Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-1208 PEC• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, December 8, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION ! - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Vail Resorts Tennis Courts -615 West Forest Road 2. David Irwin residence- 1956 West Gore Creek Drive 3. Michael and Iris Smith- 44 West Meadow Drive 4. Lodge Tower South- 164 Gore Creek Drive 5. Manor Vail Lodge- 595 Vail Valley Drive Driver: George 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 major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of Lots 1 and 2, Lodge Subdivision, located at 164 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto_ Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther Motion: Second: Vote.- 2. ote: 2. A request for a major subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the ski -way tract and four lots at the Lionshead tennis court site located at 615 West Forest Road/Unplatted (A complete metes and bounds legal description is available for review at the Town of Vail Community Development Department). Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell Motion: Second: Vote: 3. A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for a garage addition, located at 1956 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 45, Vail Village West 2nd Filing. Applicant: David Irwin Planner: Matt Gennett Motion: Second: Vote: U li iOVG,A, OF tiAIL 4. A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a patio in the rear yard setback, located at 44 West Meadow Drive/Lot I, Vail Village 12th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael and Iris Smith Planner: Bill Gibson Motion: Second: Vote: 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No, 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type II I Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell Motion: Second: Vote: 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons Resort, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow for a mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type I I I Employee Housing Units and a fractional fee club; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) zone district, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Road/Lots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: George Ruther Motion: Second. Vote. 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed updates to elements of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Elisabeth Eckel Motion: Second: Vote: 8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed text amendments to Section 12-3-6, Hearings, Vail Town Code, to amend the notice requirements for Town of Vail Design Review Board public hearings, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russell Forrest Motion: Second: Vote 9. A request for a sign variance pursuant to Section 11-4A-1, Signs Permitted in Zone District, Vail Town Code, to allow for additional signage for Bogart's Bar and Bistro, located at 143 East Meadow Drive, Unit 165 (Crossroads)/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: A. Luc Pols Planner: Warren Campbell Motion: Second: Vote: 10. Approval of November 24, 2003 minutes 11. Information Update 0 Sign Code * Funicular Tennis Court Rezoning • Vail Park (Lots P3) • ERWSD Project 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 December 5, 2003, in the Vail Daily 40 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 PUBLIC MEETING Monday, December S, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION ! - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Chas Bernhardt Erickson Shirley Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT Gary Hartman Doug Cahill 1. Vail Resorts Tennis Courts -615 West Forest Road 2. David Irwin residence- 1956 West Gore Creek Drive 3. Michael and Iris Smith- 44 West Meadow Drive 4. Lodge Tower South- 164 Gore Creek Drive 5. Manor Vail Lodge- 595 Vail Valley Drive 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 Hearin - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of Lots 1 and 2, Lodge Subdivision, located at 164 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates: Inc. Planner: George Ruther Motion: Erickson Shirley Second: Rollie Kjesbo Vote: 5-0 -0 TABLED TO JANUARY 12, 2004 2. A request for a major subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the ski -way tract and four lots at the Lionshead tennis court site located at 615 West Forest Road/Unplatted (A complete metes and bounds legal description is available for review at the Town of Vail Community Development Department). Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell Motion: Erickson Shirley Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: 1) That the applicant shall submit cross-sections for West Forest Road and 40 Forest Place, revise the plat and construction documents to show a 64 -foot diameter cul-de-sac, measured from flow -line to flow -line, for staff review all TOWN OF VA LL and approval prior to the recording of the plat, and maintain the height of the snow which may accumulate around the cul-de-sac so that fire access can be maintained to the satisfaction of the Town of Vail. 2) That the applicant shall revise Note 8 on the plat to state, "Lots I through 4 as shown on this plat shall not be further subdivided. This prohibition on subdivision shall extend to but not be limited to (a) subdivisions otherwise permitted under the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, including any provision in effect now or in the future, and (b) judicial partition, provided that partition by sale of an entire lot and improvements without physical division of the lot or improvements shall be permitted. A maximum of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each of the four lots numbered 9 through 4. For the purposes of this provision, an employee housing unit or other housing unit permitted by the Town of Vail through current or later zoning regulations shall be considered to be a dwelling unit under this provision. This prohibition and restriction may be enforced by the Town of Vail, by any owner of a Lot in the subdivision, and/or by any property owner adjacent to the subject subdivision (ignoring the existence of any street for the purpose of determining contiguity)." This note shall be revised by the applicant prior to recording the final plat. 3) That the applicant shall revise Note 9 on the plat to state, "The "No Build Zone" shown on this plat shall not be developed with structures provided however, drainage improvements, planting improvements, improvements related to the skier bridge located on Tract X, and other similar improvements are allowed in this zone as determined by the Town of Vail zoning administrator.". This note shall be revised prior to recording the final plat 4) That the applicant shall place the correct addresses for the four new lot on the plat as follows; Lot 1 is 618 Forest Court, Lot 2 is 621 Forest Court, Lot 3 is 612 Forest Court, and Lot 4 is 615 Forest Court. These corrections shall be made prior to recording the final plat. 5) That the applicant pays for the cost of new traffic control signs and the installation of the signs at the approved cul -du -sac location on West Forest Road after receiving approval for design and location by the Public Works Department. 6) That the applicant removes the snowcat access from West Forest Road, if an alternative route is reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail. The alternate route shall be proposed by the applicant and reviewed by the Town of Vail prior to the closing of the sale of any one of the four new residential lots approved on the tennis court site. 7) That final plat approval is conditional upon the approval of the zoning map boundary amendments which propose to rezoning the four residential lots from Agriculture and Open Space District to Two -Family Primary/Secondary District and the ski -way, Tract X, from Agriculture and Open Space District to Outdoor Recreation District. 3. A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for a garage addition, located at 1956 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 45, Vail Village West 2nd Filing. Applicant: David Irwin Planner: Matt Gennett Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: Chas Bernhardt Vote: 5-0-0 VARIANCE DENIED 4. A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a patio in the rear yard setback, located at 44 West Meadow Drive/Lot I, Vail Village 12th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael and Iris Smith Planner: Bill Gibson Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 VARIANCE DENIED 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell 40 Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 TABLED TO JANUARY 12, 2004 J 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons Resort, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow for a mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type I II Employee Housing Units and a fractional fee club; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) zone district, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Road/Lots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: George Ruther Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 TABLED TO JANUARY 12, 2004 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed updates to elements of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Elisabeth Eckel Motion: Chas Bernhardt Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 is TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 12, 2004 8_ A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed text amendments to 0 is Section 12-3-6, Hearings, Vail Town Code, to amend the notice requirements for Town of Vail Design Review Board public hearings, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russell Forrest Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 TABLED TO JANUARY 12, 2004 9. A request for a sign valance pursuant to Section 11-4A-1, Signs Permitted in Zone District, Vail Town Code, to allow for additional signage for Bogart's Bar and Bistro, located at 143 East Meadow Drive, Unit 165 (Crossroads)/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing, Applicant: A. Luc Pols Planner: Warren Campbell Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 3-2-0 (Schofield, Bernhardt opposed) VARIANCE DENIED 10. Approval of November 24, 2003 minutes Motion: Rollie Kjesbo MINUTES APPROVED 11. Information Update • Sign Code • Funicular Second: Chas Bernhardt Vote: 5-0-0 Tennis Court Rezoning Vail Park (Lots P3) ERWSD Project 12, Adjournment Motion: George Lamb Second: Erickson Shirley Vote: 5-0-0 ADJOURNED 5:44PM 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 December 5, 2003, in the Vail Daily A • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, December 8, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION ! - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Chas Bernhardt Erickson Shirley Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT Gary Hartman Doug Cahill 1. Vail Resorts Tennis Courts -615 West Forest Road 2. David Irwin residence- 1956 West Gore Creek Drive 3. Michael and Iris Smith- 44 West Meadow Drive 4. Lodge Tower South- 164 Gore Creek Drive 5. Manor Vail Lodge- 595 Vail Valley Drive Driver: George 1(**11 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 major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of Lots 1 and 2, Lodge Subdivision, located at 164 Gore Creek DrivelLots A, B, & C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther Motion: Erickson Shirley Second: Rollie Kjesbo Vote: 5-0 -0 TABLED TO JANUARY 12, 2004 2. A request for a major subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the ski -way tract and four lots at the Lionshead tennis court site located at 615 West Forest Road/Unplatted (A complete metes and bounds legal description is available for review at the Town of Vail Community Development Department). Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell Motion: Erickson Shirley Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: 1) That the applicant shall submit cross-sections for West Forest Road and Forest Place, revise the plat and construction documents to show a 64 -foot diameter cul-de-sac, measured from flow -line to flow -line, for staff review TOWN OF PAIL and approval prior to the recording of the plat, and maintain the height of the snow which may accumulate around the cul-de-sac so that fire access can be maintained to the satisfaction of the Town of Vail. 2) That the applicant shall revise Note 8 on the plat to state, "Lots 1 through 4 as shown on this plat shall not be further subdivided. This prohibition on subdivision shall extend to but not be limited to (a) subdivisions otherwise permitted under the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, including any provision in effect now or in the future, and (b) judicial partition, provided that partition by sale of an entire lot and improvements without physical division of the lot or improvements shall be permitted. A maximum of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each of the four lots numbered 1 through 4. For the purposes of this provision, an employee housing unit or other housing unit permitted by the Town of Vail through current or later zoning regulations shall be considered to be a dwelling unit under this provision. This prohibition and restriction may be enforced by the Town of Vail, by any owner of a Lot in the subdivision, and/or by any property owner adjacent to the subject subdivision (ignoring the existence of any street for the purpose of determining contiguity)." This note shall be revised by the applicant prior to recording the final plat. 3) That the applicant shall revise Note 9 on the plat to state, "The "No Build Zone" shown on this plat shall not be developed with structures provided however, drainage improvements, planting improvements, improvements related to the skier bridge located on Tract X, and other similar improvements are allowed in this zone as determined by the Town of Vail zoning administrator.". This note shall be revised prior to recording the final plat 4) That the applicant shall place the correct addresses for the four new lot on the plat as follows; Lot 1 is 618 Forest Court, Lot 2 is 621 Forest Court, Lot 3 is 612 Forest Court, and Lot 4 is 616 Forest Court. These corrections shall be made prior to recording the final plat. 6) That the applicant pays for the cost of new traffic control signs and the installation of the signs at the approved cul -du -sac location on West Forest Road after receiving approval for design and location by the Public Works Department. 6) That the applicant removes the snowcat access from West Forest Road, if an alternative route is reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail. The alternate route shall be proposed by the applicant and reviewed by the Town of Vail prior to the closing of the sale of any one of the four new residential lots approved on the tennis court site. 7) That final plat approval is conditional upon the approval of the zoning map boundary amendments which propose to rezoning the four residential lots from Agriculture and Open Space District to Two -Family Primary/Secondary District and the ski -way, Tract X, from Agriculture and Open Space District to Outdoor Recreation District. 3. A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for a garage addition, located at 1956 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 45, Vail Village West 2nd Filing. Applicant: David Irwin Planner: Matt Gennett Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: Chas Bernhardt Vote: 5-0-0 VARIANCE DENIED 4. A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a patio in the rear yard setback, located at 44 West Meadow Drive/Lot I, Vail Village 12th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael and Iris Smith Planner: Bill Gibson Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 VARIANCE DENIED 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 TABLED TO JANUARY 12, 2004 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons Resort, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow for a mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type III Employee Housing Units and a fractional fee club; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) zone district, located at 2.8 S_ Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Road/Lots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: George Ruther Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 TABLED TO JANUARY 12, 2004 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed updates to elements of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Elisabeth Eckel Motion: Chas Bernhardt Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 12, 2004 8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed text amendments to • 0 Section 12-3-6, Hearings, Vail Town Code, to amend the notice requirements for Town of Vail Design Review Board public hearings, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russell Forrest Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 TABLED TO JANUARY 12, 2004 9. A request for a sign variance pursuant to Section 11-4A-1, Signs Permitted in Zone District, Vail Town Code, to allow for additional signage for Bogart's Bar and Bistro, located at 143 East Meadow Drive, Unit 165 (Crossroads)/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant; A. Luc Pols Planner: Warren Campbell Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 3-2-0 (Schofield, Bernhardt opposed) VARIANCE DENIED 10. Approval of November 24, 2003 minutes Motion: Rollie Kjesbo MINUTES APPROVED 11. Information Update Second: Chas Bernhardt Vote: 5-0-0 • Sign Code • f=unicular • Tennis Court Rezoning • Vail Park (Lots P3) • ERWSD Project 12. Adjournment Motion: George Lamb Second: Erickson Shirley Vote: 5-0-0 ADJOURNED 5:44PM 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 December 5, 2003, in the Vail Daily • 0 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, December 8, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Chas Bernhardt Erickson Shirley Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT Gary Hartman Doug Cahill 1. Vail Resorts Tennis Courts -615 West Forest Road 2. David Irwin residence- 1956 West Gore Creek Drive 3. Michael and Iris Smith- 44 West Meadow Drive 4. Lodge Tower South- 164 Gore Creek Drive 5. Manor Vail Lodge- 595 Vail Valley Drive Driver: George Ec*)II NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of Lots 1 and 2, Lodge Subdivision, located at 164 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1 st Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther Motion: Erickson Shirley Second: Rollie Kjesbo Vote: 5-0 -0 TABLED TO JANUARY 12, 2004 2. A request for a major subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the ski -way tract and four lots at the Lionshead tennis court site located at 615 West Forest Road/Unplatted (A complete metes and bounds legal description is available for review at the Town of Vail Community Development Department)_ Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell Warren Campbell introduced the proposal and clarified staff's rationale behind the conditions stated in the memo. He also noted that the plat note proposed by Art Albenalp restricting the uses on Tract X was not needed. TOWN OF VAIL Dominic Mauriello, from Braun Associates, stated that he had no additional comments, aside from the Staff's request for a larger diameter cul-de-sac. He stated that the cul-de-sac was not their responsibility to solve as this was off-site and their development was not generating additional traffic. He added, that it had been demonstrated that a fire truck could be turned around within a 64 -foot cul-de-sac, which was approved by the Town at the preliminary plat stage_ Research was conducted on the type and length of fire trucks that are used within the Town of Vail, all of which can use as little as 54 feet of asphalt. He finished by stating his request to actually reduce the size of the asphalt cud -de -sac to the aforementioned 54 feet. John Schofield asked if the lots/lot sizes were affected by the extent of the asphalt Dominic Mauriello responded that the lots were affected by the size of the cul-de-sac, both physically and aesthetically. He mentioned that neighbors were concerned about the potential of the "bulb" for skier drop-off in the winter. Art Abplanalp, representing the neighbors within the vicinity, mentioned his interest in supporting the application, commenting that he was most concerned about "aggressive commercial development" in the area. He stated that the plat restriction he was suggesting for Tract X was not covered by zoning, which was the Town's position. Regarding snow cat access, the Town needed to have assurance that alternative access for snow cats would be provided. Erickson Shirley questioned Mr. Abplanalp's standing in requesting the additional conditions and notes on addressing the issues that he had brought up. Mr. Abplanalp responded that the will of the neighbors was for the area to remain as open space_ Because the neighbors were no longer fighting for the area to remain as open space, their current wish was for the lot to remain as undisturbed as possible, His wish was for the development to remain what was represented by the applicant, and not ever-changing. John Schofield asked if the neighbors were still worried about the proposal. Art Abplanalp restated that the residents want assurance that the recreational tract, Tract X, will remain as it is. They were worried that Tract X would be upzoned at a later date to allow for increased development. He stated that the Outdoor Recreation District zoning could not be relied upon if a request came in the future to build upon Tract X. Therefore, the plat restriction would assure that Tract X remained the same in the future. Chas Bernhardt mentioned that additional restrictions on top of the proposed Outdoor Recreation District zoning were not necessary at this time. Regarding the turn -around, he was confused about why the responsible department within the Town had not divulged the information about the fire truck that was requested. He wished for more information to better understand the problem and stated that the applicant had done due diligence. Warren Campbell mentioned that the concern regarded the overhang of the truck shown in the materials submitted by the applicant as the truck would potentially run into snow that will likely have accumulated during the winter. Rollie Kjesbo commented that the fire department preferred not to do three-point turns. He 0 2 was not in favor of the dul-de-sac being reduced to 54 feet. He did not mind the plat restriction that Mr. Abplanalp was proposing be added to the plat. L_� John Schofield mentioned that he believed that the proposed plat note should be a private matter, more like a covenant that the Town of Vail would not be party to. Rollie Kjesbo stated that Art Abplanalp was trying to restrict any type of conditional use and that his question had been answered. George Lamb thought that a private agreement would be a better way to solve the plat restriction issue. Regarding the radius of the cul-de-sac, he would prefer that the 64 -foot be considered more strongly than the 68 -foot that the Town was now requiring. Erickson Shirley asked what authority the Town had to enforce the regulation regarding the radius of the turn -around. Warren Campbell responded that the Town's regulations stated that the Town Engineer was free to require the radius mentioned. Dominic Mauriello stated that the Town of Vail had "gone too far". Efforts to change the cul- de-sac were merely "a generous gesture" on the applicant's part. Erikson Shirley compared this application to that of the Front Door, in which a few neighbors were giving input and essentially "trying to design the building". He did not feel comfortable making the plat restriction a part of the approval. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, asked if the Fire Department was requesting a deviation of national standards for fire truck access. George Ruther responded that the standards outlined in the Design Standards Handbook required less than Public Works was currently requesting from the applicant. Jim Lamont continued by saying that a national standard was typically used for this type of situation. Jay Peterson, Vail Associates, stated that 64 feet was originally approved by the Town. It was not until later that the "requirement" was changed, and more width was being requested. He commented that it had been proven that the turn was able to be completed by a fire truck, though some reverse motion might be required. He finished by saying that the future of Tract X could be worked out privately, without the plat restriction being proposed by some neighbors_ He finished by stating that the snow cat access would be worked out in due time. George Ruther said that a specific standard for turn -around width was not outlined in the Town's documents, though another standard was probably adhered to by the Town Engineer. Art Abplanalp commented that the current plat already specified a "no build zone", which was all that was being requested of his clients on a portion of Tract X. He asked that the plat include this type of provision, pending an agreement with Vail Resorts and the neighbors. r� John Schofield asked Mike McGee about the turning radius required by the Town of Vail. Mike McGee responded that "real life numbers" had been arrived at that accommodate a number of different trucks, buses, and other large vehicles. His concern was primarily for access to the fire. He stated that a "parking lot" area was not desired by the Fire Department, but rather a comfortable radius - Greg Hall mentioned that the overhang of the trucks was still an issue. Mike McGee continued by saying that "glacial encroachment" was the biggest issue in the winter season as snow built up around the perimeter of the cul-de-sac. Greg Hall stated that the ability to make a three point turn was more important than the actual radius of the turn -around. John Schofield asked again about what the actual number of the turning diamter would be. Mike McGee said he guessed that 49 feet would be the absolute minimum needed for a truck to make a three point turn_ John Schofield asked if any thought had been given to keeping the amount of asphalt at a minimum, with a surrounding area of grass block, etc. Brian McCartney, Vail Associates, said that the option existed to maintain ski-in/ski-out access on the west side. An outside radius could be maintained according to appropriate specifications from the fire department. Greg Hall commented that a thirty foot radius could work. Dominic Mauriello responded that their engineers had already dealt with the overhang issue. John Schofield finished by saying that a 64 -foot diameter, flow line to flow line, would remain, as stated on the plat. A private agreement would be preferable to a plat note from the Town's perspective. He commented on the lack of clarity in the Development Standards Handbook, which should need to be addressed soon. The primary issue on the site was one of safety. As long as a fire engine could get to the site, he felt comfortable with the safety aspect. Mollie Kjesbo asked if the diameter of the cul-de-sac would be at 64 -foot with Vail Associates maintaining the area around that for fire access. Art Abplanalp asked if the motion had changed the language regarding snow cat access. Condition 2a was brought up, requiring that the zoning be in place prior to recording the plat. Erickson Shirley amended his motion to add Condition 2a from Art Abplanalp's letter to the Commission. George Lamb amended his second to reflect Erikson Shirley's amendment. Chas Bernhardt commented that Vail Associates had done a good job researching the turning radius required. He also stated that a first class resort like Vail had the freedom to 4 change requirements as necessary, from national or other standards. Motion: Erickson Shirley Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: 1) That the applicant shall submit cross-sections for West Forest Road and Forest Place, revise the plat and construction documents to show a 64 -foot diameter cul-de-sac, measured from flow -line to flow -line, for staff review and approval prior to the recording of the plat, and maintain the height of the snow which may accumulate around the cul-de-sac so that fire access can be maintained to the satisfaction of the Town of Vail. 2) That the applicant shall revise Note 8 on the plat to state, "Lots 1 through 4 as shown on this plat shall not be further subdivided This prohibition on subdivision shall extend to but not be limited to (a) subdivisions otherwise permitted under the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, including any provision in effect now or in the future, and (b) judicial partition, provided that partition by sale of an entire lot and improvements without physical division of the lot or improvements shall be permitted. A maximum of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each of the four lots numbered 1 through 4. For the purposes of this provision, an employee housing unit or other housing unit permitted by the Town of Vail through current or later zoning regulations shall be considered to be a dwelling unit under this provision. This prohibition and restriction may be enforced by the Town of Vail, by any owner of a Lot in the subdivision, and/or by any property owner adjacent to the subject subdivision (ignoring the existence of any street for the purpose of determining contiguity)." This note shall be revised by the applicant prior to recording the final plat. 3) That the applicant shall revise Note 9 on the plat to state, "The "No Build Zone" shown on this plat shall not be developed with structures provided however, drainage improvements, planting improvements, improvements related to the skier bridge located on Tract X, and other similar improvements are allowed in this zone as determined by the Town of Vail zoning administrator.". This note shall be revised prior to recording the final plat 4) That the applicant shall place the correct addresses for the four new lot on the plat as follows; Lot 1 is 618 Forest Court, Lot 2 is 621 Forest Court, Lot 3 is 612 Forest Court, and Lot 4 is 615 Forest Court. These corrections shall be made prior to recording the final plat. 5) That the applicant pays for the cost of new traffic control signs and the installation of the signs at the approved cul -du -sac location on West Forest Road after receiving approval for design and location by the Public Works Department. 6) That the applicant removes the snowcat access from West Forest Road, if an alternative route is reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail. The alternate route shall be proposed by the applicant and reviewed by the Town of Vail prior to the closing of the sale of any one of the four new residential lots approved on the tennis court site. 7) That final plat approval is conditional upon the approval of the zoning map boundary amendments which propose to rezoning the four residential lots from Agriculture and Open Space District to Two -Family Primary/Secondary District and the ski -way, Tract X, from Agriculture and Open Space District to Outdoor Recreation District. 3. A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for a garage addition, located at 1956 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 45, Vail Village West 2nd Filing. Applicant: David Irwin Planner: Matt Gennett Matt Gennett introduced the project according to the memorandum_ David Irwin briefly summarized the proposal, saying that only two garages were currently being proposed. The current "garage" was only 12 feet deep and was currently being used as a mechanical room and storage area. He proposed to remove the garage door currently in place and convert the space to living area. His request was for a two car garage. The original design was square to the street and only 1.5 feet from the lot line. He mentioned that he had re -positioned the proposed garage to allow for more landscaping, etc. After he had finished building the home, he decided to do a survey and realized that he had built his home within the setback. He mentioned that variances had been granted for garages at other 4Dresidences within the same area. After asking for public input, John Schofield asked if any hardship had been found by Staff. Matt Gennett verified that no hardship had been found. Rollie Kjesbo stated that he thought there was a way to place the garage without positioning it within the front setback. George Lamb mentioned that several discrepancies had been found within the facts presented by the applicant. The pre-existing situations that related to other variances for similar reasons did not apply in this instance, he continued. Erickson Shirley asked the applicant what the hardship was that he was requesting a variance from. Mr. Irwin responded that the lot was steep, but that additionally, it was a personal hardship, since he didn't want to cut down the trees. Chas Bernhardt agreed that the trees were beautiful, but that any hardship being claimed was self-induced_ He like that the applicant was proposing to lower the driveway for safety reasons. However, the request was not reasonable. John Schofield continued, saying that several variances for garages within the front setback had been granted already, but genuine hardships had been presented in those instances. 6 Mr. Irwin asked if the house were built five feet farther back from the setback than it currently is if a hardship could be granted then. Mr. Schofield answered that a hardship would not exist then either, since the house was still built under the TOV regulations. Mr. Irwin asked if the denial of the variance was complete. Mr. Gennett responded that the denial encompassed all aspects of the request Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: Chas Bernhardt Vote: 5-0-0 Variance denied 4. A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a patio in the rear yard setback, located at 44 West Meadow DrivelLot I, Vail Village 12th (Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael and Iris Smith Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson introduced the project according to the memorandum. The applicant, John Chilton with Rusty Spike Enterprises, caretaker for Meadow Vail Place, stated that the pertinent utilities had signed off on the easement encroachment. The slab was already in place prior to his initiation as caretaker, he commented. Chas Bernhardt recommended the applicant propose a change to the zoning regulations to allow for this patio space. Rollie Kjesbo agreed with Mr. Bernhardt stating that others' actions precluded approval of this request. George Lamb continued by saying that though the impacts seem minimal, the zoning was still the issue. The applicant commented that the visual impacts were minimal to any surrounding homeowners. Erickson Shirley had no further input - John Schofield told that applicant that the Staff would help him with the details that resulted from whatever outcome the PEC decided upon. Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 Variance denied Five minute break 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the memorandum. The applicant Manor Vail, represented by Chip Melick with Melick and Associates, stated that this proposal was a work in progress and that many benefits to the Town would result from the approval of this project. He added that by enhancing the exterior of the buildings, the proposal was in accordance with the Vail Village Master Plan. He detailed the plan to remove the parking from the surface of the site and replace it with underground parking, in the form of a two level parking structure. Approximately 149 additional parking spaces would be proposed, in accordance with the need outlined in the Lionshead Master Plan for additional parking within the Town. Efforts would be taken to visually enhance the access to Ford Park and a clean-up of Mill Creek would be undertaken as well. He continued by detailing the proposal to add 6 new Employee Housing beds between Buildings B and C. Thirteen more units than were currently allowed under HDMF zoning were being requested. Site coverage would not be exceeded under the new proposal. The front and side setbacks would not change at all. The rear setbacks would be reduced. He made several comparisons between the proposed project and buildings in the Lionshead areas. Regarding building height, he stated that 45% of the proposed roof area would be over the 48' height limit for that zoning district. He again stated that compared with buildings in the Lionshead area, no percentage of the roofs would be over the height requirement. The additional 109 parking spaces would be for sale. Mr. Melick finished by stating that the amount of open space being added with the proposal totaled to be over one acre. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, commented on the lack of comparisons between the Vail Village Master Plan and this proposal. Warren Campbell responded that in the Vail Village Master Plan, only height requirements were compared currently. No comparisons had been made with the Lionshead Master Plan, as that area is entirely different than the site in questions. One of the criteria in the Lionshead Master Plan regulated the total redevelopment of a property as opposed to a piecemeal approach. Jim Lamont asked if a plan existed that assured architectural consistency of the buildings that were not currently proposed to be remodeled. He noted that the 1960's roof forms would not be compatible with the new roof forms being proposed. Rollie Kjesbo mentioned his surprise at the changes that had taken place within the proposal since the last time the plan had been submitted. The amount and the height of the proposed building was excessive, he felt_ Comparisons should not be made between Lionshead and the Village since the areas are so drastically different. The change in height from forty-eight to seventy feet was substantial. Mr. Kjesbo stated that the increase in traffic would be notable, though the proposed open space was nice. George Lamb agreed that the new proposal was vastly different from the original proposal. The increase in bulk and mass was significant and the Lionshead guidelines should not be applied to the Manor Vail redevelopment. Substantial landscaping, not simply small shrubs, 40 9 should replace the parking lot that currently existed and was being relocated underground. He mentioned that the connection from the Village to the amphitheater should be maintained as it currently is and not further narrowed. Erickson Shirley commented that Vail Village must remain unique. Any reason that would justify amending height restrictions must be "very compelling", he continued. He mentioned that a recent traffic analysis identified the area as handling traffic poorly: an increase in parking spaces at this site would further that problem. The public that enjoys Ford Park would be affected by the visual intrusion of increased height. The original proposal was more acceptable than the current proposal. Chas Bernhardt liked the idea of putting the parking underground, but suggested that the applicant attempt to drive on Vail Valley Drive during a peak traffic time- Further congestion was simply not needed, he commented. The character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered with the increases in height that were proposed. Mr. Bernhardt felt that this property was a transitional area to a residential area, and the bulk and height proposals were not appropriate. John Schofield agreed that comparisons with the Lionshead area should not be made. The plan previously submitted was more feasible. Underground parking was definitely preferred. However, nothing would be approved that would result in an increase in traffic. The proposed height of 71 feet was unacceptable. The recommendations of the Design Review Board were quite applicable. Mr. Schofield felt that the pedestrian access to Ford Park should be enhanced, at the very least, as it was highly used during the summer season. Chip Melick responded that a link between buildings D, E and F was still desired, even if that link only consisted of one story. Would a proposal including those minimal connections be acceptable? John Schofield stated that the linear mass of the building was the most important issue, in the minds of the Commission. Erikson Shirley was interested in knowing how drastically the zoning regulations were being affected by the new proposal Mr. Melick was now suggesting. The applicant, Chip Melick, responded that only a minimal height variance was formerly requested, which was eventually deemed unnecessary after further study. Jim Lamont asked if an elevator would be required to serve the buildings, even under the revised proposal. John Schofield asked if the building was constructed under County regulations. Jim Lamont responded in the affirmative. John Schofield commented that that could partially justify the setback variances in question. Chip Melick asked if the scenario he suggested would be worthwhile to pursue or not. Erickson Shirley responded that he was still unsure of the public benefit that would result from the proposal and compared this proposal with the Tivoli development, which public 9 benefit was extensively critiqued. 0 Chip Melick responded that more of a "Village feel" would be worked toward. John Schofield finished by encouraging the applicant to proceed with positive ideas for redevelopment of the site. Jim Lamont stated his familiarity with the site and the complications that surrounded the redevelopment of the area. The skier drop off functions of Golden Peak would need to be analyzed again, he commented, If the parking could be designated to two different areas, the impacts upon through traffic could possibly be fewer. The efforts that had been undertaken to improve the site were substantial, and applauded, he finished. Erikson Shirley restated the importance of public benefit in proposals similar to this one. The Tivoli was granted a height variance to allow for proper construction. The applicant requested that the project be tabled until January 12th 2004. Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 TABLED TO JANUARY 12, 2004 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons Resort, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow for a mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type Ill Employee Housing Units and a fractional fee club; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) zone district, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Road/Lots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: George Ruther Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 TABLED TO JANUARY 12, 2004 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed updates to elements of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Elisabeth Eckel Elisabeth Eckel made a presentation per the staff memorandum Chas Bernhardt questioned the comparison of the Aspen Plan versus the Town's Planning documents. Elisabeth Eckel explained many of the aspects of the Aspen/Pitkin County Plan, Rollie Kjesbo mentioned that the planning process needs to be funded. Any increases in fees should support the development review process. Increases in fees for the development review process should be considered. 