The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-0112 PEC• PtJ~t_IC N03'ICE THIS ITEM MAY AFfEGTYOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NQTICE (~ ~ ~ ~ N6TfCE IS HEREBY GIVEN th211he Planning and ~,J Eeavironmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-5 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on January 12, 2004, at 2:00 P.M. in Ote Tnwn of Vail Municipal Building: In consideration oi: PROOF OF PUBLICATION A request ror a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed text amendment to the Zorr ng Regulations, Title 12, pursuant to Section 12-3- 7. Vail Town Code, to allow Por revisions to the de- STATE OF COLORADO velopmont standards prescribed in Ghaptor 12-7A, Public Accommodation [PAj District. Vail Town Code and setting tcrth details in regard thereto. SS• rArryrypplicant: Nical{et Island Development Compa- Pfalnner: George Ruther COUNTY OF EAGLE A request for f9nal rgvierw of a conditional use per- mit, pursuant to Chapter 16-12. Vail Town Code, to allow far changes to the previously approved can- dlfions of approval tar the redevalopmeri of the Vail Mountain School, located at 3220 Kaisos Ranch Roadl Lots 1 and 2 Wail Mountain School Fiiing- I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail Deify, that the ~~.,,,~ daily „~r.,~,,a• Appficant: BraunAssaciates, Inc. per printed, in whale or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Goloracio, and has a Planner Elisabeth Eckel general circulation therein: that said newspaper has Keen published continuously and uninterruptedly A request ror sinal feYieW or a ~rariance from s~c- ticn 12-14-17, setback from watercourse, Vail in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first Town code. to anew for improvemenas witnin the ublication of the annexed le al notice or advertisement, that said news a er has been admitted to the setback tram Gore Creek. located ar sae west Li- p g p p one Head Placeliot 3, Bto« 1. Vail Lionshead 3rd iJnited States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 18ig, or any ._ ~~, ~.i- Fuing, and setting fordeiaas in regard There to. menu thereof, and that said new~Yaw~r is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices Applicant: Antlers condominium association and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the Slate of Colorado. planner: Biu G;bson A request for a recommendation to the Wail Town Council of a proposed Zone DistricF Boundary That the annexed Segal notice. or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every amendment ~tursuant to Sion t2.3-7, veil Town Code. to the Town of Vail Official Zoning Map. to the zoning or the west Vail Lodge Properties, from number of said daily newspaper far the period of .,.,,..,~....... consecutive fnserlions; and that the first Commercial Core III (CC3j to Hen Dertsiry Mutfipre „~ Family {HDMFj, located at 2276. 2268. 2298 Cha- ' monix Lane and 2211 North Frentage Road,'Inn at publication. of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper ~,.: J ..~'~~....~ ...... west vaa Lott block A, volt Des scnone Filing 1, ~.~ ~ and sefGng farm datalrs in regard thereto. A.f7.....~}.......-.... and that the last pubfieation of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper Applicant: varrgttian Varl. f_Lt; ~ "~ ~` Pranner: Hiatt Qenreett dated..,~'K.{1,~.~.~'~... A.Q .............~~........ Are vest for 9 a condf[ronal use permst pursuant to Section }2-7H_5, Condilionat IJses_ Gecerally (pn r ~,r-- .~,~n, alt levels Pt a bu~fding or outsade a buildk In witness whereof f have hereunts~ set my hand this ....,r.... da of .... ~..2:....L~IC~CI.. rows code, and a request rod a major extenprWa°~ [arahan. pursuant to Sectran 12~7H-7, Exterior AI- teratlons or Motlitications, Vail Town Code. Ca al- low ror the consfruc6on of new single-family and hvodamlly residential dwelling units, located a4 730, 724, and 714 west Lianshead Circle!"7racis A, e• C• 8 4. Morcus Subdivision and Lot 7, Marriott ............ ........ .. ..... ~..._.....,.......•....• Subdivision. and setting forth details in r Publisher thereto. (west Day Lott' egard repPesented 4t' Brau®$and Asso I~ment Company, SuL~...v~~i d swum to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, Planner: warren campbeu cotes inc. ~ ~ ~ The applicatianS and inrormaficn about the r this ............ . ............ day of ...~.~-x.r.~.L.1~r f als are available far public inspection during or ~~- lar office hours in The project planner's adice_ locat- ed at the Town o9 Vail Community DeveEapmenl Cepartmenf, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend pro¢ect orientation and the Site ~~ - visits that precede the pudlic hearing in the Town of Vaa3 Community Development Department- , Please call 479.2138 for information. Sfgn language interpretation available upon ro- / ~/) ~~ i quest with 2a-hour notification, Please call 479- ••.•...;.....~.... ............. . ~ 235$ Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for m- brmation. Notary Publi Community Development Department r7 Published ecember 26, 2FY03 in the Vaii Daily. hfy Commission expires .... .....~-~,'...L.... „,~,Lr.. ~. • STATE OFCOLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE PROOF OF PUBUCATfON S;- ~~~U I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that 9 am the Publisher of The Vail Daly, that the same daily newspa- per printed, in whole or in par! and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a genera:! 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 adveriisemenis within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of ........ ~.. consecutive insertions; and trier the first publcatio of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated ._..... ~ ~..... ~ ~...~. A.D....c[*~~~,14.~+.~....... and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated....i~h~4~~...~r2.-~'A.D.......... .~' ~..~.,......... ~~^ A .,. ~ .... i ,~ In witness whereof 1 have hereunto set my hand this .....:.:~-'1.. day of ...... f ~'E..,..(~.ls~~ Publisher Subscribed and sworn to be~orye~ e, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this .................. day of .,.~k~,•~.'~'~:.,^ ' '~ ..........._'t:~..e...f..~~...' ..... . tJotary Public My G'arnmission expires ..... ,....~ .. ~,.,... ~~ TMIS ITEM MAY AFfECTYC}UR PROPERTY PUBLIC N4"rICE IS HEREBY C,IVEN That the Planning and rental Commission of the Town of Wad wilt ublie hearing in accortlanae with section t the fdunicipal Code of She Town o1 Vail ary 12. 2004, of 2:00 P.M. in the Town of cipal Building. In oo_.,.'..: ~.1ion of: i appeal of a alafr ,,,,,,,,,,,,,~:ai Tenant al' of the buildi and 12-76-3, P at Ftoor or Strea at 122 East I1Ae age First Filing. Fred Hib~berd inner ~ GegrgB Ruther applications and ;. .,.~. i about the pro are availa€de for public I. :. .:. ~ during n office hours in the project planner's office, Ic at the Tawn of Ved Community Deve.-~ oarfinent, 75 South Frontage Road. The pi nWited to attantl project ari~entation and the is that precede thn pubic hearing pn the T Vail Community D: - :nt D.:,,.:,.. aae ca11 4 7 9-2 1 38 for i ,. ~ ~ _:an. n language i ...~ ~ „ tign avaitable upon ra- ~st with 24-hour notlticaSon- Please gall 479- 16, Terephane far pha Hearing Impaired, for in- narion -. ~. Department 22, 21103 in The Vadf Daily • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, January 12, 2Q04 PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT George Lamb Doug Cahill Chas Bernhardt John Schofield Rollie Kjesbo {Arrived at 2:50 pm} MEMBERS ABSENT Erickson Shirley Gary Hartman Site Visits 1. Village Center Commercial Condominiums -122 East Meadow Drive Driver: George NOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16-12-1, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for changes to the previously approved conditions of approval for the redevelopment a# the Vail Mountain School Located at 3220 Katsas Ranch Road/ Lots 1 and 2. Applicant: Braun Associates, Inc, Planner: Elisabeth Eckel APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Occupancy for any phase of the school, the applicant shall complete and receive a Certificate of Occupancy for the eight employee housing units constructed on Trac# C excep# for the occupancy of the cabin. However, two of the eight faculty housing structures shall receive a final Certificate of Occupancy and be deed restricted and completely used as Type III employee housing units and recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder prior to the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or the final Certificate of Occupancy for any phase of the school The other six employee housing units shall also receive a final Certificate of Occupancy upon completion, but may be occupied by the school temporarily for offices, storage, and other school uses for a period of time ending at the time that a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a final Certificate of Occupancy is issued to the school, or by August 15, 2005, whichever occurs first. All eight units must be deed-restricted as Type III employee housing units no later than the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or the final Certificate of Occupancy is granted far the completion of the school, or by August 15, 2005, whichever occurs sooner. • 2. By August 15, 2005 all eight hauling units located on Tract G shall bedeed-restricted as Type III employee housing units and recorded by the applicant with the Eagle Gvunty Clerk and Recorder. The employee housing units shall comply with the minimum requirements for Type III employee housing regulations, as defined in Chapter 12, of the Vail Town Code. MOTION: Cahill SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 4-8 ~.~, ~~ 14 row~vol~ v~ ~' 2. A request far a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Tawn Cade, to allow far the platting of Lots 1 and 2, Lodge Subdivision, located at 164 Gare Creek DrivelLots A, B, & C, Black 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner; George Ruther APPROVED MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 4-0 3. A request for a final review of a proposed amendment to the Town of Vail Official Zoning Map to change the zoning of the West Vail Lodge Properties from Commercial Core 3 {CC3) to High Density Multiple Family tvHDMF}, located at 2278, 2288, 229$ Chamonix Lane and 2211 North Frontage Roadllnn at West Vai! Lot 1 BlockA, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, in accordance with Section 12-3-7, Vail Tawn Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant; Vanquish Vail, LLC, represented by Allison Ochs Planner: Matt Gennett TABLED TO JANUARY 26, 2004 MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Doug Cahil VOTE: 4-0 4. A request for final review of a variance from Section 12-14-17, Setback From Watercourse, Vail Tawn Code, to allow for improvements within the setback from Gore Creek, located at 680 West Lions Head Place/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lonshead 3Td Filing, and setting for details in regard there ta. Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 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 albw for the construction of Type ll l 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 TABLED TO FEBRUARY 23, 2004 MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE; 5-0 6. 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/George Ruther TABLED TO JANUARY 26, 2004 MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Doug Cahil VOTE: 4-0 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Tawn Council of a major amendment to Special Development District Na. 36, Four Seasons Resort, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow for amixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, VaiE Town Cade, 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 RaadJLats 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing, and setting #orth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner; George Rather TABLED TO JANUARY 26, 2004 MOTION; George Lamb SECOND: Doug Cahil VOTE: 4-0 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 TABLED TO JANUARY 2B, 2004 MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Doug Cahil VOTE: 4-0 9. A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally {on all levels of a building or outside a building), Vail Town Code, and a request for a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Sec#ion 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of new single-family and two-family residential dwelling units, located at 730, 724, and 714 West Lianshead Circle/Tracts A, B, C, & D, Morcus Subdivision and Cot 7, Marriotk Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. {West Day Lot} Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell TABLED TO JANUARY 2B, 2004 MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Doug Cahil VOTE: 4-0 14. An appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3B, Appeal of Administrative Actions, of an administrative interpretation determining that a commercial tenant space within the Village Center Commercial Condominiums, Building D, is on the "first floor" or "street level" of the building as defined by Sections 12-7C-3 and 12-78-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor or Street Level, Vail Town Code, located at 122 East Meadow Drive„ Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing. Applican#: Fred Hibberd Planner: George Rather OVERTURNED MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 5-0 1 i . Approval of December 8, 2003 minutes APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 5-0 12. Information Update Discussed GRFA at Council Discussed the PEC agenda for January 26, 2004 Discussed Bogart's Bar and Bistro Appeal • • • 13. Adjournment MOTION: Ghas Bernhardt SEGOND: George Lamb VOTE: 5-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 7a South Frontage Road. Please call 4~9-2138 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 26, 2063 in the Vail Daily. 4 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, January 12, 2Q(}4 PROJECT ORIENTATION - Cc~mmwnity Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:40 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits 1. Village Center Commercial Condominiums - 122 East Meadow Drive Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until fi:00 p.m., the board may break far dinner from 6:Q0 - 6:3tJ Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:40 pm 1. A request for final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16-12-1, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for changes to the previously approved conditions of approval for the redevelopment of the Vail Mountain School Located at 322D ifatsos Ranch Road/ Lots 1 and 2. Applicant: Braun Associates, Inc. Planner; Elisabeth EckeVRussell Forrest MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 2. A request far a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Cade„ to allow far the platting of Lots 1 and 2, Lodge Subdivision, located at 1E~4 Gare Greek. DrivelLots A, B, & C, 81ock 5G, Vail Village 1st Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc_ Planner: George Ruttier MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 3. A request far a final review of a proposed amendment to the Town of Vai! Official Zoning Map to change the zoning of the West Vail Lodge Properties from Commercial Core 3 (CC3) to High Density Multiple Family (HDMF), located at 227$, 2288, 2298 Chamonix Lane and 2211 North Frontage Roadllnn at West Vail Lat 1 BlockA, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, in accordance with Section 12-3-7, Vail Tawn Cade, and setting Earth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vanquish Vail, LLC, represented by Allison Ochs Planner: Matt Genneft TABLED TO JANUARY 26, 2444 4. A request for final review of a variance from Section 12-14-17, Setback From Watercourse, Vail Town Code, to allow for improvements within the setback from Gore Creek, located at fi8D West Lions Head PlacelLot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3~~ Filing, and setting far details in regard there to. Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN ~~~ y~ !i Tdlt;~ 0~ YAIL ~ ~ ~. 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 redevePopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type Ill Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-BH-3, Vai[ Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley DrivelLots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented Ly Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6. A request for a recommendation. to the Vail Town Council for proposed updates to elements of the Tawn of Vail Comprehensive Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto.. Applicant: Tawn of Vail Planner: Elisabeth EckellGeorge Ruther MOTION: SECf3ND: VOTE: 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 3C, Four Seasons Resort, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow for a m[xed-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 Vaii 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 RoadlLots 9A& gG, Vail Village 2nd Filing, and setting faith details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: George Ruther MOl°ION: 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 conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally {on all levels of a building or outside a building}, Vail Town Code, and a request for a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of new single-family and two-family residential dwelling units, located at 730, 724, and 714 West Lionshead CircleJTracts A, B, C, & D, Morcus Subdivision and Lat 7, Marriott Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (West Day Lot) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 10. An appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-38, Appeal of Administrative Actions, of an administrative interpretation determining that a commercial tenant space within the Village Center Commercial Condominiums, Building D, is on the "first floor" ar "'street level" of the building as defined by Sections 12-7C-3 and 12-78-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor or Street Level, Vail Town Cade, located at 122 East Meadow Drive, Lat K, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Fred Hibbard Planner: George Ruttier M©TION: SECOND: VQTE: 11. Approval of December 8, 20103 minutes MOTIQN: SECQND: VOTE: 12. Information Update 13. Adjournment MQTICDN: SECQND: VOTE: The applications and information about the proposals are available far public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 78 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 far information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2358, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published, December 26, 2003 in the Vail Daily. