Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0811 PEC• 0 STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE 19 r;' PROOF OF PUBLICATION 1, 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. 0That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of ......... ,f...... consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper date .. e. ..... ...12.5 .................... A.D. ... 3..... and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dat69.WJ_J_r.... .. S.... .. A.D......'.. �............ In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this ......i,... day of ..., . ....... r... .............. ... .. ........ Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this ...........C2. .... day of i Notary Public My Commission expires ..... ,.!......� 0 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Code on August 11, 2003. at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Section 12- 78-13. Density Control, Zoning Regulations, a re� quest for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J. Block 5A, Vail Village 6th Filing from Public Ac- commodation zone district (PA.) to Parking zone district i a request for a final 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 Tithe 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, 10 allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A. Vail Village 5th Filing: a request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Code of a proposed major subdivi- sion, pursuant to Section 13-3. Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to altow ter the platting of the 'trade parcel'; a request for a conditional use per- mit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a'private off-street vehicle Parking faulty and public park' to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing; a request for an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to al- low for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for a variance from Section 12-21-10, Develop- ment Restricted, Vail Town Code. pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to al- low for the construction of multiple -family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 401h; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to for the construction of Vall's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A mom complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Tann of Vail Community Devel- opment Department) 7 _} Applicant: Vail Resbeis. repnmerdW by Jay ps- terson Planner: George Ruther An appeal of a staff determination regarding joint P roperty ownership signature requirements as pre- scribed by Chapters 12-11, Design Review: 12-15, Gross Residenha! Floor Area; 12-16, Conditional Use Permits; and 12-17, Variances; Vail Town Code. Appellenl: John Schofield Planner: George Ruther A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to allow for nein amendments to the out- door display requirements as prescribed by Sec- tions 12.61-9, Location of Business Activity; 12-7B- 18, Location of Business Activity; 12.17-14, Loca- tion of Business Activity; 12-7D-11, Location of Business Activity; 12.7E-13, Location of Business Activity; 12-7H-17, Location of Business Activity; 12-71-17, Location of Business Activity, Vail Town Code, and setting for details in regard #Mrelo. Applicant: Town of Vaif Planner, Matt Genneft The applications and information about these pr, Pas" 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 tha Project orientation held in the Town of Vail Com. munity Dovelopment Department offiCe and the site visits that precede the public hearing. please call (970) 4.79-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon re- quest 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 25, 2003. Published in The Vail Daily July 25, 2()03 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Code on August 11, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a final 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 final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the proposed zoning of Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation ll zone district; a request for subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5"' Filing; a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a "private off-street vehicle parking facility and public park" to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing; a request for an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7.. Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for a variance from Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to allow for the construction of multiple -family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther An appeal of a staff determination regarding joint property ownership signature requirements as prescribed by Chapters 12-11, Design Review; 12-15, Gross Residential Floor Area; 12-16, Conditional Use Permits; and 12-17, Variances; Vail Town Code. Appellent: John Schofield Planner: George Ruther A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to allow for text amendments to the outdoor display requirements as prescribed by Sections 12-61-9, Location of Business Activity; 12-713-18, Location of Business Activity; 12-17-14, Location of Business Activity; 12-7D-11, Location of Business Activity; 12-7E-13, Location of Business Activity; 12-7H-17, Location of Business Activity; 12-71-17, Location of Business Activity, Vail Town Code, and setting for details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett The applications and information about these proposals are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department office, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation held in the Town of Vail Community Development Department office and the site visits that precede the public hearing. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for additional information. This notice published in the Vail Daily on July 25, 2003. 1 6ji TOWN OF PAIL F_ I L J PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO SS, COUNTY OF EAGLE PLANNItW3 AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMM19SION PUBLIC MEETING n, r- 5 r—*5 Monday. August 11, 2003 u PROJECT ORIENTATION I - CDmmuniry Develop- ment Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm 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 generat circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than filly -two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1679, or any amend- ments thereof, and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of ........ (....... consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated ... ................ A.D.... .... 615 . and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated.......... .f... A.D........ ... ................. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this ....1.)..... day of .. . Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, Stale of Colorado, this .... /....�..... day of ..... Notary Public My Commission expires ..... .. 0 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Do Cahill Site Visits : 1. Vail's Front Door Driver. George NOTE: It the PEC hearing extends until 600 p.rr . the board may break for dinner from 6:00.6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Cham- bers 2:00 pm 1- An appeal of a staff determination regarding joint property ownership signature requirements as prescribed by Chapters 12-11, Design Review: 12- 15, Gross Residential Floor Area; 12-16, Condi- tional Use Permits; and 12-17, Variances; Vail Town Code. Appellant: John Schofield Planner: George Ruther 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of pproposed text amendments to Ti- tle 12, Zoning Re ulations. Vail Town Code. 10 m aend M1e Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulatiora in Me Hillside Residential (HR), Sin- gle-Familyy Residential (SFR), Two -Family Resi- dential ((R), Two -Family Pdmary/Secondary Resi- dential (P$}. Residential Ctustar (RC). Low Dansity MulE�yle-Fant,Ifvy (LDMF, Medium Danslty Multiple- Famil(MDtdIF}, High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF}, arrd Housing (H) districts, and $cuirng forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, etal. Planner: Bill Gibson 3. A request for a linal recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A,. Vail Villa a 5th Filing from Public Ac- commodation zone mtriet (PA) to Parking 20110 dialmi (Pt; a request for a final recommendation 10 the Vail 7Town Council for the proposed zoning of Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Sid Base .Fieo- rection It zone district: a request for subdivrsrr�ur�,,.� pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, 1rit� Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the cars, mon property line between Lots P3 & J. Block 54 Vail VilIs 5th Filing; a request for a conditio-r�t use ppeermit, pursuant to Chapter 1 fi, -die 12, of Ute Vail Town. Cade, to allow fora "private oft -street vehicle parking facility and public park" to be 0011- sbucte and operated on Lots P3& J. Bio& 5A, Vali Village 5th Filing; a request for an exterior el- teratan or modification, pursuant to Section 12-79- 7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Cade, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at VdI a reqquest for a variance from section 12.21.16, Dave€oprnenI. Restricted, Vail Town Code, pur- suant_ to chapter 17. variances, Zoning Regula- tion to allow for the construction of muW le -Fara units on slopes in excess ofet and a 2 'plantofaalllaalet of 0, the r�2 klCllon of Vairs Front Door. and setting forth da is In regard thereto. (Ama ra complete metes and bounds le - net descriotion is available at the lawn of Vail Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Pe- terson Planner: George Ruther 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to allow for text amendments to the outdoor displayy requirements as prescribed b Secli ms 12-61-g, Location o1 Business Activity; 12- 7B -f &, Location of Business Activity, 12-17-14, Lo- cation of Business AcUvltyr: 12.7D -f 1, Location of Business Activity 12-7E-13. Location o1 Business Activity 12-7H- T, Location of Business Activlty: 12-71-17, Location o1 Business Activity, Vail Town Code, and setting for details in regard thereto. AMicanl: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gannett 5, A request for a recommendation to the Vast Town Council for an oamendment to the Town of Vail Streeiscape Master Plan, and setting forth de- tails in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hail Planner: Warren Campbell 6. A request for a conditional use perm§#, to allow for an ouido'o linin�gg deck, In aocordance with S tion 12 -7B -4B, Gondttoona, Uses, Vaii Town oda�taochoRoadff_ovlGaBtadt 2uiVaflg1Ji311 gFia a 1st sonFiling. r� sent d by I(n Rght Planing SorvCom i r, {ncnc , repre- Planner: bill Gibson Tabled to August 25, 2003 7. A request for a variance Item 13acti ail n 1 de, Setbacks, and 12-6H-7, HIM. 10 Vail. 95 Vail Valley Drntial jveA-ot A. Vail Village 7th Fling. f 4rant. Manor Vail Lodge, represented by B.9 McCleary Planner; Warren Campbell Withdrawn 8. Approval of July 25, 20113 minutes 9. Information Update The applications and information about the proPos- als are avafiable for public inspection during regu- lar oifice hours In the project planner's office local - ad at the Town ofCommun Depalment, 775 South ail Front Frontage Read. opment Plelasse Call 47g-2138 for iniormation. Sign Iangua�e in#erpre#anon available upon re T1;31with 24 hour notification. Please call 479` 2356, Telephone for to Hearing Impaired. for In- formation. Community Devicc, nt DieRaariewl Daily Published Aug. 8 2 th _ • 0 0 • • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, August 11, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits: Vail's Front Door Driver: George MEMBERS ABSENT Doug Cahill �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 An appeal of a staff determination regarding joint property ownership signature requirements as prescribed by Chapters 12-11, Design Review; 12-15, Gross Residential Floor Area; 12-16, Conditional Use Permits; and 12-17, Variances; Vail Town Code. Appellant: John Schofield Planner: George Ruther 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 5-0 TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 3. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village Stn Filing from Public Accommodation zone district (PA) to Parking zone district (P); a request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the proposed zoning of Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation 11 zone district; a request for 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 5t" Filing; 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 h Filing; a request for an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town *VAIL TOW 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 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to allow for tent amendments to the outdoor display requirements as prescribed by Sections 12-61-9, Location of Business Activity; 12-7B-18, Location of Business Activity; 12-17-14, Location of Business Activity; 12- 7D-11, Location of Business Activity; 12-7E-13, Location of Business Activity; 12-7H-17, Location of Business Activity; 12-71-17, Location of Business Activity, Vail Town Code, and setting for details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett 5. 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 6. 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 15t Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson Tabled to August 25, 2003 7. 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 Withdrawn 8. Approval of July 25, 2003 minutes 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 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, August 11, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Doug Cahill Site Visits: Vail's Front Door Driver: George 1♦0 NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearin -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. An appeal of a staff determination regarding joint property ownership signature requirements as prescribed by Chapters 12-11, Design Review; 12-15, Gross Residential Floor Area; 12-16, Conditional Use Permits; and 12-17, Variances; Vail Town Code. Appellant: John Schofield Planner: George Ruther 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), Two -Family PrimaryfSecondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson 3. A request for a final 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 final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the proposed zoning of Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation it zone district; a request for 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 5t�' Filing; 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 an Lots P3& J, Black 5A, Vail Village 5 h 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 4YALL TOWN 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 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to allow for text amendments to the outdoor display requirements as prescribed by Sections 12-61-9, Location of Business Activity; 12-713-18, Location of Business Activity; 12-17-14, Location of Business Activity; 12- 7D-11, Location of Business Activfty; 12-7E-13, Location of Business Activity; 12-7H-17, Location of Business Activity; 12-71-17, Location of Business Activity, Vail Town Code, and setting for details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett 5. 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 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an outdoor dining deck, in accordance with Section 12-713-48, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson is Tablet! to August 25, 2003 7. 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 Withdrawn 8. Approval of July 25, 2003 minutes 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 August 8, 2003 in the Vail Daily. N PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, August 11, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Chas Bernhardt John Schofield Erickson Shirley George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Site Visits None Driver: George MEMBERS ABSENT Doug Cahill Gary Hartmann NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearin - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. An appeal of a staff determination regarding joint property ownership signature requirements as prescribed by Chapters 12-11, Design Review; 12-15, Gross Residential Floor Area; 12-16, Conditional Use Permits; and 12-17, Variances; Vail Town Code. Appellant: John Schofield Planner: George Ruther John Schofield recused himself from the discussion and turned the discussion over to Erickson Shirley. George Ruther made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Near the end of his presentation, he outlined the time frame for dual -homeowner response that the PEC had mentioned in the pre -meeting as part of a solution to the joint property ownership signature. Erickson Shirley asked if the applicant had any questions or issues. Barbara Schofield, the appellant's representative, introduced herself and presented her case. Russell Forrest verified that soon after that application, a change was made to the regulations that required proof and signature of same for same renovation. Mrs. Schofield did not believe that the code only applied to modification of a residence, not maintenance of a residence. She requested that a same for same repaint did not require approval or a signature since there was not a design change- She stated that her home should be able to be maintained without a DRB application and joint property owner's lA 1 TOWN OF PAIL signature; etc. Robert Kossman, the appellant's neighbor, spoke of the approved plans he had to redo his stairs, which Mr. Schofield would not approve. He mentioned that Mr. Schofield did not want him to redo the stairs, but instead wanted him to remove his mature landscaping. He opposed the roof repair because medium shakes were replaced with heavy shakes and painted flashing was replaced with copper, therefore not same for same. He said that he was wanting to make property and upkeep changes, but his neighbor would not agree. HE was hoping that the issue could be resolved, but realized it could not. He said that he could not sign off for a paint job when his neighbor would not let him improve his property. Barbara Schofield mentioned that in the long-range picture, the Town of Vail should encourage homeowners to maintain their homes and that this would be best helped through common maintenance without signatures. Erickson turned the discussion to PEC commentary. Rollie Kjesbo mentioned that he understood staff's needs to avoid these situations. He agreed that maintenance should be of the highest priority. He agreed that a non -response of a joint homeowner after 45 days should be considered an affirmative and that an inspection of same for same would be preferable to a signature. George Lamb shared his experience on the DRB stating that often, even same for same applications achieve a distinct change and that in order to keep consistency as a structure, repairs should be done at the same time, or close to the same time, he said. He wanted to uphold the staffs recommendation in that he wanted the town to rescind themselves from this type of a dispute. He mentioned that he understood the stance of the appellant. However, the disputes need to be settled outside of the town setting. Chas Bernhardt said that in purchasing a duplex or a joint home, it is understood that situations will need to be arbitrated with the fellow homeowner and though maintenance is important, it is not the town's responsibility to solve these struggles. He wanted to uphold the Town's position. Erickson Shirley mentioned that two topics were under discussion. Firstly, making an exception such that one owner can notify his neighbor and proceed with the improvement after a passage of time during which no response has been acquired (same for same). Secondly, properties should be well-maintained, but perhaps the owners should be forced to come to a conclusion on their own, though joint signatures were an imperfect means of doing that. He said that a joint owner should be allowed to maintain his property to the extent that the appearance was not changed (i.e. shingle replacement). In regard to re- painting, it seems better to have one neighbor be able to keep the place maintained vs. having the entire residence fall into disrepair. Chas Bernhardt mentioned that regarding health and safety issues, a signature should not be required. Erickson replied that he agreed and that somehow an agreement should be reached such that simple repairs could be fixed as long as a change in the appearance of the property did not occur. George Ruther asked more about the notification period. He recommended that the time frame in which a joint owner could reply to maintenance notification should be narrowed to a smaller amount of time. He said that to date, fifteen days was an appropriate notification. George Lamb thought that 21 days seemed an appropriate amount of time for the joint owner to respond. 7 Erickson Shirley suggested that the Town Attorney be questioned for legal advice. George Ruther commented that he understood the policy procedure but still suggested a shorter time period for response. Erickson Shirley asked what the PEC wanted to do. Russ Forrest commented that a vote was needed. Erickson Shirley clarified that specific language was not needed at this time. Barbara Schofield asked if this was going to apply to all duplexes? She pointed out that if this was applied separately or differently, as it had been in the past by the Town, then no progress would be made. Chas Bernhardt asked if the repaint was approved before or after the signature was required. Barbara Schofield brought up an approval that was done through the previous owner of the duplex: it was an approved roof and paint that was same for same. George Ruther mentioned that approval applications have a one year time limit before expiration. George Lamb said that this appeal related to all jointly -owner properties in the TOV, not just the property under question. 1101 Barbara Schofield said that she wanted no special treatment, just consistency. Erickson wanted clarification regarding visual differences in improvements. Some maintenance will cause visual difference, at least for a period of time. He suggested that staff should "play with the language" and bring it back to PEC. He then asked if there were any motions from the PEC. Lotion: George Lamb, to deny the appeal and keep current policy of joint signature apps. Second: Chas Bernhardt Vote: 3-1-1 George Lamb added that he would be in favor of a 21 day period during which the joint homeowner could reply to regular maintenance issues, especially when timeliness was of the essence. Erickson suggested that in regard to the first issue, i.e., where there is a jointly -owned property on which one neighbor wishes to maintain and notifies the other, without response after 21 days, the application could proceed without the notified persons signature, Rollie Kjesbo asked if the notified homeowner would need to contact the TOV as it regarded this issue. George Ruther stated that those legal proceedings would be discussed with the Town IDAttorney. Erickson restated that this provision would apply to same for same applications only. A casual consensus was reached. George Lamb asked further about whether this provision should apply only to same for same applications or not. 40 George Ruther again stated the need for staff to evaluate the process on its own time. Rollie Kjesbo seconded that he had questions. Erickson asked the PEC if there was agreement on simple improvements Chas Bernhardt asked if the approval of the repaint in 97 occurred within the same year. He then asked if one half of a duplex wants to fall into disrepair, the other should be free to make improvements as he sees fit. Erickson verified the stance that the TOV would need to continue to gain signatures in the case of visual changes, unless the visual changes were very small_ Russ Forrest wanted to clarify the effect of the vote. Chas Bernhardt clarified that he understood the issue, but said that he stood by his vote that staff stay out of the personal issues confronted. Erickson suggested that the issue be looked at more globally and not specifically regarding this issue. He stated that it was a tough issue but that he would agree with the TOV stance on the issue. John Schofield retained the chair. 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson John Schofield mentioned that this was another worksession. Bill Gibson introduced the project according to the memorandum, detailing the changes made since the last meeting. He stressed that non -conformity OR property and development rights increase will be the result of a change in regulations. Erickson asked about the issues on page 7. He wanted further clarification on how to stop structures from being built entirely above grade. Bill Gibson explained that there is no measure in place requiring an applicant to build a certain amount of GRFA above or below grade. It is a fundamental question whether we want the ability to tell homeowners where GRFA can be constructed. John Schofield asked if we allow a total number and a person chose to put as much above grade as possible, where do height and setback limits kick in? Bill Gibson explained that we would address the issue of basement square footage by not counting it, or by building in extra square footage into the formula. 4 Erichson Shirley said that it seems to him we got to a point where we said if we give people a space below grade it's another way to skin the cat. Buss Forrest said correct me if I'm wrong, but if you included it all we would not care where you put space. Bill Gibson said he is available for any questions. Vickie Pearson stated that she did not have much time to look at the memo, but she thinks the cleanest way to do it would be to exclude basements, it keeps everything the same, Steve Riden said that, according to Arrowhead regulations, anything that is exposed more than four feet above the ground is counted, making the staffs fob easier. He also spoke of the 14 foot measurement for vaulted space definition, etc. He also mentioned that crawl spaces of 18 inches would not be sufficient in height - Duane Piper asked if simplification was going to be achieved, especially since that was the original premise for the current discussion. Bili Gibson said that he thought so, but that basement space would continue to be the nemesis. Russ Forest agreed with Bill. Duane had concerns about the definition of basements. He agreed that the Building Code did not define basements, but rather first floor spaces. He stressed the importance of synchronicity between the building and planning departments. Another issue, he thought, was loft space, which could be a nightmare to figure out due to sloping ceilings, etc. Footings may prove to be a problem as well, he said. Erickson asked that if it is structurally necessary to put a wall in a space that visually affects the exterior of a space, is it an issue? Duane did not understand the question and mentioned that he wanted simplicity. Erickson asked Bill if the 18 inches was proposed above ground. Bill mentioned that the option always remains to pour a wall and fill the space, not creating the crawl space, or to create a crawl space and use it as such, due to a deep footer, or dig it out and use it as a different space. Duane thought that it looked like progress had been made. John Schofield concurred, adding that the figures would continue to be worked with. Russ commented on the same. Duane mentioned that regarding lofted space, height and site coverage still existed, which addressed the issue. Erickson asked if Duane wanted to see basements excluded or deducted. Duane said "excluded" but that he was willing to acquiesce on that point. Steve Riden returned to comment that rather than considering ceiling height, consider plate height. John Schofield mentioned that crawl space height, footer height, attic height, etc were still issues that needed to be dealt with. He also mentioned that parking would need to be addressed. He asked if DRB needed to give comments. Also, what about the transition phase and an amnesty clause. PEG comment: Rollie Kjesbo thought that from bottom of footer to bottom of framing would be appropriate measurements for crawl space. Regarding loft space, cross sections done by architects could address that problem. He agreed with Duane that basements were hard to define but opted for more restriction if anything. He was worried that on lots larger than 20,000 sq. ft., bulk and mass would increase. He opted that basements not be counted. He said that 20 percent might be too high for basement calculation. George Lamb agreed with all of Rollie's comments. He suggested a transition period as well. The progress was substantial, he said. As far as percentages, he would err on the higher side in regard to examples. He admired Arrowhead for its limits on visual bulk and mass. Though, he commented, that slopes in Vail are the difficult exceptions. Erickson asked if crawl spaces were discouraged because of bulk and mass reasons. Bill answered that today the town code encourages bulk and mass through hidden crawl spaces, unfortunately. Erickson mentioned that he did not want to oversimplify, but that an agreed-upon definition of a basement, then excluded, would cause the issue of crawl spaces to "disappear'. Bill commented that, regarding simplification, a comprehensive FAR is simple. Once exclusions are added, the development potential becomes more complex. Erickson commented that the PEC thought that basements should be excluded. If basements are excluded, then crawl spaces cease to be an issue to the extent that they are underground? If crawl spaces are above ground, we have to careful that they don't get too big and contribute to the bulk and mass of the structure. Bill commented that terminology about basements and crawl spaces was harmful. Staff would rather address bulk and mass below grade than the exact terms being used currently - Erickson said that if basements are excluded, above grade becomes a problem with extra bulk and mass. Bill Gibson clarified that today's definition of crawl space does not necessarily create below grade exteriors of the building. Rollie Kjesbo clarified that he did not want to count basement space, larger lots would prove to be a problem. Erickson continued to talk about basements, adding that he thought they should be excluded. He expressed agreement with every thing else that had been said. As to the amnesty clause, he suggested a time limit to simplify the process. Chas Bernhardt commented on the amount of good work that had been invested in the project. He agreed that 18 inches of crawl space was too little. He thought that perhaps the footing depth should be given a limit. He questioned whether 7 foot, 6 inches was habitable space, but 5 feet and over was habitable space: i.e. crawl vs. habitable space. He commented that a volumetric system was being approached. He was in favor of every subterranean space being excluded. If any part of the subterranean space was exposed, it should be included. He 6 wanted to incentives sub —t growth. John Schofield commented on the thoroughness of the memo and his appreciation regarding r the research. He thought that it was important that a huge increase was not misperceived but rather understood. The new number should be perceived simply as new and different, not necessarily that much bigger. Therefore, bulk and mass and the overall number are pretty similar. He commented on the difficulty of defining a basement. Was there any way to use the UBC definition? Grade and average grade are already defined in the code and don't need to be redefined, fortunately. Regarding the percentage added to existing GRFA for exterior walls and vaulted areas etc, he preferred that the error be on the high side of the percentage. Dramatic differences in size were not preferred, but allowable market variation on the positive side was okay. In terms of crawl space height, 18 inches will not be sufficient. 60 inches should be the top end of the spectrum, and maybe a range should be encouraged. In terms of treating vaulted spaces, what would be totally usable? If the floor plate could be extended and the whole are would be usable, that should count. The EHU bonus had not been addressed, he mentioned. A small percentage should be added for that, or it should at least be incorporated into the increase. Bill Gibson commented that it was not an incentive or a disincentive. Russ Forest agreed. Bill Gibson said that additional density was the true incentive. John Schofield requested a firm direction on the EHU issue. Erickson Shirley stressed that the Housing Authority be consulted on the issue John Schofield continued with the suggestion that GRFA be renamed. He suggested one more worksession and a graph with a min. and max. percentage. Parking should be addressed and new standards that work better should be considered, He asked that Staff recommend an appropriate measurement. He asked if DRB had comments and requested specifics regarding a transition phase, knowing that non -conformities will occur. Bill Gibson mentioned that a non -conformity section of the code existed. Bill also mentioned that regarding below grade, should square footage still be added to "the formula"? John Schofield said that below grade not being counted was a unanimous decision. He stressed simplicity and said that a restriction of basements not exceeding the actual footprint of the structure might be implemented successfully. Theoretically, a basement could extend all the way to site coverage lines, which might be larger than the footprint of a site. Chas Bernhardt said that the reason in needing to extend beyond the footprint of the site may be structural in nature. Site disturbance, if reclaimed, doesn't necessarily matter, he said. The basement should be kept inside of allowable site coverage. Erickson Shirley said that disturbances will be made if a structure is wanted to be a certain way. Bill Gibson clarified that the basement could go to site coverage limits, not necessarily just footprint limits. Chas Bernhardt said that exceptions will exist and perhaps the new name should be called "BS" or buildable space. Laughs ensued. 7 Erickson suggested that before a final formula come into the final worksession, several outsiders should be consulted. 0 One month was decided to be sufficient until the final worksession. John Schofield asked for any further input from the applicant. Motion: Rollie, to table for four weeks Second: Chas, to table for four weeks Chas congratulated the applicant on her attention to this matter, since it was a rather insolent one. Vote: 5-0-0, Tabled for four weeks 3. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 51h Filing from Public Accommodation zone district (PA) to Parking zone district (P); a request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the proposed zoning of Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation Il zone district; a request for 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 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 h 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 Chas Bernhardt left at 4:30pm George Ruther introduced the project according to the memorandum. John Schofield mentioned that as long as the Town is not a party to the restrictions mentioned, that the Town is not privy to the discussion. George Ruther mentioned that the traffic study was included at the request of the Commission. He also mentioned that a copy had been included of a traffic study prepared for the Front Door project by SEH, a firm in the service of LuAnne Wells, that related to the study. John Schofield asked that the number of parking spaces be clarified. George Ruther said that 108 spaces were in the structure, the remainder were other spaces. Tom Braun concurred. 40 Jay Peterson, Vail Resorts, asked to table three items. John Schofield repeated the request. Therefore, a portion of what was advertised as final, would be tabled. 