 1.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 64.0 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 56.4 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Grade adjustment factor, fG PCE for trucks, ET 1.1 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV wo-way flow rate, (note -1) vp lWighest directional split proportion (note -2) Base percent time -spent -following, BPTSF 1.00 0.998 972 pc/h 583 57.4 % Adj.for directional distribution and no -passing zones, fdlnp 0.0 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF 57A % Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS C Volume to capacity ratio, vlc 0.30 Peak 15 -min vehicle -miles of travel, VMT15 121 veh-mi Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60 427 veh-mi Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15 2,1 veh-h Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >- 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. :7 • • HCS2000: Two -Lane Highways Release 4.1c Phone: Fax: E -Mail: Two -Way Two -Lane Highway Segment Analysis Analyst EAG Agency/Co. Kimley-Hom Date Performed 7/1512003 Analysis Time Period Future Weekday Highway Vail Drive From/To North of East Meadow Drive ,Jurisdiction Town of Vail Analysis Year 2003 Description 067867001 - Vail's Front Door Input Data Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 6.0 ft Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 % Segment length 0.5 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 % Terrain type Level % No -passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 4 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 988 veh/h Directional split 60 / 40 % 0 - Average Travel Speed Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.2 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, 0.996 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1127 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 676 pclh Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free -Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 65.0 .mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 0.0 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 1.0 milk Free-flow speed, FFS 64.0 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 55.3 mi/h Percent Time-Spent-Followi Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.1 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.998 Allsiwo-way flow rate,(note-1) v 1125 pc/h ghest directional split proportion (note -2) 675 Base percent time -spent -following, BPTSF 62.8 % Adj.for directional distribution and no -passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF 62.8 % of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS C Volume to capacity ratio, vlc 0-35 Peak 15 -min vehicle -miles of travel, VMT15 140 veh-mi Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60 494 veh-mi Peak 15 -rain total travel time, TTI 5 2.5 veh-h Nates: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F_ 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. • 0 HCS2000: Two -Lane Highways Release 4.1c Phone: Fax: E -Mail: Two -Way Two -Lane Highway Segment Analysis Analyst EAG Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Date Performed 7/15/2003 Analysis Time Period Future Saturday Highway Vail Drive From/To North of East Meadow Drive Jurisdiction Town of Vail Analysis Year 2003 Description 067867001 - Vail's Front Door Input Data Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 6.0 ft Peak -hour factor, P H F 0.88 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 % Segment length 0.5 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 % Terrain type Level % No -passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 4 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 939 veh/h Directional split 60 1 40 % 49 Average Travel Speed Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.2 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, 0.996 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1071 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 643 pc/h Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free -Flow Speed. Base free-flow speed, BFFS 65.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 0.0 mVh Adj. for access points, fA 1.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 64.0 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 55.7 mi/h Percent Time -Spent --Fol Grade adjustment factor, fG PCE for trucks, ET 1.1 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy-vehicte adjustment factor, fHV Swo-way flow rate,(note-l) vp ighest directional split proportion (note -2) Base percent time -spent -following, BPTSF 1.00 0.998 1069 pc/h 641 60.9 % Adj.for directional distribution and no -passing zones, fd/np 0.0 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF 60.9 % of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, Los C Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.33 Peak 15 -min vehicle -miles of travel, VMT15 133 veh-.mi Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60 470 veh-mi Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT 15 2.4 veh-h Notes: I. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. • • HCS2000: Two -Lane Highways Release 4.1c Phone: Fax: E -Mail: Two -Way Two -Lane Highway Segment Analysis Analyst EAG Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Date Performed 7/15/2003 Analysis Time Period Existing Weekday Highway Vail Drive From/To South of Forest Road Jurisdiction Town of Vail Analysis Year 2003 Description 067867001 - Vail's Front Door Input Data Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 6.0 ft Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 % Segment length 0.5 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 % Terrain type Level % No -passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 4 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 192 Directional split 60 / 40 % veh/h Average Travel Speed Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.7 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, 0.986 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 221 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 133 pc/h Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free -Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 65.0 milh Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 0.0 milh Adj. for access points, fA 1.