10 George Lamb expressed an interest to update our plans and to find funding resources to support long range planning efforts_ The long range planning process needed to be better supported, he stated. Erickson Shirley questioned how the planning effort could be implemented. John Schofield expressed an interest in creating a single source Vail Comprehensive Plan. The Plan could be created through the incorporation of the fourteen different documents into one document. Redevelopment should be the focus of the documents. A timeframe for creation and subsequent updates should be scheduled. A preamble should be drafted which outlines the process for creation of the document. Erickson Shirley believed that the Planning document should be more community focused and less focus should be directed to individual areas of the Town. Vail should identify the issues that are facing the Town. For example, parking should be addressed in the Plan. Erickson stated that the Plan needs to have opportunity to transfer information and issues between the Town and the Town's Boards and Commissions. Chas Bernhardt again expressed the need for adequate funding to create and implement the Plans. Motion: Chas Bernhardt Second: George Lamb Vote 5-0-0 Tabled to January 12, 2004 8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed text amendments to Section 12-3-6, Hearings, Vail Town Code, to amend the notice requirements for Town of Vail Design Review Board public hearings, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russell Forrest Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 TABLED TO JANUARY 12, 2004 9. A request for a sign variance pursuant to Section 11-4A-1, Signs Permitted in Zone District, Vail Town Code, to allow for additional signage for Bogart's Bar and Bistro, located at 943 East Meadow Drive, Unit 165 (Crossroads)/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: A. Luc Pols Planner: Warren Campbell Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. The applicant, A. Luc Pols, stated that his hardship was related to the China Too restaurant, which is located in the vicinity of his restaurant. He was primarily concerned about the entrances of the two restaurants not being confused. Gwen Scalpello stated that the configuration of the building was confusing for customers, who had the tendency to descend the stairs and remain confused as to which entrance they wanted. John Schofield asked what directional signage was allowed for the business in question. 0 11 Warren Campbell replied that no directional signage was allowed for a business other than the projecting/hanging sign. Erickson Shirley asked about what provisions the previous code had made for directional signage for a business. Warren Campbell replied that the former code did not allow for directional signage for a business_ Rollie Kjesbo felt that the applicant had enough signage already, especially with the increase in allowable window signage that was passed with the new sign code. Erickson Shirley suggested that the applicant develop a type of mural or graphic representation to more effectively show the entrance to his business. Chas Bernhardt commented that the reason for the Planning and Environmental Commission was to solve specific problems, like this one. He favored allowing the applicant to place a sign where he pleased, even for a limited time, thereby dealing with merchant and citizen input later, if and when necessary. George Lamb added that certain things could be done to make the wall attractive and allow signage in the process. John Schofield had no further comment. Erickson Shirley asked if just a graphic representation was used if DRB approval would be granted. He stated that it was necessary at times to give relief to certain businesses. Warren Campbell stated that any representation of the business would be construed as a sign. George Ruther further stated that the DRB felt that proper construction and architecture of a business substituted for additional signage, in many cases. He suggested that the applicant look at landscaping and other entrance improvements to eliminate the need for the additional sign. A. Luc Pols stated that when he applied for a variance, notice letters were sent to all adjacent property owners and no one provided any negative feedback Chas Bernhardt made a motion to approve the variance which was not seconded. George Lamb commented that the PEC understood the application, but encouraged the applicant to work on a graphical representation of his business that would help to identify his business and its entrance. John Schofield suggested that perhaps the location of the business in the lower level of the building, at the garden level, perhaps justified a hardship. A. Luc Pols commented that the real issue was confusion between the two restaurants in the lower level. 12 George Ruther asked that direction be given to Staff regarding illegal signage on the applicant's building. John Schofield directed staff to follow the provisions provide for in the Code. George Ruther stated that the sign needed to be removed immediately regardless of whether or not an appeal was filed. Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 3-2-0 (Schofield, Bernhardt opposed) VARIANCE DENIED 10. Approval of November 24, 2003 minutes Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: Chas Bernhardt Vote: 5-0-0 11- Information Update • Sign Code — update and future training needs for PEC • Funicular — tabled by Council • Tennis Court Rezoning — to Council again on Dec. 16 • Vail Park (Lots P3) — approved by DRB pending minor revisions • ERWSD Project — to Council again on Dec. 16 • Test amendment to 'LMU-1 — to Council again on Dec. 16 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 December 5, 2003, in the Vail Daily 0 13 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, December 8, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Vail Town Council Chambers. In consideration of: A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a patio in the rear yard setback, located at 44 West Meadow Drive/Lot I, Vail Village 12th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael and Iris Smith Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons Resort, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow for a mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type III Employee Housing Units and a fractional fee club; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2Ild Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple family (HDMF) zone district, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Road/Lots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: George Ruther This notice published in the Vail Daily on November 21, 2003. T01V..+*VAIL 1 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,. December 8, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Vail Town Council Chambers. In consideration of: A request for a major subdivision, final plat review, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the ski -way tract and four lots at the Lionshead tennis court site located at 615 West Forest Road/Unplatted (A complete metes and bounds legal description is available for review at the Town of Vail Community Development Department). Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell A request far a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allowforthe platting of Lots 1 and 2, Lodge Subdivision, located at 164 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther This notice published in the Vail Daily on November 22, 2003. 41L TOWN 1 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the ski -way tract and four lots at the Lionshead tennis court site located at 615 West Forest RoadlUnplatted (A complete metes and bounds legal description is available for review at the Town of Vail Community Development Department). Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC), represented by Braun Associates, Inc., has requested a meeting with the Planning and Environmental Commission to present the final plat for the Forest Court Subdivision. The applicant is requesting action on the proposed final plat which subdivides the existing Lionshead tennis court site into four lots, Forest Court Subdivision, which is served by a private road and the ski -way, which are a portion of an unplatted tract located at 615 West Forest Road. Based upon staff's review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed final plat subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section IX of this memorandum. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC), represented by Braun Associates, Inc., is requesting review of a major subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the ski -way tract (Tract X on the proposed preliminary plat) and four residential lots at the Lionshead tennis court site located at 615 West Forest Roadlunplatted. A vicinity map is attached for reference (Attachment A). Specifically, the applicant is requesting action on the proposed Forest Court Subdivision final plat for the platting of the four residential lots and the ski -way. A reduced copy of the proposed Lionshead tennis court site and ski -way plat is i attached for reference (Attachment B). III. BACKGROUND On September 22, 2003, the applicant, VRDC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc., participated in a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission. At that meeting a presentation was given on the many proposed projects which VRDC will be submitting regarding the redevelopment of Lionshead. After a brief overview the proposal the applicant focused the remainder of the work session of the proposed plans for the Lionshead tennis court site. At that work session there was public comment regarding the proposed plan. Several of the comments regarded the proposed rezoning and the existing zoning. One resident whom lives on West Forest Road spoke to the removal of the walking path which was used in the past to access the tennis courts. That individual expressed concern over the removal of the path as it is "quite important". Also at the September 22, 2003, work session there was great concern expressed over the proposed platting of the Town owned stream tract which is located to the east of the Lionshead tennis court site and the ski -way. The platting of the stream tract was proposed by the applicant at the request of the Town. The Town has agreed to remove the proposal to plat the stream tract from this application. Staff has researched the history of the stream tract to the east of the Lionshead tennis court site and the ski -way.. The Town was given the stream tract with a metes and bounds description with no official plat, which was determined to be acceptable by the Town legal council at the time. Soon after accepting the metes and bounds described lot the Town Council under Section 13.11, Designating Open Space, Vail Town Code, established the designation of open space for the stream tract. Under Section 13.11, Designating Open Space, Vail Town Code, the only method in which that open space designation can be changed is by vote of the registered voters within the Town. The Agriculture and Open Space district zoning, which the stream tract parcel is zoned, has a minimum requirement of 35 acres and restricted permitted and conditional uses. The large lot size combined with the restricted uses allows for a great deal of open space to remain intact in a development situation. Staff has great confidence that the platting and rezoning of the ski -way and four residential lots does not cause the stream tract, which is defined by metes and bounds, to become more non- conforming with this application. The applicant has agreed to assist the Town in bringing an application for the platting of the stream tract forward in the near future. On October 27, 2003, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval onto Town Council for the proposed rezonings of the tennis court site from Agriculture and Open Space zone district to Two -Family Primary/Secondary zone district and the ski -way from Agriculture and Open Space zone district to Outdoor recreation zone district. The Commission also approved the preliminary plat for the Lionshead tennis court site and the ski -way. 2 At the October 27, 2003, Planning and Environmental Commission hearing there were multiple letters and public comment made regarding the loss of the pedestrian pathway which exists on the tennis court site. Several residents and letters from residents of West Forest Road spoke in opposition to the loss of the pathway and the need to have some form of pedestrian access to the ski -way and Lionshead. The Commission listen to those concerns and determined that a pedestrian pathway on this site was not appropriate. On December 2, 2003, the Town Council heard and approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2003, which will rezone the tennis court site from Agriculture and Open Space zone district to Two -Family Primary/Secondary zone district and the ski -way from Agriculture and Open Space zone district to Outdoor recreation zone district. IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS The purpose of this section of the memorandum is to clarify the responsibilities of the Design Review Board, Planning & Environmental Commission, Town Council, and staff on the current applications submitted on behalf of Vail Resorts Development Company. A. MaIor/Minor Subdivision Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a major subdivision. Specifically the code states in Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Criteria: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. " Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a major subdivision, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. 0 Town Council: The Town Council is the final decision making authority for a major subdivision and adoption of easements between a private property owner and the Town. Final actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 12 Zonina Regulations, Vail Town Code 9 12-611) Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District 12-6D-1: PURPOSE: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12-6D-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted: Single-family residential dwellings. Two-family residential dwellings. Type I employee housing unit as provided in chapter 13 of this title. 12-6D-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of this title. Home child daycare facility as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this title. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. 4 Public or private schools. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Type 11 employee housing unit as set forth in chapter 13 of this title. 12-6D-4: ACCESSORY USES.- The SES:The following accessory uses shall be permitted: Nome occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accord with the provisions of chapter 14 of this title. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family and two-family residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof 12-6D-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15, 000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, eighty feet (80) on each side, within its boundaries. 12-6D-6: SETBACKS: In the primary/secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15'). 12-6D-7: HEIGHT: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty three feet (33). 12-6D-8: DENSITY CONTROL.- A. ONTROL.A. Dwelling Units: Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14, 000) square feet. 12-6D-9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area. 12-6D-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least sixty percent (fie%) of each site shall be landscaped. The minimum of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet (10') (width and length) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. 12-6D-11: PARKING: Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. 0 13-2 Definitions SUBDIVISION OR SUBDIVIDED LAND: A. Meaning: 1. A tract of land which is divided into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites, separate interests (including leasehold interests), interests in common, or other division for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of ownership, or for building or other development, or for street use by reference to such subdivision or recorded plat thereof, or 2. A tract of land including land to be used for condominiums, time share estates, fractional fee units, or time share licenses; or 3. A house, condominium, apartment or other dwelling unit which is divided into two (2) or more separate interests through division of the fee or title thereto, whether by conveyance, license, lease, contract for sale or any other method of disposition_ B. Exceptions: Unless the method of land disposition is adopted for the purpose of evading this definition, the term "subdivision" as defined herein shall not apply to any of the following divisions of land or interests in land: 1. The division of land by order of any court in this state or by operation of law. 2. The division of land by a lien, mortgage, deed of trust or any other security instrument. 3_ The division of land by a security or unit of interest in any investment trust regulated under the laws of this state or any other interest in an investment entity. 4. The division of land which creates an interest or interests in oil, gas or minerals which are now or hereafter severed from the surface ownership of real property. 5. The division of land by the acquisition of an interest in land in the name of a husband and wife or other persons in joint tenancy or as tenants in common and any such interest shall be deemed for purposes of this definition as only one interest; provided, however, that no agreement exists, either recorded or unrecorded, between the cotenants allowing for the use and occupancy of the property by one or more cotenants to the exclusion of one or more cotenants during any period, whether annually recurring or not if such agreement is in any way binding or effective upon any assignee or future owner of a fractional fee interest or if such agreement continues to be in any way binding or effective upon any cotenant for the sale of any interest in the property. 6. The division of land by reason of the dissolution of a joint venture or other business entity. C. Compliance: No subdivision shall be approved which includes elements not in conformance with the provisions of any applicable zoning ordinance or other ordinance of the town or law or regulations of the state. D. Major Subdivision: Any subdivision involving more than four (4) lots, or a subdivision proposal without all lots having frontage on a public or approved street, or with a request to extend municipal facilities in a significant manner, or a proposal which would negatively affect the natural environment as determined 6 under section 12-12-2 of this code "Applicability" or if the proposal would adversely affect the development of the remainder of the parcel or the adjacent property. 13-3 Major Subdivision (in part) 13-3-1: REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES: The following submittal requirements and procedures apply to a major subdivision proposal. (Ord. 2(19183) § 1) 13-3-2: CONSULTATION REQUIRED; PRELIMINARY REVIEW: The first step in the process for a major subdivision is for the applicant to request a meeting with the Administrator to assist in meeting submittal requirements, address related zoning issues and generally give the proposal a preliminary review, (Ord. 2(1983) § 1) 13-3-3: PRELIMINARY PLAN: A. Preliminary Presentation To Planning And Environmental Commission: Consideration of a major subdivision proposal shall be formally considered with a preliminary plan presentation by the subdivider and/or hislher representatives) to the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. This preliminary presentation shall be a public hearing according to Section 12-3- 6 of this Code. The presentation shall reflect the proposed development for an entire same ownership and shall indicate all adjacent lands owned or under option to the subdivider at the time of subdivision. B. Submittal Requirements: At least thirty (30) days prior to the preliminary plan presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission, the subdivider shall submit at a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet (1 " = 100') or larger, twelve (12) copies of each of the following (exceptions can be granted on individual items by the Director of Public Works or the Administrator) to the Department of Community Development: 1. The environmental impact report required. 2. A topographic survey with a north arrow, graphic scale, dimensioned to nearest foot prepared by a Colorado registered land surveyor, shall be submitted including the following information: a. Boundary lines. b. Preliminary proposed lots and blocks with numbers and sizes. c. Easements: location, width and purpose. d. Proposed streets, their widths of right of way and pavement, approximate grades in percentage and center line radii of curves; areas with cuts and fills exceeding six feet (6) and extent thereof e. Utilities on and adjacent to the tract, including their type, location, size and invert elevations of sanitary sewers, storm drainage facilities and water mains. if utilities are not found on the tract, distance to, direction of, and size and elevations of the nearest utilities should be indicated. f, Contour intervals of no less than two feet (2) if the site is two (2) acres or less, contour intervals of five feet (5) or less if the tract is more than two (2) acres, elevations to be based on USGS datum. 7 g. Drainage conditions on and adjacent to the tract including location and extent of watercourses, areas of 100 -year flood plain (verified by a registered professional engineer in State of Colorado), perpetual drainage easements and location of natural springs and ground water. h, Existing conditions on adjacent land. the area within two hundred feet (200) from each subdivision boundary should be included in the preliminary plan to show its land slope percentage, zoning, location of physical improvements and land uses; owners of said property, division of property into lots or tracts including subdivision names and any significant natural features. The objective of showing how the preliminary plan interfaces with all adjoining properties and uses thereof should be met. i. Existing zoning_ j, All areas of forty percent (40%) slope or greater, and avalanche areas indicated as shaded areas. k. Letters from all applicable utility agencies verifying service. I. Indications showing that access to the subdivision is via a maintained public road. m, Soil stability analysis. 13-3-4: COMMISSION REVIEW OF APPLICATION; CRITERIA: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. 13-3-8: REQUiRED IMPROVEMENTS: The following improvements shall be required by the subdivider unless otherwise waived by either the Administrator, Director of Public Works, Planning and Environmental Commission or Council. All improvements shall meet the design standards, Chapter 10 of this Title: A. Paved street and parking lots. B. Bicycle and pedestrian path linked with Town system and within the subdivision itself. C. Traffic -control signs, signals or devices. D. Street lights. E. Landscaping. F. Water lines and fire hydrants. G. Sanitary sewer lines. H. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers. 1. Bridges and culverts_ J. Electrical lines. is K. Telephone lines. L. Natural gas lines. M. Other improvements not specifically mentioned above but found necessary by the Town Engineer due to the nature of the subdivision- 13-3-9 ubdivision_ 13-3-9: COMMISSION ACTION, PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the final plat and associated material and information and shall approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the public hearing on the final plat of the subdivision or the final plat is deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to agreement between the applicant and the Planning and Environmental Commission. Vail Land Use Plan The Vail Land Use Plan was initiated in 1985 and adopted in 1986 by the Vail Town Council. The main purpose of the Land Use Plan is two -fold: To articulate the land use goals of the Town. 2. To serve as a guide for decision making by the Town. The Vail Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a basis from which future land use decisions may be made within the Town of Vail. The goals, as articulated within the Land Use Plan, are meant to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. In conjunction with these goals, land use categories are defined to indicate general types of land uses which are then used to develop the Vail Land Use Map. The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature, but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. Where the land use categories and zoning conflict, existing zoning controls development on a site. The Vail Land Use Plan contains the following applicable goals to this proposal: 1.0 General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment„ maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 0 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1,12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was adopted on December 15, 1998 by the Vail Town Council. While the Tennis Court Site does appear in the study area for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan it does not make any recommendations for the site. During the development of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan the Lionshead Tennis Court Site was included in within the plan; however, at the request of the public all recommendations for the site were removed prior to adoption. Upon review of the plan the only statement referencing the Lionshead Tennis Court Site appears in Section 3.2.6, Recreation and Open Space, which identifies it as "unattractive and visually inconsistent with the rest of The Gore Creek corridor". Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan 1n 1994, the Vail Town Council adopted the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. The purpose of the plan is to identify priorities for open space and recreation needs communicated by the citizens of Vail. The citizens identified the following needs, in order of priority: Acquisition, preservation and protection of natural open space; Improvement of the trail and bike path system in and around Vail; Creation of additional recreation opportunities in a regional context. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan is an action -oriented plan that identifies specific parcels of land that require some kind of action for either protection of sensitive lands, for trail easements and critical trail connections, or for future public use. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan - Action Plan map identifies the Tennis Court site "Undeveloped Parcel (Open Space Zoning) Action Not Recommended". The Plan did not reference or recommend any action with the existing Tennis Court Site. However, it does identify that there is an existing bike path along Forest Road on the southern border of the site. 10 ,a VI. POTENTIAL SITE ZONING ANAYSIS Proposed four lots on the Lionshead Tennis Court Site: Proposed Zoning: Two -Family Primary/Secondary district Land Use Designation: Ski Base Current Land Use: Recreation/Open Space Development Standard Allowed Proposed Lot Area: Lot 1 15,000 sq. ft. 29,707 sq. ft. buildable area Lot 2 15,000 sq. ft. 25,526 sq. ft. buildable area Lot 3 15,000 sq. ft. 28,923 sq. ft. buildable area Lot 4 15,000 sq. ft. 27,094 sq_ ft. buildable area Setbacks: Front: 20' 20' Sides: 15' 15' Rear: 15' 15' Building Height: Flat roof: 30' 30' Sloped roof 33' 33' Density: Note 8 on the preliminary plat restricts the maximum number of units which can be constructed on the combined area of the four lots to eight dwelling units total, including EHUs, and prohibits the further subdivision of Lots 1-4 as permitted by any subdivision process in the Vail Town Code, GRFA: Lot 1 6,070 sq. ft. Lot 2 5,652 sq. ft. Lot 3 5,992 sq. ft. Lot 4 5,809 sq. ft. Site Coverage: Lot 1 5,941 sq. ft. (20%) Lot 2 5,105 sq. ft. (20%) Lot 3 5,784 sq. ft. (20°l%) Lot 4 5,418 sq. ft. (20%) Landscape Area: Lot 1 17,824 sq. ft. (60%) Lot 2 15,315 sq. ft. (60%) Lot 3 17,353 sq. ft. (60%) Lot 4 16,256 sq. ft. (60%) Frontage: All four of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirement for 30 feet of frontage as required by the Two -Family Primary/Secondary district. 11 Proposed ski -way lot: Proposed Zoning: Outdoor Recreation district Land Use Designation: Ski Base Current Land Use: Recreation/Open Space The proposed ski -way tract, Tract X, is proposed to be 4.226 acres The applicant is not proposing any changes to the uses which currently occur on the ski -way. VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Vill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Major Subdivision Creating Four Residential Lots and the Ski -way 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. 1. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: Lot Area: The minimum lot area for the Two -Family Primary/Secondary district is 15,006 square feet of buildable area. All four of the proposed residential lots located on the tennis court site exceed this minimum requirement. Section V of this memorandum depicts all the statistics for the proposed lots. The proposed ski -way tract, Tract X, measures 4.226 acres. There is no minimum lot sized identified in the Outdoor Recreation district for which Tract X is proposed to be rezoned. Frontage: The minimum frontage required by the Two -Family Primary/Secondary district along a street is 30 feet. All four lots have 30 feet or more of frontage on the proposed private drive, Forest Court. There is no minimum frontage requirement for parcels zoned Outdoor Recreation district, therefore Tract X does have to meet a minimum frontage requirement; however, it is proposed to have 240 feet of frontage along West Forest Road. Dimension: Under the proposed Two -Family Primary/Secondary district zoning for the four residential lots are required to be dimension so as to 1? Land Use Zoninq North: Open Space Natural Area Preservation district South: Residential Two-FamiiyPrimary/Secondary district East: Open Space Agricultural and Open Space district West: Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary district Vill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Major Subdivision Creating Four Residential Lots and the Ski -way 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. 1. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: Lot Area: The minimum lot area for the Two -Family Primary/Secondary district is 15,006 square feet of buildable area. All four of the proposed residential lots located on the tennis court site exceed this minimum requirement. Section V of this memorandum depicts all the statistics for the proposed lots. The proposed ski -way tract, Tract X, measures 4.226 acres. There is no minimum lot sized identified in the Outdoor Recreation district for which Tract X is proposed to be rezoned. Frontage: The minimum frontage required by the Two -Family Primary/Secondary district along a street is 30 feet. All four lots have 30 feet or more of frontage on the proposed private drive, Forest Court. There is no minimum frontage requirement for parcels zoned Outdoor Recreation district, therefore Tract X does have to meet a minimum frontage requirement; however, it is proposed to have 240 feet of frontage along West Forest Road. Dimension: Under the proposed Two -Family Primary/Secondary district zoning for the four residential lots are required to be dimension so as to 1? allow an 80 foot by 80 foot square to fit within the property lines. All of the proposed residential lots meet this requirement. Under the proposed Outdoor Recreation district zoning for Tract X there is no minimum requirement for lot dimensions. 2. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a major subdivision request is outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, 13-3-4, and is as follows.- "The ollows: "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 ollows: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. Staff response: The provisions of Title 13, Vail Town Code, and staff made the subdivider aware of the standards and criteria by which this proposal is to be evaluated. The approved preliminary plat depicts a 60 -foot diameter cul-de-sac which will be constructed on West Forest Road. The construction documents submitted in conjunction with the proposed final plat depicts the previously approved 60 -foot cul-de-sac. However, the construction documents provided staff with a clear picture of how the proposed cul-de-sac, which was requested by the Town Engineer under Section 13-3-8M, Required Improvements: Other Improvements Not Specifically Mentioned Above But Found Necessary By The Town Engineer Due To The Nature Of The Subdivision, Vail Town Code, would function with the turning movements of the Town's fire equipment. Staff has determined that the 64 -foot diameter cul-de-sac, as measured from flow -line to flow -line, needs to be increased to a 68 -foot diameter cul-de- sac, as measured from flow -line to flow -line, in order to adequately provide the area necessary to turn around the Town's fire equipment. 13 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff response: The proposed major subdivision to create four residential lots and plat the ski -way will not conflict with development or subdivision on adjacent lots. However, Note 8 on the plat which states; "Lots 1 through 4 as shown on this plat shall not be further subdivided. This prohibition on subdivision shall extend to but not be limited to (A) subdivisions otherwise permitted under the municipal code of the Town of Vail, including but not limited to the current subdivision processes under Chapters 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of Title 93 of the current Vail Municipal Code and any similar provision in effect in the future, and (B) Judicial partition, provided that partition by sale of an entire lot and improvements without physical division of the lot or improvements shall be permitted_ The intent of this provision is to prohibit and prevent each lot identified on this plat from being divided in any manner, provided, however that each lot may contain a residence with two dwelling units under a single ownership if permitted by applicable land use regulations. This prohibition and restriction may be enforced by the Town of Vail and/or by any property owner adjacent to the subject property (ignoring the existence of any street for the purpose of determining contiguity). " This note was drafted by the applicant to address several concerns of the neighbors. Staff believes that this note is extremely confusing and unnecessarily prohibitive. They four lots of the Forest Court Subdivision are currently in the process of being rezoned to Two -Family Primary/Secondary zone district. This zone district allows as a permitted uses, single-family, two- family, and Type I employee housing units. The limit on two dwelling units per lot for a maximum of eight dwelling units is required as the private road serving the homes, Forest Court, does not meet the width requirement required by the Town Code for more than eight dwelling units. Staff would like to suggest that the following language replace the currently proposed Note 8: "Lots 1 through 4 as shown on this plat shall not be further subdivided. This prohibition on subdivision shall extend to but not be limited to (a) subdivisions otherwise permitted under the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, including any provision in effect now or in the future, and (b) judicial partition, provided that partition by sale of an entire lot and 14 improvements without physical division of the lot or improvements shall be permitted. A maximum of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each of the four lots numbered 1 through 4. For the purposes of this provision, an employee housing unit or other housing unit permitted by the Town of Vail through current or later zoning regulations shall be considered to be a dwelling unit under this provision. This prohibition and restriction may be enforced by the Town of Vail, by any owner of a Lot in the subdivision, and/or by any property owner adjacent to the subject subdivision (ignoring the existence of any street for the purpose of determining contiguity)." 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff response: Staff believes the removal of the existing tennis courts which have been in disrepair for several years and the establishment of four large residential lots, ranging in size from 25,526 to 29,707 square feet, will conserve the value of land throughout the municipality by eliminating a site improvement which has been allowed to become rundown. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan in Section 3.2.6 stated that the existing tennis court site was "unattractive and visually inconsistent with the rest of the Gore Creek corridor". The proposal to plat the ski -way and create Tract X does not change the existing land use of 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. Staff response: The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances. In Section VI staff has created a table to display how each of the lots and the ski -way conforms with the requirements of the Two -Family Primary/Secondary district and the Outdoor recreation district. 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. 15 Staff response: As required in Section 13-3-3C staff notified the department of Public Works, Town Fire Department, Town Police Department, Public Service Company of Colorado, Holy Cross Electric Corporation, U.S. West, Comcast Cable, National Forest Service, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Vail Recreation District, and Eagle County Ambulance District. None of the notified departments responded with any concerns about the proposal. In addition, the applicant obtained signatures from Quest, Excel High Pressure Gas, Holy Cross Electrical, Excel Energy, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, and AT&T Broadband regarding their approval of the project. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. Staff response: The proposed plat will establish accurate legal descriptions for several lots which were previously unplatted. 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. Staff response: The proposed plat does not pose any negative affect on the natural environment and resources and will preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community. The proposed plat includes a "No Build Zone" on the northern portions of Lots 3 and 4_ Note 9 on the proposed plat addresses the "No Build Zone" and states: "The "No Build Zone" shown on this plat shall not be developed with buildings provided however, drainage improvements, landscape improvements, pedestrian improvements, and other similar improvements area allowed in this zone. " The applicant placed the "No Build Zone" on the northern portions of Lots 3 and 4 in order to prevent future owners from constructing buildings on the northern portions of the lot which would obstruct views and encroach upon the Town owned stream tract along Gore Creek. Staff believes that Note 9 needs to be modified to eliminate any confusion over the permitted improvements which can be made within the "No Build Zone". Staff recommends that the term "building" in Note 9 be change to "structure" as to be clearer as to 16 the type of improvements which can be made. Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, defines "Structure" as: "Anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground, but not including poles, fines, cables, or other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities, or mailboxes or light fixtures. At the discretion of the design review board, swimming pools and tennis courts may be exempted from this definition. " The use of the term "landscape improvements" in Note 9 includes a wide variety of improvements. Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, defines "Landscaping" as.- "Planted s: "Planted areas and plant materials, including trees, shrubs, lawns, flower beds and ground cover, together with the core development such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features, and like features not occupying more than twenty percent (20%) of the landscaped area. For the purpose of this title, natural or significant rock outcroppings, trees or native vegetation shall be deemed landscaping in single-family, two-family residential, and residential cluster, low density multiple -family, hillside residential, and primary/secondary residential zone districts. " Staff believes that the "No Build Zone" should be limited solely to plant materials and not include walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features, and like facilities. To include walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features, and like facilities, goes against the intent of establishing a "No Build Zone". The applicant has requested that a provision for the potential need of placing a bridge abutment and/or grading for the new skier bridge on a portion of Lot 3 be added to Dote 9 in the event the design which is currently under development requires some disturbance and improvement on Lot 3. Such an improvement if necessary would require an easement. The need for placement of a bridge abutment and/or grading on Lot 3 will be determined prior to the sale of Lot 3, therefore the applicant will retain ownership. Staff has suggested language to replace Note 9 in Section IK. Findings: The following findings are used for a Major Subdivision: 1. That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Major Subdivision Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 17 2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Major Subdivision Staff is recommending approval of the proposed fianl plat for a major subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the ski -way tract and four lots at the Lionshead tennis court site,. Staff's recommendation is based on the evidence and testimony presented and the criteria found in Section VIII of this memorandum. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this final plat it must make the following findings: The following findings are used for a Major Subdivision: (1) That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Major Subdivision Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable, (2) That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve the final plat staff suggests the following conditions: 1) That the applicant shall submit cross-sections for West Forest Road and Forest Court, and revise the plat and construction documents be to show a 68 -foot diameter cul-de-sac, measured from flow -line to flow -line, for staff review and approval prior to the recording of the plat. 2) That the applicant shall revise Note 8 on the plat to state, "Lots 1 through 4 as shown on this plat shall not be further subdivided. This prohibition on subdivision shall extend to but not be limited to (a) subdivisions otherwise permitted under the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, including any provision in effect now or in the future, and (b) judicial partition, provided that partition by sale of an entire lot and improvements without physical division of the lot or improvements shall be permitted. A maximum of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each of the four lots numbered 1 through 4. For the purposes of this provision, an employee housing unit or other housing unit permitted by the Town of Vail through 18 current or later zoning regulations shall be considered to be a dwelling unit under this provision. This prohibition and restriction may be enforced by the Town of Vail, by any owner of a Lot in the subdivision, and/or by any property owner adjacent to the subject subdivision (ignoring the existence of any street for the purpose of determining contiguity)." This note shall be revised prior to recording the final plat. 3) That the applicant shall revise Note g on the plat to state, "The "No Build Zone" shown on this plat shall not be developed with structures provided however, drainage improvements, planting improvements, improvements related to the skier bridge located on Tract X, and other similar improvements are allowed in this zone as determined by the Town of Vail zoning administrator.". This note shall be revised prior to recording the final plat 4) That the applicant shall place the correct addresses for the four new lot on the plat as follows: Lot 1 is 618 Forest Court, Lot 2 is 621 Forest Court, Lot 3 is 612 Forest Court, and Lot 4 is 615 Forest Court. These corrections shall be made prior to recording the final plat. 5) That the applicant pays for the cost of new traffic control signs and the installation of the signs at the approved cul -du -sac location on West Forest Road after receiving approval for design and location by the Public Works Department. 