8 Jay Peterson stated their presence simply to answer questions regarding P3 and J and the zoning of lots 1 and 2. John Schofield clarified that there were no changes other than the traffic study. Jay Peterson answered affirmatively that no changes had been made and that questions regarding traffic flow would be answered at a later time. Erickson Shirley expressed confusion at the number of items to be discussed. John Schofield stated the piecemeal order of addressing the issues. Karen Romeo, attorney for LuAnne Wells, requested that the vote be table entirely due to the unanswered questions regarding loading and delivery and if not, the vote for ski base zoning should be at least tabled. She requested that the original open space designation be honored and remembered. John Schofield said that the ski base zone district had been approved but not applied. Erickson Shirley clarified that the piecemeal fashion in which the project was being addressed should address the public's concern.. Andy Littman, representing Ms. Wells, asked that the rezoning be conditional on the loading and delivery of the project. Erickson Shirley stated that nothing gets built until final approval and therefore, nothing can • be built until the entire project is approved. George Ruther commented that Erickson's input was appropriate and that if the conditions were rezoned, the applicant would be required to make "major headway" before coming before the Town Council based on PEC recommendation. Erickson Shirley stated that many of the issues had already been addressed_ Andy Littman said that the alterations wanted by the PEC should be expressed clearly. Arthur Cox, Bridge Street Lodge Association homeowner and assoc. president, said that the homeowners were generally supportive of the ski yard being proposed. He was concerned about the open-ended nature of the zoning and that usages such as bars and restaurants would not be welcome or consistent with the residential nature of the surrounding units and therefore, zoning restriction would be preferred. He said that residential owners should make their preferences clear, regardless. Erickson Shirleyrequested that the homeowners be precise about the issues they most care about. Arthur Cox said that nighttime usages were not welcome. He said that the zoning would leave open the possibility of unwelcome uses later. He was concerned about the usage of the location where the Vista Bahn currently was. John Schofield stated that the input was not particularly applicable to the discussion today, but were appropriate, regardless. He mentioned that they would be more applicable once IDthe development drew nearer. Arthur Cox wanted to make sure that protections not easily circumvented were in place. He felt most worried about issues left open-ended in the zoning process. 9 John Schofield clarified the issues that were being currently addressed. He mentioned that he would welcome Arthur's input in the future as other issues concerning the ski yard, etc, were addressed. Erickson Shirley mentioned that by breaking the project down, each session is an opportunity to have input on the end result. Basically, he said, comments that are not immediately pertinent or well —informed were not always helpful at any time. Arthur Cox clarified that usage was the primary concern and that a vibrant ski yard was encouraged. John Schofield encouraged him to keep in touch with George and Jack concerning future meetings, etc. Erickson Shirley communicated that perhaps the public had some difficulty understanding the nature of the project and the approval process, etc. He suggested that a memo of some sort be distributed demonstrating the process and current status, etc. Russ Forrest understood the difficulty in staying abreast of the changes constantly. He suggested that the website be used for information on current projects. Erickson Shirley clarified that his comments were not meant to be ungrateful, but that comments which applied directly to current memos were always the most helpful. Arthur Cox asked if direct contact with the Chief of Planning could be arranged in the future John Schofield suggested further collaboration. Erickson Shirley encouraged public input and collaboration, etc. PEC comment: Rollie Kjesbo felt comfortable with the issues addressed. George Lamb agreed that nothing was being created that could not be undone. Per the garage, the proposal had been simplified somewhat. Erickson Shirley said that he had heard no opposition to P3 and J, especially since much public benefit would be included in the outcome. Aside from the park and heated sidewalks, more parking would be a benefit. He commented that more traffic would affect him, as a nearby resident, but that he was still in favor. John Schofield mentioned that vast amounts of time that had been put into the project. The change in zoning would be to take one piece, zoned PA, and zone it parking, which is what was supposed to be. He agreed with Erickson in that the addition of parking was a good thing, especially since it would be buried. A more attractive situation would result because of the park. The loading and delivery was addressed already and the consensus was that the loading and delivery not be placed in the structure. The traffic concerns were adequately addressed. Loading and delivery did not need to be addressed for the whole village. As far as conditional use permit, preliminary approval would seem appropriate, he thought. He expressed concern with provision #3, which had not been reviewed yet. George Ruther said that the off-site improvements plan had already been submitted and that the PEC had seen the improvements. His reference to this condition regarded specific components of the project. He wanted to be specific and detail -oriented about the improvements. He said that included in today's plans were off-site improvement plans. 10 John Schofield requested to add the provision that public works submit specific plans for certain issues like water lines, etc. Jay Peterson concurred that that discussion would be held at a later date. Erickson asked about the areas that the discussion involved. George Ruther explained. Jay Peterson said that he understood that approval held room for change, provided that the change was not too outrageous. He said that the worst case scenario would be that nothing would be built. John Schofield asked for further PEC discussion. Motion: Rollie Kjesbo, to approve the major subdivision, per the staff memo Second: Erickson Shirley Vote: 4-0-0 Motion: Rollie Kjesbo, to amend the zoning map, Lots P3 & J, per the staff memo Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0-0 Motion: Rollie Kjesbo, to amend the zoning map, Lots 1 and 2, per the staff memo Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0-0 Motion: Rollie Kjesbo, to approve the two conditional use permit requests, per the staff memo. Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0-0 John S. reiterated that these approvals would go to Council. Andy Littman requested that clarity of the publications be required. The "roadmap" for the public would be helpful for the general public. John S. recommended that the TOV subscription e-mail be accessed for information. Russ F. agreed that the website was very helpful and that the project planner, George R. would be one of the best sources. Andy L again expressed that the more in depth and clear the information is, the better it is for the public. Erickson expressed that last minute changes not be the modus operandi. Erickson told Jay Motion: Rollie Kjesbo, to table until Aug 25, the balance of the items Second: George Lamb, Vote: 4-0-0 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to allow for text amendments to the outdoor display requirements as prescribed by Sections 12-61-9, Location of Business Activity; 12-7B-18, Location of Business Activity; 12-17-14, Location of Business Activity; 12- 7©-11, Location of Business Activity; 12-7E-13, Location of Business Activity; 12-7H-17, Location of Business Activity; 12-71-17, Location of Business Activity, Vail Town Code, and setting for details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett Matt Gennett introduced the project according to the memo. Russ Forrest commented that when the Council suggested this be addressed as part of the sign code, the issue was brought before the Vail Chamber. Therefore, the issue has been addressed in a public forum. Tom Higgins, of American Ski Exchange, referred to collective public observation, which he questioned. He commented that current public observation (cpo) included the need for good shopping. Summer guests were like winter guests, he said. When the initial question arose, the retail market was entirely different. The outdoor displays add interest and fun, he said. He mentioned that people like perceived value. The time frame would be limited to the summer. The recreational activity of the guest included shopping. Why limit it just to summer? As for the winter businesses, they would be segregated from taking advantage of the display opportunity? The retail health is not as good due to the market, competition, etc. Perceived value and spontaneous sales are part of the retail "game". Guests enjoy getting a good deal. Outdoor techniques are always interesting, he said. He would have been happy to make his racks as attractive as necessary "dipping them in gold leaf, even". He commented that having a chair of the merchant association who had a failing business model was not particularly pleasant. He said that he was not sure he was even a part of the last nine years of the problem. He would be willing to "dress up" his racks or be part of the committee. Overall, limited time was not an issue. Do it all year round, he said, and just "crush us". 0 'PEC comment: Erickson said that much has been discussed regarding the recession. Things will be hard, regardless. Therefore, long term policies that help businesses should be adopted. Things that add to the street life should be welcome. There should not be a lot of racks, however. Some way to entice shoppers is appropriate. Parking is far greater an issue than clothing racks in front of a shop. He was not in favor of the proposal. George said that generally he agreed with Erickson. The division in the regulation was not helpful. It was important for merchants to rotate their merchandise, he said. Locals buy things and lack of variety is not helpful, he said. Rollie K. asked who the impetus behind the issue was. Russ said that the TOV and the Council were behind the proposal, especially to clean up the streets and the clutter. The recommendation was to create a time of year, during which wealthy guests were in town, to limit the display racks for the benefit of the business community. Rollie K said that the market area over the weekend was nice, invigorating, really. He did not think that it was particularly a big issue, overall. John S said that time limits were not appropriate. TOV could not regulate good or bad business tactics. Display on private property should be absolutely mandatory. The display of goods also related to newspapers was an example of display on public property. George L. said that as a rep of AIPP, attractive displays for newspapers was important. John S. was adamant about the private property issue. 12 Russ asked if design guidelines were necessary - 0 John S. said no, business tactics could not be regulated. Erickson asked if the racks were generally on public or private property. Russ said that there the racks were on both public and private property, currently Rollie K asked who would be responsible for policing the issue. Russ F said that the Code Enforcement Officer would be responsible. A black or white decision would be most preferable. Erickson suggested that guidelines be implemented. In terms of public vs private property, the racks create "synergy". The streets are "fat" and conducive to pedestrian traffic. The racks serve to create healthy action, "hanging out", etc. The village aspect was important to maintain, he said. Russ Forrest said that stringent regulations were in place in almost all of the resort towns studied. Erickson stated that the retail nature was not necessarily high end, but that display racks were not the answer to improving that. Motion: Erickson Shirley, to leave text remaining, unmodified Second: Rollie Kjesbo George Lamb suggested that these were DRB issues, not PEC issues. He encouraged vocalism in those meetings instead. Vote: 3-1-8 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto_ Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner Warren Campbell Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Erickson Shirley asked if the properties which would be require to construct and/or fund streetscape improvements were residential or commercial. Greg Hall stated that the requirements would not really apply to single-family residences. Curb and gutter improvements had, to date, been paid for by the Town when it came to single-family residences. Erickson Shirley asked if anything would be required of the single-family residences.. Greg Hall stated that the landscaping required would be worked on with the residents that were involved in the areas under question. Warren Campbell stated that the south side of West Meadow Drive was were the majority of single-family homes were located which were adjacent to proposed streetscape improvements. He added that the south side of the road proposed less intense improvements which included landscaping improvements primarily. He continued, that each 13 development proposal varied in intensity and therefore wouldwarrant different levels of participation in constructing or funding streetscape improvements. As an example the recently approved Halaby residence at the end of West Meadow Drive was required to incorporate streetscape landscaping elements into their design. He concluded by requesting implementation advice and comments at today's meeting and stated that staff recommended approval. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowner's association, asked if properties previously developed were to be assigned the least financial responsibility under the "codified public improvement impact fee" found on page 77 of the Streetscape Master Plan draft. Greg Hall responded that public improvement impact fee was not currently codified and it would be Council who would determine the amounts the impact fee would collect. Jim Lamont used Erickson Shirley's house as an example, because it is adjacent to Gore Creek Drive which is covered under the Streetscape Master in the Village Core Sub -area. If this is impact fee was to become codified, will he be assessed an improvement fee when the streetscape plan is implemented? Greg Hall stated that the intent was to not charge the impact fee until a particular owner submitted a plan for work on the property. The amount of the impact fee would depend on the intensity of the proposed work. The smaller the impact like a renovation with no additional GIRFA would be billed a small impact fee where as an addition would be assessed a larger impact fee. John Schofield stated the need for clarification of minor work, etc. Jim Lamont stated that the way he understood it, anytime someone came in for a building permit, a fee would be assigned. This was a huge "cloud", as he said. Greg Hall said that those who did improvements would pay, and that was the intent. Those who did not propose a change, would not pay. The amount would probably be very little. Russ Forrest said that any impact fee needed to have a rational nexus. Things with zero impact would have zero fee. Improvements with a lot of impact would cause a higher fee. Erickson Shirley asked what the fees would be. What if his street is heated? Would he have to pay every month for that? Greg Hall responded that if the sidewalk was in front of his place, it was his responsibility to keep it clear. The Vail Town Code currently requires individual property owners to keep their sidewalks clean and clear. Erickson Shirley asked if the residents would pay a monthly fee to heat the street. Greg Hall said that the sidewalks would be his responsibility, not the Town's. Jim Lamont mentioned that there could be a disincentive to improve one's property, if this fee schedule was implemented. Though streetscape improvements were necessary, the payment for the improvements was an entirely different question. Erickson Shirley stated that a resident should not bear the cost of heating a sidewalk that + the tourists were primarily using. Businesses are different in that they receive direct economic benefit from the tourists using the amenities such as heated sidewalks. He continued by stating that last November the ballot initiative to fund streetscape improvements failed as the community was not clear that the money collected would be 14 earmarked for implementing streetscape improvements. He believes that if the initiative is placed on the ballot this November and people are informed as to what it will go towards than it will pass. Russ Forrest stated that the Council was trying to put the plan into the capital budget. Erickson Shirley stated that homeowners were not going to be happy to pay fees and construct improvements. Jim Lamont stated that there was good comprehension by property owners of what was needed to get the Village to "self -renew". The renewal process should not come as a cost to the homeowner. Secondly, trucks may have to drive on Gore Creek give. There must be high -load lanes that are unheated, he said. Is there enough money in the design to continue to have truck circulation routes? Greg Hall stated that the truck load through checkpoint Charlie was studied and that the roadway materials and design would withstand the wait of delivery trucks. He reminded everyone that fire trucks would need to get down the streets. Jim Lamont requested that the PEC approve the proposal, except for the funding strategy. Gwen Scalpello, 9 Vail Road, agreed with Jim Lamont. She could not imagine being assessed an impact fee as a secondary measure to her doing improvement on her property. John Schofield suggested that two sets of comments come from the commissioners. Firstly, regarding aesthetics and layout, and secondly, regarding the fee structure. George Lamb stated that the design seemed insightful. The way that the ballot issue was presented was not good, he said. The questions of financing are always first and foremost. The plan is great, but the fee structure must be the obligation of the town, not the homeowners, and must be well -organized as such. Rollie Kjesbo agreed with George Lamb that the design was great. He said that if Vail Resorts and others are being charged for the improvements as part of their development proposals and then would be potentially taxed if a ballot issue passed, that was a bad scenario, It would be a double whammy, however he did not have an answer. Russ Forrest stated that for four years, Lionshead funding had been researched. The results of the study showed that eventually the private developer needed to chip in due to the impacts that they were involved with under any funding scheme. Rollie Kjesbo asked about an eventual Crossroads redevelopment. Would they be charged for improvements already completed? Greg Hall stated that generally fees are not assigned in hindsight. He said that the intent was not to apply fees to those that will eventually redevelop. Erickson Shirley thought that it was appalling that the town is requiringapplicants to implement a streetscape plan that was neither completed or has a clear plath to funding. Greg Hall stated that the Streetscape Master Plan's final implementation rested with the Town Council. Erickson Shirley restated the foolishness of the way Council has handled the development of this plan. He added that the PEC had requested the document for months before a draft brought to them. 15 Greg Hall replied that the 1999 Streetscape Master Plan is being implemented currently. is Erickson Shirley stated that levy failed because the cart was being "put in front of the horse". He mentioned that lawsuits would be the result of asking people to heat the streets, etc. The responsibility of the fees was a huge issue, he reiterated. The economy was not going to come around and create a cushion, he said. The fact that the PEC did not receive a document that detailed the fee structure was "shameful". John Schofield concurred with Erickson Shirley and expressed that anywhere a snow plow would be used should not have a curb and gutter. The plan should be lasting and fairly easy to maintain. Greg Hall stated that it was simple and easy to heat, with materials that were well-suited to the environment. John Schofield stated that the Streetscape Maintenance section found on page 77 needed to be clearly defined and detailed before he would ever think of approving anything. If it is high maintenance, there is not a chance he would be in favor of the plan. Also, the general funding should not be the responsibility of the Town, but rather the primary users of the improvements. He said that "he who uses it should pay for it". Staff should return with a document detailing who the users would be and how the plan would be paid for. Greg Hall asked if the plan was on the right track regarding implementation of the streetscape improvements. John Schofield expressed confusion about the specifics_ He was not comfortable about the 10 levels, etc. Erickson Shirley clarified that the SDD issue was the only one which was clearly addressed. Russ Forrest asked again about the feeling of the Commission regarding the overall design. Erickson Shirley stated that he was concerned about the arrangements and colors of street pavers. One street should not look better or worse than other streets. Russ Forrest asked if there was a plan that was more specifically laid out if that could be approved. John Schofield stated that was the Council's responsibility. Erickson Shirley stated that assurance was what was lacking in how the plan would be implemented. Jim Lamont stated that the construction could be predicted, but the ongoing maintenance could not be. Joe Kracum stated that the funding issue is always a problem. What were the personal ideas of the Commission as to how funding should be generated' John Schofield restated that the people who use the service should pay. He did not know how those costs could be allocated, however. Erickson Shirley stated the reason why the levy failed was because the Lionshead plan was not presented well enough. He continued that a levy should be put on the ballot to pay for the majority of the improvements. 16 • • 0 Joe Kracum stated that the need to develop the plan in greater detail was related to the need to replace many of the utilities in the Village. Erickson Shirley stated that with a clear source of funding maybe the plan was a little too extravagant. George Lamb stated that the levy failed by only a small margin. He believes it should be funded through a levy. Rollie Kjesbo stated that a levy should be placed on the ballot with a clear purpose of 50% going to streetscape improvements in the sub -areas and 50% going towards streets in the remainder of the Town. John Schofield added that the Council did "a lousy job presenting the levy" on the previous ballot. Motion: Rollie Kjesbo made a motion to table the application to the September 8, 2003 PEC agenda. Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an outdoor dining deck, in accordance with Section 12-713-4B, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson Motion: Rollie Kjesbo, to table for 4 weeks Second: George Lamb, to table Vote: 4-0-0 Tabled to August 25, 2003 7. 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 Withdrawn 8. Approval of July 25, 2003 minutes Tabled to august 25, 2003 9. Information Update John Schofield requested that the background for upcoming projects, such as Ford park parking, be clarified in advance. Russ Forrest stated that the VRD was unclear about the proposal to park at Ford Park. Rollie Kjesbo stated that the new fields did not have much of a history yet. 17 Russ Forrest stated that those fields were not options due to their nature. John Schofield asked that the list detailing master plans be turned into a recommendation to Council. Russ Forrest questioned how that should be addressed? John Schofield stated that a recommendation with a regular schedule on the master plans was most needed. Russ Forrest suggested that it be an election issue perhaps. John Schofield agreed that it needed to be in front of the council in some form soon. Erickson suggested "red -flagging" any project in the Town that results in less than ideal results. John Schofield said °3 months". If there was an agenda that was a little slighter during that time period, it should be put on the agenda. Motion:George Lamb, to adjourn Second: Rollie Kjesbo, to adjourn Vote: 4-0-0 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 blearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Pubiished August 8, 2003 in the Vail Daily_ 17� 18 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 11, 2003 SUBJECT: An appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Administration and Enforcement; Appeals, of an administrative determination requiring joint property owner signatures on design review applications for "same for same" building and site improvements, as prescribed by the Vail Town Code. Appellant: John Schofield, represented by Planner: George Ruther I. SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property is not applicable as the appeal is regarding a town -wide policy, II. PLANING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION Pursuant to Section 12-3-38-1, Appeal of Administrative Actions; Authority, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town of Vail administrative official with respect to the provisions of the Zoning Code. III. PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR APPEALS Pursuant to Sections 12-3-3B-2 and 12-3-3B-3, Appeal of Administrative Actions; Initiation and Procedures, Vail Town Code, there are three basic criteria for consideration when hearing an appeal. The criteria are: 1) standing of the appellant; 2) adequacy of the notice of appeal; and 3) timeliness of the notice of appeal. A. Standinq of the Appellant The appellant has standing to appeal staff's determination relating to the requirement for joint property owner signatures on design review applications for "same for same" building and site improvements, as prescribed by the Vail Town Code, as the appellant is an "aggrieved or adversely affected person". Pursuant to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, an "aggrieved or adversely affected person" is defined as "any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by this Title. " Staff believes that the appellant has standing to file this appeal.. B. Adequacy of the Notice of the Appeal The application for this appeal was filed by Mr. John Schofield, of 1448 Vail Valley Drive, Vail, Colorado, on July 14, 2003. The Community Development Department has determined that the Appeals Form application, as submitted by the Appellant, is complete. C. Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal The Administrative Section of the Town's Zoning Code (12-3-3B-3, Procedures) states the following: "A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Administrator or with the department rendering the decision, determination or interpretation within twenty (20) calendar days of the decision becoming final. if the last day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a Town -observed holiday, the last day for filing an appeal shall be extended to the next business day. The Administrator's decision shall become final at the next Planning and Environmental Commission meeting (or in the case of design related decision, the next Design Review Board meeting) following the Administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up and modified by the Board or Commission. " Staff refused to accept the appellant's design review application to repaint his half of a duplex residence located at 1448 Vail Valley Drive on or about July 1, 2003, as the application form was incomplete since joint property owner approval for the repaint had not been granted. On July 14, 2003, the appellant submitted a complete appeals form application within the twenty (20) business day timeframe. IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL On July 14, 2003, Mr. John Schofield submitted a completed Appeals Form to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. A copy of the completed Appeals Form has been attached for reference (attachment A). The nature of the appeal is described by the appellant in a letter dated July 14, 2003, and attached for reference. (attachment B) The appellant alleges that the practice of the Town of Vail Community Development Department requiring joint property owner signatures on a development review application for improvements to co -owned and jointly -held property has no codified basis and is contrary to the Town's goal of maintaining a "first class environment" Specifically, in this case, the appellant makes the argument that, "!f the [exterior] colors [of his house] were previously approved [by 2 the Design Review Board] then to repaint with the approved colors would not be a violation of the Code." Upon consideration of the allegations, Staff respectfully disagrees with the appellant's arguments and believes that previous deliberations and findings of the Town's Boards, Commissions and Council conducted through a public hearing process supports the administrative determination made by Staff. On both July 10 and July 24, 2000, the Planning and Environmental Commission evaluated the policies prescribed within the Vail Town Code relating to joint ownership of property and shared interests. Upon evaluation of the prescribed policies, the Commission determined that joint owner signature requirements for development review applications were not only existing policies in the Code, but they were also necessary to ensure consistency in the administration of the Vail Town Code. As a result of the discussions with the Commission, the Staff held a worksession meeting with the Vail Town Council on September 5, 2000. The purpose of the worksession meeting was to inform the Council of the Commission's and Design Review Board's input on the topic of joint owner signature requirements and to gain the Council's direction on the issue. Fallowing a lengthy discussion with the Town Council, Staff, and interested citizens, the Council directed Staff to prepare an ordinance addressing the issue. On October 3, 2000, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2000. The expressed purpose of Ordinance No. 24 was to add the requirement for co-owner signatures on development review applications or written letters of approval, to various sections of the Zoning Regulations. Specifically, as amended, Section 12-11-4C 1(i), Materials To Be Submitted; Procedure, Vail Town Code, requires joint owner signatures on applications for preliminary and final design review. A development review application for a "same for same" repaint is an application for final design review, and therefore, requires joint owner signatures on the application form, if the work to be completed is to property jointly -held. The need for Ordinance No. 24 is well documented in the Town of Vail history. Over the years, infamous neighbor disputes concerning proposed development review applications include Hughes-Tuchman, Town of Vail -Waterhouse, Walker - McKibben, Ferry-Repetti, Pierson -Vail Rowhouses, and now, Kossman- Schofiled. In each of these instances, property interests were jointly held by both parties, but consensus regarding the allocation of development potential or design direction could not be reached. As a result, the negative impacts of the neighbor's disputes were played out in the venues of the Community Development Department and the meetings of the Design Review Board and the Planning & Environmental Commission. The Vail Town Council upon consideration of the amount of staff time and town resources being devoted to resolving these disputes, determined that the Staff and Boards should not be involved in such matters and directed Staff to prepare an ordinance amending the Vail Town Code to require joint owner signatures. In forwarding this direction, the Council believed that the Staff and Boards would no longer be involved in neighbor disputes over development review applications as the 3 neighbor's differences would have to be resolved outside of the Town of Vail organization, prior to submitting an application and appearing at a public hearing. In considering Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2040, the Vail Town Council evaluated three possible alternatives to addressing the issue and the "pros and cons" of the proposed legislation. One of the "cons" considered by the Council was the possible unintended consequence created when an older building is in need of improvements (repainting, reproofing, etc.), however, for whatever reason, joint owner signatures could not be obtained. While the Town Council has openly stated that redevelopment and maintaining a resort community of the highest quality is their interest, at the end of the day, the Town has no authority to make certain determinations regarding the allocation of development potential or the desired preferences of design and aesthetic matters of property owners, outside of the Town's adopted Design Guidelines. In adopting Ordinance No. 24, the Town Council knowingly accepted that some matters of redevelopment or improvements may be impacted by the requirements of the ordinance, but determined that the role of referee to neighbor disputes was not the role of town government. Further, the Council acknowledged, that in extreme circumstances, such as a leaking roof or other matters of irreparable harm to property, party wall agreements and private convenants, by and between the owners of jointly held property, adequately address the issue of one owner unreasonably withholding their approval from the other, and therefore, the role of local government in such a dispute is not needed. In the case of this appeal, the two disputing neighbors have remedies available to them, as spelled out in their private convenants to aid in the resolution of their differences. The appellant questions the need for joint owner signatures on development review applications for "same for same" improvements. A same for same improvement is the repair, replacement, or in this case, the repainting of a structure as it currently exists. For example, replacing a wooden shake shingle roof with a new wooden shake shingle roof, or repairing a redwood deck with a new redwood deck. While on its face one may question why such an improvement would require joint owner signatures, when in essence, the structure is simply being repaired, replaced, or again in this case, repainted the same color as it presently exists. The answer to this question is based in the Town of Vail Design Guidelines. According to Title 14, Town of Vail Development Standards Handbook, Chapter 10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Section E, Duplex and Primary Secondary Development, in part, "The ,purpose of this Section is to ensure that duplex and primary/secondary development be designed in a manner that creates an architecturally integrated structure with unified site development. Dwelling units and garages shall be designed within a singles structure, except as set forth in subsection 2 below, with the use of unified architectural and landscape design. A single structure shall have common roofs and building walls that create enclosed space substantially above grade. Unified architectural and landscape design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, roof forms, 4 massing, architectural details, site grading, and landscape materials and features. " Because the appellant's residence is a duplex structure, unified architectural style and design is required. Included within architectural style and design is exterior colors). This fact is well documented in the Town's regulations and proceedings. The appellant argues that the color of the repaint will be the same as presently existing, and further, that the color has been previously approved by the Board, and therefore, a joint owner signature is not required for the proposed work. Staff contends, as has been demonstrated by previous development review applications, that the joint owner must still agree on the existing color, building materials, architectural style, etc. For example, in the case of the Walker -McKibben dispute, the owners each agreed that improvements were needed to the duplex structure. However, while one owner desired to maintain the existing style, materials, and color, the other owner desired to change the architectural style, materials, color. Had the Town of Vail approved a development review application for the one owner to make improvements that maintained the existing style, materials, and color (ie. "same for same'), without a joint owner signature from the other owner on the application, the Town would have unfairly granted preference to the one owner over the other since Section Section E, Chapter 10, Title 14, of the Vail Town Code requires unified architectural design. The Town's decision, without the consent of all the directly affected parties, would essentially then have mandated that all future improvements to the duplex be "same for same" Lastly, the Town of Vail processes hundreds of design review applications annually. According to Town of Vail records, from January 1, 2001, to August 6, 2003, the Community Development Department has reviewed a total of 1,155 design review application (417 in 2001, 427 in 2002, & 311 to date (415 projected) in 2003). Of these 1,155 design review applications, Staff would estimate that more than 90%, or 1,040, of the applications were requests for improvements to property that is either jointly held or commonly owned, and therefore, required joint owner signatures. As important, however, is that prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 24, from January 1, 1998 until December 31, 2000, the total number of design review applications processed by the Department was 1,423. While there is a reduction in the average number of applications processed on an annual basis, Staff believes that these numbers demonstrate that the requirement for joint owner signatures is not an impediment to redeveloping and improving property in the Town of Vail. Staff believes that the reduction in average annual number of applications processed by the Department is more likely attributed to downturn in the US economy, down -valley competition for development opportunities and the recent change in the real estate market. What is not clear and documented is the number of applications that were not submitted because owners of jointly held property could not agree on the desired improvements. However, past experiences indicate that even if an application is not processed and accepted,, the Community Development Department is aware of an applicant's inability to submit a development review application as we reject the application at our front counter for lack of proper signatures. Conservatively speaking, we estimate that on average less than 10 is applications are rejected and never resubmitted to the Town because of lack of proper signatures annually. 