Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0825 PEC• PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO S. COUNTY OF EAGLE 0534 I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail Daily, that the same daily newspa- per printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amend- ments thereof, and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of ........tr........ consecutty insertions; andthatthe first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated .. e .............. A.D. %....... and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated .• .,... A.D...... .r........... In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this ........... day of ..... Publisher Subscribed and l/sworn to before a notary publ�ind tar the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this ............./.f.......... day of ............... . ...� , My Commission expires... C] L.. ........ . Notary Public THIS rrEM MAY AFFECTYOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Enmronmental 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 25, 2003, at2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a final review of a subdivision of the Katsos Ranch property (un� atted), pursuant to TI, tle 13, Subdivision Reoulattons. Vail Town Code: a recorn- vation District to Outdoor Recreation District local - ed on an unplafted parcel of land located in the southeast carter of Section 2, Township 5 South Range 80 Wast of the 8th Princigal Meridian, ani setting forth details in regards thareto. (A com- gre metes and bounds description In on Ile at the Cmmunity Development Deparlmeno. Aplicanl: Vail Memorial Park, represented. by Mery Lapin Planner: Russell Forrest A request for a variance from Section 12.78-15, Site Coverage. Vail Town Code, to allow for awn- ings over existing second floor deck, totaled at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Veil Village 1st Filing. Applicant Remonov & Company, represented by Knight Planning Services Planner: Matt Gannett A request for a recommendation to the Veil Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 14, Section 10, Development Standards Handbook, Chapter B, Architectural Deist gn Guidelines, Lions - head Redevelopment Master Alan, and Vail Village Design Considerations, Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, to allow for the use of temporary en- closures of outdoor dining decks, and setting for details in regard thereto- Apppplicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett The applications and information about these pro- posals are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town of Vail Com- munity Developrnent Department office, 75 South Frontage Road The public is invited to attend the project orientation held in the Town of Vail Com- munity DevelopmentDepartment office and the site visits that precede the public clearing. Please call (970f 479-2138 for additional Information. Sign let >guage interpretation is available upon re - Vest wigr 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for additional Information. This notice published in the Vaii Daily on August B, 2003. 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 25, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: 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 12-8B-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 6th 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 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 15t Filing. Applicant; Remonov & Company, represented by Knight Planning Services Planner: Matt Gennett 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 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 August 8, 2003. 1 TO#Wi O*VAIL L� 0548 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail Daily, that the same daily newspa- per printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement;. that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amend- ments thereof, and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of ,.......,/......... consecutiv insertions; that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated ..... ........ A.D...{.... and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated .. 6.?R A.D......... C ..(...5 ............. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this ....lc;77 day of ..... ...... ............................ Publisher r Subscribed and sworn to before e, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this .....,.:e` . ... day of . k Notary Public My Commission expires .......... .........'.,.a llil. • COMMISSfON PUBLIC MEETING Monday, August 25, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION J - Community Develop- ment Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT- MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : Vail Memorial Park-Katsos Ranch Vail's Front Door Driver. Boll NOTE: 1t the PEC hearing extends until 5:00 p.m., the (ward may break for dinner from 6 00 -8'30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chamber 2:00 pm 1 . A request for a ureal review of an exte- rior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-78-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Come, 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, pur- suant to Chapter 17, Variances.Zoning Regula- tions, to allow for the construction of muRuple-family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 40°/ : and a request for the establishment of an approved de- velopment plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door. and setting forth details m regard thereto. (A more complete metes and bounds fe- gat descriptlon is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant'. Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Pe- terson Planner: George Ruther 2. A request for a final review of a sutmi- vision of the Katsos Ranch property (unpiatted), ppu�rsuant to Trite 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail T0, Code; a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-88-3: Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a cemetery, and afinal 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 8th Principal Meridian, and setting forth details in re- gards thereto. (A complete metes and bounds de- scription is on file at the Community Development Department). AAp Vail Memorial Park, represented by Mery Lapin Planner: Russell Forest 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text emend - mantis to Title 14, Section 10. Development Stand- ards Handbook, Chapter 8, Architectural Design Guidelines, LJonshead Redevelopment Master Plfn, am Mat vgw Desitin Cor�iol VM Village urban DeWi5p Gukllo Plat, Ito allow for the use of temporary enclosures of outdoor dining decks. and setting for details in regard thereto Applicant: Town of Vail Planner, Matt C#gnnelt 4. A r t for a request for a variance from Section 12 i'S, 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 1st Filing, Applicant Town of Vail Planner. Malt Gannett TABLED To SEPTEMBER 8,2003 5- A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an outdoor diningdeck, in accordance with Section 12-713-413, Cnditional Uses. Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2. Vail Vil- lage 1st Filing. Applicant. Remonov & Company. Inc.. repre- senled by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner Bill Gibson TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 8,2003 r� 0 • C7 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, August 25, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : Vail Memorial Park-Katsos Ranch Vail's Front Door Driver: Matt MEMBERS ABSENT �o NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a final review of an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-78-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for a variance from Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to allow for the construction of multiple -family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther 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 6th 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 *VA11, Tour 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 12-78-15, 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 12-78-46, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 6. Approval of July 28, 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, 20103 in the Vail Daily. 0 0 A* PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 PUBLIC MEETING Monday, August 25, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Doug Cahill Gary Hartmann George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Site Visits: Vail Memorial Park-Katsos Ranch Vail's Front Door Driver: Matt MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6: 30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a final review of an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-78-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for a variance from Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to allow for the construction of multiple -family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 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 *VAIL TOWNV O 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 6h 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 TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 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 MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Erickson Shirley VOTE: 3-2 (Schofield & Cahill opposed) RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL 4. A request for a request for a variance from Section 12-7B-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 1" Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, 6. Approval of July 28, and August 11, 2003 meeting minutes APPROVED 6-0 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. • 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 PUBLIC MEETING Monday, August 25, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:40 pm MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Doug Cahill Rollie Kjesbo Erickson Shirley Gary Hartmann George Lamb Site Visits : Vail Memorial Park-Katsos Ranch Vail's Front Door Driver: Matt MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt z(1 a NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6: 30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a final review of an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for a variance from Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to allow for the construction of multiple -family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther John Schofield began with the thought that at least one more worksession would be needed prior to proceeding with a final vote. George Ruther introduced the project according to the memorandum, commenting that changes had been made since the previous meeting. He mentioned that any interested persons should visit the site soon, since it was currently staked and the staking would likely be removed soon. TOWNV OF PAIL Jay Peterson, from Vail Resorts, stated that the purpose of the meeting was to focus on the Skier Services Building. Tom Braun, of Braun Associates, mentioned that concerns had been voiced about the Skier Services building. The last month had been spent re -designing the building, he said. The functions of the building remained the same, though the storage functions had been designated to below -ground space. The building was now 15,000 square feet, down about 4,000 square feet from previous meetings. A roof had been put on the building and the building had been "broken up" in order to interrupt the straight faces of the structure. A clock tower element had been introduced to act as a "landmark feature", per the Design Review Board's suggestion. View corridors had been addressed and the building was outside any designated corridors. John Schofield asked how the tunnel would function during different seasons. Tom answered that a seasonal -railing would be installed (during the summer) and that during the winter, the railings would be removed and a deck -type use would remain. He proceeded to pass out mock postcards illustrating the attractiveness of the proposed building. John Schofield mentioned to the audience that, though the concentration of the meeting would be on the Skier Services Building, questions and comments regarding other aspects of the building would be addressed. He also clarified that the architectural elements of the project were under the purview of the DRB more than the PEC. George Ruther passed out additional materials relative to the memorandum. Ron Byrne, a neighbor on Forest Road, mentioned his positive outlook on the project. He said that the development should take into account all the neighbors for a number of years into the future. He thought it was important to consider how the building was going to function. Previously, the building had been conceived in order to please the neighbors. However, he said, the building's function was far more important than the neighbor's input. He was in favor of a larger building, in spite of knowing that constraints of size, density, and other aspects existed_ He was also glad to see that the building's architectural aspects were being addressed. The PEC should not review the project too quickly and should be allowing of increased size, mass, and site uses in order for a great project to occur. Arthur Cox, of Bridge Street Lodge Condominium Association, said that in general, he was in support of the project. However, he was interested in knowing what uses the Skier Services Building was going to house, especially during the summer. He stressed that whatever uses would exist there should be quiet and discreet. John Schofield asked that Tom Braun and George Ruther elaborate on the uses and Mr. Cox's questions. Tom Braun said that a variety of uses would exist in the Building, primarily ski school and ski patrol. Below the south end of the Building, hotel and ski storage would exist. 41 John Schofield mentioned that it could be assumed that little summer usage would result from the storage aspects. Tom Braun continued to comment on the usage of the Great Room and the rest of the building. George Ruther read that the Master Plan had assigned a land use category of Ski Base g Recreation to the area in question. The range of uses included a number of different things that were related to skiing, dining, and recreation. He continued to say that in the Ski Base II zone district, similar uses were allowed, with the addition of single or multi- family residential units and even public accommodation uses. Other uses, after approval, could include EHU's, brew pubs, and other uses that the PEC could determine to be related. He mentioned that within this zone district, a development plan would be required. Arthur Cox returned to the podium to ask if the restaurants allowed in the zone would be allowed to serve alcohol during late hours, etc. John Schofield said that if the plan were approved today, the only eating establishment allowed would be the coffee shop inside the building. At a later date, that could be amended via a hearing process from an applicant. Arthur Cox said that general noise was the biggest problem in his mind.. Erickson Shirley stated that this location was viewed in a different light due to the "compelling public interest" behind the plan. He seconded Mr. Cox's concerns about noise and use changes within the building. Arthur Cox expressed further interest that the owners of property in the Village be respected regarding noise level and usage. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners, asked a question about outdoor dining decks and patios. George Ruther said that per previous meetings, outdoor dining decks and patios became conditional uses. Tom Boni, Wells Team, expressed gratitude that continued discourse between the PEC, Vail Resorts, and the homeowners had been encouraged. He commented on the traffic study, mentioning that concerns had arisen that this location would end up as the only location for loading and delivery in the Village. He was interested in seeing what areas of Town were going to be serviced by which delivery locations. Mr. Boni was confused about where the hand truck traffic would be concentrated and how/how often it would be routed through the Village. Concern was expressed over the portal location, commenting that the northwest corner was not the most suitable. He felt it should be in a location that was more "balanced", say in the eastern sides of one of the wings of the building: he proceeded to pass out copies of the aforementioned portal placement. George Ruther left the room to photocopy the handout for the public. Tom Boni continued, stating the "movement" of the building's design was positive and appropriate. He mentioned that the size of the building was always going to be the biggest issue and wanted to make sure that the size of the retail space be critically reviewed for importance. Mr. Boni also expressed interest in seeing the overall design prior to approval by the PEC. John Schofield asked if surface access to One Vail Place should be subterranean, so that the view corridors could remain. Doug Cahill asked about the size of the building. Tom Braun said that overall, the size had shrunk. Lynne Fritzlen asked if the Vail Resorts could share the rationale for the program of the Skier Services Building, She said that the drive aisle area was the area under question. Tom Braun said that the justification for retail space was due to the placement at a prominent place on the mountain. He said that the comparison between Golden Peak and its visitors justified a far larger building at the Village base. Erickson Shirley said that that comparison was not fair due to the number of retail spaces in existence at the base of the Vista Bahn. Jay Peterson said that the drive aisle would not change. He commented that everyone had seemed previously comfortable with the footprint of the plaza. The amount of square footage was by default and that the location must work as a ski yard, first and foremost, and must work for summer use as well_ He mentioned that retail was necessary from a skier services standpoint. Andy Littman, Wells Team, stated that because this is the premiere spot in the Town of Vail, this location must be planned correctly. He mentioned that everyone who would like to be involved in the project should have ownership in the final product. Therefore, Sthe merchants, neighbors, and Vail Resorts should all have their needs met. Regarding transportation, would conditions exist that regulated use until other transportation options existed? The plans must be thought out thoroughly before approval and the applicant should convene with the stakeholders to gain perspective. Steve Riden, representing the Smeads and Dreschers, was critical of the design originally but felt that Vail Resorts had responded quite well to his and others' concerns. He mentioned concerns about the corridor near One Vail Place. He asked for some sort of a proposal that might alleviate some of the crime issues that accompanied that corridor. The structure should be significant, he said, but should not necessarily be large. Erickson Shirley asked about what the crime issues were, Steve Riden said that public urination and drug use occurred there occasionally. He expressed that perhaps lighting or some other form of crime mitigation be placed in that area. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners, explained that the large band-aid on his forehead was due to a construction accident that ended up requiring seven stitches and resulted in much questioning. He proceeded to ask about loading and delivery specifics. George Ruther responded that many draft reports were submitted to the business owners, who were primarily concerned with financial issues. They felt that if the loading and delivery facility would alleviate congestion on the streets, then it was a worthwhile is facility. The business owners felt that the personal costs of the facility should be kept to a minimum. The circulation and flow of the hand trucks was important to them as well. A centralized facility that would be available from lam to bpm would be helpful to the truck drivers, especially regarding scheduling needs. John Schofield mentioned that Jim Lamont could probably answer some of Andy Littman's questions regarding loading delivery aspects. Jay Peterson mentioned that the business owners thought that putting some of the trucks underground was a distinct benefit for the Village. Doug Cahill asked if the management plan brought into consideration other areas in the Village. John Schofield didn't think that other areas should be considered seriously at that point. Traffic flow was important though. George Ruther mentioned that the merchants would be the beneficiaries of the loading and delivery facilities. However, residents, guests, and member of the community would also benefit from this facility. John Schofield agreed that the benefits were far -reaching - Jim Lamont continued, commenting that the steetscape plan seemed closer to be finished than previously. He wondered whether or not the "Wells Team" was pleased with the direction in which the project was headed. Regarding traffic, additional intersection information was needed, especially a management plan. He reiterated that the project "cannot afford to fail", greatly heartened that all persons involved in the project were able to communicate. John Schofield asked Jim if his primary interest was in the details. Jim Lamont commented, to Ron Byrne, that special events had already been addressed by the special events coordinator. John Schofield called a five minute break and then asked for the Commissioners' comments. Gary Hartmann stated that he still thought there was a "disconnect" on Siebert Circle. As far as increasing the size of the building, he thought the footprint was as big as it could be while leaving room for other activities in the ski yard. The concept of having so many amenities on one floor was good, he said. He asked how many skiers were going to be attracted to this portal from the other portals on the mountain and would there be adequate skier amenities? Doug Cahill was impressed with the redesign_ The view from the hill was better due to the roof design. The Great Room was a fantastic idea, he said, provided its use as such remains the same. Regarding the view corridor, the elevations are hard to imagine, considering existing conditions. He questioned summer usage. Jay Peterson said that Vail Resorts had spoken with special events coordinators regarding summer usage and electrical wiring was proposed to allow for evening functions, etc. He stated that the number of events handled in the area was under the purview of the Town and the Special Events Commission. Doug Cahill suggested that Vail Resorts meet again with its stakeholders. Jay Peterson said that many such meetings had already taken place, and perhaps been too prominent in the location's design and program. Doug Cahill mentioned that the back alley should be lit. Rollie Kjesbo expressed gratitude at the integration of the Great Room for Vail's skiers. He thought that the restroom space was not going to be adequate_ The view corridors weren't going to be affected that much, he said. Vail Resorts' address of the parking issue was appropriate, he said. He then asked George if amplified sound was something that would have to be applied for. George Ruther answered in the positive, that amplification would be regulated by the Town. George Lamb had no issue with the 40% slope and was surprised, after seeing the sight, at how low the building would sit into the hill. The Skier Services Building was appropriate due to its articulation, He hoped that no aspect was compromised in the redesign of the building and suggested that lighting be added to the alley to provide for safety. He mentioned that the concerns about trucks and hand carts were perhaps exaggerated- The Town should identify what other delivery and loading locations would exist after the proposed development was built. Regarding Golden Peak, he mentioned that the traffic on Vail Valley Drive was currently horrendous on ski mornings and suggested that collaboration perhaps be made to avoid similar traffic near this area, once it is built. Erickson Shirley asked Tom Braun several questions about the stairs and the view corridor for Pepi's face. He mentioned that the clock tower could be shrunk, therefore maintaining the view from Pepi's face. He thought that certain areas should be used for skier relaxation because, currently, no place existed for skiers to just relax (excepting Los Amigos). He agreed that amplified sound should be kept from the exteriors of buildings. The size of the building was good considering its location. He asked if the streets needed to be heated in order to be accessible to hand carts. Jay Peterson stated that the Town was responsible for keeping the streets clear. Erickson Shirley said that the street heating plan was currently not funded and therefore, possibly problematic. Regarding loading, he asked to hear specifics and appreciated the specific request to move the hand cart outlet, though he did not agree. He also asked why the bathrooms were currently locked — (vandalism). Jay Peterson stated that during the winter, Vail Resorts should maintain the restrooms, but during the other seven months, Vail Resorts was basically inactive and should not be held responsible for keeping the restrooms active. Erickson Shirley stated that more restrooms should exist and pursued the topic of a relaxing eating and drinking place. He asked if the uses allowed this area were more limited than most areas in town, If further expansion occurred, he mentioned that significant public interests would need to be served as a result. John Schofield said that the areas of the building that related to sense -of -entry and location were the most important. He thought the clock tower should be oriented to those coming to the ski yard, though that could affect view corridors. The height of the clock tower would also be an issue. He asked for a section of the building through One Vail Place and the Skier Services Building. The police department should be consulted regarding crime issues and the solution thereof. In terms of delivery, a plan should be devised that shows how other areas of the Village will be served from a loading and delivery standpoint. The final traffic plan should be included in the final plan as should a synopsis of the business community's opinions regarding loading and delivery. Codified view corridors that would potentially be impacted from the plan would need to be submitted as well. What off-site parking mitigation would be required? The actual size of the ski yard needed to be verified as well. George Ruther stated that the applicant was currently addressing the Town's concerns. Jim Lamont stated that some homeowners felt inadequately informed of the project and its progress. John Schofield stated that the purpose of one more worksession was to allow for the general public's comment on near -final information at the final hearing. He stated that PEC final approval would be followed with a number of different, complicated processes. George Ruther stated that notification had been sent to adjacent property owners. Information was available online and some information (albeit skewed) was published in the paper. He also said that all the information was available in his office for public information. Lynne Fritzlen asked if a set of complete drawings could be obtained four weeks prior to the final meeting. Jay Peterson commented that a set of plans could be obtained that day. Andy Littman stated that a meeting with Vail Resorts would be welcome prior to the final meeting date. The traffic issues had not been addressed, he said. Erickson Shirley said that the approval was not going to happen next week and that there was still time and opportunity to provide comments on the project. Tom Braun commented that the list of concerns had diminished considerably. He promised the traffic circulation diagram, the cross-section, and the other requested items, hoping that the PEC would be ready for a final vote then. Doug Cahill suggested re -directing the bike path so that it would not interfere with the uses on the deck. Erickson Shirley asked for a study illustrating the traffic impacts on Vail Valley Drive. George Ruther responded that some traffic counts could be obtained from the Town. Erickson Shirley wanted to make sure that "the other side of town" was not being unfairly burdened. Motion: Doug Cahill do Second: George Lamb Vote: 6-0-0: Tabled until September 8, 2003 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 12-8B-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 6t' 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 Russell Forrest introduced the project according to the memorandum, clarifying that this session would remain as a worksession. Sherri Dorwood, the landscape architect for the project, introduced the various members of the task force for the Park. The goal, she said, was to allow the site to remain as natural as possible. The stones would blend in with the existing natural environment, she added, and further elaborated on the details of the project and its history. Services and ceremonies would not be encouraged on the site but in the chapel. Russell Forrest clarified the times and size of average services associated with this type of use. He also stated that the other issue that had been discussed was the placement of flowers and similar memorial tokens around the stones. Mery Lapin said that from an operational standpoint, it will be a 501(C)3 nonprofit corporation. He also clarified the qualifications for being admitted into the park and the tentative pricing schedule for a space. John Schofield asked what a person would get for that price. Mery Lapin gave a description of the sandblasted stone inscriptions that would be provided. Sherri Dorwood stated that inscriptions other than sandblasting could be done. John Schofield asked for public comment. Beverly Trout asked how far away the markers would be from existing homes. Russell Forrest stated that the park would be about 1,000 feet from Lupine Drive and between 4,000 and 5,000 feet from Booth Creek Drive. He also added that 4 residents had contacted him about the project. However, after reviewing the project with them they had no further input to forward to the Town. Beverly Trout also asked why it was being called a cemetery instead of a memorial park in certain places. Russell Forrest clarified that for the purposes of technical land use terminology, the memorial park must be referred to as a cemetery in that it is a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district. John Schofield opened the floor to commissioner comments. Rollie Kjesbo stated he was only concerned with the issue of parking. Geroge Lamb stated he thinks the whole thing is great and there is no need for services there, but instead, the site should just be a spiritual connection for the family. He thought the location was terrific for that use, but there was no need to have services in that spot. The ceremony should take place elsewhere, perhaps even make it mandatory. People must be more than encouraged to have services elsewhere: it should be mandatory. Erickson Shirley reiterated George's sentiments regarding the park. He thought the low impact design was good. He stated his concerns about the number and size of services in the park being a problem, both of which must be controlled somehow. He also asked what happens if the park gains a huge response? How many total spaces for remains will there be? Sherri Dorwood answered that about 400-500 spaces would be in the first phase alone with 2-3 phases to come later, each with about the same capacity. Erickson Shirley also asked if there were any issues with pedestrian trails or cross- country skiers? Mery Lapin said there would be no problem with that; that, in fact, they were even encouraged because the park would be open to the public. He also clarified that if parking became a problem, they will be forced to deal with that issue, as a public entity, when it comes up. Erickson Shirley further stated that if the memorial park is to occur, the gravel shoulders along the bike path should be made walk -able, so there are no issues with bikers when small services occur. Gary Hartman believed the idea was much needed and long overdue. He stated that his only comments concerned the potential conflicts with bikers that Erickson Shirley had already articulated. Gary Hartman suggested delineating the hallowed ground from just public open space with a feature such as a bridge. Doug Cahill agreed with the comments of the other commissioners and also asked for clarification on when the wetlands were delineated and the mitigation accomplished_ Mery Lapin stated that "they weren't going anywhere near any of the wetlands". Doug Cahill also asked if there were going to be benches and what they would look like. He also asked for clarification on where the cross-country ski trail goes. Sherri Dorwood provided details on where the track is in relation to the proposed park. Doug Cahill also felt parking could be an issue and suggested that it may need to be addressed in the future. John Schofield agreed with everything said so far and summarized the comments and concerns of the commission. He said that a plat would need to be done to avoid any legal complications. Mr. Schofield then asked for clarification on motor vehicles and where the line is to be drawn on what constitutes a motor vehicle (i.e.: electric carts to ferry elderly people to and from the site). He also mentioned the wetlands and the need for the water district to show where they plan to do any wetland mitigation. Russell Forrest clarified the Army Corp.'s approval process in regard to wetland mitigation. John Schofield also voiced concern about access and viability of the current proposal's plan. A management plan would be needed and traffic management plans tend not to work. He thought the park would be more popular than anyone is anticipating. John Schofield said he would like to see the discrepancies reconciled regarding the capacity per phase. He did not think a shuttle system for parking will likely not work, given past experiences. He finished by saying that he thought there was total support, though some details remained to be worked out. Russell Forrest summarized the concerns voiced during the hearing and asked for clarification on the parameters of service sizes and how to control them. Diana Donovan stated that they had worked with the local churches and enumerated on that in the current management plan. Erickson Shirley mentioned that if 34 people are going to attend a service, the bike path would need to be widened. Diana Donovan said that because the site was a conditional use, it could be called up at anytime by the PEC to rectify any problems. "We don't have any of the answers now and we can come back with the conditional use permits", she added. John Schofield asked if two weeks was enough time? Motion: Erickson Shirley Second: Gary Hartmann Vote: 4-1-0: Tabled until September 8, 2003 (Doug Cahill opposed) 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 Matt Gennett presented an overview of the staff memorandum and gave details of the proposal to allow temporary enclosures for eating and drinking establishments' use of them on a seasonal, intermittent basis. There were no public comments. iRaleigh Kjesbo: No additional comments Erickson Shirley: Ok with the proposal as written. Gary Hartman: No additional comments. Doug Cahill: Asked about winter usage and whether establishments can keep the curtains down all winter long. Matt Gennett.- Answered that no, establishments would not be able to keep the sidewalls unrolled all winter. Doug Cahill: Stated a concern about the difficulties enforcement. John Schofield: Asked about whether we need to modify the DRB regulations. He also asked about the need to make the sides translucent. John disagreed with Council that temporary covers should not be allowed. Raleigh Kjesbo made a motion to approve the request per the staff memo and the conditions on pages W. Erickson Shirley seconded the motion. MOTION: Raleigh IKjesbo SECOND: Erickson Shirley The motion passed 3-2, with John Schofield and Doug Cahill opposed. 4. A request for a request for a variance from Section 12-78-15, 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 1st 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 -7B -4B, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1s' Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 6. Approval of July 28, and August 11, 2003 meeting minutes July 28th approved by PITC unanimously August 11;". John did not attend the pre -meeting and the motion was not accurate. PEC actually moved to require DRB and joint signature. Erickson Shirleyindicated that he had specific comments Page 16: Streetscape should be maintained not the plan. 7. information Update • iLionshead 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. • 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 25, 2003 SUBJECT: 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 pian 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 0 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Jay Peterson, has requested a worksession with the Planning & Environmental Commission to discuss Vail's Front Door project. Specifically, the applicant and staff are asking the Commission to listen to a presentation on the proposed redesign of the skier services building. The proposed design has been amended in response to input received from the public and Commission on July 28th and from the Design Review Board on August 6th. Upon completion of the presentation, staff is requesting that the Commission engages in a discussion with the staff and applicant and provide their input and feedback on the proposed redesign in anticipation of a final review of the proposal at the September 8, 2003, public hearing of the Planning & Environmental Commission. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC), represented by Jay Peterson, is requesting a worksession meeting with the Planning & Environmental Commission to continue discussions regarding Vail's Front Door project. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the applicant an opportunity to present their plans for the development of Vail's Front Door project to the Commission and to allow the Commission to engage in a discussion with the staff and applicant and provide their input and feedback on the proposed improvements. Specifically, the applicant and staff are asking the Commission to listen to a presentation on the proposed redesign of the skier services building. Ill. BACKGROUND On January 6, 2003, the Community Development Department received the applicant's submittal of 14 development review applications to facilitate the redevelopment of Vail's Front Door project. On February 10 and 24, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held worksessions to discuss the applicant's proposal and requests to amend various planning documents of the Town of Vail. On March 10, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval of the applicant's request to amend the Vail Land Use Plan, Vail Village Master Plan, and the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations to the Vail Town Council. On April 1, 2003, the Vail Town Council approved Resolutions No. 2 and 3, Series of 2003, amending the Vail Land Use Plan and Vail Village Master Plan, and approved Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2003, amending the Town of Vail Zoning Regulation, upon first reading. On April 14, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discussed the proposed plans for improvements to Lots P3 and J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5'" Filing (Vail Park). On April 15, 2003, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2003, amending the Town of Vail Zoning Regulation, upon second reading. On June 9, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to continue discussions on the proposed plans for improvements to Lots P3 and J, Block 5A, Vail Village 51h Filing (Vail Park). The Commission tabled the final review of the four development review applications directly associated with the Vail Park improvements until the July 14, 2003, public hearing of the Planning and Environmental Commission. On June 23, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss the proposed improvements and development applications associated with the Vista Bahn Ski and Vail's Front Door project. Upon presentation of the proposed plans, the Commission accepted public comment and then provided feedback to the applicant. In providing feedback to the applicant, the Commission raised a number of questions. The applicant and staff agreed to provide answers to those questions at the July 14, 2003 meeting. On July 14, 2003 the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss the proposed improvements and development applications associated with the Vista Bahn Ski and Vail's Front Door project. Upon presentation of the proposed plans, the Commission accepted public comment and then provided feedback to the applicant. In providing feedback to the applicant, the Commission raised a number of questions. The applicant and staff agreed to provide answers to those questions at the July 28, 2003 worksession meeting. The more significant issues raised by the Commission and public were questions regarding traffic impacts, loading and delivery operations and management, and the summer and winter programming of the Vista Bahn ski yard. 2 • On July 28, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss the proposed improvements and development applications associated with the Vista Bahn Ski and Vail's Front Door project. Specifically, the Commission directed their attention to the operational and management issues associated with the proposed loading and delivery facility and the conclusions of the revised traffic impact report. To help understand the impacts of the loading and delivery facility the Commission members visited the centralized loading facility in Beaver Creek. The Commission also focused their attention on the site plan location and design concepts of the skier services building. On August 8, 2003, the Town of Vail Design Review Board held a hearing to discuss the proposed design concepts of the four major components of Vail's Front Door Project. Following a presentation on the proposed Vail Park, the 13 residences, the member's ski club, and skier services building improvements, the Board provided their initial comments and input. A copy of a letter to Tom Braun and Jay Peterson summarizing the Design Review Board's comments has been attached for reference (attachment A). On August 11, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed improvements to Lots P3 & J and a request to amend the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map. Upon evaluation of the applications, the Commission voted to approve the requests, with conditions, and to forward a recommendation of approval of the zone district amendments to the Vail Town 40 Council. IV. DISCUSSION ISSUES The purpose of today's worksession meeting is to focus on the design changes proposed for the skier services building. Specifically, the applicant will make a brief presentation on the proposed design changes and communicate the rationale for the changes. Staff recommends that the Commission then engages in a discussion with the applicant and the public with regard to the new proposal. The proposed development site will be "staked" for the meeting to aid in the understanding of the proposed improvements. A copy of the reduced plans has been attached for reference (attachment B). V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession, the Community Development Department will not be making a recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a formal recommendation with proposed conditions at the time of final review. Staff is anticipating a request for a final review by the applicant at the September 8, 2003, meeting of the Planning & Environmental Commission. VI. ATTACHMENTS A. Letter to Tom Braun and Jay Peterson, dated August 18, 2003 B. Reduced copy of the proposed skier services building plans, dated August 25, 2003. .TOWN OF VAIL Y Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 www.ci.vail.co.us August 18, 2003 Torn Braun Edwards Village Center, Suite C-209 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard P.O. Box 2658 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Jay Peterson Bailey & Peterson 108 South Frontage road Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Vail's Front Door Project — design review comments Dear Tom. and Jay, 1-1 Thank you for appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board on Wednesday, August 4, 2003, for the conceptual review of the proposed plans for Vail's Front Door project. The purpose of my letter is to provide you with a summary of the Board's initial comments. As indicated at the meeting, the purpose of the conceptual review meeting was to provide the Design Review Board with an opportunity to review and comment on the four major aspects of the proposal; Vail Park, 13 residential