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 12, 2004 SUBJECT: A request for final review of a conditional use permit,. pursuant to Chapter 16- 12-1, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for changes to the previously approved conditions of approval for the redevelopment of the Vail Mountain School Located at 3000 BoothfaEls Roadf Lots 1 and 2, Vail Mountain School. Applicant: Vail Mountain School represented by 'Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Elisabeth Eckel 1. SUMMARY This memo has been provided for re-examination by the Planning and Environmental Commission of the previously granted conditions of approval regarding the occupancy and deed restriction dates of eight Employee Housing Units at the Vail Mountain School. The applicant is requesting that six of the eight employee housing units required as part of the approval of the Vail Mountain School receive a final Certificate of Occupancy and be allowed to be used for VMS offices, storage, and other school uses for approximately one year prior to completion of the entire project. The remaining two units would receive a final Certificate of Occupancy and be deed restricted as Type III employee housing units and used only for such use approximately one year prior to the completion of the entire project, and would be occupied by Vail Mountain 'School l=acuity in conjunction with the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or the final Certificate of Occupancy granted to the school, or no later than August ~5, 2gQ5. ~3ased upon Staff's review of the criteria and the proposed amended conditions of approval in Section V of this memorandum, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the request as proposed by the applicant and detailed in the Staff Recommendation and Conditions of Approval portion of this document. II. DESCRII~TlON OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Braun Associates, Inc., is requesting review of a conditional use permit, Chapter 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the temporary use of a portion (six) of the Employee Housing Units (also referred to as "faculty housing structures") for storage and office uses for approximately one year. • The request guarantees that six of the eight units will be used for purposes other than faculty housing only during the construction of Phase III of the Vaii Mountain School, beginning in June of 2004 and prior fo the permanent occupancy of the units by Vail Mountain School Faculty, or by August 15, 2005. lil. BACKGROUND Qn April 24, 2000, the Vail Mountain School received approval for a development plan and a conditional use permit for the expansion of the school facilities, including eight Type I11 employee housing units. On August 12, 2002, a conditional use permit for development of the employee housing units on Tract C of the Vail Mountain School was one of nine applications approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of the Vai9 Mountain School Development Plan. The Vail Mountain School Master Plan involved signifcant improvements constructed in three separate phases. Phase I improvements included the soccer field construction and the cabin relocation., both of which have already been completed. Phase II' includes the construction of eight faculty housing units and the construction of the eastern half of the new school building, both of which are scheduled for completion in Summer of 2004, at which time Phase 111 will begin. Phase III construction includes demolition of the existing school and gymnasium and removal of the temporary classroom buildings to make way for the western half of the school Final landscaping and the construction of the parking !ot will also be included in Phase III, which is scheduled for completion by August of 2005. The applicant, Braun Associates, Inc., has stated that the operation of the ofd school will be difficult to continue simultaneously with the construction of the new school during Phase 111 construction, which commences next summer. During Phase 111 construction, which includes demolition of the existing school, the applicant has identified a need fora "temporary transition space in the form of administrative offices, storage, and space for other school uses" and requests that six of the faculty housing structures be used for the aforementioned needs. The use of six of the eight employee housing units (faculty housing structures) as transition spaces would entail office space use within the living areas of the structures and storage space use within the garages of the structures. The remaining two units and (heir garages would not be used as "'transitional space" but would be issued a Certificate of ©ccupancy and deed-restricted as Type III employee housing units as early as May of 2004. Meanwhile, the transitional use of the other six units would extend from June 1, 2004 to August 15, 2005. Af that time, the errmployee housing units would be deed-restricted as such in accordance with the original conditions of approval in August, 2002, outlined below. Prior to tpe issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Occupancy for any phase of the school, the applicant shall complete and receive a Certificate of Occupancy for the eight employee housing units constructed on Tract C except far the occupancy of the cabin. 2. All housing units on Tract C shall be deed-restricted as Type 11! employee housing units. These units must be constructed in can,~unction with the approved development plan. Required Type fll deed-restrictions shall be recorded fly the applicant with the Eagle County Clerk Recorder prior to the issuance of any temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy for development of the school. The employee pausing units shall comply with the minimum requirements for Type 111 employee housing regulations, as defined in Chapter 92, of the Vail Town Code. The revised conditions requested by the applicant are as follows: Prior fo the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Occupancy for any phase of the school, the applicant sha11 complete and receive a Certificate of Occupancy for the eight employee housing units constructed on Tract C except for the occupancy of the cabin. However, two of the eight faculty housing structures shall receive a final Certificate of Occupancy and he deed restricted and completely used as Type Ill employee housing unifs and recorded with fhe Eagle County Clerk and Recorder prior to fhe Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or the final Certificate of Occupancy for any phase of fhe school. The other six employee housing units shall also receive a final Certificafe of Occupancy upon completion, but maybe occupied by the school temporarily for offices, storage, and other school uses for a period of time ending at fhe time that a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a final Cerfificate of Occupancy is issued to fhe school, or by August 15, 2005, whichever occurs first. All eighf units musf be deed restricted as Type l1l employee housing units no later fhan fhe Temporary Certificafe of Occupancy or the final Certificate of Occupancy is granted for the completion of fhe school, or by August ~5, 2005, whichever occurs sooner. 2. By Augusf 95, 2005 aJJ eight housing units located on Tract C shall be deed- restricted as Type 111 employee housing units and recorded by the applicant with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder ~-f~e,r~ a~. ;., r~ni~rnn}inn ,..~,~c .. .The employee housing units shall comply with the minimum requirements for Type 111 employee housing regulations, as defined in Chapter 72, of fhe Vail Town Code. IV. RC3LES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, applications for a conditional use permit will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for acceptability of use and then by the Design Review Board far compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a conditional use permit. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal according to the following guidelines: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs, C 3 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control„ access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located„ including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. ~. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use, 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use„ if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. The Planning and Environmental Commission is also responsible for prescribing the development parameters on General Use zoned land and ensuring that the development parameters conform to approved zoning in other zone districts. The development parameters that must be considered include: • Lot area • Setbacks • Building Height • Density • GRFA • Site coverage • Landscape area • Parking and loading • Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board The Design Review Board has no review authority on a conditional use permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. 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 and then facilitates the review process. • Addi#ionally, Staff provides a memorandum containing the background of the property and provides an evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the project. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ANQ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4 The Department of Community Development recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the proposed amendments to the previously granted conditions of approval regarding the dafe of deed restriction of a portion of the employee housing units based upon the criteria and findings referenced below. A. Criteria for a conditionalI use oermit 9J Relationship and impact of the use on fhe development objectives of fhe Town. Staff believes that the proposed conditions of approval follow the specific goals listed below: 5.3 Affordable employee pausing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vaii with appropriate restrictions. 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. The proposed delay of faculty occupation of six of the eight housing units still furthers the goals listed above due to the fact that only a nominal increase in faculty (1-2 persons, depending on the increase in student body population from 263 to 2751285 students) will result at the mid-completion point of the project in August of 2004. Therefore, by deed restricting two of the eight housing units prior to the 2004 school year, the applicant is proposing a one hundred percent housing provision for those 1-2 persons. Because the number of faculty is not being increased substantially until final completion of the project in August of 2005, the need for employee housing does not escalate until that time. Meanwhile, the faculty and staff intended to use the employee housing units will continue with their current housing arrangements. B. Findings for a conditional use hermit The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting any amendment to a conditional use permit: ~') That the proposed location of fhe use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit secfion of the zoning code and fhe purposes of the district in which the site is Jacated_ 2) That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to fhe public health, safely, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in fhe vicinity. 3) That fhe proposed use would comply with each of fhe applicable provisions of the condifionaJ use permit section of the zoning code. 5 C. Proposed amended conditions of aoprovai Prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy ar a Certificafe of Occupancy for any phase of the school, the applicant shall camplefe and receive a Certificate of Occupancy for fhe eight employee hotrsing unify constructed an Tracf C excepf for the occupancy of the cabin. However, two of the eight faculfy housing structures shall receive a final Certificafe of Occupancy and be deed restricfed and completely used as Type 111 employee housing units and recorded with fhe Eagle County Clerk and Recorder prior to the Temparary Certificate of Occupancy or fhe final Certificafe of Occupancy for any phase of the school. The other six employee housing units shah also receive a final Certificafe of Occupancy upon completion, but maybe occupied by the school temporarily for offices, sforage, and other school uses for a period of time ending at the time fhaf a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy car a final Certificafe of Occupancy is issued to the school, ar by August 15, 2005, whichever occurs firsf. AI! eight units must be deed-restricfed as Type ll! employee housing unify na Iafer fhan the Temparary Certificate of Occupancy ar the final Certificate of Occupancy is granted for the complefion of the school, or by August 95, 2'005, whichever occurs sooner. 2. By Augusf ~5, 2005 all eight housing units located on Tract C shall be deed- restricfed as Type Ill employee housing unifs and retarded by the applicant wifh the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. The employee pausing units shall comply wifh fhe minimum requirements far Type 1I! employee housing regulations, as defined in Chapter 12, of the Vail Town Code. • 6 MEMQRANDUM T4: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 12, 2004 SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of Lots 1 and 2, Lodge Subdivision, located at 164 Gore Creek DrivefLots A & C, Block 5-C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Lodge Properties inc. Planner: George Ruther I. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC}, represented by Braun Associates Inc., is requesting a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of Lots 1 and 2, Lodge Subdivision, located at 164 Gore Greek DrivefLots A & C, Block 5-C, Vail Village First Filing, Staff has reviewed the application and is recommending that the Commission approves the request subject to the findings outlined in Section Vl of this memorandum. • ll. DESCFIIPTI4N OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC}, represented by Braun Associates Inc., is requesting a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Vail Town Cade, to allow for the platting of Lots 1 and 2, Lodge Subdivision, located at 164 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A & C, Block 5-C, Vail Village Frst Filing. The purpose of the major subdivision is to vacate the common Cot line creating Lot C and to establish Lots 1 and 2, Lodge Subdivision {Lot 1 -Lodge at Vail/Lot 2 -Lodge South Condominiums}. According to the proposed plat, Lot 1 is 17,337 square feet (0.398 acre} in size and Lot 2 is $8,165 square feet (2.024 cores} in size. This is a slight change from the previously approved lot sizes of 14,680 square feet (0.337 acre) and 90,$22 (2.08 acres), respectively. Ill. BACKGR©UCVD On April 14, 1997,. the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission approved a minor subdivision of the Lodge Tower Parcel. The purpose of the minor subdivision. was to formalize the ownership and historic development pattern of the Lodge Tower Parcel since it was divided pursuant to a condominium plat recorded in October of 1973. Far zoning purposes, the Lodge Tower Parcel development site is considered IegalCy established, non-conforming with respect to site coverage, GR1=A, landscape area, density, and parking. IV. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONCNG Land Use Zoninq North: Mixed Use Development Commercial Core I (CCI) South Open Space/Recreation Ski Base Recreation II (SBR-II) East: Mixed Use Development Commercial Core I (CCI) West: Residential High Density Multiple Family {HDMF) V. MAJOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA According to Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Criteria, Vail Town Code„ "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Chapter, Zoning Ordinance and -~ other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. due consideration shall 6e 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 subdr`vision control, densities proposed, regulations, • ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town." Qne of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. This project will be reviewed under the Major Subdivision Criteria, pursuant to Section 13-~-4, Subdivision Regulations, VaiC Town Code. The first criterion to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Major Subdivision application is: Lot Area -The Zoning Code requires that the minimum lot or site area for a lot located in the Commercial Core I (GCI) zone district shall be x,000 square feet of buildable area. Staff Response -The major subdivision meets this requirement. f=rontage -The Subdivision Regulations require a minimum street frontage of thirty feet (30'). Staff Response -- Through the provision of a perpetual parking and entrance easement (book X31, page 613J, adequate and acceptable means of ingress and egress will be provided. The second set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Major Subdivision application is the subdivision purpose statements. The subdivision purpose statements are as foli~aws: To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response -The review of this request has followed the regulations prescribed for major subdivisions of land. ~. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent properties. Staff Response ^ This proposal simply formalizes the subdivision approvals granted in 1973 and 1997. The subdivision will not conflict wifh future development on adjacent properties. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements an the land. Staff Response -Staff does not believe that the proposed subdivision request will have any negative impacts on the value of land ar the value of buildings and improvements on the land. 4. Ta insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff Response -- The proposed subdivision meets the intent and purpose of the Zoning Regulations for the parcel of land. The Improvements on the land are considered to be legally established non-conforming and will continue to be so upon subdivision of the parcel. According to Town of Vail records, the two parcels have been treated separately far zoning purposes since 1973. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to pravide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to pravide that pubic facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response -Staff does not believe the requested maji~r subdivision will have any adverse impacts on the above-described criteria. 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 proposal will result in an accurate legal description of fhe subdivided land. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Response -Staff does not believe the proposed major subdivision will have any negative impacts on the above-described criteria. WI. STAFF RECOMf'~IENDATI©N The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves fhe request for a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Wail Tawn Cade, to allow for the platting of Lats 1 and 2, Lodge Subdivision, located at 164 Gore Creek DrivelLots A S~ C, Black 5-C, Vail Village First Filing. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented an the request. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this request, staff rec©mmends that the following finding be made as part of the motion,. "The Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Chapter, Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Further,. the Commission finds that the request if appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densitr'es proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and corrapatibility with surrounding land uses and other applr'cable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Tawn.." 4 U I~ ~ ~ Q Q ~ F. ~ ~.~~~.] ~ti~.C~ ~ ~ ~ 0. [`.l~~E~.., ~~ h ~~~a~ ~~ <w~~ C ..a CS ~d~ ©~~~ ~ , ~ ~ ~Tr ~ ~ ~ ~iW Q ~•~. Div A ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~~~~ 4 `~ ~~g:~ ~'V~ti ~~~~ °~F~a ~ ~~ W o~ ~ r 8 ~~ .E I~ ~° * y a s z E ° ~ r ( ~ _ ~ . S S I 5y ! ~ ~R ! ~ ~~ ! ~ '~ + ~a ~~ 8 ! I ~ ~ t ~ ix h I ! !y ~a ~ g4 !i s ' e j~ Ig ~ ~~ ~ 7 E ~. n `{! ~ t Y~ ~~ n 4 S1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~ i ~$eL 4; n ~'@ I~ ~s I d - Xs n c ~ '~ al ~ E "x~ S n e ~~ . 5 `u_ p~ a T B i~ I~~ ~9 n ~ x~! ~ ~e~ a ir's: ° r t t ~ I ~ ~ gE~ 16 .s4 a` v r W ~ ~~ !~s w ~€ ~ i Igp:p I ~ ! ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ € ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~5 F~ CE x ~ ~ ° C ~ a - - 4 I ~----7 ,~= s'8 ~~ it M ,ti a a w ~ ~~ a ~` ~E ". es:=~ =ex's` ~ a ¢ 6.. ~~ ~~:n5a ~.s if$ `e yea: ~rs:; `~aYE 72 ¢~Y az ;3~a'`s r~ Y~~e_' rdetl~ g.c~~rr ~s°5 i aa Say (o by~a e~ ~~z. @;nF e,}ae` 3g as d~:~ °P a °66~ a ~':,. Ey 3 ~y'i's,~ S~.[ R ~a 58`. S~.r ink x~ S_ ~3 ~ ry~e ~ gr[3_ g: _~3 ~g Sin s; ~~ - E 8°-E S =~ ~€ s r~~8 a~s a""~,~:¢ ^HF -a;~ ~e~;s~ i€s:8~ 99;4 a ~a~ ~~ a # ~4~n-B: f~~a xJe~ ~ ~p3~ Y ~ B y sd~~ 9 a c ~a3yF fir- ~:. F'Y ~u y 9~~~az G a`$'£`9 '~ ~ ~~~ ~ ga~'f$Q ~i pp crp$xF I ~ ~7.a aea I p a nF ;~W=~~: !'~~ ¢~a o~ 5 fig"- ~7d a 4 a '$3~ t A~ ~~ r. sr ~' ~ as y~ n ~~ dnr ;, "~ ~~d~6 e.~ r;~ nn R G ~2E~~4~~ ER s~`~'i a b pp p ~-, x ~y A. rc~a d ~ FE ~y ~SS~e~^S~a ~Aee ~~ S~ ~ ~~+~i~s ~ ~• }2„s~~ r ` x $s 2'~aF ns - ¢~ r~ '} g $ x~~ya !~ _pg S. € s ~: 9SE G 4 ~ ~_ Y 9~~ S'am' ~i f~ ~: S a ~~ ai~a 3a ~~ Sar2. r2'¢~ge; ~~ a "ea I d!r a ~} ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ 'r S tl g~ iC - b3 r !~ frY S~~ ~ L~ b ~' - ~.~.~ s~ i'ia~ a` ~} Haas sassy Fax. c a s '~raxg~ E~~ i r: x&°~~i g W £ a ~ ea~x~~ d~~ ~44~'r r9~i§ ~F n4 se r ~~~sa3~ ~_¢ i ~ ° ys~`~~ x ~ ~?d 8~ ~~#~ ~~~ 7E 9yX E S &aT ~~`~ ~i xF r~,~p z ° ~ ! ~~ [ 9 ~ $ @~ ~. a t 9 n ~~ ga ~ ~ ~ _~ AE 6 r Y :kx ~ ~E~ $ ~'fr~° $ g ~c s ~ ~~ r ~ `Ts ~ 'y'~gY ~ ~9 ~ I ~ Y a ~s ak x p! pasfaTiR ° d ~ ~3_d a ~ Z n ~ ~ E n ~~~ S _ S ~~ it i$ YS¢6459ESEi~ ~~xrya Y q} ~1dM ~ ~ qp• _ . C F ~' } ~ ~ E£~Y~ ~ # I v $it~ .: '~a;d:@n_.T~ =car.ccc c.PSe=E~ ~$ 93 3~n;~$ ~3 ~ ~~ r ~`:'i~~d :R ` Esy 4-k~k Ik±yt •d¢ €s~: ~a~~ • • e N 0 e N F. 4 • ~ ~ cl,; ~'~C] ~ ca ~ ~~~ ~ O ~~~o 0 W~~° ~W (~ ~~~ ~U} ~~°1~,~,..y,'~~i C "'-I d VJ ~. w '.'