6) That the applicant removes the snowcat access from West Forest Road, if an alternative route is reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail. The alternate route shall be proposed by the applicant and reviewed by the Town of Vail prior to the closing of the sale of any one of the four new residential lots approved on the tennis court site. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Reduced copy of the proposed Forest Court Subdivision plat C. Public notification 19 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the ski -way tract and four lots at the Lionshead tennis court site located at 616 West Forest Road/Unplatted (A complete metes and bounds legal description is available for review at the Town of Vail Community Development Department). Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC), represented by Braun Associates, Inc., has requested a meeting with the Planning and Environmental Commission to present the final plat for the Forest Court Subdivision. The applicant is requesting action on the proposed final plat which subdivides the existing Lionshead tennis court site into four lots, Forest Court Subdivision, which is served by a private road and the ski -way, which are a portion of an unplatted tract located at 616 West Forest Road. Based upon staff's review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed final plat subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC), represented by Braun Associates, Inc., is requesting review of a major subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the ski -way tract (Tract X on the proposed preliminary plat) and four residential lots at the Lionshead tennis court site located at 615 West Forest Road/unplatted. A vicinity map is attached for reference (Attachment A). Specifically, the applicant is requesting action on the proposed Forest Court Subdivision final plat for the platting of the four residential lots and the ski -way. A reduced copy of the proposed Lionshead tennis court site and ski -way plat is attached for reference (Attachment B). Ill. BACKGROUND On September 22, 2003, the applicant, VRDC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc., participated in a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission. At that meeting a presentation was given on the many proposed projects which VRDC will be submitting regarding the redevelopment of Lionshead. After a brief overview the proposal the applicant focused the remainder of the work session of the proposed plans for the Lionshead tennis court site. At that work session there was public comment regarding the proposed plan. Several of the comments regarded the proposed rezoning and the existing zoning. One resident whom lives on West Forest Road spoke to the removal of the walking path which was used in the past to access the tennis courts. That individual expressed concern over the removal of the path as it is "quite important". Also at the September 22, 2003, work session there was great concern expressed over the proposed platting of the Town owned stream tract which is located to the east of the Lionshead tennis court site and the ski -way. The platting of the stream tract was proposed by the applicant at the request of the Town. The Town has agreed to remove the proposal to plat the stream tract from this application. Staff has researched the history of the stream tract to the east of the Lionshead tennis court site and the ski -way. The Town was given the stream tract with a metes and bounds description with no official plat, which was determined to be acceptable by the Town legal council at the time. Soon after accepting the metes and bounds described lot the Town Council under Section 13.11, Designating Open Space, Vail Town Code, established the designation of open space for the stream tract. Under Section 13.11, Designating Open Space, Vail Town Code, the only method in which that open space designation can be changed is by vote of the registered voters within the Town. The Agriculture and Open Space district zoning, which the stream tract parcel is zoned, has a minimum requirement of 35 acres and restricted permitted and conditional uses. The large lot size combined with the restricted uses allows for a great deal of open space to remain intact in a development situation. Staff has great confidence that the platting and rezoning of the ski -way and four residential lots does not cause the stream tract, which is defined by metes and bounds, to become more non- conforming with this application. The applicant has agreed to assist the Town in bringing an application for the platting of the stream tract forward in the near future. On October 27, 2003, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval onto Town Council for the proposed rezonings of the tennis court site from Agriculture and Open Space zone district to Two -Family Primary/Secondary zone district and the ski -way from Agriculture and Open Space zone district to Outdoor recreation zone district. The Commission also approved the preliminary plat for the Lionshead tennis court site and the ski -way. 2 • At the October 27, 2003, Planning and Environmental Commission hearing there were multiple letters and public comment made regarding the loss of the pedestrian pathway which exists on the tennis court site. Several residents and letters from residents of West Forest Road spoke in opposition to the loss of the pathway and the need to have some form of pedestrian access to the ski -way and Lionshead. The Commission listen to those concerns and determined that a pedestrian pathway on this site was not appropriate. On December 2, 2003, the Town Council heard and approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2003, which will rezone the tennis court site from Agriculture and Open Space zone district to Two -Family PrimaryfSecondary zone district and the ski -way from Agriculture and Open Space zone district to Outdoor recreation zone district. IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS The purpose of this section of the memorandum is to clarify the responsibilities of the Design Review Board, Planning & Environmental Commission, Town Council, and staff on the current applications submitted on behalf of Vail Resorts Development Company. A. MalorlMinor Subdivision Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a major subdivision_ Specifically the code states in Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Criteria: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town." Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a major subdivision, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. 3 Town Council: The Town Council is the final decision making authority for a major subdivision and adoption of easements between a private property owner and the Town. Final actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 12 Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code 12-6D Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District 0 12-6D-1: PURPOSE: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12-6D-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted. Single-family residential dwellings. Two-family residential dwellings. Type I employee housing unit as provided in chapter 13 of this title. 12-6D-3: CONDiTIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of this title. Home child daycare facility as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this title. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. 0 • Public or private schools. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Type it employee housing unit as set forth in chapter 13 of this title. 12-6D-4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accord with the provisions of chapter 14 of this title. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family and two-family residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12-6D-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, eighty feet (80) on each side, within its boundaries. 12-6D-6: SETBACKS: In the primary/secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15'). 12-6D-7: HEIGHT.• For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty three feet (33{)• 12-6D-8: DENSITY CONTROL: A. Dwelling Units: Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. 12-6D-9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (201%,) of the total site area. 12-6D-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT At least sixty percent (60%) of each site shall be landscaped. The minimum of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet (10) (width and length) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. 12-6D-11: PARKING: Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. 5 13-2 Definitions 0 SUBDIVISION OR SUBDIVIDED LAND: A. Meaning: 1. A tract of land which is divided into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites, separate interests (including leasehold interests), interests in common, or other division for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of ownership, or for building or other development, or for street use by reference to such subdivision or recorded plat thereof; or 2. A tract of land including land to be used for condominiums, time share estates, fractional fee units, or time share licenses; or 3. A house, condominium, apartment or other dwelling unit which is divided into two (2) or more separate interests through division of the fee or title thereto, whether by conveyance, license, lease, contract for sale or any other method of disposition. B. Exceptions: Unless the method of land disposition is adopted for the purpose of evading this definition, the term "subdivision" as defined herein shall not apply to any of the following divisions of land or interests in land: 1. The division of land by order of any court in this state or by operation of law. 2. The division of land by a lien, mortgage, deed of trust or any other security instrument. 3. The division of land by a security or unit of interest in any investment trust regulated under the laws of this state or any other interest in an investment entity. 4. The division of land which creates an interest or interests in oil, gas or minerals which are now or hereafter severed from the surface ownership of real property. 5. The division of land by the acquisition of an interest in land in the name of a husband and wife or other persons in Joint tenancy or as tenants in common and any such interest shall be deemed for purposes of this definition as only one interest; provided, however, that no agreement exists, either recorded or unrecorded, between the cotenants allowing for the use and occupancy of the property by one or more cotenants to the exclusion of one or more cotenants during any period, whether annually recurring or not if such agreement is in any way binding or effective upon any assignee or future owner of a fractional fee interest or if such agreement continues to be in any way binding or effective upon any cotenant for the sale of any interest in the property. 6. The division of land by reason of the dissolution of a joint venture or other business entity. C. Compliance: No subdivision shall be approved which includes elements not in conformance with the provisions of any applicable zoning ordinance or other ordinance of the town or law or regulations of the state. D. Major Subdivision: Any subdivision involving more than four (4) lots, or a subdivision proposal without all lots having frontage on a public or approved street, or with a request to extend municipal facilities in a significant manner, or a proposal which would negatively affect the natural environment as determined • under section 12-12-2 of this code "Applicability" or if the proposal would adversely affect the development of the remainder of the parcel or the adjacent property. 13-3 Maior Subdivision (in part) 13-3-1: REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES: The following submittal requirements and procedures apply to a major subdivision proposal. (Ord. 2(1983) § 1) 13-3-2: CONSULTATION REQUIRED; PRELIMINARY REVIEW.- The first step In the process for a major subdivision is for the applicant to request a meeting with the Administrator to assist in meeting submittal requirements, address related zoning issues and generally give the proposal a preliminary review. (Ord. 2(1983) § 1) 13-3-3: PRELIMINARY PLAN: A. Preliminary Presentation To Planning And Environmental Commission: Consideration of a major subdivision proposal shall be formally considered with a preliminary plan presentation by the subdivider and/or his/her representative(s) to the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. This preliminary presentation shall be a public hearing according to Section 12-3- 6 of this Code. The presentation shall reflect the proposed development for an entire same ownership and shall indicate all adjacent lands owned or under option to the subdivider at the time of subdivision. B. Submittal Requirements: At least thirty (30) days prior to the preliminary plan presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission, the subdivider shall submit at a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet (1" = 100) or larger, twelve (12) copies of each of the following (exceptions can be granted on individual items by the Director of Public Works or the Administrator) to the Department of Community Development: 1. The environmental impact report required. 2. A topographic survey with a north arrow, graphic scale, dimensioned to nearest foot prepared by a Colorado registered land surveyor, shall be submitted including the following information: a. Boundary lines. b. Preliminary proposed lots and blocks with numbers and sizes. c. Easements: location, width and purpose. d. Proposed streets, their widths of right of way and pavement, approximate grades in percentage and center line radii of curves; areas with cuts and fills exceeding six feet (6) and extent thereof. e. Utilities on and adjacent to the tract, including their type, location, size and invert elevations of sanitary sewers, storm drainage facilities and water mains. If utilities are not found on the tract, distance to, direction of, and size and elevations of the nearest utilities should be indicated. f. Contour intervals of no less than two feet (2) if the site is two (2) acres or less; contour intervals of five feet (5°) or less if the tract is more than two (2) acres, elevations to be based on USGS datum. 7 g. Drainage conditions on and adjacent to the tract including location and extent of watercourses, areas of I00 -year flood plain (verified by a registered professional engineer in State of Colorado), perpetual drainage easements and location of natural springs and ground water. h. Existing conditions on adjacent land: the area within two hundred feet (200") from each subdivision boundary should be included in the preliminary plan to show its land slope percentage, zoning, location of physical improvements and land uses, owners of said property, division of property into lots or tracts including subdivision names and any significant natural features. The objective of showing how the preliminary plan interfaces with all adjoining properties and uses thereof should be met. i. Existing zoning. j. All areas of forty percent (4051o) slope or greater, and avalanche areas indicated as shaded areas. k. Letters from all applicable utility agencies verifying service. 1. Indications showing that access to the subdivision is via a maintained public road. m. Soil stability analysis. 13-3-4: COMMISSION REVIEW OF APPLICATION; CRITERIA: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. 13-3-8: REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS: The following improvements shalt be required by the subdivider unless otherwise waived by either the Administrator, Director of Public Works, Planning and Environmental Commission or Council. All improvements shall meet the design standards, Chapter 10 of this Title: A. Paved street and parking lots. B. Bicycle and pedestrian path linked with Town system and within the subdivision itself. C. Traffic -control signs, signals or devices. D. Street lights. E. Landscaping. F. Water lines and fire hydrants. G. Sanitary sewer lines. H. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers. !. Bridges and culverts. J. Electrical lines. K Telephone lines. L. Natural gas lines. M. Other improvements not specifically mentioned above but found necessary by the Town Engineer due to the nature of the subdivision. 13-3-9: COMMISSION ACTION; PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the final plat and associated material and information and shall approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the public hearing on the final plat of the subdivision or the final plat is deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to agreement between the applicant and the Planning and Environmental Commission. Vail Land Use Plan The Vail Land Use Plan was initiated in 1986 and adopted in 1986 by the Vail Town Council. The main purpose of the Land Use Plan is two -fold: 1. To articulate the land use goals of the Town. 2. To serve as a guide for decision making by the Town. The Vail Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a basis from which future land use decisions may be made within the Town of Vail. The goals, as articulated within the Land Use Plan, are meant to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. In conjunction with these goals, land use categories are defined to indicate general types of land uses which are then used to develop the Vail Land Use Map. The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature, but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. Where the land use categories and zoning conflict, existing zoning controls development on a site. The Vail Land Use Plan contains the following applicable goals to this proposal: 1.0 General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment - 4 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 0 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was adopted on December 15, 1998 by the Vail Town Council. While the Tennis Court Site does appear in the study area for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan it does not make any recommendations for the site. During the development of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan the Lionshead Tennis Court Site was included in within the plan; however, at the request of the public all recommendations for the site were removed prior to adoption. Upon review of the plan the only statement referencing the Lionshead Tennis Court Site appears in Section 3.2.6, Recreation and Open Space, which identifies it as "unattractive and visually inconsistent with the rest of The Gore Creek corridor". Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan In 1994, the Vail Town Council adopted the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. The purpose of the plan is to identify priorities for open space and recreation needs communicated by the citizens of Vail. The citizens identified the following needs, in order of priority; • Acquisition, preservation and protection of natural open space; • Improvement of the trail and bike path system in and around Vail; • Creation of additional recreation opportunities in a regional context. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan is an action -oriented plan that identifies specific parcels of land that require some kind of action for either protection of sensitive lands, for trail easements and critical trail connections, or for future public use. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan - Action Plan map identifies the Tennis Court site "Undeveloped Parcel (Open Space Zoning) Action Not i Recommended". The Plan did not reference or recommend any action with the existing Tennis Court Site. However, it does identify that there is an existing bike path along Forest Road on the southern border of the site. 10 0 VI. POTENTIAL SITE ZONING ANAYSIS Proposed four lots on the Lionshead Tennis Court Site: Proposed Zoning: Two -Family Primary/Secondary district Land Use Designation: Ski Base Current Land Use: Recreation/Open Space Development Standard Allowed Proposed Lot Area: Lot 3 5,784 sq. ft. (20%) Lot 1 15,000 sq. ft. 29,707 sq. ft. buildable area Lot 2 15,000 sq. ft. 25,526 sq. ft. buildable area Lot 3 15,000 sq. ft. 28,923 sq. ft. buildable area Lot 4 15,000 sq. ft. 27,094 sq, ft. buildable area Setbacks: Front: 20' 20' Sides: 15' 15' Rear: 15' 15' Building Height: Flat roof: 30' 30' Sloped roof 33' 33' + Density: Note 8 on the preliminary plat restricts the maximum number of units which can be constructed on the combined area of the four lots to eight dwelling units total, including EHUs, and prohibits the further subdivision of Lots 1-4 as permitted by any subdivision process in the Vail Town Code. GRFA: Lot 1 6,070 sq. ft. Lot 2 5,652 sq. ft. Lot 3 5,992 sq, ft. Lot 4 5,809 sq. ft. Site Coverage: Lot 1 5,941 sq. ft. (20%) Lot 2 5,105 sq. ft. (20%) Lot 3 5,784 sq. ft. (20%) Lot 4 5,418 sq. fit. (20%) Landscape Area: Lot 1 17,824 sq. ft. (60%) Lot 2 15,315 sq. ft. (60%) Lot 3 17,353 sq. ft. (60%) Lot 4 16,256 sq. ft. (60%) Frontage: All four of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirement for 30 feet of frontage as required by the Two -Family Primary/Secondary district. Proposed ski -way lot: Proposed Zoning: Land Use Designation Current Land Use: Outdoor Recreation district Ski Base Recreation/Open Space The proposed ski -way tract, Tract X, is proposed to be 4.226 acres The applicant is not proposing any changes to the uses which currently occur on the ski -way. VIL SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Major Subdivision Creating Four Residential Lots and the Ski -way 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: The minimum lot area for the Two -Family Primary/Secondary district is 15,000 square feet of buildable area. All four of the proposed residential lots located on the tennis court site exceed this minimum requirement. Section V of this memorandum depicts all the statistics for the proposed lots. The proposed ski -way tract, Tract X, measures 4.226 acres. There is no minimum lot sized identified in the Outdoor Recreation district for which Tract X is proposed to be rezoned. Frontage: The minimum frontage required by the Two -Family Primary/Secondary district along a street is 30 feet. All four lots have 30 feet or more of frontage on the proposed private drive, Forest Court. There is no minimum frontage requirement for parcels zoned Outdoor Recreation district, therefore Tract X does have to meet a minimum frontage requirement; however, it is proposed to have 240 feet of frontage along West Forest Road. Dimension: Under the proposed Two -Family PrimarylSecondary dia) %, zonings for the four residential lots are required to be dimension so as tc 12 • is Land Use Zoning North: Open Space Natural Area Preservation district South: Residential Two- Family Pri mary/Secondary district East: Open Space Agricultural and Open Space district West: Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary district VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Major Subdivision Creating Four Residential Lots and the Ski -way 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: The minimum lot area for the Two -Family Primary/Secondary district is 15,000 square feet of buildable area. All four of the proposed residential lots located on the tennis court site exceed this minimum requirement. Section V of this memorandum depicts all the statistics for the proposed lots. The proposed ski -way tract, Tract X, measures 4.226 acres. There is no minimum lot sized identified in the Outdoor Recreation district for which Tract X is proposed to be rezoned. Frontage: The minimum frontage required by the Two -Family Primary/Secondary district along a street is 30 feet. All four lots have 30 feet or more of frontage on the proposed private drive, Forest Court. There is no minimum frontage requirement for parcels zoned Outdoor Recreation district, therefore Tract X does have to meet a minimum frontage requirement; however, it is proposed to have 240 feet of frontage along West Forest Road. Dimension: Under the proposed Two -Family PrimarylSecondary dia) %, zonings for the four residential lots are required to be dimension so as tc 12 • is allow an 80 foot by 80 foot square to fit within the property lines. All of the proposed residential lots meet this requirement. Under the proposed Outdoor Recreation district zoning for Tract X there is no minimum requirement for lot dimensions. 2. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a major 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: I. 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. Staff response: The provisions of Title 13, Vail Town Code, and staff made the subdivider aware of the standards and criteria by which this proposal is to be evaluated. The approved preliminary plat depicts a 60 -foot diameter cul-de-sac which will be constructed on West Forest Road. The construction documents submitted in conjunction with the proposed final plat depicts the previously approved 64 -foot cul-de-sac. However, the construction documents provided staff with a clear picture of how the proposed cul-de-sac, which was requested by the Town Engineer under Section 13-3-8M, Required Improvements: Other Improvements Not Specifically Mentioned Above But Found Necessary By The Town Engineer [due To The Nature Of The Subdivision, Vail Town Code, would function with the turning movements of the Town's fire equipment. Staff has determined that the 64 -foot diameter cul-de-sac, as measured from flow -line to flow -line, needs to be increased to a 68 -foot diameter cul-de- sac, as measured from flow -line to flow -line, in order to adequately provide the area necessary to turn around the Town's fire equipment. 13 2. To provide for the subdivision of property In the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff response: The proposed major subdivision to create four residential lots and plat the ski -way will not conflict with development or subdivision on adjacent lots. However, Note 8 on the plat which states; Lots 1 through 4 as shown on this plat shall not be further subdivided. This prohibition on subdivision shall extend to but not be limited to (A) subdivisions otherwise permitted under the municipal code of the Town of Vail, including but not limited to the current subdivision processes under Chapters 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of Title 13 of the current Vail Municipal Code and any similar provision in effect in the future, and (B) judicial partition, provided that partition by sale of an entire lot and improvements without physical division of the lot or improvements shall be permitted. The intent of this provision is to prohibit and prevent each lot identified on this plat from being divided in any manner, provided, however that each lot may contain a residence with two dwelling units under a single ownership if permitted by applicable land use regulations. This prohibition and restriction may be enforced by the Town of Vail and/or by any property owner adjacent to the subject property (ignoring the existence of any street for the purpose of determining contiguity)." This note was drafted by the applicant to address several concerns of the neighbors. Staff believes that this note is extremely confusing and unnecessarily prohibitive. They four lots of the Forest Court Subdivision are currently in the process of being rezoned to Two -Family Primary/Secondary zone district. This zone district allows as a permitted uses, single-family, two- family, and Type I employee housing units. The limit on two dwelling units per lot for a maximum of eight dwelling units is required as the private road serving the homes, Forest Court, does not meet the width requirement required by the Town Code for more than eight dwelling units. Staff would like to suggest that the following language replace the currently proposed Note 8: "Lots 1 through 4 as shown on this plat shall not be further subdivided. This prohibition on subdivision shall extend to but not be limited to (a) subdivisions otherwise permitted under the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, including any provision in effect now or in the future, and (b) judicial partition, provided that partition by sale of an entire lot and 0 14 improvements without physical division of the lot or improvements shall be permitted. A maximum of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each of the four lots numbered 1 through 4. For the purposes of this provision, an employee housing unit or other housing unit permitted by the Town of Vail through current or later zoning regulations shall be considered to be a dwelling unit under this provision. This prohibition and restriction may be enforced by the Town of Vail, by any owner of a Lot in the subdivision, and/or by any property owner adjacent to the subject subdivision (ignoring the existence of any street for the purpose of determining contiguity)." 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff response: Staff believes the removal of the existing tennis courts which have been in disrepair for several years and the establishment of four large residential lots, ranging in size from 25,526 to 29,707 square feet, will conserve the value of land throughout the municipality by eliminating a site improvement which has been allowed to become rundown. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan in Section 3.2.6 stated that the existing tennis court site was "unattractive and visually inconsistent with the rest of the Gore Creek corridor". The proposal to plat the ski -way and create Tract X does not change the existing land use of 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. Staff response: The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances. In Section VI staff has created a table to display how each of the lots and the ski -way conforms with the requirements of the Two -Family Primary/Secondary district and the Outdoor recreation district. 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_ 15 Staff response: As required in Section 13-3-3C staff notified the department of Public Works, Town Fire Department, Town Police Department, Public Service Company of Colorado, Holy Cross Electric Corporation, U.S. West, Comcast Cable, National Forest Service, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Vail Recreation District, and Eagle County Ambulance District. None of the notified departments responded with any concerns about the proposal. In addition, the applicant obtained signatures from Quest, Excel High Pressure Gas, Holy Cross Electrical, Excel Energy, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, and AT&T Broadband regarding their approval of the project. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. Staff response: The proposed plat will establish accurate legal descriptions for several lots which were previously unplatted. 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. Staff response: The proposed plat does not pose any negative affect on the natural environment and resources and will preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community. The proposed plat includes a "No Build Zone" on the northern portions of Lots 3 and 4. Note 9 on the proposed plat addresses the "No Build Zone" and states: "The "No Build Zone" shown on this plat shall not be developed with buildings provided however, drainage improvements, landscape improvements, pedestrian improvements, and other similar improvements area allowed in this zone. " The applicant placed the "No Build Zone" on the northern portions of Lots 3 and 4 in order to prevent future owners from constructing buildings on the northern portions of the lot which would obstruct views and encroach upon the Town owned stream tract along Gore Creek. Staff believes that Note 9 needs to be modified to eliminate any confusion over the permitted improvements which can be made within the "No Build Zone". Staff recommends that the term "building" in Note 9 be change to "structure" as to be clearer as to j 16 the type of improvements which can be made. Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, defines "Structure" as: "Anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground, but not including poles, lines, cables, or other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities, or mailboxes or light fixtures. At the discretion of the design review board, swimming pools and tennis courts may be exempted from this definition." The use of the term "landscape improvements" in Note 9 includes a wide variety of improvements. Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, defines "Landscaping" as: "Planted areas and plant materials, including trees, shrubs, lawns, flower beds and ground cover, together with the core development such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features, and like features not occupying more than twenty percent (201Y.) of the landscaped area. For the purpose of this title, natural or significant rock outcroppings, trees or native vegetation shall be deemed landscaping in single-family, two-family residential, and residential cluster, low density multiple -family, hillside residential, and primaryfsecondary residential zone districts. Staff believes that the "No Build Zone" should be limited solely to plant materials and not include walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features, and like facilities. To include walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features, and like facilities, goes against the intent of establishing a "No Build Zone". The applicant has requested that a provision for the potential need of placing a bridge abutment and/or grading for the new skier bridge on a portion of Lot 3 be added to Note 9 in the event the design which is currently under development requires some disturbance and improvement on Lot 3. Such an improvement if necessary would require an easement. The need for placement of a bridge abutment and/or grading on Lot 3 will be determined prior to the sale of Lot 3, therefore the applicant will retain ownership. Staff has suggested language to replace Note 9 in Section IX. Findings: The following findings are used for a Major Subdivision: 1. That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Major Subdivision Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. fr 2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Major Subdivision Staff is recommending approval of the proposed fianl plat for a major subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the ski -way tract and four lots at the Lionshead tennis court site. Staff's recommendation is based on the evidence and testimony presented and the criteria found in Section VIII of this memorandum. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this final plat it must make the following findings: The following findings are used for a Major Subdivision: (1) That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Major Subdivision Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 0 (2) That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve the final plat staff suggests the following conditions: 1) That the applicant shall submit cross-sections for West Forest Road and Forest Court, and revise the plat and construction documents be to show a 68 -foot diameter cul-de-sac, measured from flow -line to flow -line, for staff review and approval prior to the recording of the plat. 2) That the applicant shall revise Note 8 on the plat to state, "Lots 1 through 4 as shown on this plat shall not be further subdivided. This prohibition on subdivision shall extend to but not be limited to (a) subdivisions otherwise permitted under the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, including any provision in effect now or in the future, and (b) judicial partition, provided that partition by sale of an entire lot and improvements without physical division of the lot or improvements shall be permitted. A maximum of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each of the four lots numbered 1 through 4. For the purposes of this provision, an employee housing unit or other housing unit permitted by the Town of Vail through 18 current or later zoning regulations shall be considered to be a dwelling unit under this provision. This prohibition and restriction may be enforced by the Town of Vail, by any owner of a Lot in the subdivision, and/or by any property owner adjacent to the subject subdivision (ignoring the existence of any street for the purpose of determining contiguity)." This note shall be revised prior to recording the final plat. 3) That the applicant shall revise Note 9 on the plat to state, "The "No Build Zone" shown on this plat shall not be developed with structures provided however, drainage improvements, planting improvements, improvements related to the skier bridge located on Tract X, and other similar improvements are allowed in this zone as determined by the Town of Vail zoning administrator.". This note shall be revised prior to recording the final plat 4) That the applicant shall place the correct addresses for the four new lot on the plat as follows; Lot 1 is 618 Forest Court, Lot 2 is 621 Forest Court, Lot 3 is 612 Forest Court, and Lot 4 is 616 Forest Court. These corrections shall be made prior to recording the final plat. 5) That the applicant pays for the cost of new traffic control signs and the installation of the signs at the approved cul -du -sac location on West Forest Road after receiving approval for design and location by the Public Works Department. 6) That the applicant removes the snowcat access from West Forest Road, if an alternative route is reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail. The alternate route shall be proposed by the applicant and reviewed by the Town of Vail prior to the closing of the sale of any one of the four new residential lots approved on the tennis court site. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Reduced copy of the proposed Forest Court Subdivision plat C. Public notification 19 EZ UV JU ui 14D F"X ' WW rz- M 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, December 8, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Vail Town Council Chambers. In consideration of. A request for a major subdivision, final plat review, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the ski -way tract and four lots at the Lionshead tennis court site located at 615 West Forest Road/Unplatted (A complete metes and bounds legal description is available for review at the Town of Vail Community Development Department). Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of Lots 1 and 2, Lodge Subdivision, located at 164 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther This notice published in the Vail Daily on November 22, 2003. Attachment: C6 *RS TOWNO 1 Tennis Courts Site Adjacent Property Owners List November 2003 TOWN OF VAIL FINANCE DEPARTMENT 75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, CO 81657 l LION SQUARE CONDO ASSOC 660 W LIONS HEAD PL VAIL, CO 81657 ANTLERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 680 W LIONSHEAD PL VAIL, CO 81657 1 TREETOPS CONDOMINIUM ASSOC % GREAT WEST MGMT & REALTY CO 3201 S TAMARAC 200 DENVER, CO 80231 LODGE AT LIONSHEAD PHASE 1 360 E LIONSHEAD CIR VAIL, CO 81657 LODGE AT LIONSHEAD PHASE III 360 E LIONSHEAD CIR VAIL, CO 81657 LIONSHEAD PHASE II CONDO ASSOC 380 E LIONSHEAD CR VAIL, CO 81657 l VAIL LAND CORP % PALMER & GARRETT GARFINKEL ONE FINANCIAL PLAZA 2111 FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33394 l VAIL LIONSHEAD CENTRE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 520 LIONSHEAD CIR VAIL, CO 81657 I TJTCOINC % VAIL HOME RENTALS 143 E MEADOW DR STE N-90 VAIL, CO 81657 I FALB, J.H. - WILKES, JAMES T. 200 E 130TH ST CHICAGO, IL 60628-6998 CABEZA DE TIGRE 202 CORP EUSTAQUIO CORTINA C/O LARRY BARNES VAIL HOME RENTALS 143 E MEADOW DR VAIL, CO 81657 l HECHT, DAVID M. & JOYCE F. DICKINSON, WRIGHT, MOON, VANDUSEN 2020 ROBINSON RD SE GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49506 CROSSROADS REALTY EXEMPT CORP % FREDERICK S. OTTO PO BOX 3149 VAIL, CO 81658 l LH2O5 LLC 520 LIONSHEAD MALL 205 VAIL, CO 81657 I BENNETT, ELISABETH R. TRUSTEE - SHRLLING, MARCY H. TRUSTEE 110 BANK. ST SE #1805 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414-3900 l LIONSHEAD CENTER CONDO APT 210 INC GOMEZ Y GOMEZ CIPRES NO 277 MEXICO D.F., DF 06400 l CHAIN, JOSE LUIS & CARMEN FAJER DE CAMINO SANTA TERRESA 877 PEDREGAL MEXICO DF 14020 l DE CORTINA, CHUS L. C/O SLIFER & CO 230 BRIDGE ST VAIL, CO 81657 l PETERSON, CARL B., JR & FRANCES FRENCH 548 OBSERVATORY DR COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903 AGUILAR, GLORIA YOLANDA AMTMANN is C/O EDUARDO LEON 1330 POST OAK BLVD 2100 HOUSTON, TX 77056 1 MOONSHINE INC CIO LARRY BARNES VAIL DOME RENTALS 143 E MEADOW DR VAIL, CO 81657 1 BUCK, PHYLLIS B. 8031 E ELLSWORTH AVE DENVER, CO 80230-6799 KEMP, GARY D. 11434 E YALE PL AURORA, CO 80014 TJTCOINC % VAIL HOME RENTALS 143 E MEADOW DR STE N-90 VAIL, CO 81657 1 SPRING VALLEY LLC % FREDERICK S. OTTO PO BOX 3149 VAIL, CO 81657 I PRESSON, ROBERT A. - BYRD, DEBORAH A. -JT 420 CHRISTMAS TREE DR BOULDER, CO 80302 1 WHITNEY MACMILLAN TRUST- ELIZABETH S. MACMILLAN TRUST- ET -AL 6889 ROWLAND RD 200 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-3375 COTTONTOP LLC 3141 HOOD ST 2ND FL DALLAS, TX 75219 TRANSCON INVESTMENTS INC C/O LARRY BARNES VAIL HOME RENTALS 143 E MEADOW DR VAIL, CO 8I657 CABEZA DE LEON 310 CORP EUSTAQUIO CORTINA C/O SLIFER & CO 230 BRIDGE ST VAIL, CO 81657 GLOSA LLC % FREDERICK S. OTTO PO BOX 3149 VAIL, CO 81658-3149 1 TORRES, JUAN F. TEUSCHER ET AL % SIERRA VENTANA 405 LOMAS MEXICO 10, D.F. MEXICO I NELSON, DOUGLAS C. 4905 BROWNDALE AVE EDINA, MN 55424 l SEA -FIVE LTD C/O REICH & TANG 600 5TH AVE 8TH FL NEW YORK, NY 10020 VAIL LAND CORP % PALMER & GARRETT GARFINKEL ONE FINANCIAL PLAZA 2111 FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33394 CROWLEY, CHARLES R. PO BOX 430 VAIL, CO 81658 LINDSAY, DAVID G. B. PO BOX 1746 SARASOTA, FL 34230 CANNON, GEORGE R. 36 STEELE ST STE 250 DENVER, CO 80206 l FIELD, LAWRENCE I. TRUSTEE 1500 NICHOLAS BLVD ELK GROVE VILLAGE, IL 60007 1 GODWIN, DONALD E. & CARMEN Q. 1201 ELM ST 1700 DALLAS, TX 75270 KAUFFMAN, JULIA IRENE 4707 W 86TH ST PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS 66207 • PRINCE, ERIK D. & JOAN 3006 N FORK HWY WAPITI, WY 82450 NANETTE S. ELENBAAS LIVING TRUST - NANETTE S. ELENBAAS TRUSTEE 3328 OAKDALE HICKORY CORNERS, MI 49060 PHILLIPS, ROBERT G. & SHIRLEY J. - JT EL PASO ENERGY RESOURCES 4 GREENWAY PLAZA STE 666 HOUSTON, TX 77046 J MAHER, JERARD F. & JOAN S. -JT 251 FOWLER RD FAR HILLS, NJ 07931 GARRICK, GEORGE 74 BARRY LN ATHERTON, CA 94027 JORDAN, JOHN W., II REVOCABLE TRUST i 875 N MICHIGAN AVE #4020 CHICAGO, II, 60611 YING, CHARLES 136 HOLLISTER AVE SANTA MONICA, CA 90405 NORRIS, CHARLES H., JR PO BOX 112 BOSTON, MA 02117-0112 RANSBURG, DAVID P. & ALEXANDRA L. 509 E HIGH POINT PEORIA, IL 61614 T & L PROPERTIES LLC 19 GINGER COVE RD VALLEY, NE 68064 OM ���io e tl � jig m cA� � �� £a �� 8�� o ��ca��N4 -" ii omy�F� k14 a' l G p c 'Q"e � $> � $ � � p A 4 a ,-.off$ �s � �� " �K ! � �o P !S A d a a R� ea a "9 a ��� € n$ RC p yAtl �6 ° �� � ;P y r� fir" " _ ' n - ��' _ B ' aC� O� � l ��F yyy � � �n o� �;! Z C y � 9 PN { FZ 9�+[rqY j�O� rVT p Cir, C 91 O 2 s 2 Gi L 3C � Mal f9���9. C� 15q { Ips _ g.