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 64.0 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnp 0.0 milh Average travel speed, ATS 62.3 milh Percent Time -Spent -Fallowing Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.1 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Leavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.998 Aftwo-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 219 pc/h ighest directional split proportion (note -2) 131 Base percent time -spent -following, BPTSF 17.5 % Adj,for directional distribution and no -passing zones, fdlnp 1.6 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF 19.1 % Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS A Volume to capacity ratio, We 0.07 Peak 15 -min vehicle -miles of travel, VMT15 27 veh-mi Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60 96 veh-mi Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15 0.4 veh-h Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pclh, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. • • HCS2000: Two -Lane Highways Release 4.1c Phone: Fax: E -Mail: Two -Way Two -Lane Highway Segment Analysis Analyst EAG Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Date Performed 7/15/2003 Analysis Time Period Existing Saturday Highway Vail Drive From/To South of Forest Road Jurisdiction Town of Vail Analysis Year 2003 Description 067867001 - Vail's Front Door _Input Data Highway class Class 1 Shoulder width 6.0 ft Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 % Segment length 0.5 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 % Terrain type Level % No -passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 4 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 207 Directional split 60 / 40 % 0 veh/h Average Travel Speed Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.7 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, 0.986 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 239 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 143 pc/h Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free -Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 65.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 0.0 milh Adj, for access points, fA 1.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 64.0 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnp OA milh Average travel speed, ATS 62.1 milh Percent Time -Spent -Following Grade adjustment factor, fG PCE for trucks, ET 1.1 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV wo-way flow rate,(note-1) vp ighest directional split proportion (note -2) Base percent time -spent -following, BPTSF 1.00 0.998 236 pc/h 142 18.7 % Adj.for directional distribution and no -passing zones, fd/np 1.6 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF 20.3 % Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS A Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.07 Peak 15 -min vehicle -miles of travel, VMT15 29 veh-mi Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60 104 veh-mi Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT 15 0.5 veh-h Notes: 1, If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. 2. if highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F_ • 0 • HCS2000: Two -Lane Highways Release 4.1c Phone: Fax: E -Mail: Two -Way Two -Lane Highway Segment Analysis Analyst EAG Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Date Performed 711512003 Analysis Time Period Future Weekday Highway Vail Drive From/To South of Forest Road Jurisdiction Town of Vail Analysis Year 2003. Description 067867001 - Vail's Front Door Highway class Class 1 nput Data Shoulder width 6,0 ft Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 % Segment length 0.5 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 % Terrain type Level % No -passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 4 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, V 235 veh/h 0 Directional split 60 / 40 Average Travel Speed Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.7 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, 0,986 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 271 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 163 pc/h Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement: Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free -Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 65.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, IS 0.0 mi/h Adj. for access points, fA 1.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 64.0 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 61.9 mi/h rcent Time -Spent -Following Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.1 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.998 WIwo -way flow rate,(note-1) vp 268 pc/h ighest directional split proportion (note -2) 161 Base percent time -spent -following, BPTSF 21.0 % Adi.for directional distribution and no -passing zones, fdlnp 1.6 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF 22.6 % Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS A Volume to capacity ratio, vfc 0.08 Peak 15 -min vehicle -miles of travel, VMT15 33 veh-mi Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60 118 veh-mi Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15 0.5 veh-h Notes. 1. tf vp ?= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pcth, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. :3 0 • HCS2000: Two -Lane Highways Release 4.1 c Phone: Fax: E -Mail: Two -Way Two -Lane Highway Segment Analysis Analyst EAG Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Date Performed 7/15/2003 Analysis Time Period Future Saturday Highway Vail Drive From/To South of Forest Road Jurisdiction Town of Vail Analysis Year 2003 Description 067867001 - Vail's Front Door Input Data Highway class Glass 1 Shoulder width 6.0 ft Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 % Segment length 0.5 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 % Terrain type Level % No -passing zones 0 % Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 4 /mi Up/down % Two-way hourly volume, Directional split 60 is V 250 veh/h 40 % Average Travel Speed Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PCE for trucks, ET 1.7 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, 0.986 Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 288 pc/h Highest directional split proportion (note -2) 173 pc/h Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h Observed volume, Vf - veh/h Estimated Free -Flow Speed: Base free-flow speed, BFFS 65.0 mi/h Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 0.0 mi/h Adj, for access points, fA 1.