„ o ~'~p~ o~ ~ I , ca `r~ o ~'~~~~ Wye ~~~~ ~~E~-.o O~~ h ~o~ 0.~ c~ ~~ ? ~ . `r } ~ o ~i~e §~9 4 > ~~ ~~~~ ..~-,,. .~. _.. ~- _4 ~, ~ ti °- q I~t v~ `v++` ~ ~, sa~e4'oe-E ' toe.as ~ ~s ~ ~o,,_f,s rn+ ~rz~" •"~ i ya.9+ a I ~ „~ ~s43~0'£ n~ ~ '~ ', Vii! 4~ - _,~ -- ~` \~, r ~.1 ~ ~~~ .. I'~ e' +_._ ''~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ,~ ~, ~~pa ~ ~ 5 ~ ~' _ ~ ~§ 4 .9 ~' ~~@ 33~~ sc ~~~ -~ ®'~ I ~f _ i ~ I_ 5 e~ I . ~ ~~.. - ~~ ~ ', ~' - - ~ - - y l ti I .Z~~ ~ 5 _ _ _ _. $ I >y~ ® r '.. I ~x i S ,- } I + '~ r IC 2 18 ~ . ''' I'- a 1~ '" a } -- I y',. l's o ~ ~: ~ E i ti ~~ ~ 9 R [~ ~ ~gg v j ~) x L I tl ~ ~~.. ~. ~~J~ _ ;_ '11 ~~~~ x ~ i ~~€ I' c ~ f ex J~ ~ I ~ ~ I r 8 I s ~~ I :~, I ~ ~ _ I m~ W !~- .a ~~ ~ ~ a A~~~~ ~ A ,~__ _ : ~ 9 ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ r •n S ~~ k~ ~; ? a ~~ a R ~~ ~~ ~~ n± v~ _,~~ yr ~ -}~ b {~ ~ r~y~` 2 CAS C~ ~ u' 6 ~2 ~r ~~~~ SS. ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ?O ~r3 ~ ° ~~ r~ W~ # €~~ , ~ ~r~Y~; S aa ~~ ~~W%~; K~ ~ r- 8~~~~'~ 9 a ~~ '® G _ a ~g a 8 9 V fl ~ ~ 43- o ~~e ~ ? ~. YYw; a a ~~~ n r MEMORANI3UM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 12, 2004 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 12-6H-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 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 revised plans for the proposed redevelopment for Manor Vail Lodge to the Punning 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 revised plans are the result of a work session held an December 8, 2003, were the Commission provided multiple comments regarding the proposal. 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 RE©UEST 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 revised plans fora 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 Drivel Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village nth Filing. A vicinity map has been attached far 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 t5 additional units) • A deviation from the allowable amount of Gross Residential Floor Area (11,494 square feet additional) • A deviation from the allowable building height (68.5' proposed at worst case on Building F) • Elimination of surface parking on the north portion of the site and the creation of one two-level below grade parking structure and a reduction in surface parking along Vail Valley Drive. The proposed plan includes parking for the project and an additional 71 parking spaces. • 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 third floor 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 strut#ures into required setbacks. A copy of a letter from the applicant dated January 12, 2004, has been attached for reference {attachment B}. A reduced copy of the floor plans and elevations have been attached for reference (attachment G). 11L BACKGROUND • Buildings D, E, and F were constructed in Eagle County in i 963 and 1964 and were incorporated as a part of the original Town of Vail. • On January 27, 1977, the P{arming 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 duly 14, 2003, 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 2 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 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, 21703, 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 has been attached for reference (attachment C). • ©n December H, 2003, the applicant met with the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Gommission for a work session on the Special Development District proposal. The Commission's review at that meeting focused on building mass, deviations from the High_Density Multiple Family District, and public benefit. A copy of the draft December 8, 2003, Planning and Environmental Commission minutes has been attached for reference (attachment D). • On December 17, 2003, the applicant met with Town of Vail Design Review Board for a conceptual review discussion on revisions made to 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 has been attached for reference (attachment E). VI. SITE ANALYSIS A more complete site analysis will be provided for future memorandums presented to 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 UsefResidential Development Standard Allowed Existing Proposed Lot Area: 10,000 sq.ft. 236,966.4 sq.ft. 236,066.4 sq.ft. Buildable Area: 232,750.9 sq.ft. 232,750.9 sq.ft. VII. VIII. Setbacks: Front: 20' 8' No Change Sides: 20' 20'1100' No Change Rear: 20` 1' Zero Setback Building Height: 48' 32' 68.5° Density: 25 unitsfacre 18.6 units/acre 26.0 units lacre 133.5 D.U.s 99.5 D.U.s 138 D.U.s GRFA: 139,650,53 sq . ft. 121,365.4 sq, ft. 151,253 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 130,331.5 sq.ft, 66,995 sq.ft. 72,227 sq.ft. (55%} (23.5%) (30.5%} Landscape Area: 7D,959.2 sq.ft. 77,146 sq.ft. 148,712 sq.ft. (30%} (,`32.6%) (42.5%} Parking: 215 spaces 220 spaces 215 spaces (Apra. 71 additional) SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZQNIN G Land Use Zoning North: Public Park General Use District South: Commercial Ski Base Recreation District East: Public Park General Use District West: Open Spacel Residential Outdoor Recreatio n District/High Density Multiple-Family DIS~CUSSIUN ISSUES 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. Far reference purposes, the following information is needed: 4 + An accurate survey for the entire site needs to be submitted. The survey submitted has some inaccuracies. • A plan for fire access needs to be more developed in terms of design and materials. • A sunlshade 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 26, 2003 (attachment F) • Submit a separate set of elevation drawings depicting the proposed lodge versus the existing lodge. • Submit an applicant for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type I11 Frnployee Housing to be constructed an 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 T©wn Planning and Envlrc~nmenta! Cammissian may be regr~ested" 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 11,494 square feet of addition Gross Square Footage of which 1,417 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 12,387 square feet of Gross Square Footage of which 9,521 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? 5 Proposed LJnderaround Parkina Structures and Traffic Impacts As a part of this proposal the applicant would like to construct one underground parking structure on the north portion of the site and reduce the amount of surface parking along Vail Valley Drive. The proposed parking structure would eliminate a majority of the surface parking with only several short-term parking spaces at grade. The proposed parking structure and surface parking would exceed the number of required parking spaces by approximately 71 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. Gaunt as there are several spaces which may not meet turning radius requirements. Staff has Identified the need far 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 believe the parking proposal is acceptable? 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 one story element which would bridge Buildings B and ©and create a covered pedestrian way leading to Ford Park. The height of the opening would be 1 ~i feet to accommodate the access of delivery trucks and fire equipment. Staff has concerns aver 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 obstructed from view if a an 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 1 ~-7A-~ 4, Mitigation ofi Development Impacts, Vail Town Code, "Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development ran public infrastructure and r`n 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 Gommission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off--site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tractrbank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this Section is to only require mitigation for Large-scale redevelopment/devefopment projects which produce substantial cff-site impacts. " Besides the obvious, {i.e., employee housing, streetscape improvements, roadway improvements, public art, loadiragldelivery facilities) are there any other specific mitigating measures that the applicant should be pursuing at this tune as pars of this development application? Public Benefi#s Pursuant to Section 1 ~-9A-1, Purpose, in part, 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 r'mprove 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 War'l 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. The Special Development District does not apply to and is not available in the following zone districts: H1Nside Residential, Single-Family, Duplex, Primary/Secondary. The elements of the development plan shall be as outlined in Section 72-9A-6 of this Article." Furthermore, Sections ~ 2-9A-8, Design Criteria, and 12-9A-9, pevelo;pment Standards, of the Vail Town Dade, sta#es, in part,. "lt 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 appficable, 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 7 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 gone dr'strict, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefr`ts to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in Section 12-3A-S of this Article. " 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 third floor connections between each building. The maximum height of the structures is approximately 6$.5 feet in height at its worst case 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 5 units and 5,86E square feet of Grass 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. l-listorically, 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 tl~e questions of adverse effects versus public benefits? IX. GRITERIA AND FINDINGS The fallowing 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 p. Consideration of Factors Fieaardina Conditional Use Permits: 1. Relationship and impact of the use an 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. 8 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flaw and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. B, The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina a conditional use oermit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Public Accommodation zone district. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Special Development District f2-9A-&: DESIGN CRI7ERlA: The f©llowing 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 submiftal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the hallowing standards, or demonstrate that one r~r 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 environmenf, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identify, character, visual integrity and orientation. 8. 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 AndiDr Geologic Hazard: ldentr'ficatian and mitigation of nature! and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on whfch the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegefation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. X. STAFF RECC}MhIIENDATION 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-f 3, Vail Town Code, the applioant shall be required to meet a compliance burden and demonstrate by a oreoonderance of the evidence that the proposed application conforms to the requirements prescribed far such application. Section ~ 2-7A-1 states, "COMPLIANCE BURDEN: !t steal! 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 alferation 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 Vary 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. " Xl. ATTACFfMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. 'Letter from the applicant dated January 12, 20fl4 C. December 2, 2003, Design Review Board comments D. ®ecember 8, 2flfl3, Planning and Environmental Commission minutes I~, December t 7, 2003, Design Review Beard comments 10 F. Public Works comments dated December 2fl, 2fl03 G. Letter from All Seasons Condo Association dated January 6, 2004 H, Adjacent Properky Owner Mailing List I. Proposed elevations and floor plans dated January 8, 20fl4 • 11 • MANfJR VAIL L4QGE Special level©prraent Qistrict Calculations January 12, 2044 ~OJECT GOALS 1 BENEFITS T4 THE TOWN OF VAIL, RESPONSIVENESS TO THE VAIL VILLAGE AAASTER 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 -Studio Buildings Expansion of Open Space Expansion of Landscaping Enclosure of the Back-of-House at Building l3 Further Enhancement of Ford Park Access Cleanup of Mill Creek Cleanup of Gore Creek EXTERIOR R'EMO'1<lEL 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. It is essential that the buildings provide a uniformity due to the fact that this is an existing property with an existing ownership group. One building cannot be perceived as having an advantage in appearance over another. 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 differences include changes in dormer elements, gable roof forms, and different railing treatments. In addition to the aesthetics of these buildings, Manor Vail Lodge is upgrading the egress stairs and providing ADA accessible elevators. ~IERGROUND PARKING It is proposed to relocate all of the surface parking the Studio portion of the project to two below grade parking levels. Parking for the Manor House portion of the project will be achieved through surface parking. EXPAND ON OPEN SPADE The goal for the site is to expand the amount of open space. It is proposed to add .74 acres of land to open space /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 additiona9 .74 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 f GRFA A total of 15 units are being requested, 5 of which are over what are allowed by HDMF zoning. Of these units, 5 are being requested over Building B a# the 3rd and 4th levels. Ten units are being requested over Buildings D, E and F at the 4th level, and between Buildings DIE and E!F at the 3rd bevel allowing a two story high passageway between buildings E and F at grade. HANGED 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 Attac~menfi: B MAN©R VAIL LOaGE Special De~rel©pment District Calculations . .January 12, 20014 Paving materials will link the existing access point to the west with the existing walkway in the TOV property along the Gore Greek. The bridge link between Buildings B and D will act as a welcoming portal to Ford Park. PARKING A two level 144 space underground parking structure is being proposed on the Studio portion of the project in front of Buildings D, E and F. This will accommodate parking spaces for the existing units as well as the new units. 71 additional spaces are proposed as surface parking on the Manor House portion of the property to accommodate the remaining required parking spaces for existing and new units. A turn around is proposed at the entry to this surface parking area to solve what the TOV has painted out as a problem along East Vail Valley Drive. EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS New Employee Housing Units are proposed to accommodate six 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 Gare 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 Ft©MF ZONING RE~2UIREMENTS SITE AREA Existing Site Area (acres} 5.44 ACRES Existing Site Area (square feet) 236,966..4 SF BUILDABLE SITE AREA Flood Plain Along Gore and Mill Creeks 4,034 SF Buildable Site Area - square feet} 232,932.4 SF Buildable Site Area - (acres} 5.3 ACRES DENStTV 1 #UNITS ALLOWABLE -HDMF RATIO 25 Units per Buildable Acre # UNITS 133.68 Units PROPOSED-SDD # UNITS 'Existing Units 123 New Units 15 Total Units 138 ~ VARIANCE -4.32 - 5 103,23% over HDMF allowable GRFA -Existing and New Unit Calculations Remain Existing to Remain Existin to Remain Existin~ to Remain ~ Proposed ~ Unit GFRA Unit GFRA Unit GFRA Unit GFRA Unit GFRA Building A Building C Building D Building E Building B 1 1,340.00 2 1, 340,x0 202 1,376.00 203 1, 376.00 316 652.32 317 652.32 425 652.32. 426 652.32 3A 36 3,528.00 2,120.00 3 1,380,xx 204 1,373.00 410 652.32 427 652.32 3C - 4 1,38x..00 2D5 1,512.00 411 652.32 Building F 3D - 5 1,380_aa 206 1,512.00 412 652.32 110 652.32 4A 3,764.00 Prepared by: Mefick Associates MANOR VAIL LODGE Special Development District Calculations January 12, 24Q4 6 1, 380.00 7 1,380.Ofl 8 1,380.00 9 1,380.00 10 1,3$0.00 11 1,380,00 12 1,380.00 13 1,380.00 14 1, 380, 00 15 1, 340.00 i 6 1,340.00 Building B 17 1, 336.aD 18 1, 336.00 19 1, 388.00 20 1, 368.00 Building C 101 1,369.OD 102 1, 376.00 103 1,376.00 104 1,373.DD 105 1,512.00 106 1,512.00 107 1,373.00 108 ~1fl9 1, 376.00 1,373.OD 201 1, 369.00 ST 41,337.00 GRFA SITE COVERAGE • 207 1,373.00 413 652.32 111 652.32 46 3,753.00 208 1,376.00 414 652.32 112 652.32 4C - 209 1,373.00 415 652.32 113 652.32 4D - 301 1, 369.00 416 652.32 230 652.32 4E - 302 1,376.00 417 652.32 231 652,32 EHtJs 1,294.00 303 1,376.00 Building E 232 652.32 Link Between ELF 304 1,373.00 220 652.32 233 652.32 3A 5$2.00 305 1,512.00 221 652.32 234 652.32 3B 530A0 306 1,512A0 222 652.32 235 652.32 Link Between D8E 307 1,373.00 223 652.32 236 652.32 3C 886.00 308 1,376.00 224 652.32 237 652.32 3D 657.00 309 1,373.00 225 852.32 330 652.32 4th Floor D, E, F Building D 228 652.32 331 652.32 4A 3,287,(10 210 652.32 227 652.32 332 652.32 4B 3,287.00 211 652.32 320 652.32, 333 652.32 4C - 212 852,32 32.1 652.32 334 652.32. 4D - 213 652.32 322 652.32 335 652.32 4E 3,1 i 7.00 214 652.32 32.3 652.32 338 652.32 4F 3,117.00 215 852.32 324 652.32 337 852.32 4G - 216 652.32 325 652.32 430 652.32. 4H - 217 652.32 326 652.32 431 652.32 4J 3,257.00 310 652.32 327 652.32 432 852.32 41C 3,260.00 311 652.32 420 652.32 433 652.32 312 652.32 421 652.32 434 652.32 313 652.32 422 852.32 435 652.32 314 652.32 423 652.32 436 852,32 315 652.32 424 652.32 437 852.32 ST 33,043.48 ALLOWABLE - HDMF RATI O GRFA PROPOSED-SDD Existing GRFA New GRFA Total GRFA VARIANCE ST 2Q,221.92 ST 20,221.92 ST 36,429.00 60% 60 sf of GRFA per 100 sf of buildable site area 139,759 GRFA 114,824 36,429 151,253 -11,494 ALLOWABLE - HDMF RATIO SITE COVERAGE PROPOSED-SDD Building A Building B Building C Building D Building E Building F S u biota I Head Houses 55°r° 130, 332 19,078 11,092 13,869 6,690 6,690 6,69Q 64,1 fl9 670 -8.22% over HDMF allowable Total Site Coverage Stairs, elevators Prepared by: Melick Associates fVIANOR VAIL LsDDGE Special Development District Calculations January 12, 2004 Air Rights 7,448 Links @B/C, BlD, DIE, EIF Total 72,227 VARIANCE 58,105 45% under HDMF allowable SETBACKS The above ground decks do not exceed the lesser of 5' ar'fZ the required setback. The ground level patios do not exceed the lesser of 10' or'f the required setback.. The architectural projeckions do not exceed 4' into the required setback. FRONT ALLOWABLE -HDMF 20 PROPOSED -SDD 20 VARIANCE fl SIDE ALLOWABLE -HDMF 20 PROPOSED -SDD 20 VARIANCE 0 REAR ALLOWABLE -HDMF 20 PROPOSED -SDD 0 {CLOSEST POINT, SEE PLAN) VARIANCE 20 100'~/o aver HDMF 0'°/a 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 atfirst 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 51 SUBTOTAL 9,521 12,367 PROPOSED BUILDINGS IN THE SETBACK Building B at first floor - 726 Building B at second floor - 852 Building B at third floor 762 852 Building B at fourth floor 527 600 Link between Building B and C at first floor - 256 Buildings D-F at basement - 26 Buildings D-F at first float - 64 Buildings D-F at second floor - 64 Buildings D-F at third floor 126 175 Buildings D-F at fourth floor 2 41 Buildings D-F at fifth floor - - SUBTOTAL 1,417 3,656 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 - - Prepared tay: Melick Associates MANOR VAIL LOQGE Special Development Ql~trlct Calculations January 12, 2tDQ4 Roof overhang at Buildings D-F SUBTOTAL MILL CREEK BUILDING HEIGHTS EXISTING BALCONIES MORE THAN FIVE FEET IN THE SETBACK Balcony at Building A at second and third floors (front setback} Balcony at Building B at second Hoar Balcony at Building B at third floor Balcony at Building C at second and third floors Balcony at Building D atfirst -third floats SUBTOTAL PROPOSED BALCONIES MORE THAN FIVE FEET IN THE SETBACK Balcony at Building B at third floor Balcony at Building B at fourth floor Balcony at Building D at fourth floor Balconies at Buildings D-F at third floor Balconies. at Buildings D-F at fourth floor Balconies at Buildings D-F at fifth floor SUBTOTAL ._~~.~~.. TOTALS OF ALL GRFA IN SETBACK VS. TOTAL GRFA % OF EXISTING GRFA IN SETBACK VS. TOTAL. GRFA OF NEW GRFA IN SETBACK VS, TOTAL GRFA 10,938 7.23% 6.29°!