5 Staff contends that when an issue, such as the Kossman-Schofield repaint dispute, reaches the heightened level that it has and when the two owners can not agree on the desired improvements, it is an obvious indication that the Town of Vail should remain out what is truly a civil matter between neighbors. Staff would suggest that the Koss man- Schofield, Ferry-Repetti, Walker -McKibben disputes are NOT reasons to eliminate the requirement for joint owner signatures, but instead the very reason the requirement is needed. V. REQUIRED ACTION Uphold/Overturn/Modify the administrative determination requiring joint owner signatures on design review applications for "same for same" improvements. Section 12-3-3B-5, Findings, details the requirements for action taken by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: "The Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this Title have or have not been met." Vl. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 0 The Community Development Department recommends that the Commission upholds the administrative determination requiring joint owner signatures on design review application for "same for same" improvements. Staff's recommendation is based on the evidence presented in this memorandum and the testimony taken on this matter at the public hearing. In accordance with the information presented in this memorandum, and the exhibits attached hereto, staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission mares the following finding of fact: "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds that based directly on the evidence and testimony presented regarding the appeal of the administrative determination that joint owner signatures or written letters of approval are required for development review applications involving multiple owner interest, as adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2000, is justified and appropriate as it insures the reasonable and equitable implementation of the land use laws and regulations on properties with more than one owner in the Town of Vail. Secondly, the Commission finds that as indicated on the Town of Vail Zoning Map, approximately 90% of the properties zoned in the Town of Vail are jointly held or commonly owned and to not require joint owner signatures on development review applications would result in the inequitable administration of the Town's development regulations which is not in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the 9 Town of Vail. Thirdly, the Commission finds that to not require1oint owner signatures on development review applications may unnecessarily impede a property owner's rights to due process through the lack of proper notice. Lastly, the Commission finds that it is because of disputes between neighbors, not unlike that between Mr_ Schofield and Mr. Kossman, that the Town of Vail must require joint owner signatures on development application to prevent the unnecessary loss of staff time and town resources in an attempt to resolve such matters_ This Commission determines that these findings of fact are supported by conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Section 12- 11-4, Vail Town Code have been met." VII. ATTACHMENTS 0 A. Completed Appeals Form, stamped received July 14, 2003 B. Appellant's Letter, dated July 14, 2003 C. Copy of Approved July 10 and 24, 2000, Planning and Environmental Commission meetings minutes D. Staff memoranda to the Vail Town Council, dated August 22, and September 5, 2000 E. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2000 7 Appeals Form k: baa Department of Community Development �q +� 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 TOMI �� Orli jT �, tel: 974.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail:co.us General Information: This form is required for filing an appeal of a Staff, Design Review Board, or Planning and Environmental Commission action/decision. A complete form fated requirements must be submitted to the Community Development Department within tr1i (10) b ness days of the disputed action/decision. Action/Decision being appealed: 3-/a 47 re4rrt lne"v ar .:%v„v/ R -I 40ge- W C/ Ye jJ / ,e a r -O L, 4 1 4 e h7� — reSs01*'AJs e Li o�/S Sy .2.e' Apgrbver% Date of Action/ Decision: J k %i , Z no 3 Board or Staff person rendering action/decision: RSS Barr rs7� Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land yes) (no) If yes, are you an adjacent property owner? es) (no} Mame of Appellant(s): —Jo I1 N ! SIC: X i r Mailing Address: 141V 8 Ve. ra l 041l'-, %, 0"-' , I)&; /r 8/_ .Phone: 4176-02e- ( fid - 5' r/_Y� r Physical Address in Vail: % � V 4 da Ile ` Legal Description of AppellantsProp vi Vail: Lot: /SBlock: 3 Subdivision: ” r ! e Appellant(s) Signature(s): _ (Attach of signatures if more space is required). Submittal Requirements: 1. On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, provide a detailed explanation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected person". 2. On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being appealed. 3. Provide a list of names and addresses (both mailing and physical addresses in Vail) of all owners of property who are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including owners whose properties are separated from the subject property by a right-of-way, stream, N 1� intervening barrier). ? le 4. Provide stamped, addressed envelopes for each property owner listed in (3.). PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM AND ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS TO: TOWN OF VAIL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, VAIL, COLORADO 81657. For Office Use Only: Date Received. Attachment: A Planner: NAUUA I AlaJeV\FUKMi i AHFUU1Appeals.coc • 0 • • 0 Attatchment To Appeals Form Dated July 14,2003 The Community Development Department of The Town of Vail is currently requiring that owners of duplexes and other similar multi -family structures obtain DRB approval to repaint existing structures with a previously approved color design (same for same). In some cases there has been a requirement to obtain "Joint Property Owner Written Approval' for colors, which were previously approved by Staff/DRB and in continuous use for several years. This requirement has no codified basis and is contrary to the town goals of maintaining a first class environment. Not allowing the repainting/maintenance of property is not within the Town code. I would ask that the practice of requiring Staff/DRB/Joint Owner approval for previously approved and used colors to be immediately discontinued. Section 18.54.030 par. B, states "It shall be a violation of this chapter ...for any person to commence,continue,or complete work that has not received design approval..." If the colors were previously approved then to repaint with the approved colors would not be a violation of the code. Adjacent property owners: Applicable to all multi -family zoned property. Attachment: B APPROVED 7/24/00 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 10, 2000 i Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Galen Aasland John Schofield George Ruther Chas Bernhardt Tom Weber Brent Wilson Diane Golden Doug Cahill Allison Ochs Brian Doyon Judy Rodriguez Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. Galen Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. A request for a sign variance, from Section 11-4B-19 (13)(4), to allow for a third business identification sign, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant)/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing_ Applicant: Larkspur Restaurant & Bar Planner: Brent Wilson Brian Doyon made a motion to table this item until the next meeting. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 2. A request for a major CC1 exterior alteration and a variance from Section 12-7B-12 (height), to allow for a dormer addition, located at 183 Gore Creek Drive (Sitzmark Lodge)/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 15t Filing, Applicant: Sitzmark Condominium Association Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland said that Slifers, Pepi's, Lodge at Vail, Vista Bahn Building and the Bridge Street Lodge had requested height variances in the past. He said he wanted to know their outcomes, in order to be fair to the applicant. George Ruther explained the height variances that had been requested and granted in the past. Galen Aasland asked if there was any applicant comment. Bob Fritch said his proposal was consistent with the master plan and said that the dormer would break up the roofline making it more interesting. He said that they were consistent with the building next door with relation to height and that no view would be blocked_ Galen Aasland asked if there was any public comment. Galen Aasland stated that the PEC would now take a minute to review the Slifer and Gasthof Gramshammer prior variance requests. Attachment: C I Planning and Environmental Commission Minutcs July 10, 2000 0 El 0 APPROVED 7124/00 4. A request for a variance from Section 12-6F-6, to allow for a garage addition, located at 4718 Meadow Drive/Tract B, Bighorn Townhomes Subdivision. Applicant: Bill Bernardo, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL JULY 24, 2000 Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table the above item. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 5. Information Update Russ Forrest gave an update on the Community Facilities, in terms of the three developed uses on the site and encouraged the PEC to participate. Z1RL ssgave an update on an administrative change to DRB applications. He said effective May st, both signatures would be required on an application for Parcel C lots. He said he would like to discuss with the PEC having the same requirement for parcels just A and B lots. Tom Moorhead said property rights would be a concern with A and B parcels, as far as GRFA and it was not within our rights to determine property rights and available GRFA. Brian Doyon said a lot of work won't get done since a lot of neighbors don't like each other. He said the PEC was not here to pass judgement and until they resolve their problems, he didn't want to see them. Tom Moorhead said since it was a tremendous time allocation on our resources, he would like to come up with a procedure to bring the parties together. Brent Wilson said, for the record, that he had received 144 emails from the Ferry/Repetti situation. Brian Doyon suggested getting the signature of the neighbor before coming in, as it was wasting staff and the PEC's time. Chas Bernhardt agreed that it had to be settled before coming in. Galen Aasland summarized that it was very appropriate on an ABC property, however AB properties may have individual property rights, so it may be overstepping the Town's right to do this. However if it was to be adopted, it should be a fair due process with written notice. 6, SELECTION OF Doug Cahill Chas Bernhardt Galen Aasland Brian Doyon No Rep Tom Weber John Schofield PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT IRB FOR 2000 - Jan -Apr. 5, '00 - Apr 19, '00 May 3, '00 - May 17, '00 - Jun 7, '00 - Jun 21, '00 - Jul 5, '00 - Jul 19, '00 Pianning and Environmental Commission WILAes .lulu IO} 2000 4 MEMBERS PRESENT: Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt John Schofield Doug Cahill Tom Weber Public Hearing PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 24, 2000 Minutes MEMBERS ABSENT Diane Golden Brian Doyon Galen Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Russ Forrest George Ruther Brent Wilson Tom Moorhead 2:00 p.m. Approved August 14, 2000 An appeal of a staff decision, regarding the completeness of an application submitted to the Department of Community Development, for property located at 1001 Eagles Nest Circle/Lot 1, Block 6, 'Vail Village 7t" Filing. Applicant: Kaye Ferry, represented by RKD, Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson Galen Aasland stated that if there was anyone that thought he had a conflict with this application, he would recuse himself. Art Abplanalp said that Ms. Rutherford requested that Galen recuse himself. Tom Weber recused himself because of a conflict. Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo and noted a correction in the staff memo on page 2, that the 15t bulieted item should reference Section 12-11-4(C)(2)(d), John Schofield stated that the code interpretation had been in effect for 10-12 years. Tom Moorhead stated that there was not a change in code, but in application of policy and that the ruling was consistent. John Schofield mentioned that the staff interpretation came into effect around the time of the Hughes/ Tuchman issue about 5 years ago and said he would like the plat submitted for the record, since the application didn't show that. Chas Bernhardt asked if the applicant had anything to add Sally Brainerd, the Architect for Kaye Ferry, stated the 1999 original application did not require having joint owners both sign and this application did require two signatures. She then handed out that section of the code that Brent was referring to. She said she highlighted the part "applicable to design review and final review, " that we never applied for, was highlighted. She said no where did it say anything about voiding a DRB application. Brent Wilson explained the Design Review process and stated that if the applicant didn't comply with the requirements for continuing through the process, the application becomes void. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 • t.J Approved August 14, 2000 Sally Brainerd said it didn't state a renewal was needed for changes, Brent Wilson said he wasn't going to argue the semantics of the code section, since this was clearly a new application, Sally Brainerd explained that the applicant just submitted a new cover page with the new architect and new phone number information. She then said an application for a variance before the Town Council was denied. Brent Wilson stated that the old application was for a different project including an EHU. He said the DRB could not act on that application, since they did not have the authority to approve a variance that had been denied by both the PEC and Town Council. The DRB could not legally act upon the original application and it became void. That is why a new DRB application was submitted by the applicant's representative in June of 2000 and a new fee was paid to the Town. Chas Bernhard said, for the record, that the PEC had agreed not to discuss this at all during the orientation pre -meeting. Wendell Porterfield, Kaye Ferry's attorney, said they were not here to approve what's been built. He said that the question was whether this interpretation should be entered into at this stage. He felt this should be handled by ordinance and not by a staff interpretation. He stated that this change should have been done in the form of an ordinance, since the rules were different when the application was submitted. He said this was forcing people to resolve disputes before they bring them before the Town. He said, though, that this was a separate matter and didn't relate to what an applicant had to do to get an application in and therefore, was not fair to do this in the middle of the process_ He stated that It shouldn't be left to interpretation, as it was a matter of significance. Doug Cahill asked staff to explain it. Brent Wilson explained that the issue was not specifically spelled out in the code, but since it wasn't expressly stated in the code, it was placed into the staff interpretations in order to maintain a fair and consistent application of the policy. John Schofield said it was not a change in philosophy but in enforcement, to always be consistent. Chas Bernhardt asked for any public comments. Susan Rutherford stated she was the co-owner of Parcel C and was not consulted by Ms. Ferry when ready to improve her side of the duplex. She stated that all she wanted was a certainty and knowledge of what was going on with her property and that was the very basis for the two -signature requirement. She stated that this policy should be upheld. Art Abplanalp, Susan Rutherford's attorney, explained that Parcel C was for the entire lot and mentioned that it was a pleasure for him to support the staff this time. He said that this interpretation had been in place for 2 1/2 years, as previously not having the interpretation had created unnecessary staff work in looking at private agreements. He explained that when you have joint owners, or an agent of the owner, it meant that everybody who was going to be affected on the property was represented_ He said the issue was whether the staff's interpretation was correct. He said the two-year attempt to give flexibility was an aberration and that this was a perfect illustration of the applicant not knowing what she wanted. He stated that almost a year ago, the PEC denied the application for a variance. He said that around the 15i of July he looked at the plans submitted. He then handed out to the PEC the plans that the PEC approved for a garage and now there was no garage when Ms. Rutherford looked at the plans at 2pm this afternoon. He stated that the Town had a reason for asking for a signature. Tom Meorhead asked if this was a new application. Planning and Environmental Commission 2 Minutes July 24, 2000 Approved August 14, 2000 Art Abplanalp said this was clearly a new application that was submitted months after the Town returned to its original interpretation of the code. 0 Wendell Porterfield said we were here because of the staff interpretation and how the process should be handled by the Town. He said the code stated the owner of the project, not the owner of the property. He said both owners should sign, but the way the code was written didn't say that. He then said that due to the very fact that that there were conflicting policies, it should be handled by the Town Council Chas Bernhardt asked for any more public input. Doug Cahill said we may have to rewrite the ordinance in the future to follow proper lawyer etiquette, but the intent is to have both owners up front on a project. He said certain things must be accomplished before a project can move forward, as the PEC is looking at the projects, not at the disputes. He said he was In agreement with the staff and would stand by the staff decision. John Schofield asked, for the record, to look at that plat. He asked Tom Moorhead if any signature would constitute a power of attorney. Tom Moorhead said a property owner and agency could have either an oral, handshake, or something as formal as a Power of Attorney. He said with real estate, it needed to be in writing according to the statute of frauds and at the closing, the agency would need to be the power of attorney. John Schofield said that most of the applications are by agents. Tom Moorhead said we depend upon a good relationship between the architect and the owner, but with property owners from around the world, it becomes unreasonable. He said to become more user friendly, we encourage something other than a Power of Attorney. He read 12-7-7 from the Town Code regarding signature requirements. He said this staff interpretation was identical to the Town's policy on condominium associations for all practical purposes. John Schofield asked for a copy of the plans showing the building on parcel C. He said this Commission and the Town have encouraged improvements, but we have to protect the owners and the PEG was not a party to the party wall agreement. He said he would definitely subscribe to the understanding that this was a new application, and there was no doubt in his mind that there was a fairly lengthy time lapse, so a new application was generated. He said the request for two signatures was a reasonable request and that this interpretation is what we are going to have to live with. He said with faxes, the Town should require all owners' signatures, even if affected owners are from all over the world. Chas Bernhard said he supported the Commissioners and agreed that this followed the intent of the law. John Schofield made a motion to uphold the staff decision based on the findings that: The staff decision is consistent with the provisions of Section 12-11-4, Vail Town Code (Material to be Submitted; Procedure) and Town of Vail Zoning Code Interpretation #33. The application requirements have not been met in full by the applicant/appellant. 2. Staffs decision was not an "ex post facto" application of the code since the design review application was submitted 41 days after the formal zoning interpretation was drafted. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. Planning and Environmental Commission 3 Minutes July 24, 2000 Approved August 14, 2000 The motion passed by a vote of 3-0, with Tom Weber and Galen recusing themselves. 2. A request for a sign variance, from Section 11-4B-19 (B)(4), to allow for a third business identification sign, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant)/Tract F, Vail Village 51h Filing. Applicant: Larkspur Restaurant & Bar Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked, after a site visit, if there were any other properties with similar frontage and pedestrian frontages. Brent Wilson said the Landmark Building in Lionshead received a similar variance because the PEG determined the building has multiple frontages. Galen Aasland asked if there was any applicant comment. Nancy Sweeney, said she was the applicant for the Larkspur Restaurant. John Schofield asked if she was representing the Market and the Restaurant. Nancy Sweeney explained the designated parking on the north lot with photos, as seen driving down Vail Valley Drive. She said the existing sign on the back faced the Children's ski school and was not legible from the bus and the traffic down Vail Valley Drive wasn't aware that there was any food service open for business. Galen Aasland asked about the two separate business licenses. He asked about two signs for each business or potentially, four different signs. Brent Wilson explained that each business was licensed separately and that the code allows one sign per business per frontage, with a maximum of two signs per business. Nancy Sweeney said she would like it to say Larkspur Restaurant . Brent Wilson asked the PEC to make a determination on the number of frontages for each business. Galen Aasland asked for a staff interpretation. Brent Wilson said, under the code, this was a separate business and the market could get one additional sign per frontage. Galen Aasland said let's address the issue on the number of frontages. Brent Wilson read the code for multi -tenant business signs. Galen Aasland asked if there was any public comment. Doug Cahill said he agreed that there were two frontages per business. Nancy Sweeney said there were three frontages. Doug Cahill said each business had two frontages. John Schofield said there were two, not three frontages, in that you were doing all of the parking off of one side supported the two frontages. He said technically there were three signs, if the bustop sign Planning and Environmental Commission 4 Minutes July 24, 2000 Memorandum • To: Vail Town Council From: George Ruther, Chief of Planning Date: August 22, 2000 Re: Town of Vail Development Review Application Requirements Discussion During a previous worksession the Town Council raised questions regarding the application requirements far jointly owned properties_ Specifically, the Council had questions about the need for written approval for proposed improvements from both owners of a duplex property. The purpose of this memorandum to introduce and discuss the issues surrounding development on jointly owned property. Once the issues have been discussed, staff recommends adopting amendments to our zoning regulations to codify our policy on development applications and jointly owned property. The majority of property ownership in the Town of Vail can be characterized as jointly owned. The development of land in Vail has been primarily duplex or multi -family. Only a small portion of land has been developed with single family residences. The majority of the duplex properties have been created as A parcels, B parcels, C parcels or AIB parcels. A,B,C parcel development creates fee simply ownership of the A and B parcels (each half of the duplex) and a common C parcel that is jointly owned and maintained by the two, A and B parcel owners. AB parcel development creates fee simply ownership of each half of the duplex unit plus a portion of the Iot. See attachment for reference. • The following is a summary of the Town's signature requirements for development review applications involving jointly owned property or improvements encroaching upon someone else's property. The Town of Vail Community Development has required signatures from all impacted property owners whenever an application for development review involves commonly held property. A specific example of this is a condominium or townhome association. A second example is the requirement that the Vail Town Council allow an applicant to proceed through the development review process whenever an application involves improvements on or to Town of Vail property (Dobson Ice Arena, Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, Waterhouse Garage). To insure that the staff is able to adequately determine property ownership the Community Development Department has been requiring that applicants submit a copy of schedules A & B of a title report. Schedule A identifies ownership and schedule B identifies easements and encumbrances. This requirement has been in effect for over seven years. Effective May 2, 2000, the Community Development Department made the determination that the same policy must apply to jointly owned "C parcel" duplex properties. The department no longer will accept any development review applications involving improvements on or to jointly owned property without written approval to proceed with the application from all owners, nor do we believe we have the authority to take action on a property without the appropriate owner(s) consent. This policy is in direct response to several recent development applications (Hughes-Tuclunan, Town of Vail — Waterhouse, Walker— McKibben, Ferry—Repetti, Pearson — Vail Rowhouses) where the town' s authority to act upon an application without proper written consent has been questioned, and more importantly, placed the staff, boards and commissions in very difficult decision-making positions. This policy does not affect duplex properties where a common parcel has not been platted. The staff has discussed the "C" parcel policy with the Town of Vail Design Review Board and Planning & Environmental Commission. The Board and the Commission are in support of the "C" parcel policy. 0 Attachment: D Historically, the negative impacts of not implementing the "C" parcel policy has been played out in the venues of the Design Review Board and Planning & Environmental Commission. Note: Kaye Ferry has filed an appeal of an administrative decision that requires her to submit a development review application signed by both owners of the duplex property she co-owns. The appeal will be heard by the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission at their regularly scheduled July 24, 2000 meeting. The purpose of this memorandum is to address the questions of the "C" parcel requirement. It is not intended, nor is appropriate to discuss the specifics of Ms. Ferry's appeal at this time as the decision of the Planning & Environmental Commission is appealable to the Town Council. • • Memorandum 0 To: Vail Town {Council From: Russell Forrest, Director of Community Development George Ruther, Chief of Planning Date: September 5, 2000 Re: Town of Vail Development Review Application Requirements Discussion I. BACKGROUND As a result of several recent conflicts between duplex owners, the Town Council and staff have raised questions regarding the application requirements for jointly owned properties. Specifically, the Council questioned the need for written approval for proposed improvements from both owners of a duplex property. The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce and discuss the issues surrounding development on jointly owned property. Once the issues have been discussed, staff recommends adopting amendments to our zoning regulations to codify the Town's policy on development applications and jointly owned property. The majority of residential property ownership in the Town of Vail can be characterized as jointly owned. The development of land in Vail has been primarily duplex or multi -family. Only a small portion of land has been developed with single family residences (<10%). The majority of the duplex properties have been created as 1) A parcels, B parcels, C parcels or 2) A/B parcels. These parcels are recreated when the owners of a duplex property plat and record a duplex plat in accordance with the Town's subdivision regulations. A,B,C parcel development creates fee simply ownership of the A and B parcels (each half of the duplex) and a common C parcel that is jointly owned and maintained by the two, parcel owners. A second type of duplex subdivision is AIB parcels. AB parcel development creates fee simply ownership of each half of the duplex unit plus a portion of the lot. Often times however, a party wall agreement outlines limitations for improvements to these properties_ The joint owner signature policy on AIB parcels has historically been more difficult to implement. The Town's zoning regulations are drafted and implemented recognizing duplex platting of properties. According to the subdivision regulations, when a platted lot is subdivided to create duplex parcels (AB/C or A/B) a note stating that the purpose of the plat is to subdivide the lot for ownership purposes and that the lot is to be treated as ONE lot for zoning purposes (i.e., calculating allowable GRFA, site coverage, landscape area, setbacks, etc.) is required on the recorded plat. This is important as it substantiates the Town's recognition that simply owning a separate parcel than your adjoining duplex unit owner does not insulate you from complying with the Town's regulation as a whole. II. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The following is a summary of the Town's signature requirements for development review applications involving jointly owned property or improvements encroaching upon someone else's property. 0 The Town of Vail Community Development has required signatures from all impacted property owners whenever an application for development review involves commonly held property. An example of this is a condominium or townhome association. A second example is the requirement that the Vail Town Council allow an applicant to proceed through the development review process whenever an application involves improvements on or to Town of Vail property (Dobson Ice Arena, Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, Waterhouse Garage). To insure that the staff is able to adequately determine property ownership, the Community Development Department has been requiring that applicants submit a copy of schedules A & B of a title report. Schedule A identifies ownership and schedule B identifies easements and encumbrances. This requirement has been in effect for over seven years. Effective May 2, 2000, the Community Development Department made the determination that the same policy must apply to jointly owned "C parcel" duplex properties. The department no longer will accept development review applications involving improvements on or to jointly owned property without written approval to proceed with the application from all owners, nor do we believe we have the authority to take action on a property without the appropriate owner(s) consent. This policy is in direct response to several recent development applications (Hughes- Tuchman, Town of Vail — Waterhouse, Walker — McKibben, Ferry —Repetti, Pearson — Vail Rowhouses) where the town' s authority to act upon an application without proper written consent has been questioned, and more importantly, placed the staff, boards and commissions in very difficult decision-making positions. This policy currently does not affect duplex properties where a common parcel has NOT been platted. The staff has discussed the "C" parcel policy with the Town of Vail Design Review Board and Planning & Environmental Commission. The Board and the Commission are in support of the "C" parcel policy. Historically, the negative impacts of not implementing the "C" parcel policy has been played out in the venues of the Design Review Board and Planning & Environmental Commission and Town Council. 1I1l. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES The purpose of this section of the memorandum is to outline several possible alternatives for implementing a joint owner signature policy. The list of possible alternatives is not intended to be all-inclusive. There may be more. Notification Requirement The Town Code currently does not require a 15 -day notification to adjoining duplex unit owners on Design Review Board applications. The reason for not requiring notification is that as long as a property owner is constructing improvements that comply with the Town's prescribed design guidelines and zoning requirements, and is not seeking to deviate from the requirements, the improvements should be allowed as a "use by right". However, on occasion, because of differences in architectural or design opinion (wood, stone, stucco, wood shakes, metal roof, shingles, gable roofs, dormers, etc.), two property owners may disagree with one another's proposal even though the technical requirements of the design guidelines are met. This was the case in the McKibbon-Walker dispute. Each of the owner's separate architectural design styles complied with the Town's design guidelines, yet they were not compatible with one another. The concern then becomes which style gets approved and sets precedence for future development. In this particular case, the Town of Vail Design Review Board was asked to not only review the proposals for compliance with prescribed standards, but also to resolve the design style dispute 40 between the two property owners. A possible way to address this issue would be require a 15 -day written notification of all design review board applications to adjoining duplex unit owners. This would provide notice and opportunity for input in the review process. No longer would an adjoining duplex unit owner be surprised to find improvements done by the other unit owner without notice. The owners could participate in the design review process. A negative impact however would be an increase in the time it takes to get a design review board application approved. Currently, some types of improvements can be staff approved in a matter of 24118 hours. A notification requirement of 15 days would likely increase the approval time frame to three for even the simplest of applications. Use of Development Potential The Town Code does not require written approval or notification to adjoining duplex unit owners when remaining development potential is being utilized. Due to the development pattern of land in the Town of Vail, the majority of the platted lots are zoned for duplex or multi -family development. As such, the development potential (GRFA, site coverage, landscape area, etc.) of a lot is shared with one or more property owners. In the instances where unused development potential remains, the Town has historically taken a first-come/first-serve approach. As long as the technical requirements of the regulations are met and no variances or exceptions are sought, a development application could be approved. This can create disputes between adjoining unit owners. The first-come/first-serve approach resulted in a neighbor dispute regarding the Hughes-Tuchman application. In the case of the Hughes-Tuchman application, one of the owners submitted an application to the Town of Vail to utilize the remaining development potential on the duplex lot. Once the other owner received word of the application (not by formal notification), they too submitted an application to utilize the same remaining development potential. The Planning & Environmental Commission was then asked to decide not only if the applications complied with the prescribed regulations, but also whose application would be approved and whose would be denied. A possible way to address this type of situation from reoccurring would be to require adjoining duplex unit owner signature on applications that propose to utilize development potential. By requiring the signature of the adjoining unit owner the Town could be assured that the owners are in agreement on the use of the development potential before the application is even submitted to the Town for consideration. Thus, the boards and commissions would no longer be placed in a position to decide which owner "wins" and which owner "loses". This policy would be applicable to both AB/C and AB parcels. The reason for applying it to both types of subdivision is that the Town's development standards are based upon the combined area of the lot as a whole and not just the area of the individual parcels. Signature Requirement on all Development Applications The Town Code currently requires joint owner signatures on applications affecting commonly owned property (A/B/C parcels & multi -family). A means of insuring that all affected property owners are notified AND approve of proposed improvements is to require joint owner signatures on all applications. This would insure that the joint owners have approved the proposed application before it is submitted to the Town of Vail for consideration. The following is a list of possible pros & cons of requiring signatures of all property owners of development applications on AB parcels: 0 Pros • Reduces conflicts and arguments between adjoining owners at public meetings. • Eliminates the use of staff, board, commission and council member's time and resources resolving conflicts that are civil matters between adjoining owners.. • Staff, PEC, and DRB will no longer need to reject applications from review because the adjoining owners will have resolved their differences prior to submitting an application and appearing at a public hearing. Cons • May reduce the current level of redevelopment of older properties. • An absentee owner may be difficult to locate, thus making it more difficult to construct improvements and maintain property. • Would require signatures for even minor improvements such as window changes, door changes, reroofing, deck changes, etc. P • ORDINANCE NO.24 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-11-4 (DESIGN REVIEW, MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED; PROCEDURES), SECTION 12-15-4 (INTERIOR CONVERSIONS, PROCESS), SECTION 12-15-5 (ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA; 250) AND ADOPTING SECTION 12-16-2(H) (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, APPLICATION, CONTENTS), SECTION 12-17-2(G) (VARIANCES, APPLICATION INFORMATION REQUIRED), TO ADD THE REQUIREMENT FOR CO-OWNER SIGNATURES ON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIONS OR WRITTEN LETTERS OF APPROVAL TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to codify the requirement for co-owner signatures on development review applications or written letters of approval; and WHEREAS, on September 5, 2000, the Vail Town Council held a worksession meeting to discuss the need for co-owner signatures and has directed staff to prepare this ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council has found that there is a need for co-owner signatures on • development review applications or written letters of approval to insure the reasonable and equitable 0 implementation of land use regulations on properties with more than one owner; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board have discussed the need for the co-owner signature requirement on development review applications or written letter of approval and support this ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to adopt this ordinance and require co-owner signatures on development review applications or written letters of approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Purpose of the Ordinance Ordinance 24, Series of 2000 Attachment: E The purpose of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2000, is to amend Sections 12-11-4(B)(1) (d) & (C)(1)(1), 12-15-4(D), 12-15-5(I), and adopt 12-16-2(H), and 12-17-2(G) to add the requirement for co-owner signatures on development review applications or written letter of approval. Section 2. Proposed Amendments The following sections of the Vail Town Code are amended and/or adopted and shall read as follows: Section 12-11-4(13)(1)(d): Application form. If the property is owned in common (condominium association) or jointly with other property owners such as driveways, "A/13" parcels or "C" parcels in duplex subdivisions, by way of example and not limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners or applicable owner's association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the application. Section 12-11-4(C)(1)(1): Application form and appropriate fee. if the property is owned in common (condominium association) or jointly with other property owners such as driveways, "A/13" parcels or ! "C" parcels in duplex subdivisions, by way of example and not limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners or applicable owner's association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the application, Section 12-15-4 (D): Process: Applications shall be made to the Department of Community Development staff on forms provided by the Department. Applications for interior conversions to single-family, two-family, primary/secondary or multi -family dwelling units located in a Special Development District (SDD) pursuant to this Section shall also be allowed without amending the GRFA provisions of the SDD. However, properties with GRFA restrictions recordedon the plat for the development shall be regulated according to the plat restrictions unless the plat is modified to remove such restrictions. If the property is owned in common (condominium association) or jointly with other property owners such as driveways, "AIB" parcels or "C" parcels in duplex subdivisions, by 0 2 Ordinance 24, Series of 2000 way of example and not limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners or 0 applicable owner's association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the application. The planning staff will review the application to ensure the proposed addition complies with all the provisions of the interior conversion section. Section 12-15-50)(1): Application shall be made on forms provide by the Department of Community Development. If the property is Owned in common (condominium association) or jointly with other property owners such as driveways or "C" parcels in duplex subdivisions, by way of example and not limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners or applicable owner's association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the application. The application shall also include: a. A fee pursuant to the current schedule shall be required with the application. b. Information and plans as set forth and required by subsection 12-11-4C of this Title. c. Any other applicable information required by the Department of Community Development to satisfy 0 the criteria outlined in this Section. Section 12-16-2(H): If the property is owned in common (condominium association) or jointly with other property owners such as driveways, "AIB" parcels or "C" parcels in duplex subdivisions, by way of example and not limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners or applicable owner's association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the application. Section 12-17-2(G): If the property is owned in common (condominium association) or jointly with other property owners such as driveways, "AIB" parcels or "C" parcels in duplex subdivisions, by way of example and not limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners or applicable owner's association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature 3 Ordinance 24, Series of 2000 • 0 on the application. Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. • The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. The repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19`' day of September, 2400, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 3rd day of October, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado., ! 4 Ordinance 24, Series of 2000 • Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 3rd day of October, 2000. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk �J Ordinance 24, Series of 2000 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 14, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, Vicki Pearson, et.al., are proposing text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts. Per the Planning and Environmental Commission's direction, staff has drafted proposed text amendments to modify the GRFA regulations as follows: GRFA measured from the outside of the exterior walls • All areas of a structure calculated as GRFA with specific deductions (optional basement deduction language provided) • Vaulted spaces included as GRFA • Airlocks included as GRFA • Stairs included as GRFA in multiple -family structures • "Interior Conversion" bonus repealed • "250 Ordinance" bonus repealed • GRFA formulas converted to FAR type formulas • Definition of "Site Coverage" clarified Staff has provided an analysis of existing homes in the Town of Vail (Attachment A). This research includes information regarding the allowed and constructed GRFA of existing homes located in various zone districts. In addition, the research provides information regarding total basement area, vaulted space, and exterior wall area. Staff then used this information to analyze the proposed text amendments to the GRFA regulations. Based on this analysis, staff developed a proposed alternative GRFA formula for the zone districts listed above (Attachment B). 1 TO IM' OF PAIL II. DISCUSSION ITEMS 0 Proposed text (basements not deducted from GRFA calculations): (Bold italicized text indicates a policy change) 12-2-2: DEFINITION FLUOR AREA, GROSS RESIDENTIAL (GRFA): The total square footage of all residential horizontal areas on all levels of a structure. SITE COVERAGE: The ratio of the total building area of a site to the total area of a site; expressed as a percentage. For the purposes of this definition, "building area of a site" shall mean that portion of a site occupied by any building, carport, porte cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway constructed at, below, or above grade as measured from the exterior face of the perimeter walls or supporting columns. For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or deck shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony, deck or walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eaves, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet (4) from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns. 12-15-3: DEFINITION. CALCULATION, AND EXCLUSIONS: i A. Definition 1. Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) Defined: The total square footage of all residential horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawlspaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as GRFA, except as deducted by the provisions of subsection B or C of this section. B. Gross Residential Floor Area Calculations and Deductions: 1. In the Hillside Residential, Single -Family Residential, Two -Family Residential, and Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential Districts, GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in the definition above. Areas as set forth herein shall their be deducted from total square footage: a. Enclosed garage areas of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two (2) vehicle parking spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this title. Garage area deducted from GRFA is awarded on a 'per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. 2 Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in a garage and which are twenty five percent (25/) or more open to the garage area may be included ire the garage area deduction. Interior walls separating the garage from other areas of a structure may be included in the garage area deduction. b. Attic areas with a ceiling height of five feet (5) or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. c. Attic areas created by construction of a roof with structural truss -type members, provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches (30) apart. d. Attic areas created by construction of a roof structure utilizing a nontruss system, with spaces greater than five feet (5) in height, if all of the following criteria are met: (1) The area cannot be accessed directly from a habitable area within the same building level; and (2) The area shall have the minimum access required by the building code from the level below (6 square foot opening maximum); and (3) The attic space shall not have a structural floor capable of supporting a "live load" greater than forty (40) pounds per square foot, and the "floor" of the attic space shall not be improved with decking; and (4) It must be demonstrated by the architect that a "truss - type" or similar structural system cannot be utilized as defined in the definition of GRFA; and (5) It will be necessary that a structural element (i.e., collar - tie) be utilized when rafters are used for the roof system, In an unusual situation, such as when a bearing ridge system is used, the staff will review the space for compliance with this policy. e. Grawispaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve (12) square feet in area, with 18 inches (18") or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above, with footings no deeper than the minimum depth required by the adopted building code. f. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar features or spaces with no more than three (3) exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than twenty five percent (255,o) of the linealperimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space, provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to forty four inches (44') in height and support posts with a diameter of eighteen inches (18') or less which are spaced no closer than ten feet (10) apart. The space between the posts shall be measured from the outer surface of the post. 2. In the Residential Cluster, Low Density Multiple -Family, Medium Density Multiple -Family, High Density Multiple -,Family, and Housing Districts, GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in the definition above. Areas as set forth herein shall then be deducted from total square footage: a. Enclosed garage areas to accommodate on-site parking requirements. Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in a garage and which are twenty five percent (25%) or more open to the garage area may be included in the garage area deduction. Interior wails separating the garage from other areas of a structure may be included in the garage area deduction. b. All or part of the following areas, provided such areas are common spaces: (1) Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and air locks. (2) Common lobby areas. (3) Common enclosed recreation facilities. (4) Common heating; cooling or ventilation systems, solar rock storage areas, or other mechanical systems. (5) Common closet and storage areas, providing access to such areas is from common hallways only. (6) Meeting and convention facilities. (7) Office space, provided such space is used exclusively for the management and operation of on-site facilities. (8) Floor area to be used in a Type Ill Employee Housing Unit (EHU) as defined and restricted by Chapter 13 of this Title. c. Attic areas with a ceiling height of five feet (5) or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. d. Attic areas created by construction of a roof with truss -type members, provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches (30') apart. 0 El e. Attic areas created by construction of a roof structure utilizing a nontruss system, with spaces greater than five feet (5) in height, if all of the following criteria are meta (1) The area cannot be accessed directly from a habitable area within the same building level; and (2) The area shall have the minimum access required by the building code from the level below (6 square foot opening maximum); and (3) The attic space shall not have a structural floor capable of supporting a "live load" greater than forty (40) pounds per square foot, and the "floor" of the attic space cannot not be improved with decking; and (4) It must be demonstrated by the architect that a "truss - type" or similar structural system cannot be utilized as defined in the definition of GRFA; and (5) It will be necessary that a structural element (i.e.. collar - tie) be utilized when rafters are used for the roof system. In an unusual situation, such as when a bearing ridge system is used, the staff will review the space for compliance with this policy. f. Crawlspaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve (12) square feet in area, with 98 inches (18") or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above, with footings no deeper than the minimum depth required by the adopted building code. g. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar features or spaces with no more than three (3) exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than twenty five percent (2551o) of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck. porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space, provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to forty four inches (44) in height and support posts with a diameter of eighteen inches (18") or less which are spaced no closer than ten feet (10} apart. The space between the posts shall be measured from the outer surface of the post. C. Additional Calculation Provisions: 1. Primary/Secondary and Two -Family Structures: a. For two-family and primary/secondary lots, GRFA shall be calculated based on the entire lot area. b. For two-family and primary/secondary structures, GRFA shall be measured from the center of common interior walls to the outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls. 5 2. Mixed Use Structures: i a. For Mixed Use Structures: GRFA shall be measured from the center of common interior walls to the outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls. 3. Vaulted or open to below areas: Vaulted or open to below areas that are greater than fifteen feet (15) in height as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the ceiling directly above shall be calculated as GRFA on two levels of the structure. 4. Greenhouse Windows: Greenhouse windows (self-supporting windows) shall not be counted as GRFA. "Greenhouse windows" are defined according to the following criteria: a. Distance Above Inside Floor Level: In order for a window to be considered a greenhouse window, a minimum distance of thirty six inches (36') must be provided between the bottom of the window and the floor surface, as measured on the inside face of the building wall. (Floor surface shall not include steps necessary to meet building code egress requirements.) The thirty six inch (36') minimum was chosen because it locates the window too high to be comfortably used as a window seat and because it allows for a typical four foot (4) high greenhouse window to be used in a room with an eight foot (8) ceiling height_ b. Projection: No greenhouse window may protrude more than eighteen inches (98') from the exterior surface of the building. This distance allows for adequate relief for appearance purposes, without substantially adding to the mass and bulk of the building. c. Construction Characteristics: All greenhouse windows shall be self-supporting and shall not require special framing or construction methods for support; with the exception that brackets below the window may be allowed provided they die into the wall of the building at a forty five degree (45°) angle_ A small roof over the window may also be allowed provided the overhang is limited to four inches (4") beyond the window plane. d. Dimensional Requirement: No greenhouse window shall have a total window surface area greater than forty four (44) square feet. This figure was derived on the assumption that the maximum height of a window, in an average sized room, is four feet (4) and the maximum width for a four foot (4) high self-supporting window is between six feet (6) and eight feet (8) (approximately 32 square feet). Since the window would protrude no more than eighteen inches (98'), the addition of side windows would bring the overall window area to approximately forty four (44) square feet. L e. Quantity.- Up to two (2) greenhouse windows will be allowed per 01 dwelling unit, however, the forty four (44) square foot size limitation will apply to the combined area of the two (2) windows. f. Site Coverage: Greenhouse windows do not count as site coverage. Proposed text (basements deducted from GRFA calculations): Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to exclude basements from the GRFA calculations; Staff recommends the following text amendment in addition to the above listed amendments. 2-2: DEFINITION AREAWAY: A sunken area affording access, air, and light to a basement door or window. 12-95-3: DEFINITION, CALCULATION, AND EXCLUSIONS: B. Gross Residential Floor Area Calculations and Deductions.- h. eductions. h. Below grade horizontal areas of a structure if all of the following criteria are met: (1) The area under consideration is located directly below another level of the structure. (2) The perimeter walls of the area under consideration are not exposed and are completely below both existing and finished grade as measured from the finished floor elevation of the level above. Perimeter walls with areaways necessary to meet the minimum requirements of the adopted building code may be considered below grade at the discretion of the Administrator. Proposed Text Amendment Evaluation The following is a brief summary of staffs evaluation of the alignment of the proposed amendments with the Planning and Environmental Commission's accepted GRFA reform principles: Conformance with the accepted reform principles: • GRFA reforms should be simpler to understand, implement, and enforce: YES • GRFA reforms should be equitable: YES • GRFA reforms should address related Town zoning regulations: YES • GRFA reforms should not negatively impact property sales or values: YES • Government should not regulate the interior use of homes: YES • GRFA reforms should improve compliance with building and fire codes: YES • GRFA reforms should not dramatically increase development potential: YES 7 APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zoning Regulations Jitle 12, Vail Town Code) Chapter 12-1: Title, Purpose and Applicability 12-1-2: PURPOSE: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. Article 12-6A: Hillside Residential (HR) district 12-6A-8: DENSITY CONTROL: B. Gross Residential Floor Area: 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a. Twenty (20) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first twenty one thousand seven hundred eighty (21, 780) square feet of site area; plus b. Five (5) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over twenty one thousand seven hundred eighty (21, 780) square feet. 2. In addition to the above, four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit. 3. On any site containing two (2) dwelling units, one of the units shall not exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA). This unit shall not be subdivided or sold separately from the main dwelling unit. This unit may be integrated into the main dwelling unit or may be integrated within a garage structure serving the main unit, but shall not be a separate freestanding structure. Article 12-613: Single -Family Residential (SFR) district 12-613-8: DENSITY CONTROL: B. Gross Residential Floor Area: 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a. Twenty five (25) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first twelve thousand five hundred (12, 500) square feet of site area; plus b. Ten (10) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one i hundred (100) square feet of site area over twelve thousand five hundred (12,500) square feet. 0 2. In addition to the above, four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit. 3. No single-family residential lot except those located entirely in the red hazard avalanche zone or the flood plain shall be so restricted that it cannot be occupied by one single-family dwelling. Article 12.-6C: Two -Family Residential (R) district 12-6C-8: DENSITY CONTROL: B. Gross Residential Floor Area: 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a. Twenty five (25) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of site area; plus b. Ten (10) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not to exceed thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet of site area; plus c. Five (5) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet. 2. In addition to the above, four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit. Article 12-6D: Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (P1S) district 12-5D-8: DENSITY CONTROL: B. Gross Residential Floor Area: 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a. Twenty five (25) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of site area; plus b. Ten (10) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not to exceed thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet of site area; plus c. Five (5) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. 2. In addition to the above, four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit. 3 Article 12-6E: Residential Cluster (RC) District 0 12-6E-5: DENSITY CONTROL: A. Gross Residential Floor Area: Not more than twenty five (25) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area; provided, however, that single-family and two-family dwelling units constructed in the residential cluster district shall be entitled to an additional two hundred twenty five (225) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) per constructed dwelling unit. Total density shall not exceed six (6) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. A dwelling unit in a multiple -family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one -thrid (1/3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. Article 12-6F: Low Density Multiple -Family Residential (LDMF) District 12-6F-8: DENSITY CONTROL: A. Gross Residential Floor Area: Not more than thirty (30) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area; provided, however, that single-family and two- family dwelling units constructed in the low density residential district shall be entitled to an additional two hundred twenty five (225) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) per constructed dwelling unit. Total density shaft not exceed nine (9) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. A dwelling unit in a multiple -family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. Article 12-6G: Medium Density Multiple -Family Residential (MDMF) District 12-6G-8: DENSITY CONTROL: A. Gross Residential Floor Area: Not more than thirty five (35) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area; provided, however, that single-family and two-family dwelling units constructed in the medium density residential district shall be entitled to an additional two hundred twenty five (225) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) per constructed dwelling unit. Total density shall not exceed eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. A dwelling unit in a multiple -family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. Article 12-6H: High Density Multiple -Family Residential (HDMF) District 12-6H-8: DENSITY CONTROL. Not more than sixty (60) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area Not more than sixty (60) square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area for any conditional use listed in section 12-6H-3 of this article. Total density shall not exceed twenty 10 five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. Each accommodation unit shall be counted as one-half (112) of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. A dwelling unit in a multiple -family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (113) of the total floor area of the dwelling. Article 12-61: Housing (H) District 12-61-10: OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A. Prescribed By Planning And ,Environmental Commission: In the H district, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as proposed by the applicant, as prescribed by the planning and environmental commission, and as adopted on the approved development plan: 1. Lot area and site dimensions. 2. Building height. 3. Density control (including gross residential floor area). IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria and factors for consideration for a request of a text amendment are established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-3, Vail Town Code (Ordinance No. 4, Series 2002). A. Consideration of FactorsRegardingthe Text Amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments further the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments will better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the development objectives of the Town. 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and Staff believes that the Town's existing GRFA regulations are no longer appropriate given the complexities, inequalities, and inefficiencies of the regulations that now exist due to the significant number of text amendments that have occurred over the past several years. 11 V. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff believes that the proposed text amendments provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before forwarding a recommendation of approval for of a text amendment: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for the proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section IV of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town, and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. 12 • • 9 VI. ATTACHMENTS A. GRFA analysis data B. Proposed GRFA formulas 0 13 Attachment: A • • • n — 99 I ¢ 0 I es iR ae ae # a ii `r5j R.` i+i .3 iei r '6 b o NIa 14N N al aej I tl a a, ye K q he ld t alt�e " is iR a ap as xl {I ae ae aY a °� i w - � 4 NI ri ai of - tr t3 a{ - � B 0 U n u I I m e w� � : hh 1 is 9 n n,�y KKK N e6 ri eF 6 f dj9I u ®q of os N �, �i '� ae gg gg �I E 1F a 'g n gg P •Q N ff S g 9 O n • $ enl +a• S �F O N' $I ^. B bb o J = nl Ell E s E, -e V f� 9M�I 6A 11 ¢ �I n $ e $ m a• s - y >" i' > U LLly a S s pry. ^ i:I;o Isar - Rm= ry a x E b • S .22 yes SE SE m y SIT I n n n n se n ea Q. rZ si z f�ln o w w • • • G 0 0 I .J ,4' r 61. i1i rb wf n � N S N N NN W Www dl �n rtpf W W VI }h ,fell W W 0 o p b 0 ff, d N IIypyyy apn pp y4�. a9 IyNP, O ©N O pN IOC VONT p pO O qm pO, pN d rq� p� C fNII V C W S 1 8 IO O p N 4 O fail g .Wi 810 $ Ei Pi V O !.1 $+ S M Gi N uv,r fn n as v r 14annin S. W O t] �ONy p u'a':., y q, _ ..r . r, _N, �.0 m ' W '•J Ll, A G o O F.A.05 , a b� all tppo V tlaar n b o a m O 0 6 9 o t m a p 5 O o D m O o 0 O 4 4 W ' _p1 [A �palr pA O p S O Q v 7 [S O o c p'Ipw�i ti'i$aJI$ Seglo�i$w�c�t., oo gard'it�t nt S o�gggoNoSLNI,t o 1,7 S u+ v _ey ) a r U - o .-I fn T m br L=1 S. - m 7= 4qi A. u W.rt �.� cc mL,l O O 6 01 C3 V C]: a Q O tmo N ( d U O O O d U t:] 'O 4°] IIS .Ti a GJ C, 4 sA 8 8 In .d D A O A O CJ a til SS��, O15, , A1f3C..Ai' L J C] `V d ] .. 'p O O N �.;q S O 0pp6 p J C a n 00".060808 CAaS� NN Lh PIP4PIP PIS pp W rAJy L�p)Ir [n P. m Y -LII OOfA)I dpvJ G0O O (yO+p1 d f[Nv.ryl d qA op DN p Q Ww a Wo00S Ob ww9 NfpAO.) Q pOG 8 V S J S h S D �AA d - .az ".. � . n M W cL^ .h [ tea N 6 CI . :. I Ja �• 6 CS CJ V hl p b IA rn fn 4A m rn CGC?rn rn N m _ 1 Ll1 A m fT QfI <n rli N D 4 iJ� g q O a O C r: eJ -• � P 0 0 Ci d© L"v 0 0 0 0 pA o o e f�.I P 0 0 t� a t '94^ p� [m3 G O W c� Aw ©� O �1 O Cn p C•' On.]] d O o to r O O c ' � D �]• � ' o n o S u+ v _ey ) a r U - o n D Y.;eP �• O N� L O" rpp] � 4].@ V 4 L) CCl � CN U 4qi A. u W.rt �.� cc `Z`0-00.0 j It, N m �Wp OI rNp SII © O ®� eS�O fk! tpll U o Ien{Pr �1 (IWnT SP �? mp js !0 id�> OI [n bOr O �d�ll .CQi r] ,rUi o p p1 C O O O O O b p ��4ll p Op 9 GJ q O T r5 S@@A C':4 P V p g �= -a m cr •n 'a' r. 0 o rn o �; � � � $ O O c ' � D �]• � ' o n o OC OyO d J o v � In Pn a cQ u+ v _ey ) a r U - o n D Y.;eP �• O N� L O" - d b A 4 J S N.COJ O V � 4].@ V 4 L) CCl � CN U 4qi A. u W.rt �.� cc IP e e rn m fA CI O O O O �mr V o !fOnpl rn of U m y�ga�. (Qw� S(ln� fph o� IInS 1p m Qm rn uI A n o- -• cmc. a U a o Cd] pp oo pp •�•�' o w p p O O O d i3 o O O d LI O +1 6 J Qoom I�Jomtmg �= -a m cr •n 'a' r. 0 o rn o �; � � � $ O O c ' � D �]• � ' o n o OC OyO d J o v � In Pn a cQ In C a o:N d o cUU O o o N : caC+I o N o o C d �` O p O u Uoo o c: o 4 4� aNn wrpp r5 til b w O 6+ v � 4 _O-_,6 >a O. -i',:, •, a UdU O,. D:.W+ o SNL S;,U tl 1{d O, ..� pSp .,4. p N C.-:� S W S V. C r I r o p fC m t� d rP S V D. O o ppmly �4pp1 OI �Oyy.rylI o uD ffffpfffApppppp O1 AR IC ttl �OlJ11I IIU�p 1Clp�, ISpP�! O1 fA fAI S O O o n1 O �D C fA O o 3 c t �i � s? � T '? O O ON+ O �' R ,j h Gy O S+• N m s O O opple�owo.lo: o -+gi 1-1 "Do o q v. � r. 0 o rn o �; � � � $ O O c ' � D �]• � ' o n o OC OyO d J o v � In Pn a cQ 6 L')4 a s OS U Lb's O O M U v Ca Ci [, � cc U CO y4 C„BO iP S 4 Gl._ � ; .h q Gr O.C3 fJ C] J it c) '.. 4 SJ � O (11 C] S1J C � -J S d Cf - , ci C'1 4+. 04 W t7, �. ® �t,Si ,(] .,', �O 6„N LE R• O- V C ,{(J�s ' 'IU .sa O J D) -. C1E66 ap adotot5 N o m o v n pSclSoaao o ._ m o -.I o ooD•tmioo'o - n o to o w ry U• e� opple�owo.lo: o -+gi 1-1 "Do o q v. � r. 0 o rn o �; � � � $ O O c ' � D �]• � ' o n o OC OyO d J o v � In Pn a cQ 'D O o” 41 C r3.'.0 9 S. G+ N 4. ❑. O S d d G r5 Lb's O O M U v Ca Ci [, � LI 0 0 do o S O S U u a b 0 et G Cs U C C ii' G O p A a s Fn =.l o aao p a :e o mo j 'IU .sa O J D) -. C1E66 p p s0 qal a O d pd L4 Ca W S 'q 2O)bo E a a �i o � ;' � p <.n o r. 0 o rn o �; � � � $ O O c ' � D �]• � ' o n o OC OyO d J o v � In Pn a cQ 'D O o” 41 C r3.'.0 9 S. G+ N 4. ❑. O S d d G r5 d o LS r rD b C] U d U O O D N C_ �'] �I q -{ ❑ €-tet O CWV 00 t>) S Q b q I(} O S (H G t`i Q M 8 vLf3 N u eD @ S ri S U C7 N 90 W O ❑ iT+ S F 6 Q wV vim• O f3 0 4� €3 C❑ 4) O O oo O N O �!J 6 oti O +'/1 O O 4 Q V� 0 �tD O Lf i� N p® p p q Cj O ca P. � r� p. [�� a } �. � ,,.` � a o � m a{'i• � M � �' � `Y Oco O Vy., Cq, r o ry $vwa�q amu, S€ol `ovS, `IQi 1�Duo SI".So$o S9$ mo Scorao,S�ia��o: $oM1caFal�`o�oo gopQoio"a r�oobc;oocOti€n�'dcri�N�.= a ur a r- e r r W N N g r N M v] N C] h m C%. W1[4 ^] „» '4 G C �1 a 4.. Ki: O {) 1 p Q A �� e}. •d' b v O wC m Ca' C] N O ^r S C? ( '4` P •E u; 4 L7 M C- � C ) ') vl 4 W ID c©� f) �f {7 V 2] If1 O R. Pi.. 00 O ' - O S It C CJ..P t^ .P. 6 0 i ra O 'j O o N Fi f ] I. (, u y.. � I€+•RJ ] Q ri O S M S _�2 S Q O IfY 8 16 b b O €'1 S S S 6° .4 CD �2 R Q ip ❑ fP O O O V � o 6<< o w .N- ar- eR• N i� ((��.�- 4 `ern- N p f N OOf WOvn"- IOfVD 1'i IM6 GYI h CL f\In n p b C IPfI O O M 6 (g1 b PU"y. G vPi b 9 - O o p y p ICI O� 1� O W m psj C] <G S�© 4 4 .b 9 0 S chi � f'] P 4 S v O m b ti G C^ `� ryW a O g j'' W❑ a N O� R P M NN r qq [[�a p pp�I t y p yy r d 2 2 S pp II//�� p pO lV O N S il] S V Ia0 n 9 SQ A} O 17 S e+i S INq IPA S (D O S sin S R O 4"I S p ID GQ n'SQM�ro�oP�P oc�n o, o ©Qo�g �a 9pn��wwv u] YS yI/�� p� ❑O N Q N 6 .�'. Q al' IPCY V P - Q l�. M S 4 G In 4i f0 O - O {7 O W Q u) ❑❑ h Cos c6 00 S S O. C1 O. G 6 r. d S O [N[yy O'InC➢_ Fl tJ N O O S N L� i` U .fN1 O a I g a 8LrL OM- - arv�no2$`u�'i°� ^i �a�++ 5S5��f4Son° cS g ao 828 3S on €uaS O'$5'n�a"wc ❑�16 oUi .N-�1`�leO1r��af dS4®�vo¢❑Ya em aIn, a a $o oIn. T T' r pp pp p ® N r o 4 ��. P, N f] "n C o N V M a S q O 2 a Q f3 .1 a ,IQ I O lv. O ) Ct iD pp r] Vi I'n €� 'V • co +t Ilf� a'. ut CI I '.�. .^ J..0 C1 w P W 4 O - O �'O l S 9 .r r p ILI 9.. +6,n� O In O � b � ❑ C'i � O CJ Ci L} Cb ® Cj q � q.4 � S. C7 S C) � V bpi O � O a pP - dpi 4 4 C). O r ui r- w 1p�- Y- u) Vi [FI .. VV 00pp U1 qq G r 4) RR m ©p pp pp €TJ VV V r� Vp's pN [pJ N t� yy f's. �Q d Mfl C) CYC} G yy67�� p O p O O 4 4M .- Q C €^S M1 W cl4 W W m O r r r m N Cy €V €�� M rimy a.a O h O S C? S V b Y I+i 4 S €q� S c+f S f'Q)1 S' 4i ID w 0 -iD m S V S S R b 9N0 O S O O 6 0 N p b B O O O a O Ci S 4� V�N1 ci r' Q C1 fIf N b Lai O O O .- V r 6+ YJ r~ W rpp_ w r Ipps: D 44 rrpp �Vyy Ipple ppryry <C ... I{� ppr vv .q- pr (p:I" aa�� ppry pry. r ry N N O N Q CW O €xI i❑ do O O N O O ❑ (•l O RS O O N ID O S [] 4 Q a o' O O 10 d O S d A O o w a b O O O O A O Ci p (y [j O p O C) C) O d P' O C1 Ci Ow o a C� G o Q a b a� �� �- '= IId et W t0 A C? 11pp pr iAOV pw qq OLO V� pp ` { 00] O �i ]i N N YQ� $~ N N CV O o N In.a €In o V;.R IPt1 In p O 7 €7 ah i.> c� Cryi Ifi D d..� 6 9 f� O V C]_� O � IPts � W G ib? l:3 g In S O Cl s, ). 4m iJ 4..M C] („ � O � f� Ca jT7 'tl Cl 9 l0 VO>VRI 1.1" FSf �� Sp I'- O S N S N S �; Y IPA b 0 S t7 O ml S Y S u] O ID ImD D O o O G O �fi S S �W W O O &o ri'o ag,aPQ $o$o$oc'©u�'ooa R'o oS2o o� degg' o o�rn.=moo Y) SI nf) m ��DpppSS rZ%S Zcp�5a pp appm�i qq pw� f�rr�ii � s 12��i � ffiffiei Cir�� O iV - N O.m O IA 111 d 4 M Q nl S S S R N Ymi ebD p _ ❑ C�j O v S y1 S IPA NPo LO O S S n G G O Qo:zc n a as ddgo^a No nc ocio� go �caM1o�4o� ge so® ro cq v� r• _QQ�� ��yy pp pp p pp S VSsCn4pS N S nI O P N IA N Q S [+) Q try Iry O �!] b d.1 o O 1` O c S S O V n~On~h O A O P Oa O C] O y iO a Cq 2 ti d O p j T Q ry r g 4] IN m Iii UI fU p (C+��a oo pp q pp pp l� p�� IInA p u� p r pp pr i Fel 9 M O 4] S IA W C O M O �t; 6 S o. W D b f0 S Y t7 ? G r o. ou "arvcacin2s' €❑avg..q(b'cici.�uiog e�®�'ieaoaviraPa.. ogvg.r�..-,%g, s g n .o.. . wui yy pm �j p s.,$.