�� L v.2690: ! d IN m � � > �4. � R 3 �$ w Vii" �pay=l r ��� y�Q _� 2G`a$ rt`y pzs � - AIN 2 i17i 0 = $r 8a- v, g a a ! =1! `� 9 R A �v�a"� ' i=gacA a"ys�o $ rq Z a K ISN 2� s 9-V TN a ���°sem g""s�mes��s3 ss Pg Pss�s e� gas e 2 �_ MM ii ry a \ E I1 a J1 R� +I lii sRsi } � M Ul Inzom e l� a R d I ,g I c �Ln �A1 S y „ -Ou ti }� �fiA yy 0 = $r 8a- v, g a a ! =1! `� 9 R A �v�a"� ' i=gacA a"ys�o $ rq Z a K ISN 2� s 9-V TN a ���°sem g""s�mes��s3 ss Pg Pss�s e� gas e 2 I 15 If- I �NJ f � oy� y � " x N } y • � R y------------- i N00' '4 'W - 205.82' � K '�•� 1159.9' y 5 I �NJ f � oy� I d� ® w N } } • � R y------------- i N00' '4 'W - 205.82' JOINT DRE M1E iATW 190.92 �, '�•� I 9EN'iR rTHII P I (CRGTfD 9Y THISnsy t — y — I $ I I I 5 $ I I R r y t $ 4h y 4h / f � oy� � y / G r � oy� } G r 0 MEMORANDUM TO; Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the required front setback, located at 1956 Gore Creek Drive 1 Lot 45, Vail Village West Filing #2.. Applicant: David Irwin Planner: Matt Gennett SUMMARY The applicant's request involves the construction of a new two -car garage within the front setback of the Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS) residential zone district. The surveyed lot size is 10,672 square feet and the slope beneath the residence is approximately 29%. Since the zoning regulations grant homeowners floor area credits for two enclosed parking spaces and the applicant is proposing to build a total of three garage parking spaces, the third space requires the use of gross residential floor area (GRFA). Therefore, the request is for a variance to construct GRFA up to four feet (4') from the front property -line, instead of the required 11.3', which is the distance from the existing structure to the front -property line and the result of a belated variance from the front setback granted in 1982 (see Section II for details). Based upon the criteria in Section V of this memorandum, staff is recommending denial of the request. Il. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting to build a 426 square foot, two- car garage, approximately one- quarter of which would encroach into the modified setback, as demonstrated on the attached site plan and architectural renderings (attachment C). Ill. BACKGROUND The applicant's residence encroaches 8' 9" into the required front setback due to the submission of a fraudulent survey during the development review process in the early 1980's. On September 27, 1982, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved the applicant's request for a front setback variance to allow the constructed encroachment to remain. Therefore, the existing encroachment establishes the applicant's "conforming" required front setback for the property. The PEC did not reference any physical hardship or special circumstances on the applicant's lot in its motion to approve the variance request. Additionally, the applicant's driveway and retaining wall were constructed partially on an adjacent neighbor's property. 1 *VAIL TOWN Q In 1984, the Community Development Department identified the presence of an illegal second unit and numerous building code violations on the applicant's property. There are no records on file that indicate the second unit was removed or the code violations were remedied. In 1989, the applicant applied for permits to allow for a residential remodel and submitted an "Application for a Secondary Unit for Lots of Less Than 15,000 Square Feet in the Residential Zone District and in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District." The application was placed in "pending" status until additional enclosed parking was provided for the secondary unit. The enclosed parking was never constructed. However, a remodel at the rear of the residence was approved. The lot size was reported as 11,238.75 square feet and the slope beneath the residence was reported as 31.5°/x. In 2001, the applicant applied for another variance from the front setback to allow for a two - car garage to be built 1.5 feet from the front property -line. The PEC voted to deny the applicant's request based upon the following findings: 1. Any hardship on the property with regard to setbacks is self-imposed. 2. Inadequate architectural design (existing garage/structure) does not constitute a hardship. 3. That the granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. Currently there is one enclosed garage parking space at this residence. The Town's records indicate a Certificate of Occupancy has not been issued for the residence. 0 IV. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES A. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. 0 2 0 0 �J V. ZONING STANDARDS Lot Size: 10,672 square feet / 0.245 acres Zoning: Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) Hazards: Soils -- mitigation report on file Standard Allowed Existing Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. 11.3 ft. Sides: 15 ft. (east) 17 ft. 15 ft. (west) 49 ft. Rear: 15 ft. 39 ft. Site Coverage: 2,134 sq. ft. (20%) 1,708 sq. ft. (16%) *approximate Vl. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Variances: Proposed 4.0 ft. 17 ft. 30 ft. 39 ft. 2,130 sq. ft. (20%)* 1. The relationship of the requested variance to otherexisting or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes the proposed use, structure and configuration are consistent with many non -conforming properties in the Matterhorn neighborhood and within the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. There are a significant number of properties in the Matterhorn neighborhood that exhibit setback encroachments. Most properties in the neighborhood were constructed under Eagle County jurisdiction and "grandfathered" upon annexation into Vail. The applicant's property, however, was approved as new construction under the Town of Vail's development review process with no setback encroachments. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The circumstances surrounding the applicant's existing setback encroachment are quite different than with other propert%es in the Matterhorn neighborhood. After the house was substantially constructed, it was determined that the applicant submitted a fraudulent survey and the house was built within the front setback, an occurrence well documented in the Town's files. Therefore, the existing setback non -conformities and the subsequent variance for the site are due to a self-imposed hardship. 3 It has been documented that the existing one -car has been be used as storage or living space, thereby exacerbating the need or desire for additional enclosed parking on the site. Although there are significant mature trees on the property, staff believes the request for an additional two -car garage within the front setback is excessive and deviates from the zoning regulations more than is practical or necessary. The Two -Family Primary/Secondary zone district regulations give homeowners GRFA credits for up to two enclosed garage spaces (up to 300 square feet per space). Therefore, the addition of the third space requires the utilization of gross residential floor area within the front setback. Staff believes the request is excessive and that conformance with the criteria for review of a variance request has not been demonstrated by the applicant. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed garage would be located within approximately four (4) feet of the front property line. The existing home already encroaches nearly nine (feet) into the required setback. Additionally, Public Works has commented on the inadequacy of the following standards: driveway grade; the lack of a guardrail next to the proposed driveway poses public life -safety issues; revocable right-of-way permit required for driveway and landscaping; and no snow storage is allowed in the public right-of-way. Public facilities, utilities, and safety would all be negatively impacted by the granting of this requested variance. Staff believes the proposed variance does not comply with Criterion #3. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followinct findings before grantin_q a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions 0 4 applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested setback variance, subject to the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the following findings: That the strict, literal interpretation or enforcement of the setback regulation does not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town Code or the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 2. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 3. That the requested variance deviates from the provisions of the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District regulations more than is necessary to achieve a practical solution to the applicant's objectives. 4. There are no exceptions nor extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 5. That the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the variance request, the following findings and conditions must be made: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other 5 properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Conditions: That the driveway and all landscaping improvements be relocated onto the applicant's own property.. VIII. Attachments A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's proposal C. Reduced Plans D. List of adjacent property owners IJ • • U NOV;RGROUP Attachment: B David Irwin P.0 -Box 3342 Vail,Colorado $1658 Eaele Countv Phone 970-476-7101 Fax 970-476-3334 September 30, 2003 To: Planning and Environmental Commission Attn: To Whom it may Concern From: David Irwin Subject: Variance Re: To Whom It May Concern, I'm requesting a Variance in order to place a two car garage within the front setback. I . Two other residences located on lots 47 and 49 have been granted variances for there garage in the front setback. They were existing homes built over 20 years ago the same as mine. Therefore my request maintains a relationship to other existing structures in the area. Currently my driveway encroaches on to lot 46 and this needs to be fixed before any new development for that lot. The new garage and driveway would then not interfere with any potential development for lot 46. 2. As stated above two other homes have been granted a variance for a garage in the front setback. Therefore granting my variance would not be a special privilege. I could locate the garage on the west side of the lot without a variance, but the large pine trees prevent that. So in order to save these trees I am locating the garage in the front setback. This is a hardship specifically applying to this site. If you would allow me to cut the trees then I will locate the garage out of the front setback. 3. The house was originally built within the front setback by mistake. I encroached by 4' and a total of 44 s/f. • 1 was granted a variance due to hardships that the lot presented. Even if the house was setback this 4' I would still have the hardships of this particular lot. I would still be requesting this variance. 4. The current garage has never been large enough to fit a car. So it has always been storage and mechanical space. I plan on continuing to use it for storage and mechanical. I will eliminate the garage door and place a window in that wall instead. I'm allowed 450 s/f for mechanical and storage which this space would fall under. It is currently about 250 s/f of space. 5. 1 will use the existing driveway to access the new garage which will maintain the existing conditions for traffic facilities, utilities and public safety. I will also be lowering the driveway elevation in order to have a 10% grade instead of the existing 13% grade. 6. The last variance meeting it was suggested that I angle the garage into the trees. This has allowed the garage to be accessed easier and to be further away from the road. This additional distance from the road will allow me to landscape more extensively, The suggestion to change the location has made for a much better Project. Thank you for all your help, David Irwin 171 0 � ■ Attachment C } `%z minr, floe ii Qr Q�w • 1 0 • i 'nvn 110 x,eo,L ~✓ Isam 39YI'IIA 'ETNA Y 6Ml'idd 'S6 .LO'X F Ci a e; 3.7NRCHSX [ humin O s $ a VVA 90 NMOI ,ISAM. HOVMLA '-RVA `Z 9hii'm "5t JLOI Property Owner: Peter Rusterholz 675 Brookside Lane Mendota Heights,Mn. 55118 Dorsey Jackson 2901 Fillmore Little Rock,Ar. 72207 Billie Farrell #30 Lake Forest St.Louis,Mo. 63117 JoAnn Lee 5620 n.75th Place Scottsdale,Az. 85250 R.C. McGhee P.O.Box 4882 Vail,Co. 81658 0 Tom Saalfeld 1975 W.Gore Creek Drive Vai1,Co. 81658 Richard Strauss P_O.Box 1810 Vail,Co. 81658 Jim Gregg 30082 Trout Dale Ridge Evergreen,Co. 80439 Attachment: D 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12-6H-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for a patio in the rear setback, located at 44 West Meadow Drive/Lot I, Vail Village 2"d Filing. Applicant: Michael & Iris Smith, represented by Rusty Spike Enterprises, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson (. SUMMARY The applicants, Michael & Iris Smith, represented by Rusty Spike Enterprises, Inc., are requesting a variance from Section 12-6H-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for an illegally constructed, at -grade concrete patio in the rear setback of Unit 1, Meadow Vail Place (formerly known as the 1panema Condominiums), located at 44 West Meadow Drive. Based upon Staffs review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the proposed variance with the findings noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants are requesting a variance to allow an illegally constructed, at - grade concrete patio at Vail Meadow Place to remain as constructed. The provisions of Section 14-10-C2, Vail Town Code, allow at -grade patios in the High Density Multiple -Family zone district to encroach ten feet (10') into the required twenty -foot (20') rear setback. The illegally constructed patio encroaches approximately nineteen feet (19') into the rear setback, thus placing the patio within approximately one foot (1') of the rear property boundary. Additionally, the illegally constructed patio encroaches approximately nine feet (9') into a ten -foot (10') platted utility easement. The applicants' request (see Attachment B), an architectural sketch of the proposal (see Attachment C), a copy of the approved Condominium Map (see Attachment D), a partial Improvement Location Certificate (see Attachment E), and a photograph of the illegally constructed patio (see Attachment F) have all been attached for reference. The provisions of Chapter 12-17 (Variance), Vail Town Code, determine the review criteria and review procedures for a variance request. III. BACKGROUND • A revised Condominium Map (i.e. plat) for the Ipanema Condominiums was approved by the Town of Vail in the fall of 1981 (see Attachment D). The approved plat illustrates a "deck" within a general common element of the property on the northerly half of the rear portion of the building. The deck was platted to extend approximately fourteen feet (14.1') from the edge of the building. One corner of this deck was approved to encroach into the required twenty -foot (20') rear setback by approximately twelve feet (12') and approximately two feet (2') into a ten -foot (10') platted easement (i.e. two feet (2') further than permitted by today's zoning regulations). The approved Condominium Map does not illustrate any "deck" or patio within the Unit 1 limited common element (southerly half of the rear portion of the building). At some point since the fall of 1981, an at -grade concrete patio has been constructed within the Unit 1 limited common element. There are no records of an application for this patio being submitted to the Town of Vail, nor any records of the Town's approval of the patio. In September of 2003, the applicants submitted a Design Review Application to the Town of Vail requesting approval of an extension to the existing patio located parallel to the Meadow Vail Place building. At that time, Staff discovered that the existing patio in the Unit 1 limited common element was not constructed in conformance with the Town's current zoning regulations and that no records exist showing Town review or approval of the existing patio. The proposed patio extension received Design Review approval with the condition that the portion of the existing patio that does not comply with the setback requirements of the zoning regulations shall be removed and re -vegetated, thus bringing the entire Unit 1 patio into compliance with the Town's zoning regulations. The applicants' only other option for bringing the existing patio into compliance with the Town's zoning regulations is to receive approval of a setback variance. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the variance request, the existing illegally constructed patio will comply with the zoning regulations and be permitted to remain as constructed. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny the variance request, the applicant must remove and re -vegetate that portion of the existing patio which does not comply with the setback requirements. In response to the variance application submittal requirements, the applicant has recently received written approval from the local utility companies for the existing patio encroachment into the platted utility easement (see Attachment G). IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Planning and Environmental Commission: Action. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/denial/approval with modification of variances. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: iA 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with 40 modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff:. The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memorandum containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with modifications, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Chapter 12-6H: High Density Multiple -Family Residential (HDMF) District 12-6H-1: PURPOSE: The high density multiple -family district is intended to provide sites for multiple -family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may 3 appropriately be located in the same district_ The high density multiple -family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the district. 12-6H-6: SETBACKS: The minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20'j, and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20). Chapter 12-8C: Natural Area Preservation (NAPD) district 12-8C-1: PURPOSE: The Natural Area Preservation District is designed to provide areas which, because of their environmentally sensitive nature or natural beauty, shall be protected from encroachment by any building or other improvement, other than those listed in Section 12-8C-2 of this Article. The Natural Area Preservation District is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in their natural state, including reclaimed areas, by protecting such areas from development and preserving open space. The Natural Area Preservation District includes lands having valuable wildlife habitat, exceptional aesthetic or flood control value, wetlands, riparian areas and areas with significant environmental constraints. Protecting sensitive natural areas is important for maintaining water quality and aquatic habitat, preserving wildlife habitat, flood control, protecting view corridors, minimizing the risk from hazard areas, and protecting the natural character of Vail which is so vital to the Town's tourist economy. The intent shall not preclude improvement of the natural environment by the removal of noxious weeds, deadfall where necessary to protect public safety or similar compatible improvements. Chapter 12-17: Variances 12-17-1: Purpose: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difirculties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. 4 B. Development Standards Excepted.• Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements; or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. TITLE 14: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HANDBOOK Chapter 10. Design Review Standards and Guidelines 14-10C-2: Porches, steps, decks or terraces or similar features located at ground leve/ or within five feet (5) of ground level may project not more than ten feet (10) nor more than one-half ('12) the minimum required dimension into a required setback area, or may project not more than five feet (5) nor more than one-fourth (114) the minimum required dimension into a required distance between buildings. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: High Density Multiple -Family Residential (HDMF) Land Use Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Current Land Use: Multiple -Family Residential Development Standard Allowed/Required Proposed Setbacks: Front (building): 20' no change Sides (building): 20720' no change Rear (building) 20' no change Rear (Unit 1 patio): 10' 1' VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, Land Use Zoning North: Lodge Public Accommodation South: Gore Creek Natural Area Preservation East: Residential High Density Multiple -Family Fire Station General Use West: Residential Two -Family Residential VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, Staff acknowledges that one corner of a deck on the northerly portion of the rear of the Meadow Vail Place building has been allowed to encroach into the required rear setback and the platted utility easement; however, the approval was issued in 1981 and there are no records to explain how or why the encroachment was approved. Due to the relationship of the Meadow Vail Place building design and the property line configuration, Staff believes a patio of similar size and similar rectangular shape can be designed for Unit 1 in full compliance with the provisions of the zoning regulation without the approval of a variance. Staff also believes approval of the variance request may negatively impact access to the platted utility easement. Additionally, a fundamental purpose of any setback requirement is to ensure the appropriate separation of uses between adjacent properties. The property located adjacent to the rear of the Meadow Vail Place site is the Town of Vail owned, Gore Creek stream tract which is zoned Natural Area Preservation. Staff does not believe that the proposed one -foot (1) separation of these uses is appropriate given the setback requirements and purpose of the High Density Multiple -Family Residential zone district and the environmentally sensitive nature of the stream tract and the purpose of the Natural Area Preservation zone district. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff acknowledges that one corner of a deck on the northerly portion of the rear of the Meadow Vail Place building has been allowed to encroach into the required rear setback and the platted utility easement; however, the existing encroachment is to a lesser degree than the encroachments requested by this variance, Therefore, Staff believes the proposed variance exceeds the degree of relief necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Additionally, there are no records indicating that the deck illustrated on the Condominium Map received any type of variance to allow its construction. The existing Meadow Vail Place building complies with the setback requirements of the High Density Multiple -Family Residential zone district and there are no unique site characteristics; therefore, Staff does not believe there is a physical hardship or extraordinary circumstance to warrant the approval of the variance request to allow the existing, illegally constructed j patio at Meadow Vail Place to exceed the setback requirements. 0 6 C: Due to the relationship of the existing Meadow Vail Place building design and the existing property line configuration, Staff believes a patio of similar size and rectangular shape to those illustrated on the Condominium Map can be designed for Unit 1 in full compliance with the provisions of the zoning regulations without the approval of a variance. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed variance exceeds the degree of relief necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity and within the High 'Density Multiple -Family Residential zone district and will constitute a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The existing, illegally constructed concrete patio encroaches approximately nine feet (g') into a ten -foot (10') platted utility easement. While the applicant has recently received written approval from all local utilities companies for the existing patio being located within the utility easement, the Town of Vail has historically upheld a policy of not allowing construction within platted utility easements. While Staff does not believe that the proposed setback encroachment will have a significant impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities, and public safety; however, staff does believe that the setback encroachment may negatively impact access to the platted utility easement. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the fallowing reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 7 b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the variance request, to allow for a patio in the rear setback, located at 44 West Meadow Drive/Lot 1, Vail Village 2"d Filing. Staffs recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 4. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 5. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. However, should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, or approve with modification, the proposed variance request, the Commission shall make the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 0 M f�J 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Request C. Architectural Sketch D. Approved Condominium Map E. Improvement Location Certificate (partial) F. Photograph G. Utility Company Approvals H. Public Hearing Notice 9 c' , 141 '" �•. a x rs 'R. .�' �� f� c - "i• � pp' Sia nl: .� x p.„r-� - - iu s, r t� � .I'" P 'i _ x >w ,�, ' e•-,yn, ,.-l' fir, r r �� ,� V x] �s -$% �� �"� .S� dip, � ''' • .� ,� �•. - �,�. -_ '. ._ A-}4 �4i~:fM��+�3'"at-t�aP� � •. - £ �pa' `'•I�, ��y66y5R• 4 4r�' � .l �� sy ;l TSS jfi�- Y �•r�.q � ,�, , � • +„ A �• it .� d{� r r s At low F77 i u -V - M , ,e. 'Ti n , � a �tw-s"'k _ Attachment: B October 10, 2003 To: Town of Vail From: Rusty Spike Enterprises, Inc. Re: application for a variance submittal requirements For the Smith residence at 44 W. Meadow Drive A portion of an existing cement pad/patio located behind Meadow Vail Place Condominium unit #1 is not in compliance with the setback requirements. Approximately 8 feet of the cement pad is in violation. a. The cement pad has little to no impact on any other structures in the vicinity. b. The larger arched patio area enhances the appearance of the back yard area of the complex giving a "softer" look and more in proportion to the rest of the concrete structure at the southeast corner. c. A portion of the arched area (approximately 8 feet) is on a utility easement d. Patios are an accessory use to residential properties 0 ul 0 RRWES-r Attachment: C • 0 C] tj 5ej Z Q Hyo �O Ij J J zo 11 Q h h U cis uui vy Attachment:. Q A RETAINING F� + F.F 814J.6' BUILDING SETBACK Attachment: E • 1PAN�MA CQNDOMF 0,617 ACRES ADDRESS: 44 WEST MEADOW APPROXIMATE BUILDING OUTLINE LIGHT POST � (TYPICAL) Q!1-1 ii • Co 'if 1� F� + F.F 814J.6' BUILDING SETBACK Attachment: E • 1PAN�MA CQNDOMF 0,617 ACRES ADDRESS: 44 WEST MEADOW APPROXIMATE BUILDING OUTLINE LIGHT POST � (TYPICAL) Q!1-1 ii • } � � w t� e ��• y 4WD � M � i 8 x Ir U lit J ; C•'jrt1 a�jC 1 44. # p Ll t N' .�'u•k, •F •, a -w S� . i y � , ,� V � �* • `fes .rt, s � � � �. rti sr , #�y } � tv:+• � .y°�'� .. rt . 3 ta�.*'s✓s,''��.y' �yY �ir.%3_4 , 1� • � .Y ++'_.. fiery .'M' ' ,. f - 1 ti+ ••i t.-.. � 4 I r 4 ; -6. .11Ate; Tc WOM CC ---O, .g07 Attachment; G Orr. 41-10-41 MINI �rv�•tali n! N�It 111611142 Hag P -WA i' F -fro 7ft FCYr15 *BMW ft p4 40 w t 11MV Ca" 4r wgpmvg VM GIM+rKl#anKlM pMr'FC Mjr LORW ON IN QdM&*V w0niWoft A ft gin, ibd4, q 0%*@ peen. ftw Po(, o+i# s efdM MA tO fWb"CW to tea kkwkq vmw ibr 4qp" W4 _�. M:QU7VQnj SMAKMW .filar. fM4vq,MM i. wwi ",' M -IM (w) Dxvk , Aim W)LY cw%laft Tw MM **BWri' M.W.qfJ'J/ (" Kit kW M M,40q 1" 0" 970 -Na -04M Max MMWA SUWA?mk awr=CT •74,476,74" rn+,f7&40" #70.14 itu t%4 c " soww N /14 a% F.� ISM M 11 If �i Oft �I t o eta low. f1M adt of ow vi�ewW. T*� M alt VOUDw dwt int am rc � � 'r dwvio~ lam ■ u"lly =NNNY NO GonG@rnt wth Vw pmWmW o"tuaw, 2w � � tre6t ��` wftz f fi thrt 1;4 Mobwn wrho sl. � Ilir� �Ga arm vn ivy Ni1�IRY M'&,4 TCbav+r�P"Ifi 1. *M"Wr PAM MW it mod Ow, It is ru I4ow"Ift 4vow ovum% DRWM-VMt of r or yqm�to v PUNIC V4, Tfra7s �r itt #+s Tbw of vadt.Vol"Nw or +« dax�r+sbik �C ui tris T-I*ft Lf ire 08%is � bre �l Iry srgr �` r �I"� � ��� Vit! c►'�'�nrvia� a �r n t� 9 • 9 --�- L - OCT.22.2003• 10s30AM HOLY CROSS FAIL I N0.534 F.2 � let -10-08 03.IF t Frail-rM OF VAIL C11160:11 W40MM 17DI 07 S -les P,t' /102 F-171 r urtrnt "P a wrintAno>w �s form 3ervft to vases ewt the voposwd lrnixovwr nb will no lrrrpaCt sny aar�ing ar pro�tasad trtllrky services, and also to ver Nl tarvice syslWbiltty and bwttort far new cw4bwton and s#tauid bd v9W ih coo,+unction wittt preparing your u44 pian and Ichat Ang h%bI1vb +ts. A sft orw, irtdxfing grading pr% -n, f1w plan, and cl^&Jons, abaft bg Submitted w" %%wing ut *Jes #br apprcvai and acrflcmtforw QWW 370.JO4,0257(fax) Conm= Scali t arrirq=% 970.e64.6w 3ason Sharp 970.364,0238 6! KM MON Ptt M Xf ii" 970.2914076 (tai) cmtat: Rkh Siv em HOLY CIIOM 9LEFITIUC 970.949.5892 (W) 570.949.4566 (ft) cw tact: Ted Musky Et- 6NEtk6Y 970.252.4038 (ftx) canxb: Kit Dart 570.262.4d24 J o'MNIO 97tL262.4003 EA41LI RIVER WAT#A & 9AMTATM G>«>inwcT 970.476-74M (tet) 9M476.40ttSi (talc) comuct. Frail he%" CONCAir CAB" 474.949.1224 x 112 (tO) M.949.9136 (,fsx) Gxttt " Salazar /- x J19 1. If the ullttty tapprovat & variftna r form h -a slgmatuns frorra each of the Utility cwpunM* and tic a ctrttrMtem are rmade dlt+ oy w the form, tttt Town will presume that tart are no proNarns and Etna claeveicgmvK can lr - 2. ;f a udi4y ca"ny tm =r=rns wkh the Grcposod =mtrudiai't, Ow udtty cepres~ive shall rote dlt !c* on the trtilfiy verflamon form alias t!re Is a prOtiwm whieh neea to be rlsalvw. 'r w kauar should #t+art be detts(led In an at shed Wer to b1w Town of Vail. Nwmw, pkaw Jeep r1 mind tot R Is tttie respomell y of Afty ccmpvw and ttw aovlic" to nmtn WenWled PmbivM 3. Tbm veflaWons do not r+tliaw dt c4rttzamr or tM mMmn&Wkv to obtain a Nblic Way permit hM On DePartrrtenr at Public Warts at the Tam of Vail. tl21Y 122thmmusttns+� 6yr� OWrntx tin GlY Public Nht-ell-wat cr emmwt wahin of Town of Vefl. p 1 The Developer Is requiratd and agree to subrNt arty tervlvo drawings to the utilities for re-opw val 2. re- verificati if the m3brtsMed pW*d am altared Is arty wey alter the eVthwized sigrveture dat! (UMIeZ otherMm spadflkxf naoo4 Wei *nt area of this form). / , Dew ows ijinutufc - DvM 46 QCT 22 '23 13:X3[3 FR XCEL ENERGY 970 262 4030 TO 94766-07 P.01 fat -Z0-03 I?.17;R Froze -T010 V W11 GO"INIT" MVELMENT ITUT92411 T -f61 9.09tfdfl2 F -its UTV- t APPROVAL a VERIFICATION Trus farm serves to veril l tut t)R proposed irrtproµernents wNl not lrnpact WW exf or propoS,Qd utUlt'y 5e,vfas, and also to ver ry scfv;oc mflabiI4ty and lo=tion for new const uCftn and 3hOUid toe used in cnn)urcWn WC1 prei;Qrfng your utill4y plan and s&eduling ln3UIfatiom A site pian, lnctu&PQ ;reding *n, tow plan, sr►d c*vwtiDns, shall by submitted W the fdlowir+g utllltics rsr approval and %mri"tlom �EsiiC! QWi65►T Carrang=n 970. 6a.6l own Sbwp 970.384.0238 EXCEL HIGH PPX!SWRF GAS 970.262 , 4074 (tai) Contact: Rid1 54me ms 401.Y CR= "CMC 970.9-'14.5892 (Lei) 9M949'1566 (task) Content. Ted Husky C(CEL ENERGY 970.261,9038 (rax) MGIC R*g&rt 970,262.4024 Jim O'rre;a► 970.26L400.3 SANITATION DISTRICT 970,476,700 (tel) 970.476.4064 (fax) Qrt# KV FrQO l WJJ0C 970.949.1224 x 112 (tei) 970.9'ts.9136 (fu) Co ttaa: h'Moy+d -%"z tr OCT 2 2003 L. vtillry approval & v"Cation .wTq h3K Cgrtattras hom each or tha utility ctrripanles, and fto vxmnents are made d1r&1ly on the form, the Town will Presume that Dere are no pmbwrs and the develcpment (mr Prvr eeci. x. If a utility cnrpany has cummerm wth tie pruposal cDnsmitten, the utti)ty repres nr«tivr shall nate dlrec* on the u0ty vtir&.xt1vn form that there I a Vohkrn which needy to be resolved. The [clue should then be dOmFW lfi an atiadhd letter to the Town cf Vail, However, *Ase keep in mime tsat It Is tr* resportslbpity of the Ally cxnpany and the applkarrt to resolve ident9litd probtemS. 3. These verfic0ons do not rtlO-Ye the convaLr of ?be r"ponsibility tD obtain a Ktdlc Way Permit "m the DDe48rt m ent ot` Public Works at tit Town of vaN.11t'1+tv IoctY3a K mUs* � �i31n9 in any psbllc rlght-Gf-way or 4ease nent wat 0 the Tmin of Val?. A MlGlfla gift t !S Z=rzey. TU Developer Is rel; uk-vd and agrees to subut arty mvPW dr1lwlM0 ttl the Utilities for re-app+V+ai A re- venfka,ion U thr subni". plans we altered In any way after the authorted signature date (UA; ess otlerwiye a f Mted w thi t+ rn Dirt Area of rnt s fam). D"aper''s Sig nmrt �Dbft nrr pi:znp nen TOTAL FA~�E.01 Oct -24-2003 11,47are From -ERM 9 047UN9 T-958 P.002l002 F -25B 3;HD-01 III iI?Pm Frac-TCM OF YAiL COI46 NiTY DiV OMN" MTU 452 T-143 P -0C ON F-779 UTZLTfY APPKOV" a v9rr+lllFICATIO N Torii fora+ Serres to verrfy ftt tltc prQp000d hnpnavmer w111 rat Invact any existrig ar proposed utility services. and 01190 to verify sarvjoe evallabiilty and lo=t on for naw COnScttrin Ond shou16 be used in conjumbon whir prewring ytsur LdJlity plan and $Chedulimg ln3ulYatfons. A sl'hF plan, lnrludng grading plat,, floor pian, and elavaddr.S, slug be submtW to tha follrnvinQ UtURS" for approval aW vertg=tlon. QWFSr 970.384-Qt57(fax) Cbntsm: SWd CsHn&n 970.468.&860 3W4n SherP 970,3",0238 EXC91- K G9H PRUSURS G" 970.2624076 (tel) Cont: Rich 57wmrost HOLY GROW McriuC 970.949 -SM (tal) 9711.949.4566 (fax) Comtsett Ted Huskv EXCEL MRGY s7 .22.4038 (fax) Carrttu# lot Bogart 97C.262.4074 Jim Uneai 970.262.4003 FA64r RIVER WATT i 1r7A'1'ION VISMCT 97Si.476.7480 (tel) 970.476.400 (faX) CM%34z, Frea KUSAe COMCAST CA!> U 97C.949.I224 x 112. (tel) M.949.9138 (fax) Contac#; Floyd Salazar 1 uUlty appm al & veal=tion farm has stgrahm frarn each of the LAWdy ccmParJes, arses Ao =Mments are made dlredy on the fnrrr, Me Town WIU presumes that tlwm are no proms and Vm dawetopyuent can p"X*N. 2. if a Ut lKy Company haS Co;,j erns Whit the proposed par Vowction, ttm utlffty repvwtatNe shall robe directly on the utility veriFKat >n form that tl ere is a pmMem w1`1kh r�MO5 t* irQ rMf"d. ne Issue 3h OUld Uwn be detslW in an mdached ureter to the Tawn of Vali. However, plem lreW in mind that it 33 the re wralbilry csf ttre LAMP =Pang and the appltmer?t to resolve ldertbW problmrs. 3. TrMe YvMm ons do not relieve the cont -mftr at the rimpc n%bility to obtAin a Public Way psrmll: f, cm the Dewtrrsent aF Public Works at the Town or vafl. be pinf-rica nefrrre of In any pUbllc riyhd�f�r+ay or easement within the %wn d Vall. A bmUgiag 9=it 4 .7iX• The Elaveeloper 1s reoulred a agrees to submit arty rev►sed drawings to the util tia %r re-epprretl & re• verMcatWl the yubMIU rs we arored in any way OW, cn® authorized signature dates (unless gtherawlser spedfiicall note n aTirrt arm of ibis TQMI). 0 eveloNr's 5tgrriltum Rate 9 OCT.28.M03 11:40RM TCT AVCN COLO ND.9C7 F.2/2 xs-3D-as �a; Itf;a P�aro-r9NN ofi �� la, COWIANITrX4,4PANT 97110 r24St , T-166 p,at�/tot l,tPUM APlel OVAL A'VIERIFTCITIoN ittla Z"s, snervre"M to �*r# 'tNt *e PrOWSW 1nnpra+��rV Will hist IM Pfd ind also [o vary aanACe aSAllabll and kx� � any eclsting Or propo�i utilltY �n1ur}czlan wt� RreptMrlAg 1@ryyouuCJI (� M for rrw � and snauld be child in ,plan, and c,e+r4WAg, SW IAC submitted in tt�e ftoovA l w tks for ap A slur Marr+ itt loon. �redlesq plan, hoar rltilsks fof aly��el �wnd vr�ri7tcatton. ►,: QWM 970,184.02smax] Conmm: lalm ShaAm .38440238 B�ar� IEXCSL 1480 pas"U" 6dtili 97"GZ.4C76 (0;) -- COMCU Rkm sisngrgs HOLT CRO= erimormiiC 970.949.SC92 (bel) 970,949.iS66 {Iax) Contact: Tad Musky EXCW L JET:! Ray 972.2Q.4038 (ftz) Qmt&ct -. XA Sow 970.262." Jim C++" 970.2Q,gM ' EAQL1 RXWjt WATgR & SAMTA'ITON I)Mmt t,"T — 974,476.7480 (Cal) 97CA)rGAGn (fax) CoMrct, FfM Haste 4709G�� 970,949.913$ (Fax) Cbntad; " salaw ld-�7 t tf tfue !lglltY Ar ai & varlflCIVOn loan * Vgnatwm fmm wch or the �K a�rnpanlas, arra Meamr'nefRs are MAIM dlrrt y pn fCcfTi, the Town i�►QSutrie that tmrc no pmblem and;f dwslopment tun praewacl. re a z. a is utility caRnpohy CC Mcerns with the ra 00 the u�'ilty varVkatip�n fpM that p ! cen�UGtlon, � Wpty F9f"mnta[ive shall note directly detailed to an a tl�erC is problem which needs m be reatsloW, nt !slue should then be utlllty =M ttid M r �' t t Tawm Cr YaI1, yowevw, *0 heep in mind that It �s ttse MSPO S-00MY of the W;lr and tt�oe a lieant !iD nmtvc ld4ftlaflad pmblms. 3. T t e v* t &d0m do rLpt f4'Ileue ft Conm%cWf of lie res �eya�na nt of Publk INorics at the Town of vat!- iblliry toabteln a public ovay p , tt Item the rtl4t ay or eaummt wtMIn the Town of Veil. IA any putt'% � G bl_, TM O velapar is fequkaad and agMM tri sulxW arty reviud dMwlligs to dw ;,lrllll,'}rA fOr re -e l Zvo:rificatiary if eae sub n C Phir t ass aloa►ed Ire afar uray af►av th,a aut�orized slgnatarra este (u at)ervrise �l r,rtol`ed w �r ccf MOM arta or rhjs 1Wrr!). D—MP� 5lgnarura 9 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY Attachment: H PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of 49 Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Code on, December 8, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Vail Town Council Chambers. In consideration of: 40 A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a patio in the rear yard setback, located at 44 West Meadow Drive/Lot I, Vail Village 12'h Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael and Iris Smith Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type I I I Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 71h Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons Resort, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow for a mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type III Employee Housing Units and a fractional fee club; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2"d Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple family (HDMF) zone district, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Road/Lots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: George Ruther This notice published in the Vail Daily on November 21, 2003. 1 TDA' OF PAIL 0 MEMORANDUM TO- Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 8, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-61-1-3, Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUMMARY The purpose of this meeting is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the proposed redevelopment plans for Manor Vail Lodge to the Planning and Environmental Commission and to provide the applicant, public, staff, and the Commission an opportunity to identify issues for discussion at a future meeting. The Commission is not being asked to take any formal action on this application at this time. As such, staff will not be providing a formal recommendation at this time. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Manor Vail Lodge Condominium Association, represented by Melick and Associates, has requested a work session meeting with the Planning and Environmental Commission to present a proposed development application and request for the establishment of a new special development district intended to facilitate the redevelopment of Manor Vail Lodge, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/ Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing. A vicinity map has been attached for reference (attachment A). The key elements of the proposal include: • Expansion and upgrading of one of Vail's High Density Multiple -Family zoned properties, • A deviation from the allowable number of dwelling units (13 additional units) • A deviation from the allowable amount of Gross Residential Floor Area (24,388 square feet additional) • A deviation from the allowable building height (71' proposed) • Elimination of a majority of surface parking and the creation of two two- level below grade parking structures with an additional 109 parking spaces. 1 • Provision of two employee housing units to accommodate six employees within the Town of Vail. • The addition of a fourth floor on Buildings B, D, E, and F and the addition of a fifth story on the proposed connections between Buildings D and E, E and F, and B and D. • The exterior remodel of all the buildings located on the site. • The enclosure of the loading dock area located on the east side of Building B. • The cleanup and improvement of both Mill Creek and Gore Creek. • The encroachment of several buildings and the parking structures into required setbacks. A copy of a letter from the applicant dated November 14, 2003, has been attached for reference (attachment B). A reduced copy of the floor plans and elevations have been attached for reference (attachment F). III. BACKGROUND • Buildings D, E, and F were constructed in Eagle County in 1963 and 1964 and were incorporated as a part of the original Town of Vail. • On January 27, 1977, the Planning Commission approved a variance to allow for the construction of a single story circulation hallway addition 8 feet into the setback on Building B. • On July 19, 1977, through Resolution 12, Series of 1977, the Vail Town Council conveyed certain rights to the Town right-of-way which ran through the Manor Vail property to Manor Vail. The conveyed right-of- way was to be used for pedestrian access to Gerald R. Ford Park and was not to count towards lot area for determining GRFA. • In an agreement subsequent to Resolution 12, Series of 1991, which was approved on May 7, 1991, the Vail Town Council granted to Manor Vail the right to utilize the previously conveyed right-of-way towards calculating the development potential of the site. The lease was signed for a period of 20 years from the date of the agreement. • On May 13, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a minor subdivision to remove a lot line between Lot A and Lot B on the Manor Vail property to allow for the construction of an expanded lobby. • On April 12, 1993, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a setback variance at the Manor Vail Lodge to allow for the construction of dumpster enclosure. • On December 17, 1997, the Design Review Board approved a 1,655 square foot addition to the conference area at the Manor Vail Lodge. • On July 14, 2063, the applicant, Manor Vail, was before the Planning and Environmental Commission to request a height and setback encroachment variance for the construction of an additional floor on top of Buildings D, E, and F. That application was tabled as staff was recommending denial of the height variance and the Commission could not make a finding of a hardship. The applicant requested the tabling in order to redesign the proposal so as to eliminate the need for a height variance. In association with this application the applicant held a work session with the Town of Vail Design Review Board where the Board 2 generally expressed that the proposal was an improvement. The variance application was later withdrawn as the applicant was planning to submit an application for a Special Development District. On December 3, 2003, the applicant met with Town of Vail Design Review Board for a conceptual review discussion on the Special Development District proposal. The Board's review at that meeting focused primarily on building mass and the architectural form of the proposal. A copy of the Design Review Board's comments have been attached for reference (attachment C). VI. SITE ANALYSIS A more complete site analysis will be provided for the January 12, 2004, meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Given the comments provided by the Town of Vail Design Review Board and the staff to date, and any additional feedback from the Planning and Environmental Commission, staff anticipates that there may be changes to the proposal that will affect the development standards data. According to the application information provided by the applicant, no deviations to the prescribed development standards are sought with the exception of maximum allowable building height, maximum number of dwelling units, maximum amount of Gross Residential Floor Area, and multiple encroachments into setbacks. Zoning: High Density Multiple -Family Land Use Plan Designation: Vail Village Master Plan Study Area Current Land Use: Mixed Use/Residential Development Standard Allowed Existing Proposed Lot Area: 10,000 sq.ft. 236,966.4 sq.ft. 236,966.4 sq.ft. Buildable Area: 232,750.9 sq.ft. 232,750.9 sq.ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 8' No Change Sides: 20' 207100' No Change Rear: 20' 1' Zero Setback Building Height: 48' 32' 71' Density: 25 units/acre 18.6 units/acre 27.5 units /acre 133.5 D.U.s 99.5 D.U.s 146 D.U.s GRFA: 139,650.53 sq. ft. 121,365.4 sq. ft. 164,147 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 130,331.5 sq.ft. 66,995 sq.ft. 72,227 sq.ft. (55%) (23.5%Q) (30.5%) Landscape Area: 70,959.2 sq.ft. 77,146 sq.ft. 148,712 sq.ft. (30%) (32.6%) (42.5%) Parking: 215 spaces 220 spaces 341 spaces 3 Vlll. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use North: Public Park South: Commercial East: Public Park West: Open Space/Residential DISCUSSION ISSUES (Apra. 109 additional) Zoning General Use District Ski Base Recreation District General Use District Outdoor Recreation District/High Density Multiple -Family The purpose of this work session meeting is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the redevelopment plans for Manor Vail to the Planning and Environmental Commission and to provide the applicant, public, staff, and the Commission an opportunity to identify issues for discussion at a future meeting. The Commission is not being asked to take any formal positions on this application at this time. However, staff has identified six (6) issues at this time that we believe should be discussed. The issues are: Complete Development Application The Town of Vail has reviewed the development application submitted by the applicant's representative for completion and compliance with the prescribed submittal requirements. Upon completion of our (Community Development, Public Works, and Fire Department) review, it has been determined that additional information is required to be submitted and reviewed before any final decisions may be made by the reviewing boards. Many of these issues have already been communicated to the applicant. Others have not. For reference purposes, the following information is needed: • An accurate survey for the entire site needs to be submitted. The surrey submitted has some inaccuracies. • A plan for fire access needs to be more developed in terms of design and materials. • A sun/shade analysis needs to be completed per the requirements in order to identify the impacts of the additional height on neighboring properties. • A vicinity plan which includes at minimum the Texas Townhomes, Golden Peak, Ski Club Vail, The Wren, Apollo Park, and Pinos Del Norte. • A complete landscape plan prepared in accordance with the requirements outlined on the Town of Vail development review application. • A complete and accurate roof plan with existing and proposed grades shown underneath to be used in the determination of building height. • Address the comments provided by the Town of Vail Public Works Department in the memo dated December 1, 2003 (attachment D) LI 9 110 0 • Submit a separate set of elevation drawings depicting the proposed 10 lodge versus the existing lodge. • Submit an applicant for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type III Employee Housing to be constructed on the development site. • Have a scale model produced for the proposal so as to aid in the understanding of the extent of the proposal. Pursuant to Section 12-7A-12 (A)(2)(j) of the Vail Town Code, "Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Administrator or the Town Planning and Environmental Commission may be requested". Is there any additional information or materials that the Planning and Environmental Commission finds is necessary to be submitted for review and consideration prior to acting upon the requests of the applicant? Proposed Setback Encroachments The proposal includes the construction of approximately 27,329 square feet of addition Gross Square Footage of which 15,078 square feet is Gross Residential Floor Area within the required setbacks of the High Density Multiple -Family District. All of the proposed encroachments occur within the rear setback which abuts the Ford Park parcel. There is currently 12,385 square feet of Gross Square Footage of which 9,521 40 square feet is Gross Residential Floor Area within the required setbacks of the High Density Multiple -Family District. Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe this to be acceptable or in excess of what is appropriate? If the Commission believes the encroachments are excessive what changes are suggested? Proposed Underground Parking Structures and Traffic Impacts As a part of this proposal the applicant would like to construct two underground parking structures. The proposed parking structures would eliminate a majority of the surface parking with only several short-term parking spaces at grade. The proposed parking structures would exceed the number of required parking spaces by approximately 109 parking spaces. Staff still needs to review the parking requirement in regards to the proposal and the parking space layout within the structures to determine what spaces will count as there is a proposal for several valet spaces. Staff is concerned with the potential impacts of the proposed parking in excess of that which is required by the dwelling unit count. While initially the additional parking appears to be a small part of the answer to the Town's parking problem there remains the concern that the additional 40 parking will generate additional traffic on Vail Valley Drive which currently experiences gridlock on multiple days throughout the ski season. The applicant has stated that they have approached the operators of Golden Peak and Ski Club Vail about the potential leasing of the additional parking spaces to help alleviate the parking problem. Once again while this initially appears to be a great solution to a problem there is no guarantee that the additional parking spaces will be used in perpetuity for Golden Peak or Ski Club Vail. Staff has identified the need for an extensive traffic study which needs to be conducted to examine the impacts along Vail Valley Drive from the Frontage Road to Manor Vail with each intersection examined closely for impacts. Does the Planning and Environmental Commission agree that the additional parking is a potential problem? If so, what suggestions does the Commission have regarding mitigation of the impacts? What information would the Commission like to see to alleviate any concerns regarding traffic on Vail Valley Drive? Proposed Creation of Covered Pedestrian Walkway The proposal includes the construction of a three story element which would bridge Buildings B and D and create a covered pedestrian way leading to Ford Park. The height of the opening would be 14 feet to accommodate the access of delivery trucks and fire equipment. Staff has concerns over the enclosure of the pedestrian way leading from Vail Valley Drive to Ford Park. Staff's concerns are that the heavily utilized pedestrian way will take on the appearance of being a private feature. In addition, one of the great amenities of the pedestrian way is the view of the Gore Range in the distance as you are heading east into Ford Park which would be lost from view if a three story addition was installed to bridge Buildings B and D. What if any concerns does the Planning and Environmental Commission have regarding the covering of the public pedestrian way leading from Vail Valley Drive to Ford Park? What suggestions does the Commission have regarding mitigation of any foreseen impacts? Mitigation of Development Impacts Pursuant to Section 12-7A-14, 'Mitigation of Development Impacts, Vail Town Code, "Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial offsite impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway C. improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this Section is to only require mitigation for large-scale redevelopmentldevelopment projects which produce substantial off-site impacts. " Besides the obvious, (i.e., employee housing, streetscape improvements, roadway improvements, public art, loading/delivery facilities) are there any other specific mitigating measures that the applicant should be pursuing at this time as part of this development application? Public Benefits Pursuant to Section 12-9A-1, Purpose, in pari, of the Vail Town Code, "The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for is guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District. The Special Development District does not apply to and is not available in the following zone districts: Hillside Residential, Single -Family, Duplex, Primary/Secondary. The elements of the development plan shall be as outlined in Section 12-9A-6 of this Article." Furthermore, Sections 12-9A-8, Design Criteria, and 12-9A-9, Development Standards, of the Vail Town Code, states, in part, "7t shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with the development standards and design criteria, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved." And, "Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is 40 to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of this Article. ' 0 The applicant has proposed deviations to the maximum allowable building height limitation of 48 feet, the maximum allowable Gross Residential Floor Area, the maximum number of dwelling units, and multiple encroachments into the required setbacks. The applicant is proposing to add a fourth floor to Buildings B, D, E, and F with a fifth floor on the proposed connections between each building. The maximum height of the structures is approximately 71 feet in height and portions of the proposal extend into the required setbacks. The proposed enclosure of the loading and delivery area extends out to the property line for a zero setback. The proposed additions would create 13 units and 24,388 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area in excess of that permitted by the existing zoning. Prior to the request for deviations from the development standards, the Commission and Council must make a finding that the said deviations provide benefits to the Town that outweighs the adverse effects of such deviations. Staff would recommend that the applicant and Commission discuss the magnitude of the requested deviations and the public benefits that may or may not exist with the request. Historically, the Town has recognized such benefits as off-site streetscape improvements, heated surfaces, landscaping, employee housing, etc. as possible public benefits. Does the Commission believe that the requested deviations are appropriate given the prescribed criteria? What additional information may the Commission need to respond to the questions of adverse effects versus public benefits? I* IX. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The following section of this memorandum is included to provide the applicant, community, staff, and Commission with an advanced understanding of the criteria and findings that will be used by the reviewing boards in making a final decision on the proposed applications. Conditional Use Permit Criteria and Findings A. Consideration of Factors Reaarding Conditional Use Permits: 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. 0 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. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Public Accommodation zone district. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Special Development District 12-9A-8: DESIGN CRITERIA: The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard. identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location E and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. L Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a work session, staff will not be providing a staff recommendation at this time. Staff will provide a staff recommendation at the time of a final review of this application. For future reference purposes only, pursuant to Section 12-7A-13, Vail Town Code, the applicant shall be required to meet a compliance burden and demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed application conforms to the requirements prescribed for such application. Section 12-7A-13 states, # "COMPLIANCE BURDEN. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Public Accommodation Zone District, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan." XI. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Letter From The Applicant Dated November 14, 2003 C. Design Review Board Comments D. Public Works Comments dated December 1, 2003 E. Adjacent Property Owner Mailing List F. Proposed Elevations Dated December 3, 2003 and f=loor Plans Dated November 13, 2003 • 10 f ::a t .- ✓ �qi, MANOR VAIL LODGE Special Development District Calculations November 14, 2003 PROJECT GOALS ! BENEFITS TO THE TOWN OF VAIL RESPONSIVENESS TO THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The goals of this project respond to the Vail Village Master Plan's objective to enhance the exterior by proposing the following: Exterior Remodeling Underground Parking Expansion of Open Space Expansion of Landscaping Enclosure of the Back -of -House at Building B Further Enhancement of Ford Park Access Cleanup of Mill Creek Cleanup of Gore Creek EXTERIOR REMODEL The goals for Buildings A, B, C, D, E and F are to remodel the exterior to a mountain lodge theme while maintaining the aesthetic sameness that they currently enjoy. Each building has some subtle differences to provide some individuality, yet each remains part of one whole that defines the north edge of the property, These subtle differences include a change in color, a different entry roof truss, or a different railing treatment. In addition to the aesthetics of these buildings, Manor Vail Lodge is upgrading the egress stairs and adding ADA accessible elevators. UNDERGROUND PARKING It is proposed to relocate all of the surface parking to two below grade parking structures with two levels each. EXPAND ON OPEN SPACE The goal for the site is to expand the amount of open space. It is proposed to add 1.11 acres of land to open space I landscaped area. This is being accomplished by replacing the surface parking with below grade structured parking, adding gardens and stone walls to encapsulate the entire parking structure, and relocating the maintenance sheds that are attached to buildings D and E to the underground parking structure. LANDSCAPING Landscaping an additional 1.1 acres will be done over the tops of the below grade parking structures. BACK OF HOUSE ENCLOSURE AT BUILDING B The back of house is proposed to be enclosed within the Building B footprint. ADDITIONAL UNITS / GRFA The financial feasibility of this project revolves around the ability to add density to the site. This is proposed over and infilling between Buildings B, D, E and F. The infills are proposed at upper levels of the buildings to maintain existing passageways between the buildings to the Gore Creek, The SDD zoning that is being sought is not unlike the new Lionshead Master Plan Zoning that recognizes the necessity to relax restrictions on older properties so that they have the ability to renovate their vintage 1960s and 1970s properties. This has been done by allowing for greater building height limitations (71' avg, 85' max.), higher density and reduced setbacks. This zoning provides these property owners with the ability, if they wish, to knock down what they have and build it back at double the density. Increasing the density is what is required in order to be able to afford replacing existing units and build structured parking. The amount of land/ open space makes MVL more exclusive than other properties, and properties in the Lionshead Master Plan. It allows us to request only an additional 20% GRFA and 8.4% additional units as compared to 33% that is allowed in Lionshead. ENHANCED FORD PARK ACCESS The Ford Park Access is being maintained and enhanced with the addition of the gardens directly to the north. Prepared by: Melick Associates Attachment: B MANOR VAIL LODGE Special Development District Calculations November 14, 2003 Paving materials will link the existing access point to the west with the existing walkway in the TOV property along tore Creek. ADDITIONAL PARKING Below grade structured parking is being provided for the existing units as well as for the new units. In addition, 109 parking spaces are being provided in order to assist with the TOV parking shortage. This has the potential of solving Vail Resorts parking problem at Golden Peak, LB and BM are having conversations with Vail Resorts about the opportunity to solve the valet parking problem at Golden Peak. There is also the potential to reduce the waiting list at Golden Peak. EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS New Employee Housing Units are proposed to accommodate seven beds. This represents 75% of the new employees that will be required to operate this property, CLEANUP OF MILL CREEK It is proposed that the Mill Creek be cleaned to enhance the natural beauty of this water feature and its interaction within the Manor Vail Lodge property. CLEANUP OF GORE CREEK It is proposed that the Gore Creek be cleaned up to enhance the natural beauty of this water feature and to open up the views to the creek and to the Gore Range beyond, Further study is required to determine the scope of this work on TOV property. PROPOSED SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ENTITLEMENTS SDD PROPOSAL AS COMPARED TO HDMF ZONING REQUIREMENTS AREA Existing Site Area (acres) Existing Site Area (square feet) BUILDABLE SITE AREA Flood Plain Along Gore and Mill Creeks Buildable Site Area - (square feet) Buildable Site Area - (acres) DENSITY I #UNITS ALLOWABLE - HDMF RATIO 25 # UNITS 133.68 ALLOWABLE - LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN RATIO 133% # UNITS 163.59 5.44 ACRES 236,966.4 SF 4,034 SF 232,932.4 SF 5.3 ACRES Units per Buildable Acre Units Increase existing units by 33% Units # UNITS Existing Units 123.00 New Units 23.00 Total Units 146.00 VARIANCE -12.32 = 13 17.59 = 18 GRFA - Existinq and New Unit Calculations 8.40% over HDMF allowable 10,75% under Lionshead allowable Remain Existin to Remain Existinc to Remain Existin to Remain Proposed GFRA Unit GFRA Unit GFRA Unit GFRA Unit GFRA Bving A Building C Building D Building E Building B 1 1,340.00 202 1,376.00 316 652.32 425 652.32 3A 1,435.00 2 1,340.00 203 1,376.00 317 652.32 426 652.32 3B 2,252.00 Prepared by: Melick Associates 1,380.00 1,380.00 1,380.00 1,380.00 1,380.00 1,380.00 1,380.00 1,380.00 1,380A0 1,380.00 1,380.00 1,380.00 1,340.00 1,340.00 1,336.00 1,336.00 1,368.00 1,368.00 1,369.00 1,376.00 1,376.00 1,373.00 1,512.00 1,512.00 1,373.00 1,376.00 1,373.00 1,369.00 ST 41,337.00 GRFA SITE COVERAGE 204 205 206 207 208 209 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 Building D 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 310 311 312 313 314 315 MANOR VAIL LODGE Special Development District Calculations November 14, 2003 1,373.00 1,512.00 1,512.00 1,373.00 1,376.00 1,373.00 1,369,00 1,376.00 1,376.00 1,373.00 1,512.00 1,512.00 1,373.00 1,376.00 1,373.00 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 Building E 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 420 421 422 423 424 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32' 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 Building F 110 111 112 113 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 u 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 652.32 3C 2,077.00 3D 2,557.00 4A 3,261.00 4B 2,675.00 4C 2,928.00 4D 1,956.00 4E 2,877.00 EHUs 1,294.00 Link Between E&F 3A 1,466.00 3B 876.00 Link Between D&E 3C 1,734.00 3D 993.00 4th Floor D, E, F 4A 2,637.00 4B 2,657.00 4C 1,470.00 4D 865.00 4E 2,636.00 4F 2,664.00 4G 1,749.00 4H 1,009.00 4.1 2,643.00 4K 2,612.00 ST 33,043.48 ST 20,221.92 ST 20,221.92 ST 49,323.00 ALLOWABLE - HDMF RATIO 60% 60 sf of GRFA per 100 sf of buildable site area GRFA 139,759 GRFA ALLOWABLE - LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN RATIO 133% GRFA 185,880 PROPOSED-SDD Existing GRFA 114,824 New GRFA 49,323 Total GRFA 164,147 VARIANCE -24,388 -17.45% over HDMF allowable 21,733 11.69% under Lionshead allowable ALLOWABLE - HDMF RATIO 55% SITE COVERAGE 130,332 Total Site Coverage ALLOWABLE - LIONSHEAD RATIO 70% SITE COVERAGE 165,876 Total Site Coverage Prepared by: Melick Associates is • MANOR VAIL LODGE Special Development District Calculations November 14, 2003 PROPOSED-SDD 10 Building A Building B Building C Building D Building E Building F SubTotal Head Houses Air Rights VARIANCE 19,078 11,092 13,869 6,690 6,690 6,690 64,109 670 7.448 Total 72,227 58,105 93,649 Stairs, elevators Links @B/C, BID, DIE, EIF SETBACKS The above ground decks do not exceed the lesser of 5' or 1/2 the required setback. The ground level patios do not exceed the lesser of 10' or 1/2 the required setback. The architectural projections do not exceed 4' into the required setback. 11 • FRONT ALLOWABLE - HDMF 20 PROPOSED-SDD 20 VARIANCE 0 ALLOWABLE - LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN SIDE ALLOWABLE - HDMF 20 PROPOSED-SDD 20 VARIANCE 0 ALLOWABLE - LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN REAR ALLOWABLE - HDMF ALLOWABLE - LIONSHEAD PROPOSED-SDD VARIANCE 45% under HDMF allowable 56% under Lionshead allowable 20 0 0 (CLOSEST POINT, SEE PLAN) 20 100% over HDMF 0% over Lionshead EXISTING BUILDINGS IN THE SETBACK GRFA GSF Existing Building A at first floor (front setback) - 589 Existing Building A at second and third floors (front setback) 684 880 Existing Building B at first floor - 521 Existing Building B at second and third floors 170 222 Existing Building C at second - fourth floors 8,643 10,087 Existing Building D at basement - 17 Existing Building D at first - third floors 24 49 SUBTOTAL 9,521 12,365 PROPOSED BUILDINGS IN THE SETBACK Building B at first floor - 865 Building B at second floor - 1,097 Building B at third floor 1,066 1,221 Building B at fourth floor 1,151 1,332 Link between Building B and C at first floor - 256 Buildings D -F at basement - 458 Buildings D -F at first floor - 201 Prepared by: Melick Associates MILL CREEK BUILDING HEIGHTS MANOR VAIL LODGE Special Development District Calculations November 14, 2003 Buildings D -F at second floor - 201 Buildings D -F at third floor 1,110 1,195 10 Buildings D -F at fourth floor 1,120 1,211 Buildings D -F at fifth floor 1,110 1,195 SUBTOTAL 5,557 9,232 EXISTING ROOF OVERHANGS MORE THAN FOUR FEET IN THE SETBACK Existing roof overhang at existing Building A - 94 Existing roof overhang at existing Building C - 860 SUBTOTAL - 954 PROPOSED ROOF OVERHANGS MORE THAN FOUR FEET IN THE SETBACK Roof overhang at Building B - 75 Roof overhang at Buildings D -F - 494 SUBTOTAL - 569 EXISTING BALCONIES MORE THAN FIVE FEET IN THE SETBACK Balcony at Building A at second and third floors (front setback) - 48 Balcony at Building B at second floor - 68 Balcony at Building B at third floor - 68 Balcony at Building C at second and third floors - 2,870 Balcony at Building D at first - third floors - 9 SUBTOTAL - 3,063 PROPOSED BALCONIES MORE THAN FIVE FEET IN THE SETBACK Balcony at Building B at third floor - 75 Balcony at Building B at fourth floor - 88 Balcony at Building D at fourth floor - 3 Balconies at Buildings D -F at third floor - 326 Balconies at Buildings D -F at fourth floor - 327 Balconies at Buildings D -F at fifth floor - 327 SUBTOTAL - 1,146 TOTALS 15,078 27,329 • OF ALL GRFA IN SETBACK VS. TOTAL GRFA 9.19% • OF EXISTING GRFA IN SETBACK VS. TOTAL GRFA 5.80% • OF NEW GRFA IN SETBACK VS. TOTAL GRFA 3.39% ALLOWABLE - HDMF 30 from centerline of Millcreek PROPOSED -SDD 21 (CLOSEST POINT, SEE PLAN) VARIANCE 9 Studio parking structure, mechanical and maintenance is partially in setback, 1758 sf ALLOWABLE - HDMF ALLOWABLE - LIONSHEAD ALLOWABLE - LIONSHEAD - INTERPOLATED BUILDING A PROPOSED - SDD Ridge VARIANCE - HDMF VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD BUILDING B PROPOSED - SDD Centerline Ridge Gable Ridge 48 71 85 at building B, F 31.5 16.5 under 39,5 under 53.66 based on interpolated grade 60.16 at north face of building Prepared by: Melick Associates 9 LINK EIF PROPOSED - SDD VARIANCE - HDMF VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD BUILDING F PROPOSED - SDD Center ridge Gable ridge VARIANCE - HDMF VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD AVERAGE MAXIMUM HEIGHT VARIANCE - HDMF VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD ROOF AREAS OVER 48 FOOT HDMF HEIGHT LIMITATION total roof area BUILDINGS D. E, F ROOF AREA 29,474 BUILDINGS A, B, C ROOF AREA 51,667 TOTALS 81,141 VARIANCE - HDMF VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD 71 -17.34 over -10.84 same 61.5 based on interpolated grade 68.25 at north face of building -20.25 over, worst case at north building face 2.75 under 55.7 -7.7 over 15.3 under roof area over 48' 28,570 8,178 36,748 45% over 0% over roof area over 71' 0 0 PARKING * Surface Parking - All parking is below grade with the exception of three surface spaces on paved grade at the main entrance to the building and four surface spaces on paved grade on the Manor House side. Parking Decks - The decks of the underground parking are flat except to accommodate surface drainage. Parking Spaces - The enclosed parking spaces are 90 degrees to the drive aisle and 9' x 18', with 8' x 16' compact parking spaces not exceeding 25% of the total of the total required parking spaces. Prepared by: Melick Associates MANOR VAIL LODGE Special Development District Calculations November 14, 2003 VARIANCE - HDMF -12.16 over, worst case at north building face VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD 10.84 under LINK B/C PROPOSED - SDD 40 VARIANCE - HDMF 8 under VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD 31 under LINK B/D PROPOSED - SDD 66.25 VARIANCE-HDMF -18.25 over VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD 4.75 under BUILDING C PROPOSED - SDD Ridge 32 VARIANCE - HDMF 16 under VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD 39 under BUILDING D PROPOSED - SDD Ridge 58.25 VARIANCE - HDMF -10.25 over VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD 12.75 under LINK DIE PROPOSED - SDD 71 VARIANCE - HDMF -23 over VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD 0 same BUILDING E PROPOSED - SDD Ridge 58.25 VARIANCE-HDMF -4.59 VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD 1.91 LINK EIF PROPOSED - SDD VARIANCE - HDMF VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD BUILDING F PROPOSED - SDD Center ridge Gable ridge VARIANCE - HDMF VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD AVERAGE MAXIMUM HEIGHT VARIANCE - HDMF VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD ROOF AREAS OVER 48 FOOT HDMF HEIGHT LIMITATION total roof area BUILDINGS D. E, F ROOF AREA 29,474 BUILDINGS A, B, C ROOF AREA 51,667 TOTALS 81,141 VARIANCE - HDMF VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD 71 -17.34 over -10.84 same 61.5 based on interpolated grade 68.25 at north face of building -20.25 over, worst case at north building face 2.75 under 55.7 -7.7 over 15.3 under roof area over 48' 28,570 8,178 36,748 45% over 0% over roof area over 71' 0 0 PARKING * Surface Parking - All parking is below grade with the exception of three surface spaces on paved grade at the main entrance to the building and four surface spaces on paved grade on the Manor House side. Parking Decks - The decks of the underground parking are flat except to accommodate surface drainage. Parking Spaces - The enclosed parking spaces are 90 degrees to the drive aisle and 9' x 18', with 8' x 16' compact parking spaces not exceeding 25% of the total of the total required parking spaces. Prepared by: Melick Associates MANOR VAIL LODGE Special Development District Calculations November 14, 2003 Height Clearance - The height clearance of the parking structure will be a minimum of 7' clear. * Drive Aisles - The drive aisles are two way and 24' wide. Ramps -The ramps between levels are 24' wide with 6% slope. Street Entries - Both existing curb cuts and entry drop off at main lobby to remain. Curbs - Rolling curbs will be provided to accommodate fire department vehicles per Public Works. * Drive Aisles - 24' wide two-way drive aisles accommodate 90 degree parking stalls. Turning Radius - 24' turning radius to centerline is utilized at vehicular traffic patterns per Public Works. Structural Columns - Structural columns approximately 14" w. x 22" d. will be located on some parking stripes. STUDIO - PHASE 1 Existing Spaces 73 New Unit Spaces 33 (2 @ < 2000/unit, 2.5 @ > 1999/unit) Saleable Spaces 41 Sub Total 146 (plus 3 short term surface parking spaces) MANOR HOUSE - PHASE 2 Existing Spaces 105 (includes 17 valet spaces) New Unit Spaces 22 (2 @ < 2000/unit, 2.5 @ > 1999/unit) EHU Spaces 4 Saleable Spaces 64 Sub Total 195 (plus 4 short term surface parking spaces) TOTAL PARKING SPACES 341 MANOR HOUSE PARKING RATIOS ALLOWABLE LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN PARKING RATIO DWELLING UNITS 1.4 spaces per unit EHUs 0.75 spaces per unit 40 PROPOSED SDD MANOR HOUSE PARKING RATIO DWELLING UNITS / EHUs 2.20 spaces per unit PARKING STRUCTURE GROSS FLOOR AREA Studio Parking Structure 59,517 total of both levels Manor House Parking Structure 74,066 total of both levels Total Parking Structure 133,583 total of both levels OPEN SPACE PROPOSED AREA INCREASE 46,491 1.07 additional acres of open space ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES EXISTING 0 PROPOSED 105 21 % of TOV peak shortfall TOV SHORTFALL-LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN 500 current TOV plans justify adding 500 spaces EMPLOYEE HOUSING BEDS EXISTING 0 PROPOSED 6 6 beds in townhome style unit FUTURE UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS FUTURE SPA 2,400 FUTURE BALLROOM 7,400 GRADING Maximum Finished Grade — The maximum finished grade does not exceed a 2:1 slope. The natural slope of the site is relatively flat. New grading to accommodate drainage will be blended into the natural topography. The elevated portions of the parking structure above natural grade will be treated with stone walls and terraced Prepared by: Melick Associates MANOR VAIL LODGE Special Development District Calculations November 14, 2003 landscape areas to soften the difference in grade and create a natural appearance. Existing Vegetation, Naturafi Features — The extent of the parking structure with surface gardens is being constructed within the existed surface parking lot in front of Buildings D, E, and F. The existing pool will be reiocated to the north and reconfigured. The access to Ford Park will be maintained. Construction Fence — The construction site will be properly surrounded by a non -removable construction fence during the construction process. Erosion Control — Erosion control measures will be utilized using the best management practices. The erosion control plan will be prepared by a registered Colorado Professional Engineer. FLOOD PLAIN Approximately 500 square feet of 100 year flood plain encroaches over the property line to the northwest of Building F. There are no plans to grade within this area. RETAINING WALLS The parking structure retaining walls will be designed and stamped by a licensed P.E. Terrace walls will be within the 4'— 6' maximum height range. Due to the relatively flat nature of the site retaining walls will not exist on slopes exceeding 30%. There are no retaining walls planned with the front setback or along the right-of-way. Boulder retaining walls will meet the standards of retaining walls, with a P.E. stamp if the slope exceeds 1:1. GEOLOGIC 1 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS The site does not contain snow avalanche, debris flow, rock fall, unstable soils or slopes or wetlands. FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS 0 The design team has agreed in concept to a design solution to provide fire department access from the entry drive along the west side of the parking structure, along Buildings D, E and F and back to the entry hotel lobby drop-off. Accesss to the Manor House side will occur on top of the parking structure. We are currently finalizing details to this scheme. It is the intent of the design team to have this solution finalized by the time we meet with DIB and PEC. Prepared by: Meiick Associates Design Review Board Comments From December 3, 2003 Meeting + The proposal is "tremendously huge" and the impact on neighboring properties will be "enormous". • Views from the Betty Ford Gardens and Ford Park will be negatively impacted. The view of seeing the proposed roof of the Manor Vail will be detrimental to the ambiance of Ford Park. • The proposed links between the buildings will take away views to the Gore Range. • This proposal creates an 800 -foot plus long building with little change in the ridge line which creates the appearance of an unbroken wall. Massive structure over a block long. • The balconies are very linear. Linear architecture dominates the facades. • The proposed addition appears to double the mass of the buildings which is far and above what is acceptable. The volume is too much. The design looks very "city -like". • The benefits of the project come at a great sacrifice. The previous plan for the addition of one level to Buildings D, E, and F was more in scale and character with the surrounding uses. It was an exciting proposal. • Don't see any public benefit other than underground parking. • This site is too serve as the transition of the Vail Village into the residential neighborhood. • Understand the difficulties of working with a large homeowners association in order to achieve a project of this magnitude. • The design of the Austria Haus and Sonnenalp Hotel are more like the scale and architecture which should be proposed. • The trees along Vail Valley Drive are "sacred" and need to be saved as they help to break up the mass of the buildings. There needs to be more than ornamental trees planted on top of the parking structures to help break up the mass of the buildings. May need to put some tree wells into the design of the parking structure. Upgrade the facades does not have the impact it should when old roof forms such as the "saw -tooth" roof remain. • This is a fine piece of property and it deserves fine architecture. • The proposed height is too much to ask. • While the additional open area is good, it is Manor Vail's not the Town's. • This is a very large project which will take several meetings to completely grasp and understand. 9 Attachment: C • Public Works Comments December 1, 2003 • Show the new curb line to accommodate the required turning radius for the entrance into the north parking structure. • Show the turning movements for ingress/egress to north and south parking structures. • Show access to proposed fire lane along west side of the north parking structure and fire lane impacts to Mill Creek. Staff would like the applicant to explore the feasibility of putting in a turn -around for emergency vehicles between the parking structure and Building F. If possible to put a turn around in it would eliminate the pathway access along Mill Creek. • A drainage study will need to be provided. • A sand/oil intercept is required for the parking structures. • A traffic impact fee of $5,000 per PM peak trip increase will be assessed. • Mill Creek slope restoration and stabilization required along property frontage. • A correct stamped survey needs to submitted for the entire site. The submitted survey has some errors. • Show sight distances for pedestrians at north parking structure entrance. • A grading plan is required. • Show turning movements for the loading dock. • An erosion control plan is required. • A traffic study will need to be completed of Vail Valley Drive from the Frontage Road to Manor Vail with each intersection examined for impacts. • A plan for what is to occur with the excess parking spaces needs to be established as certain scenarios may require conditional use permits and Town Council approval to lease or sell the additional spaces. • Need to submit detailed plans for the fire access materials. • Need to submit detailed plans of the proposed improvements to Mill Creek and Gore Creek. Attachment: D 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, December 8, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Vail Town Council Chambers. In consideration of: A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a patio in the rear yard setback, located at 44 West Meadow Drive/Lot 1, Vail Village 12th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael and Iris Smith Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request far a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type 111 Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto, Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons Resort, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow for a mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type III Employee Housing Units and a fractional fee club; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2"d Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple family (HDMF) zone district, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Road/Lots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2„d Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: George Ruther This notice published in the Vail Daily on November 21, 2003. Attachment: E I TOWN*VAIL OF • Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 5164 Ski Club Vail Lee Edwards, Phd' Apollo Park at Vail Timeshare 98 Vail Valley Drive Texas Townhouse Condo. Assn. 442 Frontage Rd., West il, CO 81657 P. O. Box 489 Vail, CO 81657 Locust Valley, NY 11560 Apollo Park Lodge The Wren The Town of Vail 442 S. Frontage Rd., E. 500 S. Frontage Rd., East 75 S. Frontage Road, West Vail, CO 81657 Vail CO 81657 Vail CO 81657 Vail Resorts Pinos Del Norte Paul7eppson P. O. Box 7 600 Vail Valley Drive Golden Peak Condo. Assn. Vail, CO 81658 Vail, CO 81657 P. O, Box 915 IE Avon, CO 81620 j: f • VIAMERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® rn r rm W U r rn S N r T C [yr I.I II 1 ISI®ISI TWIlt Ilr�l■ I - T s3 3 e R � 4 II it I - � C [yr I.I II 1 ISI®ISI TWIlt Ilr�l■ I - s3 3 e R � 4 II it I - � a m z Z CA 0 o C cn D rn r H V M-rl n Z N r� For F �7 ;Awl —L- 1 BUIL6 NG E t ; 1 NEW POOL ---------- .--------- 1 � GORE CREEK BUMNRVO WALLS 1 h B LDING D i L, 1 i 1 74.8'sETIAoc i �h 1 ; tt FRWFRE'RLBIB 1 1 � PARgNG aARAGE B6dV � .`:, �1 FATX TO FM PARK k.h 1i f EM RAI CURB 35 ""HAO, l BUILDING A / \ cc--��y� REdl1pRE4 Tuna RPBRs l ` ,i I`REA1p1[APIE)RF�IOCANEEUED 1 l 1 - � A ERT ST -41 FROM ' - - _ BUI LD!NG B 4 E BE40W GLADE 1 l Y.tR✓dNG GARAGE - PAAgNG GMK7E Bfl4M 01ING 4�'4 \\ ]0.V SETlAC1C PM}PERYLCNE \•.\ �`\ \ 4\ ` <<_ EfFROMBELOW - BUILDINGC \� GRAPE FARRING CWDE _ . ♦\ EATl STAR 4♦ L ELEVATOR FROM 4 BELOW GRADE 44 \ ♦. 4 tti .w 4 PARK NO GAAAGE 4 \ ENTRY GATE 4 4` 444 4 4 \ Mw TO BELOW GRACE PALFING GARAGE 444 4.4 4 4 4 i \ _ 444 4 � � 44 444 44 444 \ 4 4� y J ol i / I / i � � I I I I I 1 r r oo• r I I rr j L- r I i! rr I i r I I � r r r r r I ' r r r r rr ----------------j N V � r t♦ I I I tn� ---- I I ol I w r 1 y , ' F r / / / lel // / tb 4 3 b.000, fi y t� �o Li�ra`v 6 O t'3 f 0 [ )`t O O0Q,-j a0 / t ) U ft 0 t -F -o ifkt"OCyr��c7K67Gir{� p• (i0 O OO(3�00Q0t� fa0 '<•00 C}OOOOOQO 00000 1c�O0 "00'Lx0000Q O[tSoo ;50 0, _a 0 ) C} UCA,000 ')'o ,' 0 0 V a�c�t,t)v, .• oo tr i0 0 o o of�0, 0 a. o .S 0 "[z G a;y:s ,l c lQn*,noo'� n , �fy 3"D.00 �a0 00. D Cl-0^ri 0 ( a FJ , o 0 �%,n J O o cll o n C, CT,O Cvi?�GL=S aC) JVu c cTootoo t'� 0 000 tzc�c)uoGG• a r: 0;c, Hyl Cl 0:0:0 0 Uu ryr�, v �i0C 000[) Opt` G L) C 0 13---c70oO= O000r. pLrO0OuC 3ooa O 4000 Loo t000C 0C', Ot OC OO. 0 0n po %r7 C� 0w GO UOo oc 000of )0 GOfJ vv 0 Joo 0000 ,0 ;)OC)00 l rpG 7Gou a0 z}filpo(i f. or, 00006": 000 O 60000 foa�ec Gc�noQr� �[���a� n cc�Ogo.��Qca�o�o �h �O`SGO .0 Ju0O0 [Sc }0006 C` `'x0.3 i�' C�C9 r,.. L70 p a 0 00 0 �O t 0 rrT J ;3 1 C7 f) L3 Y) o c 0 OOSJ vC 30 0t,0rt0 0G 0'[ 1 1 000x2 oO 0,rj 3) 0u 0 00 0000 �Or a�C OG,U00�L0ki0 o o o oGe`cco -Q 0C Q yfa0 0000 nL 0�37�0€�-�OC3€7 s Gc�+'i=JQ J�'GO[:C0£5'C50.0 c'S �OOGO 0u 0O a0.: 'o -co. O{D 0 �o0.oO[0F:3� O [��" O[�oU C T C1. C V [? ") C7 0 Gi 0 00t 0ri),0 C' 0 0.e o.U00e '7G C�2060,O :b;ooi?f. o00oi1 00 .k:UGr tat'J[3Uo,, , i0cc) VgGC3OC,O'` w,G.nOVi �.;000C3c��Jr'0'400�) , �0 O 00ir�GA D Cl00 0 r ".o '0 s0. 0 n()r7Ga X0_000 Dr 00 00U0 � r 0 70 O 0000( G0 "DOOOOj Un0 .Ori �� "000C;� 00(10 -.•: .-'` '�. 000031tOC nnJv`}000oG0 � 0000' OQG', Of Ot E}C"0 0000 rrx 0O "o 0" , GOOoC v v J079o.0Ut-:Ic D0000 ooIDO, 0-o[ OJ G d D Q (co00000000 'Dsea 'O-;Yt0.).Or, 0�0000``-.:- 0. .000000000000001 y Cosa b000000000000 0 ue_lG 0aolu0d [)OC L'GPG00 . 0 O��Cu`0000-dOO�:C}C'u4 "OOr300.00T OO Cy 10 C) b 00c00; ()..:]Cr0 -.._.` z ui�3Q G Q00000O 0 () 0 .0V 0000C 0000000000f� £)4000{500 '00L7000L70L3t AG()0000o ' (100000000000000000000000M Ota 0000000 40drtOC}04 0Q0C ::.: 000 " 0000 0 Zr 0 000Q 4p0U 0 (,00oi� 00 c000( *a.' 00000000 �0 OQQOOOOOc 00000000 00 0000000or- 0 0 00000000 Oa 00000 §q 0000000 000000000,0 ooOOC� or= �� .i c3 00700�g00000000 0000 Ql00 0 0 000000 000 0000 00a0O-Cro 0000Of1<T-OOO.O-q-00000 iVC3t-no 0000 000 J CtiC ti�? Q€ 0 7 4` OL)} oocz000oV 0VVVV+0Q 00 0000000 Oo00onC 0 ,v 00000000000 00 000 O 4 a 0 00�� 00 o O 000 G0 00 Og300 i � M M F o Z 1 f--- - -----------_.._------•--------------- 1j L 71_ -1True17°tri ----------------- ---------------------- ,u a -----E- .r I /y y � 1 I S - IA Pn o of o o 1 3 J I, e I � Q .--_-_____- -_ �__ _______________�___��______ lR � F Air -NIL" ' ' / ~ ~� '.� |�l __ -_ _ _ _ 1__'--- _ 1 o I 1 Ir I -----..----. I :J S --- --- —------- — ----- ----4— I r� kkkt t •� F a 1 v U - Lj:3; rS r cizzr _ J ------ ------- NZ o f Jr-------------`----------- -- ! r_ ! P I � 1 I , I � ! I I l q I � a 1 , fl I �! I1 , 1 , I I ' I - r ! , I � 4 1 I � I I I �I I o I I a I � Ln Z I -------- ------- r------ AOISI - noxi f f'. I , I ' , I 4 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I � I48aj I a x y I1 I I I 56� C) a 4� 44 sii'1, slSrii'si s ;� irarr srlrr lsirir liiiEr{ili�itril�• t%R,0119 t`sfsit« i sfrrw'�..ra�.�t♦s ipi+ � ri fliil��tiaT� �>I' r ii�siMMlit*4�li�Rw� f} �i�isli*rtfri�r� �.�w�rrrsi ,1i=V i �Ir i J .