° 0,94% 99 99 48 68 68 2,s~a 57 3,111 75 26 3 104 20, 291 48 ALLOWABLE -HDMF 30 from centerline of Millcreek PROPOSED -SDD 14 (CLOSEST POINT, SEE PLAN) VARIANCE 16 Studio parking structure, mechanical and maintenance is partially in setback, 1900 sf ALLOWABLE -HDMF BUILDING A PROPOSED -SDD Ridge VARIANCE -HDMF VARIANCE - LIONSHEAD BUILDING B PROPOSED -SDD Main Ridge VARIANCE -HDMF PROPOSED -SDD Gable Ridge VARIANCE -HDMF PROPOSED -SDD Lord Gore Ridge VARIANCE -HDMF LINK B!C PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF LINK B!D PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF BUILDING C PROPOSE=D - 5DD Ridge VARIANCE -HDMF 31.5 16.5 under 39.5 under 53.66 north exterior wall -5.66 over 63.5 north exterior wall -15.5 aver 45.83 2.17' under 36.58 11.42 under 32.5 15.5 under 32 16 under Prepared by: Melick Associates MANOR VAIL LODGE Special Development District Calculations January ~ 2, 2004 BUILDING D PROPOSED -SDD Main Ridge 55.91 VARIANCE -HDMF -7.91 over PROPOSED -SDD Gable Ridge 59.08 VARIANCE -HDMF -11.08 aver LINK DIE PROPOSED -SDD ~l5 VARIANCE -HDMF 3 under BUILDING E PROPOSED -SDD Main Ridge 55.91 VARIANCE -HDMF -2.25 over PROPOSED -SDD Gable Ridge 59.x8 VARIANCE -HDMF -11 AS aver LINK E/F PROPOSED -SDD 45 VARIANCE -HDMF 3 under BUILDING F PROPOSED -SDD Main Ridge VARIANCE -HDMF PROPOSED -SDD Gable Ridge VARIANCE -HDMF AVERAGE MAXIMUM HEIGHT VARIANCE -HDMF ROOF AREAS OVER 48 FOOT HDMF HEIGHT LIMITATION total roof area BUILDINGS D, E, F ROOF AREA 27,980 BUILDINGS A, B, C ROOF AREA 48,531 TOTALS 76,511 VARIANCE -HDMF 60.75 based on interpolated grade 65.91 at north face of building -17.91 aver, worst case at north building face 63.92 based an interpolated grade 69.x8 at north face of building -21.08 over, worst case at north building face 50.0 -2.0 over roof area over 48' 22, 596 6, 316 28, 912 38% over PARKING * Surface Parking -Ali parking is below grade with the exception of three surface spaces on paved grade ak 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 accommadate 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. * 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 accommadate 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 1~R" w. x 22" d. will be located on some parking stripes STUDIO -PHASE 1 Existing Spaces 121 New Unit Spaces 23 (2 ~ ~ 20001unit, 2.5 @ > 19991unit) L • Prepared toy: Melick Associates MANOR VAIL LODGE Special Development District Calculations January 12, 2004 Sub Total MANOR HOU5E -PHASE 2 Existing Spaces New Unit Spaces EHU Spaces Sub Total TOTAL PARKING SPACES PARKING STRUCTURE GRASS FLOOR AREA Studio Parking Structure OPEN SPACE PROPQSED AREA INCREASE 32,332 144 (plus 2 short term surface parking spaces) 57 10 (2 @ < 2000/unit, 2.5 @ ~ 19991unit) 4 (6 beds @ .66 spaces per bed) 71 (plus 4 short term surface parking spaces) 215 59,517 total of both levels EMPLO'1f'EE HOUSING BEDS EXISTING 0 PROPQSED 6 FUTURE UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS FUTURE SPA 2,400 FUTURE BALLROOM 7,400 0.74 additional acres of open space ti beds in townhome style unit 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 landscape areas to soften the difference in grade and create a natural appearance. Existing Vegetation, Natural 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 relocated to the north and reconfigured. The access to Ford Park will be maintained. "` Construction Fence -The construction site will be properly surrounded by anon-removable construction fence during the construction process. Y 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 Buildng F_ There are no plans to grade within this area. RETAINING WALLS T'he 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 tint nature of the site retaining wails viii 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 ar wetlands. E DEPARTMENT ACCESS The design team has agreed in concept to a design solution to provide fire department access from the entry drive at the hotel entry along the front of Buildings D, E and F with a hammer head turn around, Fire Department access Prepared by: Melick Associates MANOR VAIL LaD~GE Special Development District Calculations January 12, 24Q4 for the Manor House wilt occur in the surface parking lot. We are currently finalizing detaiis ko these schemes. It is khe intent of the design team to have this solution finalized peior to formally submitting to the DRB and PEC, Prepared by: Melick Associates • s Design Reuie`rv Board Comments From December ~, 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 Lange. • 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 lacks 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 mare 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 resident.%al 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 Flaus and Sannenalp 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 mare 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 farms 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. • UU'hile 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. Attachment: C PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION a PUBLIC MEETING ~ '~'' , "y"` Monday, December 8, 2003 PRQJECT ORIENTATIQN f -Community Derrelopment Dept. PUB!-1C WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Jahn 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 ~~ N©TE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6;00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:3 iJ Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 5. A request far 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 #or the construction of Type I II 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 anal 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 Pian. 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 109 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 f3 new Employee Housing beds between Buildings B and C. Thirteen more units than were currently allowed under HDMF zoning were being requested. Attachment: D ~. TfI1Gll' ~k' VA r1.1 fit • • ~'~ . r. 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 s#ated that compared with buildings in the Lionshead area, no percentage of the roofs would be over the height requirement. The additional 9 09 parking spaces would be far 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. ~Qne of the criteria in the Lionshead Master Plan regulated the total redevelopment of a property as apposed 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 19£0's roof farms would not be compatible with the new roof farms being proposed. Rollie Kjesbo mentioned his surprise at the changes that had taken place within the prapasal 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 dif#erent. 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. Substantia6 landscaping, not simply small shrubs, 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 Pord 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 mare feasible. Underground parking was definitely preferred. However, nothing would be approved that would result in an increase in traffic. The ~~ a~ 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 1= 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 Lamaist 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 nat. Erickson Shirley responded that he was sti11 unsure of the public benefit that would result from the proposal and compared this proposal with the Tivoli development, which public benefit was extensively critiqued. Ghip Melick responded that more of a "Village feel" would be worked toward. John Schofield finished by encouraging the applicant to proceed with ,positive ideas far 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 12t~ 2DD4. Motion: Rollie ICjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 5~0-0 TABLED TU JANUARY 12, 21704 Design Review Board Comments From December 17, 2003 Meeting • Questioned the height of each floor. The additional floor on Buildings D, E, and F is approximately 2f? feet in height. This excess ceiling height could be used to help step the roof farms. • The current proposal looks like one long linear building. The project should look like a series of buildings as you travel down the street by utilizing different colors and materials. • Avoid the "complex" appearance. There should be some common elements but also some differences in the building structures, • Concerned about the top of the parking deck. There needs to be some full size trees planted in the large open area created by the sub-surface parking structure. Shrubs and ornamental tress are not going to be acceptable. • The Board appreciated the applicant making such dramatic changes in the current proposal from the initial proposal. • There is still a problem with the "saw-tooth" roof fiorms which are not proposed to be changed. • Flat roof on Building B not acceptable. Looks like a "Riverwalk" development building in 6=dwards. + The proposal still resembles a large cruise ship. • Height is still and issue in terms of the views which will be obstructed and the impact on Ford Park. • Buildings D, E, and F appear "top heavy" because the proposed additional floor is so much taller than the existing floors. • Several members expressed that they didn't like the links between buildings. The links block views of park and creek behind Buildings D, E, and F. The newly proposed building links are less obstructive than previously opposed. • The park on top of the parking structure should not be flat. There should be mare undulation and a well developed landscape plan. Asked how the garage structure was to be vented and how it would be screened. • The railings on the decks of the buildings create a cruise ship appearance. • The landscaping leading to Ford Park needs to be "dressed up". • Suggested adding units on top of Buildings A and B and eliminate the "saw tooth" roof. • This proposal has come a long way, however, there is a lot more to do. • Attachmertit: E ,. TUWN ~~ SAIL Dept. of Public WorkslT'ransportation 1309 Elklsorn Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 4701474-2158 9701474-2166 Fax vvww.vailgov. com Project: Manor Vail reviewed By: Chad Salli, P.E. Project Engineer PLiI?11C W4r1[S Date: 12126f03 After reviewing the latest revision to the Nlanor Vail project, Public Works comments are as follows: Show new curb line t© accommodate required turning radius far the garage access Show turning movements for ingresslegress to parking garage and loading dock Area required for fzre dept turn around far bldgs D, E, F appears to encroach into the parking garage, how is this going to work? Remove surface parking from setback All parking stalls must have capability for vehicles to torn aroundlexit in a 3-point turn. The west side of the surface lot appears that 3-5 stalls will not be able to accommodate this. Drainage study required Sand/oil intercept required for parking garage Grading plan required Erosion control plan required Traffic impact fee $5(l0a per PM peak trip increase Attachment: F Mill Greek slope restoration and stabilization required alcyng property frontage Sight distance for pads at garage insufficient, vehicles exiting garage have limited visibility of pads heading east to Ford Park Traffic study of Vail Valley I7r at each intersection (Blue Caw Cir, Mill Creek Cir, Gold Peak, Hanson Ranch Rd, Gore Greek Dr, all curb-cuts) Relocate handicap parking in the garage nearer to the elevators What is the grade of the access to the garage before the 8% slope • JAIL. 7.2®~4 10~ 18A~f GASTL~ REALTY GROllf' ALL SEASONS CONDOIVffi~IUM ASSOCIATION 434 GORE CREEK DAVE VAIL, COLORADO S16S7 (97U) 476-2221 (97U) 476-2684 FA7~ Frederf c1~ Wy~a1~ L[, Preside~st 93 WhfpPpprWill Road ArrAOak,1VY 14544 N0.9~9 P.2 (914) 273145 (914} 273-5118 Fay cry; ~+.~.:ao1.cAUu 7anuaay 6, 2D04 Mr. Wazren Campbell, AICP Planner II Community Development Program Towan of Vail 75 5 oath Frontage Road Vail, CU 81657 RE. Manor Vail Lodge Condominium Dear Mr, Campbell: The All Seasons Condominium. Association recently became awaxe that Manor Vail Lodge has submitted preliminary plans for an additional floor of condominiums on Buildings D, E and ~' as vti-ell as the construction of a suLl~:xanean parking structuxe that will ,~,.~..tide aver 10D spaces beyond what is required by Wining for on site parl~wg. "We understand that Manor V'sil's proposals are still in the preliminary stages and as of now do not fully comprehend the scope of the project or the potential impacts art the neighborhood and our Association . R7e'wauld appreciate you keepi:ag in mind during the review process the following items.. • Many of our condominiums fare east so that our ,views to the east would be impacted by any construction on the tap of existing buildings. ~e '~~-d appreciate a view shed analysis being dare sa that we could ;sage the poteutial impact. The traffic can 'Vail Val.l.ey Road at the base of Gulden Peak particularly on weekends with all the programs being sponsored by the'Vaii Ski School is lxarr~endous. The traffic issue is fiuther compounded by the valet pazking that also goes an there. We aze concerned that as additional 144 parking spaces 'wall only make the existimg troubling situation worse. We acknowledge the need for additional parking in Vail; however, we don't wish to have the traffic in our neighbnrhvod negatirrely impacted by this. • • • Attachment: G • J`AN. 7.2~~4 11~~ 11AM CASTLE REALTY GROUP N0, 979 P.9 The All Seasons Caz~dominiuIIn Association would appreciate your keeping ~ a~,r~~sed during the review process ai`Manor Van's plans. Please have us included in the distribution ofany sulamissions made by Maaar Vail to your Boards. We ~vauld alsa like to icnaw whenever there are any public hearings scheduled oa this. Thank you for your assistance, • F'UU'':ml Vaii4Mianor Vail Campbell 1664 Sincerely, F ederick wym. II cc. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, Via Fax: (970} 8~7-5856 Robert McCleaxy, Manor Vail Resort, V:ia Fax: (970) 476-5683 Vail Tom Board, 75 South F~'ontage Road, Vail, CO 81657 Design Review Board, 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, CQ 81657 Vail PlanYiing Commission, 75 Satoh Frontage Road, Vail, Ca 81b57 Rams Mara, 416 Vail Valley Dr., Vail, CQ $1657 Vail Trails East, 433 Gore Creek Drive, Vail, CQ 81657 Texas Townhouses, 483 Gore Creek Dmive, Vail, CO 81557 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NC]T1CE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 7 2-3-6 of the Vail Town Code on, DecemfJer 8, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Vail Town Council Chambers. In consideration of: A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vaii Town Code, to allow for a patio in the rear yard setback, located at 44 West Meadow DrivelLot I, Vail Village 12`h Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael and Iris Smith Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail } Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type ill Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7`h Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town COUnCII of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons Resort, pursuant to Section 12-9A-~ 0, Vail Town Code, to allow for a mixed use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vall Town Code, to allow for Type l 11 Employee Housing Units and a fractional fee club; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2~d Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple family (HDMF} zone district, located at 2$ S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Road/Lots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nioollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: George Ruther This notice published in the Vail Daily on ~Jrrvember 21, 2003.. • Attachment: H ~~. ,yl+ TOWN OF VAIL ~ Z Smo+~t~ fiend 5h~etsran Ski Club Vail ~98 Vail Valley Drive Vail, CD 8165? Apollo Park Lodge 442 S. Frontage Rd., E. Vail, CQ $1657 Vail Resorts P. O. Box 7 Vail, CO 8165$ IA Lee Edwards, Phd. '~ Texas Townhouse Condo. Assn P. O. Box 489 LOCUSt Valley, NY 11560 The Wren 5{74 S. Frontage Rd., East Vail, Ca 81657 Pinos Del Norte 600 Vail Valley Drive I : ~ Vail, CO 81657 .~ I=i F9~ 1 I~ i "~~i',\~~ ~1'~4or~~~ 1~i I'~f~f'A~CC ~ ~~r"18~G Use t~mp~ate fior 515fl~"' Apollo Park at Vail Timeshare 442 Frontage Rd., West Vail, C4 81657 The Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road, West Vail, C4 81657 Paul 7eppson Golden Peak Condo. Assn. P. O. Box 915 Avon, CO 81620 ACP7' ~'~~,~~. _ Q -~ - - G"a ~ - ~. _ /~ I r ~ _ ! \ ~ f ,,, r r~r r~~ , ar ~ 3 ~ ~ ~~r ~~~Q~~n~ ~~ { N10i4L '~-,. ~ LE i' .~ ~euwww,s f ~` ~~. ~n un~acrxa ~ ~" ~~au5xa tl-.J~ ~,o~.az ~ 9~Jhlldll~l9 ~ ~ 1 .. '~ ` I ' ' ' i l ~~ ~, ~, i 4 -- ` I~ ~. { _ ~~ '` ~. ~- ., .... - -, ~ ~, \` _ _ ~~ i \ ~ snare ~rNVnL U~ano~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ Y JIJlallfl9 `~ \\ _ '•, ~ ~ ,' - t _ __ ~~ ~rl~ e~ 1u1 _ e~e+»e a1 dwvn ~ \ om ~ 5 ~~ ;tdaa rnoa of wlad \ ~ o ~ ~~ 1 _~ ` .' 1 T- r .~ '. `°~ `~ ~ __.. ~~ ~ 'i J~\ ~o r 'y ~y ?1Q1ahT3'7 ~l ~~ 3N 41M1M3AOlld W h ~~ ~ Y ~\ '~ %]aaL~s A}'AL '^' O '1 ~ Q ~(fl •~ ~ 1 ~ ~1 ~ .ar :~ '~ 1 + ~ , ~ t 9 + s ~/ ,r n_7~~~ ~tJ~~ 1 Y ~. ~ t (+~ ~ 553'J 5 4~ ,' ~ ~ ' ~ r~ `4 , „1 t ~~ a y ~. 1 .. ` ~ .u 1 ~~ +_ °` o '~ `~.y 3 ~C171R8 '~ ~ ` `y ,` ~ \ ~ `4 '` 7f33X7 3~ ~ ~ '` ~. r i t r r ~ ~ ~ f ~ / / .r 1 ~ r r ! r 1 ' 1 1 J f 1 1 1 ! f 1/ J r i ~ ~ ~, r r 1 ~ / r / r ~ r r + r r r i ~ ! r ~ ~ ~ ~ f ` 4~ o c . Q ~. Lh ~. t . ~, ~. ~ . ~, . ~ . ~, e ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ w g~ i ~._. b ~~ 9x ~~ ' f Y ~~ ~ W~ W ' .. ___----rt---~- ----~--- ,. ~ `'-~~ ~ ~' t'3 ~ ~ ~°~ ~? ~~ i ~ i ~ ~-~ ~ / ~' !~` 'fir-` ~ $SV i I -: .i n \ ~ / a ' ~ ~ I ~` ~ 1 ~5 r ,~ ~ --~_____ _ ~ I ,~ J ,F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __ I / 2 $m ~- - - a I r' z ~ ~, ~ ` ~ ~' ~~~ ~,, ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ + u ~- Q ~, e 1 ~ ~a~ ~ ~ ___._~ ~ ~-~ i ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ^- O Qom. r Q '~t ~ ~ ~ .,, f ni H ~ -L'S ~- '~ ~ V ,~~ ; ~ (, .} ,~ ,f ~ iL aC e ~~ 2 A 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~~ ~ Q I .~ ~ - Q ~ U l ~'"'~~ v' „~ ~~ ~ ~~ m ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ `,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~' t1 ~~~ s~ ~~ `~ ~~ ~ ~N ~ ~--~ ~ ~ ~ V f vUV 1 W f ~ i f J , ~ L 4 ' ~ V I . ' , f f 7 f 1 I I f I u 1 1 ~ O I~ I I r~ 1 I ~L' ~~ u a~ ~ Z n 1-` I ~ f © ~ I ~~ o o zoos ~ ~ ~ ] , -- ----- , --- ---' - ~ ~ _- __I,i 11 y+~~ 1 1 _ _ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~i~mre...Y ^~ ~~~ 1 1 _ L/ {~ t. 1 Y 1 ~ ~ - 't.}~ e k~i yr• ~ 1 ry ~ 1 ] k i I jj_ ~ ~ ~ r I 4- 4 ,% .'~ ~ nn~ ~.M ~ ~ ~ ~, C ~ II111 "~i ~ ~ I Inn ~ ~ I 1 w ~ f vus=y ® ~ ~ :~ ~~ ~~ `~ /~ f+ I I ,~ `~ ~~ n j ~ ~ ~ - ~. , ~~ ~ f' ~ 1 I 1 '. ~ j ~o- '.~ \~ ~`4 l f' ~ I ~ I ~ T `~ °°' ~~` ---------------- -- - ~ ~l r - 1 Y ~~ ~^~ 1 II I ~, G~ ' j ,~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'tom' / ~ ~ + /~,~, y ~ : ~ ° 1 1 ~~ A *~ `~ ~ I~ n 1 I If+ J t 3 ~ ~ ~`/ !'ir I {a..mr~r~ II r x 1 I 1 r ~ a, '-.'~~~ti ~~ ~ --€ - ~ ~ i r e?~~-} ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ I l -^7 ! p } t I ''"}{"*-- ~ Il / :~~yr _~ ~•_i Ufa ~' -@ ~ k! ~ ~_ f ` ~G ~F~ ' ~ 1111 11 a 7~ ~ ~~~ r t _ ~ 1 ',• t 9 _ir(( Y % W ~ 1 ~ v ~ I _ ~ ~) ~'.~ ~ ~ ., I III - Z ~ ~ ~ 1f ~f ,` 1 fl II ~ I II flf u J ~~~ t ~ ~~r 1! 1/ f11 111 ~ ~ ~ ~~ '11 1! I ~~~ k ~ -' ' ~ .~F ~ I f ~I ~ II _ p~ 1 • ~ f1~ 1 Y I II If ~ ~ j v P ~ t 1 VI /1 f1 r . ~'~~~ ~ ¢i i i n ~ 'I t. j ~ I rtrt 11 ~ -~ ~ F. I II ~~ @S I ~ 1 +~(^} I ' Ct +~ VV L., j t ~ 1 ~~ J '1 } I i'-vt., fi~a~ ..;~ I - ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 1 ~,~ 1 r t ~__ _ .~ ~ ~ l5`t1` 1,, j ~W r_____ _~~~~._~~____________~ _ _ __ __ _ I 1 ~ ~ Y I 5 ~ ~ s . f , . ` ` J ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~; ~ =° ~~` ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~. ~ I ~ ,~ ~ ,~ f /~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~» ~;,,, r ~ t ~ ~~ ~~ 1 v ~~ F N ~ ~.~ ~ ~ i ~ u ~p~ a~~'.i S~ ' j/l~ ~~'~„~ 1' s ;: _ t.:...~~ x f~ ~ l °~~ y} '' ~IRI i ^E~ ~ 1 y.~ ~ E }. 1 ~ `I 4' j} 9 A ~~!! 2¢¢ 1 4 gf3 ~' 1 1 ~~ I 1 r i ~>L ( 1 ~y 1 -r. ~ i °~ S~ 11 I f 1 1 W i. 1 1 1 ~ 1 rrr~~~ }j 1 I I 1 1 i F;~~_~ 1 1 1 ~ I 1 d l A 1 1 1 ~^~-~...~ # I \ 1 ~ 4 1 1 I__.]___~...__._ rl ~~~ ' ~ '~ ~ ~ }~~' ___ - ~~-------- ~~1 1 \\\ I ..