�s>.npdaipp�aptry�+-Y.eFs�€ �s1"�,�.apa'e''I''d�ryp • r,� p� r p �p{��^:.ry� (V 1 f�T��� b [V S FOi OcYNI ryry V Q Q Y} pQO ❑ ill µpSpI€7l {•1 Ip4ry S? O W7 ®a € m p6 84 CS O V, Qdp in �nO} I� �tl w a�D pO ...... pO I� {Oa !� pS 6 p9p G S CJ O O S] O m 4 4 b O 0 0 If) B M O O a P Oi N' O O T O 4] ® lR,+ P P N O M1 Q 0� ' CI w M Cpp; tpp'J 16 f 11 I �v V pQ I©©G N 1� R In IIl pp OppCi b! G c -G S NO t"? 4 CN)O Ox NRV1 L! '0 M S itt).+O 07 G 41 p iD i�8.� •k" ✓Q.,. OG'O YZ O O w 6.(] O CS. g b o G P Q C u t.) f> (i Q Q O 'i O G CCJJ M ID o .7l . .�: ;i t a +an u% v L� 6. rr .an 6 uto ry ea r s� Ni n I€i w w €F 't m r- o r ^+ 4 +r o � m o w m _ CJ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 11, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5h Filing from Public Accommodation zone district (PA) to Parking zone district (P); a request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the proposed zoning of Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation II zone district; a request for 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 conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a "private off-street vehicle parking facility and public park" to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing; a request for an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for a variance from Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to allow for the construction of multiple -family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther I. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Jay Peterson, has submitted five development review applications to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The five applications are intended to facilitate the redevelopment of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5m Filing and to allow for the rezoning of Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision, from Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD) to Ski Base Recreation -2 District (SBR -2). The applicant has submitted the applications to allow for the construction of Vail Park and a new 134 space private underground parking structure in Vail Village and to facilitate the development of Vail's Front Door. Staff is recommending approval of each of the applicant's development review applications with the conditions listed in Section IX of this memorandum. IL DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST 0 The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC), represented by Jay Peterson, has submitted five development review applications to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Lots P3 & J Four applications have been submitted to facilitate the redevelopment of a paved parking lot on Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village Vh Filing and build a new public park (Vail Park) and an above -ground/ underground, private off-street vehicle parking facility. The four applications include; • A major subdivision of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing, • An amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail to rezone Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing from the Public Accommodation (PA) district to the Parking (P) District, • A conditional use permit to allow for a 'public park" in the Parking District, and • A conditional use permit to allow for a 'private off-street vehicle parking structure". According to the applicant's written statement submitted with the application, the proposed redevelopment of Lots P3 & J is intended to address two major goals: • To upgrade existing conditions of the site by replacing the majority of the existing surface parking lot with a neighborhood park; and • To provide an additional source of parking for the surrounding neighborhood and the greater Vail community. This development concept is in keeping with the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan. The upgrading of this site has been a long-standing goal of the Town. The Vail Village Master Plan specifically identifies this "as appropriate for park/open space and/or central loading and delivery facilities" The proposed development of Lots P3 & J includes the construction of a sub -surface parking structure containing 108 parking spaces. The uppermost plate of the parking structure will be located at approximately the same grade elevation as the existing gravel parking lot. The uppermost level of the structure will be dedicated for the exclusive use of the Christiania Lodge, in accordance with an existing contractual agreement between the applicant and the Christiania Lodge. Vehicular access to the upper level will be from Hanson Ranch Road and access to the parking structure will be through a garage door located along Gore Creek Drive. Pedestrian circulation to and from the below grade portions of the parking structure will be via a small on - grade building containing a set of stairs and an elevator. A vicinity map of the development site and surrounding area has been attached for reference (Attachment A) is A reduced copy of the proposed plans and the proposed major subdivision final plat has been attached for reference (Attachment B). Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision The applicant has submitted an application to rezone Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision from Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD) to the newly created Ski Base Recreation -2 District (SBR -2)- The purpose of the proposed rezoning is to facilitate the development of Vail's Front Door Project. Ill. BACKGROUND In 1965, Lots P3 & J were created by the adoption of the Vail Village 5th Filing Subdivision. As platted, Lot P3 and Lot J are separated by a 25 -foot wide Town of Vail right-of-way. For reasons that are not clear in the Town's property files, a road (Hanson Ranch Road Chute) was constructed outside of the right-of-way on the westernmost portion of Lot P3. Until now, this discrepancy has never been addressed. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, Lot P3 is located in the Parking (P) District and Lot J is located in the Public Accommodation (PA) District. Notwithstanding the zoning, these two lots have historically been used for surface parking. On April 14, 2003, VRDC appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission for a worksession meeting to discuss the proposed plans for the redevelopment of Lots P3 & J with the Commission. At the time, the applicant was proposing to incorporate four loading and delivery spaces into the parking structure to provide a dispersed loading and delivery facility for the businesses in Vail Village. A copy of the approved Planning and Environmental Commission April 14, 2003 meeting minutes have been attached for reference (Attachment C). IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BODIES Major Subdivision Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a major subdivision. Specifically the code states: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. (1997 Code: Ord. 2(1983) § 1 Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: The Town Council is also responsible for accepting land for public right of way in a Major Subdivision. Rezoning/Zone District Boundary Amendment Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is advisory to the Town Council. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. 0 Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority on zoning/rezonings. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of a zoning/rezoning. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. Conditional Use Permit Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/denial/approval with conditions of conditional use permits. 4 The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a 0 proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a conditional use permit but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memorandum containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 13, Subdivision Regulations Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Vail Town Code establishes the review process and criteria for a major subdivision proposed in the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Chapter 13-3 (Major Subdivision) of the Town Code, the first step in the review process is for the applicant to meet with a Town Planner to discuss the preliminary plan. The next step in the review process shall be a formal consideration of the preliminary plan by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant shall make a presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. The presentation and public hearing shall be in accordance with Section 12-3-6 (Hearings) of the Vail Town Code. The burden of proof that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Code and other pertinent regulations shall lie upon the applicant. In reviewing the plan, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to: 1. Subdivision Control; 2. Densities proposed; 3. Regulations; 4. Ordinances, resolutions and other applicable documents; 5. Environmental Integrity; fi_ Compatibility with surrounding land uses; and 7. Effects upon the aesthetics of the Town and surrounding land uses. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date of the review of the preliminary plan to approve, disapprove or approve with 0 conditions or modifications, the major subdivision request. Within ten days of making a decision on the request, the staff shall forward the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision to the Vail Town Council. The Council may appeal the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. The appeal must be placed within seventeen days of Planning and Environmental Commission's action. If the Council appeals the Planning and Environmental Commission's action, the Council shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. The Council shall have thirty days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the Planning and Environmental Commission decision. The appeal hearing shall be held during a regularly scheduled council meeting. The final step in the review process of a major subdivision request, after Planning and Environmental Commission preliminary plan review, is the review of the final plat. At any time within one year after the Planning and Environmental Commission has taken action on the preliminary plan, a final plat shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The staff shall schedule a final review of the final plat. The final review shall occur at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. The review criteria for a final plat are the same as those used in reviewing the preliminary plan as contained in Section 13-3-4 of the Subdivision Regulations. The Town of Vail has the ability to require certain improvements when approving a major subdivision. The following improvements shall be required by the applicant unless otherwise waived by the zoning administrator, Planning and Environmental Commission, or Council: 1. Paved streets and parking lots; 2. Bicycle and pedestrian path linked with the town system and within the subdivision itself; 3. Traffic control signs, signals or devices; 4. Street lights; 5. Landscaping; 6. Water lines and fire hydrants; 7. Sanitary sewer lines; 8. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers; 9. Bridges and culverts; 10. Electric lines; 11. Telephone lines; 12. Natural gas lines; 13. Other improvements not specifically mentioned above but found necessary by the Town Engineer due to the nature of the subdivision. Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code) Parking District (P) 12-9B-1: PURPOSE: The Parking District is intended to provide sites for private or public unstructured off-street vehicle parking and conditionally to provide for private or public off-street vehicle parking structures and private or public parks and recreational facilities. The Parking District is intended to allow such uses while ensuring adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each valid use in adjacent areas. 12-98-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the P District: Private or public unstructured off-street vehicle parking. 12-913-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Major arcade. Private or public off-street vehicle parking structures. Private or public parks and recreational facilities. Public uses, private office and commercial' uses that are transportation, tourist or Town related and that are accessory to a parking structure. Temporary construction staging sites. For the purposes of this Section, a temporary construction staging site shall mean a site on which, for a temporary period of time, construction materials, heavy construction equipment, vehicles and construction trailers may be stored. 0 Type III employee housing units (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title. 12-98-4: ACCESSORY USES: Minor arcade. Chapter 12-16: Conditional Use Permits 12-16-1: PURPOSE: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. Town of Vail Land Use Plan Chapter 11— Land Use Plan Goals/Policies I* 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1. i New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2.3The ski area owner, the business community, and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 0 According to the Official Town of Vail Land Use Plan map, the applicant's proposed redevelopment site is located with the "Vail Village Master Plan" land use category. Pursuant to the Plan, the "Vail Village Master Plan" land use category description, "Vail Village has been designated separately as a mixed use area and accounts for 77 acres or about 2% of the Plan area. This area has not been analyzed in this Plan document because the Vail Village Master Plan study addressed this area specifically in more detail." Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan The Town of Vail is in the process of preparing a revision to the adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The original Master Plan is an outgrowth of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The Guide Plan was created in 1982 to give guidance to the overall physical development for the Village. In addition to providing broad design guidelines, the Guide Plan suggested specific physical improvements for the Village. Improvements such as new plazas, new landscape area, etc. Along with the construction of these public improvements included proposals to complete numerous private sector improvements. Improvements such as building additions outdoor deck expansions, and fagade improvements. The Streetscape Master Plan was written in part to provide clear design direction for coordinated public/private improvements. According to the Master Plan, the purpose of the plan is to provide a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvements that: 1. is supported by the community; 2. enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and 3. emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order to create an excellent pedestrian experience. Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whole. It is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly, this Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. Furthermore, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and along with the Guide Plan, it underscores the importance of the relationship between the built environment and public spaces. Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. While there is a certain amount of overlap between these six goals, each focuses on a particular aspect of the Village and the community as a whole. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of objectives outline specific steps that can be taken toward achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision- making in achieving each of the stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in implementing capital improvement projects. The Vail Village Master Plan's objectives and policy statements address key issues relative to growth and development. These statements establish much of the context within which future development proposals are evaluated. In implementing the Plan, the objectives and policies are used in conjunction with a number of graphic planning elements that together comprise this Plan. While the objectives and policies establish a general framework, the graphic plans provide more specific direction regarding public improvements or development potential on a particular piece of property. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. The most significant elements of the Master Plan are the goals, objectives, policies and action steps. They are the working tools of the Master Plan. They establish the broad framework and vision, but also layout the specific policies and action steps that will be used to implement the Plan. As noted on page 35 of the Master Pian, 0 "It is important to note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for those proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Plan. " Staff believes this statement re-emphasizes that the Master Plan is a general document providing advisory guidelines to aid the Town in analyzing development proposals and that full compliance is not required in order for a project to be approved. The stated goals of the Vail Village Master Plan are: Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. Objective 1.3: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 0 10 Objective 2.1: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 11 sub -areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns Objective 2,4: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing 1and uses. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. Objective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Objective 3.2: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. Objective 3.4: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. Objective 4.1: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspaces and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type pf open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. Objective 4.2 Improve and expand the opportunity for active and passive recreational activity throughout the Village. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. Objective 5.1. Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. Objective 6.1: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. Objective 6.2: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically pleasing resort setting. Vail Village Urban_ Design Guide Plan This Guide Plan represents collective ideas about functional and aesthetic objectives for Vail Viliage. Diagrammatic in nature, the Guide Plan is intended to suggest the nature of improvements desired. It is based on a number of urban design criteria determined to be appropriate for guiding change in the Vail Village. The Guide plan is intended to be a guide for current planning in both the public and private sectors. VI. ZONING ANALYSIS Lots P3 & J Legal Description: Zoning: Land Use Designation Lot Size: Lots P3 and J, Block 5A, Vail Village f=ifth Filing Parking (P) District Vail Village Master Plan 16,858 sq. ft./0.387 acre Development Standard Allowed Proposed Parking: Unlimited 134 spaces Lots 1 and 2. Mill Creek Subdivision Legal Description: Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision Zoning: Ski Base Recreation -2 District Land Use Designation: Vail Village Master Plan Lot Size: 90, 077 sq. ft./2.067 acres Development Standard Allowed Proposed Lot Area: !0,000 sq.tt. min. N/A Setbacks: Per the approved N/A development plan Height: 0'— 43', and per the N/A approved development plan Density Control: 8 du's per buildable N/A acre/per the approved development plan Site Coverage: Per the approved NIA development plan Landscaping: Per the approved N/A development plan Parking Per Chapter 10 of N/A the Zoning Regulations 12 • • • VI1. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Lots P3 & J Land Use Zoning North: Residential High Density Multiple Family South: Residential/Lodging SDD No. 28 (Christiania Lodge) East: Residential High Density Multiple Family West: Mixed Use Commercial Core I Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision Vlll.. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Lnt� P3 & J Major Subdivision Zoning Commercial Core I Not Zoned (USFS Land) Primary/Secondary Residential Primary/Secondary Residential Chapter 3, Major Subdivision, Title 13 Subdivision Regulations, of the Vail Town Code prescribe the review criteria for a request for a major subdivision. Pursuant to Section 13-3-7, Review Criteria for Final Plat, Vail Town Code, the criteria for reviewing the final plat shall be as contained in Section 13-3-4 of the Subdivision Regulations. According to Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Criteria: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town". The purpose of the proposed major subdivision is to correct an error in the location of the Hanson Ranch Road Chute versus the location of the platted Town of Vail right- of-way. As platted, the 25 -foot wide right-of-way connects Gore Creek Drive to Hanson Ranch Road across the center portion of Lot P3. The Hanson Ranch Road Chute, as constructed, is located on the westernmost portion of Lot P3 entirely outside of the platted right-of-way. To resolve this discrepancy, the applicant is proposing to vacate the existing right-of-way and plat a new right-of-way underneath the Hanson Ranch Road Chute. The new right-of-way will be 40 -feet wide and located on the westernmost portion of Lot P3. 13 Land Use North: Mixed Use South: Recreation East: Residential West: Residential Vlll.. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Lnt� P3 & J Major Subdivision Zoning Commercial Core I Not Zoned (USFS Land) Primary/Secondary Residential Primary/Secondary Residential Chapter 3, Major Subdivision, Title 13 Subdivision Regulations, of the Vail Town Code prescribe the review criteria for a request for a major subdivision. Pursuant to Section 13-3-7, Review Criteria for Final Plat, Vail Town Code, the criteria for reviewing the final plat shall be as contained in Section 13-3-4 of the Subdivision Regulations. According to Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Criteria: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town". The purpose of the proposed major subdivision is to correct an error in the location of the Hanson Ranch Road Chute versus the location of the platted Town of Vail right- of-way. As platted, the 25 -foot wide right-of-way connects Gore Creek Drive to Hanson Ranch Road across the center portion of Lot P3. The Hanson Ranch Road Chute, as constructed, is located on the westernmost portion of Lot P3 entirely outside of the platted right-of-way. To resolve this discrepancy, the applicant is proposing to vacate the existing right-of-way and plat a new right-of-way underneath the Hanson Ranch Road Chute. The new right-of-way will be 40 -feet wide and located on the westernmost portion of Lot P3. 13 Staff has reviewed the application for a major subdivision to vacate and re -plat the Hanson Ranch Road Chute right-of-way. Upon review of the proposed final plat, staff finds that the proposal complies with the criteria prescribed for a major subdivision application. A reduced copy of the proposed final plat for Lots P3 & J has been attached for reference (Attachment B). Amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail (rezoning) Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, Title 12, Zoning Title, of the Vail Town Code authorizes amendments to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, in part, "an application to amend the district boundaries of the Zoning Map may be initiated by petition of any resident or property owner in the Town." Furthermore, Section 12-3-7 C prescribes the criteria and findings the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider with respect to a request to amend the Zoning Map. Lots P3 & J The applicant is seeking a recommendation of approval to rezone Lot J, Block 5A, Vail Village 51' Filing, from the Public Accommodation (PA) District to the Parking (P). According to Section 12-3-7 C, of the Vail Town Code, Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: 1. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and Section V of this memorandum outlines all of the goals and policies implemented or that are relevant to the proposed rezoning of Lots P3 and J. The proposed rezoning specifically implements the Vail Village Master Plan Sub -Area Policy 7-1 which states that, "development of this site should be restricted to parking and other public purpose uses". According to Section 12-9B-1 of the Zoning Regulations, the purpose of the Parking (P) District is intended to, "to provide sites for private or public unstructured Gaff -street vehicle parking and conditionally to provide for private or public off-street 14 vehicle parking structures and private or public parks and recreational facilities. The Parking District is intended to allow such uses while ensuring adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each valid use in adjacent areas." The proposed rezoning and proposed development plan is consistent and compatible with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and the Town's development objectives. 2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the Town's adopted planning documents; and The Parking (P) District establishes zoning that is more consistent with both existing and proposed uses on the parcel. The proposed use of the property will remain as parking with the addition of a public park area. The property is surrounded by residential and lodging uses and parking for those uses. The proposed zoning and use of the property (parking and public park) is consistent with the existing and potential uses in the area and is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses 40 consistent with municipal development objectives; and The Parking (P) District is consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. The proposed zone district implements specific goals of the Vail Village Master Plan by restricting the use of the land for parking, loading, and neighborhood park uses. Staff believes that the proposed re -zoning presents a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship with land uses in the area consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and The proposed re -zoning establishes one consistent zoning for the property. Part of the parcel is currently zoned Parking (P) District and the proposed re -zoning simply extends that zone district to another portion of the site. This re -zoning will create a zone district consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. The proposed re -zoning and development plan provide for the development of an orderly viable community consistent with the Town's development interests as expressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. 5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and 0 Given the developed nature of the property and the findings of the Environmental Impact Report, the proposed project will not result in adverse impacts to the environment including water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides, or other natural features. The project will result in beneficial impacts resulting from properly designed structures, drainage facilities, and additional vegetation being added to the site. 6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. The Parking (P) District is proposed for the subject property. The proposed zone district is consistent with the intended purpose of that zone district. The proposed use of the property is a structured parking and loading area and a public park. All of the proposed uses are listed in the purpose statement and the list of allowable and conditional uses for the Parking (P) District. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. 0 The use of the property for more than two decades has been parking. However, the zoning designation of a portion of the property has been Public Accommodation for the same period of time. The Vail Village Master Plan identifies the property as being appropriate for parking. The existing zone district does not appear to be consistent with the envisioned use of the properly and is perhaps no longer appropriate. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. Lots 1 and 2. Mill Creek Subdivision The applicant is seeking a recommendation of approval to rezone Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision from the Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD) to the newly established Ski Base Recreation -2 District (SBR -2). According to Section 12-3-7 C, of the Vail Town Cade, Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment. Irl 1. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and Section V of this memorandum outlines all of the goals and policies implemented or that are relevant to the proposed rezoning of Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision. The proposed rezoning implements the Vail Village Master Plan Sub -Area Policy #11-1 and a portion of Policy #11-2, which states that, "Limited development of this site provides an opportunity to consolidate and/or remove existing uses and in doing so improve the visual quality of this area. Medium density residential development and associated uses respecting and complimenting the adjacent Lodge at Vail, Lodge Tower, and Vista Bahn ski yard are appropriate. Most parking except temporary guest arrival spaces should be located below grade. Existing mountain and USFS access should be maintained and if feasible placed below grade throughout the parcel. To the extent feasible, service and delivery facilities, including existing service and delivery facilities for the Lodge Tower, the Lodge at Vail, and surrounding commercial uses should be located below grade. A pedestrian/bicycle connection between Willow Circle/Vail Road and the Vista Bahn ski yard should be retained. Development of this sub- area will attract additional traffic and population to this area and may have significant impacts on sub area 1-12 (Willow Circle). " and, "Redevelopment of ski yard should improve and emphasize the connection between the Vista Bahn lift area (the mountain) and the lower skier plaza area (the village). Opportunities exist to re -grade the ski yard to improve access and usefulness of the site. Existing modular ski storage structures in the ski yard should be replaced with new skier/guest service facilities to improve year-round use of the area and to encourage summer season usage. If developed, the scale of a skier/guest service building should be limited to one-story as viewed from the skier plaza area." According to Section 12-8E-1, of the Zoning Regulations, the purpose of 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 IRA uses, all permitted uses, development and activity within the District shall be subject to approval of a comprehensive development plan in accordance with the provisions of this Article. Furthermore, due to the likelihood of this District being located at the base of Vail Mountain, and upon some of the most critical and important lands to the future success and resort character of the Town, development within this District shall be evaluated based upon its ability to meet the specific purposes of this Title and to provide "compelling public benefits which further the public interests" that go beyond any economic benefits to the landowner. " The proposed rezoning and proposed development plan is consistent and compatible with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and the Town's development objectives. 2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential Land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the Town's adopted planning documents; and in March of 2003, the Vail Town Council approved text and map amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan (Resolutions #2 & #3, Series of 2003). The purpose of the amendments was to establish the opportunity for a property owner to propose an annexation of USFS lands for inclusion within the boundaries of the Town of Vail and to establish the "Front Door Sub -Area (#11)" within the boundaries of the Vail Village Master Plan. In addition, the land use categories of the two plans were amendment to more accurate reflect he desired future conditions of the Tow of Vail. According to the Vail Village Master Plan, "The Front Door sub -area plays a critical role in the interface between the ski mountain and the fabric of Vail Village. While the Vista Bahn ski yard received a minor face-lift in 1998, this entire area is in great need of major renovation and addition of new guest facilities. As the premier guest portal to Vail Mountain, the Front Door area should reflect in both use and design the world class stature of the Vail resort and community. The goals for development in this sub -area are as follows: To provide for a year-round, world class guest experience at the interface between Vail Village and the ski mountain. To provide new and improved guest service facilities at the top of Bridge Street that will not only improve the quality of the entire guest experience, but will increase evening guest retention in Vail Village. Provide for new below -grade loading and delivery facilities to better serve the Front Door and upper Bridge Street areas, consistent with the overall `dispersed quadrant" approach of the Vail loading and delivery master plan. 0 18 • Provide for the removal of surface vehicular traffic and parking that currently occurs within the sub -area. • To provide for limited (6-10 dwelling unitslacre) private medium density residential development. " Upon review of the Vail Land Use Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan, and the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the staff believes that the proposed use of the property (ski base/ recreation/residential) is consistent with the existing and potential uses in the area and is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Land Use Plan. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and The Ski Base Recreation -2 District is consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. The proposed zone district implements specific goals of the Vail Village Master Plan by restricting the use of the land to those uses listed as permitted, conditional, and accessory in Chapter 8, Article E, of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. Staff believes that the proposed re -zoning presents a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship with land uses in the area consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and The proposed re -zoning and the required development plan approval will provide for the orderly and viable development of the site consistent with the Town's development objectives. The intended uses in this zone district include 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 recently amended Vail Land Use Plan contemplates the previously described uses on this site. This re -zoning will create a zone district consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. The proposed re -zoning and development plan provide for the development of an orderly viable community consistent with the Town's development interests as expressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. 5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and Given the developed nature of the property and the findings of the Environmental Impact Report, the proposed project will not result in 19 adverse impacts to the environment including water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides, or other natural features. The project will result in beneficial impacts resulting from properly designed structures, drainage facilities, and additional vegetation being added to the site. A revised Environmental Impact Report analyzing the potential impacts of proposed development on this situ has been submitted for review and consideration. The findings of the revised report conclude that with certain mitigating measures, this site can be developed with minimal, if any, negative impacts to the environmental quality of the Town of Vail. 6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. The Ski Base Recreation -2 District is proposed for the subject property. The proposed zone district is consistent with the intended purpose of that zone district. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, Lots 1 and 2, of the Mill Creek Subdivision, are presently zoned Natural Area Preservation District. The existing uses on the property include unpaved parking, ski lifts, ski storage, mountain access roads and other ski mountain operation uses. The Vail Village Master Plan and Vail Land Use Plan identify the property as being appropriate for certain types of development, subject to review by the Town of Vail. Upon consideration of the Town's adopted master plans, including the Town of Vail comprehensive Open Lands Plan, staff believes that the conditions of the Town have changed and that this proposed rezoning is in the best interest of the Town of Vail. The existing zone district does not appear to be consistent with the envisioned use of the property, as contemplated in the Town's master planning documents, and is perhaps no longer appropriate for the site. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. Conditional Use Permits Lots P3 & J The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town Code. Upon approval of the request to amend the Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the proposed project will be located within the Parking (P) District. Therefore, this proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. is 20 0 A. Consideration of Factors Regarding Conditional Use Permits: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Public Park The proposed public park is intended to provide an open space or green space opportunity for residents and guest in Vail Village. As designed, the park will sit atop the underground parking structure. The park design incorporates a small grassed lawn area into the gently sloping hillside. No active recreation is contemplated and therefore concerns of excessive noise from organized activities is unlikely to occur. The landscape design of the park is intended to complement the proposed streetscape design and existing uses in the immediate vicinity. Staff believes that the use and benefits of Vail Park are analogous to Bishop Park which is located on the west end of Vail Village. Staff believes that the proposed use of the site as a public park will have a positive impact on the development objectives of the Town. Private Off-street Parking Structure The proposed use of the site as a structured parking lot implements the long-term goals of the Town and neighbors as expressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. According to the Vail Village Master Plan, this site is an appropriate location for a parking facility and other public uses such as a neighborhood park. The use of the site as a structured parking facility will no doubt increase the number of vehicle trips into the area. Staff believes that an increase in vehicle trips could potentially have negative impacts on the surrounding uses in the immediate vicinity. That said, however, staff believes that the current use of the site for parking and loading/delivery already negatively impacts the area and is detrimental to the development objectives of the Town. Overall, staff believes that the proposal for a private parking structure on this site is in compliance with the development objectives of the Town. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Public Park The use of site for a neighborhood park will have positive impacts on the above-described criteria. Specifically, the park will provide yet another outdoor opportunity for the residents and guests of the Town of Vail. Historically, parks in the Town of Vail are heavily used by the residents and guests of Vail and one of the most popular public amenities in Town. Staff believes that the proposed use will have little, if any, negative effects on the above-described criteria. Private Off-street Parking Structure_ The proposed use of the site for parking will have few, if any, negative impacts on the above-described criteria. The proposed parking use will provide much needed parking in a more efficient and orderly manner than 21 currently exists on the site. The private parking structure will act to reduce the demand for parking on the public parking facilities in Town and 401 thus increase the amount of available parking to the general public. As an underground facility, the parking use of the site will not impede upon the availability of light and air to the surrounding in the vicinity of the site. Staff believes that the proposal for a private off-street parking structure complies with the above-described criteria.. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability_ , and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Public Park The public park will have no negative impacts on the above-described criteria. If anything, the use of the site for a public park will have significant positive effects on the above-described criteria. Staff believes that the proposal for a public park complies with the above-described criteria. Private Off-street Parking Structure The proposed redevelopment of this site to construct a private parking structure will improve traffic flow, vehicular and pedestrian safety, vehicular maneuverability, and snow removal. The current use of the site and right-of-way for loading and delivery creates many unsafe situations and creates traffic congestion. The proposed plan removes all loading and delivery from this site in Town and replaces with a short-term skier drop off area. It is clear that the removal of the loading and delivery activity will have significant positive effects on the above-described criteria, staff remains reluctant that the same negative effects created by the delivery trucks will not be reintroduced by the skier drop off traffic. Staff does believe, however, that regardless of the provision of the skier drop off area, the activity will continue regardless. Staff believes that the proposed plan will improve pedestrian safety and circulation in the area through the construction of new pedestrian sidewalks and stairs. Overall, staff believes that the proposed private off-street parking structure complies with the above-described criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Public Park The public park will be essentially constructed on the grade of the existing surface parking. With the exception of the elevator building, no above grade structures will be constructed on the site. The height of the elevator building has been held to the minimum necessary to accommodate the uses of the building. The design of the building has been proposed to be compatible with the structures and uses on the adjoining properties. As the park is designed to be only a small neighborhood park for passive recreation with no organized active 22 recreation facilities proposed, staff believes that the use will have minimal, if any negative effects upon the character of the area. If anything, staff believes that the park will only improve the existing character of the area and provide an open space amenity to the residents and guests of the town. Private Off-street Parking Structure The underground parking structure will largely conceal the use of the site for parking and the associated activities below grade and out of sight of the adjacent uses. While a 26 space, surface parking lot will remain, the surface lot will be landscaped and screened from view to the extent possible. Currently, little, if any landscaping is on the site and all the parking is in full view at all times. The main garage entrance to the parking structure is designed with an operable door to minimize the negative effects that an entrance to a parking structure can create. The exposed exterior walls of the structure are to be covered in stone to better blend into the character of Vail Village. All exterior lighting on the parking garage entrance will be required to comply with the Town's adopted outdoor lighting regulations and approved by the Design Review Board. The design of the parking structure is such that it is as low as possible and buried into the hillside. Overall, staff believes that the proposed private parking structure improve the existing character of the area. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Dots P3 & J Malor Subdivision The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 3, Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the vacation and relocation of the dedicated Town of Vail right-of- way on Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 61h Filing. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings. „The Planning and Environmental Commission recommends approval to the Vail Town Council of the proposed major subdivision and finds that the major subdivision application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. Specifically, the Commission finds that the major subdivision resolves a historical error in the location of the Hanson Ranch Road Chute versus the platted Town of Vail right-of-way location. Through this final plat the Hanson Ranch Road Chute will be properly located is in a platted Town of Vail right-of-way. " 23 Amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail Lots P3 & J The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of an amendment to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, pursuant to Chapter 3, Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to rezone Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing. Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creels Subdivision The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of an amendment to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, pursuant to Chapter 3, Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to rezone Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision. Staff's recommendations are based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings. "Before recommending andlor granting an approval of an application for a zone district boundary amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment. 0 1. That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." Conditional Use Permit The Community Development Department recommends approval for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9B-3, Conditional Uses; Vail Town Code, to allow for a 'public park" and a "private off-street vehicle parking structure", located at 360 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 51h Filing. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: • 24 I. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes 0 of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Parking (P) District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve or forward a recommendation of approval of the applicant's to the Vail Town Council, staff recommends that the Commission makes the following conditions a part of the approval: That the approval of the condition use permits to allow for a public park and a private off-street vehicle parking structure becomes effective upon second reading of an amending ordinance rezoning Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5 I Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) District to Parking (P) District. Should an amending ordinance not be approved by the Vail Town Council, the approval of the conditional use permits shall become null and void upon the passage of a motion denying the amending ordinance. 2. That the applicant submits a revised set of plans for review and approval by the Director of Public Works to the Town of Vail Community Development Department addressing each of the comments provided by the Town of Vail Public Works Department, prior to first reading of an ordinance amending the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map. 3. That the applicant submits an off-site improvements plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department illustrating the limits of construction of all off-site improvements, as required by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission, prior to first reading of an ordinance amending the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map. 4. That the approval of the condition use permits to allow for a public park and a private off-street vehicle parking structure becomes effective upon the approval of the proposed major subdivision of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5`h Filing by the Vail Town Council. Should the proposed major subdivision not be approved by the Vail Town Council, the approval of the conditional use permits shall become null and void upon the passage of a motion denying the major subdivision. 5. That the final approval of the request to amendment the zone district boundaries of the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail to amend the zoning on Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision shall become effective upon approval of second reading of an amending ordinance by the Vail Town Council. 25 X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. A reduced copy of the proposed plans and the proposed major subdivision final plat C. Approved copy of the April 14, 2003, meeting minutes of the Planning and Environmental Commission D. Update of the Traffic Engineering Study for P3 & J, dated August 7, 2003 1� 1 LJ • 26 if • ri -K9vb gF9 � � � ' .� 'rte. .., � � ' r ��-+'.T' � � _ :,a"'' - 65�,s-Y _ .r •�„� g2 --`' «�!' ♦.a : X� / ��•�• `-.'fiS. ii. � ��, �' -� �r� Tt Z -v �",� �� .. 2.`X t ' a t �� res, ,+t .`cam ♦Ir. •�. y^'r .. 1 4R '. rk ,.� 7 x' 71 lit ,tg �� .�-. �_ � 1��,,�. ,.`#, S,* "'����'�. x•'1+1_. •.Y �'-moi.@.'• a;V� - "�, 1. l ' ry:• _ " � 'fit-, ,. . f Y' J�`:. }� T •.� � �"'� - � 'T-' � y� , f„ „y ply ty}Cb r� � .v" w'3;, � �' f ¢fti rF M �` '� �� L7 � fi 1_ ¢ �k —TAP `+ �.• _ ' Via• � � �. r �. MS "� �* r" �_ t .r � ... +:� , •..�' } t � � may, ATTACHMENT A r r, I �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII mvpo �' 111�111�l1111Neill s - k R J s .4 m, e e e r: 3 C �P-4 d P -4a 0 a � � s - k R J s .4 m, e e e r: 3 I S� gE t�t SEER i �E�1 E �Eitfi� a# �Egl9�• i�l3ie w • � Y tf iiiY��Y"p�! i S x n ��V o 3 dx�� r—a L -110 -0a -w7 li Yll S� gE t�t SEER i �E�1 E �Eitfi� a# �Egl9�• i�l3ie w • f a 'Dvovavi) 'a HOOG r c -a -IIVA S, v N"I it--, get 9 0 Eli ■ # . rtt � ■■■■ r L � 0 Nil:.�: r • • 0 0 'LLJ l' d T J r "9 C -d HOW 9` 3� !g, R� Sq 0 0 y11111111111111111111! 11,� sir► I � s y11111111111111111111! 11,� sir► • 0 It oroa 3mm 1 AY'� - 3.i1D•Ip'p� 4 IL i ^a J 1 e4 oa ` CL 1 1 I I 10 gD7'F$01"E r ti37.'� T � oroa 3mm 1 AY'� - 3.i1D•Ip'p� 4 IL i C • Approved 4128103 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION f - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartman Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Vail Mountain School — 3000 Boothfalls Road 2. Sonnenalp — 20 Vail Road 3. Vail Park (P3&J) --- Hanson Ranch Road Driver: George 12:00 pm 1:00 pm �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 Swearing in of reappointed PEC members John Schofield (4`h term), Chas Bernhardt (3rd term) and Doug Cahill (3r° term) -Pam Brandmeyer on behalf of Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk. 2. Election of 2003 Chair Vice -Chair — George Lamb nominated John Schofield for Chairman and Erickson Shirley for Vice -chair. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0, with John Schofield abstaining. 3. A request for a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses; Generally, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to a previously approved development plan for a private school and educational institution, and setting for details in regard thereto, located at 3000 Boothfalls Road/Lot 1, Vail Mountain School Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Associates Planner: Russell Forrest John Schofield, Rollie Kjesbo, and George Lamb disclosed connections to the Vail Mountain Attachment: C *1L TO9W Approved 4128/03 Rollie Kjesbo made a motion to forward the proposed text amendment to Council with a change made to make PEC the authority and "larger" changed to "varying." In addition, forwarded a recommendation to the Town Council to consider alternative ways to encourage a centralized loading and delivery facility, including a pay -in -lieu process. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Doug Cahill was not in the room. 6. A request for a worksession to discuss the following applications: a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Section 12-713-13, Density Control, Zoning Regulations; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5" Filing from Public Accommodation zone district (PA) to Parking zone district (P); a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the proposed zoning of an unplatted parcel of land commonly referred to as the "trade parcel" and Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation ll zone district; a request for a minor subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 51h Filing;. a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Code of a proposed major subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the "trade parcel'; a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a "private off-street vehicle parking facility and public park" to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5`h Piling; 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 Erickson Shirley noted that he has placed a deposit on a parking space in this project; however, he does not feel that this will bias his review and will not be a conflict of interest. George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Jay Peterson presented an overview of the applicant's proposal, with the primary changes made since the last presentation to the PEC, to include the relocation of a skier drop-off area and loading area. Erickson Shirley asked the applicant to clarify the height of the proposed building. The applicant responded that the height was approximately 22 feet and would not impact the existing view corridor. John Schofield asked the applicant to examine multiple traffic circulation patterns. Erickson Shirley asked where a third delivery vehicle will stage when the two bays are in use. Jay Peterson responded that a third vehicle will not be allowed to stage in this area. Doug Cahill asked if the chute would be heated. 0 Approved 4128/43 Jay Peterson responded that it would not be due to the logistics of starting and ending the snowmelt locations. Jim Lamont commented on the proposal. He noted that the whole circulation needs to be further examined with specifically, that the number of bays and their location need to be part of a larger loading/delivery plan. He noted concerns about the design of the north fagade. He also commented that the parking use of this lot has been around since the late 1960's. He mentioned that the proposed park might be open to the public, but is a privately owned property parcel and that some neighboring property owners would like to see that the Town design and maintain the park as a public privately owned park. Jay Peterson noted that the additional loading bay was to be a benefit to the Town and the surrounding property owners. Erickson Shirley questioned who will maintain this property. Jay Peterson noted that the loading area would function as a separate condo unit to be owned by another entity — possibly the Town. Jay also envisioned that the Parking Structure Condo Association may retain ownership and control of the park itself. Gary Hartman questioned if the surface parking will be part of this Parking Structure Condo Association and if the surface space could be incorporated into the structure. Jay Peterson responded that was not a financially viable alternative. Gary Hartman noted the importance of examining this proposal in overall loading/delivery discussions for the Village. Doug Cahill asked about the noise generated from the parking structure ventilation system. He also asked about on-site maintenance or supervisors on the site. Jay Peterson noted that the Parking Structure Condo Association would probably take on that responsibility. Erickson Shirley questioned who will pay for the construction. Jay Peterson responded that it is not the Town, but the specifics of who pays, that has not been determined. Chas Bernhardt commented that he likes the project and would like to see more bays. He also noted that if constructed with stone, the bay will be attractive. Rollie Kjesbo asked for further clarification of the project funding. George Lamb noted that his concerns are more related to the actual logistics of the loading/delivery. Erickson Shirley noted his concerns that the parking space owners are paying for the park and loading bays in addition to the parking spaces. He also noted concern about forcing parking owners to navigate around the loading bays. He also commented that the sound of the ventilation system should not detract from the use of the park. John Schofield summarized that some of the remaining issues include; further examination of traffic flow and condo ownership of the loading bay. He said some of the benefits include removal of traffic from the adjoining streets and close -in parking for local residence business owners. John 10 Approved 4128103 also noted that a pay in lieu fee should be examined for maintenance and possibly construction to spread the cost to those benefiting from the proposal. He commented that conceptual management plans should be submitted with the next PEC review. He also commented that the chute should be redesigned to be safer. 0 Doug Cahill made a motion to table this until May 12, 2003. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to amend Chapter 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Types, Vail Town Code, to amend the Type II EHU requirements and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: AMS Development Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson made a presentation per the staff memorandum Greg Amsden presented the proposed text amendments and said the existing regulations create a gap in the market, in terms of the type of employees that will occupy EHUs. He said this amendment creates a new incentive to construct EHUs and fill a niche in the market need and that this text amendment creates a private -sector funding source to build EHUs. He said this amended use will likely occur in West Vail and Matterhorn areas and it is unlikely to occur in "high dollar" neighborhoods. He said this type of unit will provide housing opportunities for local middle-income professionals and diversify the housing base. Greg then explained how, in his opinion, this amendment complies with the text amendment criteria. 0 There was no public comment. Rollie Kjesbo stated he thought that this amendment would be making a duplex lot a triplex lot. George Lamb stated that he agreed with Greg that there is a need for this type of unit, but that this type of regulation is hard to create. He said this is the right direction, but it would be hard to regulate and that DRB may be inadequate to address the unintended consequences. He questioned how to do this? Erickson Shirley asked who would be eligible to live in these units. He said he is in favor of broadening the opportunities of housing types and shares some of Rollie's concerns regarding DRB issues. Gary Hartman applauded Greg's efforts and he stated that it is important to dictate a size cap on the EHUs. Doug Cahill thought this would likely occur in West Vail and also applauded Greg's efforts. He asked how the streetscape of garage doors would be addressed and that a maximum cap is needed. He said the one car garage limit should be changed and mentioned that it will change the appearance of the neighborhood. Chas Bernhardt thought this was a great idea, but feels it needs further consideration to successfully implement. He said he is uncomfortable with the concept as proposed, but feels more study is needed. He too asked about the garage doors and to continue with this idea. John Schofield stated that the PEC needed input from the housing authority and DRB. He shares a concern with regard to density. He felt there needed to be an amendment to the 300 square foot Public Works Comments on Site P3&d February 7, 2003 1. Additional stamped survey will be required in front of Villa Valhalla to match the proposed improvements to the existing improvements at Villa Valhalla 2. The Gore Creek Drive section from north to south should be 19' space, bollards, 4' cone. Pan, 12' asphalt drive lane, 8' paver walk with concrete Land, 2.5' curb and gutter. This affects the edge of the roadway and the stairs corning down please adjust. 3. Please show turning radius for truck delivery and vehicles coming out of the townhomes. 4. On Hanson Ranch Rd connect proposed curb and gutter to existing curb and gutter on north side. 5. On Hanson Ranch Rd. Flatten/smooth out the curve for the pan and paver walk at the above ground parking entrance by bringing it in. 6. A sand/oil separator shall be provided for the structure drainage and the surface deck drainage. 7. By relocating the drainage on Gore Creek drive to a curb and gutter on the south side the storm sewer should be able to follow the curb and gutter instead of going into the middle of the street. 8. Please provide drainage study/calc's showing that additional drainage entering existing storm sewer will not exceed capacity. 9. The two surface deck spaces at the north end will be considered compact spaces due to 8' width. 10. If the TOV approves use of below grade TOV ROW a lease/agreement will have to be put in place. Vail Town Council will need to approve the application to approve through the process. 11. Please show matching improvements to the TOV streetscape plans on Gore Creek Drive to the west. 12. Stairway wall on the north side of site should not exceed 6' at any point. 13. The grade on Hanson Ranch Chute is increased. This should in fact decrease. Heat Hanson Ranch Chute if the grade increases. Heat the adjacent walkway along the Chute no matter what. 14. Limits of Streetscape improvements required. W Gore Creek Drive W curb return of Chute across the street to match Villa Valhalla and accommodate Truck turning and snow storage a Roger Staub Park. Hanson Ranch Chute The entire Chute to the band shown on the West Hanson Ranch Road plans Rebuild the planter Hanson Ranch Road Show proposed streetscape plans for this. Both sides of the road to match Tivoli improvements at Bike path. Tivoli is heating their portion. 15, Remove the surface parking on the Town of Vail Right of way 16, Provide a calculation of right of way vacating and right of way creating. Provide a calculation of how much of the right of way is being parked underneath the surface. 17. Show roof drainage off the building. Show drainage system for parking lot and the grass. 18. Maintenance of the park should be the owners responsibility 19. Where do replacement VRI parking spaces go? 20. Sight distances need to be maintained 21. The plan is eliminating 265' of loading zone and providing 128' of loading zone. The project net replacement is to be provided in the Front Door project in addition to the net decrease in VRI employee parking. The front door needs to be constructed prior or concurrently with this project to ensure we are a no net loss in either category. 22. A net increase in traffic generation of will result in a 5000/ trip impact fee. 40 I� Kirtdsy-n and Associates, Inc. August 7, 2003 Town of Vail Department of Public Works/Transportation 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81657 Attn: Greg Hall, P.E. Director Re: Update of Traffic Engineering Study for P3&J Vail, Colorado Dear Mr. Hall: This letter has been prepared to provide you with an update of the previously completed traffic analysis for the proposed Vail Resorts redevelopment of the existing parking lot known as P3&J east of the Village Core at Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive. This update was prompted by changes to the plan involving a slight increase to the parking structure and the elimination of loading facilities. This existing parking lot is proposed to be redeveloped with a parking structure. This parking structure is planned to contain 108 parking spaces that will be for sale to the public. Currently the parking lot provides parking for 38 vehicles (primarily parking for the Christiana hotel). Therefore, the parking structure would increase the parking capacity of this lot by 70 vehicles. Per the Town of VaiYs request, trip generation calculations were conducted to determine the volume of new trips expected by this redevelopment. The 108 parking spaces proposed for sale at P3&J are anticipated to attract additional passenger car vehicle trips. Based upon initial interest in the program, it is expected that at least half of the parking spaces will be sold to local residents who already own homes in the neighborhood. As such, it is assumed one half of the new spaces will not create new trips. Therefore, it can be assumed that of the total 108 spaces, 54 will remain for sale to the public for day trip use. Of these 54 parking spaces, it is assumed that half of the parking spaces would be full on any given peak day, resulting in a daily trip generation of 27 vehicles making 54 trips (one entering and one exiting). Based upon the estimate that 33 percent of all arrivals occur during the common peak hour, nine (9) peak hour trips are expected on any given peals ATTACHMENT D r]" =Zn tes, Inc, Mr. Greg Hall, P.E., August 7, 2003, Page 2 day. These 9 trips would be entering vehicles in the AM peak hour and exiting in the PM peak hour. In addition to the new passenger car vehicle trips expected due to the development of the parking; structure and sold parking space program, a reduction in delivery vehicle traffic is expected due to the removal of the existing delivery zone adjacent to P3&J. These delivery vehicles would be expected to use the proposed Town of Vail loading and delivery facility being developed at the Front Door. Therefore, based upon counts conducted during the summer peak season on July 3, 2002, there were a total of 25 delivery vehicles during the day at P3&J, with two (2) occurring during the morning peak hour and four (4) in the afternoon peak hour that would be expected to be rerouted to the new central delivery facility. Based upon data and information provided from the Town of Vail, winter peak season deliveries could be as much as 30 percent greater than peak summer season deliveries. Therefore, in the winter, 33 deliveries would be expected daily at P3&J, with three (3) and five (5) occurring during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. Since these delivery vehicles make two trips (one entering and one exiting), there would be an expected removal of 66 daily, 6 AM peak hour, 10 PM peak hour delivery trips during the winter peak season. . Therefore, the net resultant in trip generation that would be expected in the area of P3&J during the peak winter condition includes the following: • a decrease of 12 daily trips (54 new daily passenger car trips minus 66 daily delivery vehicle trips); • an increase of 3 AM peak hour trips (9 new passenger car trips minus 6 delivery vehicle trips); and • a decrease of 1 PM peak hour trip (9 new passenger car trips minus 10 delivery vehicle trips). We hope that this study provides sufficient data needed for approval of the P3&J redevelopment project for the construction of a parking structure. If you have any questions or comments regarding the results from this traffic evaluation, please give me a call at (303) 228-2304. Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Curtis D. Rowe, P.E., PTOE Associate GA-TM\067867001 VAILR£SOCiT51VAIL Vn.LAGEUULY TRAFFIC STUDY REVISIONT3&1 1.E.TiER.DOC It • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 11, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to allow for a text amendment to Sections 12-61-9B, 12 -7B -18B, 12 -7C -14B, 12-7D- 116, 12 -7E -13B, 12 -7H -17B, 12-71-17B, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: The Town of Vail Planner: Matt Oennett 1. SUMMARY The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to Sections 12-61-9B., Housing (H) District, Location of Business Activity, Outdoor Displays; 12 -7B -18B., Commercial Core 1 (CC1) District, Location of Business Activity, Outdoor Displays; 12 -7C -14B., Commercial Core 2 (CC2) District, Location of Business Activity, Outdoor Displays; 12 -7D -11B., Commercial Core 3 (CC3) District,. Location of Business Activity, Outdoor Displays; 12 -7E -13B., Commercial Service Center (CSC) District, Location of Business Activity, Outdoor Displays; 12 -7H -17B., Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District, Location of Business Activity, Outdoor Displays and; 12-71-17B., Lionshead Mixed Use 2 (LMU-2) District, Location of Business Activity, Outdoor Displays, Vail Town Code, to allow for the outdoor display of goods in certain zone districts during a specified period of time, and forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council of the requested text amendments, subject to the findings noted in Section IX of this memorandum. The impetus behind this request stems from a collective, public observation that the overabundant use of outdoor display racks has become an aesthetic issue in town and must be curtailed and further restricted to a limited timeframe on an annual basis. IL DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting to amend Title 12 of the Vail Town Code. Amendments to the Vail Town Code are permitted pursuant to parameters set forth for such in Section 12-3-7 of the Vail Town Code. The proposed amendment is a text amendment to Sections 12-61-9B., Housing (H) District, Location of Business Activity, Outdoor Displays; 12 -7B -18B., Commercial Core 1 (CC1) District, Location of Business Activity, Outdoor Displays; 12 -7C -14B., Commercial Core 2 (CC2) District, Location of Business Activity, Outdoor Displays; 12 -71D -11B., Commercial Core 3 (CC3) District, Location of Business Activity, Outdoor Displays; 12 -7E -13B., Commercial Service Center (CSC) District, Location of Business Activity, Outdoor Displays; 12-71-1-17B., Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District, Location of Business Activity, Outdoor Displays and; 12-71-17B., Lionshead Mixed Use 2 (LMU-2) District, Location of Business Activity, Outdoor Displays, Vail Town Code, to add language as follows: (Additions shown in bold; all the aforementioned sections are identical) For All Zone Districts Except Commercial Core 3 (CC3) and Commercial Service Center (CSC).- Outdoor CSC).- Outdoor Display of Goods: 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 private property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. The outdoor display of goods in front of establishments may occur from April 15t through December 1", annually, and is subject to the requirements of sale signage set forth in Title 11, Sign Regulations. The outdoor display of goods in the public right-of-way is prohibited unless specifically permitted by the Town of Vail Public Works Department. For Commercial Core 3 (CC3) and Commercial Service Center (CSC): Outdoor Display of Goods: The area to be used for outdoor display must be S located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own private property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. The outdoor display of goods in front of establishments is subject to the requirements of sale signage set forth in Title 11, Sign Regulations. Ill. BACKGROUND In November, 1994, the Vail Town Council suggested the creation of an ordinance limiting the outdoor display of goods to a specified number of holiday weekends and special events. The suggestion was made after Council members expressed concern about continued use of cardboard boxes, handmade signs and other unsightly display techniques. On December 19, 1994, the Council's suggestion for display limitation was considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). By a vote of 5 to 1, the PEC opposed the suggestion for limited display days and instead recommended adoption of display guidelines to be used year-round. On January 17, 1995, the Town Council requested that a community meeting be held to discuss the issue. • 2 f iOn February 14, 1995, a community meeting was held at which merchants and residents determined that limitations on outdoor displays, as proposed, were not necessary. On June 13, 1995, council determined that outdoor displays should be administered by the merchants in a "self-regulating" matter. The Town Council has recently requested that the Community Development Department look into a plausible method of regulating outdoor displays on an appropriate timeframe basis. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Plannina and Environmental Commis Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for forwarding a recommendation of approval/approval with conditions/denial to the Town Council of a text amendment. The Planning & Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 2 The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and; 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission deems applicable to the proposed text amendment. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority of a text amendment. Town Council: .Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. The Town Council is responsible for final approvallapproval with conditions/denial of a text amendment, The Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code) Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan The plan discusses the existing conditions of pedestrian walkways in the Village and Lionshead in regard to elements such as circulation efficiency and site amenities, like landscaping and the placement of wooden benches. The measures called for in this document speak to enhancing the pedestrian experience in terms of both visual appeal and ease of movement through the streets, especially during ski season when people are generally moving to and from the parking structures and ski lifts. The proposed text amendment will work toward furthering these objectives. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan The Lionshead plan recommends actions concerning the pedestrian environment a and ways to enhance its efficiency as an activity generator, without impeding the flow of pedestrian traffic and movement. Recommendations for improving the 4 pedestrian environment include incorporating sidewalks into the redevelopment so that people are brought closer to the retail entities and window fronts. The outdoor display of goods during peak ski season would serve as an impediment to the aesthetic and functional objectives of this document. Vail Village Master Plan Goal # 3 of the Vail Village Master Plan recognizes, as a top priority, the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village_ The proposed text amendment furthers the achievement of this goal. VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria and factors for consideration for a request of a text amendment are established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-3, Vail Town Code (Ordinance No. 4, Series 2002). A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Text Amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 12-1-2A, Purpose/General, states the following: General.- These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. Staff has determined that the proposed text amendment will further °promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high duality." 12-1-213.8, Purpose/Specific, states the following: To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed text amendment will work toward further safeguarding and enhancing the appearance of the Town of Vail. Staff believes that a text amendment limiting the use of outdoor display racks to an off-peak period of the year will be beneficial to the residents and merchants of the Town of Vail alike. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 5 Section 4.3, Chapter II of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan states: The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) Staff believes that by limiting the use of outdoor displays to the off-peak part of the calendar year, the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan will be better achieved. 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and Since the inception of the subject regulation, retail business activities have intensified in the Village core and Lionshead to an extent that now requires further, more specific regulation. The existing regulation is still appropriate, applicable and relevant however, the degree to which conditions have changed warrant a restriction on the time of year outdoor displays may be used. It has been widely observed and commented upon, by the public and town officials alike, that the character of Vail has suffered in recent years due to the preponderance of outdoor display racks creating a negative image for tourists and residents. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. The proposed text amendment is intended to work in harmony with the new draft Sign Regulations. Part of the proposed text amendments to the Sign Regulations will restrict the frequency and duration of outdoor sales events to twice yearly, only during the allowable period for outdoor displays, and not to exceed thirty days for each sales event. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before forwarding a recommendation of approval for a text amPndmpnt- I . That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 6 • 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances As natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for the proposed text amendment to Sections 12-61-913, 12-713- 18B, 12 -7C -14B, 12 -7D -11B, 12 -7E -13B, 12 -7H -17B, and 12-71-176, Vail Town Code. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Pian and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town, and 1. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 2. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. 7 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 11, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works Planner: Warren Campbell SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The proposal is to discuss the adoption of a proposed addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan which elaborates in greater design detail the sub -areas concerning Vail Village and Meadow Drive streetscapes. The Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession on the applicant's request at its June 9, 2003 regular meeting. At that meeting the Commission responded to multiple questions regarding funding and construction of streetscape improvements and directed staff to establish scenarios of funding and construction so that they might react to the different funding and construction solutions. The Commission then tabled the item to a future meeting. The purpose of this meeting is for the Planning and Environmental Commission to make a recommendation on the proposed addendum that staff can then present to Town Council. The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission considers the evidence and testimony presented, provides direction to the applicant and staff, and then forwards a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for the proposed addendum to the Vail Streetscape Master Plan. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works, is requesting a recommendation to Council from the Planning and Environmental Commission on the adoption of a proposed addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an opportunity for the Planning and Environmental Commission to review the details of the proposed addendum and to discuss implementation scenarios for the plan through future development. The proposed addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan will address the sub -areas identified in the Plan as "West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive— Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road, East Meadow Drive — Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Road, and the Village Core." The addendum is proposed to facilitate the culmination of ideas for updates and refinement which evolved from multiple meetings held over the past year by a focus group which included several members of the Town Council and business owners. A document from the applicant has been included which further discusses the purpose of the proposed addendum (Attachment A). BACKGROUND The Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan was adopted on November 20, 1991. The purpose of the plan as stated within the document is to: 11... provide a comprehensive and Coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvement that: 1) is supported by the community; 2) enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and 3) emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order to create an excellent pedestrian experience." The Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide for developing detailed streetscape improvements. The Plan emphasizes that "the report and drawings outline conceptual design ideas." In order to develop the conceptual design ideas the study area was divided into six sub -areas. Those sub -areas are East Lionshead Circle and Library/Ice Arena Plaza, West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive -- Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road, East Meadow Drive — Willow Bridge Road to Slifer Plaza, East Village, and Village Core. Each sub -area of the plan focused on several aspects of streetscape design and was organized into sections which covered: Existing Conditions • Character • Circulation — Vehicular/Pedestrian • Paving/Drainage • Site Amenities • Landscaping • Utilities/Lighting * Streetscape Improvements Preliminary Concepts • The Preferred Streetscape Plan — Pedestrian circulation/landscaping and site amenities • Costs In 1998, work began on the detail drawings for West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive — Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road, East Meadow Drive—Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Road sub -areas and ended in 1999 when the addendum was put on hold due to lack of resources to carry the project forward. In 2001, a focus group was assembled to begin the process of reexamining the detailed streetscape plans for West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive—Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road, East Meadow Drive—Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Road. It was also determined that the focus group should create detailed plans for The Village Core sub -area. Below is a brief timeline of the process which occurred to develop the proposed East and West Meadow Drive streetscape addendum: 0 2 • • January 9, 2001 Town Council meeting Project kick-off discussion with Town Council regarding project goals and givens. January 18, 2001 Design Review Board Project kick-off discussion with meeting DRB regarding design parameters. January 22, 2001 Planning and Project kick-off meeting with PEC Environmental to discuss design parameters. Commission meeting Feb 26 — Mar 2, Design Dialog 21 two-hour public sessions to 2001 gain understanding of community desires, issues, and concerns. Friday, March 2, Open Houses Presentation and discussion of 2001 conceptual design created during Design Dialog. Mar 2 — June 1, Concept development Concept development of two 2001 viable concepts by desi n team. Week of July 4, Open House Forum Developed concepts presented to 2001 the community. Comments documented. July 17, 2001 Town Council presentation Town council selected the 20/6 Solution and directed design team to advance to final desi n_ August 13, 2001 PEC presentation August 15, 2001 DRB presentation November 30, 2001 Meeting with Landowner Public session with East Meadow group Drive landowners to present and discuss design progress. February 6, 2002 DRB Presentation DRB work session to present and discuss design progress. April 11, 2002 Meeting with Business Public session with East Meadow owners Drive business owners to present and discuss design progress. May 1, 2002 Office review Office review of preliminary construction documents with design team. May 9, 2002 Meeting with Landowner Public session with East Meadow group Drive landowners to present and discuss design progress. July 16, 2002 Town Council presentation Presentation of Final Design for East and West Meadow Drive to Town Council. Project placed on indefinite hold due to design and cost concerns. Bellow is a brief timeline of the process which occurred to develop the proposed Vail Village streetscape addendum. June 18, 2002 Town Council Presentation to authorize design Presentation process, establish goals, objectives, and project givens June 26-28, 2002 Community focus groups 10 community focus groups to review site issues, opportunities, and constraints July 11, 2002 Community Meeting Community meeting to review initial site program and opportunities July 25, 2002 Community Meeting Developed concepts presented to the community. Comments documented. August 6, 2002 Town Council presentation Town Council presentation of snowmelt study and options August 8, 2002 Community Meeting Developed concepts presented to the community. Comments documented. August 22, 2002 Community Meeting Developed concepts presented to the community. Comments documented. September 3, 2002 Town Council presentation Town Council presentation of design concepts, initial costs, and snowmelt report. Project placed on hold due to cost concerns. September 6, 2002 Community Meeting Final design concepts presented to the community. Comments documented. October 10, 2002 Town Council Design Meeting with Town Council Committee Meeting Representatives to review project objectives, issues, and constraints October 21, 2002 Town Council Design Site visits to the neighboring resort Committee Meeting communities of Keystone, Breckenridge, and Copper Mountain. Comments documented. November 7, 2002 Town Council Design Revised concepts presented to Committee Meeting the committee. Comments documented. November 21, 2002 Town Council Design Revised concepts presented to Committee Meeting the committee. Comments documented. December 12, 2002 Town Council Design Revised concepts presented to Committee Meeting the committee. Comments documented. December 30, 2002 Homeowner's Association Revised design concepts Meeting presented to the community. • • 0 • January 3, 2003 Town of Vail Community Revised design concepts Meeting displayed for community input. January 30, 2003 Office Review Office review of design development documents with desi n team. On June 9, 2003 the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession on the the proposed addendum. At that meeting the Commission responded to multiple questions regarding funding and construction of streetscape improvements and directed staff to establish scenarios of funding and construction so that they might react to the different funding and construction solutions. The Commission then tabled the item to a future meeting. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Town of Vail Master Plan Updates: Order of Peview: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for compliance with the goals and objectives of the existing plan, then by the DRB for compliance of design standards, and final approval by the Town Council. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on Town of Vail Master Plan Updates. The DRB shall review the final plans when decisions on the specific materials have been made prior to the start of construction. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations and Master Plans. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any master plan update or revision. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial on Town of Vail Master Plan amendments. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS 0 Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan The original Master Plan is an outgrowth of the Vail Village Urban design Guide Plan. The Guide Plan was created in 1982 to give guidance to the overall physical development for the Village. In addition to providing broad design guidelines, the Guide Plan suggested specific physical improvements forthe Village. Improvements such as new plazas, new landscape area, etc. Along with the construction of these public improvements included proposals to complete numerous private sector improvements. Improvements such as building additions outdoor deck expansions, and fagade improvements. The Streetscape Master Plan was written in part to provide clear design direction for coordinated public/private improvements. According to the Master Plan, the purpose of the plan is to provide a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvements that: 1. is supported by the community 2. enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and 3. emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order to create an excellent pedestrian experience. Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whole. It is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly, this Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. Furthermore, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. While there is a certain amount of overlap between these six goals, each focuses on a particular aspect of the Village and the community as a whole. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of objectives outline specific steps that can be taken toward achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision-making in achieving each of the stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in implementing capital improvement projects. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. The most significant elements of the Master Plan are the goals, objectives, policies and action steps. They are the working tools of the Master Plan. They establish the broad framework and vision, but also layout the specific policies and action steps that will be used to implement the Pian. 0 The stated goals of the Vail Village Master Plan which are related to the Streetscape Master plan are: Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. Objective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Objective 3.2: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. Objective 3.4: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. Objective 4.1: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspaces and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type pf open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. Objective 5.1: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan This Guide Plan represents collective ideas about functional and aesthetic objectives for Vail Village. Diagrammatic in nature, the Guide Plan is intended to suggest the nature of improvements desired. It is based on a number of urban design criteria determined to be appropriate for guiding change in the Vail Village. The Guide plan is intended to be a guide for current planning in both the public and private sectors. Vail Village Design Considerations The Town of Vail adopted the Vail Village Design Considerations in 1980. The Design Considerations were revised in 1993. The Design Considerations are considered an integral part of the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. The Design Considerations are intended to: guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential qualities of the Village; • serve as design guidelines instead of rigid rules of development; and • help influence the form and design of buildings. The Vail Village Design Considerations are divided into two categories (urban design considerations and arch itecturalllandscape considerations): URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS These considerations relate to general, large-scale land use planning issues, as well as form considerations which affect more than one property or even whole areas. These considerations are primarily the purview of the Planning and Environmental Commission. A. PEDESTRIANIZATION A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many of the improvements recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans, and accompanying Design Considerations, are to reinforce and expand the quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village. Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets (bus routes, delivery access), a totally care -free pedestrian system is not achievable throughout the entire Village. Therefore, several levels of pedestrianization have been identified. C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: 1. Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and park greenspaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. Infill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infill development to create new commercial activity generators to give streetlife and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes. It is not intended to enclose all Village streets with buildings as in the core areas, Nor is it desirable to leave pedestrian streets in the open in somewhat undefined condition evident in many other areas of Vail. Rather, it is desired to have a variety of open and enclosed spaces, both built and landscaped, which create a strong framework for pedestrian walks, as well as visual interest and activity. D. STREET ENCLOSURE While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, they should provide a "comfortable" enclosure for the street. Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whose walls are formed by the buildings. The shape and feel of these "rooms" are created by the variety of heights and massing (3-dimensional variations), which give much of the visual interest and pedestrian scale unique to Vail. Very general rules, about the perception of exterior spaces have been developed by designers, based on the characteristics of human vision. They suggest that: "an external enclosure is most comfortable when its walls are approximately 112 as high as the width of the space enclosed; if the ratio falls to 114 or less, the space seems unenclosed; and if the height is greater than the width it comes to resemble a canyon". In actual application, facades are seldom uniform in height on both sides of the street, nor is this desired. Thus, some latitude is appropriate in the application of this 112 to 1 ratio. Using the average facade height on both sides will generally still be a guide to the comfortableness of the enclosure being created. In some instances, the "canyon" effect is acceptable and even desirable. For example, as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces, to give variety to the walking experience. For sun/shade reasons it is often advantageous to orient any longer segments in a north/south direction. Long canyon streets in an east/west direction should generally be discouraged. When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special consideration should be given to create a well-defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the "canyon" effect. Canopies, awnings, arcades and building extensions can all create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from the upper building heights and "canyon" effect. E. STREET EDGE Buildings in the Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street. Unlike many American towns, there are no standard setback requirements for buildings in Vail Village. Consistent with the desire for intimate pedestrian scale, placement of portions of a building at or near the property line is allowed and encouraged to give strong definition to the pedestrian streets. This is not to imply continuous building frontage along the property line. A strong street edge is important for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades over too long a distance tends to be monotonous. With only a few exceptions in the Village, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscaped areas, give the life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel. Where buildings jog to create activity pockets, other elements can be used to continue the street edge: low planter walls, tree planting, raised sidewalks, texture changes in ground surface, arcades, raised decks. Plazas, patios, and green areas are important focal points for gathering, resting, orienting and should be distributed throughout the Village with due consideration to spacing, sun access, opportunities for views and pedestrian activity. VI, PROPOSED TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM The proposed addendum does not seek to change the intent or concepts presented in the adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The proposed addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan will address the sub -areas identified in the Plan as "West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive— Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road, East Meadow Drive — Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Road, and the Village Core." The goal of the addendum is to develop the ideas set forth in the Plan in greater detail (ie., selecting locations for plantings, public art, and paver treatments). The list below does not include all the details found in the addendum for Meadow Drive and Vail Village streetscape improvements, but is intended to serve as a guide to the outline of the proposed draft. A draft copy of the addendum dated July, 2003 is attached for reference (Attachment B). The outline and the key elements of the proposed addendum include: • Introduction — Discusses the purpose of the addendum to take the existing Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan adopted in 1991 and develop the goals and ideas set forth in that document. • Community Development — Lists the groups involved in the development of the addendum and summarizes their comments in several tables which describe "Present Conditions" and "Desired Future Conditions". This section also includes an "Improvement Matrix" beginning on page 14 which identifies multiple areas of focus and then ranks improvements as "Essential, Basic, Activity Enhancing, and Image and Identity Enhancing". • West Meadow Drive Design Improvement — Identifies the Master Plan Recommendations and the "Change under Design" as proposed to be constructed under this proposed addendum. This sub -area plan details roadway/walkway design, location of a pocket park, creating a "neighborhood entry", and some new opportunities for public art. • East Meadow Drive: Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road - Identifies the Master Plan Recommendations and the "Change under Design" as proposed to be constructed under this proposed addendum. This sub -area plan details the travel lane for buses, the traffic control gate, bus stop locations, and new opportunities with the Sonnenalp/Swiss Chalet redevelopment, and the Vail Road intersection. • East Meadow Drive: Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Drive— Identifies the Master Plan Recommendations and the "Change under Design" as proposed to be constructed under this proposed addendum. This sub -area plan details the travel lane for buses, pedestrian traffic, replacement of the triangular planter in front of Crossroads, and new opportunities with improvements to the south side of the parking structure. • Village Core -Identifies the Master Plan Recommendations and the "Change under Design" as proposed to be constructed under this proposed addendum. This sub - 10 area plan details the removal of loading and delivery zones, paving material, Children's Fountain, improvements in front of the bodge at Vail, public restrooms, permanent and seasonal planters, lighting, and additional opportunities with changes to Founder's Plaza, Wall Street, and Checkpoint Charlie. • Guidelines for Paving, Public Art, Site Furnishing, And Lighting — Discusses more specifics regarding paving systems, site furnishing, Art in Public Places (A1PP), lighting systems, and mechanical and electrical systems. • Streetscape Design Implementation and Maintenance—Discusses funding allocation scenarios for constructing streetscape improvements. The following is a brief synopsis of the chapter which begins on page 73. Private Improvements In general, the plan states that capital and operating/maintenance cost for streetscape improvements on private property will be the responsibility of the property owner or developer. The two exceptions to this are public restrooms and public art which would have shared funding for construction and operation/maintenance. Public Improvements In general, capital streetscape improvements, which include pavement systems, storm sewer and drainage systems, snowmelt systems, street lighting, and landscaping and irrigation will be funded by both the private property owner or developer and the Town. Included on page 77 is table which helps to determine to what extent the Town will request the property owner or developer will be required to fund. For example an applicant with a proposal to create a Special Development District will be required to fund and construct up to 100% of the improvements. As each development proposal varies in intensity there would still be some negotiation in the amount and concentration of private and public funding for streetscape improvements. However, this scenario provides a level of expectation to the applicant and staff to estimate the needed level of streetscape design and funding with each project where little to none existed previously. Staff asked several questions of the Commission at the June 9'h meeting to which the Commission provided feedback. Below are the statements discussing the concept proposed on June 91h with the question(s) following to which the Commission responded. The Commissions response is summarized in italics after the question. Staff believed that the adoption of an addendum, rather than updating the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, was the appropriate way to address the creation of more detailed design drawings. As mentioned, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan was intended to serve as a guide to future implementation of the conceptual concepts found in the Plan. Integrating the changes into the document would prove difficult in terms of the reformatting of all items which need to be stricken or altered. Does the Planning and Environmental Commission agree that the adoption of an addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan is the proper way to address the adoption of detailed design plans or should it be incorporated into the existing document? The Commission agreed that the adoption of an addendum was the best .method to establish UF more detailed design plans for the Streetscape Master Plan. 0 With several previous and recent development projects there has been discussion between Town officials and developers regarding the extent to which a project should be required to implement and fund the elements of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The existing Plan provides the following language to guide Town officials regarding private development and implementation. 'As private property in Vail is being redeveloped and/or upgraded, an opportunity exists for many of the proposed Master Plan improvements to be done in conjunction with or entirely by private property owners. For example, the improvements in the Gore Greek Promenade were funded in this manner. There is no way to predict which property will be redeveloped, therefore, each application for redevelopment will need to be reviewed to determine what Streetscape improvements can be completed as part of the private construction." The above statement does not provide for any definitive requirements regarding the construction of streetscape improvements and who accepts the financial burden. Due to the vague nature of this statement staff has included a more detailed and refined implementation strategy in the proposed addendum. Although the Planning and Environmental Commission is not responsible for adoption of the proposed changes it will be responsible for implementation of any adopted revisions and deciding to what extent a private developer should construct and fund streetscape improvements to mitigate the development impacts of their proposal. Wherefore the input of the Planning and Environmental Commission is being sought so that it can be forwarded on to Town Council. 0 When should a private developer be required to install streetscape improvements in conjunction with a development proposal? How much of the streetscape improvements should a private developer be required to install? How much of the streetscape improvements should a developer be required to fund? Should a private developer be required to construct or fund streetscape improvements on the Town of Vail right-of-way from their property boundary to the centerline of the road for the length of their project frontage? Should bonds for streetscape improvements be accepted by the Town of Vail for those streetscape improvement elements from the property line to the center line of the road which were not to be constructed with the overall proposed project due to adjacent properties not having initiated streetscape improvements? What, if any, time period is acceptable to expect that the improvements would be constructed through neighboring private re -development or Town initiated projects? Should a developer's bond be refunded after a period of time if no improvements were made on the adjacent sites? What is the Town's responsibility when a private developer proposes redevelopment of a property in terms of funding and providing direction on the extent of streetscape improvements needed to mitigate development impacts? 0 12 Within what timeframe should the Town fund and install elements of the streetscape which work in conjunction with those proposed by a developer if a bond is accepted as a part of a redevelopment proposal? What statements, scenarios, and criteria should be included in the implementation language to help the Planning and Environmental Commission make determinations on how a proposed development's impacts should be mitigated through construction or funding of streetscape improvements by a developer? Does the Planning and Environmental Commission have any further input on this or any other related topic? The Commission directed staff to develop several scenarios for funding and constructing improvements associated with the streetscape Master Plan. The scenarios were to address what portions should be constructed and what portions a bond could be accepted by the Town and who would perform the construction. After _reviewing the proposed addendum dated July 2003 and the information contained within this staff memorandum does the Planning and Environmental Commission have any further input on any aspect of the proposed addendum most importantly the implementation section? VII. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: There are several criteria which staff has found successful in reviewing amendments and addendums to existing Town of Vail Master Plans. The criteria provide a logical and rational set of standards for determining the validity and need for an amendment or addendum. The criteria are as follows: 1. Have conditions changed since the adoption of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan? The Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan was adopted on November 20, 1991. Conditions have changed slightly as development has continued to occur and in many instances portions of the Plan have been implemented. The Plan was created to provide conceptual design ideas. Each time the elements were implemented either by the Town or private development the constructed elements do not always match identically what was called for in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan but meet the intent and follow the concepts of the plan. Some existing examples include Mayor's Park and the Vail Valley Drive reconstruction. Is the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan in error? Neither the applicant nor staff believes any portion of the Town of Vail Streetscape Plan to be in error. Staff believes the concepts and ideas found in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan are still valid. The proposed addendum only expands on those concepts in detail and adapts them to the existing conditions. Is the addition, deletion, or change to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master 13 Plan in concert with the Plan in general? The applicant and staff believe that the proposed addendum is in concert with the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The addendum takes the existing conceptual ideas and drawings from the Plan and provides the necessary information need to create construction drawings. A complaint of private developers when asked to construct all or portions of their site according to the Plan is that there is not enough detail to estimate costs. Several times the Town has had problems providing a developer with the necessary information to develop construction drawings and cost estimates_ This addendum and others to follow, will provide needed information to developers at the initial stages of design and provide a plan by which staff can give guidance to developers. Another purpose of the addendum is an improved and clarified implementation section. The goal being to provide language which better assists Town decision makers in dealing with private development. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission considers the evidence and testimony presented, provides direction to the applicant and staff, and then forwards a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for the proposed addendum to the Vail Streetscape Master Plan. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VI I of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. • IX. ATTACHMENTS 0 A. Copy of purpose statement for the addendum from applicant dated June 4, 2003 B. Draft of Meadow Drive Addendum dated July, 2003 • 14 Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan Addendum June 4, 2003 Purpose of the Addendum: The Vail Village and Meadow Drive Streetscape projects represent the next steps of a 20 year planning effort to upgrade and enhance the physical character and pedestrian experience of Vail. The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, 1982, began the process of developing quality public/private improvements for the Vail Village. Its purpose was to give guidance to the overall physical development of the Vail Village and created the existing framework of plazas, landscape areas, building facades. With active community involvement, the planning efforts were refined through the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, 1991. The purpose of the Vail Streetscape Master PIan as a guiding document was to give the pedestrian environment the same comprehensive design and quality of materials that the Town's architectural standards had achieved. It provided a comprehensive and coordinated concentual design for streetscape improvements to enrich the aesthetic appearance of the Town with an emphasis on craftsmanship and creative design to create an excellent pedestrian experience. An objective of the Streetscape Master Plan included a conceptual design for streetscape improvements that could be used for phased implementation, privately sponsored improvements on public land associated with an adjacent building redevelopment, and special development districts and joint public/private projects.. The Vail Village and Meadow Drive Streetscape Design projects, 2003, with additional public involvement, develop the concepts originating in the previous planning efforts into a comprehensive and complete streetscape design. The purposes and objectives of the planning effort have and will remain consistent throughout these projects. These include phased and cooperative implementation, high levels of quality and character, and beautiful and interesting public spaces, intersections, and focal points which enhance the pedestrian experience. The Town of Vail has undertaken extensive design and public processes to rehabilitate Vail Village and Meadow Drive. Driving the Vail Village project is the need to replace utilities and the desire to consolidate construction in the Village for minimal impact to businesses and residents. Meadow Drive rehabilitation is largely driven by the need for a good connection between the Village and Lionshead, needed improvements to the street infrastructure, and the anticipated private redevelopment along the Drive. Attachment: A I� Attachment: B F- 1 LJ • • y Q v Qj W'r` .H tt %i O Q Tri �AA ti.