units, members ski club, and the skier services building. The following is a summary of the Board's continents: Vail Park • Avoid blank walls on the elevator tower element of the parking structure access building • Consider the proportions of the building with the scale of the neighborhood park • The building design with the elevator tower in the center of the structure is preferable • Consider the noise of the ventilation system, the quality of discharged air, the aesthetic appearance of the garage entry, and the impacts of any required surface parking lot lighting on the surrounding uses and properties • Provide complete architectural details on the parking structure access building at the time of final review (soffit, fascia, roofing, trim, corbeis, bracing, etc) 13 Residential Units • The proposed design concept and architectural theme is well thought out and proposed • The below grade parking for the units is a good plan • What is the proposed roof material? • Down lighting of the units is a must. • The mixture of stone, stucco, and wood for exterior building finishes is compatible with the area Attachment: A r u • BAIIABIRAUIN ASSOCIATES, II C. PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 22, 2003 Mr. George Ruther Chief of Planning Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 RE: Vail's Front Door -PEC 8125 Work Session Hear George: Enclosed you will find reduced copies of revised plans for the skier service building. Plans provided include: 1. Site plan with roof plan 2. Floor plan 3. Elevations 4. Perspective We look forward to presenting this and other material on the skier service building to the PEC on Monday. As we have discussed, our sole focus of this work session is to present these revised drawings. While these revisions reflect a major departure from our previous design efforts, we are very excited about the "new design direction" this element of the project has taken over the past three weeks. Our goal in this re -design process was to respond directly to both PEC and ARB comments regarding the design of this building, While many detailed design issues are yet to be resolved, our hope for Monday is to get clear direction from the PEC regarding this new design. We will then make further refinements to the building as necessary in response to PEC comments and present final plans for the Commission's consideration on September 8th. Sincerely, Thomas A. Braun, A1CP Cc: Tack Hunn Jay Peterson Bob Fitzgerald Edwards Village Center, Suite C-209 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Post Once Box 2658 Edwards, Colorado B 1632 Ph. - 970.926.7575 Fax - 970,926.7576 www.braunassociates.com •. :;� rAw YL e >� lam, � i i 11�li a •. :;� rAw YL e >� lam, � i i •. :;� rAw YL e >� lam, � �� rK P o t 1 n}` t l r j 9 3 o �r 4 I 0 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 25, 2003 SUBJECT: 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 1.2-88-3: 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 5th 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 Foundation, represented by Sherry Dorward Planner: Russell Forrest SUMMARY The Vail Memorial Park Foundation has submitted three applications to create a memorial park on an '11.13 -acre portion of the Katsos Ranch Park, This 100 acre parcel was purchased as open space by the Town of Vail in 1977 and is located just south of the East Vail exit from Interstate 70. The applicant is requesting approval on a minor subdivision, rezoning to Outdoor Recreation, and a conditional use permit for a cemetery. The purpose statement of the Vail Memorial Park is: `The Vail Memorial Park will serve to celebrate, remember and honor the lives of the many people who have helped to define Vail through their experiences and contributions. By paying tribute to these diverse individuals, we will strengthen our sense of community, build upon our history and connect with others who share a spiritual passion and love for Vail." This park involves the creation of a crusher fine walking path, rock memorial walls, memorial rocks, and stone benches. No structures or lighting are proposed as part of this application. Since this is a worksession, staff does not have a recommendation. f • DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Vail Memorial Park Foundation is requesting the following; 1- Approval of a Minor Subdivision to plat and subdivide the unplatted 100 acre Katsos Ranch property. This subdivision would result in a 13.11 acre property for the Vail Memorial Park, 2. Recommendation of approval for a rezoning of the 13.11 acre Vail Memorial Park from Natural Area Preservation to the Outdoor Recreation Zone District 3. Approval of a conditional use permit for a cemetery which is a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation Zone District. The specific components of the proposal include: • An 980 ft_ long 8ft. wide (2 tire tracks) access path that connects the existing Katsos Ranch recreational trail to the memorial park. This path would also provide access for park maintenance vehicles. • An 350 foot long 5 ft. wide trail around Phase 1 (All paths are a crusher fine trail). • Up to 6 memorial walls benched into the natural topography of the hillside on the south side of the site for all 3 phases. Phase 1 will include two walls. All walls are less than 4 feet tall. • Natural stones for memorial engravings. • Memorial trees (Lodgepole and Blue Spruce) if irrigation can be provided to the site with the cooperation of the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. • Entrance sign to the memorial off of the existing Katsos Ranch Trail south of the pedestrian bridge. • Burial and scattering of cremated human ashes. Casket burials will not be allowed on this site. The memorial park is proposed to be constructed in three phases as shown on the attached site plan (Attachment E). Phase 1 is intended to last for 15-20 years. Ill. BACKGROUND In 1993, an exhaustive study was done to identify a site for a cemetery in the Town of Vail. Over 10 alternative sites were evaluated for land use, ownership, and environmental considerations. After a detailed study of the alternatives, the upper bench Y of Donovan Park was chosen as a preferred alternative. A design was developed and approved by the Town of Vail which included casket burials. This project was taken to the Vail voters in 1994 and was defeated. In 2001, a renewed effort in commemorating deceased Vail locals again became an interest. A committee was established to identify a preferred location and develop a plan for a memorial park. The committee established three major criteria for site selection: • Minimum 5 acres in size Pedestrian and vehicular access • Not located directly adjacent to residential areas. After screening for those criteria, the following alternative sites were further reviewed. 1. Katsos Ranch 2. Spraddle Creek Trail Head 3. Streamwalk between the Covered Bridge and Ford Park Given the criteria mentioned above the preferred alternatives was Katsos Ranch in that it was the furthest location from any residential area, had the appropriate size, and had good access, It also was the quietest reflective space of the three alternatives. The Vail Town Council has reviewed the proposed design for the park and has approved the Vail Memorial Park Foundation to apply for this use on Town land. On August 20, 2003 the Design Review Board reviewed the project and voted 3-0 to direct staff to "staff' approve the project after all applicable PEC approvals have occurred. IV. DISCUSION ITEMS The following are discussion items for this topic: A. Parking: Parking for memorial services can be accommodated to a limited extent at the trail -head parking area for the Katsos Ranch Trail. Eighteen parking spaces are provided at this location. However, staff believes that there is inadequate parking for groups larger than 30 people. Staff believes that the applicant should require larger services to park at remote locations and to provide a shuttle service to the site. Furthermore, additional no parking signs may be needed along the Frontage Road. B. Wetlands: The Vail Memorial Foundation has been working with the Eagle River Water District to enhance wetlands on the site. Wetlands have been mapped and are identified in the wetlands study in the Environmental Impact Report (See attachment D). However, there is still some uncertainty of where the Water District attempted to create wetlands as part of a wetland mitigation project in the 1990°s for the Black Lakes project. There is a swale located at the entrance to Phase 1 of the project which may have been part of this mitigation. Staff would recommend that to avoid any conflicts with the Corps of Engineers that this swale be bridged (5-6 feet). The applicant is avoiding all mapped wetlands on the site and staff believes there is W the ability to create a net increase in wetlands on the site with the cooperation of the Eagle River Water District. 0 C. Recreation Path: Staff believes there could be some limited conflicts on the recreation path when a large memorial service is occurring. To avoid conflicts with bicycles on the path, staff would suggest that a temporary sign on the existing recreation trail be placed to the west of the memorial park and at the bridge to indicate when memorial service is occurring and for bicyclist to use caution. D. Vehicular Access: To prevent vehicular access on the recreation trail, staff would recommend that bollards be placed at the entrance to recreation trail at the East Vail Interchange. V. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS A. Minor Subdivision As per section 13-4-2 C of the Town Code the Planning and Environmental Commission is the final decision making body on a Minor Subdivision. Any final decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission can be appealed to the Town Council. B. Rezoning Town Council: The Town Council is the final decision making authority for a rezoning or a text amendment. Final actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. The Town council must utilize the criteria and findings identified in section VI of this memorandum. PEC The PEC is responsible for applying the criteria in section VI of this memorandum and making a recommendation to the Town Council on a rezoning. C. Conditional Use Permit Planninq and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of CUP. The PEC will make recommendations to the Town Council on rezoning land, text amendments, and modification of hazard designations, • • The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Design Review Board: The DRB has no review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: • Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings • Fitting buildings into landscape • Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography • Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation + Adequate provision for snow storage on-site • Acceptability of building materials and colors • Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms • Provision of landscape and drainage • Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures • Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances * Location and design of satellite dishes • Provision of outdoor lighting • The design of parks 5 VI. REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 0 A. Minor Subdivision A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of new lots must be met. This subdivision will be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Code. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: Lot Area: There is no minimum lot area for the Outdoor Recreation or Natural Area Preservation District. The proposed lot size is 11. 13 acres. Frontage: There is no minimum frontage area for the Outdoor Recreation or Natural Area Preservation District. Dimension: There is no minimum dimensions for the Outdoor Recreation or Natural Area Preservation District. The proposed lot size is 11. 13 acres. 2. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, 13-3-4, and is as follows: "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 section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to insure that the subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subdivision purpose statements from 13-1-2 (C) are as follows: To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. " 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land." 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Town development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land. B. Rezoning 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. 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. 3) The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. 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. 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. 6) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed 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. 8) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. Necessary Findings,: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a zone district boundary amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: 1) That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town. 2) That the amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas. 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. C. Conditional Use Permit The criteria for reviewing a conditional use permit include: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on 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. 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. 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. VIE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In that this is a worksession, staff does not have a recommendation at this time. Attachments: A. Public Notice B. Vicinity Map C. Application Letter D. EIR E. Design Plans 8 • 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 25, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: 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 12-88-3: 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 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 A request for a variance from Section 12-78-15, 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 I' Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, represented by Knight Planning Services Planner: Matt Gennett 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 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- 2350, Telephone for the Hearing impaired, for additional information. This notice published in the Vail Daily on August 8, 2003. 1 4VAffE TOWN 0 • BALTZ FAMILY PARTNERS II LLC- 11BRONCO DRE P R, CO 80138 BANNER, M. R., III & ELAINE T. MATTHEW R. BANNER, III REVOCABLE TRUST 1540 ROCKMONT CIR BOULDER, CO 80303 BARTLETT, JAMES R. & SUSAN B. 7700 N 71ST ST PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 GINSBERG, STANLEY A. & MARTHA -JT 17950 LAKE ESTATES DR BOCA BATON, FL 33496 HUGHES, DIANE K. TRUSTEE - BURNEY, KENDALL K. - HUGHES, KING B. 4405 HIGHLAND DR DALLAS, TX 75205 HUZELLA, LISA WHEELER JOSE ANTONIO 0 FARRILL KAPLAN, GILDA L. CIO TMW ENTERPRISES QUALIFIED 3030 BOOTH CREEK DR 2120 AUSTIN AVE STE 100 PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST VAIL, CO 81657 ROCHESTER HILLS, MI 48309 CRATER 428 MEXICO 01900 DF MEXICO CITY MEXICO LEPRINO, NANCY 16365 W BAYAUD DR GOLDEN, CO 80401 0 REIMERS, ARTHUR J. 445 ROUND HILL RD GRENNWICH, CT 06831 VANHOOPS HOLDINGS LP 9022 JASON CT BOULDER, CO 80303 0 MORAN, CHLOE HELD 1480 BOHNS POINT RD WAYZATA, MN 55.391 SNOWFLAKE TRUST CIO MANTUCKET CAPITAL LLC 5251 DTC PARKWAY STE 995 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 VOLLBRACHT, WILLIAM B. & LESLIE PO BOX 5440 DENVER, CO 80217 �v J �(�sjil� PITTO J. RUSSELL 655 MONTGOMERY ST 1190 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111- 2630 TOWN OF VAIL CIO FINANCE DEPT 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL, CO 81657 WILHELMSEN, AXEL & JANIE 2910 BOOTH CREEK DR VAIL, CO 81657 ERICKSON, MABEL T. CAULKINS FAMILY PTNSHP IRREVOCABLE TRUST 1600 BROADWAY 1400 BUTTS, RICHARD TRUSTEE DENVER, CO 80202 1115 SOUTHPORT LOOP APT 4 BISMARCK., ND 58504-7085 HINTZ, BERND JURGEN HOVERSTEN, PHILIP E. & NOVAR HOUSE 24 QUEENS RD LOUISE B. -JT WEYBRIDGE SURREY 2990 BOOTH CREEK DR UNITED KINGDOM KT'139UX VAIL, CO 81657 BARTLETT, JAMES R. & SUSAN B. 7700 N 71ST ST PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 GINSBERG, STANLEY A. & MARTHA -JT 17950 LAKE ESTATES DR BOCA BATON, FL 33496 HUGHES, DIANE K. TRUSTEE - BURNEY, KENDALL K. - HUGHES, KING B. 4405 HIGHLAND DR DALLAS, TX 75205 HUZELLA, LISA WHEELER JOSE ANTONIO 0 FARRILL KAPLAN, GILDA L. CIO TMW ENTERPRISES QUALIFIED 3030 BOOTH CREEK DR 2120 AUSTIN AVE STE 100 PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST VAIL, CO 81657 ROCHESTER HILLS, MI 48309 CRATER 428 MEXICO 01900 DF MEXICO CITY MEXICO LEPRINO, NANCY 16365 W BAYAUD DR GOLDEN, CO 80401 0 REIMERS, ARTHUR J. 445 ROUND HILL RD GRENNWICH, CT 06831 VANHOOPS HOLDINGS LP 9022 JASON CT BOULDER, CO 80303 0 MORAN, CHLOE HELD 1480 BOHNS POINT RD WAYZATA, MN 55.391 SNOWFLAKE TRUST CIO MANTUCKET CAPITAL LLC 5251 DTC PARKWAY STE 995 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 VOLLBRACHT, WILLIAM B. & LESLIE PO BOX 5440 DENVER, CO 80217 �v J �(�sjil� PITTO J. RUSSELL 655 MONTGOMERY ST 1190 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111- 2630 TOWN OF VAIL CIO FINANCE DEPT 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL, CO 81657 WILHELMSEN, AXEL & JANIE 2910 BOOTH CREEK DR VAIL, CO 81657 s ,�riz " ''` •t ,r! '+��'� �r �� .� ` c� �" } ' T;r` 'i` "� ,�' ��`''� • s X47 } i� ' r m1`'�, ''�'�` � '. a f tiY%5#� 'y1tJu rqi� ! 'r>{ •'_'� ,.= o•Y k' r 35r 3 • e ,alp 4 ,� : r ✓ +f AV- t j � �y� • 7�4 t Rc S _.'� f�Lry�r ik '�T • � •RGF., i�• .�tt "T� 1�.#CF T. � ,e ,lir''! "15 I _ / fA yiy.. _ - � t I�: �� ) / LyGu�`�. � try# •� ��i - •F �l-L {.' � �� �. -ice2.n L of ♦" 4` i4 hTT .1 t $ 't F ,'3�',�C�" rh G.�-:.r°"Sr t ��� yy 4 � Ir�l,�k �+�'•+y�D""t"�s - .3 n ! 4 S � 7 C7 1E e- ,,� '•-e' S '� C -P-'ak5• f x s ee,i,, a a �� 4�,. J!� �� a'�Tv ai' �• fry 4 i . 1 F � a.. ° � 3 ! ° E � � [ LU Ll 'h 1 t 'H if .�' �, .. 4`� � dY �rcri '-` Y � a c'• SIAL' '�Fyl,_ 'tF � h r� + ' ,' � ;. C" L fir• T ;' , -'•r—U _ .,. r" Z Lu '� r�SL srW SY s e,'FF a }.� -ry (t,'��• Q � li _.f"'� '• J f�SssE 3 t � ^fes - ] 1 '� ? R i Y, V w 7— �Fr.tp,• ,�^ 1tI r { � c a rs. '' �7 '� �--� J - s §�F X?3. .F:l•'.J +r�M'`�A�J, .SK•A l /r4'1'x }t- '~'�„ Y+ ' VAIL MEMORIAL PARK APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BY PEC AND DRB July 28, 2003 Description and Location of the Property: The Vail Memorial 'Park site is an 11.13 -acre portion of the Katsos Ranch purchased as open space by the Town of Vail in 1977 and is located just south of the East Vail exit from Interstate 70. There are no improvements on the site except for a sanitary sewer line running across it from east to west. Portions of the site are included in a wetland mitigation plan for the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. A cross-country ski trail uses the upland meadows on the site in winter, and a single-track hike/bike trail traverses the site along the toe of the slopes. 2. Description of the Request for Review: 1. Approval of a Minor Subdivision 2. Approval of an application to rezone the memorial park to outdoor recreation. The Outdoor Recreation District allows cemeteries as a conditional use. Also the designated open space charter provision allows sites to be rezoned to one of the three open space zone districts (i.e. Natural Area Preservation, Outdoor Recreation, and Agriculture and Open Space). 3. Approval of a conditional use permit for the park and cemetery. 4. Approval of a design review permit for the park design and sign. 3. Description of the Development Proposal: Although it has been forty years since the town's founding as a ski resort and although the resort has since evolved into a year-round community of some 5,000 people (and another 10,000 in the larger Eagle Valley), Vail still lacks -- and desires - a place where its citizens and those who love the valley can be memorialized. After years of study, consideration of numerous sites, and an earlier cemetery master plan proposed for Donovan Park but narrowly defeated in a bond issue election (1993), this site has been selected by a citizen task force and is being proposed for use as a memorial park. Any current or past resident of the Vail Valley or Eagle County and anyone who feels an emotional connection with the region will be able to purchase a memorial inscription and/or bury or scatter ashes in the memorial park. (No casket burial is anticipated.) The areas to be developed for memorials will be concentrated in clearings at the toe of the slopes along the southern boundary of the site, where they will not be visible from off-site. The design motif is intended to adhere as much as possible to natural forms and materials: low walls of dry -stacked native stone, flagstone and crushed stone paths, and native boulders not exceeding 24" in height, sensitively placed in clusters. There will be no headstones and no formal carved monuments. The types of memorials proposed are intended to be non -intrusive and entirely compatible with the character of the natural landscape: 0 Engraved inscriptions on boulders in dry -stacked walls at the toe of the slopes; • Engraved inscriptions on individual boulders and flush -set stone slabs placed in clusters along the pathways; • Donated benches fashioned of natural boulders; • Memorial groves of trees dedicated to the memory of loved ones (proposed later in phase one depending on availability of water). • Ashes can be scattered in designated areas or buried in biodegradable urns behind the memorial walls or under memorial stones. An accessible crushed stone pathway system will connect the memorial areas to the existing Town of Vail recreation path and an existing parking area on Bighorn Road. No vehicular access to the site (other than for small maintenance vehicles) or other improvements are proposed. It is proposed that the memorial park be opened in phases as needed. The initial phase would consist of two or three dry -stacked walls totaling about 100 linear feet (four feet high), several hundred pre-set stone slabs and boulders for memorials, a space where small memorial services could be held, and a short looping pathway connection. The estimated capacity of this first phase would be approximately 500 memorials, which could be sufficient for a 10-20 year timeframe. 