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS 64.0 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS 61.8 mi/h Percent Time-Spent-Followin Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00 PGE for trucks, ET 1.1 PCE for RVs, ER 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.998 wo-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 285 pc/h ghest directional split proportion (nate-2) 171 Base percent time -spent -following, BPTSF 22.2 % Adj.for directional distribution and no -passing zones, fdlnp 1.6 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF 23.8 % Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS A Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.09 Peak 15 -min vehicle -miles of travel, VMT15 36 veh-mi Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60 125 veh-mi Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15 0.6 veh-h Notes: 1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. 2. If Highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. 0 • L_J Vail village Loading & Delivery 5 Year Management Plan DRAFT 25 July 2003 L r-� L J • 1. Introduction With the forthcoming Front Door project which includes a dock facility for the Village and the extensive analysis on loading and delivery, the Town of Vail has prepared a basic management plan for loading and delivery in the Village. Over the last ten years, several consultants have studied the existing system and projected future needs for the Village and determined that the dock facility proposed will handle the projected loading and delivery demands well into the future. Loading and delivery operations with the dock facility will be greatly improved over the current system. The startup of the operations can be a minimalist approach, only requiring a minimum of policies and regulations, similar to those operations in Beaver Creek. As the Village develops, the demand may increase and suggestions for a systemized loading and delivery operation can be implemented. This plan identifies some of the steps than can be implemented once the demand gets to the point where overflow issues are common and a more efficient system is needed. 2. Existing Conditions Currently, deliveries in the Village are made by suppliers by bringing their vehicles into the Village. Delivery vehicle parking is limited by the Town of Vail and permits are required. The Village streets generally have delivery vehicles parked during many hours of the day, especially during morning hours. Larger trucks are permitted on Bridge Street only prior to 8:30 am daily and prior to 11:30 am in other areas of the Village. After 11:30 am, delivery trucks must move to the parking areas adjacent to the Village. Small trucks are allowed in the Village until 6.00 pm. There are over 70 different suppliers serving the Village with over 50 deliveries per day during the winter peak season. In correspondence related to prior studies, suppliers indicated that there was a lack of adequate parking in the Village, a lack of sufficient storage space, and that some restaurants restricted deliveries to after 11:30 am, delaying the deliveries and forcing extended routing. And, given that the Village is a pedestrian zone, residents and guests are impacted by the deliveries. The impacts include deceased access, noise, oil and grease on the streets, and obstructed viewsheds. 3. Objectives for Improved Loading & Delivery To provide effective and efficient loading and delivery services to the Village businesses and residents. Vail Village Loading & Delivery Page 1 5 Year Management Plan DRAFT • To improve the visitor, guest, and resident experience by minimizing or mitigating the impacts of loading and delivery services to Vail's residents, visitors, guests, and businesses, including pedestrian safety, noise, air, and water pollution, roadway congestion, parking, disruption of business, and overall inconvenience. ■ To provide a system for loading and delivery for Vail's suppliers that minimizes the time spent in the Village and is readily implemented. To provide an equitable cost sharing among the beneficiaries of the improved loading and delivery operations. For startup operations, a minimalist approach may be taken that could meet the essence of the objectives. This approach can be modeled similar to that utilized in Beaver Creek. Beaver Creek has three essential regulations in their system: Turn off engines when parked Specified hours of operation Cleanup responsibilities Should the demand for deliveries cause congestion within the dock facility and overflow conditions become common , a more systematic approach may be taken. The sections that follow describe a basic plan for such a time. 4. General Policies for Loading & Delivery 4.1. Management Agreements Agreements among the Town, Vail Resorts Inc., and businesses will be needed to define the operations of the loading and delivery services and the associated dock facility. The agreements should define the specific loading and delivery services, operational responsibilities, maintenance, means of communication, impact mitigation, and cost sharing. These agreements should be in place prior to operational start and should be for a term of two or three years. Annual review of these agreements will help to optimize the system. The agreements should be transferable in the case of business transfer. Agreements with Vail's suppliers should also be in place prior to operational start that defines the operations, supplier responsibilities, and means of communication. Specific responsibilities of the suppliers should address queuing, accessing the dock, dock operations, delivery distribution, hazardous Vail Village Loading & Delivery Page 2 5 Year Management Plan DRAFT material handling, and spills. Incentives and disincentives for suppliers should be addressed as the demand for the dock facility reaches congestion. 