~_ 4 I 1 1 ~- _ __- ~ ~ .? a3 u ~ ~~ ion ~ ~ ~~ ""' -1EY~lI ~b -~ `" F ~. f ~ ~ ""' i ' d: ~ 6 ~ 3"1~ ~ ~ ~ r _ Yf ~ F~r I~ ~ d ~ 1 {" ~ ~a 4~w f~ '~ t ~ ~ ; ~ a. x, ~ ~° t ~ ~ f } ~ ~r r } x ~~' ~*.. r~ ~u_ ~ # x ffi~ ~S ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~-` _~ ~ ,r ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~f ~~ ./ ~ ~ ~~ / ~ ~! f )r r NI ~ st. l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ r~ r ti ~~ ~~~ r 1 ~~~~b ~ a N ~ o~ ~~~ ----- .. ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ,. . ~. r / ~ . 1 ~ffi i 1 ~ z0~., r .~ r 1 o a ~ ,. k.. _._,~,.__.~ ~ - 'j r 4' ~ ~ ~_ ~~" / 0 ~ -,.1 ~ , ~ ... ~ ~f~ ~ __ ~ ~,- , ~~m~ ~ __ -~]'°~ ~~~ ~~ ~' Y_„ `I ~~ a, ---' r~ 1 `~ ~ ~ .~ 1 ' `-~~~~ 5 1 3~go ~ ~ ~~ .~- -4. 1 l ~~ 1 1 f ~ ~+. ~ 1 _ l ~ I _ _.- ' z ~, i ~ ~_ 4 s ~-" ~ ~-- O o + -= m ~ ~" ~ ~ a ~ .~ u~ ~•~• .~ ~ off! ,n u ~ '1 }"559 ' > ( ~-1~;'_. /' m ~1 O n ~ ~~ -`~`~ --~ 1 f r ------- 1 J tl- Z Z w t~ Z J_ Cf] J ~1 LL Z Z ,., V ~o C~ z D J W i~ c~ z 0 J_ C9 ~_J MEMORANDUM TQ, Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Review of Town of Vail adopted documents and outline of Comprehensive Plan for beginning the process of updating, combining, and revising necessary elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Elisabeth Eckel SUMMARY This memorandum exists in order to provide the Planning and Environmental Commission with a combined outline of the Town of Vail's various adopted documents to determine what a single Comprehensive Plan might include following the revision and update of the aforementioned adopted documents. II. BACKGROUND Since the previous meetings of the Planning and Environmental Commission on November 10, 2003 and December 8, 2003, Staff has completed several tasks per the direction of the PEC to further aid in prioritizing the Plan update. Staff analyzed the Comprehensive Plans of comparable resort areas, counties, and towns, in order to provide a basis of comparison with the Town of Van's adopted documents. Furthermore, Staff drafted an ou#line of the "one source Plan" and researched the resources (financial and otherwise) that are generally necessary to a Comprehensive Plan update. Consequently, Staff is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission evaluate this outline of the adop#ed documents for presentation to Town Council so that resources may be dedicated to the revision and update of the Town of Vail's adopted documents. III, PROPOSED OUTLINE The outline below combines all of the currently adopted documents within the Town. Please Hate that Title 12: honing Regulations, and the Development Standards Handbook have been omi#ted from the outline of the Comprehensive Plan. Though their updates are equally important, the scope of those documents is separate than that ofi the Comprehensive Plan. ~: • 'I~ Comprehensive Plan The outline incorporates every adopted document that exists within the Town of Vail and was organized according to each document's importance and relevance to the following criteria: Ease of the revisionlupdate: in-house ar outsource ^ Importance of the Plan to Vail's future ^ Impact of the Plan on current development • Frequency of use Vail Village Master Plan The update should address several issues that are currently not included in the Plan: a) Means of maintaining a high level of quality development and redevelopment within Vail Village; b) The necessity far Special Development Districts: i.e., the Plan should be current enough to address today's issues appropriately without causing every project to require exceptions from the regulations; c) Unique strategies intended to improve the retail environment; d) Inclusion of loading and delivery facilities as necessitated by current redevelopment projects. lI. Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines (may also be included in Chapter l: Vail Village Master Plan) -the Guidelines detail ideas about the function and aesthetics of Vaii Village and are closely related to the previous chapter. 111. Streetscape Master Pfan -due to its emphasis on the design and quality of the pedestrian environment, this Plan is also intertwined with and may be combined with Chapter I. 1V. Transportation Master Pfan -this Plan is intricately connected with and may be incorporated into either Chapter I, Vail Village Master Plan, or Chapter V, Land Use Plan. V. Land Use Plan The update of the Land Use plan needs to recognize new and evolving community priorities such as affordable housing, recreational uses,. environmental concerns, community facilities, and other related land use issues. Vl. Comprehensive {7pen Lands Plan -The emphasis on land use, including recreation, the environment, public facilities, housing, and open space designates the update of Comprehensive Open Lands Plan as one of the most important. The Comprehensive Open Lands Pian may be combined with Chapter V, Land Use Plan. Vll. Fnvironmentaf Strategic Plan -Because the environment and related issues are constantly in flux, the Plan should be updated to reflect the comrunity"s goals,. current problems, and their short-term and long-term solutions. lts attention to land use issues also necessitates its incorporation into Chapter V, Land Use Plan. Vlll. Ford ParkfDonr~van Park Master Plan This plan will need to be edited only in the event that future decisions are made by the Town Council to allow seasonal parking as a conditional use at hard Park. IX: Ford Park Managemenf Plan The combination of this plan with the others is more important than the update of this plan at this point in time. X. Lianshead Redevelopment Masfer Plan The combination of this plan with the others is more important than the update of this plan at this point in time. Xl. Municipal Cemetery Master Plan The combination of this plan with the others is more important than the update of this plan at this point in time. XII. Art In Public Places Strategic Plan The combination of this plan with the others is more important than the update of this plan at this point in time. 2} Town of Vail Zoning Regulations Title 'i2, 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 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 below. 3) Development Standards Handbook Though not attributed the importance of a Master Plan, the Development Standards Handbook is an equally imporkant supplement to Vail's Town Cade and is a key tool in implementing the other adopted guidelines. However, ifs user-friendly format should be updated to include more illustrations and diagrams through which to guide the many redevelapment and new development projects currently occurring within the Town. IV. RESC?tJRCE ANAI°YSIS Staff researched several towns, cities, and counties with exemplary Comprehensive Plans (as determined by the Planning Advisory Service of the American Planning Association) to decipher the resources necessary to the completion of an outstanding Comprehensive Plan. Though many members within the Community are instrumental in creating a successful Plan, only those individuals or groups who are directly financed by and therefore considered to be costly to the Town, are designated with the following sign ($). F'ar each jurisdiction, an informational ratio analysis was provided to compare the "manpower''' needed to complete the Plan with the number of citizens that the Plan was to serve. !n each ratio instance, °Staff' is defined as tats! number of persons (excluding consultants) involved in the updating 3 process. Attachment A includes outlines of the Comprehensive Plans that were analyzed according to resource allocation. Wheeling, West Virginia Pc+pulation:34, 700 Total Manpower: 42 persons, 3 consultants 199 Update of 1964 Pfau 1 }City Council - 6 persons 2} Planning Commission - 16 persons 3) Plan Update Steering Committee - 16 persons 4) Staff - 4 persons ($} 5) Comprehensive Plan Consultants ($) a) The Burnham Group b} C.M. Research, Inc. c) Cooper Ross Ratio of Staff to Population = 1:82~i Ratio of Consultants to Population = 1:11566 San Leandro, California Population: 80, 000 Total Manpower: 130 persons, 7 consultants 2002 Update of 1989 Plan 1 }General Plan Advisory Committee: a) Residential Neighborhoods -15 persons b} Community Services and Facilities - 14 persons c} Business and Industry - i4 persons d} Transportation - 12 persons e} Historic Preservation and Community Design - 13 persons f) Safety and Noise - 14 persons g) Open Space, Conservation, and Parks - 14 persons h} Planning Commission - 10 persons i) Board of Zoning Adjustments - 9 persons 2) Staff and General Plan Team - 15 persons ~$) 3) Consultants and Sub-consultants ($) a) Project Manager b) Public Participation: Moore lacofono Goltsman c) Traffic Analysis; Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. d) Noise Analysis: Illingworth and Rodkin e) Hazardous Materials: Orion Environmental f) Real Estate and Fiscal Issues: Strategic Economics g) Design: Alan Davenport Design Associates Ratio of Staff to Population = 1:615 Ratio of Consultants to Population = 1:11428 Hudson Counfy, lVew Jersey Population: 606, 760 Total Manpawer.~ 39 persons, 9 consultant 9999, initial Plan for County 1) Staff - 3 persons ($) 2} Freeholders - 9 persons 3) Planning Board Members - 7 persons 4) Mayors - 12 persons • • 5) Consultants {$) a) Neyer, Gruel & Talley Ratio of Staff to Population = 1:19450 Ratio of Consultants to Population = 1:605760 Toward County, Maryland Population: 240, 000 Tafal Manpower: 98 persons, 2 consultants 2000 Update of 9990 Plan 1) City Council -- 6 persons 2) Planning Board - 7 persons 3) City/County Staff - 54 persons {$) 4) Consultants {$) a) Fiscal Impact Analylsis: Tischiier & Associates b) WriterlEditor 5} General Pian Task Force - 31 persans Ratio of Staff to Population = 1:448 Ratio of Consultants to Population = 1:120000 lnyo County, California Population: 7 8, 240 Total Manpower: 23 persons 2000 Update of 9986 Plan 1 } Board of Supervisors - 5 persons 2} Planning Commission - 5 persons 3} Advisory Committees - 5 committees 4) Staff - 13 persons {$) 5} Consultants ($) a} Janes & Stakes b} BRW c} Mintier & Associates d) Applied Development Economics Ratio of Staff to Population = 1:793 Ratio of Consultants to Population = 1:4560 Aspen, Colorado Population: 5, 914 Total Manpower. 44 persons and $ consultants 2000 Update of 9993 Plan 1 } Oversight Committee - 30 persons 2) City Council -- 5 persons 3) Staff - 9 persons ($) 4) Consultants ($) a) BBC Research and Consulting b) CDR Associates c) Civitas, Inc. d) Community Matters, lnc. e) James Duncan and Associates f} Otak Rock Creek Studio g) Aian Ritchman Planning Services h) Robert Schultz Consulting Ratio of Staff to Population = 1:134 Ratio of Consultants to Population = 1:739 Gtublin, Ohio Populafion: 29, Q00 Tota! Manpower 88 persons and 70 consulfants 1997 Update of 1988 Plan 1) Staff - 25 persons ~$} 2) Consultants ($} a) I_DR International b) American Communities Partnership c) Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. d) Gamiros Ltd. e} Camp Dresser ~ McKee f) Clary Communications g} Judgement Systems integration h} Geisler Smith Associates i) M5 Consultants f) Tischler & Associates, Inc. 3} City Council - 12 persons 4) Planning Commission - 11 persons ~} Steering Committee - 21 persons ~ , 6} Working Croup - 19 persons ; Ratio of Staff to Population = 1:329 Ratio of Consultants to Population = 1.2J00 Teton Gaunty (Jackson Hole), Wyoming Population: 11, '! 72 Tafa! Manpower: fV/A 7994 Updafe of various `80's Plans Park City, Utah Population: 6, 500 Tofal Manpower: N/A 1997 Updafe of 1985 Plan Telluride, Golorada Population: 3,10D Tofa! Manpower: !V/A 7987 Updafe of mid `6Q's Plan V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In summary, Staff is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission reviews the proposed outline of the '°single-source document" referred to in previous meetings, which was drafted according #o the criteria for prioritization and the i comparison of other Comprehensive Plans• Additionally, Staff requests that the Planning and Environmental Commission analyze the research of resources necessary for Comprehensive Plan updates and forward a recommendation to Town Council that is reflective of a similar "population to manpower=' ratio. 6 A~.`TACI~MENT A 7ab[e of Contents ~~ Vision Statement .................................... . ........ . . . . . . . . . 1 • Executive Summary ........................... . . ............ Z ~ Why Have a Comprehensive Plan? .............................. 4 Chapter 1 • Study Area Definition and Plan Development # Study Area Definition .......... . .. . ......................... 5 ~ How the Plan Was Developed ................................. S ~ Identif cation of Planning Issues ........... . ... . ................. 8 i Chapter 2 Land Demand Demographic and Employment Trends Demographic Trends and Projections .......... . ............ 10 ~ Employment Trends and Projections ........ ................. 17 - Land Demand Analysis ................................. 25 ~ Chapter 3 • Land Development Capacity Existing Land Use ............ . . • - - ...... , ............ 26 ~ Topography ................. . ................ . ...... 26 ~ Flood Plain ................. . ....................... 28 ' Drainage Patterns .................................•-- 32 Land Capacity and Developable Areas .......... . .. . . . . ...... 32 f ........... Comparison of Demand and Capacity Analysis ..... . 33 i Chapter 4 • Housing Characteristics ............... . • - - - ........... , . , .. ~~ ~ Chapter 5 Infrastructure Characteristics ......... . ................ . ... . ... A•4 Chapter 6 • Historic Districts . . . ... . ...... . . • - _ • - - - .......... _ ......... 49 ~ * Chapter 7 Vision Statement, Goals and Policies .. . . ............... . . . . . . ... 52 ~ Chapter 8 Land Use Concept Areas ............. . ......... . . . . . . ....... 58 Chapter 9 • Tl<lL PLAN ........ . ...... . . . • - - ............. - - - - ....... 6D Land Use Element ..... . ........................... . .. . . 6I Downtown ......................................... 63 Special Planning Areas .......... . ...... . ............... 66 Annexation Elemen[ ..................... . ................. 73 Transportation Element .... . ................................ 75 Housing Element ........ . ........... . . . ............... . .. 8d Historic Resources Element ............................... . . . 87 Park and Recreation Element ..................... . . . . . . ....... 89 Infrastructure Element .. . .......................... . ........ 9I Chapter 1Q ~ Implementation Recommendations and Canciusion ...... , ... , - - ... _ ... 93 Focus Area .. ....................................................... 101 • North Wheeling Focus Area Plan ........ . ........ . ... . ........ . .... 102 • National Road Corridor Focus Area Plan . ............. . ............... 111 Appendix Bibliography of Planning Resource Documents ! - - -_ Wheeling Comprehensive Plan - 1497 Update T'l~e ]~urn]sam C'aroup list of Maps Map 1 • Study Area Map ............................. . ............. . . 6 Map 2 Neighborhoods of Wheeling ............... . ........ . . . . ........ . 7 Map 3 • Population Per Acre. ....................... . ........... . ..... 11 Map 4 Existing Land Use ............ .............. . . . • - - ....... _ _ - 27 Map S . Digital Slope Analysis ..... , ..................... . • - - - - - , ..... 29 Map6 • F1oodPlain&Slope ..................•--.,,...........-----. 30 Map? Drainage Patterns ..................•------................-. 3i Map 8 Potential Development Areas ............................... . .... 35 Map 9 • Housing Density . ........ . ... . ..................... . . ....... 38 Map 1Q • Average Value of Housing Units by Census Block (1990) ............... . . 39 Map 11 Housing Unit Types .......... . ......................... . . . .. 40 Map 12 • Percent of Housing Units Owner Occupied by Census Block (2990) . , .......... 41 Map 13 Owner Occupancy Fram Ohio County Assessor's Files .......... . ....... . 42 Map 14 Hauling Structure Conditions from. Ohio County Assessors Files ............. 43 Map 15 • Combined Sewer Overflow Locations .............................. 47 Map lb Water System Service Area ........................... . .... . . . 48 Map 17 • .. National Register Historic Districts Map ........................ . . . . . 51 Map 18 Planning Concept Areas .. ................... . . . . . . . .......... 59 Map 19 • Land Use Plan ..................... . .................. . .. . . 62 Map 20 Annexation Study Areas .................... . . . . . . . • ..... , . , .... 74 Map 21 Transportation Plan .. . . . . . .... . .... . . . ........................ 78 Map 22 * Transit Service Routes Map ............... . . . ..... . . ............ 79 Map 23 Housing Revitalization Zone # 1 ................. . ...... . . . . . ..... 83 Map 24 Housing Revitalization Zane #2 ........... . . . . . . . ................ 84 Map 25 Housing Revitalization Zone #3 ............... . . . ................ 8S Map 2E Housing Revitalization Zane #4 ....... . . . . ............. . .......... 86 Map 27 Park and Recreation Facilities ..................... . . . ............ 90 Map 28 Wellhead Protection Area .. . . . . . . ..................... . . . . . .... 92 North Wheeling Focus .Area Plan .r Map 29 Existing Land Use ............ . . . ........... . . . . . ........ 103 Map 30 Existing Zoning • . . . . .... . . ............. . ..... . ..... . .. . . 10~ Map 31 Focus Area Plan ...... . ...................... . .......... 108 National Road Focus Area Plan Map 32 Existing Land Use ................... . ......... . ..... . . . . . 112 Map 33 Existing Zoning ........... . ............ . . . . . . . . ..........113 Map 34 FacusAreaPlan ...............................•------.. 118 17Vheeling C©mprehensive Plan - 1497 Update ~s Bv~hAm ~sroup List of Graphs Graph 1 Historic Population Trends, Wheeling MSA .. . ....... . ....... 12 Graph. 2 Recent Population Trends ......................... . • - - . I3 Graph 3 Fopulation Age Distribution 1940 .. . ..... . ................ 14 Graph 4 • Population Age Distribution 1950............. ....... . . . . . . I4 Graph 5 Population Age Distribution 1960 .................... . .... 14 Graph ~i • Population Age Distribution 1970 .... . ..... . .............. I4 Graph 7 • Population Age Distribution 19$0 ......................... 14 Graph $ Population Age Distribution 1990......... ................ 14 Graph 9 • Ohio County Population Age Distribution, 1990 . ~ ..... . ......... 15 Graph 10 • Wheeling MSA Population Age Distribution,. 1990 . . . ..... . .... 15 Graph 11 Future Population Projection .. . .. . ....................... I6 Graph 12 Employment Trends, Wheeling MSA ........ . .............. 17 Graph 13 Manufacturing Employment Trends, 'Wheeling MSA ....... , .... 1$ Graph 14 Mining Employment Trends, Wheeling MSA ................. 1$ Graph 15 Retail Employment Trends .... . ............ . ........... I9 Graph 16 • Service Employment Trends ....................... . .... 20 Graph 17 • Government Employment Trends ........................ . 21 Graph I8 • Future Employment Frojecuons . ... . ..................... 24 Wheelie; Comprehensive Plan - 1997 Update T'6e ~u~+xm iGroug TALE CAF ~C~~JTENT~ Ackno~~ledgments i Table of Contents v figures, Charts, and Tables ~ t~'iSION 5TAT1^_~TENT xu INTRODUCTION A Introducing the San Leandro General Plan 1-1 B Conteatt for the General Plan 1-2 Text Box.• Relationship of the General Plan tv ©ther Plans and Prv~rctms 1-3 C How to Use the General Plan 1-4 D The General Plan Update Process 1-7 E Organization of the Flan 1-$ F Implementing and Amending. the Plan 1-I1 5AN LEANDRC] 1N PERSPECTIVE A Onr Role in the Region 2-1 B History 2-2 C Population 2-5 D Eccsnarny 2-9 E Land Use 2-10 F Transportation System Z-I2 G Environment 2-12 H Development Potential 2-13 LAND 195E FRAMEWORK 3-2 A Overview 3-~ B Major Planning Concepts 3-3 .'hat "Srr,art Growth" Means for San Leandro 3-3 Building A More Sustainable City 3-4 Creating a "There' 3-> C City Structure 3-6 Downtown 3-6 Residential Neighborhoods 3-b Business Districts and Corridors 3-9 Parks and Open Space 3-9 D Land Use Diagram and DeFxnition of Categories 3-10 Land Use Diagram 3-10 Land Use Categories 3-11 Text Box: Calculating Density and Inter~.sity 3-15 Related Tssues 3-16 RESIDENTIAL NEIGI3BORHOODS 3-l r A Overview 3-17 B San Leandro's 1~Ieighborhoods 3-1$ Northeast 3-18 North 3-21 Central 3-21 Davis Corridor 3-22 Halcyon-Foe~t.hill 3-22 Floresta/Springlake 3-23 't'G'ashington ManodBonaire 3-24 West of Wicks 3-2j Marina 3-25 Bav-©-Vista 3-26 C Planning Issues 3-27 F Marina Boulevard and Canununity Standards 3-27 South-of-Marina ~-~~ Neighborhood Character 3-27 G `lest San Leandro Business District 3-96 New I-lousing Oppotrttanities 3-2$ Irz a Nc~tshell.