• f 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons Resort, pursuant to Section 12- 9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow for a mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type III Employee Housing Units and a fractional fee club; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) zone district, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Road/Lots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: George Ruther SUMMARY The applicant, Nicollet Island Development Company Inc., is proposing to rezone of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple Family (HDMF); to amend Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons Resort; and to receive approval of a conditional use permit for thirty-four (34) Type III employee housing units, to facilitate the construction of the Four Seasons Resort. Staff is recommending approval with conditions of the three development review applications, with the findings and conditions as outlined in Section XI of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicant, Nicollet Island Development Company, represented by T.J. Brink, has submitted three development review applications to the Town of Vail Community Development. The three applications are intended to facilitate the redevelopment of the Chateau at Vail and Vail Amoco properties and construct the Four Seasons Resort. The proposed development site is to be located at 28 South Frontage Road and 13 Vail Road. Zone District Boundary Amendment The applicant is requesting approval to rezone Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) zone district. According to the applicant, the rezoning request is needed to allow for the construction of up to 40 multiple family residential dwelling units on the development site. The 40 multiple family dwelling units would be constructed in conjunction with 123 accommodation units. The current zoning designation of Public Accommodation limits the maximum amount of gross residential floor area (GRFA) of residential dwellings on the development site to 30% of the total allowable GRFA. Unlike the Public Accommodation zone district, the High Density Multiple Family zone district does not have this limitation. Further, the only permitted use in the Public Accommodation zone district is a "lodge" as defined in the Zoning Regulations. In contrast, both "lodges" and "multiple family residential dwellings" are permitted uses in the High Density Multiple family zone district. In order to ensure that a lodge and multiple family residential dwellings units are constructed on the Proposed development site in accordance with the Town's development objectives, the applicant has agreed to place a deed restriction on the property requiring the construction of a minimum of 118 accommodation units totaling a minimum of 76,978 square feet of gross residential floor area. The review criteria for a zone district amendment are contained in Section VII of this memorandum. Major Amendment The applicant is requesting approval of a major amendment to Special Development district No. 36, Four Seasons Resort. The major amendment to the special development district is intended to allow for the construction of up to 40 multiple family residential dwellings within the Four Seasons Resort and to amend the approved development plan accordingly. No other amendments to the special development district are proposed. The review criteria for a major amendment to a Special Development District are contained in Section VI I of this memorandum. Conditional Use Permit The applicant is requesting approval to allow for the operation of up to twenty-two (22) fractional fee club units and thirty-four (34) Type III employee housing units with the Four i Seasons Resort. According to the applicant's proposal, up to 22 of the 40 multiple family residential dwellings could be converted and operated as fractional fee club units, at the applicant's discretion. The review criteria for a conditional use permit are contained in Section VII of this memorandum. The following is a summary of the square footage breakdown and unit count of the applicant's proposal: ■ 101,013 sq_ ft. - dwelling units (40 units)* ■ 76,978 sq. ft. — accommodation units (118 units) 10,202 sq. ft. — employee housing units (34 units) ■ 7,695 sq. ft. — restaurant/retail ■ 1,726 sq. ft. — conference/meeting rooms ■ 14,416 sq. ft. — spa/health club * Due to changing market conditions and trends, the applicant is requesting approval to replace the 22 fractional fee club units approved pursuant to Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2003, with 22 additional dwelling units for a total of 40 dwellings units with the development. The applicant, however, wishes to maintain an option to convert up to 22 of the 40 dwelling units back into fractional fee club units to a total allocation of 47,592 square feet of GRFA, and as depicted on the proposed development plan. In which case, the maximum number of fractional fee club units shall not exceed 22 and the maximum number of dwellings units shall not exceed 18. The maximum allowable square footage of GRFA allocated to the fractional fee club units shall not exceed 47,592 square and the maximum allowable square footage of GRFA allocated tot eh dwelling units shall not exceed 53,421 square feet. Ma'or Amendment to Special Development District No. 36 The Four Seasons Resort is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District 40 No. 36, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code. According to Section 12-9A-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code, the purpose of a SpecialDevelopment District is, in part: The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Conditional_ Use Permit Requests Section 12-7A-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, regulates the conditional uses allowed in the Public Accommodation zone district. Fractional Fee Clubs and Type III Employee Housing Units are allowed as conditional uses in the Public Accommodation zone district. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the establishment of a fractional fee club, which includes 22 fractional fee club units. In addition, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of 34 Type III Employee Housing Units. The review criteria for the conditional use permits are contained in Sections iK and X of this memorandum. Rezoning Request Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, regulates the process for zone district boundary amendments. The proposal for the Four Seasons Resort includes a proposed rezoning of Lot 9A, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Heavy Service zone district to Public Accommodation zone district and inclusion in Special Development District No. 36. The review criteria for a zone district boundary amendment are contained in Section XI of this memorandum. III. BACKGROUND The Town of Vail files has limited information regarding the existing Chateau at Vail. Th files do not contain information regarding the original construction of the hotel. According to the files, existing hotel contains 120 accommodation units each approximately 280 sq. ft. in size for a total of 33,660 square of gross residential floor area. According to the file, development activity on the site to date has been limited to minor alterations and remodels. On July 10, 2001, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No 14, Series of 2001. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2001, adopted a development plan for the establishment of. Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West on the existing Chateau at Vail site. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2001, approved a development plan for the special development district' which included 15 dwelling units, 116 accommodation units, 40 fractional fee club units, and 14 Type III employee housing units. The approved deviations from development standards of the underlying zoning included an increase from the maximum allowable height and maximum allowable site coverage standards. On October 7, 2003, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinances No. 9 and No. 10, Series of 2003. Ordinances No. 9 and 10 adopted an amended development plan for Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons Resort and rezoned a portion of the development site to the Public Accommodation zone district. The amended development plan allows for the construction of a mixed use hotel development to include 18 dwelling units, 123 accommodation units, 22 fractional fee club units, and 34 Type Ill employee housing units. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Vail Land Use Plan The Vail Land Use Plan was adopted by the Vail Town Council on November 18, 1986. The plan is intended to serve as a basis from which future decisions may be made regarding land use within the valley. The primary focus of the Vail Land Use Plan is to address the long-term needs and desires of the Town as it matures. The Town of Vail has evolved from a small ski resort founded in 1962 with approximately 190,000 annual skier visits and virtually no permanent residents to a community with 4,500 permanent residents. The Town is faced with the challenge of creatively accommodating the increase in permanent residency as well as the increase in skier visits, while preserving the important qualities that have made Vail successful. This is a considerable challenge, given the fact that land within the Valley is a well-defined finite resource, with much of the land already developed at this juncture. The Vail Land Use Plan was undertaken with the goal of addressing this challenge in mind. The goals articulated in the plan reflect the desires of the citizenry. The'goal statements that were developed reflect a general consensus of the comments shared at public meetings. The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: 1.0 General GrowthtDevelopment 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, wafer and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old pillage Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Flan. 1.12 pail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2.0 5kierlTourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day skiers. 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders` should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. 4 r1 U 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. 3.0 Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 4.0 Village Core /Lionshead 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved thorough implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of Vail Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 4.4 The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead should be enhanced through: a. Installation of a new type of people mover b. Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk, alpine garden, and/or sculpture plaza. c. New development should be controlled to limit commercial uses. 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high 40 hazards do not exist. F7 5.2 Quality time-share units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 0 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. According to the Vail Land Use Plan map, the proposed development site is located with the "Resort Accommodations and Service (RAS)" and "Transition (T)" land use designations. The assigned land use designations are defined as follows, Resort Accommodations and Service This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short term visitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 accommodation units per buildable acre). These areas are oriented toward vehicular access from 1-70, with other support commercial and business services included. Also allowed in this category, would be institutional uses and various municipal uses, is Transition The transition designation applies to the area between Lionshead and the Vail Village. The activities and site design of this area is aimed at encouraging pedestrian flow through the area and strengthening the connection between the two commercial cores. Appropriate activities include hotels, lodging, and other tourist oriented residential units, ancillary retail and restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other types of civic and culturally oriented uses, and the adjacent properties to the north. This designation would include the right-of-way of West Meadow Drive and the adjacent properties to the north. Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan The Town of Vail is in the process of preparing a revision to the adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The original Streetscape Master Plan is an outgrowth of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The Urban Design Guide Plan was created in 1982 to give guidance to the overall physical development for the Village. In addition to providing broad design guidelines, the Guide Plan suggested specific physical improvements for the Village_ Improvements such as new plazas, new landscape area, etc. Along with the construction of these public improvements included proposals to complete numerous private sector improvements. improvements such as building additions, outdoor deck expansions, and fagade improvements. The Streetscape Master Plan was written in part to provide clear design direction for coordinated public/private improvements. According to the Master Plan, s the purpose of the plan is to provide a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvements that: 1. is supported by the community; 2. enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and 3. emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order to create an excellent pedestrian experience. The Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan states, in part, the following with regards to West Meadow Drive: "West Meadow Drive is heavily used by pedestrians. It is the primary pedestrian route between Vail Village and Lionshead Mall, Currently, most pedestrians walk in the street,- however, a small number use the narrow (5 ft. wide) concrete sidewalk on the north side bordering the hospital. There appears to be no preference by the pedestrians for one side of the street over the other, except at the east end, where most of the pedestrians cross Vail Road on the north side of the intersections. The preliminary concepts for West Meadow Drive focused on defining the existing pedestrian circulation patterns. This need to define the pedestrian circulation system led to the development of the following preliminary concepts: • Use different paving treatments to create in -street pedestrian paths at the roadway level. This concept builds on the idea that part of the charm and fun of Vail is the ability to walk in the street. A street -level walk system is easier to maintain, but it was felt that the high volume of cars, buses and trucks using West Meadow Drive would create street -level pedestrian paths that would appear to create an even wider road without providing pedestrian safety. • To construct sidewalks of equal width on both sides of the street. Since this is the pattern that most people are familiar with, it would be user friendly, but would result in relatively narrow walkways and increased pedestrians walking behind parked cars. in addition, it was felt that this system would do little to break up the monotony of the street. PREFERRED STREETSCAPE PLAN The concept that received the broadest public support was to create a primary pedestrian path (10.'— 12' wide) on one side of the street and a smaller sidewalk (5' wide) on the other. The primary pedestrian path crosses from the north to the south side and then back again, to avoid the head -in parking. Curb and gutter would be used to define the street which has been narrowed to the minimum width of 26', curb -to -curb." Town of Vail Zoning Regulations Staff has reviewed the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code). Upon review of the regulations, staff believes the following code sections are relevant to the review of the applicant's requests: HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONE DISTRICT 92-6H-9: PURPOSE: The high density multiple -family district is intended to provide sites for multiple -family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The high density multiple -family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the district. 12-6H-2: PERMITTED USES: The fallowing uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district: Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments, located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (109/0) of the total gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. Multiple -family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and condominium dwellings. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONE DISTRICT 12-7A-1: PURPOSE: The public accommodation district is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semipublic facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located within the same district and compatible with adjacent land uses. The public accommodation district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the district. 12-7A-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the PA district: Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. V. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zonin North: Government General Use South: Residential Two -Family Residential High Density Multiple -Family Residential East: Mixed Use Special Development District No. 21 Commercial Public Accommodation West: Residential High Density Multiple Family Residential VI. ZONING ANALYSIS The development standards for a Special Development District shall be proposed by the applicant. Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking and loading shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan, with consideration of the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it shall be determined that such deviations provide benefits to the Town that outweigh the effects of such deviations. This determination is to be made based upon the evaluation of the proposed Special Development District's compliance with the Review Criteria outlined in the following section of this memorandum, The Community Development Department staff has prepared a zoning analysis for the Four Seasons Resort proposal. The Four Seasons Resort Zoning Analysis compares the development standards approved pursuant to Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2003 to the current proposal for the Four Seasons Resort. A copy of the Four Seasons Resort Zoning Analysis has been attached for reference (Attachment A). VII. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW AND FINDINGS ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDARY AMENDMENT The applicant has submitted an application for a zone district boundary amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, According to the application, the applicant is requesting approval to rezone Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Public Accommodation zone district to High Density Multiple Family zone district. The expressed purpose of this request is to facilitate the construction of the Four Seasons Resort as a mixed use (multiple family residential dwellings and lodge) development. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, provides the review criteria for a zone district boundary amendment. A. Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: 1. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and The Vail Land Use Map designates the applicant's development site as Resort Accommodation and Service and Transition. According to the description of the prescribed land use designationt, "This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short term visitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 40 accommodation units per buildable acre). These areas are oriented toward vehicular access from 1-70, with other support commercial and business services included. Also allowed in this category, would be institutional uses and various municipal uses." The Vail Land Use Plan further states, "This area has been designated for the area which extends from the Lionshead hotel/accommodation unit area east along the Frontage Rd. to Vail Rd. Cascade Village has also been designated as Resort Accommodation. These are the areas where hotel uses will be concentrated during the planning period, reflecting the community goals to concentrate hotels within the core areas..." While this site is not contemplated specifically under other planning documents, staff believes that it is the intent of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, to encourage more tourist -oriented uses, including lodges, from Lionshead to Vail Road, specifically along the Frontage Road. 2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the i existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the Town's adopted planning documents; and The proposed development site and area to be rezoned in adjoined by both residential and commercial uses in a mixed use type of development. The development site is border to the south and west by medium to high density residential development and to the east by commercial uses. As such, the presence of further high density residential development which permits varying amounts of commercial uses appears to be suitable with the existing and potential land uses surrounding the development site, As contemplated by the Vail Land Use Pian, the High Density Multiple Family zone district allows lodges and multiple family residential dwellings up to a density of 25 dwelling units per acre. Further, the applicant's commitment to place a binding restriction on future development on the site to a minimum number and amount of square footage of accommodation uses, along with the desire to maintain an option to operate a fractional fee club on the site ensures compliances with the spirit and intent of 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; and The Vail Land Use Plan clearly identifies the development site as an area suited to the development of lodges and associated residential and commercial uses. Unlike the Community Commercial land use designation which advocates land uses designed to meet the consumer demands from community residents, the Resort Accommodations and Services land use is aimed to provide sites for hotels and lodges to meet the overnight and short term visitor demands for 10 lodging. The purpose and development standards prescribed by the High Density Multiple Family zone district will help to meet this demand_ While it remains true that the Public Accommodation zone district more closely ensures that the Town's stated development objectives will be met, the fact that the High Density Multiple family zone district allows lodges as a permitted use and the fact that the applicant has agreed to place a restriction on the development site guaranteeing to the presence of at least 118 accommodations units comprising nearly 77,000 square feet of floor area ensures compliance with the Town's objectives. Any subsequent development application proposing development on the site would be required to adhere to the intent of the development standards prescribed in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. Upon review of the development standards for both the High Density Multiple Family and Public Accommodation zone districts, with the exception of the density control standards, the development standards for the two zone district are roughly the same. 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and Like the Public Accommodation zone district, the High Density Multiple Family zone district is intended to provide for sites for lodging, residential, and limited commercial uses. According to the recommendations of the Vail Land Use Plan, these uses are appropriate for the proposed location, compatible with the land use designations, and will not constitute a spot zoning. In this instance any argument that spot zoning will result would be unfounded in that the purpose and land use regulations prescribed by the High Density Multiple Family zone district further the goals of the land use designation prescribed by the Vail Land Use Plan for this site. This is especially true given the existing and potential uses surrounding the development site as documented on the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map and Vail Land Use Plan. As previously stated and highlighted in the Town's planning documents, the presence of zoning on this site that will ensure the future development of hotel and lodge uses is in the best interest 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; and The placement of High Density Multiple Family zoning on this site will not have any adverse impacts on the natural environment and the criteria described above. The substantive differences between those use allowed in the High Density Multiple Family zone district and those allowed in the Public Accommodation zone district are insignificant on the above described criteria. B. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. Section 12-7A-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code, provides the purpose statement for the Public Accommodation zone district, and states, 11 The public accommodation district is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semipublic facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located within the same district and compatible with adjacent land uses. The public accommodation district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the district. Section 12-6H-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code, provides the purpose statement for the High Density Multiple Family zone district, and states, "The high density multiple -family district is intended to provide sites for multiple -family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The high density multiple -family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the di"strict." While it remains true that the Public Accommodation zone district is more directly consistent with the prescribed land use designation of Resort Accommodation and Services it is also true that the High Density Multiple Family zone district will result in development that can be consistent with the land use designation. As previously stated, the Public Accommodation zone district through the very limited number of permitted uses (lodges) will ensure that the development site in question will result in a uses that is consistent with purpose of the land use designation, the equally limited number of permitted uses and the execution of a binding restriction on future development on the site will ensure consistency and compliance as well. Through the proximity to of the development site to both the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas, the proposed development site is a desirable location for the uses allowed by either the Public Accommodation or High Density Multiple Family zone districts; specifically uses such as lodging, residential, and limited commercial. 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. Clearly the conditions of the development site have not changed since the zoning 12 designation of Public Accommodation was placed upon the site in October of 2003. More importantly, however, whether the zoning designation were Public Accommodation or High Density Multiple Family, the spirit and intent of the town's development objectives for this parcel of land and this area of the community can be addressed. As a result of the expressed purposes and prescribed development standards for both the Public Accommodation zone district and the High Density Multiple Family zone district the goals of the town's development objectives can be achieved. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. B. 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: That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. MAJOR AMENDMENT Article 12-9, Vail Town Code, provides for the major amendment to existing Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1, Vail Town Code, the purpose of a Special Development District is, "To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District." An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses, and activities of the Special Development District. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special Development District shall adhere. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to: the approved site plan; floor plans, building sections, and elevations: vicinity plan; 13 parking plan; preliminary open space/landscape plan; densities; and permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. The determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed Special Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone district. The Town Code provides nine design criteria which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Reductions of the plans have been attached for reference (Attachment F)_ The following is a staff analysis of the project's compliance with the nine Special Development District review criteria. A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. In the High Density Multiple Family zone district, the minimum setback requirements shall be 20 feet on all sides of the development site. The applicant is proposing to maintain a 20 -foot above grade setback along the South Frontage Road, Vail Road, West Meadow Drive, and the west side of the development site. The applicant is proposing an 18 ft. setback at the property line adjoining the 9 Vail Road Condominium Association property. In addition to the 2 -foot deviation to the above grade setback, the applicant is also proposing a deviation to encroach into the setbacks below grade. These encroachments accommodate storage areas and required parking. The development site of the proposed Four Season Resort is immediately adjacent to the 9 Vail Road, Scorpio, and Alphorn Condominiums. Throughout the development review process for the approved Special Development District, the sensitivity to adjacent uses has been considered by the Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission, and staff. The proposed building was significantly re -designed to provide a smooth transition from the Four Seasons Resort to the Scorpio. The applicant is not proposing to amend the approved development plans for the exterior design of the building. The maximum allowable building height in the High Density Multiple Family zone district is 48 ft. The applicant is requesting a deviation to the maximum height limitation. The maximum height of the building is proposed to remain at 89 feet at its highest point. The main roof ridge which runs parallel to the South Frontage Road continues to be 77.5 feet in height. This is a deviation of 41 ft. from the maximum allowable building height allowed by the High Density Multiple Family zone district. Staff believes that the proposed building height remains appropriate for the development site as the height is concentrated along the South Frontage Road, which staff believes to be an appropriate location for additional height: Generally, the 48 foot maximum building height is maintained along the portion of the site adjacent to Vilest Meadow Drive. 0 14 In addition to maximum building height, the height of the building as it transitions to adjacent properties has an impact on bulk and mass. The proposed building height of the roof eave of the Scorpio Condominiums is 50 feet. The proposed adjacent roof eave height of the Four Seasons Resort is 44.5 feet with the dormers at 52.75 feet and 56.75 feet, respectively. This was a modification from a previous design and allows for a smoother transition to the Scorpio Condominiums. This modification remains unchanged by this major amendment. Again, the applicant's request for a major amendment to the previously approved special development district does not affect the exterior design of the building. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The uses; activities and densities for the Four Seasons Resort development site are prescribed by the underlying zoning. If approved under a separate application, the underlying zoning for the proposed special development district would be High Density Multiple Family. The High Density Multiple Family zone district provides sites for development of lodges (accommodation units) with accessory eating and drinking establishments and multiple family residential dwellings at a density of twenty-five dwelling units per acre. The uses and zoning designations surrounding the proposed development site include Public Accommodation to the south, east and west (Sonnenalp, Nine Vail Road & Special Development District No. 6 — Vail Village Inn), High -Density Multiple Family to the west and northwest (Alphorn and Scorpio), and Commercial Service Center/Special Development District No. 21 (Gateway) to the northeast. The same development standards that would apply to the Four Seasons Resort development site also apply to the Alphorn and Scorpio Condominium properties. The Commercial Service Center underlying zoning of the Vail Gateway building is intended to provide sites for a mixture of commercial and residential development. The Four Seasons Resort is proposed to be a mixed-use development. The mixture of uses includes commercial, lodging, recreational, and residential. Staff believes the proposed mixture of uses and the development sites proximity to both Vail Village and Lionshead is consistent with the intended purpose of the proposed underlying zoning of High Density Multiple Family. Further, staff believes that the proposed uses within the Four Seasons Resort will compliment those existing uses and activities on surrounding and adjacent properties. The proposed density of the hotel and the multiple family residences with the presence of the conference facilities will improve and enhance the viability and success of the existing restaurant and retail businesses in the immediate area. Employee Housing Requirements As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed through the planning process for Special Development District proposals. In reviewing the proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report. This report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate employee housing needs. The guidelines contained within the report were used most recently in the review of the Austria Haus, Marriott and Special Development District No. 6 - Vail Village Inn development proposals. • The Employee Housing Report was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall, 15 Remmen and Cares. The report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, staff analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use), that results from the redevelopment. The figures identified in the report are based on surveys of commercial -use employment needs of the Town of Vail and other mountain resort communities. As of the drafting of the report, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler, R.C. had "employment generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide affordable housing for a percentage of the new employees resulting from commercial development. "New" employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial redevelopment. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of affordable housing a developer must provide for the new employees. For example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 40% (0.40) of the new employees, Aspen requires that 60% (0.60) of the new --- employees are provided housing and Whistler requires that 100% (1.00) of the new employees be provided, housing by the developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined that developers shall provide housing for 15% (0.15) or 30% (0.30) of the new employees resulting from commercial development. When a project is proposed to exceed the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure is used in the calculation. If a project is proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15) figure is used. The Four Seasons Resort special development district does not exceed the density permitted by the underlying zone district. However, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Vail Town Council have indicated the 30% figure shall be used given the substantial scope and impact of this project. The applicant is proposing to provide employee housing for a percentage of the "new" employees resulting from the hotel construction. The new hotel is expected to generate 228 °`new employees. The "new" employees are in addition to the 85 "full time equivalent" employees already working at the Chateau at Vail and Vail Amoco. The applicant is proposing to provide deed -restricted employee housing for 30% (68 beds in 34 units) of the "new" employees. In order to maximize the benefit of the housing to the Town of Vail, the applicant has suggested that the housing will be available only to Four Seasons Resort employees. Employee Generation Calculations - Top of Range a) Retail/Service Commercial = 2,402 sq. ft. @ (811000 sq. ft.) = 19.2 employees b) Health Club = 14,416 sq. ft. @ (1.511000 sq. ft.) = 21.6 employees C) Restaurant/Kitchen = 12,155 sq. ft. @ (8/1000 sq. ft.) = 96.8 employees d) Conference Center 11,726 sq. ft. @ (1/1000 sq. ft.) = 11.7 employees {_ e) Lodging = \ 118 units @ (1.25/unit) = 147.5 employees 16 f) Multiple -Family Units = 40 units cr (.4/unit) 16 employees 313 employees - 85 existing employees 228 employees Employee Housing -Requirement Calculations (30%): Employees Number of Beds Required 228 68 C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12-10 of the Vail Town Code. The Four Seasons Resort proposal deviates from with the parking and loading requirements outlined in Chapter 12-10, Vail Town Code. As currently proposed and with all uses considered, the total parking requirement for the Four Seasons Resort is 220 parking spaces. The applicant has proposed a total 215 spaces. The deviation resulting from this current major amendment proposal versus the existing approval is a result of converting 22 fractions! fee club units, with a parking rate of 0.7 spaces per unit, to 22 dwelling units, with a parking rate of 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit. Additionally, in accordance with the existing conditions of approval for the special development district, the applicant has agreed to provide up to six (6) parking spaces within the Four Seasons Resort parking garage for use by the owner of the 9 Vail Road Condominiums. The Planning and Environmental Commission determines the parking requirement for uses not specifically listed in Chapter 12-10, Vail Town Code. The applicant is proposing approximately 6,082 sq. ft. of spa. Half of the treatments provided by the spa shall be open to the general public, while the remaining half will be available to hotel guests only. Chapter 12-10, Vail Town Code requires 2.3 parking spaces .per 1000 square feet of net floor area for "personal services". Using this requirement as a guide, the spa area would require 14 spaces. With only half open to the public, 7 of the required 14 parking spaces will be accommodated by the proposed hotel guest parking. The applicant has provided loading facilities which exceed the requirements of Chapter 12- 10, Vail Town Code and all delivery truck maneuverability is accommodated on-site and within the building. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. A summary of the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan has been provided in Section IV of this memorandum. Upon review of the development review applications, staff believes that the proposals conform to the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. The Vail Land Use Plan encourages the upgrading and preservation of hotel beds and designates this site as an appropriate location for hotels, lodging, and other residential uses, ancillary retail and restaurant uses. 17 • Staff believes the uses and activities proposed are in compliance with the policies, goals, and objectives identified in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. According to the Official Town of Vail Geologic Hazard Maps, the Four Seasons Resort development site is not located in any geologically sensitive areas or within the 100 -year floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The site lacks many natural features today. However, staff believes that the design of the building, including generally maintaining the 20 ft. setbacks, has created a development which is responsive to the aesthetic quality of the community. Where retaining walls are necessary, generally boulder walls are used in the more visible locations to minimize the visual impact of the walls. The applicant is proposing a deviation from the site coverage requirements of the High Density Multiple Family zone district. Specifically, as proposed, the site coverage exceeds the maximum allowable in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. The High Density Multiple Family zone district permits up to 55% site coverage, or 65,322 sq. ft. As proposed, the applicant is requesting approval for site coverage of up to 71 % or 84,402 sq. ft. Staff believes that the increase in site coverage percentage is an acceptable deviation to the site coverage requirement of the High Density Multiple Family zone district, as it is generally a result of providing underground parking. The visual absence of surface parking and its associated negative impacts outweighs the any potential impact resulting from the site coverage increase. Staff believes that the overall plan for landscaping and courtyard area (adjacent to the pool) is a functional and aesthetic improvement over what exists on the site today along West Meadow Drive and is in compliance with the general provisions of the Streetscape Master Plan. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Pursuant to Section 12-7A-14, Mitigation of Development Impacts, Vail Town Code, property owners/developers shall be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public 4nfrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. The intent is to provide appropriate mitigation to an extent that is proportional to the anticipated impacts of new development. The applicant and staff have agreed on the following off-site improvements: 18 • Widening of the south side of the South Frontage Road and installation of a left turn lane to the Four Seasons Resort and the Vail Police Station, with final design to be approved by the Town of Vail and Colorado Department of Transportation. • Installation of landscaped medians on South Frontage Road from the roundaboutto the western lot line of the Scorpio. • Installation of a detached 6 ft. wide heated paver sidewalk adjacent to South Frontage Road and the Four Seasons Resort frontage. • Installation of an attached 6 ft. wide heated sidewalk and all related necessary improvements (i.e. retaining wall, railing, curb and gutter) adjacent to South Frontage Road, along the Scorpio frontage. • Relocation of the fire hydrant adjacent to South Frontage Road. • Relocation of Spraddle Creek piping and installation of new box culverts. • Installation of heated paver sidewalk on Vail Road along Four Seasons Resort frontage. • Installation of heated paver sidewalk from the west side of Mayors Park to the west property line of the Four Seasons Resort frontage nn West Meadow Drive, in accordance with the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. • Installation of decorative lighting adjacent to public walkways along Four Seasons Resort frontage, with final design and location to be approved by the Town of Vail staff and Design Review Board. • Overlay of South Frontage Road from the western end of the Scorpio to the roundabout. • Road improvements to the north half of West Meadow Drive adjacent to the Four Seasons Resort frontage, including curb, gutter, asphalt reconstruction, and drainage improvements. Final design to be approved by the Town of Vail. • Road improvements to Vail Road from the roundabout to the driveway of 9 Vail Road, including curb, gutter, asphalt, and drainage improvements. Staff believes that the proposed improvements have successfully addresses both pedestrian and vehicular circulation on and off-site. All elements of a successful circulation system have been considered and addressed to staff's satisfaction. Overall circulation of the site has improved with the elimination of all access off of West Meadow Drive, the elimination of driveways from Vail Road, the realignment of Vail Road, alignment of the access with the Vail Police Department access, Frontage Road improvements including landscaped medians, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and multiple lanes, and completion of West Meadow Drive improvements. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. There are no established public view corridors in the immediate vicinity of this proposal. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan which indicates that they are providing more landscape area than required in the High Density Multiple Family zone district_ Staff believes that the landscaping and open space has been designed to optimize recreation, views, and functions, 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. 19 The applicant is proposing to construct the project in one phase. A subdivision of the property is not necessary to facilitate this proposal (with the exception of a condominium map). Construction staging is reviewed as part of a building permit submittal for any project. IX. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERiVIIT Fractional Fee Club The applicant is requesting approval to allow for the operation of up to 22 fractional fee club units in the Four Seasons Resort. While it remains unclear at this time as to how many units will be operated, the applicant contemplates that it is very likely there will be a fractional fee club unit component in the Resort. Approval of this application would grant the applicant that option. Fractional Fee Clubs are allowed as a conditional use in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. Section 12-16-1, Purpose; Limitations, Vail Town Code, provides the purpose for conditional uses, and states: • `in order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the town and will not be i detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied.'