Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-1128 PEC• • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ,~ N'ovember 28, 20t]5 iOF ~AiT.' PROJECT ORIENTATION - Comr~te~nity Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm 1. Staff memorandums were discussed with Commission members; na direction given. MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Cahill Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesb4 George Lamb David Viele Site Visits; 1. Raley / Skaggs Residence Driver: MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:80 pm 1. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a deck within the front setback, located at 1835 West Dare Creek DrivelLat 20, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant Kevin Raley and Kate Skaggs Planner: Elisabeth Eckel ACTION; Denied MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: iamb VOTE: 8~0~0 Elisabeth Eckel gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Kevin Raley, the applicant, added that the request was being made to provide additional egress options in the even# ofi another fire. Another aspect he was considering through the request was the near impossibility of cantilevering the existing deck, should i# be replaced with the same dimensions it contained before the fire. Additionally, the applicant wanted to avoid excessive construction within the garage and the ceiling support systems. He concluded by stating that the main goal was to provide a covered parking area for the EHU tenant. The Commissioners felt there was no proof of a substantial hardship and stated that the approve! of this variance would be a grant of special privilege. 2. A request fora final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, (Ritz Carlton Residences) and a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Gode; and final review of architectural deviations, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.A, Review Criteria far Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development, Lianshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow far the development of 1 Cl7multi-family residential dwelling Page 1 units, located at ~'2$ West Lianshead Gircle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting faith details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Garp., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell Maior Exterior Alteration ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE: G-0-0 For Desian Review 1) That the Developer submits a complete application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department far the final review and approval of the proposed development plan by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prier to making an application for the issuance of a building permit for any of the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. 2) That the Developer prepares a Rifz-Garlfon Residences Sife Arf in Public Places Plan. far input and comment by the Town of Vail Art in Public Places Board, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz-Carlton Residences site improvements. Subject to the above input and comment by the Art in Public places Board, Vail Associates will determine the type and location of the art to be provided. Said Plan shall include the funding far a minimum of $300,000.00 in public art improvements to be developed in conjunction with the Ritz-Carlton Residences site. The implementation of the Plan will be reasonably incorporated by Vail Associates into the Ritz-Carlton Residences construction schedule in accordance with generally prevailing construction practices. Prior to Submit#inp for Building Permits 3} That the Developer submits a Construction Staging Plan to the Town. of Vail Community Development Department for the review and approval of the proposed staging plan by the Town of Vail Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the' Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. 4) That the Developer submits a complete set of civil engineered drawings of the Approved Development Plans including the required off site improvements, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval of the drawings, prior to making application for the issuance of a building permit far the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. Prior tc- RPnu~StincLa Tpmnnrary Gertificate of Occugancv 5) That. the Developer provides deed-restricted employee housing that complies with the Town of Vai[ Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) 10 employees, and that said restrictions shall be made available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. In addition, the deed-restrictions shall be legally executed Icy the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior to `the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements Page 2 The Developer may provide required employee housing on an interim basis, not to exceed four (4} years November 28, 2008) except that ultimately the Developer will be required to furnish permanent facilities for the Rita-Carlton Residences employee housing requirements. 