• I1ae Report and ?Viiti~ation of Public Facility Impacts 3-2$ Re~onarraendatioras of the West San Citizen Participation 3-25 Lea~zdroAdu%soryCoanrraittee 3-9G D Goals, Policies, and Actions 3-2~} H 5axn Leandro Marina 3-98 Goal 1, Coinrriftniiy Standards ' 3_?> I MacArthur Corridor 3-100 Goal 2: ~Tei~hbcrrhavd C;haract~r 3-~j ,~ Mid-Washington Corridor 3-101 Goat 3; Netiv HousirlS .Q}~E~ortunitic;s 3-~~ BEYOND THE CIxY LI~~IIT5: CJo~tl ~i: It4iti~ittion of Yublic:Fac%lity SAN LEA,IV~DRO'S PLANNING AREA 3-103 Impacts _ 3-3t) A Overview 3-103 "Goal 5: Cikizen Psirticl~atit>n . ~ 41 B Ashland 3-1115 BUSINESS A;YD INDUSTR'Y' 3-43 Irt a Nutshell: The G'nincorporated A Overview 3-43 San LeandroFlanningArea 3-106 B )Employment Districts 3_%~ C Hillcrest Iinalls/Fairmont Ridge 3-11? Downtown ~~ D Western Castro Valley 3-113 Industrial Districts 3-44 E Farmer San Leandro Rock Quarry 3-113 Office Districts 3-46 Retail, Service, and ~ TRANSPQRTATI4N Entertainment Districts 3-46 San Leandro AZarina 3.51 A Overview 4-l C Planning Issues 3_j1 B Transportation and Land Use 4-2 Land Use Compatibility 3_~1 Text Box: Integrating Land 11se Business Image 3.53 and Transportation Planning 4-3 Ira a Nutshell: San Leandro C Travel 14lodes 4-4 Pconomic Deueloprnenl Strategy and Bicycling and ~~~alking 4-4 Wor}z Program 3_j3 Public Transit 4-7 lobs-Hutt.5in4 Baiance 3_~.+ Shuttles, Carpools, and Vanpaols 4-10 D Goals, Policies, and Actions 3_j7 Automobiles 4-11 Goal 6: Do~l-ntan-n Itcvitalization 3-7j Trucks 4-17 Czoal 7 ;Industrial and Office Districts 3-~9 Railroads 4-15 ':Goal $: Retail grid Service Districts 3-66 Airports 4-16 Goit'9: A•farirla :and Sht~reiirle 3-71 Water Transportation 4-16 Gcal 10: Land Use Compatibility ;;-73 D Traffic Forecasts and Goal 11: Business Iri~a~;e .3-76 Planned Improvements 4-19 Goal 1?: Jobs-Housing Balance .?~-7g Level of Service 4-19 ,_ Planned Improvements 4-22 FOCUS AREAS 3-50 E Transportation and the A Downtown . 3`8'0 Urban Environment 4-25 In a NutshelL~ The,Dotvntown Plan Neighborhood Traffic Management 4-25 and ti'rlxzrz Design G~tr.'delines 3-83 Triiffic Safety 4-27 B )East 14th Corridor 3-84 Pedestrian-Oriented Streetscape 4-38 In a ,'viatshell• The North Area Plan F Interagency Coordination 4-2$ and Revitali=atz`ort Marazcal 3-s6 C Bayfair 3-b$ D Downtown BART Station Area 3-$9 laz a Nutshell: 77ae Centro} San Leandro/DART Area Revitalizc~tiart 5tt~dy 3-9Q E San Leandro Boulevard Corridor 3-91 • OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND CONSERVATION Stationary Tvorse b-20 Transportation Noise 6-24 A Overview 5-1 Aiapart :Noise 6-2~ B Open Space S-~ °: E Goals, Policies and Actions ` b-Y3 C ~'~'~ 5-3 Goal 2): i'~Iitigation of City Parks 5-3 Natural Hazards 6-?$ Text Box: San Leandro's Parks 5-3 Goal 3C~: `~~'ildfire Hazards Cr31 Regional Parks and Trails 5-9 Goal jl: Air Qualit<= 6-~2 Joint Use Agreements 5-1D Goal 3?: ~t~ater Qualit~% C-34 D Natural Resources 5-lI Goal ~~i: Hazardous tiTateri:~ls 6-~; San Leandro Creek 5-lI Gaal 3=i: F.mergency~ Preparedness (~-40 Plant and Animal Resources 5-1~ Goal 3j: Noise Compatibility (~-=i3 In a Nutsl3efl: Sara Leandro Habitat 5-16 ~- Goal 3G: Transpartatian Nraise ,G-4U Qther Resource Issues 5-?(I Goal 3?: Airport Impacts C~-45 E Conservation 5-22 eater ~-~'? -~ HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND Solid ~~aste and Recycling 5-22 COMMUNITY DESIGN Text III'ax~ "iP'hat's a Green .Building?" 5-23 £ner~~' ~-24 A Overview 7-1 .. >F Goals, Policzes, and Actions 7-?6 B Historic Preservation 7-2 Goal ?1: Rehabilitation of Historic and Archaeological Resources 7-2 Eaistin Parks ~-?c~ Developing a More Effective GUaI 2?: Devela}~ment of Now Parks ~-3U Preservation Pragrarn 7-4 Go;~l ?3; Regional. Parks 7-33 Text Bo~• Historic . Cxc~al 2'1; joint Lise 5-3j Preserucation Mtssaon Stcatemerat 7-7 Goal ?>:. San L~andra Creek >-3~3 Defining the City's Role i-i0 Goal '2b;' Plant grid At~itnal Public Awareness of Local History 7-11 Cotruriunitics ~-4~:: Tl~e Economies of Preservation 7-12 Goal '~i; Resatsrce Conservation 5-~i2 C Cor~nmunity Design 7-I2 Goal 28: Ener~~r: 5-'=i Overview 7-12 -.:. . _ Iiuildinl; a Sense of Place 7-14 ENVIRONMENTAL HAL4RDS Quality Construction. and Design 7-15 Ta~rard a Mare Visually A Qverview b-1 Attractive City 7-19 G Gaa1s, Pciiicies, and Actions 4-~() C Man-Made Hazards 6-8 -.Goal 13: Cooi'dula[ing Land U st:- Air Pollution b-$ . G~nd Transportation ~-~0 Irt a ~'Vutshell.~ An Air Goal 14: Bicycle and P eclestrian Pollution Primer b-g . Circulation ~:-;j ~ ' Water Pollution b-1Q „ Goa1,1>: Public.Transparzation ., 4-37 Hazardous Substances b-11 Goal 1G: Strccl.5 and Highv-avs 4-~9 ' Aviation Hazards b-13 Goal 1i: Neic;hl~~rhaod Traffic D Eme.~;...eyPreparedness 6-14 i~lanagciracnt 4~--f1 E Noise G-Ib Goal Ik;: Traffic Safety- 4~i~ Existing and Projected Goal lt): Pedestrian-C)i`iented Noise Environrnent 6-lb Strcetscape 4-4~ In a Nutsfaeld; How Noise Goal 2~7: lnte:a~encyr CUorclinatian 4-4~ is Measured 6-19 __ Noise Compatibility 6-2Q B Natural Hazards b-? Earthquakes b-2 Landslides and Erosion b-3 ~1'ildfire b!f Flooding 6-7 iL~, Policies, and Actions '-22 ~ HOUSWG Goal 3fi: Historic Preserti-ati~n (to be adopted separately through a Program '_?2 General Plan Amendment} Goal 39. Defltlin, t11e Cin''s Role 7-27 7 ics of _ __. _ e ]. ~[rueti~~n _ , r.- i_y. COMMUNITY SERVICES ANp FACILITIES A Overview 8-1 B Public Safety $-2 Iaw Enforcement $-2 Fire Protection $-3 C Education and Information Services 5-f 5choais g-4 library and information Services 5-5 D Social Services $-lU Child Care $-10 ~'outh 5-11 Seniars $-1? Cultural Arts $-12 Responding to Diversity $-13 Other Special Needs Populations 5-13 E Infrastructure $-1~ 1~ater $-14 V6~,stewater $-14 Drama,e 5-1G iii; Services ~;- ld Care $- ~th Selviee§ ~- iins Sarvirr c ~'_ 9-1 • • ~ a~>:rvaA ~~a AeT~orU A Gvervie~v 10-1 B Focus Area Priorities 10-2 C Major Initiatives 10-3 Zc~rung Code: Changes and ivlap Revisions 1(}-3 Capital Improvements 10-3 llesign Review and Guidelines 10-7 Business Development Programs 10-~ Annual Budgeting and City Operating Pracedures 10-9 Emergency Preparedness Program 10-9 Follow-Up Plans and Studies 10-10 Historic Presen-ation Program 10-10 Intergovernmental Coordination 1U-11 Ordinances 10-14 Public Education and Ovtreaeh 10-1~ D General Plan Annual Report and 5-Year Evaluation 10-15 E Epilogue 10-15 Glossary ;e,_1 Index B_1 • FIGURES, CHARTS, Aa"~D TABLES LIST C7F FIG~IRES I-1 San Leandro Planning Area I_S 2-1 Regional Location 2-3 2-2 Evolution of the Ciry, 1872-2090 2-7 3-I City Structure 3-7 3-2 Land Use Flap (reduces[} 3-15 3-3 Residential Neighborhoods 3-19 3-4 Retail/Service Districts 3-49 3-5 Focus Areas 3-81 3-6 Unincorporated San Leandro Planning Area 3-107 3-7 Unincorporated Area Land Use Diagram 4-1 Bikeway Plan ~-5 ~2 Master Roadway Flan 4-13 4-3 Truck Roues and Railroads 4-17 5-I San Leandro Park System 5-5 5-2 Creeks, Drainage 17CTays, and Watersheds 5-13 -3 Natural Resources 5-17 CrI Earthquake Hazards 6-5 6-2 ?000 Noise Contours 6-17 6-3 2415 Noise Contours 6-21 7-1 Historic Resources 7-~ 7-2 Commtaniry Design Features 7-15 8-1 Conunuruty Facilities 8-5 LIST OF CHARTS 1-I ~-I 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-~ 3-I 3-2 ~1 4-2 5-1 6-I Correspondence Between State-Mandated General Plan Elements and San Leandro General Plan Elements 1- San Leandro Population, 1900-2000 2-5 Year of Construction of San Leandro's Housing Stock 2-b Composition of San Leandro's Housing Stock 2-~ Jobs/Housing Ratios in Selected Alameda Caunty• Communities 2-10 Existing Land Uses in San Leandro, 2000 2-11 Survey Findings: Commercial Development 3-47 Characteristics of San Leandro's Major Retail Centers 3-4£1 Survey Findings: Traffic Calming 4-26 Tap Accident Locations in San Leandro, 1994-191)8 4-27 Survey Findings-Recreational Needs 5-7 5un~ey Findings-Emergency Preparedness 6-15 6-2 Survey Findings-Noise 6-3 Typical Sound Levels in the Built Environment 7-1 Survey Findhnfs-City Beautification 8-X San Leandro and San Lorenzo USD Historic Enrollanent &2 Demographic (Age} Shifts, 199Q-2000 LISr ©F TA6LI:5 2-1 Development Forecasts f©r San Leandro, 2000-2017 3-1 Acreages in Each Land Use Type 3-2 Correspondence Between Land Use Diagram Designations and Zoning Designatsans 4-I Average Daily Traffic '~Jolumes (ADT) on San Leandro Streets 4-2 Level of Service Interpretation 4-3 Levels aF Ser~~ice at lvlajor San Leandro Intersections, 2006 and 2015 4-4 Planned Street Improvements in San Leandro, 2000-201j 5-1 Park and Recreational Facilities in San Leandro 6-I Noise Compatibslity Standards for San Leandro Land Uses 7-i Documented Historic Structures in San Leandro, 2001 7 10-1 .Zoning Cade Revisions to be lulade or Considered Following General Plan Adoption 10.2 Highest Priority Capital lmpro'~^ement Projects Identified by the Genera] Plan 10- ],4-3 San Leandro Planning Initiatives Requiring Coordination tiG"sth Other Agencies 10-32, 6-1G 6-20 ?-12 $-~ 8-11 2-14 3-12 3-1G 4-12 4-20 4-21 4-22 5~€ 6-23 -8, 7-9 10-4 S, 10-{~ 10-13 liUD50N COUNTY URBAN CoMPLIEx TabEe of Contents C7 I. 1NTRCaDUCTIdN AND EXECUTNE SUMMARY .. ..........1 THE VISION .............................. ..........1 THE CHALLENGE ......................... ..........i THE CATALYST ........................... ..........2 THE PLAN ............................... ..........2 THE PROCESS ............................ ..........2 IL VISION STATEN ENT ..................................3 111. ISSUES AND EXISTING CC1NDfTIONS ........ . . . ........4 PLANNING AREAS .................................4 Waterfront Planning Area .............................4 inner Care Planning Area .............................4 Meadowlands Planning Area ............... . ........ . .6 West Hudson Planning Area .................... . . .....b STRENGTHS AND OBSTACLES ......................6 Competitive Strengths .............. . ................6 Obstacles ................... ......7 HUDSON COUNTY ISSUES .... ............... . ......7 Land Use ..................... ......................7 Dewelopanent Activity ..... . .. ........ . .............7 Design ..................... .....................10 Waterfront Development . ..... ........ . . . ...... . ...10 Iltdustrial Development ...... . .......... . ..........10 Office Development .......... .....................10 Retail Development ........... ......... . . ........ . .11 Residential Development ... . . . ............... . . ....11 RegionalLlfluences ........... .....................11 Economy ...................... .....................13 Jobs Generation and Retention . .. . . . . ...... . ........13 Unemployment .............. .......... . ..........13 Economic base ................ .. ...................13 Trade ....................... .....................14 Tourism .................... .....................I4 Housing ............... ......,..1~ Conditions .................. .....................15 Supply ..................... .....................15 Demographics ................. .....................15 Transportation ................. .....................16 Economic Development .. . .... .... . ................16 People Movement ............ ....... . ...... . ......16 Goods ivtovelneztt ... . .... . ... ................... . .1b C011g@Sh017 .................. .....................18 Social Services ................. .....................1$ Adlnilustration .............. .....................18 Welfare .................... .. ..................1$ Homelessness ............... .....................18 Senior Citizens .............. .....................1$ Disabled Population .......... .....................18 Substance Abuse ............. .....................19 Persons With AIDS ........... .....................19 Youth ...................... .. ..............,19 ~~~~~~ ~z~f~~~;i~n ~r~n EducationaiServices ....... ........................19 Health Services ........... ........................I9 Community 1~acilities . ...... ................ . ....... 20 Administration ........... ... . .... , , , , ...2p Parks and Open Space ..... ........................24 Education ............... ........................24 Emergency Services ....... ........................21 Public Safety . .......... . . .. . ..... . , .21 Utilities ................... .............. ........21 Sanitary Sewexs .......... ........................21 WaterSupp[y ............ ........................22 Stonnwater Management .. ........................22 Solid Waste .............. ........................22 Environment ............... ........... .............22 Contamination ............ ........................22 Water Quality ............ ........................22 Air Quality .............. ........................22 Floodu1g ................. ...... ...26 Scenic Vistas .............. ........................26 Cultural Resources ......... ........................26 fV. TFtE URBAN COMP'L>=X ..............................26 HUDSON COUNTY URBAN COMPLEX ..............27 County History ....................................27 Demographic Characteristics ............. . ..... . . . ...27 Physical Characteristics .......... . .................. 27 REGIONAL SERVICE NETINORTC ............ ........ 29 Planning Services .......................... ........29 Transportation Services ...................... ........29 Social and Health Services ................... ........32 Housing Services ..................... ., ..., ........32 Government and Administrative Services ..... . ........33 Economic Development Services . ............ . ........33 Water and Sewer Services. . ...... . .. . ......... .... . ...33 Parks and Recreation Services . . .............. . .. . ....33 Educational Services . . ....... . .............. ........33 CONSISTENCY WITH CITHER PLANS .............. ..36 Hudson County Municipalities ..... . ............... ..36 Adjacent Municipalities and Counties ............... ..36 Regional Plans ................................... ..36 The State Plan .................................... ..36 1, Revitalize the State's Cities and Towns ........... ..36 2. Conserve the State's Nat~ual ResoLU-ces and Systems ..3b 3, Promote Beneficial Economic Growtll, Development and Renews] for All Residents of New Jersey ...... .. 36 4. Protect tkle Envirolunent, Prevent and Clean-IJp Pollution ........................ ..38 5. Provide Adequate Public Facilikies and Services at a Reasonable Cost .............................. ..3$ 6. Provide Adequate Housing at a Reasonabie Cost . , , .38 7. Freserve and Elzhance Areas with Historic, Culharal, Seeluc, Qpen Space and Recreational Value ........ ..38 8. Enst>re So~uld and Integrated Plauuting and implementation Statewide .... . ........... . .... ..38 f- ,~ HUpSQN COUNTY t]RBAN COMPLEX. Table of Carr#ents V. GOALS ...................... ......................38 G EN)RAL ................... ......................38 LAND USE .................. ......................38 CIRCULATION . .............. .......... . ... . .... . ..39 ECONOMIC ................. ......................39 HOUSI1tiG ................... ......................39 COMMUNITY FACILITYES .... ......................39 SOCIAL SERVICES ........... ......................39 U'T'ILITIES ................... ......................39 CONSERVATION ............ ......................39 HISTORIC PRESERVATION ... ....... . . . ... . .. . .....39 VI. A CT10 N PLAN ......... .............................39 KEY ACTION STRATEGIES ...... . ... . ...... , .......39 Ecgngmic D evelgpBnent ..............................39 Labor Force ........................................40 Quality of Life ......................................40 COUNTY WIDE ACT10'~ PLAN . . . . .... . .... . ........40 PLANNING AREA ACTION AGEIv"IJAS . . ........... . .59 4VaterfrontPlanning Area ............................59 Inner Core Planning Area ............................59 Meadgwlands Planning Area .......... . . .............59 West Hudson Planning Area . . . . . ........... . .........59 VII. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .. . .... . ....... . ........ . ...S9 ESTIMATES OF COST AND BENEFITS ............... 59 Cost $stimate .......................................59 Ben~#its ...........................................59 FINANCING OPTIONS ........... . .... ... . . . ...... .b0 Taxes ................................ .............60 Grants ............................... .............62 Bands ................................ .............62 Laca1 Resources ........... ............. .............62 State and Federal Resources ...... . . . .. ... ....... . ... . .63 Public Housuxg ...................... .............63 Urban Renewal ...................... .............63 lviodei Cities ................ ......... .............b3 Commau~ity Development Block Program . . ...........63 HOME Program ..................... .............63 Private Resources ......... .............64 REVITALIZATION PROGRAMS .. . . . .......... . ..... 64 Hudson County .....................................64 Residential Programs ..................... . ........ 64 Hudson Co~uxty A€fordable Housing Trust Fwxd ... , ...65 Rental Production Program ............. . ...........67 Housing Rehabilitatio~x Program ........ . .... . ..... . .67 ~rl~aa"~!(.~'.~f(r 122Vl~G~l!!An 'P~GrI • First-time Ho~nebuyer Assistance Program ... , , . , .....67 CoLnmunity Housing development Orgaiaizatian (CHDO) Ftuxdilg ...................................... ...67 CoiTUnercial Revitalization Program ..... . . . ...... .. .b7 HU D Sectioan 108 Loan Fundu1g .......... . ....... ... 67 Business Loan Program ......................... ...67 Small, V~lamen And Minority Business Loan Program , . 67 Business Retention Services ..................... ...67 $stsiness Seminars ........... ................... ...68 Hudson Cotuxty Business Trade Show .... . . . ...... . . .68 J g .................. ob 7raixix ... •.....•....... ...68 Local Revitalization Effgrts ......... . .......... . ... . . .68 Redevelopment ........................~....... ...69 Urbann Enterprise Zones ......................... ...69 Tlnprovement Districts .. . .. . ..... . .............. .. .69 Small Business Loan Program ...... . ............. . ..69 US SBA Micro Loann Program .... . ... . ..... . ...... ...69 Main Street Focus Prograaxt .... . ... . .. . .......... ...69 Cosmnercial Facade Program ... . ............. . .. ...69 Streetscape lmprovemennt Program (Blockfront Facades) ,69 Economic Develaprnent Financung Fuand .......... . ...69 Affordable Housing Construction Loan Program .... ...69 Business linformatiox} Center . . ....... . .... . ..... ... 69 PROGR.gM MANAGEMENT . . .............•.. , , .....70 Plan Administration .................................70 Program Administratign ........ . .... . ... . ... . . . .....70 Hudsonn County ..................................70 Hudson Cotutty Division of Housing and CoLrunuanity Development ................................... 70 Hudson Cotuxty Office of Guitars a~td Heritage ......: 70 Hudson County EcoTtoxntc Development Corporation .. 70 Housing Resource Center ...........................70 Hudson Couaxty Improvement Authority . , < ......... 71 Local Manage~nentEntities .........................71 Economic Development Corporations .......... . .....71 Redevelopment Authorities .......... . ............ .71 Housing Authorities ........ . ............ . .........71 Comantuuty-Based Development Organizations , .......71 Hackensack Meaclowlulds Development Coanxnission ..72 TARGETS .........................................72 Economic Development .................. . ... ........72 Transportation ............................. ........72 County Facilities ............................ . . . .....72 Parks and Recreation ........................ ........73 Housing ................................... ........73 Land Use .................................. ........73 Utilities ................................... ........73 Environment ................................ ........73 Social Services ............................. ........73 i ~ r~ '~' 't~ '.O t`- G1 Oh U O fV N +~/7 LU `eD ~fl ~ O\ .