+ G fC! f,y cu U v ►� W W > Attachment: B F- 1 LJ • • • 0 cl 0 G O u Q) to a ZQ 0 a Nio a� 3� ro U) x •% C[} En o a41 4 U] - j cu �ui , ^ 'G F -I cu v 0 bo 0 Com, n Cr 0 a m O a 75 'bo a a ca 4) —4 10 Cfi aj Cf] 0 0 F -I o a u 0 G � a o � a 'G ctt a a 4 14 a bo � G LJ '� 'tj Q% V H CIO CSj b 7 G � o 0 Ca a O -� b � 0 050 v w >>w ' Q a a o v a -db �: o U Atn Ln ui � It o i i i i ro U) x •% C[} En o a41 4 U] - j cu �ui , ^ 'G F -I cu v 0 bo 0 Com, n Cr 0 a m O a 75 'bo a a ca 4) —4 10 Cfi aj Cf] 0 0 F -I o a u 0 G � a o � a 'G ctt a a 4 14 a bo � G LJ '� 'tj c 0 cu a: > F o 0 o a > b � Q fa 7 ~CbJO q •Q to s¢ pa I cu cl aj 0 0 rs F" °u 't3 cti s sG aL.r-.- V a m to u i`3ps Lt, ai dK•,(aL"�'tj a� Fu �-1 ym cu �, ® kv 96 lz U Pyr A cuu w a a 0 .0 a � w O a C C 0 a as s. y tO o 0 o � Au cz a � Ei a S 3 ua 0 u. G T A, ° a� U V a C o () .' O O C tCCL y w C m ¢ �4 lo o C: > o v o 'C 0 y a p m tan .a Gctl] � a s m ciJC � w ° a cu W a ,r u,�rGC7i�a �°caa0 C7uwlu UUxz U 0 �J u P, bC bA 'dC i� ego U) 10 cua 4 04 m m U bo > ° a � � � Ln ro � b" bi) 0 0 b v Ln ' O bcu m V) �1 US rx p c � � � v �Q . A . � . ! | � � q i i � Q / . cu . E . cu cz . kQ �\ tx bb r—I �\ • �i 0 .0 � 41 " Qca 0 G w Cs. Flu rd w ca v tj ai b O vs � c i u 0. L1• rd > A. 9 v3 t5 .r>D1 .H U)Fl zu m cn lC C) ami %r c O �� , U ''� S + > p R, cutT U + CC O" ` p Wig•, w al CU M 0 4- u °' � H W. Qz 4' °JCL) �°' ami v a°, rn o -� °� '�, q a`�'i w 4 � C u . a a�jb C� u —0 'Ct o Xy cn ° a 'CU �" uGi V N O bO b�4 ❑R. 'C o3'i .-vyn cC �-' vii 0 O N 0 0):ij © .:•7 m O Cl +�+ �j [fit, -C +� > �A x 'Cj rd � -u � � `'� Ca ici N ra U3 rte.q�'j G tip- C +ci ° r.. 4Ui w� O 974 0 o 114 Q"y U bO �' a °'C3 w. c3 Q t� R. G asn ay v ° vsZ 4 ° v u '� cu `� P. G� A O I, . P b4 v ai — Ln En u ca " P,4vim,- c -O b b, ° ° o �. w, , 5 v > �' ° �a sz �,. ° °' ao erg cn ,'.�.'o L3 ,`�� Q G. r -ii .Q CIS Ln Lf)� cu 3 .aa t160 a a71 1:; W Qj.� ay u tt 71 cc aj > aj CL4 t-4 3 o El) (a Cw O v w Ou � u w ti cu a} ro � as erg LO o� y o ci �Q u ad O h4 tLo Cu)4 p w + 03 p is a' u u .� o ns 4v3 a) O a .. p at bA a� U a• a) U] u v � ai bO v '�ILI ca '" °' a) o as 5 ,� w ca o ami 79 0 L,� 0 o v ` s as ° a CAu� v s'�� ° `C)° o *� j b > w ai cU r! © as cn c v rw Lam' Qj 42'4 n O FO W "j bo y v v x o oaj WS PLu o tz Wa v o a o GJ cu cn w 9 "d (LJQ 06. ti" .,q cii "" Q to bA r d4 u -c (Li. : Q Q b �' mai" cu w to v } " ' cz q u 5 G) u G1, '0 O ' O � as � � aj � � > a? ►�, •[��' O .,�.� '� AcG 'CS 'C7 �. b0 v. =� ,Cg a� m 0 a v L� '� „° a' o aa) p > s9 v „ 3 ycu (v a,y c� Q +s ai 5� G W W. 0. q v t4 w Cis °° Lie m a 71 0 °' Vl O tC ?.10 O U a oU u W a cu o ct cao .o Qj `ISmw �N ami o cl o .cn ca tp 'a 'd bA zi ` obO ° o v o G U v 61 M.d Ca� U ¢, O Q. ccdd v > h.Ll i] i-� w day cl A epi a� u r- (v ALO O o a� ° �] O Q a a rri bAM r" F cl 'd C3. CJ 'G 4T U ate+ F .W cn o0 b �s F o u D °; R. v �+ Lo �, X o o m TUU; o o> o a cn naujI ° °b a n v to cu O u Q ,' v v .i; u r7:1 U 0 i� W C n o a 'd O a0i a o Q[1] � En n 0 Ca b4 vd0 ' j( 00 >cc 61 w > Ell C14 �ca Fy m o > F > ay v w u ei v . > ea iC a O 0 v� y ' Q1 P+ E-- 0 o .� O 0 o O. v sy � 41 .3 C) '�inj oo a O IG U O o cs� ca �' 7 F as y C) � U ro b 04 °' •.. Qj Qj O i OJ O Qj a a .0 bA v E Q a a� a r- c 3 - u c L' t a`vri U_. py e�aai E)) o u CJ R � cn 0 cr3a a� QA 'U v Irl u u w aw Po M I N a m .tomU ., w a a c Q bo b��C7 b a 164 W 10 a 60 N >0c o U Qj N VS Q1 Qu^�� > o � > b a � 10 CUV c' (211 Co U44 O 0` R u O "L3 *t3 o P. o vi N b U > a uy p F CA 0b 'd �F ai�Q, `a's 1.4 a,� P. G 0 w W b u "t9 b � Q v u V . u aj D Q C� r] aha b° ni ' bio i aao `" Q Q l �* (V mea M l 0 OJ •�a! 1-4 Q (n > � 0 ••i Www�d• U3 3 0 n, FQ 3 p» V9 H IZ w° t'* co to uk.. O � H ct aCA ,`y a O G40 O .iy O cz a .! o .E m a rg G4 N R 0. acu `m CU U U 0 eo m M 0 °a � 3a O u R' 0 V µy ao 4 .0 bc Yr > [I U r a } t -n `bo aiai ' s, wtg "15 4J d d . , G1. > a �. cx�+ uj i¢�� > a v ,�, N i31 `�„7y�,� y 'O 47 V �" :� + 'r7 @1 Ubl) O . .� 47 O' 16�44 O .m N 'd CU >.sem. 0 o un fir. � r�, 3 o -o �; �, d pL1 •CS �, o A y o 11 Q?0 as �, u b o w ba.uw� v 4d J� Q GOy o +�+ N SO .Vlo Sw �Qo, 0 0 i a 'y stl i y W co o G 00 0 Z y .� bb4 4 yQy O Id o ii O G1 O v .b r tao , : 6 - ,a 2 0, en Itl o LM X .., r. ..� ro, C.?d H��p� G� y� ai'aar `do• �^y' 'N Sj O po ° cu a Q ho � °a,Qj "° o " 0 a a b O . •q GQr U U ao v A P. op'. � o P,.- U � U R. 47 u u v � CZ W m �+ o mow.. 3-4 Ei1 V e[ti w edd O M -XI u o to cz v.". m U S1V u y 'bp >G 0 Q tC 'o s by ""CO Q cu u• zs b bo Q tv v r. bO aj o [ �7 ? Cir i • • • • • • • [•� • • ' il�j 4 • .ZI 0 61 b QJ F. 0 E 0 � v:an W oz aj •� a, �a u O _ M4 X a Q - a • MR • OD • _J b a� y 0 O H W 4-• 0 CU {U Rl 3 .ry W QQ00 � m o u �:: a� 004 � a -5 C7 Q i5.r, as Z > c1 . O m '0 m O C� � v �> Q1 4J '•Cj a r f�lJ C1 tD U �° b o o 1, U 'd � %° (U 0 m cu V)LA �R i.a sn aa) Qn -v 0 r to _J £ q § 17� 0 \ § 3 4 2 & �2 2 § ® � .§ .} u { ƒ £ . � § @ � o b . § � § � � U § 0 � \ 2 ¥ k . \ \ � § ] o � § � ƒ § � x 2 ) / o 0 q 2§k \ u 2�? ® ¥ oma\ a \ m\ ooU } $ 7 & § n & 0 8 S § ° c\ f / ui / 0 2 Q § u G =j7�1 2 \ t \ ƒ . -+ � • a fn � � y a � � a �'- C=, a W -d o o e" �wai a v C'� uQj:s] s o Q a EQ0 > p, w Q)a a 8b sii o a a ces .. i" C i a M A as o a a L W.2 a q Ll, is mar cv�7:5 U v C .Q ra R cz 41 ,�p cva •r U oaoao -d arbO � w 0 >1 fn °Uobci ' p� u OczCp� 14 ° .. 'd © pz a w i� O a 'C!',' °vi `fl CUa) ❑u w O W w � r -z 1y — ' ~ w p `saj em• a v a bra a r p C ° p %4-4 u>, a 1R>o-14 0 C14 C) Z' G a u ry m w o ° 41� O'D Ln uar ° mcuO � o a 1 a a n4 o Sj a by bo `. a Q p o y� v 'd cn p + by C� x a ++ a a ca au (13 cu 0 9 0 "o (3) Tj al v ° '" Q w > �s 4, (U a m - a _a) a m . '0 41 a a a °' p p a cn d a 0b`' °"� � oeUr, w5°�' ai a-, " a +, a a u a JL4 t-4 ca ai cu u � �iA ca u) ® �+ U CU v Q" u H - ° o H U bA t>U eb a �' .b ani a -� a i a cu p v � N i", rn MbA Nto0 bop a (} - 0 : o u Q _ p, a ` Q � 0 a a bow cu C�4� w wGJ �� 0 v cid .� P' °+ a c0 m crr ° 'd �,.; ccC r tom - "nu a aLq a H U U V 1 -,to a bJDUcc v i"L3 ani a E �. '" En Q 1-''., Q' 0 cu is u a O CZ 0 .. a o P' cn a bo Q � R+ O w .:. lj i..$ v a a a C N > a w O Q v3 O f, ca Q Q P > a Q '0 m V) � P-4 � W R-, " � �D o • 0 ci (1) .a4 Gp IUU a w o a W r� u °" v a u ao a ba b w y a yQ sbO 3 R. W ? • r d ao 9 0 Id r� u a ba w o cz O F rn .r ..rt Cu bO "[$ cd .w F -4m bO o a O p, a v a G� r d ao 9 k & � \ u J ch § ® 2 2 Q. I � o � u 2 ■ m 2(z u } � � 2 .§ � � as "d m 7 U) ƒ }ƒ 2 k � � in ' \ \ >d Ga w ca �r a! H a1 O CLJO 4 O {4 +� v 0 0 ❑ cli b a) ' cli � 0 Q b0 � fC `g v cd ci v U 41 x aJ '[r y aJ IS ai [C ❑ r1- "d rte, (c�4¢ � ❑ �y �J •�CCCC p7v � C o r ❑aj a O ul0 rrkh N F CJ N O O O C u0 0 p R.tZ m G aj c}a., aa)i aJ Q" u o }t 'L3 amt N go awl jj m41 a U) aJ r , U N �❑ a � 164 w > rj aJ rHy Qj `�" En ❑•N N ��• ❑.> 0 N a� blO n u (uli 44 C) 0 — QQCCJJ '�J '� Baj x ���++ ' ft N > R > a1 i-+1aJ ❑ "% ai O cluia 'c�f3 �C��+ ca Ga ca �r a1 O 4 s di 6 0 G 41 x aJ aJ IS ai [C r1- G �J •�CCCC p7v � C o n.r- kh v rrkh N F CJ N ul 7 C $ :� e •}£�£°£y Ci "�� �mq.SK4j7: .R, i p os Li •l d} � CD X 97 a � 5,1, 4+: •�w k� •Y �!&7 1 m 4 4 0, C t T "O � ��gs � 52 m 765, CL � COY � .��. h"�. '� E` c � � �, ~ G s g 1 still U) -A � ��a'•°x-�C � dam. "'�.�}: �Lx m ,� � B �F 3 £° LL1i L { r .m LU gv •. � f C e L cad CPRb+i �i�y� °G k: c1 � �i..'� "rb •'1'.'. n. ' � N Q F x 07 UJ I/7 V 2 4 ;j N C 97 N i CD dcu E 0FLL �££ d1 E 0 7 R co N Q. (ACCL E � m C E m ui Q y u W • M �Y�� � � q ��• `Y$ Q�I y�y � � yy��� L C. �Q'm.y. n'. � � Q � i • Iij S k Ead YZ � U -0 47 g A • o A. QQ fi ! 4 y[ �• �e � � Y � Y CCG ❑.fj fj 7� tm f~/1 117 N a ♦Nn VI Z d . O U C41 G. b1 � qry i G d7 C 41 or -CD u U, W O 01 C p U U C } U N C O 17 U C7 ._ r- LU Q H 0 a) N ❑. N E rg N = c9 r } r0 O_ U G f6 = i 'O ON Ill _ m w d W ,_ _ 11.1 L'o r -p V (U U o .Lr 9 3 O u 4 aj ai Cj O Qi Cj Q N � � Q i m w� Q �1 CO Y U3 ii O In. Ri r q W 0J Q Q U ar. H U 0) v 'd E Ca G p Q� �r 4-1 v 'b a .7 O 0.7 Sl qj Z v 3 v J U +°� ? � G 4.1 10, CL �yq Lu C fty .se t ."ir 8 � � "� r . � .•. fir... " � � 5� � � � 'ems• v/ � oQ L CHa(A� v e 6 � V1 n is a u ro Ms oa� n w E Las aow L 4w E M EvW L'o r -p V (U U o .Lr 3 O u 4 aj ai Cj O Qi Cj Q N � � Q m w� Q �1 CO Y U3 ii O In. Ri r W 0J Q Q U ar. H U 0) v 'd E Ca G p Q� �r 4-1 v 'b a .7 O 0.7 Sl qj Z v 3 v J U +°� ? � • C y W cu •o vci o C1. ir E G. w U m v a U) as a i3 3 ;n o -a w �a 7� o + Ad ate, Q m a 5 ai . O En cli F R+ 'cl v r1 a F+ (C 0 + R' Oj W .Q a 4 Q, 0 e O ``" i p' V L ami a U3 V3 zuo bo s a Oas Q- a O a Q. �t a '•G '' n o 03a�, r a � ao '23 m CA W a o W a oCA O V a `� (11 lu a ai �� m'� > a •y baa) P. !� .5 'd a 4 v Ao a a a Co u c;j0.,� v u .r3 ' A � rA .� ) Qj"I� rA A a o v u o S o w ,� a 0 F-4.rs — c.+ � u 110, � es � � '0 ++ .rn,., � a � p g 11••••'x.{ �� +`E� O R ,� �+ rte O ", p Cp s ca 0 �w•� a s `� '� o a w m tZ u a o a-' "Cf o r bre H X0. ?I�4 .a o b u> ca�� cit ca ado cn E- G .• -� CA Cd v `O Qcam. • s • • • a CL " '" G a p F (� �J:4 a o p V 4J (ai y W cu •o vci o C1. ir E G. w U m v a U) as a i3 3 ;n o -a w �a .� 2 0 ,® E� 04 � � t � � � \�\ _.. .. § 7 d� «\\ t LU < o /{ V) \§ �u �\ G L >\, d 6§ �N) �\ CJ \5 �\ \2 iai A m \ s. 2f �} 2. \\LU :z t �/< \§ u a, p Ub 4—: o0�0b um o a v s, y chi Q, � a .� (2) cu 1 ° ow Cv 6a ` c� ,-, 8 �� v a O N J ca m m > 77 v a N v co a c > � 41 Q, U ar dti w vGJ aJ QJ b a b F5y w cv M cn .� vis v p O v j � aoU'j a) . .` rn bO . o � 'G ,+ w Q. n s a v cz ° s cd > Q) a 03 cu cliu r tA u Qj '> " caQJ °} t a to a v Cs CJ ul a a N t o 'cl bA v T1 > ,fl O v F Qj W v 41 > GI] ^d t�W y SC bo a W C 1a • ri ' c Cl h4 -:; u SQ7 O U3 O a R, w 'w V a, O v Q rn � � � � �Cc$p4 v a rj }' I., O y 4�i © o o cu 0)�; u O cu Co -� a0 as zt o a d '� ate, w �' • A 93 x ,.95,�a,roavv+ o u ffv 0, Ij �V© � U cu vJ o>.. v a, °� ° 3 b°.> o l o ti: eL E ca w eta � �+ ar „� ,�, •v CU IOU .d c O a, il, O ca CL, ©� c, w 7b4 4,czs 4 C� > cn G u O w a cu as zz L6 CZ ca M o, �7 a, e� a. day s-,�© v o 3a Gib o ca R v 3, Lr O (� ui U] A ��, Q ro a, cv cri � u i � ❑ .I c2 C) • o ¢"; ol bO cq to 0 3 -�2. a 0 v c ro E o ai 'b ° 0 a u ° cu °c w p -u LLJ a� LLA • 7y—i Q Q J cu 1 GJ 1 b LU Hres ba 0 it y 4J cts J 0 O �i. WX J O > w GJ cu (u - b U " s O qi ica U W .,sa U w Glr s, 0 f u IS O 1� C Q y +a O L, d [A o y b '� u N Z p, ani u b a .:.x a-0 A-7 v C 4 Q r n 0) W cu V] .0 u O 4 ra uu. o 'o a a c y °' o o > ,, , v G)tj 13 -p 7: bo LIZ rM r� 0 0 "a P. P; opt 0 > cn 60 m 0 �Q 1-.4 0 0 0 -A U 0 > C) U -TJ 0 ;-4 0 IL4 Imn bo0 "n I U, E 0 cu Id (t 7� 40 "0 o cc 4 0 U 0 0 u ca >-.,o -�6 gl cxs IU > C', 0 -1 0) .2 > bQ w ca 2. 0 0 a) >r .2 0 1.4 Pip % -10i bo cu C '0C i 'm in. 164 X -C) 0 bO 4 04 0 . 0 u bo IU > te r -I TI 5 41 0 Oj 0 cu tb W -4 bb a) —0 4-� E- > to ad 'A u q U rL4 > Z 0 nj F-4 w" U bo itw (U W> -g E P-4 v; W CO —0 'Cu" 41 do 1�4 Qj -0 0 cid Gj Ca 0 as cz cu '6 aj cu t 0 uu E .0 w d 0 0 0 jb a) U-) cu Qj .0 41 0 f3 bo � R cu W (9s v ° p v u ° cu o 0 a 0 � n� '� U m 'U oS cuDuca ca c°�5P P4 a) 3.4 cu o ca v ° �+ t aai ° �� caIn Lw € 4 ca � o �0 ti al a P , u ° bo bM ro [7 55 L U*)(�j W Uai ,t N ti N U ✓ v G 4� � � v tA 0 .w rT�rT, z h--'1 w 9 Ski] Ql S� CC Gl a a u C) m u a�bDD� O u 0.a A, "tz 1:5 a >, " uv . cu 1~ N � ' V O a a o a ' u, a �o y0.,,rub' o C1 � a v v v > � v a C1s Qj E6v a�) � v � tr3 Q. a, p'! oLO a irn a a 0 Q Cd b 0 ar v O U CIS 0 a co co +. .1] v cc ILIS 10 cG O Cl) a Cl) to O o to u cu " aQT Q u . v Ou cn Q� m Ca w0 Et 71 U O {a O hai 7c��nJp aG 61 vi t4 > 'J' . '•F, Q a. OU w V ai as c c3 O o w OCu O v a CIS o ®b 0 v 'C a � CU O v > a t?, 4i EU fl ' Q � El) a � O O a S] a p Cy O (>U w 4i zz z LU >1 F11LRO.If) r- • • L' • • • L 4, to tti aai a as O a cn a +u bo 0 > bO ai 0 @ LO o cd o m ca ca w ar c Cl. I.. •� cu rb y � uh � � �0 m` Ate. o a w v w o. Q. .a ca c,,, A a � sW > fl vca O ~l. rw � , °N 0 ufl '-" o 0 OJ F., cu a> � o > V) v 4• a, 'o ca o Q)fl dH 44 t 44 a r. a 0 ° u a 96 p o O ®_d ' CU a w .� 0 w � Q v *(U "" G 4 ca dl� t1. a � ® P+ p H ca > v a P, S� CA bya Mcd m 'd a a > L', 'tu D v .s0 fl *-• O CD > c o b •0 .� V 0 r/y 3 a z v 0� � o a � 2o u C v PLI o 4 V -41L Rd • • V+J •N 4-1 bO co O r p o bA D •., D c�L GAJ cu -7j v1 " CA itY a� E ca cz oaio75 (L) cy 0 -G cin �j ami ca > w w iw "o ;,' a o Q. 4 V -41L Rd • • • • 0 w v v v as o w a4 a, t a tu w °s b a' v k ¢' U o 2c CU 0b o '5 a v . v vQj H cu ai o me ba a ulo W ca v 'C3 M v.� 41 03 u bo cu o aj cn Q o ,io�u o u OCo c4 0 0 U a ? �y CC '� O [[TUU v b4 LV �r m G(} O w v v v as o w a4 a, t a tu w °s b a' v k ¢' U o 2c CU 0b o '5 a v . v vQj H cu ai o me c ba a 0 W v bo va � � a, o ,io�u o 14-4 0 U a ? �y CC '� O [[TUU v b4 LV �r m G(} O ZmR. '" u 'b G. 14 a :a49 (z 9) c m cu tv V v v D d w 5 A wG i o '� ubO o� ❑ a� O a �04 a 0, o booa�aU -13:c�a o ai 4,.��'o aj I�j � a � aj CLI cu U oho > r.1 tll Ly •--� 4a R, ^� a cc u 41 4M ai o 04 u CU cua aa) 2 ' 2t cu 0 u c ay c`n r r. W F—r cC o -� 41. 0 b P� a. o Qj > . a Ab co cn yu��'A ;., cc% -4 .Q w 0 o w 'L3 �o Q) bo d g U to c� U� a 4, a M p. 0. U) o �s CL) z� H cn CU 0 0 u S- L 4--3 n ra • • 0 • • • mm ba a ° +a >�'� > ©A F4 ca ° "� W ho CO Q o a bA w, �kA-4'� aw a, ° ; , s 3 .5 o of ro9� woo 'g Re > � 4 a cu u� ai •o *csS, w Ij C, +� ami t: a; a a > 0 c, P,Q v. CU ©En ,0 . u It M bio as fd tc aj VV L ,> a, U °baa,° `u � o o ww � o �o �a°.a L N -j 4 r, ru a� N 4 CL 0 L) u • • F C bA Q cu a' ; Q La ars` �a° 14 a 60 b y' Qj '> rp bo�91 Gww m o 1a CL4 F .� aa.. >Q a 4! 0 P. m a a' ° u ay O %4-4m a o CO w n 0 +; � Ci t'p to a o p 41�n a s G8 ,saa r O O O o xj a a �, -a ac o n. CU > bO o �. o as a 1141 > o x v W m'j u� a a D a 0 p D, > .r.� o a a a v cn'a F CL4ca o ro a . c a a 'a GJ .5 00 � o O u y p ^d u v ocn°��0° c, a tl] v 4 :� a U)con aj cu r LL 4 Z; 4-J Qom! L _ C Q dJ D J B rn I NO • 0 • eq 0 0 bt 1�01 �i ' � bo v (U Q 0 ua o ;a) v ftS cua W � O a o bo o � w tb b " 's y v Ca 0 v P, Ur) �In 0 a t!] a a O 0 P � vi O td p,a 071 41 ,c� U a v p w a cd U a' � ° bA r 0)ca > a' �-;,y� u > co opo 0 ti, 0 U) s~a� P-1� v � Cts cQa ani U7 U > m a F � a > 50 0 0tLo� �aa�v u � cd> P. .a U, G 0 Ci 3 ,CU .0 •ts s�, o u u Q uui a ani a Lr) ci0 u a U mu ca b4 aj A. css Ili bO cl O a c� � a 3 oU 0 cv Fa b • � cl ���uyyy r a ✓ W 0 0 ° u .o ca Q,. a s, a En p Gc1 0 � o � W- 2 u v a I En a s.. R. a 4 C] a v v lu co b0 0 G 0 v Ir - It rA m a u u ca NO a bA a 0 0 D 'd v a a 0 U] le, 91 V 0 u R u C. r cl N F �a 0 L 0 u N v r --r En 71v �1 w cu acli v bo r4 [V C6 as 0 19 v 0 a a F bO a cia CA 0 c .[ a F b6 p v x 0 W a C: a bo ca w 4 ui a u ai a cz u v Id Id i aJ Vi U 0 z PLO o 0 v a � v a CU v bO 10 tz O a C a x � o C� rn R 1 � (U h O � � m 4� wG �i ' � bo v (U Q 0 ua o ;a) v ftS cua W � O a o bo o � w tb b " 's y v Ca 0 v P, Ur) �In 0 a t!] a a O 0 P � vi O td p,a 071 41 ,c� U a v p w a cd U a' � ° bA r 0)ca > a' �-;,y� u > co opo 0 ti, 0 U) s~a� P-1� v � Cts cQa ani U7 U > m a F � a > 50 0 0tLo� �aa�v u � cd> P. .a U, G 0 Ci 3 ,CU .0 •ts s�, o u u Q uui a ani a Lr) ci0 u a U mu ca b4 aj A. css Ili bO cl O a c� � a 3 oU 0 cv Fa b • � cl ���uyyy r a ✓ W 0 0 ° u .o ca Q,. a s, a En p Gc1 0 � o � W- 2 u v a I En a s.. R. a 4 C] a v v lu co b0 0 G 0 v Ir - It rA m a u u ca NO a bA a 0 0 D 'd v a a 0 U] le, 91 V 0 u R u C. r cl N F �a 0 L 0 u N v r --r En 71v �1 w cu acli v bo r4 [V C6 as 0 19 v 0 a a F bO a cia CA 0 c .[ a F b6 p v x 0 W a C: a bo ca w 4 ui a u ai a cz u v Id Id i aJ Vi U 0 z PLO o 0 v a � v a CU v bO 10 tz O a C a x � o C� rn R z 5 oe LU LU CL N to W w V7 W 13 O W Lt.l T-41, tv r� U) L� i' A `7 a, H a� • a US 3 C) O O O o c C13 O .0 94 0 ai as > 14� a 4,; MO Q 8A -cg o Q o � O � � U "C O R7 }� cc un W N F--1 LA • 0 r� cri „a 1-4 o 2 w . ga >�, ��' w��.l *J� Q 0 m ° t�,. CU bO .5 o <u v (Jz -d (>u O o u > u . U •4j P iTv 544 `3 Q Ql 1-41,4y - U cu V fC 'L iv -O $$-i — r� cri „a 0 • • 0 W w �b 14 �Wol pq b0 v 'O tC . crCu Re O Py �r (C _' w .a OU � p :I bl) o '0 .0 0 cts. o a o x 3 (U 'w U MU P-4 0 • • 0 W w ©°ao �r 00 ° a P bA w e a, 0 .0 cts. O 3 �° O o U UU O U 04 w bA +p� 2ca 14, _ FCS O O -S QQj t1 u 0 ca O a, •v ,� ao a, o a P4 u ca w cri U FY C's U 0 • • a • obllw u a � a aj IcQ bl) 60 Q r4 V) a s m �" Q• w� .� U.) cddi° bo a o120cu to o O a� Q U3 y toW 3 O un En N W o a � O E! 'u A R, r CU ar + U 9 a w �+ +1 a) v > R, bo b 'o Q. o u c a w a >0 o 7.1 qGG ,d a .�+ 5 m a� u a vi as to cu cu U A0 o � 0 v a ao � G ND '� o CU w v v v a.��.o a 4 i 15 UO C) v aj cu C,3 w u En 75 a v trn u o aq0� 0 vi U a. aro a '"' V ra v pq ca a- �b cu b u m v 4J WO v Cn 4a! .� C a 4 ca v ca cl cq u v 0 lu 0 O u bo .9 w v r� a cq bQ u H 1-4 0 a u a P, v 0 a .b U) v tko Ij bo u al 4 zo AMP 23 Q R >U) • • rd 0 Nn a'_a5y E, .r 1� M Id © a v MCd CU + H 14 Ez bio UC14.a [1 NOr14 C14 P4 M U U o 0 baD ,� a �p H vH a s Gfl �, p [G O a s `� D O c, C14 rt+ Q,f 104 a a� o a a.0 �� a�c�z �a A 93 5Qj Q" s aj� '� cc) U a ;=I0 := a p a cn U u Ed 4 u . C U^t7 PWb v C'3•,��i�.��1 wQ y Q O ami 75 a U ;Ll cz •U a u° 0 3 d i bb Qj NP aa) u '° 03 ct bo wO a 4! 'd {C7 C,�. -0 so � ., _O Gp P'- 4 0 C] > 5 O a R. 'd Q O U qj O a oA a ❑ H T19w > H CV ' U] CE � a cq `w Q ©. « bo o Cd a) a , a r tztZ o y a o a. m �s v > a Qj F, . V N dp ,�-Q CJ u] .r. id a H � •� 41 i V1 i -i f S V ' � cz C CI5 0 0 l,°�-�C7w o a w o a N � u'cs �" O v w a a u CLI z .� i CE 't3 M ' o 0 0 as ai vTO �oo ' u Q COv n u T99> 0 tnua paJ V a 04 M. v A, 0 . -F- 0 ;G ar � a1 cu n rn � '�a, ,d M V N V v bbD -0 o M� 0 Q 4 Lfi a3 0 E 0 ca W C- -ci 0 0 0 0 u L a� c l�� o. L o 0i ci .Zj la ,2 80 tLo u All cu 0 a F. cz cu bo ° ca b4 a a m > „_ .o O q) ca Sp O '4 R >11 'd b g O v O O p O cC + p oca Q � .2 v � ,� � � � v W W O •� s w a1 p. G v a o O O Eli co, rn 41 Q, v I7 `j r, O W c t)zU W O t v aj 4i Vi .Sa O -4-1.� °' u cry a o Ln Ln vai ¢ D R.vvi� evn vva.s4 aim 9 = a O bA - Unj�, ry U 0.l O a 'd O bD a v v ti, O U y O ) O aj °; ra a .[ O •� U3 y ti Sa a 0� 3•d a O G 41 °� ° ` v toto a v _ v U O U u U) v �° 9� a v ti v p � � � O *� b0 a'� A� ci ad Fib cC�. .>� 1-4 O O m Q r- m R GJ a fQla'�'° w aj r .a U C. u � .� a 'a cC w L -z ao > y a � � a u 'm cu d H ,a Q Q H 4] a Q rU bo 0 Q CV � t11 a w + a y O „ u •-� mar M 1 -Q G. .x Lr) c�C O vs p 'b bQ 0 `d a �` v N b a U 'd . �fu a ww u O a �`' >bo R, cz O ren W > w v a 0 d ,D b a; v 4. a 4 OH It rn O a b4 m H0 U cu f4' a LA .--i bA R3 r/]rz bO O (u a o a u -S cli O a o b "Q y v r . bO +H�+ ,�1_ oi5 tea?! p y 1 .-. v cu v � a� Q�bO [g x r/7 Q� u -1 F rr 0) t6ch L d ri > (!7 • • M S.J v a� 0 u N v cu U ad cv u �a u w P. ca U d ar �-I Q) O t� w 110 a� N Q ai r? ai U QJ O r.lM Qu u � bo U] o bN "y 7 . V N to to O Q L S� c4+ Q ' v] Q) U) - W ;� G ZCo U3 0 o 42 Q Q Q, JV w Q bO C1.'g w v D7 ca u ca F y 'd o•1�'•-++j -yi rjl IL" w cu 0 3-n .4.44 r.lM rn v 0 'SCS cl v NO 0 U a v v a� `0 bA > v a H r., CJ v o H d O � v H Q €�+ °J v v ° o w W v ro •F 'moi v PLO u � � O O a � k � v C14 P" °o 0 -d v � � v ate, b � � 6o �n. V [A v O y '4.4 O 1.4 o cs � J64 M 1-4 o w° o 9bO UO u U v GO U Qca �Q bb G mow. cc v cvn O O U V o, a v C mac' P. � � do cu itlll v C q v'> U o .a ai .aj bo R, o aj CUu OZ ai o t� r,v U0 H UW a v �4 b• j j v o a n bl) CU ti 0 a, 2S U tip D ;; w '- > o ct w � ' u+ a) v � cU U p j 0) C: 0 C CD ' d � (D-0 U � N N 0 U 0 E � Q (U • Q o w bD 1r o o 60 'o *� Tv Qcri 03 u c ay U m cn v a 10, a t u w tz o y � > a v 0 P Q 'd to v '4 t Q �+. H O o o o 45 �, vo Z u a� a v w v _Q ni ¢, cl 0 bo L], bo v boa, U U I — v 9J F r01 W� a �b CZ 1-4 v .� yas /Oy LO 0 -'j 0 Q cS � H ~ � � .li aj bo v cNa Ou cd b "� b v a R�+ 9bO UO u U v GO U Qca �Q bb G mow. cc v cvn O O U V o, a v C mac' P. � � do cu itlll v C q v'> U o .a ai .aj bo R, o aj CUu OZ ai o t� r,v U0 H UW a v �4 b• j j v o a n bl) CU ti 0 a, 2S U tip D ;; w '- > o ct w � ' u+ a) v � cU U p j 0) C: 0 C CD ' d � (D-0 U � N N 0 U 0 E � Q (U • • • E V) w >, � bo QJ ub o uo u o •^ u w m O N a u h 0 R1 u] a o . NO cti a-, ami � G to .:Uro � .4 > F (V u a u ct o o u a a 154 v o a> cz u a ) id <d ca W x alb oco as a UC13 ,w 3 � � a Q � 'a �> �+ 0 ad' R, . m '� d V a o (c° cz 0 a a aJ `' 0 c ani v Ul raCU PL, 4+ `r u a) b :V4 114 "1 � ���" yam+ © � • � ^~ U 1.4 U V] aJ 1.0 �as , r t -a W > a ai bD p - vi p o cv, ° > V u v 0) ai CC b > fl m U �. pL cu a) u .� r 03 a a � W,, C cu as b Q cz a) 3 �r o p thf, aJ 'L3 'E D o °' o > � 0 a > rn snyy �� U a 16. u� a� � o p aG, ,p o *CU C3b �° 0 0 En al ^� `� �b u7 p .0 ul ai� � H 0) r4alv al cz n `-' � cz � � (33 CC C65r+D� FFyy(15 aj pu a, a) NO o 14.j 113 r al O �"' +j ¢., O as p ani -caw o a > •4 U a� °, z� . ' as o � v cu cu "� a aiGi A CUEn .�� `- s� > rd1' O bO a N U WS % ;ep w ^d mj Li+ °; • We m IV, sl • a� ! bo u cc cu ca a4 p b+aci u to -Y4 ai !„ uaj u (SS L ci r� U a U cn U)bC�0!O •� a U iU (Ij .� o �u a aj u bz) cz o '" > rp- 4, A a b a cu bO bb bo (U a �+mp xw V) u OCU cc O � z b y bo sl • 9— En aiI w LO t3 Q • z (U �c CC (� Q bD � w w V � cu a v A O c> � W) W OJ Q) � O O Q Ul H 0 O L'r E- • • L-1 L t] CU � � O UUy U 1 H RS N QJ x cu QF u N w 0 p� 0 0 O AQ c1J '� ca H W b 0 0 cu 'C:; i 0 CU 0 Q V3 a v cd co CtiJ Uca oj 0 '�' � 0 0 cu PEI • • L-1 L �A a�w � � o �' 4141 ro 131 u u a ciicd o Ca o ai {° aa w H r u o a, 0 iv Ul v Q .C;O +� Uay ns � ,J 0 as O O O O O L1, S] O bl! .b v V] 41 4- � CO cn bA .Ca 41 l y f8 a1 �3 bo cu CJ En (11Gi (6 > ci d 04 q j tz En bo >, y cu cd 0) ' ++ r. ,, . [b 4 'L3 ami ,Q V' oa O 10 q.i b1 O O O O �A 9 0 u a mar � a �' "" � � 0 �• `b v <y oy .p a 0 co v b cu O cu ( aca "cu cu sr oCFJ aJ v 0 OL rn 04 P14 � v� 0> .8 p bob 0 p 2 0,c �� . O cp ..�� Q% v to ,fit bA W ., R N C'4p' CU ti o o 4-ju� P � w �+. Jr' w w _ En 0aGj cn 2. c1J �`•' '> 9J V w QJ a) fl 01 Qi •OBJ a 0 G7r ro R� to Q �nzco � -45 v CU I4 a a Qj '5 us p ani" v e3 O cd si p `C s 0-, ,,, �, 71 :CIu uo G a Q ca 0 cz V 'u as CU Ch P. = u u °' :Z4.24 c cu w ° '6b . s1. ba 0 0 '� 0 v,�'� v 93 p, 0 hyo u w H CS. a u�., o vs 0 ai � � m � y Cl)w a b �' , w a, cv cti cu u at p , ai • • 74 41v0 W f^ > > tj .5 Q a ° a u-� O a° o u > v u 8 iv O CL4 41aj w � � .� o ca .a fl O "' ami �, o cd" m O n5in.� cao *v' O U C, u V v D a cl u a O GJ u y v bb4 a c" Pa O O. ' O bu ca 3 w V a ., m ? (1) "s v O aoa��' 0 Cr r -u U 'CY O ;v bo rn O Vbit L) : av a > m .> R. ta U O � Pr ,R 14,0 s a 1.4 Cd A 0 O a bA cc [�h O �i v O O �.H -45 a o a w CA rA 0 a v 0 di uu .5 Q)o • • • a a a O a Q) m •d a ,.� a a >, •ti o a b ° > v ae v • Encu ani asul va O b > w tIz p ��' v OBJ 4 QJ w U)1�4}� O a z w O •IC$ c0� ,� DA V 7 P ✓ G1 p > � °' `cn aj I op o . CU (] 4' '� �.,� � .G n� U �s o2 o 0 co© w v G u (n O C c'. a� v 4 s r4 9 °r4 "Un '" a a� p , -K �, CU 0 " a . utl N 0 .�., � bo� > 10, 0IUJ a��v v cu p b4 , u ^[� R: (ti • 'CC3 u cu a"si cd ar pc] •` X" R+ a ami vs sv vo cn Cl) X .4 4cz L a U En 4 AEU a vs vSej a; w C a n cr p 0 v Gu r. a� 41 — O tC tt3 ' O td 03 •3 ami �" 04 a; v4, 0 i E� Q V) � � � 41 c rl ƒ § ƒ ( � J�� o V )72 o \ § 7 � � 0 �\ • § 2 ��� 0 � § (cu � � § / ■ � §` q ■ � � § � •- § a q Qj � 0 z ■ \� r� . o ( k § o § "� bk w U 0 a vUuy `d ami ani sn ;=Ibodo F r7' y R3 .2 0 y �y bd � W aJ 'C1 '.� bO . �* .N v C7 Q GG v 0 C>Cu F OW Ri O . H CL(U ,, C) v co CD v bt] ar as 1�4 � 0 r" n C14 Q , u c' O v. �• y 4.1 U� d C; o' U o rs ,-� ('5) w ' `IS 112 to au 0 ku,...., bo v bo S ao u 0> 0 CU 0 boo :3 7� Oci ` ~[ v G v O C14L bo ,.. b v ., , '+ cz Q) a t �� , •-� vs 60 ca y •[ C). a a °1 bO 0 GMJ a o 'd cu Cd EA CU ., d Q a a bo a : � u � 3 b o a, N CC ca v itis bbo a v v v a4 id 'd � g � � � � �b4 ( � x ( O <u as ai cu b4 to bjD CD > V aJ 4)r F (U a} tC 7 + 4 bo J bf) "' '� C~ v O d 'C1 b� °sem, cmc Ci d O vi ca d badco 0 cc -00 0 v • Owl u c %. bO b W d (a a O � � .� '[i � ►3 �.+ as to a 'C� • bD `� ' 4J L) as 0 t� a� 4 o 9 1 _ cv (Url o oof 1042 -cs v ca ' na o a, as r a w N C's 0 bo cd fl tz Qi cu 60 o �60 w 0 bo 21 W CL to 0 4j 0 r a cz >' R, 0 GJ boG tz .� � CL Q � O U Q 0 _ Cts SSV cc `+-+ a} cy �d m a d +� cz ti bAcabZw ca a -, v w B CZ CD bC M CU cu aj L m.'� � cc US 1 0 wCal 0 d1 4S Q 0 0 Q �y C6 o aA W °: b B y pi 0 t W 75 O iO 0 ~ u fi 'r Gblo i¢d, w cJ Cl) ca M0 � p ad � v 11 } c � Lr) ,A w Q m R 0 u l0 o Q �0 Q ° ° °' a ov o v M o o U biob > %�, -C�. ro o a4 ed 74G m u as D 19s, to v� co O v i.18 o a a u'C X m b bo cu 0 W ba u p a C1 W G u0 eC tz C cu cu G v o' W.. v C7 -zl '" a. a a 1-4 P-4 f' j s CSf r -r KV C+7 V {]moi cu x a P" • • J • • tv 6 PO A. 4 bc� xj a, a r" ca o � � w � m al v bj 0 O Ul) En aj v O bG crs Ow > O o rj a a w �9J a > O � N d R. u G a aj a :: D u to 4ca `O ani bo M E±2 > o ,z3 o trf O d 14. ,x7 N a �. > u ro G ++ u OPL. cu a CLI aj O t� �s N U], O :j r, E-4 ^� "Cl a vi O � bo So D C. U O O bOQj Jam.+ qj �F d Q.y U aF j tY +, w a .Od c ¢�"d o 5 "o �, , O m o bD C3.+ fl O d * v .5 O u 'LZ „i a 'C3 -� j 0 cn � r y CIS D -- O 0 Li? Q m 4J F tA tT . "� o 0 4 u w +J rr1 to . Di cd cubA 79 bl) _O c� va C14 aj w ,-+ Cv vi LO o , do sq U tp � � 41 [d ral O c, > °. ocu -� cu w u. Oo N co �• u CU o v 0 IOU °04 OJ p �+ o CA W 4 P, m a, > Q � G1 >.cos, .M o �'-� R9 aj Q'°o°' CO Po �'. 4',c co (u w 'g a�"u b °' o o =. 0 Q r 0 pi ca Q) U Lo wW Q cu o a y u u U �s p C4 40 rn �a u a a LO 9, ff Q °J tri cu GA o x U bA cu -10 ° u LZ o W as v QJ O rA J 0 +a 4q o ni as w a v ° o QJ c o u 14 •� � � ani tn > v C) Ui F-4 O Q P-1 L a A c"a • • o U tp � � 41 [d a O (Z 0 > Oo N co o �s y � o v 0 IOU °04 OJ CA CA `N Nom+ "Cj u v G1 v aj Q'°o°' 0 0 r -L.' , ccs o" c "Cl a r+ a a �. v , p. r. =. 0 Q oj0. tea, O > cu o a y u u U b .:2 p C4 40 ¢' 0 a o p 0 a a ° 3P-" U M 9, ff Q °J tri cu GA o x U bA cu -10 ° u LZ o W as v QJ O rA J 0 +a 4q o ni as w a v ° o QJ c o u 14 •� � � ani tn > v C) Ui F-4 O Q P-1 L a A c"a • • P, In O lu ajnja� ' O v vs 'up, �i Q �p O y V a v u W Clai goy �-, bo Q" D 'd P as7 Oo 0 (A ,9 a � U0 © j Cod Q GGGy v� 'x �' � a u' v W 0 m C:L4cu f -Z. x � lul -cs 00 cu 4 x,�' a a. 745 .lCLJ Qt 4 b a)a �' C a id 0CA U) C) cc ,x °u u IOU a ,Q x o � O, 3 ri V5 N f� ca'n CD C>LO o ti w En Ln��y y W u qt O s-. tv t3 � Q� a a t o pa Qj.a p' OO Q U '[j O - IV cu .0O � © o 7 er�rr� Qom] N V a� ria ' v a. o 0 4-1 Q1 Fy Q) 42aj ;3 Cit IR Fir u i b8 b0 CO .a 7-+ . H Op 61 u Et�j TU S4' ��,n�J p 4f� CD (U aj � Q x ;� � MO �z Q x� bo 1 a ai P -i rr C-4 cr) u P, In O lu ajnja� ' O v vs 'up, �i Q �p O y V a v u W Clai goy �-, bo Q" D 'd P as7 Oo 0 (A ,9 a � U0 © j Cod Q GGGy v� 'x �' � a u' v W 0 m C:L4cu f -Z. x � lul -cs 00 cu 4 x,�' a a. 745 .lCLJ Qt 4 b a)a �' C a id 0CA U) C) cc ,x °u u IOU a ,Q x o � O, 3 ri a b on A � ©'r, 4-i0 F V Qj ca pr ca y ° a 7sCZ as a�a p rn a �i a , T -q p 'cu .�.� a � v,d Qj a p ,a ::fa °v o as yM s F � a 03�q�,r rN o •.� a F s ¢r ttS o �bA � a Cu ai Qp s bo 0 o O60 V G p Dx NU) �" • bj '0 •ba � Q on Q a (U u m �•� �•�� map cu CO E/3 b4 F sC 0 a w "1 'O p y nj j m © ca a �y U t6 .� v1 1Zr' a O O a a a a *r O40 ca p tan 'bO 'M cn Q+ a "Cl NO 40.9 �r ,0 r cz X W . Y-4 ad p a 9 N O� p T, © a = o v P, uQj po u m ch C14 O �P, P. vis a C -i cd l] • • • F 9 u x cucz ul 114 CD C? '` o b a cabO lJ cz m 0 0 r131 u a 0 O a O n' p `0 Q ° o ss -G Qj a o C4 t-. Q m �j qr cn u ""' bb ;:S a v cr p Q, a can a ar Pr o; "[x P V) U 'L7 N • • • p C� �° 4 0 to ,b � a o 4 N .n o -d 0 to � u a G" bb > • � V O G a 0 4 ' �A ani a to u m tri G 410 UW to to o O in. } p En i o o t— 0 di �-m o to .a t� bO cd a ti h O W is I o 70 y a 10 $ 0 cu A ani Q (� q Q u � Itt +' 41 C Q� 4OJi � o + V U CO i tri N O 00'75 �J via GJ w Cd --� t—I X G O 411 u r 4 0 u G P" -b y ani cin ON V �, u �" 'Z 0 to [o Gi F, Clv lu r4 P-4 tv° a ow!"¢` .�' U'j� as vi •�-, ttt �i � u'1 -c�y b ' 41 Iz G C- i V+ ori lf� t: oo W w ss; s tz cis ca aH.s d 0 v 0 4-1 V �R U a O 41 u u v 2 u 4.r cu 41 .0 v 0 O O .v u 0 0-4 r� a 0 ,� n o © o ca 0 4 u aj C" u q,� � v en o 0 U a N v o cu 3 0 C! F-4 o 14.4 H aj U�IbO rn w py 61 4.7 O Gti 0 > p v 00 ~ a `� p 3 sn O as � v �' •.G' a Opa to + o ti tl �, 'd b0 v 1�4o H ' p p w bA p uCUb H aa) �, o o 41 bA y v .w� b0 CU V W M W w a) v v 3 Cd C) �w � ro � v o W a a� m au z � v v a w d 0-4 r� • • • —d d4 Lfi I" a bO .r, q U CN R a M .� C4 w° �P-1 U� cz w E�uinw 0 a> lu0 A � , a o W N rd 2 + MitcaO V .� W VOy a 'co,c 'b p O M a E a 0 10 1-4 [Li w > u° 0 u bo'� 71 °' IV boa) bJD 1�4^� aFi u 4 O [1, 'b + U N p G w FQ cu ,, U u7 v v— :` ,, v (V _N Pt U Qj N V O QJ v gcwn ' IV O PQ u v .2 co ,04-1 'd F ++ ry 4v U uj Q y+Li~Sc33 qy d�1 m vvi a fix, U �. t3, aj c w (U 4J r 'Cj CT' .� v4-1 cdbSIV0 T-1 }- U L'Fi J 4 ern ;IbO W R, a a C �-0 +U w i W r -i N r_'- LO v O v c) o v V x v U I., . �o � o v v c', v O O U y O F ,a w u U ca cl W I 10 • • • u © �4 O y ti a Rl 4-; a± W n U p u p o .4 o d 4i a� u ca 'd ai � C m Cu O a O R. c O p ar a' aj u 0 a . a,r O firr, ,1C rl aj7 QJ as ca ti ?( 9 i C; o a r;, o o o W a cn ; a Ti a; � � a o can �a aj > .� -(�-$j rte+ (IJ Q � rayl .ai J-+ a) }moi va v u 0 a U aP. r a rr1 � air ° G n o O P, G a U � O , rue '� a �a�, v © o v F >, w u o u cyd a� cn p p ¢ o z u u rala u �; i CO CU ca a w u a ` ca .Q . a C o o v U34. o wo as as o m 0+. v 'w au u o '" a dJ v� td 4 0 t� Q o v�. rr � S+ } C13 GJ aj 41 v u ,a °J u cn 'T� c•, U , + cc cz c� v c F. Qi 4 u '� 40 m cn 'CSci WCM0 o� •a olj V3 1 aui F" ULt •` O p w V '[1 °� 'CS 4r 'L3 v C? --� aCU ni co �' vv-, v 'd q u' 04 (LI �} U) U N V Q ' u a O c c Oyu] 5" �' t�f u �v+� , cU Q ! �+ y .sem v 0 o fl Q� i3 .,' •7 fi3 i 0 � •� IU � �4J it W 'n E Ci A b �, © 01 Ql 41 a o LJ 'd 'Q ��. O .p ta0 Q b Oca ,r•W/ v gyp! Q� '+rJ P-� � `�''.-"7 '� �--� U H ;4.. u I r± ,bo � P-4 Q , 164 •d V CA pG p v • • • • • • �+ 'Q c v {0 7f>y �i � �c?�y :� 9 © � ccS •� C!1 E-+ {�.� WI .eY F•Y, t� F-1 cn U -a rn a; 04 u '*A a n Rn N N a D a a = , v p maj O a v u ca V Qj Ln C13 -t .a a (u a ' N p a Ra o a (3; v ° o 'no u cn — bas o r '-14, u cc a a ba o ru TJ bbru (1) b 0 • • (Q��'+ 10 ca Sao dCV.©-�„a cu Ink Zs a fl v h[1 a cn R ,a c••,� u r-, �, O ° z ccs v7 QJ � a; U P, � a a o a 3 alaj �'A a o CU � �n�> bbo u° m R.CD ti u v u a (U O O u v, m O Z y ° a3l rn .� u r y0 C -L4 bo bio 0 a L7 D ?rUy p "• ql �r y� bjy al 911 IZ4 C Li x a G `a o a`nj a t" rp p 4--b.0 ° ° ° wo P4 0 0 u CA AAb 1. IN I I cq c� a i 0 a a a Cil v o� 0 ars b ,q •d G •� a CU R" W 0 Z U cC }" u � c�a P-4 b sv F c� a cts10 w �. cn U xC }, tri 4 z OJ 4; o71 Li W © ... th s� as °�� o a4'2 uo> - d ba a+Q,U o bo Q P -4c ''n `4 a" O 'd pi a �+ O O a c> u H M 12 u CL. bb 01 cu Q)as u o 5 " cCf a by m '� q ca (V "b bO G c� j cu +� O (u 4ci v pop u° a u ba P, °} a u o o ' v to o o cu R o ,. bb Q" Cti " rM� 4ob10 ova aj 0 � ; w as rn to q vi y N r. ba Gi ani (v2 ,, G o b0 0 �° q .5 & y 'ndwb �,s,'° foa o b° °bo Q ci � V ° o o pp I a v V o M o ca0 bo + �" o �, �. �, 1 co .2 o , � v LO W O" . E� ° ca, VE en G cin b °-4 . cd u d a > "• a o �' ° s v b C14 W n M© Q43 wul , cu C?, tS � Q LV u �^+ U a a "� a° o n w o .� u " + .a P, Q) p G R, O H v U X aai Q a cu QJ o a � p R. a b U a .� aw, „� cz a r y `r ram+.9 w -v a � c4 a .� i, m a u p, u O a m a(IJ P, v a o C] pi "� � d p bA' U} a CEIar A a ua O. a �� Et U w 01 CU (u O v CD 0 V) `�' a o wry . C 1 Eli� ca cu 0 w _ ceS U a v P', ch � 41b0 i�d � O pp a t� �i Irl vv T� p ® ya, ,b O p, L lb7 o 'Cl °J "CGl E va v a J ,t u O a � 4 P S G [� � u � � �� � � � � � 0 � fl c� rbiA U U '� p O ++ U CL, 4- :� :� CA 1�4 U �+ a s 3 a Ly w a O O m Gcu �O a7 'aa " m �' a ,� parr o cv 11 4 sy �, • • • • • O A •� u v a a `z 2 O v tG O R. o o � b �'0 w o o o a u cu CU 0 Ju a> a �.o� o u 00 .-> o" � o ur. v ave • ' !2;l c� i 1.1 O 0 V 4 H 4J c - O � HO CUCU O O o :a V LO 4S '� yo W 75 p, ca a .4.� o of O o a o �, 0 CZ 04 4 .0 �'�, b u a, 0 ;-4 u O o CR •r, =� m w °aa 41 c° 0 -� p, O b o a 110 N � V 'ii tU • 0 U 0 Q, 3 O a pfl cu Fly as o O w N OCil � rx, ° o 0`tj cu t0a~ X, > �0 a H bOboC) a P,4 40, o v aj O za, 14" ra4 ca o Q o 0 W"> .—r w r o '�bO .° y o cua v y u b � o R. R# P .A aj G v a) v v > 13JC U ¢, to a> o� w 'to v 0 0 bcu cu y o O i 'L 1. � 7- O- H c Q 0 O � v aui t 0 r -L. H a oo s a 0 c O o, cncu (11a (" Co r-4 cd d �o �a 0) "b " O ani Tj r-4 h O A •� u v a a `z 2 O v tG O R. o o � b �'0 w o o o a u cu CU 0 Ju a> a �.o� o u 00 .-> o" � o ur. v ave • ' !2;l c� i 1.1 O 0 V 4 H 4J c - O � HO CUCU O O o :a V LO 4S '� yo W 75 p, ca a .4.� o of O o a o �, 0 CZ 04 4 .0 �'�, b u a, 0 ;-4 u O o CR •r, =� m w °aa 41 c° 0 -� p, O b o a 110 N � V 'ii tU • 0 ►j L A 9 o bjO a, o a Cl w � aj aj v CU (3) (n ci 0 (U G 14 v v o. y '� U !~i ai v U W Q) ani a a � v 'o v CA CL) m � v 0 0 o ai �. v ra.'.a o FCU d1 CA m .a)OJJ O u ..•, y v W OU _ 'y 'O � v r-4 (31 al 4J LO IW d0 cn ►j L A 9 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 PUBLIC MEETING Monday, August 25, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION J - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : Vail Memorial Park-Katsos Ranch Vail's Front Door Driver: Bill MEMBERS ABSENT 11(*1))3 NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6: 30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a final review of 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 Vaii'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 2. A request for a final review of a subdivision of the Katsos Ranch property (unplatted), pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code; a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-813-3: Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a cemetery; and a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of the property from Natural Area Preservation District to Outdoor Recreation District, located on an unplatted parcel of land located in the southeast quarter of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6,h Principal Meridian, and setting forth details in regards thereto. (A complete metes and bounds description is on file at the Community Development Department). Applicant: Vail Memorial Park, represented by Mery Lapin Planner: Russell Forrest is TO WIN, OF MIL • 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 14, Section 10, development Standards 'Handbook, Chapter 8, Architectural Design Guidelines, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, and Vail Village Design Considerations, Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, to allow for the use of temporary enclosures of outdoor dining decks, and setting for details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett 4. A request for a request for a variance from Section 12-713-15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for awnings over existing second floor deck, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 8,2003 5. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an outdoor dining deck, in accordance with Section 12-713-4B, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 8,2003 6. Approval of July 25 and August 11, 2003 meeting minutes 7. Information Update • Lionshead Building Height Ordinance 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 August 22, 2003 in the Vail Daily. THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Code on is September 8, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a variance from Section 12-14-17, Setback from Watercourse, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition in the Gore Creek setback, located at 4444 Streamside Circle 1 Lot 11, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Thomas O'Dorisio, represented by John Perkins. Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed amendment to the FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN - An Amendment to the Gerald R. Ford/Donovan Park MasterPlan, to allow for the construction of a public parking facility and structure, a request for a variance from Title 14, Chapter 5, Parking Lot and Parking Structure Design Standards for All Uses, to allow for a deviation from the minimum landscape area requirement and to construct an unpaved, gravel parking surface, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a public parking facility and structure atop the athletic fields at the Gerald R. Ford Park, located at 580 South Frontage Road East/Ford Park Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-10, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new primary/secondary residence, located at 2319 Chamonix Rd. I Lot 9, Block A, Vail Das Schone Filing 1. Applicant: Brian Reske Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a variance from Section 12-60-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the modification and enlargement of an existing deck, located at 3120 Booth Falls Court/Lot 7, Block 2, Vail Village 12m Filing. Applicant: Halide Gazioglu, represented by Sheppard Resources Planner: Matt Gennett A request for review of a minor subdivision, which resubdivides part of Lots L and K, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing, to create Lots 1 and 2, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing, resulting in the Sonnenalp and Swiss Chalet on separate parcels. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell The applications and information about these proposals are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department office, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation held in the Town of Vail Community Development Department office and the site visits that precede the public hearing. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for additional information. 0 This notice published in the Vail Daily on August 22, 2003. *VAIL TOWN O