° j Chapter 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, provides the definition of a Fractional Fee Club as follows: "FRACTIONAL FEE CLUB: A fractional fee project in which each condominium unit, pursuant to recorded project documentation as approved by the town of Vail, has no fewer than six (6) and no more than twelve (12) owners per unit and whose use is established by a reservation system. Each of the fractional fee club units are made available for short-term rental in a managed program when not in use by the club members. The project is managed on-site with a front desk operating twenty four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week providing reservation and registration capabilities. The project shall include or be proximate to transportation, retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, and recreation facilities. A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 9 20 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The purpose of the High Density Multiple Family zone district is to provide sites for lodges and residential uses. In 1996, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No, 22, Series of 1996. Ordinance No. 22 allowed for the operation of fractional fee club units in various residential and commercial zone districts in the Town of Vail as a conditional use. Through the adoption of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996, the Town further recognized the need for lodging alternatives for Vail's guests and visitors. In passing the ordinance the Town Council found that quality fractional fee clubs are an appropriate means of increasing occupancy rates, maintaining and enhancing short-term rental availability and diversifying the resort lodging market product within the Town of Vail. Equally as important, the Council believed that fractional fee clubs were simply another of many farms of short-term visitor accommodations. It has been a long held belief that in order for the Town to remain competitive and on the ieadincg edge of i esort development, that alternative lodging opportunities must be created and creative financing vehicles for hotel redevelopment must be implemented. Staff believes that granting the Four Seasons Resort an option to operate a fractional fee club will have a positive impact on the development objectives of the Town. The proposed project could include up to 22 fractional fee club units, operated in conjunction with the 118 accommodation units, and 18 dwellings. The fractional fee club will have no fewer than 6 and no more than 12 owners per unit. The club includes a front desk operating 24 hours per day, seven days per week to meet the needs of the owners and to provide reservation and registration capabilities. As required, it is proximate to transportation, retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, and recreational facilities. The applicant, upon approval, is required to file articles of incorporation of the club with the State of Colorado and the Town of Vail Community Development Department, as conditioned in Section XIl of this memorandum. Should the Commission choose to approve the applicant's request for the option to operate up to 22 fractional fee club units at the Four Seasons Resort, staff recommends that a condition be placed on the approval that require that once a fractional fee unit is created it shall always be a fractional fee club unit. The applicant shall not have the right to revert back and forth between fractional fee club units and dwelling units. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that the proposed club will have few, if any, negative impacts on the above -referenced criteria. The development meets the minimum requirements prescribed by the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations and no deviations are proposed in conjunction with this specific use (i.e. density)_ As a result, the proposed level of development does not exceed what would otherwise be expected on the site under the High Density Multiple Family zone district. 21 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. These review criteria are addressed in the Speciai Development District review portion of this memorandum (Section VI1). Staff does not believe that the fractional fee club will have any negative effect on the above -referenced criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District roview portion of thisr-nem cru, dura (Section V!I). Please refer to the nine design criteria used to evaluate special development district proposals. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time-share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal, the following shall be considered: a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an i existing facility, the fractional fee club shall maintain an equivalency of accommodation units as presently existing. " Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of units or by square footage. If the proposal is a new development, it shall provide at least as much accommodation ! unit GRFA as fractional fee club unit GRFA. b. Lock -off units and lock -off unit square footage shall not be included in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing square footage. C. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a high level of occupancy. d. Employee housing may be required as part of any new or redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density over that allowed by zoning. The number of employee housing units will be consistent with employee impacts that are expected as a result of the project. e. The applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; in written statements from 100% of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall be valid if it is signed by the 22 owner more than 60 days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before ranting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section i of the zoning code. Employee Housing Units Type III Employee Housing Units are allowed as a conditional use in the Public Accommodation zone district. Section 12-16-1, Purpose; Limitations, Vail Town Code, provides the purpose for conditional uses, which states: "In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they maybe located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied." Chapter 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, provides the following definition for Employee Housing Unit, which states: EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT (EHU).- A dwelling unit which shall not be leased or rented for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be occupied by at least one person who is an employee. For the purposes of this definition "employee " shall mean a person who works an average of thirty (30) hours per week or more on a year round basis in Eagle County, Colorado. 0 A. Consideration of Factors: 23 Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: I Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. In September and Decemberof 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create Chapter 12-13 (Employee Housing) which provides for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts. The definition in that ordinance states: Employee Housing Unit (EHU) shall mean a dwelling unit which shall not be leased or rented for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be rented only to tenants who are full-time employees of Fagle County. F_HUs shall be allowed in certain zone districts as set forth in Section 12-13 of this Code. Development standards for EHUs shall be as provided in 12-13 - Employee Housing. For the purposes of this Section, a full-time employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty (30) hours per week. There shall be five (5) categories of EHUs. Type 1, Type 11, Type 111, Type IV, and Type V. Provisions relating to each type of EHU are set forth in Chapter 12-13 - Employee Housing of this Code. The Town of Vail has consistently encouraged the provision of employee housing with significant development projects. As the proposed Four Season Resort is a Special Development District, employee housing units are generally required as part of the public benefit associated with deviations from underlying zoning. Staff believes that the provision of employee housing units will have a positive impact on the development objectives of the Town of Vail. By providing 34 employee housing units, the proposal has metthe requirements of the Town of Vail to provide housing for 30% of the new employees generated by the development. 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. These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District review portion (Section VII) of this memorandum. 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. 24 These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District review portion of this memorandum (Section VII). 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. These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District review portion of this memorandum (Section VII). Please refer to the nine design criteria used to evaluate special development district proposals. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followinq findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoi ling code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. XI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval with conditions to the Town Council for the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, to allow for a mixed-use hotel, located at 28 South Frontage Road and 13 Vail Road / Lots 9A and 9C, Vail Village 2"' Filing; and a rezoning from Heavy Service zone district to Public Accommodation zone district located at 13 Vail Road 1 Lot 9A, Vail Village 2"d Filing; and The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the requests for a conditional use permit to allow for a Fractional Fee Club, and a conditional use permit to allow for 34 Type III Employee Housing Units, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Rd. 1 Lots 9A and 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Staff's recommendations are based upon a review of the criteria and findings as outlined in Sections Vill, IX, X, and XI of this memorandum. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval with conditions the applicant's requests, staff recommends 25 that the following findings be made as part of the motion: Ma -or Amendment to Special Develo ment District No. 36 1. That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 36 complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Vail Town Code - Furthermore, the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission, based upon the testimony and evidence presented during the public hearing, that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided. Lastly, the Commission finds that the request is consistent with the development goals and objectives of the Town. 2. With regards to proposed building setbacks, that: a. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. b. Proposed building setbacks comply with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Pian and Design Considerations. c. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. d. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. e. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. 3. That proposed site coverage is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Pian and Design Considerations. 4. That proposed gross residential floor area is in conformance with applicable elements of --- - the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Pian and Design Considerations. 5. That the development is in compliance with the purposes of the Public Accommodation zone district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Zone District Boundary 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 M 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. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approval with conditions the applicant's requests for the conditional use permits, staff recommends that the following findings be made as part of the motion: Conditional Use Permits That the proposed location of the Four Seasons Resort fractional fee club is in accordance with the purposes of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the Public Accommodation zone district. 2. That the proposed location of the Four Seasons Resort fractional fee club and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Four Seasons Resort. 3_ That the Four Seasons Resort fractional fee club operation will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations 4. Additionally, the Four Seasons Resort fractional fee club proposal complies with the criteria and standards prescribed by Section 12-16-7, Use Specific Criteria and Standards, Vail Town Code. 5. That the proposed location of the 34 Type III Employee Housing Units is in accordance with the purposes of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the Public Accommodation zone district. 6. That the proposed location of the 34 Type III Employee Housing Units and the conditions under which they will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Four Seasons Resort. 7. That the 34 Type III Employee Housing Units will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations Staff's recommendations include the following conditions: That the developer shall provide deed -restricted housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) for a minimum of 68 employees on the Four Seasons Resort site, and that said deed -restricted employee housing shall be made available for occupancy, and that the deed restrictions shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Four Seasons Resort. 2. That the developer shall meet with the Town staff to prepare a memorandum of understanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off-site improvements, prior to second reading of the ordinance approving the major amendment to Special Development District No 36. This memorandum of 27 understanding shall include, but not be limited to, all streetscaping improvements along South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive in accordance with the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, as amended. 3. That the developer shall record a drainage easement for Spraddle Creek. The easement shall be prepared by the developer and submitted for review and approval by the Town Attorney. The easement shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Four Seasons Resort. 4. That the developer shall submit a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall section and complete color renderings for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to submittal of an application for a building permit. 5. That the developer shall submit a comprehensive sign program proposal forthe Four Seasons Resort for review and approval by the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Fot Ir..Seasons Resort 6. That the developer shall submit revised architectural plans of the building at the corner adjacent to the Alphorn for review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to second reading of the ordinance approving the major amendment to Special Development District No. 36. 7. That the developer shall submit a written agreement to maintain the current number of parking spaces for 9 Vail Road condominiums which is proposed to be relocated in conjunction with the construction of the Pour Seasons Resort. Any Town of Vail Design Review applications and/or Planning and Environmental Commission j applications which are required to relocate this parking shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate reviewing body to ensure compliance with all Town of Vail regulations prior to second reading of the ordinance amending Special Development District No. 36. 8. That the developer shall submit a rooftop mechanical equipment plan for review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the hotel and enclosed and visually screened from public view. 9. That the developer shall post a bond to provide financial security for the 150% of the total cost of the required off-site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. That the developer shall comply with all fire department staging and access requirements pursuant to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code. This will be demonstrated on a set of revised plans for Town review and approval prior to building permit submittal. 11. That the required Type III deed -restricted employee housing units shall not be eligible for resale and that the units be owned and operated by the hotel and that said ownership shall transfer with the deed to the hotel property. 12. That the developer shall coordinate the relocation of the existing electric W transformers on the property with local utility providers. The revised location of the transformers shall be part of the final landscape plan to be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Board. 13. That the developer shall submit a written letter of approval from those adjacent properties whose property is being encroached upon by certain improvements resulting from the construction of the hotel, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 14. That the developer provides a 6 ft. to 8 ft. heated paver pedestrian walkway from the Frontage Road bus stop adjacent to the West Star Bank then continuing east to Vail Road and then south to the 9 Vail Road property line. All work related to providing these improvements including lighting, retaining, utility relocation, curb and gutter, drainage and landscaping shall be included. A plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town and the Design Review Board prior to submittal of a building permit. 15. That the developer shall provide a heated pedestrian walk connection from the Frontage i-toad'to-West'ivteadow Drive. The developer shali record a pedestrian easement for this connection for review and approval by the Town Attorney. 16. That the developer shall prepare and submit all applicable roadway and drainage easements for dedication to the Town for review and approval by the Town Attorney. All easements shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 17. That the developer shall be assessed an impact fee of $5,000 for all net increase in pm traffic generation as shown in the revised April 4, 2003, Traffic Study (Attachment H). The net increase shall be calculated using the proposed peak generating trips less the existing Resort Hotel and Auto Care Center trips, respectively being 155- (108+7) = 40 net peak trips @ $5000 = $200,000. This fee will be offset by the cost of non -adjacent improvements constructed. 18. That the developer shall receive approval for all required permits (CDOT access, ALOE, dewatering, stormwater discharge, etc.) prior to issuance of a building permit. 19. That the developer shall submit a full site grading and drainage plan for review and approval by the Town and the Design Review Board. The drainage plan will need to be substantiated by a drainage report provided by a Colorado professional Engineer, include all drainage, roof drains, landscape drains etc., and how they will connect with the TOV storm system_ The developer shall submit all final civil plans and final drainage report to the Town for civil approval by the Department of Public Works, prior to submittal of a building permit. 20. That the developer shall provide detailed civil plans, profiles, details, limits of disturbance and construction fence for review and civil approval by the Department of Public Works, prior to submittal of a building permit. 21. That the developer shall be responsible for all work related to providing landscaping and lighting within the proposed Frontage Rd. medians., A detailed landscape plan of the medians shall be provided for review and approval by the Design Review Board. 29 22. That the developer shall provide additional surrey information of the south side of the Frontage Road to show existing trees to be removed and additional survey in front of the Scorpio building in order to show accurate grades for the construction of the path from the Four Seasons to the bus stop at West Star bank. Final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Town and the Design Review Board. 23. That the developer is responsible for 100% of final design improvements along West Meadow Drive from the centerline of the road back to the Four Seasons property line from Mayors' park to western most property line of the Four Seasons, including any drainage and grade tie-ins beyond the west property line. This includes all improvements, including, drainage, lighting, art, streetscape enhancements, edge treatments, curbs, heated walks, etc. Final plans shall match and be coordinated with the proposed Town of Vail Streetscape plan for West Meadow Drive and shall be provided for review and approval by the Design Review Board. 24... _.That the developer shall incorporate public art into the development; and shall coordinate all art proposals with the Art in Public Places Board, subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board. 25. That the developer shall resolve all of the following design -related issues for final Design Review Board review and approval: a. Proposed hydrant relocation at the NW corner of the property shall be graded to be level with the proposed sidewalk and landscaping will be located as to not interfere with the operation of the hydrant. b. The cross -slope on the West Meadow Drive walk shall maintain a max. 2.0% cross slope that is sloped towards the road. c. The boulder walls and grading at the SE corner of the property shall be modified as to not impact the existing 2-36" CMP's. d. The foundation wall at the SE corner of the parking structure shall be modified to accommodate the existing Spraddle Creek vault. e. The proposed Spraddle Creek vault and concrete box culvert shall be modified to work with the existing phone vault. f. All known existing utilities shall be shown on a plan with the proposed drainage and utilities in order to clarify potential conflicts. g. The proposed walk that meets the frontage road walk at the eastern portion of the property shall be realigned slightly to the west to avoid the existing inlet. h. Fire staging turning movements shall be show on plans. i. Retaining walls west of the loading and delivery access drive shall be curved/angled in order to "bench" access drive wall. j. Top of wall elevation for the Frontage Rd -West Meadow Drive path reads as 185.5?(Typo) k. Railings shall be provided for paths where necessary I. Show edge of existing pavement for Frontage road on civil plans and show match point. M. Erosion control plan shall be updated. n. Show grading around proppsed electric vault. o. Show driveway grades, spot elevations on civil plans. p. Show additional TOW/BOW elevations on pool walls. K19 • 26. That the approval of the conditional use permits is not valid unless an ordinance approving the associated Special Development District amendment request is approved on second reading. 27. That the developer shall begin initial construction of the Pour Seasons Resort within three years from the time of its final approval at second reading of the ordinance amending Special Development District No. 36, and continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the developer does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the special development district or any stage of the special development district within the time limits imposed, the approval of said special development district shall be void. The Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall review the special development district upon submittal of an application to reestablish the special development district following the procedures outlined in Section 12-9AA Vail Town Code. XII. ATTACHMENTS A. FouMi, Seasons Resort Zoning Analysis 31 • Zoning Analysis Four Seasons Resort (Deviations from underlying zoning are indicated in bold type) May 14, 2001 March 24, 2003 Development Criteria Allowed/Reuuired Proposed SDD" Proposed SDD Lot Area: 118,768 sq. ft. 101,140 sq. ft. 118, 768 sq. ft. GRFA: 150% 1178,125 sq. ft.' 150% or 151,696 sf* Dwelling units per acre: 25 du/acre or 68 du Site coverage: Above grade: 65% or 77,199 sq. ft. Below grade: 65% or 77,199 sq. ft. Min. Setbacks (above grade): Frontage Road: 20 ft. Vail Road: 20 ft. West Side: 20 ft. W. Meadow Drive: 20 ft. 9 Vail Rd: 20 ft. . Min. Setbacks (below grade): Frontage Road: 20 ft. 8.5 ft. Vail Road: 20 ft. 4.5 ft. West Side: 20 ft. 16.75 ft. W. Meadow Drive: 20 ft. 2.5 ft. Max. Height: 48 ft. 73.5 ft. Landscaping: 30% or 30,342 sq. ft. 30.5% or 30,874 sq. ft. Parking: 222 spaces 225 spaces Loading: 3 berths 3 berths 6.47 du/acre or 15 du 7.3 du/acre or 20 du 116 (au) 119 (au) 40 (ffu) 20 (ffu) 15 (du) 20 (du) 57.9% or 58,522 sq. ft_ 68,190 sq. ft. 76.3% or 77,219 sq. ft. 83,272 sq. ft. 0 ft. 16 ft. 20 ft. 20.5 ft. 0 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 18 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft_ 90.5 ft. this proposal complies with the required 70%8130% equivalency requirement for GRFA within the PA zone district. *the 2001 SCID proposal did not include the Vail Amoco site. 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 2003 SUBJECT: Continued study of Town of Vail adopted documents to develop a prioritized list for beginning the process of updating, combining, and revising necessary elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Planner: Elisabeth Eckel Applicant: Town of Vail SUMMARY This memorandum is being provided in order to further examine the Town of Vail's various adopted plans and determine which plans are in need of being updated. Per the direction provided by the Planning and Environmental Commission on November 10, 2003, Staff has analyzed the Comprehensive Plans of Jackson Hale, Telluride, and Aspen; which should aid in comparing and contrasting the Town of Vail's Comprehensive Plans with those of comparable resort areas. Staff is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission prioritize the necessary updates and possible combinations of the adopted documents for presentation to Town Council so that resources may be dedicated to the revision of those documents. II. BACKGROUND The adopted documents included in the Vail Comprehensive Plan that are currently being considered for an update are outlined below, along with a brief summary and the lifespan of each. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan Adopted August 6, 1985 Summary: This plan describes the environment and history of the Ford Park and Donovan Park sites, the master plans for their development, and the guidelines for implementation. It outlines the transformation of two open space parcels into Town Parks that will maintain the quality of life for residents and visitors. Lifespan: None identified • Land Use Plan Adopted November 18, 1986 Summary: The Vail Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a basis from which future land use decisions may be made within the Town of Vail. The goals, as articulated within the Land Use Plan, are meant to be used as guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. In conjunction with these goals, land use categories are defined which are then used to develop the Vail Land Use Map. The plan also includes a section on community facilities on public lands. Given new community priorities this section needs to be updated to recognize the focus needs. The Land Use Pian is not intended to be regulatory in nature, to provide a general framework to guide decision making. Lifespan: 15 years (2001) (Review and updates to be performed on time table) on recreation but is intended a 3 to 5 year • Vail Village Master Plan Adopted January 16, 1990 Summary: The Vail Village Master Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whole. It is intended to implement community goals for public improvement and to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village, The Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. Lifespan: Review plan not less than every 3 years, or as deemed necessary and recommend changes to the Planning and Environmental Commission. This is a part of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, which was to serve for 15 years. (2005) Streetscape Master Plan Adopted November 20, 1991 Summary: The Streetscape Master Plan was created to give the pedestrian environment a comprehensive design using quality materials according to the Town's architectural standards. The Town was divided into several study areas, for each of which an inventory was performed and conceptual designs were developed. Site specific details for key areas were also developed, along with guidelines for material selection and cost estimates. Lifespan: None identified: states that improvements will need to be implemented over a period of years. A draft revised streetscape plan has been prepared and is under review by the streetscape task force, the Planning and Environmental Commission, and Town Council. • Transportation Master Plan Adopted January 1993 Summary: The Transportation Master Plan was written to provide guidance in developing a coordinated approach to implementing transportation improvements. The Plan was to assist in resolving, monitoring, and accommodating growth while preserving the characteristics that have made Vail a leader in transportation planning. Lifespan: 20 years (2013) • The Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines (Vail Village Design Considerations) Adopted Originally June 11, 1980; Revised January 15, 1993 Summary: The Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines is a document that represents detailed ideas regarding the function and aesthetics of Vail Village. Through the aid of diagrams, the Guidelines suggest the intended nature of future improvements. The Plan separates the Village into several sub -areas in order to identify problems and successes and develop concepts for implementation. Lifespan: None identified * Municipal Cemetery Master Plan Adopted December 7, 1993 Summary: The Municipal Cemetery Master Plan was drafted in order to provide a management and development plan for a Town cemetery, to be located on the upper bench of Donovan Park. The plan explored operation, funding, maintenance, layout, and other ways of memorializing the departed. Lifespan: None identified: this phase was written to satisfy the expected need for burial spaces in the first 10-15 year period (2003-2008) • Comprehensive Open Lands Plan Adopted 1994 Summary: The purpose of the Plan was to identify and develop strategies for acquiring or protecting key remaining open parcels in Vail that would be valuable for recreation, the protection of sensitive environmental resources, extension or connection of trails, provision of adequate neighborhood open space, and the creation of a small amount of contingency land for unseen needs. The Plan established an inventory of current open spaces and identified potential acquisitions within the Town, also detailing methods for funding and purchase, Lifespan: The plan comprised a six year implementation plan and strategy (2000) • Environmental Strategic Plan Adopted 1994 Summary: This Plan was developed to establish a long-term environmental protection work plan. The Plan recognized that a major reason Vail enjoyed international renown as a resort was due to the area's pristine natural resources.. This Plan developed an environmental vision for Vail with goals and actions that should be utilized to achieve that vision and looked at the current state of the environment, trends that may affect Vail, sustainable land use regulation and development, and ecosystem protection. Lifespan: 4 years (1998) • Ford Park Management Plan (An Amendment to the Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan 1985) Adopted April 14, 1997 Summary_ The Ford Park Management Plan was to serve as an amendment to the 1985 Master Plan. A great deal of development had occurred since the initial adoption of the Ford Park Master Plan and in an effort to better focus and refine the concepts and goals of the original Plan, this amendment was undertaken. Its six goals were written to guide the continued success of the Park in both development and operation, Lifespan: Mone identified • Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Adopted December 15, 1998 Summary: The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was created in response to the aging and underutilization of the Lionshead area, which was identified as lacking charm, character, appeal, vibrancy, and economic success. The Plan offers some redevelopment incentives to encourage both new construction and improvements to existing buildings. Lifespan: 15 to 20 years (2013 to 2018) J 0 • Development Standards Handbook Adopted September 21, 1999 Summary: The Development Standards Handbook was created as a supplement to the Town Zoning Code and applies to new development and redevelopment projects in much the same way. The Handbook is formatted in a user-friendly way, with helpful diagrams that do not occur in the Town Code. Lifespan: None identified: will be changed as updates are needed due to changes in the Town Code. Art In. Public Places Strategic Plan Adopted November 6, 2001 Summary: The Art in Public Places Strategic Plan was created to implement site - integrated public art on public and private lands and includes information on opportunities for public art within the Town and the related funding mechanisms and implementation strategies. Lifespan: None identified: amendments will be proposed by AIPP Board for Town Council adoption. IIL. COMPARABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Throughout the study of other communities' Comprehensive Plans, an emphasis was placed on the organization and structure of the Plans as well as on the issues that may surface as important in the future update of the Town of Vail's Comprehensive Plans, entitled "Transferable Issues". Please note that many of the transferable issues are mentioned in more than one Plan due to their high level of importance, regardless of the Community. • Jackson Hole, Wyoming The ,Jackson Hole Comprehensive Plan is a detailed 200+ page document drafted in 1994 that reflects varying aspects of growth and planning in the Jackson Hole/Teton County areas. The Plan is divided into 10 different chapters. 1) Community Vision 2) Population, Economy and Growth 3) Community Character 4) Natural and Scenic Resources 5) Affordable Housing 6) Commercial and Resort Development 7) Community Facilities 8) Transportation 9) Intergovernmental Coordination 10) Agricultural Resources nsferable Issues o The high/rising cost of housing forcing residents to leave the community; o The importance of public forums in defining community concerns; e The value of a socially and economically diverse population in order that the Town would not become a resort where only the wealthy could afford to reside; o An "issues map" identifying areas of future development, etc_ (The Town of Vail has already addressed such "prime areas" in a similar way.); © Analysis and proposals for new/expanded transit service; o Emphasis on the County's wildlife and scenic resources as "national treasures' 4 o Jackson Hole as "a community first and a resort second" with social diversity industry, inherently crosses these boundaries. Wildlife habitat and geologic/topographic features — not political boundaries -- form the major structuring elements of the landscape_. The workforce and its housing and transportation needs cross local jurisdictional and even state lines." (Intergovernmental Coordination, 9-1) Q Regularly scheduled interactions between the County and the Town; o Regularly scheduled updates of the Plan. • Telluride, Colorado The Telluride Comprehensive Plan is a 41 page document drafted in 1987 that provides an overview of growth and planning issues in the Telluride Region. The Plan is divided into 4 main sections. 1) Introduction 2) Goals, Objectives and policies a) Community Preservation b) Population Change as a defining characteristic of the community; o Strong emphasis on the phrase "planning process": i.e. constant change and updates were proposed in order to ensure the effectiveness of the Plan; o Analysis of the age structure of the population; o A strong emphasis on affordable housing, which included analysis of the jobs/homes ratio; the displacement of residents to other parts of the County; continual and scheduled updates of affordable housing -related issues such as income, employment, and housing cost data; and possible future affordable housing locations; a Linkage requirements, such as number of employees generated by commercial/other square footage; • Socio-economic diversity and trends; o The area's summer and winter visitation numbers and the contrast between the two; o Build -out scenarios for both residential and non-residential development; o Preservation of the Town's personality and uniqueness; o Insensitivity to "Character considerations" and the results thereof; o Collaboratively -formed goals and objectives: by the Town, the County, the Community, the Commissions and the Joint Commissions; o A strong emphasis on new/redevelopment reflecting the history of the area; a The development of "Restoration Plans" to enhance problematic areas within the Town; o A focus on development, as it relates to image; o The effect of tourism on shopping or outdoor recreation; o Short vs. long-term needs; a The calculation of recreation deficits according to number of facilities/acres per resident; o The existence and future of cultural facilities; o Financial issues, including detailed development exactions and impact fees; o Intergovernmental coordination, on the premise that residents of both the County and the Town shared common aspirations and needs_ According to the Plan, "political and geographical boundaries bear little relationship to the critical issues that local planning must address. Tourism the major industry, inherently crosses these boundaries. Wildlife habitat and geologic/topographic features — not political boundaries -- form the major structuring elements of the landscape_. The workforce and its housing and transportation needs cross local jurisdictional and even state lines." (Intergovernmental Coordination, 9-1) Q Regularly scheduled interactions between the County and the Town; o Regularly scheduled updates of the Plan. • Telluride, Colorado The Telluride Comprehensive Plan is a 41 page document drafted in 1987 that provides an overview of growth and planning issues in the Telluride Region. The Plan is divided into 4 main sections. 1) Introduction 2) Goals, Objectives and policies a) Community Preservation b) Population Change • .Aspen, Colorado The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) is a comprehensive 46 page document drafted in 2000 that provides an overview of development issues in the Aspen/Pitkin County region. The Plan is organized into 23 sections, each of which is organized according to; a) intent c) Annexation d) Environmental Preservation e) Circulation, Transportation, Parking, Water and Wastewater, Public Utilities 3) Land Use Patterns and Land Use Maps 4) The Town Setting, Services and Capacities Transferable Issues o A comprehensive approach: i.e. looking at areas outside of the Town that may be influenced by, or have influence on, the development of Telluride; o A method detailing the means and schedule of updating the Plan; o Providing affordable housing which allows for year-round and not only seasonal residents- © Annual re-evaluation of skier days; o Prioritization by the Town and its residents, of different aspects of Environmental Preservation including water supply, soil standards, geological hazards, river preservation, etc; o Detailed objectives concerning parking, transportation, and circulation and a formai review of those issues that takes place every two years; o Using regional transit service as a tool to lead development patterns rather than follow new construction; o Allowing neighborhoods to prioritize and determine necessary streetscape and roadside improvements for their area; c Development and enhancement of the Town's edges in order to "foster the sense of arrival and accentuate the natural setting"; a Development and maintenance of open space/trail linkages; o Consideration of the development of a community/recreation center for indoor/outdoor sports, etc; o Incorporating the idea of "neighborhoods" and the identifiable areas that have unique problems and opportunities and are therefore distinguished from other areas within the Town; o Careful attention to solar and energy efficient designs; a Consideration of advanced, innovative technologies in housing design and construction; o Maintenance of "geographic distribution" of affordable housing; o Promotion of more local economic expenditure to feed the Town's economy; o Emphasis on joint/community marketing and promotion of the Town; a Expansion of the information -based opportunities that may exist and help strengthen the economy (web cafes and similar ideas); o Identification of areas of Town that are designated as Service Areas/Industrial Use areas and can be aesthetically incorporated as such; o Development of a Historic Preservation Plan for the very long term future and a proposed "period of significance" upon which such a Plan would be based; o Designation of the areas that primarily serve the visitor and develop/redevelop accordingly. • .Aspen, Colorado The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) is a comprehensive 46 page document drafted in 2000 that provides an overview of development issues in the Aspen/Pitkin County region. The Plan is organized into 23 sections, each of which is organized according to; a) intent b) philosophy c) policies, and d) goals The following sections of the AACP are most related to Comprehensive Planning issues. 1) Vision for the Aspen area 2) Community Themes 3) Managing Growth 4) Transportation 8) Housing 6) Economic Sustainability 7) Parks, Open Space, and the Environment 8) Historic Preservation 9) Design Quality 10) Arts, Culture and Education Transferable Issues o The original 1993 Community Vision Statement; o A list of accomplishments, according to type, since the adoption of the previous (1993) Plan; o A historical account of how growth management has shaped Aspen's character; o A description of how the Plan should be used; o The recommendation for the maximum amount of time that may pass between updates; o Substantial citizen/community input; o Integrated affordable housing; o Promotion of environmentally -responsible building practices; o An emphasis on lifestyle diversity; o Details of what hasn't changed within the city; i.e. which goals have remained the same vs. which goals have changed; c The balance and interaction between "Aspen the Community" and "Aspen the Resort"; o A budget for the completion of new projects, especially affordable housing; o Details on aspects of the city of Aspen that make it unique and give it character; o Division of the Plan into 4 prevailing Themes; o A "planning process" for the Plan; o Action Items identified for each goal detailed within the Plan; o Requirement of every new development and redevelopment projects to include an analysis section entitled "Relationship to the Aspen Area Community Plan"; o Emphasis on the relevance of the Plan across county lines and city boundaries; o Emphasis on "clean" and quiet transit; o Identification of Aspen's ,population as its most valuable asset and goals that reflect that belief; o Specific numbers of affordable housing units (i.e. 800), parking spaces, etc. in order to make the Plan most effective; o Identification of possible sites for affordable housing; o Emphasis on the preservation of existing affordable housing units; 7 o Emphasis on the need for a healthy, year-round economy; © Public awareness of good design practices and that awareness playing a large role in the Design Quality goal; o Primary focus of Design Quality on context. IV. CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission prioritize the necessary updates according to the criteria listed below: • Ease of the revision/update: In-house Outsource • Importance of the Plan to Vail's future • Impact of the Plan on current development • Frequency of use V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Using the criteria for prioritization, Staff has identified the five most important actions for updating the Town's adopted guidelines and regulations. 