--e ~D '~7 V] ~ 1~/~ [V N 4V iV N N N. c'F c+1 ['~7 [*7 M t*l Y~l t*1 M Chi CY ~Y 'd' ,~ ~ : : . : : : : : ~ : ~ ^ ~ : : : ~ : _y ti ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ F. ~r ~ C5 O U V U ~ ~ ~ O ~ S""i ~ ~ ~ a+ c~a cd ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ is ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~`: `~ A o ~ ~ o ~ c ~ o o ~ ~ L~ ~ ,~ PK ~ ~ ~ a`o c a o ~ s. +•r ~, ~ r° W ri ~ -~, ~ ~ 0.' r N lV v~ [`~ a~ ~ ~ O tre ~a ~ ~D [~ 04 00 0o N ~ CY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : ~ : : : f/.! .ri • r~l ~„~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : • m.l _ : : 1""'1 : : : : ~ : : : : : ~"" : : ~ v ~` c'_` ~ .~ ~ _ ~ • ~ G 3 ;rt ~ ~ es ~ ~' ;d © p bLF --. O + BCD ~ a ~. r ~. Q~i '. © v ~ a ~ ~ a ~ w . ~ ~-. m > ~ ~.. ,~ dui ~; ca ,~ N ~ ,~ ~, ~ a~ cu ~ ~ ~ ~4- ,arY - sit • ~ ~~ -e~ ay . ~- ~._ C7 :. RS-~•~ ~' ~. O- ~. '..~w`C~r E`~_`'. Ri Ar,~: O ~r a'~,:'. aw O..'a..~..~ ~. . Q; ~t tt 4"1 00 D'+ O O -^+ r1 M c+7 c'+~ c+'~ '~P ~ i'~ O1 C3l G1 V.] ,--~ N '[t' ~7 ~ ~ V N N M '~Y i/l GO 04 OC~ OG ~DC p1 pt ~ ~~ U ~ ~ O\ D, ati Oti rn ~ Q O ,-~ --; •--, •-~ ,-• •-• •-'~ N hE N N N ~ . . . . . s. . . . . . . . . U . . .. . _ - : p ~ ~ p . _ .~ -~ "' ~• ~ ~ O Q O ~' o cue : `~ ~ U u ~- .D : : : ~ Q. W ~. : O ~ w ~ > su ~ v o o ~ • ~ . ~ ~ .s~ ~ ^ O. --- is .., o .,, b ~ ~ ~R ~~W W 4,'~0.,.W ~,E~ WHE~W+C, ~~NC~Q, o °enQ W cr]C~v][a.A;Z ~ ~' ~ u W ~ w E~ rsa 00 0, o 0 o cn er ~r ~ ~o t- t- a, o o ~ N cv rn rn ~t ~ ~ v~ vZ v~ v-f ~r1 ~n v~r v~ un srx v~ ~,D ~fl ~ ~p ~p v~ ~G V* : : ~' . . : : : ~ . : : .C : ~ : : ~ : ~ 1,~1 m . . a .-~ . •~ . . . : : : ~ ~ ~a v, fl, ~~ ~ aq a .~. ~ ~ ~ `~ w '~~+ e~C • ~ ~ v Tai ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ip. J C '~ ~ -U k. ~ p U ,V r. t7 L. "S7 ,U L S3, ~ '~ ~' ~~,~vj~~ ~Ey~~ ~w~,-~ W ~, ~WU~L ~ ca w a ~ H C~ W U rn t----NN Nwr-or; ~..} . . . p : `,r' : '~ : ~ . . Qi : : ~ : "~ ~ ~ ~, j b : y :'off :Ca ~ ~- ~ . .~ ~ : ^= ~ ` ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ti ++ Vi ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .r a -' ~ p > c ~ o ~ o~~,' ~~@xQx4~ \J €. M ~! a... v m ., ~ ~ ._ .... _ , .. _J..~ ,..,,. C. J v3 V"7 ~1 V] '~/`i ~C? tin ~ lA ~ ~ : ~ , : : ~'"". . .C.3 : (~+ pp . . .~. ,a bU ~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ O o :, Ob ~--r t~ 'd 3 3 ~ o ~ rx o ~, o o~ 3 :; ~ w S a o o~ •L Q c°~i ~ ` r~N y~ s: G ~ a ~ c~. U td p `~ ~ ~ U ~ . ~ y ~~r' LTr p N L~-1 `xs LL ~y ~ ~ ~ F, v (=[ C/) ~` 0~] PO by 4T N M M ~O 00 OC7 Vl Oq Oti Ot -~ c*l lCY ~R ~o ~!? SC7 ['~ [~ i~ I~ I~ [~ 04 00 40 00 O~ Qt . : : Q . : : '~ : : : : : . . . . . ~ : . : U : : : : : : ?~ . : ~ ~ 0 . : : w : ~ C (~ cC ~ ~ :.n is ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ,o ~ o ~ .® ~ ? ~ o • • : ~, ~ cn W ~ I ° '`C s o do ~C ~-^ U ~ •~ it `v ~ .= v' G ~ ~ ~ ~ Z . on z ~ r ~ ' U ~ ~, a a ~ U o ~ a~ as ~ -~ a ~ ~ ar ~] ti l~ DG fh ~ ~ Ut ~3 N (V M d' 'c7 C~ OCJ 00 00 O ~ N h9 V 4"r ~ ~( [~ Ot Cat CT 47t O •~-~ ~- fV N N N N (~! C'"7 Crl C~ t'7 c"'Y ["'} M M f~l M 'C}' 'Cj` 'CY ~ 'CY d" ~' '~ Sr ~ ~''7 'c~' V'e U'S lf1 . . ~ ~ : : ~° : ~ -~ ~ +~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ o : ~ ,~ ~, L'3 ~ ~ 't3 ~ C t3 ~j a) O `~S 4 O ~ 'CS au O Lz. '~ ~ °' d ~ r~ ~ ~ i7~, f.Y ^~ U • C3 v '~ ~ GU ~ a, CY 'C ~ ~ U ".~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~' r0 ~ ~ can ~ ~ ~ Vj Q1 U .d '~ U cd ct~ [tl sti ~ [/] ~ ~ a,0 ~ ~ C cC Q o ^°' C v U y ,~ ~ o ~. cad ~ :~ .~ ° c~ ~ ~+ cs C? ~ a7 ~ cd a U ~y 'd b ~ '~ ~ ~--i C •~. p. ~. :- ~ cd- [y. ~ 4 a. ~ a aa~ ©. ~. ~-. ~.. ci. ~. e~- v cd. O~ ',?- fp- rs- W p .. ' 6 q - n rY1 ('~ ~ r... R „ _. m f°1 ~ .., .. C~ - f1 r [~ ..C. + r-!. ~ry-1 rr+,. n .. ~ ~_ _ [y •; ~/' . i, r/ ~~ n~ ,. •~ .~. +~.. +~, U ^J ....: ,,~~ N M ~ `~ 4C3 *V t~ 00 OC CT G1 01 d`+ •--~ C+~ e'*) `.rt ~ ~ 'V' t~ t~ os C6~ O~ O~ O O M N N N N N N N N N N N N N cwl c+'i M M M r"`+ r': r7 c'? M M r"'i f'1 '~t '~' ''~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N d . : : •~ : : : : : : : : : vi : : : : p : : ~ : : : : : O : : : : : : : : ~ : : Q : : : : : ~ : : ~ : ~ :1 ~, o n0 W c~v U -:7 "~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ U F, G cC RS U ~ Z+ .yam-. ~ U C U Q. CS ~ ~ ~ : C ".CS ~~,, ' O '~.) ~ ts4 'Ct .~ "ts = ~ ~ ~ 'G ~ ~ b~D ~ 'CS > 'C3 -. 'tt ~ 'Zf ['~ +~ ~+ ~ "~y0. ~ ~ ~ C# ~ ~ cC ~ cC c0 ^~.'~`~, ~ R'. C CS W C .~ CS p tS a Gli ca Q? n3 rn ~' h a~ ~ S1' fs. ~, ~ G4 pp . ~ y ~ ~.., t,; a.; r.; t-E 'S"'r = C o~'i ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ,a "t7 a v O '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,a O ,a w a a, ~ ~ ~ C v ^~ O c k"' ~ w.. ,U ~ •a 4 ai v chi .v ~ ~ in O V V •" ~ -V a -v ~ ~ v ~ p sC O ~ ~ U r,D d .~ O V1 ~ ~ H p LS, O • it ~" d ?, O p C '~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ c~Q, a~f~.E-~cnQC, rcL Cdt~U+~, ©~ W~~ ~~ ~-~ ~tY ~ c cv ~ ar ~ E-' C7 A f~ ~ ~ ri U .r v~ v-} ~+ ~o 00 0:3 0:3 ^rs -- ---~ N N cY1 ui ~n ~fl o0 oC O •., ,..~ v, w V ~O C t- t~ O O O~ O~ C+ CS CT Qo Q^+ ~ O d C7 O Q O Q O Cr O •--~ •--, ,-~ .-~ .--~ .--i .~ .Y, .--~ .-~ N N .-r .-~ +--~ .-^ ~--~ .--~ ~--~ ~ N N N N N N N N N cV N N N N N N N N N N N N : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Q} : : : : : . ~ . t. . : : : ~ : ~ ~ U : : : cr=C : : ~ : : : : d : b~D O O tom., ~ : : .® ~ ~ -~ ic,. p~~ ~ ~ rn •4 = •~ ~ ~ U .'Q : ~ ~1 p ~ ~ ~ '~ ~~ L:. C C/A U ~ 4G r3 ~~., _ it L ~ "„W L.1 ~ ~ .'". ~ ~+ CJ CJ ,~ !'`"~" v ~ ~ C a--1 ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ..• i. ~. ~ w _ O •- ~, ~ '~' 'L '~ "~ La, a3 'mod a U ~ C9 ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ v i. CS ~ C ~ -~ ~ C eC ~,,,y ~ ~ Ci = c3 ~,' ~` W ~ ~ ~+ G ~ ~ ~ vi r': CyJ ~.. .'C Gf C/ ~ N Q '~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y -~ ~ ~, ~ a ?~ a ,~ Lam": _R, _ ~ ~ o _ ~ ~ :: cs °.' a. ,~ .t3 ~. P ~ .~ ~ -~ .D '~. ~ U - ^~' iii----++++ ~„ ~+. ~ ~l ~ ~ `" ~ yG), OU Q ~ "~ O Qs U S.e ~ ~ O k, O d ~ O Ggi O ~ i~ O ~ +-+ t3 ..~. U M.. C~.. R, ~~-" U7 F-' Cs. R, ~ .~ Q, .p ~ ~ V ~4 ~. ~'~ O W r ~ .~. i/] .~ Cr S~ C3 ~ r~_n O ~ ~ +t.+ CSC r ~ a. Ey V ,'~ U con ~ ,~ v] ~; ~ v~ V'l Ur '~O 4: [~ op Gn Cn CT CT O ~+ N N N t*1 c+~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N _ 4i 9J U • r., *~ {~j ,~ a o 'u ©,r ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ •ti ~ "mss a< ~_ 4 . •- _.., _ a3 ~ ~ as :.. ot1 v v ~ ~ a s., . ~ r/ nF". m r) ~ . ~i •~ i, ~, rcd m o © O rh- _ ,.~ _ .. r J 1''~ L. Y~ C r r N ~'''; ~ V1 Ql r r r M ~ I I I 1 I I r r r r-- ~~ T T T T T r 1 I I 1 T r r '~ Q. L Q~ (~ U e U • ~ ~ c ~ ~, ~. d ~ ~ ~ u 4 V ~ ~ ~ '~ C C Q U c CJ C O C 4.1 ~ c ~ c v ~ ~ `v c ~ a'+ ~ U r c t~ ~ y o ~ ~ _ ~ C ~ C L C :_ ~ an ~ V ~ U QcJ ~ u D ~ ~ '- DA ?~. O C ~ U W~. ~` C O in i ~(.J ~ O..w~ ~ r N M CY ~ ~L? /~ T T r r r t~ V T tla ~~ .~ O ~~ t~ /V+~y V A~~ ~~ ~/ ^ ^l o-- M M Ct 'Cf tf') U i ~D I\ R '.,J CJ I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 ~ i N N N N N N N N N N N Y/ ~ W ~~ . . U ~ _ - ~' Q r V U.t N ~ ~ 4U c ~ ~ e~ ;v ~ - 4 ~ ~ 'C't' 'n ~ C p ~ ~/ ~ ~ .--~. ~ L' a..~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ C G ~ ~' v~ +~-° 7 ~ QJ L y ~ O Z3 cu ~ '^ ~ -~ e V ~ ~ ~ ~ ao ~ ~ O r - ~ [ ~ QJ 0. ~ ~ ~ r3 ~ 0- 04 ~ o U ~ ti t ~ ~ . ¢.¢Q¢dmm mvuu .y ~o a 0 c U G fl C iC as G ~6 7 O U 4 a t~ LT T © O - r N N M i'^ d' ~ u'S ~-r1 ~ ~ ~ 0~ [x7 CT Q r- r N :'~"~ M CY d' u'7 t1'y ~,q ~D I`~. ~ ' f r r r~ r r r r f r r~ r- r-° ~- t- e- r- N N N N N N N N N N N N N • N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O r U M ~ .` ~ CJ ~ 1~ tL'S fl J r `~ ..C ~ ny OJ r ~ © ~ ~ ~ C ~ R q "J ~ -~ C ~ _ ~ N U • ~ T.r ~ ~ N O .__. ~ ~7 r-. ~ r ~ ~ I n ~. ~ C ~ C G fCi L C ~ ~ ~ tll ~ tY ~J v . ~ ~ ~ ~ u tC :1 d °~ ~ ~ D} U ~ N ~ ~ O rC C 7. ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ 0.1 ~ ~"~ ® ~ ~ ~ U S ~ N ~ ~ t ~ C ~ w U ~ rGt, p ~ .C ~ • ~ ~ r .~. U QY N r- ~ ~ V © ~ ~ OJ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ C f~J i-~ rcS ~ •~ ~ , CO U ~ ~ p "~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~_ C C ~> ~ c*1 '-` cG ~ ~ -~ Q V7 c ~ = /S C ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ U ~ Q C C C C ~ ~ ~ ~ . .. C ~ © ~ ~ ~ ..C p L rt] ' ~ X _~ ~ flJ _ U ~ DJ O ~ . ~ C C rS C ctl v7 ~ ~"L.~ ~ 'T ' ~ 6- ~ Q J 4/) lf1 © ~ 4 ~i ~' ~ ~ v.~ .. Y ~ 0 t~ ~ ~ (U Cd ~ ~ ~ ~i f~J V ~ ~ ~ C r , ~ q U U ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ L.L LL LL LL V = Z ~ ~ ~ Y -J J J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ., ~ S!'1 Cf7 Cfl lJ~ V7 L!D C C C t c t i C D U w.. 0 m .a F • • n 0.J x :, . C~ O O .- A N N r^, N N N N fV M t'*7 t+'1 M M ~+'y r"'7 P I N N N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I N N N ry N N N N N Q m 7 N ~J ~ ~ ~ 6 .0 . ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ V `d cv cn C x ~s Q ~ ^ 1+'~ U ?. CJ ~"' ~ ~ ~ ti-' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ Y l!7 ~.. L N~ ~ ~ u N p~ v O C `C~ w ~ ~ 4. _ L ~ ~_ o ~, V ~ tC tG ~ ~ res rc ~ ~ ~' ~. ~ ?- ~ (1s L a0 o o cv v, ~c , ~ ~ ~ u c..~ v C c n t n in _ c " ` 'n ~ H I ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ r M r~ ~~ v n G~ ~7 C r- T N -~ M M cr, cra e~5 r*) m ,~ G s s b Y Q ~ C ~ + V ~ r ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ '+r ~ ~ . ~ ~ CJ ~ ~; %> ~ Ga Q ~ Q w D ~ tv . U C 47 ~ C Cl. r ~ ~ o~ v c~ a~ .~' ca a~ " ~ ~ LI S ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i V} ~+ L ~ L ~ ~ L ~ ~ V1 _V ~ (j~wUU ~OwwV V~ 'r r N M7 eP ~ V N rd ri ri c.i ~ni r~*i c'r! M ~~v ~ricYi `~'"~ W ++ _ ~ ~ ~ _ ,L. v c ~ L V ~ ~ qq V ~ r L _ O ~ U o a-. c ~_.~)_4~a .!"~;,1~_f~.. ~-~ _~a -~ !~ 4~i d~ +'~~' + .l'~e. ~d tai ~ {~ !~ ~ .~ ~.4~i..1~ ^ ..~ .('!a 6~'s 4~i .~~ k~ r {Q ~ +~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' tiF- ~ ~J C1~ ~ ~ N ry~ ~ O O _ .•~ ~~", _ -, r U p. ~ _ ~ 4. ~, V ~ir, Q ~ .Fr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ i+ ~ _... -- `I N ~, ~ ~ s n, . ~ t,, v ~ ~ tj i3 ~, et ~: ~ ~ `r` d" ns ~ ~ r'! U U M ~ ~ M '~ m, ~ ~ e ~ Rf ~. Rs ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ~ O .~ i.- -- ~~ #+ A~ W 0 ~~ Q ~"' • • N M V' u^, ~ fe CG [~ v1 O r-- N I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I a i-~ l!} i ~ ay ~ L ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ cLa ~ „_. cs; :..~ r 11- ~ _ - ~~ 'u ~ y u L ~- ~ t~ c 'L c 4% ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ tiI ~ ~, ~ ti ~ ~ a CJO ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ °O cri ~ L N © ~ 0 Ii ~ ~ c i c~ ~ ~ ~ U cn U ~ rr, N C' ~~ ~~ W W ,~ a} 4 7 D? a V •~ fl O W T 1 !" 6 1 I I f C f 1 1 1 ~ Lfl L!"y Ill ul Ill L17 117 Lr] Lll L(l Lf~ I Lr1 G ~ C QJ b ~ O ti ~ ` O p ~ ,N L ~ nl C •~ ~ ~ ~ p} J c y ~ V /~~ W ~ ~ .L ~ Q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ © ~ ~ ~ /~ i.~1 C N C OJ ~ ~ O7 U o ~ ~ u c O ~ ° ~ ~ ~ as c ~ ~ vl Lu - ~ ~ ~; O vl r3 '„ p-~, as ~ ~~ . 4C1 ~, ~ 7 J •~ r Ctl ~ Q • C '~ ~ Q1 ~ ~ ~ ~C V ~ , ~ CJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ bb VI ~ • L ~ CC ~ V7 ~ . ~ /1~ 'V •~ •L/1 ~ © Qi ~ ~ ~ ~' C ~ Q~ ~ O Ou ~`~ wU ~~~ ~ ~ N rrt '~ I1'f N N CV N r C tO li C U Q 0 u 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ems-- ~ r r.. ~ t' ~1 ~ ~ j ,~, ,,p ''rJ `C `'fl ~r ti9 ~ ~9 ~O '+~ ~ tD e" Q L?~7 n~ ~ "~ '~ /~ (j} k1? C ' ~ eli ''. ~ • 1~. Q LL7 'r,) ~ _ 7- ~T~oc°O3°~~ r„ `~ ~- vi G r4 G UA ~ 'cw N Q G eJy ~ DA ~ v `~ . n N O S c3 ~, '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~,,. ~ ~y t1' N .~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N `p `p r tS7 ~ .N ca ~ ~. ~, r ;.d ~ ~. (~ T i. C a s + { ~ i • ~ ~ ~ T ~~ ~~ d L r ° "'G ~ - _ a O ~, '~j r' ~ _ . ~ . _ t ~ o Q ~ x ~, ~ V ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ N V .F Q ,-- ~ M '~' ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +1 ~ i! •i-+ a? R5 fi V r 4? 0 ~~ v 0 w • r N N N T r~ r r r, t~ n r: v ~ as ~~ ~ C 43 .-.. ~' ~ ~ c ~ ~ `u ~ ~ I[3 +,~ w ~ U ~ N M ~' ~7 M M t"'i M t\ n ~ ti ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ 1\ r r r '~' 4- T ~ ~ '~ I~ h h h Fo C as 4 L _ ~~ [l) ~ '~ O CJ O ~~~ a~ ~ N ~ a :u c O - c 2 ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CO r N ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ U c cv v ~ w .._ ti. ~ S] R7 r~ ~ D ~ ~ U r N M ~ s13 ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ i~ R I~ tt R ti Q~ Cl O'~ O O r r r- N N N r `~ L ~n ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ U O ` ~ C ~ C C ], y. uA ~ ro C •~ U '!~ V QJ _ fY1 °' x " ~ CJ wcoU a ~ r N M ~ u1 f~ 1~ I'~ 1'R n ''f~ ~ M M 'Cr '~' lC] ~ N N N N CV . R lam.. n 1`. !t _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~~ ~~ Q c '~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ _ Caw~U ~ r N M V ~ LL ~.D ~ td v'~ t:3 r~ fem.. !! li le I~ ti ti n P~ f! h. C] Cft I N N N N N i i i i i . 1~ I~ ~ n f N ~ ~ u ~ u9 ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ >_ ~ C .u ~ Q ~ ~ 0 C C '.. v1 v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .}OuQC7 ~ ~ r N r^7 ~i- ~n h Iti 1`. fg. ~ ~ ~ h P. R R~ a N `a E v u v rc cf U re a .~' c C7 U a >. C ~ ~ i '~ '~ '~ "~ '~ ~„~ ~ ~ ~ '~ '~' "~' `~-' ~ ~i' °#' ~ +~ ~' '~' ~' rr ar tar ~ a. ~.~. ~ ~.. ~ r s--- CV ".'J N M M M M M I\ ~ R ~ !~ ~ r V Q ~ • us ~ . ~ ~ U Cti o c ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ vi G . ~ ~ ~U C ~ O L y/y~' ~ ~ ~ q ~ aJ I ~^ 'G1 1..~_ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ N '~ ~ ~ ~ a~ v= v1 C i],, U C ©w U V f r~ r*1 v +n 00 D.7 CO CO CQ f~ fem.. F~ 1'~ 7~ ti a m a~ a~ t~ 0 L'} Lr3 S.:`~ lJ ~ ~ M M M M M 1 It ~ hd f~ fem. .~ N Q Q1 U ~ • 7 '~ ~ ~' ~' 0 ~ fJ C ^ Y ~ _ v . • ~ ~ ~ ~ r ti LJ '1 (/~ / :1.Y/ ~ ~ c3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Cy~ ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ X LI 0 ,~ ~~o~_ d ~~~~,~ n ~ M1 ~ ~ ~ ~--~~,,j `~ ~~ W W ,~ V t~ Y / W (~\~ V ~~ U T I~ ~ M M ~ ~ `rs ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ Cfl CU G4 ~ ~yy ~~~ . a W ~' yJ °_,r oA ~ r3 © ~ ~ ~ ~ w vQi U E ~ ,-- ~ rn ~r ~n N cV c'*t t'~1 CV 00 Cp L47 CO Cp C~J O~ C~ r G1 as - L ~~ss ~ ~` ~ G! ~ N i SJJ ~ pj 4 U ~ J 4 ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ C ~ ~ ~ ~ © ~ ~ C ~ r b.U ~ rC L v C ~ H U '' ~ ~`-' ~ ~ ~ti - ~ w Q ~ - U i- N M V L+'1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • • r..~ w C tl? {rj r* y M ~t v l~5 r r r r e- ~~roc~co~ V1 C7 L va ~ Q ~ ~ V ~/ LL ~ u~ D7 OJ ~ L ~ 7. rC1 tll C = °~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ '~ o v T •~. ~ (~ ai d y l!l ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ . C ~o ~ ro 4 ~ _ L t, ^ srs = rq w ~ fw _ ~ r N M 7 L!" 1 cvv~rv p~a~rnoor~ t- r r N N N C~ C;3 0.'S ~ 0.7 '~ U ~ ua ~ i ci ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ cn J ~ c U ~ .C ~ ~ Q1 Qi ~, a, ~ ~ ~ o `~- dw~{7 r N M b' Vi ~ c0 D7 ~i QD co C7`~ r N N ~t N N r'"1 M r"") i''') cj ~ oo a~ o~ V ~ ~ ~ N y ~ ~ q1 4i V ~ ono •" o _ C v, O C ~ ~ ~ C O v C • ~ OA ~ ~ c -._+ Q ~ ~ ro GJ 'X ,a Q ~Ci~mU r N fY') ~i- US x~a~~ r~ r ~ v ~ ~ o~cn~~a rY^i C'r7 rr'S M ~-+~ PD Cd C? ~ q N v, U ~ ~ ro fJ ~ ~ ~ O _ L V ` ~ ~ o ~ ~ c O d '.~+ ~' yG/~ iL ~ ~!~ tL C '~ ~ ~ ~ Tp O ~ ~ r--~ ~ L ~` r L ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ,~ a •x ~ o ^~.,VU- U r N R1 ~' ~! n, ra ~ n; r~ ~ co to c~ o~ a3 (~ M M M f'r} ~~er~r~ ~ 0:7 ~ Cp ~ - ~, tli ~ t) '~ L - ~ ~ O ~ ~ .~ O '~ = U ~ "aC7 ~ rJ V] CU ~ ~~ ~ ~ w ~ J ~~' ~ a ~ f~ w > U r N M Cf' ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ 00 V` x ~0. d N G/ ..(~ y D c d m c U '~ c d U O >-. c a m c m I.ry ~ C1 Ol ~ Q r L'1 Lf3 ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r rJ o ® ~ ~~ , ~ fi ~ ~ L '_ G.. ~a3 c ay '~ p ` ~ ~ ~ '~ . - ~ +i.+ '' ~ CA ~ t~ ~ a~ ~ .- . ~ a~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ U O Q ~ E C? O w r CJ ~~~~~~ c0 ~i O1 CSl tT Q1 ca ~ co 0o m o7 00 OE3 ~i-+ _~ W a-+ G1 4- U .~' T ~ C1 O~ C 0 ~ a ++ C~ ~ O 4 ~ C i~+ ~r r- ~ ~ Ch *~ M M sr ~ u> ~ ~ rn rn o c~ r-- L{y to ~ ~ _ ©? :~ v, 1n us - ~ ~ vii aA ~ ~'' O 't3 ac `„ ~ o ~ ~ . ~ vi O -- ~ C1 ! L' ~ ~ ~ O '.v ~ i ~ i = C = ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~n =~ ~ ~ r d "' n~ ni o v~ ~ ~° ~ C "' C~ a p sn s ~ . G .~ ~+ t~l ~ C .G '~ !n fU C C •~ rq ~ , ~r O C1 ~ ~ ~? ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~!~ ~ arN~~~ ~ ~~~~~ Q ~N~ ' ' CV N N N CV M M M M M ` ~ '~T CS N pi ci C7 of O'= ~ ~ Gi Gi i7i c7i ~ rn ~ rn 47 C~ G7 ~' • `~'-~, cn .F/ tU _~ O ~..a O .L' F- r: • ~ r. m ~ ~ . v _~ v a ~ •.~ r -cs ~s ~ rJ `.' U ~ E~' lf1 C ~' Ol ~ ~ :^,f h! N f'V fV ~ G+ ~ C:+'+ ~ G'~ v `~ ~: ~ .a L ~_ 0 N = . ~ ~ o °...~ ~ ~;~ ~~ ~ ~, T ~ c o ~'' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~s e L 'c ~ ~ ~ o~ ~~~i ~U r- N t+"3 ~ ~'1 U j Lr7 L'1 ~} ~l ~ CS1 CS1 Q1 Cr G~ li7 sri Ln ~ n, t4: ~ :~! N N cV rV LO 't3 itf ~ ~ 2 ~ v .~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .r -~ o ~ cL +~ ~ ~ ~ V . Ca "~ _ u ~ a. ._ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ :~ yr O s~ 3 4 C~wVU ~ 11 t-~' N c''~ ~ Lrl V v3 t:a SLY t~ ~3 ~ Gl ~ ~ Cl 01 r +~- rw r^7 ~ r~ t- ~ ~ c~ rn r+f i rte, M ~ G, G~ CTa O'~ CT ~ ~ O C.,, N ~ ~ ~ ' S ' V ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .:.n ~' o ~ Ca , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ,- ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ p . o~zu ~ ~ ~ L v ~ ' /1 LL 1 Z ,r, f~ ~1 '`T lJ ~ 1.+~ ~ V1 G1 G1 ~ ~ ~ r t- ^~ V ~., Y, G .^` 0 a N d .~ U :J L1,. r i y 7 o f ~`.I Table of Cvn~er~ts Acknowledgments Page i Executive Summary Page,'C ' 1993 Original Community Vision Statement Page ~ o Accomplishments Since the Adoption of the 1993 Plan page 5 ~__~. 2QDQ Vision for the Aspen Area Page 7 ~--2(}Og Community Themes -~ Page 9 Community Development Features ~~ Page 1 a • Three Decades of Growth Management has Shaped Aspen's Character page 11 o Community Development Process page 1~ Community Action: How This Plan W911 Be Used page 14 Managing Growth page 16 Transportation Pa9a 2g Housing Page 24 Economic Sustainability page 3g Parks, Open Space, and the Environment page 33 Historic Preservation. page 38 Design Quality Page 41 Arts, Culture & Education Page 44 i Addendum A: Aspen Area Community Plan Update Action Plan page 47 ~ Addendum B: Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan page 64 Glossary of Terms page 83 Overview Maps Page 84 Resolutions of Approval page 91 ~I i~ • • > Gavernrnent > Codes and PgtiCies GENERAL PLAN GENERAL PLAN PHASES I AND 11 -- ALL SECTIbMS LISTED BELOW GENERAL PLAN PHASE I MARCH, 1997 ADOPTED MARCH 2p, 1997 Introduction ll. Park City Direction Overview Challenges Goals III. Community Character Element Issue Statement ~- ----LL- Discussion Intent Policies Historic Care Policies Developing Area Policies Annexation Area Policies Actions Historic Core Developino Area Annexation Area IV. Open Soave Element Issue Statement Discussion Intent Policies Actions Short-Term Actions Mid-Term Rctions Long-Term Actions V. Land Use Element Issue Statement Discussion Intent Policies Environmental and Open Space Policies Recreation and Amenity Policies Community Design Policies Transportation Policies Planning Areas {Locations, Descriptions, and Objectives) Round Vafley Highway 401248 East Highway 40f24s Southwest Flagstaff Mountain Park City ResortlWest Hill White Pine Canyon Quarry Mountain Park City Neighborhoods V{, Growkh Management Issue Statement Discussion Intent Policies Land Management Code Adjustments Refined Annexation Paiicy Trans#er of Development Rights Actions Page I bf 3 Park City, C~tan Park City, Utah Land Management Code Adjustments Refined Annexation Policy Transfer of Development Rights VII. _ Transportativn_Element Resolution 16-99, adopted B-i 7-1998 Issue Statement Discussion Intent Policies Transit Policies Roadway Policies BicyclelPedestrian Policies Land Use Policies Parking Policies Actions Roadway Improvements Roadway Transit Improvements Parking Improvements Transit Improvements Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements VII[._ENVI_RON.M~NTAL ELEM:~NT Resolution 7-00, adopted 3-23-2000 Issue Statement Discussion Intent Policies Natural Resources Water Resources Air Quality Energy Material Resources Aesthetics Actions Natural Resources Water Resources Air Quality Energy MateriaP Resources Aesthetics Resources IX. HOUSING ELEMENT Resolution 11-Q0, adopted 5-18-2000 Issue Statement Discussion Intent Policies Actions Resources X. COMMUNITY ECONOMY ELEMENT Resolution 6-01, adapted 6-10-2001 Visitors ~ Residents 1 Business Issue Statement Discussion Intent Policies Recreation and Tourism Development Special Events Annexation Balanced Economy 2002 Olympic Winter Games Vital Retail Actions Recreation and Tourism Development Special Events Annexation Balanced Economy 2002 Olympic Winter Games Page 2 of 3 ~ Government ~ City Departments 1 i http:if`~:vtir~,,v.parkcity.ar`l~overtunentlcodesanc~>aalicies,f~cneralplan.html 1211812fl(73 Park City, Utz Fate 3 of 3 'vritol Retail References • ut .