4.2. Operations A general manager could be placed in charge of all loading and delivery operations for the dock facility and distribution. Management of the loading and delivery operations includes coordination with Vail's businesses and residents, and suppliers. 4.3. Maintenance Maintenance of the dock facility should be under the responsibility of the building's owner, allowing the most efficient maintenance management. Maintenance would include normal cleaning, dock equipment maintenance, and facility equipment maintenance, such as doors, elevators, and distribution equipment. 4.4. Signing & Communications Clear directional signing will be needed on Vail's streets that direct suppliers from 1-70 to the dock facility. Similarly, exit routing must be clear to the suppliers. Special signing provisions for special events, delays, and hazardous road conditions should be developed. Directional signing on Vail's streets needs to be permitted by the Town's Public Works Department. The general manager should work with the Town to develop the needed signing. All communications and coordination should be the responsibility of the general manager. In order to avoid overflow conditions in the dock facility and queuing on the streets of Vail, scheduling and coordination information should be sent directly to drivers by text messaging on pagers or cellular phones prior to the driver reaching Vail. As the operation gains experience, much of the coordination and scheduling can be automated. 4.5. Supplier Responsibilities The responsibilities of Vail's suppliers would be increased with the improved loading and delivery operations. Specifically, the additional responsibilities include coordination and scheduling of access to the dock facility and means of distribution. Provisions for off -schedule deliveries, cleanup of spills, and dock 40 facility damages, should be defined. Vail Village Loading & Delivery Page 3 5 Year Management Plan DRAFT Special communications equipment for suppliers may be required for the improved loading and delivery operations. As mentioned above, text messaging may be an efficient means for disseminating scheduling and coordination information from the dock facility to the drivers. Many cellular phones have text messaging and pagers can be provided to drivers without text messaging phones. This equipment may be made a component of a Town delivery permit system. 4.6. Hazardous Materials Hazardous material distribution will require special provisions within the dock facility. The provisions can be gleaned from other dock facilities. Cleanups should be initially managed by the general manager and coordinated with local and state agencies. 4.7. Impact Mitigation Mitigation of any impacts to residents and businesses as a result of the improved loading and delivery operations should be addressed by both the general manager and the Town. 0 4.8. Cost Sharing Vail's businesses, residents, and suppliers will all be beneficiaries of an improved loading and delivery operation in the Village. Consequently, all beneficiaries should share in the additional cost of the operations and maintenance. 5. Implementation Strategy Loading and delivery demand projections, based on three separate reviews by consultants over ten years indicate that the dock facility proposed in the Front Door Project will meet the demand in the Village. The Front Door project is scheduled to be under construction in the spring of 2004 and should be complete in 2005, at which time the improved loading and delivery operations can commence. The improved loading and delivery system will need to be coordinated with the streetscape construction for approximately a year as the current schedule for streetscape improvement shows a completion in 2006. Once the improved system is ready for operation, the Town of Vail will implement loading zone requirements on the Village streets to optimize the use of the new dock facility. At this time the roadway in front of the Lodge at Vail will be redesigned to accept Vail Village Loading & Delivery Page 4 5 Year Management Plan DRAFT a relocated Checkpoint Charlie and at the same time to implement the changes desired by Vail resorts to discourage traffic from entering the Village. Once the facility and improvements are in place, the situation will be monitored to see if the improvements have accomplished the desired effect. In addition tests will be run to see if temporarily moving the Checkpoint operation out of the Village has an adverse effect on the circulation of the new facilities. The results of these tests will determine the ultimate location of the New Checkpoint Charlie. Currently the Town of Vail does not require any sort of administrative cost for its permitting process. At a minimum there should be cost for this. Recently the Town Council also directed staff to look into all businesses performing work within the Town to obtain Businesses license fees. This would include all of the suppliers. 