3. Operation of the Vail Memorial Park Seven members of the existing task force will become the board of directors and will be responsible for setting policies for the operation of the Memorial Parte, setting the pricing structure and residency requirements for price tiers, hiring staff, and approving the annual budgets for maintenance and capital improvements. It is anticipated that an "executive director" will be hired who will report directly to the board and be responsible for the following: • Accounting and annual budgeting • Scheduling of committal and memorial services • Coordination of logistical, parking and transportation arrangements, including golf carts as appropriate, for services to be held in the Memorial Park, particularly when larger groups are anticipated • Attendance at larger services and services where there may not be a minister or funeral director in charge + Hiring of maintenance staff or outsourcing of landscape maintenance services • Sales, donations and fund raising • Arranging for memorial engravings and stone selections on site • Arranging for biodegradable urn burials and the scattering of ashes • Correspondence • Compile documentation on residency and make recommendation to Board regarding pricing tier eligibility of deceased. Board decisions are final. • Maintenance of permanent records including individual histories and GPS location of memorials Basic maintenance will be the responsibility of the executive director but it is anticipated that it will be contracted out. The park is designed for minimal maintenance. Only natural materials will be used and they will be used in a natural way. Only native species will be planted to restore the site and to create memorial groves which will also act as a buffer and enclosure. Assurance of adequate water will be necessary before tree plantings are done. No plantings by the public will be allowed, Artificial flowers, etc will be removed. No grass will be mowed. It will look like the rest of Katsos Park. An endowment will be established for perpetual care of the Memorial Park. Planning alternate arrangements for parking for groups over 30 will be the responsibility of the executive director, in concert with the deceased's family or their funeral director. The Director will make arrangements for the use of various parking facilities, with MOU's where possible, and have transportation available at an additional cost to the user. The parking structures will be used when there is no conflict which would be reviewed in each instance with the Town of Vail Parking Director. It is anticipated that most cars will usually remain at the chapel. 4. Review Criteria Minor Subdivision A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of new lots must be met. This subdivision will be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Code. A. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: Lot Area: There is no minimum lot area for the Outdoor Recreation or Natural Area Preservation District. The proposed lot size is 11. 13 acres. Frontage: There is no minimum frontage area for the Outdoor Recreation or Natural Area Preservation District. Dimension: There is no minimum dimensions for the Outdoor Recreation or Natural Area Preservation District. The proposed lot size is 11. 13 acres. B. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, 13-3-4, and is as follows: "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 section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to insure that the subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subdivision purpose statements from 13-1-2 (C) are as follows: "To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. " 0 Response: The Foundations believes that the proposal is consistent with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. "To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land." Response: No land use conflicts are anticipated. The proposed site design is intended to blend into the natural landscape of Katsos Ranch Park and is over 1000 feet from adjacent residential property. The eastern portion of the site will be maintained and even enhanced as wetlands. 3. "To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. " Response: No buildings are proposed for this project. No environmental impacts are anticipated. infact, the Foundation is working with the Eagle River and Water District to enhance the wetland area on the site_ 4. "To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Town development objectives. " Response: The Foundation believes that this project is design in harmony with the natural setting of Katsos Ranch and does not create any environmental impact or impedes the recreational uses of Katsos Ranch. 5_ "To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. " Response: The creation of a Memorial Park will be a critical community asset. It will not have any significant impact on public infrastructure. 6. "To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. " 0 Response: Rezoning A proposed plat has been provided with the application 7. "To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land. " Response: An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project. No significant impacts are anticipated. The major mitigation of impacts involves the strict regulation of parking at the site for groups over 30 in size. 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. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan identified Katsos Ranch as Open Space. The Open Lands Plan also identifies Katsos Ranch as sensitive natural area. The proposed rezoning to Outdoor Recreation with the proposed Memorial Park Plan is still consistent with the Town's comprehensive plans and 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. The proposed land use will not impact adjacent property owners. The closes home is over 1000 feet away and screened by vegetation_ The proposed design of the Memorial Park compliments the natural landscape and avoids impacts to wetlands. In fact, there is now the opportunity to enhance the existing wetland area on Katsos Ranch through a partnership with the Eagle River Water District. 3) The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. The proposed design is intended to Mend into to the natural landscape. There should be no interference to the existing recreational path on Katsos Ranch. 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. A memorial park, as proposed, is an important component to the life cycle of a community. The park is intended to celebrate and memorialize individuals that have contributed to the Vail community. The proposed zoning of Outdoor is Recreation is one of the three Open Space Zone Districts. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies this site as Open Space and states that Katsos Ranch is "appropriate for passive outdoor recreation." The uses in the OR zone District are controlled through a conditional use permit. 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 duality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features. The proposed park avoids impacting wetlands. Intact, there is the opportunity to expand wetland area on the eastern portion of the site through a partnership with the Eagle River and Water District. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and no other significant impacts are anticipated. 6) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. Cemeteries area conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation Zone District. The proposed natural design of the Vail Memorial Park is consistent with the purpose statement within the Natural Area Preservation 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. The community has the need for a memorial park. This has been well documented since the last effort in 1993. Conditions on Katsos Ranch have not changed. It is still a beautiful meadow bordered by lodgepole pine to the south and Gore Creek on the North. The proposed design of the Vail Memorial Park is intended to blend in with the natural environment of the site. 8) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. Conditional Use Permit Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The proposed design of the Vail Memorial Park is consistent with the natural setting of Katsos Ranch. It will maintain the environmental integrity of the site and potentially even enhance the wetland areas with Katsos Ranch. The Town Council has stated that the creation of a memorial park is a valid objective of the Town of Vail. The proposed design achieves that objective in a way that compliments the natural character of Katsos Ranch Park. 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. A memorial park is a needed community facility. The only detrimental impact is potentially parking for large memorial services. The Foundation believes this impact can be mitigated by requiring all memorial groups over 30 to utilize buses or shuttles to the park from either from the Vail Chapel or the Town's parking structure (in the summer and shoulder seasons). 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The Foundation does not believe there will by any impact to circulation or traffic flow for 90% of the groups using the Memorial Park which are anticipated to be under 30 participants. However, a shuttle system will be required for groups over 30 in size_ 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. No buildings are proposed as part of this application. Submitted Materials 1. Signed application 2. Written Project Description 3. Environmental Impact Report (Final Wetland Report will be submitted on August Stn) 4. Site Plan with wetland delineation 5. Phase 1 plan with limits of site disturbance 6. Stamped Topographic Survey 7. Draft Plan with Title Commitment 8, Photos & Drawings of the memorial walls and rocks 9. Elevation of wall to scale twill be forwarded to Town on August 1, 2003) 10. Operational Plan (will be submitted on August 1, 2003) 11. Examples of Materials to be proposed (Will be submitted on August 9th) 11 • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VAIL MEMORIAL PARK July 23, 2003 Prepared by: Sherry Dorward, Anna Higgins„ and Russ Forrest • • Table of Contents 1. Purpose 3 2_ Proposed Project 4 4. Affected Environment 6 5. Background and Alternatives Evaluated 7 5. Potential Impacts and Mitigation 9 6. Summary of Impacts 12 • 0 • Environmental Impact Report for the Vail Memorial Park 1. PURPOSE: The purpose of the Environmental Impact Report for either a public or private project is to identify and evaluate environmental impacts associated with a proposed project so that environmental considerations can be integrated into the decision making process. The requirements for an Environmental Impact Report are specfified in Title 12, Chapter 12 of the Vail Town Code. The submission and review of an environmental impact report is required to achieve the following objectives: 1. Availability Of Information: To ensure that complete information on the environmental effects of the proposed project is available to the Town Council, the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the general public. 2. Environmental Protection A Criterion: To ensure that long-term protection of the environment is a guiding criterion in project planning, and that land use and development decisions, both public and private, take into account the relative merits of possible alternative actions. 3. Review And Evaluation Procedure: To provide procedures for local review and evaluation of the environmental effects of proposed projects prior to granting of permits or other authorizations for commencement of development. 4. Review And Evaluation Procedure: To provide procedures for local review and evaluation of the environmental effects of proposed projects prior to granting of permits or other authorizations for commencement of development. 5. Avoid Geologic Hazard Areas: To ensure that buildings are not constructed in geologic hazard areas, by way of illustration, flood plains, avalanche paths, rockfall areas, where such hazard cannot practically be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council, 6. Protect Water Quality: To ensure that the quality of surface water and ground water within the Town will be protected from adverse impacts and/or degradation due to construction activities. (Ord. 37(1980) § 10: Ord. 19(1976) § 14: Ord. 8(1973) § 16.100) 0 2. PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 Description of Action The Vail Memorial Park Foundation is proposing to create a memorial park on the eastern 11.3 acres of Katsos Ranch Park. The total land area of Katsos Ranch park is 172 acres and it is owned by the Town of Vail. The property is currently zoned Natural Area Preservation and is designated open space. The property is located at approximately 8,400 feet elevation within the Gore Creek basin in East Vail. The ranch is separated from Interstate 70 by Gore Creek. It is also separated from the residential development in East Vail by a dense community of willow shrubs. The Vail Memorial Garden Foundation is proposing to lease the site shown in attachment A from the Town of Vail. The Foundation would be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the Park. Three phases are proposed for the Vail Memorial Park_ The Vail Memorial Park Foundation has identified the following purpose statement for the park: 'The Vail Memorial Park will serve to celebrate, remember and honor the lives of the many people who have helped to define Vail through their experiences and contributions. By paying tribute to these diverse individuals, we will strengthen our sense of community, build upon our history and connect with others who share a spiritual passion and love for Vail." 2.2 Project Components The specific components of the proposal include: • An 400 ft. 8ft. wide access path that connect the existing Katsos Ranch recreational trail to the memorial park. • An 350 foot 5 ft. wide trail around phase 1- All paths are a crusher fine trail. • Up to 6 memorial walls benched into the natural topography of the hillside on the south side of the site for all 3 phases. Phase 1 will include 2 walls. • An 8 foot wide 980 ft long vehicular maintenance path for the Eagle River Water District and maintenance of the site. (an unimproved track exists today). • Natural stones that can have engravings on the stones. • Memorial trees (Lodgepole and Blue Spruce) dedicated to loved ones. • Entrace sign to the Park off of the existing Katsos Ranch Trail south of the pedestrian bridge. • Burial and scattering of cremated human ashes. Casket burials will not be allowed on this site. No structures are proposed as part of this application. In addition, no sighting is proposed with this application. 2.3 Intensity of.Use There are currently 41,600 people in Eagle County and there has been a 3% increase in retirement aged individuals in the County between 1990 and 2000. There are on average approximately 60-70 deaths per year in Eagle County (Eagle County Coroner). Based on a market study that was developed for a proposed cemetery at the Upper Bench of Donovan Park in 1993 it was estimated that approximately 24 memorial events would occur per year. The Interfaith Chapel currently conducts approximately 3-12 memorials per year. Approximately 120 people may come to the memorial service and then on average 15-20 people may come to a burial or inurnment of ashes. Memorial services occur primarily in the week. Paster Walker of the Vail Interfaith Chapel, who was interviewed on July 23, 2003, stated that with the Vail Memorial Park and an aging population it is possible to see the number of memorials increase to 50 per year over the next 10 years, Also it would be possible to have more people choose to combine a memorial and inurement service at the Vail Memorial Park Site. Therefore, a reasonable design target for an average inurnment could be 20 people with a maximum number of people at approximately 120 people (5-10 time/year). There could be a total of 50 memorial events per year during the non winter months primarily during week days. The average length of time for an inurnment service is approximately 2.0-30 minutes. If the Inurnment Service was combined with a memorial service, then the time could be increased to 1 hour per service. 0 2.4. Phasing Proposed on Site The applicant is proposing three phases. The first phase is intended to last for 15 years. The last phase could be implemented in 30--40 years. The applicant is asking that phases 1 — 3 be approved through a conditional use permit. The applicant is only pursuing Design Review Board approval for phase 1 at this time. The capacity of each phase summarized below: Is 2.4 MEMORIALIZATION OPTION PHASE 7 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 LATER TOTAL list 9 YRS PHASES INSCRIBED STONES IN BOULDER WALLS 90 150 150 0 520 (Assumes 1.5 memorials per linear foot of 4' high wall) (note 1) INSCRIPTIONS ON SEATWALL AT CEREMONY SPACE 20 0 0 0 20 (other ceremony spaces or seatwalls could be developed later if desired) ABOVE -GRADE BOULDER MARKERS WITH INSCRIPTIONS 40 40 45 30 125 (Max. dimensions 18" high x 2' wide x 4' long, clustered near paths) (note 2) FLUSH -SET STONE SLABS WITH INSCRIPTIONS 60 75 50 100 285 (Set into and alongside pathways and near memorial wails) (note 2) MEMORIAL TREES 25 20 25 25 95 (Location of groves depends on availability of irrigation watery MEMORIAL BENCHES note 3 5 5 5 5 1 20 TOTALS 240 290 275 ..160 9B5 (note 4) (note 5) (note 6) Notes: 1. Assumes no free-standing boulder walls would be built in open areas except at entry gates, all walls are in phases 1-3 at toe of slope. 2. The maximum capacity for this type of memorial is basically unhmitad. 3.. Benches will be installed when donated in someone's memory: number could Increase if needed 4. Assumes a higher number of pre -sales in the first few years for memorials to honor Vailites who died befora the Memorial Park opened. 5. Later phase rapacity could be greatly increased, if demand warrants, by adding more areas for boulder markers and flush -set slabs. B. The 1991 Vail Cemetery Master Plan estimated 100 -year demand at 96D burial spaces, including in -ground and crypt casket burial. As it is difficult to estimate future demand for cremation burials only, phases could be built out as needed. Actions Requested of the Town of Vail The Vail Memorial Park Foundation is making the following requests:. 1. Approval of a Minor Subdivision 2. Approval of an application to rezone the memorial park to outdoor recreation. The Outdoor Recreation District allows cemeteries as a conditional use. Also the designated open space charter provision allows sites to be rezoned to one of the three open space zone districts (i.e. Natural Area Preservation, Outdoor Recreation, and Agriculture and Open Space). 3. Approval of a conditional use permit for the park and cemetery. 4. Approval of a design review permit for the park design and sign. 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Vail Memorial Park site is part of the former Katsos Ranch property in East Vail purchased as open space by the Town of Vail. It is a relatively flat alluvial plain bounded on the north by Gore Creek and the Interstate 70 right-of-way, on the south by US Forest Service land, on the east by wetlands and a single-family subdivision beyond them, and on the west by Town open space. Five vegetation types generally characterize the site: • • • A wetland/riparian strip along Gore Creek, consisting primarily of willows, Englemann Spruce, and a few cottonwoods, • Wetland shrubs and forbs at the eastern end of the site and along portions of natural swales within the property; • Rows of mature Lodgepole Pine and Cottonwood clustered in the same swales and depressions but generally not classified as wetlands; • Upland meadows of sage and wildflowers over granular soils extending through the central east -west axis of the site; • Forest of Lodgepole Pine and Aspen on the slopes to the south. Although the site was likely cultivated and flood -irrigated in the past, the natural topography has not been altered in any major way_ Relatively minor disturbances have been caused by earthwork associated with the construction of the sanitary sewer line across the site and the digging of small diversion ditches as part of the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District's 1995 wetland mitigation plan. The disturbances are evident where gravelly subsoils excavated from these activities have been disposed of and have been slow to revegetate naturally. In some of these areas, invasive plant species, such as Linnaria (Butter and Eggs), have taken root. There is currently a recreational trail that runs from the Katsos Ranch Trailhead through the park and connects to Sunburst Drive to the west. This is a heavily used recreational trail. Approximately 18 parking spaces are available at the east end the Katsos Ranch Trail which would be the proposed parking for the Vail Memorial Park. ! 4. BACKGROUND AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED In 1993 an exhaustive study was done to identify a site for a cemetery. Over 10 alternatives sites were evaluated for land use, ownership, and environmental considerations. After a detailed study of the alternatives, the upper bench of Donovan Park was chosen as a preferred alternative. A design was developed and approved by the Town of Vail which included casket burials. This project was taken to the Vail voters in 1994 and was defeated. In 2001, a renewed effort in commemorating deceased Vail locals again became an interest. A committee was established to identify a preferred location and develop a plan for a memorial park. The committee established three major criteria for site selection, • Minimum 5 acres in size • Access • Not directly adjacent to residential areas. After screening for those criteria the following alternatives were further reviewed. 