1 j Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan is a plan based on the experience of the Village as a whole, with particular emphasis on pedestrian areas and public spaces. As stated in the Plan, a review by the Planning and Environmental Commission should occur not less than every 3 years, or as deemed necessary. The Vail Village Master Plan was intended to serve for 15 years (2005) as a part of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. However, a review/update of the Mater Plan has never occurred. The upcoming and necessary review should address several issues, including but not limited to the following: 1) Means of maintaining a high level of quality development and redevelopment within Vail Village 2) The necessity for Special Development Districts; i.e., the Plan should be current enough to address today's issues appropriately without causing every project to need exceptions from the regulations 3) The incorporation of the following adopted documents: a) Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines — the Guidelines detail ideas about the function and aesthetics of Vail Village and are therefore essential to the Vail Village Master Plan. b) Streetscape Master Plan - due to its emphasis on the design and quality of the pedestrian environment, the Plan is intertwined with the Master Plan. c) Transportation Master Plan — this Plan should be intricately connected with and incorporated into the Vail Village Master Plan since its primary initiative is to facilitate organized growth, a key aspect in Vail's future. 4) Unique strategies intended to improve the retail environment. 2) Land Use Plan The Land Use plan needs to be updated to recognize new and evolving community priorities such as affordable housing, recreational uses, environmental concerns, 8 community facilities, and other related land use issues. According to the plan, review and updates should occur every 3 to 5 years. An update should have occurred in 2001. The pending revision should include the following three plans in order to remain comprehensive and current; a) Comprehensive Open Lands Plan - The emphasis on land use, including recreation, the environment, public facilities, housing, and open space, justifies the combination of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan with the Land Use Plan. b) Environmental Strategic Plan - This plan was developed to establish a long-term environmental protection work plan, yet has a lifespan of only 4 years, which expired in 1998. Because the environment and related issues are constantly in flux, the Plan should be updated to reflect the community's goals, current problems, and their short-term and long-term solutions. Its attention to land use issues necessitates its incorporation into the Land Use Plan. c) Transportation Master Plan - This Plan should be incorporated into the Land Use Plan since it is a key element in land use and organized growth. 3) Town of Vail zoning Regulations Title 12, Zoning Regulations, of the Vail Town Code, comprises the basis of all new and redevelopment projects that take place within the Town.. However, many inconsistencies exist within the Code that warrant revision, such as irregular wording of the same uses within different zoning districts, possible omissions of integral design review steps, and many other similar issues. Additionally, the revisions . proposed for the other adopted documents will require the update of the Zoning Regulations, which should be done simultaneously with the Development Standards Handbook, described next. • 4) Development Standards Handbook Though not attributed the importance of a Master Plan, the Development Standards Handbook is an important supplement to Vail's Town Code and is a key tool in implementing the other adopted guidelines. However, its user-friendly format should be updated to include more illustrations and diagrams through which to guide the many redevelopment and new development projects occurring within the Town today. 6) Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan The revision of this plan is not of immediate importance. However, the plan will need to be edited should future decisions be made by the Town Council to allow seasonal parking as a conditional use at Ford Park. In summary, Staff is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission analyze Staff's recommendation according to the criteria for prioritization and the comparison of other Comprehensive Plans and offer further suggestions and guidance to Staff regarding the prioritization of Plan updates and the recommendation thereof to Town Council. 9 LA m.a off= �mo �m - .''N �� _ ❑CCS U t - W�10N - w cc . U c c 4s q- ��� ;o -m ii= ooN.w 9 ma`aa P moo.❑aio '_}c} _wO.ro°w_u. 7UO 3 m -Em .y m^-}�c ..¢rm�§m37 ~ Zceuc° .,.hoc~Q1�Ci .��n w�Natn op c m� 131 �O ° 7-.�ttl p n ... IE'- WeZy.3'-{c-tc 'o:iim��o E o�Q cS {L-wYiJCSD' OV C.��: �7 L:S4" 6C ❑ ❑CJ u.m IC, Qan �. m>� -❑ Ho '=mW4 v ;'� �m i' '> a rmoi4 E _� � o �. cl �:¢��:3d -_y. m�'m `❑ �n Lcd'� �rm 'w ,� cmai°a m� mv� mm$c .CJ `aE�Nc o oCIm�. .'� �. �N�_„❑ cL :'ti -'"� U cdwm� ;aa�a�a'��rod��o Qc �E�i'¢ro �wCuo mP o, D° O llJ C N C ❑ b. C m N a C [1,. .0 �' �P R P "ZU N(I7 NU ~ - QEEO 6UC Qd•.OyU7 Id Ci 2d. �-N�]°� G7 c"C�IY G0. PW E3.m V • � 471 !2 . �.' Q U • C L C '' 4.1 C U U] +0 G7 cd y OR. � 'O �,•� s ani civ � � •C � � �C 0.7 w G •y O 5 D O "' 0 O c U1cc ca Ro cG O vi S] Odl nQr C � W ^p 'y U C'3L =-°a ;zq A U a y Q N e,y ccS Q3 C" O O o a� w U In c" �: ct-Z:j u� a. a�=Oa�a��° r v o rl Q o a ti l a G bb CZ ami 3 Cd PW E3.m V • � . d �. Q U • . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 2403 SUBJECT: A request for a sign variance pursuant to 11-4A-1, Signs Permitted in Zone District, Vail Town Code, to allow for additional signage for Bogart's Bar and Bistro, located at 143 East Meadow Drive, Unit 165 (Crossroads)/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1'� Filing. Applicant: A. Luc Pols Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUMMARY The applicant, A. Luc Pols, is requesting a variance from Sections 11-4A-1, Signs Permitted in Zone District, Vail Town Code, located at 143 East Meadow Drive, Unit 165 (Crossroads)/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1" Filing. The variance is requested to allow the applicant to exceed the number of signs permitted along a retail frontage abutting a vehicular street or major pedestrian way. Staff is recommending denial of the requested variance as a hardship does not exist and would constitute a granting of special privilege to this individual property. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, A. Luc Pols, is requesting a variance which would permit additional signage on the Bogart's Bar and Bistro located at 143 East Meadow Drive, Unit 185 (Crossroads)/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1" Filing, Bogart's Bar and Bistro is located within the Crossroads Building on the lowest level of the building in the former Hubcap Brewery location. The location has frontage along the parking lot for the Crossroads tenants and along East Meadow Drive. The applicant currently has approval for two awning signs in the locations of the previous Hubcap Brewery signage. A vicinity map is attached for reference (Attachment A). Bogart's Bar and Bistro currently has two frontages, one along East Meadow Drive and the other along the parking lot for the Crossroads Building, and therefore is permitted a total of two signs with one located along each frontage. The variance requested is to allow for an additional wall sign on the frontage facing East Meadow Drive which would be a total of three signs. The proposed wall sign measures 5 square feet and would be in addition to the approved awning sign measuring 5.5 square feet. Section 11-4A-1, Signs Permitted in Zoning Districts, Vail Town Code, limits the maximum number of signs of certain types, such as awning signs and wall signs, to one sign per frontage on a vehicular street or major pedestrianway. The request proposes to install two signs along a single frontage which is not permitted by Section 11-4A-1. A photograph of the proposed wall sign is attached for reference (Attachment B). 0 A letter from the applicant dated September 12, 2003 explains in greater detail the desires and concerns the applicant has regarding the additional wall sign (Attachment C). 111. BACKGROUND • The Design Review Board approved two awning signs for Bogart's Bar and Bistro on June 18, 2003, which met the requirements of the sign Code. • On October 27, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission heard the applicant's request for variances to allow for the building to exceed the number of signs permitted along on a retail frontage abutting a vehicular street or major pedestrian way and to exceed the maximum number of two window signs per frontage on a vehicular street or major pedestrianway. • Since the October 27, 2003, Planning and Environmental Commission hearing a new Sign Code has been adopted by the Town Council on November 18, 2003, which became effective on December 3, 2403, hence the variance for window signage is no longer required. • On November 7, 2003, staff approved a change to a previously approved awning sign which measures 5.5 square feet and a new menu/daily special board which measures 8.75 square feet. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 0 Action: The PEC is responsible for final approvaUdeniai of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Special Circumstances Exist: There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question: provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. 2. Applicant Not Responsible: That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. 3. Harmony Maintained: That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this Title, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. 4. In Line With Provisions: The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this Title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use_ 5. Other Factors: Such other factors and criteria as the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. 2 Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRIB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TOWN OF VAIL ZONING REGULATIONS 11-1-1: Definitions (in part) ,SIGN: A surface or space as permitted in this Title, whether continuous or not, which attracts the attention, identifies a business or building, conveys a message to any person by means of letters, numbers, figures, or other symbols, devices, or representations. 11-4A: Permitted Signs (in part) 11-4A-7: Signs Permitted In Zoning Districts: This section specifies the allowable signs for each zoning district. The purpose, size, height, number, location, design and landscaping requirements, and special provisions for each type of sign are listed in articles B and C of this chapter (for CC3 and ABD districts). ,Signs allowed in the indicated zoning districts subject to the purpose statement for each sign and subject to the corresponding regulations for Zoning District each sign. CCI (commercial core 1) Accent lighting CC2 (commercial core 2) Building identification signs* LMU-1 (Lionshead mixed use f) Building identification signs* LMU-2 (Lionshead mixed use 2) Building identification signs" CSC (commercial service center) Daily special boards HS (heavy service) Display boxes PA (public accommodation) Flags, pennants, banners, and bunting H (housing) Freestanding signs - Joint directory sign for HDMF (high density multiple -family) multi -tenant building* SBR (ski base/recreation) Freestanding signs - Single business use" GU (general use) Gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs A (agricultural and open space) Murals and supergraphics P (parking) Political signs Private no parking signs (See article B of this chapter for Projecting and hanging signs — individual sign purpose and regulations) business within a multi -tenant building" Projecting signs - Single business use" Projecting signs - Joint directory signs for multi - tenant building Projecting and hanging signs - Arcade Public information signs Residential nameplate signs Sign program Subdivision entrance signs Temporary site development signs Traffic control signs for private property Wall signs - Joint directory signs for multi -tenant building Wall signs - Single business use* Wall signs - Arcade" Wall signs - individual business within a multi - tenant building Window signs Other temporary signs per chapter 5 of this title *Wall signs, projecting and hanging signs, freestanding signs, or building identification signs or any combination thereof, shall not exceed the maximum combination of one sign per vehicular street or major pedestrianway which the business abuts, with a maximum of two (2) signs. 11-7: Variances 11-7-7: Purpose; Limitations: A. Considerations: in order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this Title, variance from the regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a structure, or the location of the structure, from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations, or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Scope: A variance may be granted with respect to any regulation contained in this Title. (Ord. 9(f 996) § 3) 4 u 0 • VI. SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: Commercial Service Center Land Use Plan Designation: Village Master Plan Current Land Use: Mixed use retail and residential VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Vill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Zoninq CDOT Right-of-way Commercial Core 2 District General Use District SDD # 6 A. Consideration of Factors Regardinq the Setback Variances: 1. Special Circumstances Exist: There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question: provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. This location does not have any special circumstances or conditions which are unique to the site, building, or the business. Many properties in Town have locations slightly or entirely below the existing grade of the adjacent vehicular street or major pedestrianway. Bogart's Bar and Bistro currently has two frontages, one along East Meadow Drive and the other along the parking lot for the Crossroads Building, and therefore is permitted a total of two signs with one located along each frontage. The variance requested is to allow for an additional wall sign on the frontage facing East Meadow Drive which would be a total of three signs. The previous establishment, Hubcap Brewery, operated for several years with signage which met the criteria of the Sign Code. The applicant has expressed concern over the confusion of customers not being able to identify the separate entrances to China Garden Too and Bogart's Bar and Bistro. Staff believes that once the applicant has installed the signage for which he currently has approval and the menu/daily special board that any confusion will be eliminated. Requesting a variance for a second sign, the wall sign, in conjunction with his approved awning sign would be increasing his permitted signage significantly and would be a privilege not enjoyed by other establishments, If the applicant feels this sign better serves his customers than he can leave but must not install the previously approved awning sign. 5 Land Use North: Interstate 70 South: Commercial East: Public Facility West: Mixed Use Vill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Zoninq CDOT Right-of-way Commercial Core 2 District General Use District SDD # 6 A. Consideration of Factors Regardinq the Setback Variances: 1. Special Circumstances Exist: There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question: provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. This location does not have any special circumstances or conditions which are unique to the site, building, or the business. Many properties in Town have locations slightly or entirely below the existing grade of the adjacent vehicular street or major pedestrianway. Bogart's Bar and Bistro currently has two frontages, one along East Meadow Drive and the other along the parking lot for the Crossroads Building, and therefore is permitted a total of two signs with one located along each frontage. The variance requested is to allow for an additional wall sign on the frontage facing East Meadow Drive which would be a total of three signs. The previous establishment, Hubcap Brewery, operated for several years with signage which met the criteria of the Sign Code. The applicant has expressed concern over the confusion of customers not being able to identify the separate entrances to China Garden Too and Bogart's Bar and Bistro. Staff believes that once the applicant has installed the signage for which he currently has approval and the menu/daily special board that any confusion will be eliminated. Requesting a variance for a second sign, the wall sign, in conjunction with his approved awning sign would be increasing his permitted signage significantly and would be a privilege not enjoyed by other establishments, If the applicant feels this sign better serves his customers than he can leave but must not install the previously approved awning sign. 5 2. Applicant Not Responsible: That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. Staff believes there are no special circumstances created by the site, building, topography, or the applicant. Staff believes that once the applicant has installed the signage which he is permitted under the Sign Code that locating his business will become easier for his customers. To date, the applicant has only installed unapproved illegal signage on his establishment which includes the 5 square foot wall sign. 3. Harmony Maintained: That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this Title, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. The requested variances would disrupt the harmony which the Sign Code is intended. to keep in being fair and equitable to all establishments requesting signage. Staff was unable to find any variance request having been approved for a variance of this nature. 4. In Line With Provisions: The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this Title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. The variance applied for departs greatly from the provisions of Title 11 of the Sign 40 Code. The applicant has been approved for two awning signs and a menu/daily special board. Staff believes that the combination of this signage adequately identifies the applicant's business. Other Factors: Such other factors and criteria as the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before grantin a variance: That special circumstances or conditions apply to the land, building, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign. 2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. 3. That granting the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this title and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of the Vail Town Code more than is required to identify the applicant's business use. I 0 IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the request for a variance from Sections 11-4A-1, Signs Permitted in Zone District, Vail Town Code to allow for additional signage at 143 East Meadow Drive, Unit 165 (Crossroads)/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1" Filing. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VII I of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: That special circumstances or conditions do not apply to the land, building, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign. 2. That such special circumstances were created by the applicant. 3. That granting the variance will not be in general harmony with the purpose of this title and will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The variance applied for departs from the provisions of the Vail Town Code more than is required to identify the applicant's business use. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map IR B. Photograph of the proposed signage C. Letter form the applicant dated September 12, 2003 D. Publication Notice • II] 'w. 7L 'V vI Ez, '7f: DALU ENTERPRISES, Inc. 2326-W Tahoe Drive Mod Colorado 81657- 3816 tel 970.476.6477 fax 9704711003 lucpolADm3fg.com 0 September 12, 2003 Mr. David Rhoades Code Enforcement Officer Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Rhoades: Re: design variance application Bogart's Bar & Bistro This letter serves as an explanation of the "Description of Request", as set forth in the Application for Review by the Planning and Environmental Commission and please refer to your letter dated September 3, 2003. Our request consists of various matters: 1. variance for the signs on the windows and front door of Bogart's Bar & Bistro ("Bogart's"). As you know, the front of the establishment has various doors that open up to the terrace and that, at times, can be and is confusing to the clients. Before we attached the signs, we already had an incident whereby one of our customers walked into a window. That was obvious the i main reason for us to attach the signs. Luckily no hann was done, but I shudder at the thought of a law suit being filed against ourselves, because someone got hurt walking into the windows. s As a side note, if the Town of Vail makes us take down the various signs and an incident should ever happen, I am certain., given today's contentious litigation climate, that the Town of Vail j might also be sued. The signs are tasteful, small in nature (see enclosed photos marked I and IT on the back) but serve the purpose of protecting our clientele. We have placed these strategically with two open windows and two with attached signs. We hereby respectfully request that the signs currently attached to the windows and front door of Bogart's be left in place, since these should not be considered "signs", but rather as safety devices. 2. the sign over the terrace on the awning. We received approval to place our sign on the awning about two month ago, but we would like to change tat, within code, to the sign as outlined on attachment "A". Instead of the Bogart's logo, we would like to write out our name in full and place that on the awning. Photo (marked III on the back) shows the place where this would go and it is the place where now the old sign has been covered by a piece of black cloth. 0 Attachment: C • 0 Mr. David Rhoades, September 12, 2003 page -2- of -2- 3. The variance and approval thereof of the small sign which is Iocated on the wall at the entrance of the Restaurant. When we signed the lease for Bogart's, there were three signs in place: a. the sign on the awning over the terrace (see above photo III); b_ the sign on the other side of the building adjacent to the parking lot (see enclosed photo marked IV on the back); and c. the sign over the steps (unfortunately the photo did not come out). While we understand that the according to the rules, we only are entitled to two signs, it would make a lot more sense for us to leave this sign in place. As you know, there is another restaurant adjacent to Bogart's (China Garden II) and there continuously was a confusion where what was. This way, China Garden's customers will not be confused and neither will Bogart's. The sign measures 25" by 29" (see attached photo marked V on the back) and tastefully breaks up the rather large (West) wall to the entrance of the restaurant. 4. The approval of changing the menu box to the specifications as outlined on the attachment marked "B". The attached is quite self explanatory, but allow me to indicated that we a. plan to have lights within the menu box; and b. use the 17"x 12" space for specials and/or announcements, such as "live music" etc.. Mr. Rhoades, please let us know what steps we should be taking. In the case that a disapproval is likely, we would like to have the opportunity to defend our position in front of the design Review Board at its earliest convenience. I can be reached at 376.2400 (cell phone) and my partner, Mr. David {Cribbs can be reached at 977.0429 (cell phone). the telephone number at Bogart's is 476.7800. Thank you for your kind attention in this matter. 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, October 27, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a setback variance pursuant to Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for a garage addition, located at 1956 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 45, Vail Village West 2nd Filing, Applicant: David Irwin Planner: Matt Gennett A request for a sign variance pursuant to Section 11-48-20, Window Signs, and Section 11-4A- 1, Signs Permitted in Zone District, Vail Town Code, to allow for additional signage for Bogart's Bar and Bistro, located at 143 East Meadow Drive, Unit 165 (Crossroads)/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: A. Luc Pols Planner: Matt Gennett ' A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a public utility and public services use, located at 501 North Frontage Road (Solar Vail Condominiums)/ Lot 8, Block2, Vail Potato Patch 1r1 Filing, 0 Applicant: Nextel, represented by Glen Klocke Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a public utilities installation, located at 545 North Frontage Road (Red Sandstone Elementary School)/Part of Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch 15 Filing. Applicant: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a minor subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the replatting of property boundary amendments, located at 2965 & 2975 Manns Ranch Road, Lots 5 & 6, Block 1, Vail Village 131h Filing. Applicant: Clinton J. Kendrick, represented by Segerberg, Mayhew, and Associates Planner: Bili Gibson A request for conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-71-5, Vail Town Code, and a variance from Title 14, Chapter 5, Parking Lot and Parking Structure Design Standards for All Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of an unpaved private parking lot, located at 862 South Frontage Road West/Unplatted. (A complete metes and bounds legal description is available for review at the Town of Vail Community Development Department). Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: Elisabeth Eckel Attachment: D 3 ii • DALU ENTLRPRISLS, INC. 2326-W Tahoe Drive Vail Colorado 81657 - 3816 tel 970.476.6477 fax 970.477.1003 .Date: 9/16/2003" To: Mr. David Rhoades, Town of Vail Subject: signs Dear Mr. Rhoades As stipulated in your forms, following are the names and addresses of the owners of the buildings, adjacent to and accross the street from Bogart"s Bar & Bistro's property: I. On the South side is the building occupied by the club 8150, is owned by our landlord. Trevina L.P. c/o Slifer Management Company, 143 East Meadow Drive, suite 360, Vail, CO 81657 11. On the Lust side is the Vail parking structure owned by the Town of Vail. III. On the West side is the CrossRoads West building, where the stores are owned by our landlord (see above) and the condominiums above these are owned by the fallowing people: Al Mr. & Mrs. Richard Barrett, P.O. Box 1701, Boulder, CO 80306 A2 - Mr. & Mrs. Richard Barrett, P.O. Box 1701, Boulder, CO 80306 A3 - Mr. Toger Anderson, 1225 - 17th Street, 26th floor, Denver, CO 80202 A4 - Mr. Charles Goodin / Ms. Sue Goodin, 11 Parkway Drive, Englewood, CO 80110 A5 - Ms. Michelle Mayne, 1200 Crystal Springs Court, Reno, NV 89509 A6 - John McDonald Company, 30 Cabarellos Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 B 1 - Mr. Dirk Brown III / Ms. Jill Wiltse, 1776 Lincoln, suite 1020, Denver, CO 80203 B2 - Mr. Joseph Obering / Coda LLC, 8177 Preston Road, suite 520W, Dallas, TX 75225 Cl - Mr. Dean Taylor, 1625 Larimer Street, # 903, Denver, CO 80202 C2 - Mr. William Hokin, 875 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611 C3 - Mr. & Mrs. Konrad Oberlohr, 2656 Davos Trail, Vail, CO 81657 C4 - Mr. Andrew Littman, 705 Juniper Avenue, Boulder, CO 80304 D1 - M. Thomas Z. Hoffman, 143 East Meadow Drive, suite 330A, Vail, CO 81657 D2 - Mr. & Mrs. Frank C. Puglia, 4617 Lawson Court, Plano, TX 75093 D3 - Mr. Andrew Littman, 705 Juniper Avenue, Boulder, CO 80304 D4 - Mr. Andrew Littman, 705 Juniper Avenue, Boulder, CO 80304 El - Ms. Kathy Reiunan, 3539 Casitas Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90039 E2 - Mr. & Mrs. Merle Sachnoff, 5171 Idylwild Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 E3 - Ms. Dal.iah Drillman, 7308 Riverview Dive, Bradenton, FL 34209 E4 - Mr. Jeffrey C, Garvey, 3909 Balcones Drive, Austral, TX 78731. E5 - Mr. & Mrs. Robert P. Smith, P.O. Box 700, Evergreen, CO 80437 E6 - The Five Smiths L.P., c/o H, William Smith Jr., 975 County Road, #10A, Norwich, NY 13815 IV. The North side of the building (accross the street) is known as Village Center Building D The commercial areas are owned by. Mr. Fred Hibberd, 400 N.W. Ridge Road, Jackson, WY 83001 Th condominiums above the commercial area are owned by: 001 - Mr. John E. White, 551 South Mashta Drive, Key Biscayne, FL 001 - Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Byrnes, 6224 Brigadoon, Longmont, CO 80503 003 - Mr. & Mrs. Richard Conley, 12700 West Bluemound Road, Elmgrove, WI 53122 004 - Ms. Amy Weasler, P.O. Box 420, Kealakekue, HI 96750 005 - Mr. Donald Hogeboom, Box 15774644, Sioux Falls, SD 57186 006 - Ms. Allison Dalvit-Jacoby, 965 Polo Club Court, Littleton, CO 81025 007 - Mr. Daniel S. Barry, 122 East Meadow Drive, Vail, CO 81657 008 - Mr. Daniel S. Barry, 122 East Meadow Drive, Vail, CO 81657 009 - Mr. Wade Warren Murphy, 200 North Jefferson, suite 500, El Dorado, AR 71730 010 - Mr. & Mrs. John Kaemmer, 434 Gore Creek Drive, Vail, CO 81657 011 - Mr_ & Mrs. Vincent Clemens, 6 Bixthone Path, Hawthorn Woods, IL 60047 012 - Ms. MarieJo Taimpo-Oskarsson, Box 15285540, Sioux Falls, SD 57186 013 - Stephan Platcow & Mark Malin, 222 South Morgan, suite 226, Chicago, IL 60607 014 - Audrey McLean, Marriott Brighton Gardens, 103 Arcaro Place, suite 226, Brentwood, TN 37027 015 - Dr. Felix E. Wood c/o Vail Realty, 302 Hanson Ranch Road, Vail, CO 81657 V. The building in which Bogart's is located, is owned by our landlord (see above). Enclosed please find the stamped addressed envelopes for your convenience. • PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE 0667 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; and that t first publication oof,,,,said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated ............ ...............:... ..... ..... A.D.....: 1......`.... and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated ... LJAM L5 A.D......... 10. 1,5.,.,..., . In witness whereof I have hereunto set m hand this .. da of ......% . ... fir{ .2'X3 y � • y wtN4���r, r• r"sw' ............. .. ........... ........11 .... ............. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this ............... 14.. day of .....I . .......... .... .. Notary Public My Commission expires . ...... PUBLIC NOTICE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, December 08, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1 - Community Develop- ment Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits: 1. Vail Resorts Tennis Courts - 615 West forest Road 2. David Irwin residence - 1956 West Gore Creek Dove 3. Michae{ and Iris Smith - 44 West Meadow Drive 4. Lodge rower South - 164 Gots Greek Drive 5.. Manor Vail Lodgs- 595 Vail Valfey Drive _;w Driver: George NOTE: if the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the Platting of Lots 1 and 2, Lodge Sub- division, located at 164 Gore Creek Drivell-ots A. B, & C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing, and set- ting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant Vail Resorts. represented by Braun Associates. Inc. Planner: George Ruther Motion: Second: Vote: 2. A request for a major subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the ski -way tract and four lots at the Lionshead tennis court site located at 615 West Forest RoadlUnplatted (A complete metes and bounds legal description is available for review at the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department). Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Waren Campbell Motion: Second: Vote: 3. A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Section 12.613-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code. to at- iow for a garage addition, located at 1956 Wes. Gore Creek DrivelLot 45, Vail Village West 2nd Fil- ingApplicant: David Irwin Planner. Matt Gennett Motion: Seeon& Vote- 4. A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to al- low for a patio in the rear yard setback, located at 44 West Meadow Drive/Lof l., Vail Village 12th Fil- ing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant Michael and fns Smith Planner: Bill Gibson Motion: Second: vote: 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vat? Town Council for the establishment of Special De- velopment District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to al- low for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodggee, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code. located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A. B, & C. Vail Village 7rh Fling, and setting forth details in regard thereto Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Meiick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell Motion: Second: Vote: 8. A. request ler s racommendaton 1. The Vail Toxin Council ai a mala, amendment to 'Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons Re- sort, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vait Town Code, to allow for a mixed-use 'hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type III Employee Housing Units and a fractional tae dub; and a request tar a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) sone district located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail RoadiLots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing, and setting forth details u1 regard thereto. Applicant: Nicolle[ Island Development Company Inc. Planner: George Ruther Motion. Second: Vote: 7. A request for a recommendation to #is Vail Town Council for proposed updates to elements of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto... Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Elisabeth Eckel Motion: Second: Vote: 8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed teed amendments to Section 12-3-6, Hearings. Vail Town Code. to amend the notice requirements for Town of Vail Design Review Board public hearings, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Appkcani: Town of Vail Planner: Russell Forrest Motion: Second, vote 9. A request for a sign variance pursuant to See - tion 11-4A-1, Signs'Permitted in Zone District, Veil Town Code, to allow for additional signage for Bo- oart's Bar and Bistro. located at 143 East Meadow I�f Drive, Unit 165 (C lisroads)Aot P. Block 5D, Vail { Village tat Fding. ,. Applicant: A. Luc Pots Planner: Matt Gennari Vote: Motion: Second: 19. Approval of November 24, 2003 minutes 11. Information Update £ Sign Code £ Funicular £ Tennis Court Rezoning u Vail Park (Lots P3) 5' ERWSD Project The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regu- lar office hours in the project planner's office locat- evelopment Department Town 5hOf V&0 ad at the Sou Front Frontage Road. dD Please Call 479.2138 for information. Sign lagguage interpretation avehable upon re- quest with 2A hour notification. Please call 479- 2356. Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for in- formation. Community Development Department Pub4ished December 5. 2003 in the Va6 Daily • 0 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE 0656 I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail Daily, that the same daily newspa- per printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1679, or any amend- ments thereof, and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every isnumber of said daily newspaper for the period of ............... consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated . �1QfJ.c11 k G��.C.....�V ..... A.D. ((Q........... and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated.T...%�.. !... A.D....... _. ..�..�.. 3 ............. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this ... day of ...:,. &'. r... ............. ... ....... ... ............................... Pubtisher Subscribed and rssw�rworn to before rnI. a notary public 7in�and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this .........,.`. ...1..... day of ....Aa Akc...Wr / r .......,l Notary Public My Commission expires ...... ISL !......... .•....rl . PUBLIC NOTICE THIS ITEM MAY AFFCTYOE PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTINOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 112.3-6 of the Vail Town Code on, December &, 2D03, at 2:00 P.M. in the Vail Town Council Cham- bers. In consideration of: A request for a setback variance, pursuant 110 Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to al- low for a patio in the rear yard setback, locatedat 44 west Meadow DrivelLot I, Vail Village 12th Fil- ing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael and Iris Smith Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Spode' Development District No. 36, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employae Housingg Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, V il Town gie. & located at 595 Vail a$l Drive/Lots rth A, B. C, a 7 village Fing details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Metick and Associates Planner: warren Campbelt A request for a recommenme amendment to Special Dtion to Ithe fovelo� Cont of i major meat Distract No 36 Four Seasons Resort, pur- suant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to al- low for a mixed-use hotel a request for a final re- view of a conditional use permit, pursuant to SeC- tion 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, £o allow for Type III Employee Housing Units and a fractional fee club; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots 9A & 9C. Vail Village 2nd ming from Public Anoommo- dation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple family (HD F, zone district, located at 26 S. Front- age Rd. and 13 Vail ore dJ14o�ts 9Vil �Wl. i regard Ig ap ?n.1 Gttn®. sn 9 tflerefa. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Compa- ny Inc. Ptanner: George Ruther This notice published in the Vail Daily on Novem- bar 21, 2063. L` A_' /vv ---- — -------Publisher Subscribed worn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this .......... :... ...... day of .......... ...� ... } 2L..... .. .... ....... Notary Public My Commission expires.... Atfr.....! 0 pm n m.^ -i-a b m m en n i b gfNa mZ m S ru n'c., 0 1 06571 S' �a�d5T N � m m a° m ° �° o n m n w S m y�Em PROOF OF PUBLICATION m = o e ®'.l �, r V' a c STATE OF COLORADO 2 Q m �. o'oUa.'.°gym h C f7 +�„ rn SJ.nCao COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail Daily, that the same daily newspa- ewspa per printed in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a per general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly m a :4 in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first Q mcn m o. n publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the p g United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amend- a t ments thereof, and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices MOFs 't n J 0 m and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. o 'g That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every °rs o w n N o -'- W = a 3 number of said daily newspaper for the period of ......../. ..... consecutive insertions; and that the first 3 s s 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 datedI)........... f .......... In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this .... day of .....�t2.W A_' /vv ---- — -------Publisher Subscribed worn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this .......... :... ...... day of .......... ...� ... } 2L..... .. .... ....... Notary Public My Commission expires.... Atfr.....! 0 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLISHED 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, December 8, 2003, at 2.00 P.M. in the Vail Town Council Chambers. In consideration of: A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a patio in the rear yard setback, located at 44 West Meadow Drive/Lot 1, Vail Village 12'" Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael and Iris Smith Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons Resort, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow for a mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type 111 Employee Housing Units and a fractional fee club; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple family (HDMF) zone district, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Road/Lots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: George Ruther This notice published in the Vail Daily on November 21, 2003. TOWN O*VAIL a PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE 0642 I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail Baily, 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 -........ y..... consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated ...'7..! 'Z4'F 1 .cry! A•C.. and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper date .. A.D..-............. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this .... day of../.,/�1..�✓'..-Crfi / ... .... ......... .............. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to befo lie, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this ......... I .�....---... day of.---...� r My Commission expires!:--k...{l.;..�-��� , • 7 Notary Public PUBLIC NOTICE THIS ITEM MAY AFFECTYOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vali will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12.3.6 of the Vail Town Code on, December 8, 2003, at 2:OD P.M. in. the Vail Town Council Cham- ber's. In consideration of: A request for a. setback variance, pursuant to Chapter 12.17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to al- low for a patio in the rear yard setback, located at 44 West Meadow Drive/Lot I, Vail Village 121h Fil- ing, and setting lwlh details in regard thereto. Applicant'" Michael and Iris Smith FP'llanner: •Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the ra3development of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3- Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B. & C, Vail Village 71h Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Metick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a moor amendment to Special Develop- ment District No. 36, Four seasons Resorl, pur- suant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to al- low for a mixed-use hotel; a request for a final re- view of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Sec- tion 12.7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type III Employee Housing Units and a fractional fee club: and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proosed rezoning of Lots 9A 8 9C, Vail Village 2nd IF ping from Public Accommo- dation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple family (HDMF) zone disincl, located at 26 S. Front- age Rdand 13 Vail Roacill.ots 9A& 9C, Vail Vil- lage 2nd Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nicoliet Island Development Compa- nyy Inc. Ptannsr. George Ruther This notice published in the Vail. Daily on Novem- ber 21, 2003. C • • THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town�B#r.; Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Code on, December S, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Vail Town Council Chambers. In consideration of: A request for a major subdivision, final plat review, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the ski -way tract and four lots at the Lionshead tennis court site located at 615 West f=orest Road/Unplatted (A complete metes and bounds legal description is available for review at the Town of Vail Community Development Department). Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of Lots 1 and 2, Lodge Subdivision, located at 164 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts; represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther This notice published in the Vail Daily on November 22, 2003. 1 TOWN OF PAIL �iY