6} That the Developer shat! be assessed a transportation impact fee in the amount of $5,000 per increased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated (56 trips}, ar $280,000, as a result of the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. The fee shall be paid in full by the Developer prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. At the sole discretion of the Town of Vail Public Works Director, said fee may be waived in full, ar part, based upon the completion of certain off-site improvements. If the improvements as shown on the plans entitled "The Ritz-Carlton Residences (based on CDOT requirements}'°, dated October 21, 2005, and as approved on November 28, 2005, by the PEC are constructed and completed by the Developer, said fee shall be waived in full by the Town. Conditional Use Permit ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 6-0-0 Resolution 18. Series of 2004 Architectural Deviations ACTION: Approved MOTION: F~jesba SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 6-0-0 Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, began by expressing his thanks to the Vail Spa ownership and legal council for working with them to resolve their concerns. He stated that the Vail Spa would be granted anon-exclusive pedestrian easement in perpetuity across the Ritz property. Furthermore, he added that no noise would be generated within or by the tower use per the request of Vail Spa. There was na public comment. The Commission expressed that they were very pleased with how the project worked regarding this project. The outcome of the process and all parties working together and compromising resulting in a structure which would be a compliment to the community and Lionshead. 3. A request far final review of a text amendment to Section 12-7A-3, Conditional Uses, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Tawn Cade, to add "accommodation unifs with kitchen facilifies as a new conditional use in the Public Accommodation zone district, and setting forth details in details in regard thereto. Applicant: Timberline Roast Lodge, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruher ACTION: Tabled to December 12, 2005 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 6.0.0 George Ruttier presented the project according to the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriello further described the project and the approaches that staff recommended as part of its memorandum. He added that the applicant would prefer far this use to remain a conditional use, with the Planning Commission simply amending or adding conditions to suit its Page 3 needs. He continued to say that the Marriott stated that these kitchens were only used 15or'o of the time. No public comment was added. Bill Dewitt expressed his concerns that a conditional use such as the one proposed would be allowed within the PA district. He preferred Option #1. He stated that he was most comfortable with the creation of a new zone district, though if the conditions were specific enough this use would not be found in any other PA district which might be a desirable result as well Rollie Kjesbo stated that drafting a new zone district might be the most reasonable conclusion. George Lamb agreed with what had been said. He complimented the Town on its initiative in drafting many solutions for review. As he stated in the last meeting, he was supportive of the concept but thought the proposal still needed much attention. David Viela commented that a blanket conditional use provided much latitude for the creation of a °co-op" and the use of the rooms as apartments. He understood the desire of the applicant to develop the use by right, but wondered what the applicant's primary goal was. Doug Cahill mentioned that he would prefer to table the item un#il the kitchen vs. the kitchenette use was deciphered. Dominic Mauriello responded that there was no issue to the coop concern and the applicant would likely be amenable to the creation of a new zone district to provide for the construction of the kitchenette uses; thus the request for a permanent rather than conditional use. George Ruttier requested that the Commission be reminded of the initial opposition to the Fractional Fee Unit idea. He commented that at least the concept was supported in this case. Enough direction had been provided tv work with the applicant in the creation of a new zone district and the revision of the definitions of accommodation units, kitchen facilities, etc. Dominic Mauriello asked that this project not be added to the West Vail Master Planning conversation. 4. A request for a final review of a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 38, (Four Seasons Hotel), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10A, Vail Town Code, to allow for a new mixed-use hotel project, located at 13 Vail. Road and 28 South Frontage Raad/Lots A and C, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Development, LLC, represented by Thomas J. Brink Planner: Matt Gannett ACTION; Na action required Rollie Kjesbo stated thaf he had worked in a minor capacity with dine Vail Road. Matt Gannett introduced the project according #o the memorandum. Tim Losa, the applicant's representative, described that the building had been. moved; one foot to the south to modify encroachments upon setbacks. Gwen Scalpello, Nine Vail Road Condominium Association, described her meetings with Matt Gannett. She stated that she had a serious concern that the application was incomplete. The relocation of Spraddle Creek and its associated easement agreements should be documented Page 4 on the plans. She believed that the Town needed the time to correctly analyze the proposed changes to the proposed relocation of the building. Tom Kassmel commented thaf the complete details of the relocation had been discussed in depth with regard to the timing. of construction, neighboring property owners, etc. Doug Cahill clarified with Tom that the movement of the building did not exactly affect the Town's ,public works improvements. Lisa Shapiro, a homeowner at Nine Vail Raad, concurred with Ms. Scalpello's comments regarding the encroachment of the building and its very proximate location to Nine Vail Raad, which deeply affects the character of the Nine Vail Road complex. Tint LvSa added that by shifting the building to the south, an encroachment from another area of the development onto adjacent properties had been avoided. Jim Lamont, representing Vail Village