~C31(.~L'~`~evclo~cd.,;~rdhaaied~~' XI. PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT Resolution 28-01, adopted 12-2t)-17 "I Issue Statement Discussion Intent Polieies Parks Trails Facilities Action Plan Parks Trails Facilities . Reference Appendices XII. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT Resolu#ion 6-02, adopted 5-23-2Q02 Issue Statement Discsrssion Intent Policies HIStOriC DIStrIGt PfeSeNatfOn Incentives Land Management Code -Chapter 4 Preservation Park City Historic District Design Guidelines. 'Rehabilitation and New Construction Demolition by Neglect AGtion Plans Historic District Preservation Incentives Land Management Code -Chapter 4 Preservation Park. City Historic District Design Guidelines Rehabilitation and New Construction Demolition by Neglect Acknowledoements Contact t)s ~ Site Nlap , disclaimer ~ FAQ ~ Search Pale ] of I sECTION i - [NTRODUCTION The Purposes of the Plan $ECT'I.ON„_2 -GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES FOR TELLURIDE r Objeetive :~' Policy/Strategy ~: PRESERVATION OF COMMUNITY Goal A Objectives: POPULATION CHANGE Goal B T Objectives: ANNEXATION Goal C Ob}actives: Policies: EN_VIRONf°+1ENTAL PRFSERVA~FION Goal D Objectives CIRCULAT[ON. TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING: MATER AND WASTEWATER: PUBLIC UTILITIES Goal E Objectives Policies: Objectives Concerning Utility Services PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE SECTION 5 -LAND USE PATTERNS AND THE LAND USE MAPS The Telluride Regional Setting The Region and Sero'ace Area Residential Lane! Use Low Density Residential Use Medium Density 'Residential Established Hillsides Area Accommodations Accommodation s-Special Commercial Land Use Area Residential/Commercial Land Use PUhlir and SPmi-Piihlir i and I1S25. Parks RecrPar;on anr!_ Open Space Public and Semi-Public Land Use Parks/Recreation Open Space Parking United Skates Forest Service Land Industrial Use Streets, Trails and Pedestrian Corridors The National H"sstoric District Exhibit 5.5 -Historic Structures Visitor/Residential Treatment Areas and Neighborhood Treatment Areas Developing Areas 5_ECTI©N 6 -THE TOWN SETTING, SERVICES AND CAPACITIES A Brief History of the Telluride Region Environmental Setting hrtn•//~~r-w~.u tnw~n liir iic/nlan!mns4~reir~~ html Z 1I1 7/7f1f1; MEM©RANDUM T©: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 12, 2004 SU13~JECT: An appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-38, Appeal of Administrative Actions, of an administrative interpretation determining that a commercial tenant space within the Village Center Commercial Condominiums, Building D, is on the "first floor" or "street level" of the building as defined by Sections 12-7C-3 and 12-7B-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor or Street Level, Vail Town Code, located at 122 East Meadow Drive, Lot K, Black 5E, Vai! Village First Filing. Appellant: Fred 1-libberd Planner: George IRufher I. SUBJECT PROPERTY The Village Center Commercial Condominiums, Building D, is located at 122 East Meadow DrivelLot I<, Block 5E, Vail Village f=irst Filing. II. PLANING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION Pursuant to Section 12-3-38-1, Appeal of Administrative Actions; Authority, Vail Town Gode, the Planning and Environmental Commission has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town of Vail administrative official with respect to the provisions of the Zoning Code. III. PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR APPEALS Pursuant to Sections 12-3-3B-2 and 12-3-3B-3, Appeal of Administrative Actions; Enitiation and Procedures, Vail Town Code, there are three basic criteria for an appeal: 1) standing of the appellant; 2) adequacy of the notice of appeal; and 3) timeliness of the notice of appeal. A. Standing of the Apr~ellant The appellant has standing to appeal the administrative decision related to the staff determination that the commercial tenant space in question within the Village Center Commercial Condominiums, located on the "frst floor or street level" of the building, as defined by Sections 12-7G-3 and 12-7B-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor or Street Level, Vail Town Cade. B. Adeauacv of the Notice of the Appeal The application far this appeal was Hibberd. The application has been Community Development Department. C. Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal filed by the property owner Fred determined to be complete by the The Administrative Section of the Town's Zoning Cade (12-3-3B-3, Pracedures) states the follawing: "A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Administrator or with fhe department rendering the decision, deferminafion or inferprefation within fwenfy (2a} calendar days of fhe decision becoming final. If the Iasi day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a Town-observed holiday, fhe last day far filing an appeal shall be extended to the next business day. The Adminisfrafor's decision shall become final at the next Planning and Environmenfa! Commission meeting (or in the case of design related decision, fhe next Design Review Board meeting} fallowing the Administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up and modified by the Board or Commission. " The applicant submitted a complete appeal application within the twenty (2©) day requirement_ lV. NATURE QF THE APPEALS Cn December 5, 2003, Fred Hibberd, submitted a formal appeals form to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The nature of the appeal is generally described below. The appellant is appealing the follawing staff interpretation: 1 } It was determined by Staff that the appellant's commercial tenant space in question in the Village Center Commercial Condominiums, Building D, (formerly C?verland & Express Travel Agency) is located on the "firs# floor ar street level" of the building, and therefore, is regulated by Section 12~7C-3, as further regulated by Section 12-7B-3, Vail Tawn Code, which states: "PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLQOF~' OR STREET LEVEL: A. Definition; The "first floor" or "sfreef level" shall be defined as that floor of the building that is located at grade or sfreet level. 8. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level within a structure: 1. Retail stores and establishrr3enfs, including the following: Apparel stores. Art supply stores and galleries. • 2 Bakeries and confectioneries. Bookstores. Games stores and photographic studios. Gandy stores. Chinaware and glassware stores. Delicatessens and specialty food stores. Drugstores and pharmacies. Florists. Lift shops, Hobby stores. Jewelry stores. Leather goods stares. Luggage stares. Music and record stores. Newsstands and tobacco stores. Sporting goods stores. Stationery stores, Ticket and travel agencies. Toy stares. Variety stores. Yardage and dry goads stores. 2. Eating and drinking establishments, including the fallowing: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises. Cocktail lounges and bars. Coffee shops. Fountains and sandwich shops. Restaurants. 3. Lodges. 4. A~dditianal uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in subsection B1 and B2 of this Section, in accordance with the provisions of Sectr`on ?2,3-4 of this Title sa long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic. G. Conditional Uses.' The fallowing uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level floor within a structure, subfect to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Ghapter 16 of this Title: Banks and financial institutions. Barbershops, beauty shops and beauty parlors. Household appliance stores. Liquor stores. Qutdaor patios, Radio and TV stares and repair shops." Staff determined that the commercial tenant slaace is located on the "first floor ar street level'° of the building. Pursuant to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, the allowable uses on the "first floor or street level" of a building in the Commercial • Care 2 zone district are prescribed in Section 12-7C-~, Vail Town Cade. The appellant wishes to use the tenant space as a real estate office (ie, professional offices, business offices and sfudiosj. According to Section 12-7C-3, Vail Town Cade, "professional offices, business offices and studies" shall anly be allowed on the "basement or garden level'; "second Hoar'; or the "above second floor" levels of a building in the Commercial Core 2 zone district. V The commercial tenant space in question is a multi-level space with two floors connected by an interior staircase. The total floor area of the two levels is approximately 7p0 square feet in size. A total of 20© square feet of floor area exists on the upper level of the space. Currently, access to the commercial tenant space is provided at two locations. Access to the upper floor is located on the east side of the building across from the Austria Flaus parking garage with a second access provided to the lower level on the south side of the building across from the entrance to the Village Center Condominiums, Uuilding A. Staff has determined that the upper level of the space is "first floor or street level" and that the lower level of the space is "basement level or garden level". Staff's determination is based upon 1 j the physical location of the spaces relative to the level of the street, 2j the configuration of the building; and 3) the location of the access to the spaces. Upon review of Title 12, Zoning Regulakions, the terms, "first floor or street level ; "second floor ; or "above second flour" are not defined. However, the term "basement or garden level" is defined as, "fhat floor of the building that is entirely or substantially below grade.." The appellant's statement as to the specific nature of the appeal is attached (attachment Aj. REQUIRED ACT10N Uphaldl0verturnlMadify the administrative interpre#ation. Section 12-3-35-5, Findings, details the requirements for action taken by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: "The Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions fhat the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this Title have or have not been met. " VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission upholds the administrative interpretation determining that a commercial tenant space within the Village Center 4 Commercial Condominiums, Building D, is on the "first floor" or "street level" of the building as defined by Sections 32-7C-3 and ~2-7B-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor ar Street Level, Vail Town Code, located at 122 East Meadow give, Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing. In accordance with the information presented in this rr-emorandum, and the exhibits attached hereto, Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission makes the following finding: 1. That the Community Development Department Staff has appropriately determined that the commercial tenant space within the Village Center Commercial Condominiums, Building D, is the "first float or street level" of the building. • • 5 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL. COMMISSION • • PUBLIC MEETING A Monday, December 8, 2Q03 PROJECT ORIENTATION / -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME X2:00 prn 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 r, NOTE: if the PEC hearing extends until 6:OQ p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:QO - 6:30 . Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request far a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Cade, to allow for the platting of Lats 1 and 2, Lodge Subdivision, located at 164 Gare 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, lnc. Planner: George Ruttier Motion: Erickson Shirley 5ecand: Rollie Kjesb© Vote: 5-0 -0 TABLED TO JANUARY ~2, 2004 2. A request far a major subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Tawn Code, to allow far the platting of the ski-way tract and four lots at the Lionshead tennis court site located at 615 West Forest RaadlUnplatted (A complete metes and bounds legal description is available far 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 mem©. He also Hated that the plat note proposed by Art Albenalp restricting the uses on Tract X was not needed. .,~ ~,,, Tnwn~ nk 4~a rr.l ^ominic 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 cui-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 cul-de-sac to the aforementioned 54 feet. John Schofield asked if the lotsllot 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, mentianed 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 ~ 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 apes 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 carne 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 mentianed 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 i 2 was not in favor of the dui-de-sac being reduced to 54 feet. He did not mind the plat restriction that Mr. Abplanalp was proposing be added to the plat. 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 privy #o. Rollie Kjesbo stated that Art Abplanalp was trying to restrict any type of cond'otional 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 Qepartment was requesting a deviation of national standards far 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. H~: 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 ofi Tract X. He asked that the plat include this type of provision, pending an agreement with Vail Resorts and the neighbors. A 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 HaIC 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 fekt comfortable with the safety aspect Rollie Kjesbo asked it 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 researohing the turning radius required. He also stated that a first class resort like Vail had the freedom to 4 change requirements as necessary, firom 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, "Cats y 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 atheruvise permitted under the Municipal Code of the Town of Vall, including any provision in effect now or in fhe future, and (b) judicial partition, provided that partition by sale of an entire lot and improvements without physical division of the lot or improvements shat! be permlffecf 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 Vai! through current or later zoning regulations shall be considered to be a dwelling unit under this provlslon. This prohibition and restriction may be enforced by the Town of Vail, by any owner of a Lot !n the subdivision, and/or by any properfy owner adjacent fo fhe 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 na# be developed with structures provided however, drainage improvements, planting improvements, improvements related to the skier bridge located an 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 retarding the final plat 4} That the applicant shall place the correct addresses for the four new lot on the plat as follows; Lat 1 is 618 Forest Court, Lat 2 is 621 Forest Gourt, Lot 3 is 612 Forest Court, and Lot 4 is 616 Forest Gourt, 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 an 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 Dutdoor Recreation District. 3. A request far a setback variance, pursuant to Section ~ 2-6D-6, Setbacks, Vaii Town Code, to allow far a garage addition, located at 195E West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 45, Vail Village West 2nd Filing. Applicant: David Irwin Planner: Matt (aennett Matt Gennett introduced the project according to the rnemarandum. David Irwin briefly summarized the proposal, saying that only two garages were currently being proposed. The ourrent "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 ear 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 mare landscaping, etc. After he had finished building the home, he decided to da a survey and realized that he had built his home within the setback. He mentioned that variances had been granted for garages at other residences within the same area.. After asking far public input, Jahn 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 far similar reasons did not apply in this instance, he continued. Erricksan 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 beauti#ul, 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.. 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: Ro{lie 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 Vliest Meadow DrivelLot I, Vail Village 12th Diking, 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 IVleadow 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 Cade, located at 595 Vail Valley DrivefLots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7'th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell Vllarren 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 109 additional parking spaces would be proposed, in accordance with the need outlined in the Lionshead Master Plan far additional parking within the Town. Efforts would betaken to visually enhance the access to Ford Park and aclean-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 H©MF 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°~a of the proposed roof area would be aver 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 far 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. Na 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 19ft0'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 Hatable, 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, s 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 7~ 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 haw 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. Chip Melick responded that more of a "Village feel" would be worked toward. John Schofield fnished 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 tra#fic 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 2QQ4. Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: George Lamb Vote: 5-0-0 TABLED TD JANUARY ~2, 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 Cade, to allow for amixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow fior 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$ 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: S-Q-(1 TABLBD TO JANUARY 12, 20fl4 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council far proposed updates to elements of the Town of Vail Compreh€~nsive 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. t [} 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 haw 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 far 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 T© JANUARY 12, 2004 9, A request for a sign variance pursuant to Section 11-4A-1, Signs Permitted in Zane 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 CampbePl 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. ire 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. tl Warren Campbell replied that no direc#ional signage was allowed for a business other than the projectinglhanging sign. Erickson Shirley asked about what pravisians the }arevious code had made for directional signage for a business. Warren Campbell replied that the farmer 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 cads. 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 approvaC 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 Bother further stated that the DRB felt that proper aanstructian 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 properky 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 fhe building, at the garden level, perhaps justified a hardship. A. Luc Dols commented that the real issue was confusion between the two restaurants in the lower level. 12 George Ruttier 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 Ruttier 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 1 d. Approval of November 24, 2flfl3 minutes Motion: Rollie Kjesbo Second: Chas Bernhardt Vote: 5-0-4 11. Information Update + Sign Code -update and future training needs for PEC • Funicular -tabled by Council + Tennis Court Rezoning - to Council again on Dec. 1 fi • Vail Park jJ-ots P3} -approved by DR13 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 I-fearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published December 5, 2003, in the Vail Daily • 13