1. Katsos Ranch 2. Spraddle Creek Trail dead 0 3. Streamwalk between the Covered Bridge and Ford Park Given the criteria mentioned above the preferred alternatives was Katsos Ranch in that it was the furthest location from any residential area, had the appropriate size, and had good access. It also was the most quiet reflective space of the three alternatives. Other environmental considerations are reviewed below: Site Water Air Quality Flora/Fauna Visual Circulation Resources Conditions Katsos Wetlands No impact Some Not visible from 18 parking exist on site- vegetation adjancent places are no loss of loss would homes located at the wetlands occur on the east of Katsos trail Ranch. No impact is No anticipated to significant residential impact is areas. anticipated Spraddle Spraddle No impact Some Site is visible 17 parking Creek creek runs vegetation from mountain, places available through site, loss would However, it is at trailhead. erosion occur on the heavily wooded control trail in the summer would be (Aspens) required No significant impact is anticipated Streamwalk Use of No impact No impact is Site would be Parking would (east of pavers with anticipated visible from occur at the covered names may adjacent Village Parking bridge) increase properties Structure or at velocity of Ford Park, There run-off could be pedestrian conflicts with memorial services. Other considerations evaluated by the Vail Memorial Committee included noise from 1-70, zoning, impact to adjacent owners, grade, and cost. After reviewing all the environmental, economic, land use factors the Town Council and the Vail Memorial Committee choose Katsos Ranch as the preferred location. • • 0 5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 5.1 Water Resources Gore Creek runs through the site for approximately 1000 feet. Phase 1 is approximately 230 feet from Gore Creek. Wetlands are located on the site. However, they will not be impacted by the proposed trails or memorials. Montane Environmental Solutions, Ltd. (Montane) was retained by Sherry Dorward ASLA, (Client) to identify jurisdictional wetlands that may occur on a portion of the Katsos Ranch Open Space parcel located in East. Vail, Colorado. It is located in the NE '/a of NW 1/ of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 80 West, North 390 38' 38" West 1060 18' 37" The delineation was conducted on June 19 and 23, 2003 in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. The jurisdictional wetlands on the property are primarily associated with the alluvial aquifer of Gore Creek. It is located within the 100 -year floodplain (CHECK) and is subject to overbank flows in its eastern most section, as witnessed in 2003. In addition, seeps along the south steep slope support mesio wetland vegetation (Salix monticola, Mertensia ciliata, and Smilacina stellata). In some instances the plant community does not meet the dominance criteria for a jurisdictional wetland, although it is a somewhat moist habitat. A low lying drainage runs along the base of the steep slopes. This drainage is the recipient to both some of the seep hydrology and overbank flows of Gore Creek. As such, it has sections of it that meet the criteria of a jurisdictional wetland. It is hypothesized that it is a former side channel to Gore Creek with a substrate of unconsolidated alluvium and colluvium, which allows periodic draining of surface water flow and hence the broken jurisdictional wetland boundary_ The remainders of the wetlands are along the bank of Gore Creek and in low lying polygons within the study area. These wetlands are dominated by willow shrubs (S. monticola and S. drummondiana) with an understory of dominant Canada reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis). The Eagle River and Water District has utilized Katsos Ranch Park as a site to create wetlands as mitigation for the Black Lakes project. The District has attempted to create wetlands in the area around the proposed memorial park. However, these efforts have not been succesfull. The Vail Memorial Park Foundation is working with the District to create new wetland area on the east side of the memorial park site. The Foundation and the Eagle River Water District believe that there is now the opportunity by working together to create a net increase in wetlands in the Memorial Park Area. Again the Vail Memorial Park will neither impact existing wetlands nor preclude the opportunity to create new wetland on the eastern side of the Park. 0 5.2 Environmental Contamination 0 Toxic materials are a concern from traditional cemeteries with casket burials. However, cremated remains have similar characteristics as organic fertilizers. The following is a list of the chemical components and their concentrations of a cremated remain. The chemical composition of cremated remains is summarized below. Chemical Components of Cremated Remains Phosphate 47.5% Calcium 25.3% Sulfate 11.00% Potassium 3.69% Sodium 1.12% Chloride 1.00% Silica 0.9% Aluminum Oxide 0.72% Magnesium 0.418% Iron Oxide 0.118% Zinc 0.0342% Titanium Oxide 0.0260% Barium 0.0066% Antimony 0.0035% Chromium 0.0018% Copper 0.0017% Manganese 0.0013% Lead 0.0008% Tin 0.0005% Vanadium 0.0002% Beryllium <0.0001% Mercury <0.00001% There is some concern in the literature about cancer treatment and the impact on cremated remains. However, there does not appear to be any human or environmental risks that can be found with the burial of cremated remains. The Vail Memorial Park Foundation is also proposing biodegradable urn which would be buried either behind the memorial walls or underground beside memorial rock. No water quality impacts or human health concerns are anticipated from this proposed action. 5.3. Air Quality No grading is proposed for the project. Therefore there should be no significant dust generated from the project. Some dust may be generated as paths are created on the 10 • site. There should be no air quality impacts as the result of the operation of the Vail 40 Memorial Park. 5.4 Biotic Conditions The natural ecosystem of East Vail in this area is a montane environment with aspen forests dominating the steep valley slopes, which have scattered seeps along their length creating species rich habitats. In the drier valley slopes, lodgepole pines and spruce -fir trees dominate. The undeveloped floodplain of Gore Creek of which the Katsos Ranch is part, is a mosaic of four dominant vegetative communities: 1) sagebrush (Artemisia tridentatum) and rabbitbrush (Chrysoihamnus viscidiflorus) 2) lodgepole (Pinus contorta) 3) Valerian (Valeriana edulis) and 4) Mountain willow (Salix monticola). On July 23, 2003, Town staff contacted the Colorado Division of Wildlife to determine if any threatened or endangered species occupied this area of Katsos Ranch. The response from the Division was that if wetlands where not disturbed not threatened or endangered species should be impacted. No threatened plant species have been found on the site. The design of the proposed Memorial Park is intended to take advantage of the innate beauty of the site's natural landscape and to minimize further disturbances. The wetland areas and forested slopes will be maintained in perpetuity as natural preserves, and all mature trees will be retained. Most of the development of memorial spaces will be concentrated in the small clearings at the toe of the forested slopes, where they will be screened from view. The openness of the upland meadows will be maintained, and over the long-term, land management strategies will be undertaken to return the vegetation of the site to a more completely native, self-sustaining composition. 5.4 Natural Hazard The Katsos Ranch area includes all of the Town hazard areas, i.e., snow avalanche, debris flow, rock fall, and 100 year flood plain. Attachment C shows the various hazards in the project area. No buildings are proposed in these hazard areas. No grading will occur that will increase the flood hazard in the project site. Memorial services will not occur once snow has covered the site. There fore there should be no increase in hazard to individuals as the result of the memorial site. It is possible that a falling rock could damage the path and the memorial walls. This risk will be mitigated by the creation of a capital replacement fund. The proposed memorial walls will follow the grade of the slope and should not be considered a structure as defined in section 12-2-2. 5.5 Land Use Conditions Adjacent uses include prima rylsecondary two family residential properties east of the park and on the north side of the interstate. The closest residential property from the site is over 1000 feet away. The Katsos ranch property is zoned Natural Area Preservation and provide a natural park setting for Vail residents and guests. The only 40 major recreational use on Katsos Ranch is the recreational trail that runs east west on the property. Access on this recreational trail can be gained from Sunburst Drive to the west and from the south side of the East Vail Interchange. No adverse land use impacts are anticipated as the result of this project. 0 5.5 Visual Impact One of the major design goals of this project is to blend the design of the park into the natural environment so that there is little or no visual impact as the result of the Memorial Park. Adjacent property owners will not see the improvements on the site. Recreational trail users would see a new 5-8 foot path coming from the Katsos Ranch Trail along with an entry feature. The rocks being proposed for the Park will not be cut and smooth. Rather they will appear as natural rocks that may have fallen from the hillside. The Foundation is also proposing that all flowers and religious icons be banned from the site to further ensure that the site appears as a natural meadow. The Foundation would be responsible for informing memorial groups that flowers or other objects shall not be left on the site. The Foundation would also be responsible for maintaining the site to ensure landscaping and trails are maintained. 5.6 Circulation and transportation conditions Eighteen parking spaces are currently available at the Trail Head for Katz's Ranch. An averaged sized memorial service of 15-20 people would generate 8-10 vehicle trips which could be accommodated at the trailhead parking. However, a larger memorial service, over 30 people, i.e. generating 15 or more vehicles, could not be accommodated on the site. Mitigation for larger groups to prevent parallel parking on Bighorn Rd would be required The Interfaith Chapel and the Vail Memorial Park Foundations proposes to require the use of buses from the Chapel parking or Vail parking structure for events over 30 people. The Interfaith Chapel has agreed to provide parking with the 37 parking spaces at the chapel. In addition, the parking structures in the summer could provide parking for large memorial services in the non winter months, The family or friends organizing a memorial service would be required for groups over 30 individuals to provide a shuttle service for memorial service participants. 5.7 Population Characteristics This project will not contribute to an increase in population or should generate new development around the project site. 6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS No significant impacts are anticipated as the result of this project, Wetlands may infact be improved as the result of additional wetland creation through a partnership between the Eagle River Water District and the Vail Memorial Park Foundation. The design of the Memorial Park is intended to blend into the natural environment. The only impact associated with the memorial park is potentially parking along Bighorn Road. It is recommended that a limit be placed on 30 memorial participants at once utilizing the park. If more participants are anticipated then the Foundation should then require the use of shuttle buses from the Vail Chapel. r: 12 F,I Yz To -,Z 'M P 4 f✓",j � n 'r �t s .°Y� r • 4a:,v r ei�.: I w fJIrS:."~Sa.�T �i1��a KE•isi��� yy�� 0 SHERRY DORWARD AS LA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PO BOX 3766 1514 BUrrEIIR CREEK ROAD D31 VAIL, COLORADO 81658 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 21, 2003 TO: Vail Memorial Park Task Force FROM: Sherry Dorward RE: Site Visit with Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) CC: Anna Higgins -Sones Bob Weaver, Hydrosphere Russell Forrest, TOV Community Dev. On August 19, 2003, Bob Weaver of Hydrosphere (the water district's wetland consultant), Anna Higgins -Sones of Montane Environmental Solutions (VMP's wetland consultant), and I walked the Vail Memorial Park site for 3 hours with Mark Gilfillan, a biologist and project manager in the ACOE Grand Junction office who is responsible for projects in Eagle, Pitkin and Garfield Counties. Here are the highlights: Background: In 1991, the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWS) proposed a wetland is mitigation plan to replace 4'/2 acres of wetlands that were to be disturbed for the enlargement of Black Lakes. The mitigation plan included a site at Camp Hale, but Eagle County objected to a site in a different watershed, so the mitigation plan was revised to include new sites on the Katsos Ranch open space property awned by TOV. The pian proposed a total of about 6 acres of wetland mitigation, of which about 3 % acres are on the area now designated for the Vail Memorial Park (VMP). The goal of the plan, which TOV and the ALOE approved, was restoration of degraded wetlands on Katsos. After the mitigation plan was approved, ditches from three Gore Creek diversion points (A, B, and G, from east to west) were dug on the VMP site (1993). Mike Claffey of the ALOE apparently made a site inspection in the fall of 1994 and found that re-establishment of wetlands was not progressing as anticipated (letter to ERWS from ACOE, G.McNure, May 1, 1995). As a result, Bob Weaver recorded "Areas of Saturation" on the site on March 22, 1995 and June 27, 1996 and concluded that there was adequate water deliverance to the ditches. After the 1996 site observation, the ditches were not maintained and the diversion inlets became obstructed with debris. As a result, the delivery of water onto the site failed. In late spring 2003, ERWS cleared the inlets and, with the high flows we saw this year, Ditch A had a significant flow and Ditches B and C had some flows. (No measuring or mapping was completed, however.) The Current Situation: A "jurisdictional wetland" delineation such as Anna has done would normally, when accepted by the ACOS, establish the area to which Federal jurisdiction applies and 970.476.9537 phone/fax 970.470.2930 dell sddorwardg&msn.eom 1-1 within which proposed development actions may require permits. But in this case, because there is a mitigation plan in effect with a 404 permit, federal jurisdiction extends to the limits of the mitigation area, regardless of its success in establishing or restoring wetlands. Can the VMP parcel, it is difficult for several reasons to determine the limits of the mitigation area. First, there does not appear to be an accurate survey of the original wetland boundary, before mitigation efforts began. Second, there does not appear to be an accurate surrey that identifies those areas that were intended for wetland mitigation. And finally, there is not an accurate survey of the "Area of Saturation" for the March 1995 and June 1998 observation that would provide the acreage of saturation. [It is our understanding that those observed areas were sketched on a drawing during the site visit and were not surveyed.] Consequently, there is not a simple means to determine compliance with the conditions of ERWS's 404 permit. However, Bob Weaver believes it is unlikely that the area of saturation recorded in 1995 and 1990 equals the acreage required as a condition of the permit. More importantly for VMP, this lack of accurate mapping makes it difficult to know whether or not our bridges and paths will be outside jurisdictional (wetland) areas. Prompted by this site visit, ACOE's preliminary conclusions are: 1) ERWS's mitigation pian hasn't been determined a success and therefore ERWS is not in compliance with the conditions of its 404 permit; and 2) Anna's delineation of existing wetlands is accurate; however, it demarcates only a portion of the areas over which the ALOE has jurisdiction. The known jurisdictional area will increase once we know more accurately where ERWS's intended mitigation areas are. ACOS and ERWS must resolve the goals and objectives of the approved mitigation plan for the site before ACOS will opine on VMP's avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts and whether we will need a 404 permit. We don't know whether we are avoiding jurisdictional areas until ERWS has indicated to us what WILL BE jurisdictional (wetlands). As it turns out, getting ACOS acceptance of Anna's wetland delineation is only a small piece of a complicated situation. Implications for VMP-. For VMP development to proceed, we will have to demonstrate to the ALOE that we are avoiding impacts to jurisdictional areas, which includes areas proposed for mitigation. Because the entire length of the swale ffed by Ditch Inlet A) that edges phases 1-3 was intended to be part of the mitigation area, we have to show that we can cross it without impacting it. This we can do, although at some additional cost (e.g, with a bridge or boardwalk). Or. an alternative would be that Bob Weaver modifies his mitigation plan to exclude the crossing points. (ERWS has engaged Weaver to modify it anyway to Mitigate another planned expansion of Black Lakes.) It is also possible that later phases of VMP development (phase 4 and after) will be affected by the intended mitigation area fed by ditch A in the eastern portion of the 2 • VMP site. The configuration of the looped path may change and the area available for placement of boulder memorials may be reduced In size. These are most likely minor changes, although they may mean that VMP will want to consider greater use of the upland meadow areas for memorials if needed to meet future demand in the long-term. In any event, ERWS must stake and survey the limits of their Intended mitigation area, hopefully yet this summer. This is necessary so that they can measure success of their mitigation with regard to hydrology, vegetation, and acreage. This documentation is also the only way VMP can demonstrate and document avoidance of impacts to jurisdictional areas. If this sounds confusing, it is a little. However, the bottom line is that Bob feels confident VMP's master plan is compatible with ERWS's wetland mitigation objectives on the site, even if minor adjustments may be required to certain elements in the VMP plan, like the later -phase path alignment. What is less clear is how this affects the timing of our construction of phase 1. If we work with Bob and ERWS to design a Swale crossing with a span long enough to avoid impacting Bob's intended wetland mitigation, we could possibly start this tall without formal ACOE approval of our plan, but there is some (probably very small) risk to ERWS and TOV (as the property owner) because they are only approximating where the water in the swale will be. If we wait for Bob to stake, survey, and modify his mitigation plan for ACOE approval, then go to the ALOE ourselves to demonstrate that VMP's phase I avoids impacts, we're definitely into earty summer next year at the earliest. It seems reasonable to think that we could devise a way to cross the Swale that is acceptable to ERWS and that would not prevent a fall start should the VMP Foundation board wish to do so. Other topics discussed with ALOE on site: The ACOE suggested TOV consider some way to guarantee that the mitigation area will remain a mitigation area in perpetuity (a conservation easement or deed restriction that future Councils could not change). (On a related point, Anna has suggested that a companion agreement be negotiated between TOV and ERWS to clarify ownership, acceptance of VMP's proposed use of the site, responsibility for mitigation, liability, etc.) ERWS must assure maintenance of the mitigation area and water availability in perpetuity. Without those. the ACOS feels the plan is unlikely to succeed unless more deliberate steps are taken, such as earthwork to lower the grades on the site or efforts to manually reintroduce wetland plant materials. The ACOE encouraged ERWS to augment water rights at the site to provide for water diversions for a longer duration during the summer. In ACOE's view, this would lend credence to ERWS's effort to comply with the permit. ERWS seems inclined to do so, which would definitely benefit VMP by supporting additional landscaping (memorial trees in particular). 3 0 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT VAIL MEMORIAL GARDEN AT KATSOS RANCH TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NUMBER- 1. UMBER 1. INTRODUCTION.......................••................................................................................................. I II. VICINITY AND GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................ I I11. WETLAND DESCRIPTION A. VEGETATION.................................................................._........................... 2 B. -SOILS ...................................................................................................................... 3 C. HYDROLOGY..............................................................................................3 IV. METHODS USED........................................................................................................................4 V. R.ESOUR.CES......................................... ....... ................................................................................... 4 • APPENDICES FIGURES FIGURE 1- SITE VICINITY, VAIL EAST, COLORADO 7.5 MINUTE QUAD FIGURE- 2 -WETLAND BOUNDARY SURVEYED BY PEAK LAND SURVEYORS, FRISCO, COLORADO PHOTOGR.APHS DATA FORMS WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT VAIL MEMORIAL GARDEN AT KATSOS RANCH 1. INTRODUCTION Montane Environmental Solutions, Ltd. (Montane) was retained by Sherry Dorward ASLA, (Client) to identify jurisdictional wetlands that may occur on a portion of the Katsos Ranch Open Space parcel located in East Vail, Colorado. It is located in the NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 80 West, North 39° 38' 38" West 106° 18' 37" (FIGURE 1). The property is accessed from Interstate 70 to Exit 180, to Bighorn Road, which is south of the highway. The ranch is on the south side of Gore Creek. The study area was a proposed parcel of the Katsos Ranch created by the Vail Memorial Garden Committee (FIGURE 2). The property is approximately 13 1/z acres comprised of open dry meadow, riparian, and aspen/cottonwood and lodgepole forests. The delineation was conducted on June 19 and 23, 2003 in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. 