6. Dock Facility Management 6.1. Dock Facility Operations 6.1.1. General Logistics For the most effective loading and delivery operation in the Village, the dock facilities should be available to all of the Village's suppliers with distribution to businesses and residents. The dock facility should have hours of operation which can accommodate most of the deliveries in the Village, say from 5 am to 6 pm daily. Vehicles using the dock facility would be limited to those vehicles able to accommodate the physical constraints of the dock facility, including height, width, length, and turning radius. As the design of the dock facility advances, these constraints will be identified. Security measures of the dock facility needs to be included in the design of the facility as well as in the operational pian. At a minimum, controlled access doors and closed circuit imaging systems should be installed. Access to the facility should only be by authorized individuals and vehicles. Supplier drivers should have some screening prior to authorization for access. The logistics of the dock facility operation will be an evolving plan. It is not recommended at this time to specify bays for specific deliveries. Initially, delivery bays can be designated as short time (30 minutes or less) and long term (30 minutes to 2 hours). Short term bays can be those with the easiest access In 40 and out of the facility in order to keep a good flow. Bays that have a more difficult access can be designated as long term bays, Long vehicles should have Vail Village Loading & Delivery Page 5 5 Year Management Plan DRAFT priority in the long bays as queuing of short vehicles will be easier than queuing long vehicles. Efficiency of this initial configuration will be tested during the start up phase of the operation and can be modified as appropriate. There may be times or conditions where all bays will be filled and an overflow condition presents itself. Overflow is a condition that should have provisions to avoid delivery queuing on the streets of Vail. Scheduling and communications with supplier drivers prior to exiting 1-70 is the most effective means of preventing overflow and queuing in Vail. Communications can be as simple as using cellular phone calls, text messaging, or variable message signs. 6.1.2. Dispersing Deliveries Issues In most circumstances, the driver must accompany deliveries to the final destination, leaving the vehicle in the dock facility. Dispersing deliveries requires efficiency as the longer the time necessary to disperse, the longer the bay stays occupied, and the higher the potential for overflow. The dock facility could provide a fleet of hand carts for dispersing deliveries in the Village. A small forklift could also be provided in the dock facility. 0 6.1.3. Extreme Situations Contingency plans must be in place for extreme situations such as closures of I- 70. Should a closure of 1-70 occur, the potential for overflow at the dock facility becomes higher. In these circumstances, it may be best to absorb the impact by keeping the dock facility open until operations return to normal. Queuing of delivery trucks within Vail during an extreme situation may be unavoidable at a reasonable cost. 6.1.4. Operations Management As identified earlier, a general manager should be in charge of all loading and delivery operations for the dock facility and distribution. The general manager, with the assistance of an automated dispatch computer, could provide overall management, coordination, and communications for the operation. The Town of Vail role in the loading and delivery process could be that of providing the permitting, signing, revenue and fee collection, and accounting functions. In addition, the Town may be able to provide the Information Technology (IT) functions for the operations. . The Village businesses would be responsible for assuring the coordination efforts within their business are in compliance with the overall loading and delivery plan. Vail Village Loading & Delivery Page 6 5 Year Management Plan DRAFT 0 6.2. Facility Maintenance Building maintenance should be the responsibility of the operator of the building. Equipment within the building, including doors, elevators, mini trucks, fork lift, and other mechanical equipment should also be the responsibility of the building operator. 6.3. Supplier Issues Communications with suppliers is necessary to provide an efficient loading and delivery operation in the Village. Information on coordination and scheduling by the general manager needs to be transmitted to the suppliers and the supplier drivers need to communicate delays or accelerations to the general. Typically, a supplier driver desires to only be at their destination for the minimum period of time. The incentive for the driver for adhering to coordination and scheduling is inherent in the system. There will be times when drivers are delayed beyond their fault and at those times, coordination and re -scheduling their place in the dock facility is necessary and without any penalty. At times, however, blatant violations of coordination and scheduling direction may require disincentives to the drivers. The disincentives may be in the form of violation fees assessed to the driver or supplier. In the case of repeating violations of policy, suppliers may be requested to remove a driver from the route. 7. Cost Issues 7.1. Startup Approach. For the minimalist approach, the cost of operating the loading and delivery system through the dock facility would be limited to the following items: Capital expenditures: o Forklift, if desired o Hand carts o Communications equipment —phone, fax, etc o Security equipment • Operating expenses: o Building and equipment maintenance o Utilities o Janitorial services o Spill Containment Supplies Vail Village Loading & Delivery Page 7 5 Year Management Plan DRAFT 7.2. For the case when a more systemized approach becomes necessary, the cost of operating the loading and delivery system through the dock facility would include the following items: ■ Operations Costs o Labor • General Manager ■ Dock Workers o Equipment • Hand Cart Fleet • Mini Trucks • Forklift ■ Computer Equipment ■ Communications Equipment • Security Equipment o Materials • Fuel, Oil, Grease • Power • Strapping / Rigging ■ 40 Safety Equipment • Janitorial Supplies • Spill Containment Supplies • Computer & Office Supplies �J • Maintenance Costs o Dock Facility Maintenance — Doors, Elevators, etc o Equipment Maintenance -- Forklift, Mini Trucks, Carts o Computer & Communications Maintenance o Utilities 8. Summary An improved loading and delivery system in the Village will be a welcomed addition to Vail. Given that the dock facility will be able to handle the loading and delivery demand well in to the future, the initial startup operations can take a minimalist approach, similar to that in Beaver Creek. As the demand grows, the dock facility becomes congested, and overflow is common, a more systemized approach can be implemented. Vail Village Loading & Delivery Page 8 5 Year Management Plan DRAFT