11. VICINITY AND GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The property is located at approximately 8,400 feet elevation within the Gore Creek basin in East Vail. The ranch is separated from Interstate 70 by Gore Creek. A dense community of willow shrubs also separates it from the residential development in East Vail, which is east of the parcel. The natural ecosystem of East Vail in this area is a montane environment with aspen forests dominating the steep valley slopes, which have occasional seeps within them creating species rich habitats. On the drier valley slopes, lodgepole pines and spruce -fir trees dominate. The undeveloped floodplain of Gore Creek of which the Katsos Ranch is part, is a mosaic of four dominant vegetative communities: 1) sagebrush (Seriphidium vaseyanum) and rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidifknw) 2) lodgepole (Pinus contorta) 3) Valerian (Valeriana edulO and 4) Mountain willow (Salix monticola). Precipitation in June 2003 was 148% of average. According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the SNOTEL station at Vail Mountain registered 2.2 inches of rain. The average precipitation for June is 1.8 inches. Snowpack was 28% of average at the time of the delineation and while Gore Creels saw higher than normal flows during May and June, they have been attributed to a quicker than normal snowmelt'.. Ill. WETLAND DESCRIPTION The jurisdictional wetlands on the property are primarily associated with the alluvial aquifer of Gore Creek. The majority of the site, primarily the open meadow is within the 100 -year ` http://www.wcc.nres.usda.gov/c-ibin/precip.pt?state=colorado Wetland Delineation Vail Memorial Garden P. 1 I� LJ floodplain'. The boundary begins at the southeast corner of the proposed property and continues in an equidistant corridor along Gore Creek. There is a slight topographical change from the floodplain to an elevation at the toe of the steep slopes that demarcates the boundary. The wetlands located on the property other than the riverine wetland along Gore Creek are low- lying, within depressions or drainages and typically dominated by willow shrubs. The transition from wetland to upland is obvious in these areas because the topography is abrupt and the vegetation immediately changes from willows and a wedand understory to a sagebrush/rabbitbrush dryland. Wetland C is a slope wetland that originates near the base of the steep slope in the southeast region of the parcel. It, too, is dominated by willow but its transition is gradual into the species - rich aspen forest higher on the slope. The wetlands along the banks of Gore Creek are less distinct in that the transition from riverine wetland to upland is gradual and includes mesic species such as Canada reedgrass (Calam,agrostis canadensis), geranium (Geranium richardsonii), and bedstraw (Galium. septentrionale). The parcel is also the location of a mitigation site for the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation. District Permit Number 9560 -- Katsos Ranch. The mitigation plan required "construction of a drop structure or series of drop structures in Gore Creek to raise the level of the stream and the water table and to allow a portion of the flow in Gore Creek to return to the abandoned oxbow." isThe "oxbow" is referring to the drainage located at the base of the steep slope on the south side of the parcel within the lodgepole gallery. While the ditches have water periodically within them, they do not support a predominance of wetland vegetation: The wetland consultant for the EVWSD believes the ditches may be maintaining some of the wetlands in the low-lying areas particularly Wetland I. The wetland boundary along the banks of Gore Creek is les distinct like that of Wetland C, in that the transition from riverine wetland to upland is gradual and includes mesic species such as Canada reedgrass (Calamagrostis cana&mis), geranium (Geranium richardsonii), and bedstraw (Gallium septentrionaLe). ��hL���,��a1►1 Wetlands on the property are predominantly a mosaic of shrub wetlands dominated by Salix drummondii and Salix monticola., both common willows of the montane zone and dominant in Eagle County. Along Gore Creek trees such as alder (Alnus tenuifolia) and Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) with occasional Colorado spruce (Picea pungens) occur within the mosaic. In the dry open areas sagebrush (Seriphidium nidentatum spp. vaseyanum) dominates, transitioning into sloping meadows of valerian (Valeriana edulis) on the south perimeter. z http://www.hazardmaps.gov/atlas.plip Wetland Delineation Vail Memorial Garden P. 2 Transition from wetland to upland is abrupt with stony upland areas dominated by pussytoes (Antennwia sp), buckwheat (Eriogonum umbeila.tum), fleabane (Erigeron sp), and disturbed areas invaded by toadflax (Lincaris vulgaris) with houndstongue (Cynoglossum o f ficinale). The table below lists native species characteristic of wetlands on the property. WETLAND VEGETATION COMMON NAME Aconitum columbianum FACW Monkshood Alnus incana tenui olia OBL Thin leaf alder Betula glandutosa OBL Bog birch Calanwgrostis Canadensis OBL Canada reedgrass Cardamine cordifolia OBL Bittercress Disti ea involucrataFAC Twinberry honeysuckle E uisetum arvense FAC* Field horsetail Galium s etentrionale FACU Northern bedstraw Geranium richardsonii FAC Geranium Heracleum 2anatum FAC Cow -parsnip Maianthemum stellatum FAC False Solomons seal Satix drummondii OBL Bluestem willow Salix monticola OBL Mountain willow B. HYDROLOGY The majority of the wetlands on the property are supported by the alluvial aquifer of Gore Creek. Its influence is captured where the topography is low and the plants can reach the water table. It appears that groundwater also nears the surface near Wedand C from the steep slopes of East Vail. The wetland boundary extends up the slope, which is likely due to the groundwater nearing the surface where the steep slope begins to decrease. At the time of the delineation, Gore Creek was receding from its flood stage. Some of the mitigation ditches had water in their initial reaches. Montane made an assumption that at that time, the water level may have been at ordinary high water and therefore the boundary of standing water became the boundary of the wetland. A vegetation indicator could not be used in these reaches because there were no plants browing in the ditches, and soil pits could not be dug due to the large cobbles. C. SOILS There is no soil survey coverage for the East Vail area by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. However it is possible that the soil identified is a transition of two soil series because of its location at the valley bottom and within the floodplain of Gore Creek. The soil found near the toe of the steep slope may be the Almy series. This is based on its description in the soil survey which states that is it a reddish brown loam, dark reddish brown when moist and formed in alluvium derived dominantly from calcareous Wealand Delineation Vail Memorial Garden p. 3 • 4 0 redbed sandstone and shale. The soil in Sample Point 1Wet most resembled this soil type. The other soil type found in Sample Point 2Wet resembled that of a Mollisol in its soft textured loam. However, its dark chroma and aquic moisture regime met the hydric indicator. IV. METHODS USED The wetland delineation methods used were in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, January 1987. A routine on-site inspection for ',Areas Equal to or Less than 5 Acres in Size' was performed. The data for the sampling points included vegetation and hydrology indicators. Two soil pits were dug to a depth of 16 -inches and were used to identify the presence of reduced soil conditions; depth to saturated soil, and depth to free water. Wetland boundaries were determined by the percentage cover of hydrophytic plant species (obligate, facultative wet, and facultative.), indicators of wetland hydrology, the presence of hydric soils, and topography. V. RESOURCES 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1987), Wetland Delineation Manual. 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1988), National List of Plant Species that UCCClr in Wetlands (Region 8). 3. U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service (1980), Soil Surve of Summit County Area Colorado. 4. Weber, W.A. (1996), Colorado Flora.Mstern Slope), Colorado ,Associated University Press. Wetland Delinearion Vail Memorial Garden p. 4 __ - �784763 1,1 $E , " av n. 0u vv. n. SCALE 124000 0 1 MILE 1' 0:: 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET USES 7.5 MIN. QUAD VAIL FAST, COLORADO 0 • Pi - 16.35' \ N 53525'07 E - 120- A PART SOF SEC 2, T55, r R80W k v M 1 GRAPHIC SCALE; rgrF c��1 l Imh CAI R Q 1 ----------- z---- N89'N'3i'w-inciE' 5011111 0 7. T35, R 80 W 45M' � 536'35'07-E-175.00' N55'W*1"W, - p(�-wa7raYK IIOhti YFyc uefw�MmuFMT�06b;i[m�Xt Ivtar� a lYIOI 1 Allfirx ,IS �1LI�YiIJpi [LU+iI P W iF�AYkA 1 rILMIL Np'f1 P t]M,Y IQS Aaa R LYW-Yr' • • mTM[L d 9M.m rCT3 ANIIQ a{!AP' A A Y6rAI,C. AQLx Y �M" [ A OSrn4Z P anP M1'tl`. M TYAI'1!' S L fdlNrQ d LR! M ]LAT1Y I a �a•O ? .r „. 16E R K.fAY' [ • WaR4 P n_.. A611 R A eLrMfi. O Lair Ay'r: 6YLrel L !Ll{]p' L A RliMM3 d QW fQl' A) A OIA A,MI-CI'-aT a NIDDTRt ]0 MOQ MON Li IgII-P-�SY 1F X41 mIIIYlCL l lTlfOL' S A pSfA,4 P IaII ILLI L { ag111Y R Y mrALCi P Yam ra7Z; s ! laxer L . ILLTMQ d rmm rar; a ! !e•a7r { . IlLrA,c P ,{wx RL,: L ! aWAI' { A ulTMG P 1418 Rrp R ! IOiN'RT r a vEAM¢ P 4m L6Ti IR L T{Y'or [ 1 ttlra`14 s TLm SrtYtl' R F LOxf 1LL118 AIL YWMIOf IM �6te -s A M 1RS roll R EYAaE. L40 fMfa dMLf11AN Y1.I10 I Iffi 41 1 , LlY LiCI i LOOAune IulYl mlAO APR LAIML q[YatOr aY{JC IYUA �Y Fflali I[M'4�A,Y AOI rON, d VlL. AOaa WRAIC AYa�.'T IYK Iw uw aw,nYc YQ oe Ilbi ro.o.l A AAc �.Rn, P A. aam h UAIfLFL r A.6 AYmaoR IGaAAO, {O:nN.4R {Pr rt (EAL m/rAV1 p10O ,4 KSnR 4 a,m tl1iO. !m& FL SYQ AY YAY gLauL�+w Au moa nm,l {o,mraa nMYlw Yl,wom it mR a. Im rw � RAwFAaI oLnYa Alq rau ,IM ,d. w,rcwn WIA,u,[ `` LL'W, L r _ flMr? uAE1� we d YAR Y,FR P A�K u�,VY Au, m'S M L[ST P ,rt OT.mz � Aur i YmwFa pyo Mr[. I�"''0peil:rr�P" LGRiI%o ssnclwn Y,e //} \ I YIOIOY WIrIT ma MY awo,Oal.,r IaCAApI tAlllRRAL AAS AApMRiL »�irr rc A xo[ . IMIo aiArcr n,.Y m Y.AR.olo,l luLrtr rur, uo nur rc n .ir A � Im® Iral {Oil AIS prA0.mudr P YmOC IIYIPYIY P Oa A.MV AArvlelr LwL.t 1 MAV Pr11R lw, iK YAYoimvClli Olt ,I[ Hawn Oaam AALL6 oA AG CA1C Y1AL/4L [®" u,un 49Y[CAO,[L IA[ LISUQY •Aw AL: RVAnYAOIm,�.l'AYY09R! YY aNLRUO,Y ar MA�w1Y(wK A cvAr'is .ecA,m Ae Aur r!L{a r{ ro .RAcn twa-AaL n rw a An IA>p41f alamn a eRmNc a!, alr P sF,Y rnm YLOPr V xla,. LAa mm, a AFQ ogOum Y3 M OBM `•� '� �Ni G'54'S3"E - 52.Of7' Y,O AMALrL � ; mRaLYa wrLYL[ J NR eLr: - arYY.r M �30 O 1 57299'30"W-82.73' � �\ Ni. ,,r A A PART bF SEC T5SJ RBOW ` a .ImrNal �{ ala s.rNae • ------------------ 0 •fitx rMlsMa �iw aao Wv6�ur�ow..4vf .�oon�v M �v' u a..gew..i lte avn.al [wt] 6 K v K f., neat IN v 1R W1{ K salt. IN awls a Y+. lXWlgt S alwY a .NNYY s llneri. rangy¢ Ilan +amu` ol• i ; m�rN a a 'snv�+ rari r 'tiro.- [ . rrl `�.°`n si W tYV I1 L A q.rwa a .Sn mY� h Vw']v [ L tta.ra P 1LY! 16p 1 Y J h11hWZ v n,v RI. mp¢ rnilr i h mows v aN Rlr v . -qT v �efat.x A .art. .tY.l Lla wal-v-lur K NL i .aver [ . Kiwla a rxa ran ]rtl art.__ ylr 0 . n ray 1.NCP [ . W.er4 a Stu tQLI L. 1 YA'N' [ a taiwra v N.I. rat 9 la,tir ...aa.wa o .im aaD 1 relp.r [ . arwra v aaw eal a A rw.n Yell K ai®m M[ wL �IevaEPKf. ]r �L.� YMarwO 1W . ,aT YM m.. . 1�v11.WP1� K s.wa +iwle o.c.��arn y+pan . .+.o.ala• lae.sm �.ca ne.cuY n nu m+.wn asa W. slur as nfm a.. m.sanNl w mnso ere. wwr.nl...a`.a r.vm i Im licrl rlwo ��+�or nr..m nm rou ur o. a.rfrel. mimriR ["aa.il I{Lo Wt LPr Y n . �.x•s a..saroer weAm mrl.�.a I Ilflelr IRs• MI .Y nv�I vlr tnC.f'a+mtfnua �..I+wTwO Wr W e Its . t.ry a.rR> rr,.r�a� aw..r wAr. wa oar n� /wPOgr U� ri K � P rBRL Y.l a IW 1� .IP mrvT ]ea rid lwomna tw x AA4 RK+wa Hsm A wrworMNL Lmt uam cn.eeldi ..[ eW+.6Y w.w rR Mc] a ae era mne a sar Mar Teas K a L+>ow.neea 4W.W wr aswb w...a .r aanaon • .wa• nme a res. .r nus n A r.aror a stn a ... INI6c1i vhnvrq u wwvwo yv wv a w rAm 012+r N M01m NAR i ewt —k1C'U'53"£ – 52.w N99' 31"W — 902.49' f� WAY. ". T;mor /r X w.• _G1.hY� � i ;sk i.. `►� r - .' .yv"YF'� w''ir'rK�. ` lw •. .. �: 'vP / ~ _ �T y Nom+ ' 4 y y�-1..': _fiN• f�.� s, .`-7- ( fir" r �iy� mow; r{ "� � ,�, ...eiFT `' '-•reAP- ,*� � '.� �.: 'nig°' '�� � �� �, ��.r•� `<' c i �J. - ,d", - e o f Y iWA :... rt K: �, �i%• w y � i �J. - ,d", - e o f Y iWA :... rt K: �, �i%• DATA FORM L r L_ ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (9987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) -4 ect/Ste nri .� � I Stratum 1 Date[Appflcant�/ Dominant Plant Species Owner V Indicator I County Investigator 9 State ❑ Drift Lines Do Normal Circum[s, a'Aes exist on the site? ES PO Community ID 10 Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? NO Transect ID 11:= Is the area a potential Problem Area? tit needed, explain on reverse) YES NO Plot iD 4 �fsr L f cx VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species I Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 7 X r`i r o 4, "? .L_ 9 ❑ Drift Lines 2-� •, ,,^opt[ ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): FIELD OBSERVATIONS 10 (in) 3 StM I Inc ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit (in) 4 �r(ZE s v✓ A 5 (} f L 12 `} (in) 11 Other (Explain in Remarks) 5 w1Ao t . if► HkLl, r1 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 ercent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) Remarks r HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS Primary Indicators: ❑ Stream, Lake, ar Tide Gauge ❑ Inundated ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Saturated in Lipper 12 Inches ❑ Other ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines No Recorded Data Available ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): FIELD OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface Water (in) ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit (in) ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC -Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil `} (in) 11 Other (Explain in Remarks) DATA FORM ROUTINE VVETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site -Q5 &LAJADate (D Applicant 1 Owner County Investigator State Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site. YES NO Community ID Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO Transect ID Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Ii needed, explain an reverse) YES NO I Plot ID 2 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator C>a i hc4� a. S oert- 9 ❑ Drift Lines 2 VCM k 0'r i 6 ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): POW10 Depth of Surface Water (in) 3 fk vl ( C_` 11 Depth to Free Water in Pit (in) 4 i U v+A t 12 5 (in) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) Remarks HYDROLOGY ElRecorded Data in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS (Describe Primary Indicators: ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Iundated ❑ Aerial PhotagraphsSaturated in Upper 12 Inches El Other ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ No Recorded Data Available ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): FIELD OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface Water (in) ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit (in) ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC -Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil (in) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) • • -DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION 11987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) ✓i PruiectOSite Z%( Date i Applicant ! Owner V(Pl' o County Investigator p,r State U Do Normal Circumss44es exist on the site? V ,G YES NO Community ID Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situa •Jn)? Vk_"o YES NO Transect ID Is the area a potential Probiem Area? (if needed, explain on reverse) YES `N Plot ID a 4lr:t_;:TATir)N Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 r ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ) c�, 9 ❑ Drift Lines 2 r >' 0 � . LJ FIELD OBSERVATIONS 10 (in) 3 ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves I epth to Free Water in Pit (in) 4 USM '•-� , ( 12 Depth to Saturated Soil (in) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) 5 13 6 14 15 Vrcent 16 ominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) ' t• HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS Primary Indicators: ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Inundated ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches El Other ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines No Recorded Data Available ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): FIELD OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface Water (in) ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves I epth to Free Water in Pit (in) El Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC -Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil (in) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) 6�J 0 0 Z 'o ------------ -..---- ------ ---------- ----------- - 3:i3 ki ax zo 14 I ILA I 'WE AC m 7.7 Se 31, pa PE, < A- -4 .5 II3 -P e W Fj 0 rn 7- - 0 n P o :c r— 0 ,/.: > m Z .5 II3 � ----�----. � -�1; . • � - b® i ^\)kk m «x7— OFE& 5F�SE \ m }. E C \! \!)a ----�----. � r • 0 N a CD m 3: 0 r 0 v m M C] • Y 0 ;�� l3: rim 0 r 0 r m C7 0 co I 3: m 3: 0 M Z 0 N 0 m I I* 0 r � rn � l 0 f x 0 � t C • CA m 0 z d I� CD • 0 0 p t M i t 4� � gyp. ^ �• B 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 25, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to allow for text amendments to Title 14, Section 10, Development Standards Handbook; and the Vail Village Design Considerations, Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, to allow for the use of temporary enclosures of outdoor dining decks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: The Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett I. SUMMARY The applicant, the Town of Vail, is proposing the text amendments contained in the next section of this memorandum so that eating and drinking establishments may employ the use of temporary enclosures for outdoor dining decks. A number of Design Review Board applications have been submitted recently that have requested approval for the use of transparent fabric sidewalls to enclose covered outdoor dining areas during warm weather months when rainstorms are likely. The distinction between "warm weather months" as opposed to more narrowly stating "summer months" is meant to include months like May and October, when people might choose to dine outside if it is warm enough, and allow eating and drinking establishments to unfurl temporary sidewalls during intermittent periods of inclement weather. The proposed amendments are not, however, intended to allow eating and drinking establishments to keep the sidewalls unrolled during winter months in order to permit their outdoor dining facilities to remain operational. Staff is recommending approval of this request as it will further the purpose and intent of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting to amend Title 14 of the Vail Town Code. The proposed text amendments are meant to expand the utility of outdoor dining decks and patios by allowing for a means of temporary protection from inclement weather while diners are occupying those spaces. With these amendments, restaurant owners would be able to unroll the clear sidewalls during periods of rain and then roll them back up afterward, allowing diners to remain seated outside without having to be disturbed and scramble back indoors_ 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 amendments are text amendments to Title 14, Section 10, Development Standards Handbook, and the Vail Village Design Considerations, Vail Village 0 Urban Design Guide Pian, to add language as follows: (deletions are shown in strike *hFo gh/additions are shown bold) 0 Town of Vail Development Standards, 10.C. Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, etc.: 7. Covered, outdoor dining decks and patios associated with eating and drinking establishments may employ the use of temporary, transparent, pliable sidewalk during periods of inclement weather from April 1 through December 1, annually. Page 22, Vail Village Design Considerations, Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines: Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to the streets, opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a Busy street making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty. ( • • •) Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to: - sun - views - rainstorms - wind - pedestrian activity Ill. BACKGROUND 0 At present, the code and pertinent planning documents are ambiguous in terms of whether or not the temporary enclosure of outdoor dining decks and patios via transparent, pliable sidewalls is prohibited or permitted. On July 1, 2003, the Town Council overturned a Design Review Board decision of denial for a proposal to use transparent plastic sidewalls on the covered dining patio at the Ore House located at 232 Bddge Street, thus permitting their use. In overturning the DRB decision, the Council acknowledged the importance of outdoor dining decks throughout Vail and the distinct benefit of being able to use those spaces even when summer rainstorms roll through the valley. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for forwarding a recommendation of approvallapproval 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: 0 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific 2 I 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 approval/approval with conditions/denial of a text amendment. The Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 1, The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. 0 Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. . V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 14, Section 10, Development Standards Handbook The Development Standards Handbook contains language pertinent to the design and construction of decks associated with residential and commercial uses. While the text in this section does not specifically mention the temporary enclosure of outdoor dining decks, it does speak to the importance of proper design techniques and employing common sense to unique land use situations. Chapter 8 Architectural Design Guidelines Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan The vision statement at the beginning of this chapter contains the following sentence: 0 "The pedestrian experience of the public spaces within Lionshead is the most critical issue for redevelopment. " Outdoor dining decks contribute significantly to the vibrant activity of the pedestrian ways throughout Vail and offer a link from the person on the street to the buildings themselves. Expanding the utility of these vital outdoor spaces is crucial to maintain a human presence on the streets even during periods of inclement weather. Vail Village Design Considerations, Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan As stated in Section II of this staff memorandum, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan contains the following passage concerning outdoor dining decks and patios: 'Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to the streets, opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty." An important component of a properly designed and sited outdoor dining deck or patio is the ability to temporarily enclose that space during intermittent periods of harsh weather conditions. Maintaining a busy street that offers a rich pedestrian experience means doing so no matter what the weather happens to be at any given moment. The proposed text amendments offer a method of keeping the streets alive even when the rain is being blown sideways by the wind. 4 VI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria and factors for consideration for a request of a text amendment are established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-3, Vail Town Code Ordinance No. 4, Series 2002). A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Text Amendment: The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 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 quality." To effectively meet the demands for an outdoor dining experience in Vail during the warmer months when rainstorms roll through the valley, the provision of temporarily enclosed outdoor dining spaces is critical. 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 amendments will work toward further safeguarding and enhancing the appearance of the Town of Vail by providing a viable alternative to the permanent enclosure of these aesthetically valuable outdoor dining spaces. In recommending approval of the proposed amendments, the PEC will ensure that restaurant owners will not come forth, en masse, to permanently enclose their outdoor dining decks in the interest of obtaining a greater seating capacity throughout the year. 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 Section 4.3, Chapter II of the Town of Vail Land Use Pian states: The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of trail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 0 Staff believes that by allowing outdoor dining decks to be enclosed during the warm weather months to protect customers from the weather, the ambiance so vital to the identity of Vail will be further preserved. Outdoor dining decks that can be temporarily enclosed, rather than permanently, are an essential element of the scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, and environmental quality in Vail to which the Comprehensive Plan speaks. 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 adoption of the subject planning documents, outdoor dining decks have become an increasingly valuable asset for proprietors of restaurants and bars and diners alike. The proposed amendments are meant to safeguard and enhance the dining experience in Vail by accentuating a very popular feature in many of Vail's restaurants. Retaining a healthy, vibrant community that is active and alive is the purpose of these planning documents and the proposed text amendments, 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 existing regulations and guidelines that provide for eating and drinking establishments being able to provide outdoor dining. In order to permit restaurants to utilize outdoor dining decks and patios in a more efficient manner, the proposed amendments will allow restaurateurs to maintain outside seating during episodes of inclement weather. Instead of having to move a large group of people indoors during a rainstorm to inside seating that may already be full, the establishment may simply unroll the temporary enclosure walls to protect diners from the weather event. Again, this is seen as a common municipal development objective. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before forwarding a recommendation of approval for a text amendment: 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 6 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. VII. 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 14, Section 10, Development Standards Handbook; and the Vail Village Design Considerations, Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following: 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of 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 amendments further the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 3.. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote 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 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 Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill John Schofield Gary Hartmann Erickson Shirley George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Site Visits None Driver: George �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 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 PEG 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 Il I T©WWOFVAIL �i` 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 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 staffs 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. 2 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 40 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. 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. 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. Motion: 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 3 regarded this issue. George Ruther stated that those legal proceedings would be discussed with the Town Attorney. 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. 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 40 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. CI Bill Gibson explained that there is no measure in place requiring an applicant to build a certain 40 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. 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. Russ 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 job easier. He also spoke of the 14 foot measurement for vaulted space definition, etc. He also mentioned that crawl spaces of 18 40 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. Bill 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 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. 5 John Schofield concurred, adding that the figures would continue to be worked with. Russ commented on the same. 0 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. PEC 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. 0 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. 0 Erickson said that if basements are excluded, above grade becomes a problem with extra bulk and mass - 6 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 wanted to incentives sub —t growth. John Schofield commented on the thoroughness of the memo and his appreciation regarding 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 abasement. 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. 40 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"? 7 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. Erickson suggested that before a final formula come into the final worksession, several outsiders should be consulted. 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 191 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 5th Filing from Public Accommodation zone district (PA) to Parking zone district (P); a request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council forthe 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 5" Filing; a request fora 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. 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. 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. 9 Erickson Shirley stated that many of the issues had already been addressed. 0 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 the 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. 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 conceming 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. 10 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. 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; 12-7D-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 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 12 • just "crush us". is 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. Russ asked if design guidelines were necessary. 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. l� 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 _p 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 development proposal varied in intensity and therefore would warrant 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 HE • • • additional GRFA 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 40 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 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 Drive. 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. 15 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 Council would fine residents and businesses for the streetscape plan. 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 it was brought to them. The new council would not understand how implementation should occur and the process that went into developing the addendum. Greg Hall replied that the 1999 Streetscape Master Plan is being implemented currently. Erickson Shirley stated that the town voted against the levy 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. 16 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 levels, etc. Erickson Shirley clarified that the SQI] 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. is 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 that those who wanted the plan implemented should be responsible for paying for it. The reason why the levy failed, he said, was because the plan was not organized well enough. He continued that a levy should be put on the ballot to pay for the majority of the improvements. 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 the plan was a little too much, a Hurnvee, not a Cadillac, which was all the Town needed. 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 17 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 -7B -4B, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1' Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc Planner: Bill Gibson 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 12-61-1-6, Setbacks, and 12-6H-7, Height, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at Manor Vail, 595 E. Vail Valley Drive/Lot A, Vail Village 7th Filing. 1 Q Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Bob McCleary Planner: Warren Campbell Withdrawn Approval of July 25, 2003 minutes Not prepared, will be addressed next week 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. 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. 18 • • • 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 Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published August 8, 2003 in the Vail Daily_ r: • • • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLICM EETING Monday, July 28, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1 - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Cahill John Schofield Erickson Shirley George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartmann Chas Bernhardt Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Beaver Creek loading and delivery facility- (optional) 10:00 am (van departs from the Community Development Department) 2. Vail's Front Door — Vail Village 1:00 pm 3. Lodge Tower — 164 Gore Creek Dr. 4, Snownow LLC — 2388 Garmisch 5. Houtsma — 1868 West Gore Creek Dr. Driver: George !D NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, and 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential and garage addition, located at 1868 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 47, Vail Village West 1 st Filing, Applicant: John and Bobbi -Ann Houtsma Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave a presentation per the staff report. Donna Schultz-Caynoski, with Sonnenalp Real Estate and presenter of the project, introduced the purchaser. Paul Mussin, the prospected purchaser asked about the notch on the garage drawn on his second set of plans. He wondered if he could get additional square footage out of that. TOWNN OF PAIL John Schofield mentioned that the applicant would be the one who needed to revise the plans. I* Allison Ochs stated that additional square footage, especially to go into a setback, would need the modification of the applicant and could require additional variances. John Schofield stated that to modify this application, the current owner/applicant would need to be present. Mrs. Holm, an adjacent property owner, requested tabling the application. She mentioned that she did not understand the variance. The place where the garage was supposed to go seems too small a place for the garage to be placed. She wanted verification that the entire garage is going in the front of the house. Allison Ochs mentioned that the original variance was approved in 1995, and it expired, which is why the applicant is reapplying today. Mrs. Holm reiterated her fear of the tree coming down and again expressed interest in seeking consul with an attorney. George Lamb commented that a garage and enclosed parking is positive. The landscape also seemed to be an advantage. He was not in favor of a side setback variance. Rollie Kjesbo agreed that he did not approve of a side setback variance Erickson Shirley and Gary Hartman had no comments. Doug Cahill asked why the previous design was not being endorsed. Allison Ochs mentioned that the footprint was the exact same as in 1995, but that there were modifications to the interior of the house. Chas Bernhardt had no comment. The neighbor, Mrs. Holm, returned to say that the plans they proposed never took place but were approved. John Schofield stated that the previous approval was one that would be upheld. The applicant demonstrated that there is a physical hardship with the slope and previous county annexations, etc. He mentioned that there were grounds for granting a variance as similar variances have been granted in the past. Motion: Gary Hartman, to approve, the site coverage variance with the conditions and findings as outlined in the staff memorandum Second: Chas Bernhardt Vote: 7-0-0 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-21-14E(2), Restrictions In Specific Zones On Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of driveways and surface parking in excess of 10% of the total site area, located at 2388 Garmisch Drive/Lot 9, Block G, Vail Das Schone 2' Filing. Applicant: Snow Now, LLC, represented by John G. Martin Planner: Bill Gibson 2 The variance was introduced by Bill Gibson. Several nonconformities exist. A primary/secondary residence was proposed for lot 9, on which a driveway currently exists. A 10% maximum for parking and driveway areas currently exists. The applicant is requesting that his site be viewed as having a hardship since the driveway services lot 10 as well. Staff was recommending approval of the variance. John Schofield asked for public input. Pete, a neighbor who owns property east of the lot, mentioned that the road in question had been used since 1970 and requested that the driveway remain open for their use. BIII Gibson mentioned that the easement between the adjoining property owners and the applicant would be drawn up to ensure continued access. Erickson Shirley mentioned that the legal rights, easements, etc. between the property owners were not affected by PEC decisions. Another neighbor, Norma Brotten, expressed concern about the increase in parking from 10-30%. She was told that there would be garages on top and three units, vs. 2 units with garages on top. Bill Gibson clarified that the 30% was to accommodate the existing driveway and that garages are being proposed. He relayed that copies of the plans were available for her perusal. Norma expressed more concern about the steepness of the slope and the erosion concerns. She was also concerned about the easement because she needed to repair her roof. Doug clarified that the applicant's plan was necessary. John Schofield mentioned that the grade of the driveway would actually improve. Erickson Shirley mentioned that the DRB would further address her aesthetic concerns concerning the driveway. The applicant was still not present. Gary Hartmann expressed agreement with the lot proving a hardship. Doug Cahill mentioned that the access conditions would improve with this proposal. Chas Bernhardt, George Lamb and Rollie Kjesbc had no additional comment. Erickson Shirlye clarified that the PEC was not at all affecting easement rights, but that those rights were between property owners, etc. John Schofield agreed with the hardship and the percentage of driveway coverage was justified by the fact that the driveway served three lots. He suggested that a condition be added of an agreed -to easement between the property owners. Motion: Doug Cahill, to approve, with the condition that before building permit, an access easement is agreed upon by the owners of lots 8,9,10. Second: George Lamb, to approve with the above condition Vote: 7-0-0 0 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations Or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a lobby and elevator addition to the Lodge Tower South Condominiums, located at 164 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Lodge Tower South Condominium Association, represented by Stan Cope Planner: George Ruther Gary Hartmann recused himself from item 3 of the project as he had some previous involvement with the project. George Ruther introduced the project. Tim Losa, representing the applicant, showed the existing Lodge loading dock and tower. He mentioned that the Lodge Tower circulation would be through the back side. Basically, the new development would include a new loading dock at the western end of the building. Traffic circulation to the parking garage would be from the front door, through the new garage, then exiting in the same direction. New office and lobby space would also be included. Again, an elevator, trash chute and closet for the floor above as well. The extent of other developments had not been decided upon yet. Erickson Shirley asked what the request from PEC would be. Tim Losa mentioned that it would be for an exterior alteration. John Schofield asked if the applicant had thought of the implications of needing an easement or two. The applicant responded that easements had been negotiated, between the condo assoc and Vail Resorts. The impacts to the Lodge tower condo were minimal; therefore, the easements were negotiated, should the town agree. Erickson Shirley asked why the alteration was coming to PEC. George Ruther responded that improvements of this magnitude were required to come to PEC. In addition, a subdivision application would replat a portion of the property to a deeded lot under the Lodge Tower. Also, the possibility exists that density and site coverage variances may need to be addressed as well. Erickson Shirley asked if there were any height issues. George Ruther said "not that he was aware of'. John Schofield asked about timing. The applicant mentioned that one phase would be adequate. 0 John Schofield verified that he was asking about approval process time frame and clarified that one more worksession would be needed. Doug Cahill asked about additional site coverage issues. The applicant responded that there would be issues due to the fact that there were 34 years left on the lease. Erickson Shirley asked about the existing height issues. Would that increase? George Ruther. said no, but that site coverage would likely increase. The subdivision of the property would be the nemesis of the project, in his view, which would be dealt with in time. The applicant mentioned that their primary concern was in the functionality of the project. Jay Peterson, of Vail Resorts, expressed little concern, even support of the Tower's plans. He said the common loading and delivery was already addressed. According to Jay, the subdivision aspect had been present since 1972.. John Schofield asked for more specific public input. There was no public input Item 4 on the agenda was then asked to be addressed. Rollie Kjesbo asked about a footing easement to take space over the property line. The applicant replied that the space between the foundation walls would basically remain unused, so why not ask for an easement, through storage lockers? George Lamb also expressed that the situation seemed awkward. He was in favor of granting a footing easement as well. Jay Peterson mentioned that the ground lease had already addressed that issue. John Schofield said that the different zone districts were going to have to be addressed and asked for a resolution to the problem. Rollie Kjesbo asked why the applicant wanted his own loading dock. He asked why couldn't the applicant share the Front Door project's loading dock and would there not be space constraints? The applicant stated that the distance down the tunnel would be too lengthy to ferry trash. John Schofield agreed with the concern about crowding. Erickson Shirley agreed with the issue. He did not understand the rationale of the dock. Stan Cope, the managing agent, mentioned that to move a dumpster took serious moving apparatus. He mentioned that the mass did not need to be placed on the west end of the building and there was a desire not to interfere with guest activities. Stan said the compactor was intended to be placed on the loading dock, to be emptied twice a week. John Schofield urged staff to address that issue more thoroughly. Erickson Shirley expressed the need to understand the project a bit more. S George Ruther agreed to bring in further information at the appropriate time_ Doug Cahill asked that the above and below grade spaces be illustrated thoroughly. 0 Five minute break until item number 4. 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Section 12- 7B-13, Density Control, Zoning Regulations; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 51" Filing from Public Accommodation zone district (PA) to Parking zone district (P); a requestfora 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 fora minor subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5`h Filing; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Code of a proposed major subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the "trade parcel"; a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a "private off-street vehicle parking facility and public park" to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 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 Jay Peterson, Vail Resorts, introduced the project, stating that several issues from the last meeting had been resolved; specifically the traffic analysis. Tom Braun talked first about the skier services yard. Erickson Shirley asked about the purple color, wondering where ticket transactions would be taking place. John Schofield mentioned that 6 or 7 windows would be in existence, but wasn't sure how many windows currently existed. The ski storage would be dropped to garden level, in order to meet the definition of the code. He went on to address the changes to the ski yard. Erickson first asked about ski storage and whether lockers and baskets were proposed? Tom Braun explained the ski storage. He continued to explain how the ski yard would function in terms of the maze to the lift and where people would click out of their boots. He then discussed the ability to host a ski race and setup the ski yard for a ski race. He then continued to discuss the possibilities for hosting summer functions. Erickson Shirley asked if the plan was to put a trampoline, putt -putt golf, and climbing wall in the summer ski yard. Tom Braun said that they currently do not plan to place those functions there at this time. 0 He said that those uses would require a conditional use in the future if they wished to pursue them in the yard. Jim Lamont asked about how many people could fit in that area. Tom Braun stated that there are accepted areas in which people feel comfortable, however, he did not have those numbers on hand, but he believed that 15 feet per person was accepted throughout the industry. Jim Lamont asked if the ski yard would be able to handle the same, more, or less people than previous years ski races have occurred. Chas Bernhardt stated that at 15 square feet per person, approximately 4,000 people could fit in the proposed space. Jim Lamont asked if the roof material on the base lodge had changed. Tom Braun stated that it was still sod. Sybil Novas, special events planning, thanked Vail Resorts for looking at this area so well. She stated that the turf should be sturdy enough for foot traffic. She asked if concession space was available and can you get a tractor trailer onto the site for larger events? Jay Peterson stated how large rigs could get on site. i Karen Romeo, representing LuAnne Wells, stated that the most disturbing issue is that this s building will take up one-third of the site. She asked why does the existing ticket booth need to converted to retail under One Vail Place? She felt this change unnecessarily increases the size of the building_ Tom Boni from Knight Planning Services, representing LuAnne Wells, gave a presentation regarding public spaces. He discussed the narrowness of the site and the impacts on views. He felt as much of the site as possible should go below grade. He stated that everything above ground affects the fabric of the area. Karen Romeo had two final thoughts. She feels the building be reduced in size once again and expressed concern over the official, designated view corridors. She mentioned the town code's address of the corridors, which are meant to foster civic pride and should be preserved. She urged the PEC to remember the intent of such corridors. LuAnne Wells was very concerned about the size of the "one massive, huge building" and stated that the entrance to "the best mountain in the world" should be taken more seriously. She said a flat roofed building that takes 113 to 1/2 of the ski yard is not acceptable and hoped that the Well's team's proposal would be taken more seriously. Jay Peterson answered to say that part of the concept of the building was in part dictated by the owners of One Vail Road. He said that originally, sod was thought of, which required a flat roof. He said that the entire concept was to allow their view to be upon a vista, or a meadow, thus the flat roof. He mentioned that if the flat roof was no longer a criteria, then different options could be explored. He mentioned that the feeling will always exist that less is better and bigger is worse. Jay said that the services that will be provided in that building would be skier services and are necessary and that ski school and ticket sales would also be incorporated in that building. Erickson Shirley asked how VR would respond to relocating some of the services into the One Vail Building. 0 Jay Peterson agreed that that would be an expensive proposition and that there would need to be some return. He said that the building and its contents exist as a matter of convenience and that at some point, the building could get too small and would then become a mistake. He said that if the roof program has changed, the building could be broken up a bit more and designed slightly differently. John Schofield requested further input. Steve Riden spoke further about not wanting a large structure in front of One Vail Road. He said that one of the solutions was to create a sod roof structure. He felt that the building still seemed too close, and too high. He brought up the fact that four or five feet of snow could be present on this roof as well. Erickson Shirley asked if the sod roof was still a priority for the owners? Steve Riden said no, but that a better solution than this building was still required. Basically, none of the owners want to look at the roof of another building from their own building, regardless of the material. John Schofield asked about surface access for the owners. Steve Riden said that that was the initial conversation that was addressed but the surface access still wants to be maintained. 0 Murray Hemminger., a resident since 1963, representing a company from Italy, TX began to talk about monolithic domes, and mentioned their safety aspects. He said he gave a packet to George to explain the dome and its positive incorporation into the project. Ten minute break for consultation. John Schofield convened the meeting for PEC input. Gary Hartmann mentioned that the ski yard itself is not changing and said that the ski yard is getting slightly bigger because the Vista Bahn is being taken out of the equation. He said that as for view corridors, the view corridor under discussion is already being impacted by existing uses. He said that as far as the general scale of the building, the design as it stands has several pros and cons and that the current size blends it into the ski yard, making the mass disappear. Gary said that the cons include that a sod roof can be done very badly in addition to being done very well. The sod roof never integrates into natural grade. A small scale building brings continuity to the area, whereas a large building integrates a new size and scale. A small scale building with a traditional roof might be preferable. However, those roof pitches may be higher, impacting views for condo owners and others. Doug Cahill mentioned that the ski yard area had vastly improved. He asked about the existing grade of where the pavers are....would that carry on into the proposed first floor elevation? 0 John Schofield asked for sections. Chas Bernhardt said that the overlays were helpful in visualizing the project's changes and 8 layout, alleviating his concerns from before. His other concern centered on the fact that moving the building back without giving up the road was unfair. He encouraged VR to put as much under grade as possible, lowering the building, perhaps stepping up the western section, and overall, making more people happy. George Lamb mentioned that the ski yard improvements were substantial: good. He said the idea to remove sod might be a possibility that is positive and that moving the activity is a good idea, to open things up. When a consensus for a building is arrived at, he mentioned that view corridors should remain protected. The tunnel enclosure proved to be a problem, he said. He thought that the interplay could work between delivery people, guests, etc. HE said a grading plan would make sense, making things easier to understand and that the coffee area seems to conflict with the majority of the building's uses. George asked if that use could go elsewhere? Rollie Kjesbo liked the ski yard and the reduction in building size. He worried about the 4000 square feet club level. If the view corridor is too much of a problem, put the driveway to One Vail Place underground. Erickson Shirley mentioned disappointment that the land was not staked during site visits as it was hard for him to imagine footprints, etc. He mentioned that the view corridors must be protected, but how was he supposed to accurately judge the project without the stakes being placed? He said that the notion of competition, town vs. resort development, is different in different places. Vail needs to be careful, he said, not to sacrifice the community at the sake of competition with other ski areas. The issue of grade was important to him, because of its longevity. He felt that Vail must continue to be able to host 0 large-scale events and asked how is the grade going to affect the ski races and the racers? Will this affect Vail's ability to host ski races and will the Vista Bahn tum into a 6 -seater lift? Jack Hunn said no. Erickson stated that regarding the alley, won't handcarts create noise? He stated that may create a greater burden on One Vail Place than necessary. Regarding ticket sales windows, the impact on residents would be too great. He said the skier services. Building should house the ticket window on the side so that owners endure less impact. The architecture of the skier services building seems to have been driven by the owners of One Vail Place. The architecture should be driven instead by the TOV. The community's best interest should be of prime importance. Perhaps the building could be "broken up and moved around". Delete the parts of the building that are not necessarily integral. The design submitted by Wells was nice, he said. The architecture should be that of postcard quality. In spite of the concerns of the residents, he thought the most important thing to do was to create a wonderful piece of architecture. "The better it looks, the bigger it can be". As for view corridors, they were perhaps not very accurately portrayed. The PEC should look at establishing the view corridors, having the property staked, etc. John Schofield asked for the sections again. George Ruther responded that the sections were not available, but the revised grading plan is would help. Chas Bernhardt commented that ticketing was ill -placed. He felt that in the early morning in the middle of winter, that location is going to be coldest. He said that 7,660 would be the square footage of basic necessities and all other operations should be put underground. 9 John Schofield stated that no matter what, someone is going to be unhappy. John urged the applicant to do what worked and what would be approved by PEC, basically. He requested that accurate and revised information be present at the next worksession. Regarding the ski yard, the numbers were reflective of what he thought and that the function of the site will be adequate at high stress times. He said that the racing concerns are not particularly worrisome and as far as the size of the building, some elements are not in the applicant's control. He felt that to have a small building serving a club takes up a lot of room and perhaps the road could "go away" and one building would suffice. He believed that the sod roof still has merit and that without sod, the pitch must be raised, views are affected. He said that he would like to see the size of the Gold Peak building and the number of skiers it services, vs the size of this building and the number of skiers it services. John felt that hand cart noise would be minimal. Erickson Shirley said that his point was not about the length of the finish line, but about how the grading impacts the course and asked would Vail still be able to host big-time ski races? Jack Hunn said yes, that VR was in support of ski races. He asked if he could clarify the placement of the ticket window as it was moved to accommodate an area for the customers, a waiting area. Many members of the PEC expressed that they liked the way it was currently designed. Chas mentioned that he was just thinking of the owners in terms of their comfort. Doug Cahill asked about the elevation of that area. Erickson Shirley mentioned that the windows should be on the side and stated that the applicant must have difficulty with the variation among the members of the PEG. 0 Jack Hunn asked what the preference was for the ticket windows. Gary, Doug, Chas, George, and Rollie, liked the windows as they were currently proposed. Erickson thought that the placement was not particularly good. Jay Peterson rose and said that the idea of roofing the corridor deals with bulk and mass. He said that the area was proposed to be roofed for neighbor -reasons, but that perhaps was not so necessary anymore. He mentioned that traffic could be mixed and was perhaps a non-event. He felt that the open air would give the carts the opportunity to disperse, rather than be confined, therefore lending more flexibility. He then asked for input from the Commission. Erickson Shirley asked why that area was covered. Jack Hunn said that it was in response to a request to mitigate noise, etc. PEC poll: George, Rollie, Erickson, Gary, Doug (could you bring the elevator out of another building? Jack said not really) agreed that the corridor should not be covered. Tom Braun rose to talk about the traffic engineering. He wanted to address concerns regarding Vail Road and the traffic it would begin to generate. He mentioned that how the facility was to be run once it was in place was the Town's responsibility. 0 Bob Hazlitt, traffic engineer with Kimley-Hom expressed interest in adding clarity to the project through the traffic analysis. He reviewed the conclusions of the traffic report. 10 John Schofield asked about whether the analysis took into account all the redevelopment. 40 Bill said yes. Chas Bernhardt asked if the engineer had ever worked with the TOV before? (i.e. what was the result of the traffic studies at the base of Golden Peak?) Greg Hall said that Golden Peak was studied for the W' busiest day of the year but he did not know the specifics of the report Doug Cahill asked about the Sonnenalp redevelopment. Torn Braun mentioned that traffic analysis for the development was taken into effect. A net reduction on Vail Road was shown from the Sonnenalp project. Erickson Shirley asked about Lots P3 & J. John Schofield asked for public comment. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Assocation, asked about trucks already having made deliveries. Jay Peterson mentioned that VR had counted those as repeat trips. Erickson Shirley clarified that he wanted to know how to answer when asked about traffic. • Jay Peterson responded that worst-case scenario was again the standard in their strategies. Erickson Shirley stated that he wanted to make sure that he clarified everything, absolutely and with conviction and strategy. Lynne Fritzlen mentioned that she read available information. She felt that the turning movement and conflict should be addressed. Gwen Scalpello mentioned that she was interested in the other corner of Vail Road, which is where she lives. What was the peak of the peak in terms of time of day? Greg Hall spoke briefly about exit traffic from the facility. He stated that there are other loading an delivery options, but that traffic was going to be generated among delivery vehicles. He expressed interest in looking at intersections, thereby addressing Lynne Fritzlen's concern, which John Schofield agreed with. Tom commented that an assessment of that issue would be covered next time. Jim Lamont returned to comment that the overall traffic projections might need to include the Golden Peak traffic surveys. Stan Cope, managing agent of Lodge Tower, said that his was probably the only building that was affected on all sides by loading and delivery. He mentioned that because parking was going to be controlled, the Tower would experience much of the change, but was still not particularly bothered by the end result. He was glad to hear that the congestion was not going to increase, in spite of the fact that noise may increase. He was in support of the traffic study and flow of loading and delivery. Karen Romeo, attorney for LuAnne Wells, had just picked up the data for the traffic study. 11 She mentioned that they had been kind enough to work with the DEC's schedule. She asked for a final hearing. 0 John Schofield mentioned that it would need another worksession. PEC comment: George Lamb said that flexibility was built into the existing road system, fortunately. Rollie Kjesbo said that the loading and delivery would be a great gain for the village core. He hoped that the engineer's traffic prediction was factual. Erickson Shirley mentioned that truck trips through town should be limited as much as possible due to the streetscape plans and the money being put into the new loading and delivery area. He also thought that it would be good to hear from merchants, businesses in town. Gary Hartmann asked if the loading and delivery could be restricted to Vail Road, thus separating the I and D from the pedestrian core. Doug Cahill asked if the 330 additional trips still kept the traffic survey in the same status Bill said that the status was the same. Doug asked what incentives the deliverers have to hand cart their loads. Greg mentioned that town policy could regulate that. Chas Bernhardt asked Jim Lamont who he considered himself a representative for? For the merchants"? Jim replied "......um no". Chas would like to see the Town lease the loading area. John Schofield said that the PEC was obviously skeptical of the results. He mentioned that Lynne's concern would be addressed. As far as the management plan, it was not firm enough. A fairly short transition period should be expected and education should occur quickly. The next draft should be more specific about ownership, finances, etc. He thought that it should not be owned and operated by Vail Resorts. He agreed that input was needed from the merchant community regarding ownership, etc. Lynne Fritzlen asked if the decrease in loading and delivery spaces is correct. John Schofield mentioned that the 14 spaces is a good number, as sometimes traffic engineers "are not always perfect" and therefore, it is better to have adequate capacity for the future. n U Jim Lamont mentioned that demand may increase due to increased success of the plan. He mentioned that he didn't want to "shave the plan too thin" and asked what about Vail Valley Drive on the bad days? He said that the TOV's participation in the traffic survey was helpful. He was confident that after seeing Beaver Creek's facility, too much may be made out of the current situation. 0 Erickson Shirley asked if it was Greg's understanding that the Town should not manage this? 12 Greg Hall mentioned that an increase in costs in order to manage the project could be prohibitive and it was a concern from the Council's standpoint to add a large layer of operating costs. Erickson Shirley said that the PEC would prefer the facility be managed by someone other than Vail Associates, who would also prefer not to run the dev, according to Jack. Greg Hall reiterated that the TOV would have an influence regarding management. Steve Riden asked about the relation of the traffic study to the architecture. George Lamb left at 6:20pm John Schofield said that the impacts of parking and similar improvements should be looked at, in terms of off site impact. John asked that the applicant address the off-site parking impacts to the TOV, in spite of Vail Resorts feeling that parking would not be affected. Erickson Shirley asked that whatever amount of parking is required in the future should be mentioned in more than a letter. Jay Peterson stated that the public parking problem is created by the TOV and needs to be solved by such and that problem needs to be done regardless of whether this project goes forward or not. Erickson Shirley reiterated that some portion of the project be dedicated to future parking needs. John asked if publication criteria needed to be done then. George Ruther said yes. George Ruther said that 4 applications would be required to vote on P3 & J. Erickson asked if anyone was going to address a change in the streetscape plan. George Ruther said that the PEC seemed clear in accepting the off-site improvements east of the Christiania, etc. Erickson asked again that if improvements made changes to the streetscape plan, did they know about them? John Schofield mentioned that streetscape was in a different category and would not be voted on Aug. 11. Jay Peterson said that the areas they committed to do would be tied into the "Streetscape Plan". Andy Littman, Wells Team, clarified that the effort was on behalf of instituting a quality project for the Town. He agreed that a Golden Peak repeat was not desired. He asked that the project be reasonably complete and workable, with quality architecture, etc. He also stated that having a great race park is indeed important. He wanted to set a vote for development, and a time table as well. John Schofield clarified that a "piecemeal approach" had been taken already. 13 Andy returned that an incremental voting system is important. Erickson asked Jay for the traffic piece of earlier discussions. John Schofield told Andy and Daren that they should receive a copy of George's letter from the 2151 Doug voiced appreciation for the Wells Team. Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: Chas Bernhardt TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 11, 2003 5. A request for a variance from Section 12-61-1-6, Setbacks, and 12-6H-7, Height, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at Manor Vail, 595 E. Vail Valley Drive/Lot A, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Bob McCleary Planner: Warren Campbell TABLED TO AUGUST 11, 2003 Vote 7-0- to table all remaining topics until Aug 11, 2003. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and setting forth details in regard thereto. 0 Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Warren Campbell TABLED TO AUGUST 11, 2003 7. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an outdoor dining deck, in accordance with Section 12-713-413, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED TO AUGUST 11, 2003 8. Approval of July 14, 2003 minutes Correction: bottom of page 2, the numbers don't add up. Erickson was in favor and John was opposed. Also, same page, John's 2001 comments needed to be fixed in accordance. Page 6, changes could be given later. Page 14, the slopes of front door project were wanted for post and pre construction. Motion: Chas B, to approve as revised Second: Doug, to approve as revised Vote: 6-0-0 9. Information Update 14 Motion: by Rollie, to adjourn Second: by Chas, to adjourn Vote: 6-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please nail 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published July 25, 2003 in the Vail Daily. • 15