Homeowners, commented that setback issues were very sensitive at the time of the original approval. He believes it would be wise of the applicant to communicate to the adjacent property owners with regard to the effects the shift in the building footprint. Doug Cahill commented that staff approvals could result from any shift of less than five feet to the building footprint and that the applicant could do some further PR work if he thought it tv be necessary. Tim Losa guaranteed the Commissioners that the deviations had been clearly outlined and stated that the applicant had spoken multiple tunes with the ownership component of Nine Vail Raad. Gwen Scalpella said that she and TJ Brink spoke often, yet the proposed shift of the building footprint was never addressed. Multiple sets of drawings were being used that may ar may not represent the truth. Jim Lamont asked whether the changes affected the west or south. Matt Gennett answered that a different impact resulted on each side of the building as a result of the shift. Jim Lamont further asked how neighbors may be apprised of the changes. Some discussions occurred regarding the timing of an appeal and the validation of the staff approval which was supposed to take effect today at the PEC meeting. Tim Losa stated that the submitted documents had not changed. Because the building had moved due south, no impacts to the Scorpio resulted. Doug Cahill stated that the staff approval would remain as long as no objection from other Commissioners was made. b. A request far a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow far the construction of 124 accommodation units with kitchen facilities, located at 1783 North l=rantage RoadlLots 9-12, Buffeter Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant:. Timberline Roast Lodge, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tattled to December 12, 2005 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 Page 5 6. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A~12, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of the Timberline Lodge, located at 17$3 North Frontage RoadlLots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Timberline Roost Lodge, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to December 12, 200§ MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesba VOTE: 6-0-0 7. Approval of November 14, 2x05 minutes MOTION: Viele SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 8. Information Update 9. Adjournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 8-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Tawn of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Raad. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (97th} 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (97©} 479-2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published November 25, 2005, in the Vail Daily. Page li MEIWIORANDUlUI TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development department DATE: November 28, 2005 SUB,iECT: A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6'D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Gode, to allow for a deck within the setback, located at 1835 West Gore Creek DrivelLot 20, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant Kevin Roley and Kate Skaggs Planner: Elisabeth Eckel SUIVII'VIARY The applicants, Kevin Roley and Kate Skaggs, are requesting a final review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a deck within the front setback, located at 1835 West Gore Creek DrivelLot 20, Vail Village West 2"d Filing. The requested variance is the result of a proposal to extend an existing deck from a single family residence with an Employee Housing Unit (EHU}. Staff is recommending denial of the requested variance as a practical difficulty or hardship does not exist and approval of the variance would constitute the granting of a special privilege to this property owner. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST AN13 BACKGROUND .The applicant is requesting a setback variance in order to extend a deck from an existing residence into the twenty fact (20') front setback by a distance of eleven feet (11'). The proposed extension would result in a front setback of nine feet {9'). Therefore the total proposed area of deck encroachment into the front setback would be 27fi square feet, The residence was constructed in 1999 under Town of Vail aurisdction and consists of one dwelling unit with one attached Type I EHU, Other than remodels and regular maintenance, this home has not been altered firom its original construction, If approved, the applicant's proposal would provide an outdoor covered parking space, similar to a carport, for the tenant{s) of the EHU. This space would be in addition to the three covered parking spaces constructed at the #ime that the house was bunt, one of which was designated as an Employee Housing parking space, per Section 12-13-4 (Requirements by Employee Housing Unit fEHU] Type, 1/ail Tvwn Code). The applicant"s residence recently suffered damage due to a fire.. ,The current proposal, therefore, is a portion of his efforts to reconstruct and repair the front of the residence. The existing lot is non-conforming in regard to minimum lot size within the PrimarylSecondary District, as the tat area totals just less than 13,000 square feet. The minimum lot size within the PrimarylSecondarylistrict is 14,000 square feet. This property 1 is in conformance with the density requirements allowing one dwelling unit due to the fact that the Employee Housing Unit (EHU) is not included in the Town's density calculations according to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations ~Sectr'on 12 -6D-8C, Vail Town Code). The applicant is requesting a variance from the front setback requirements based on the limitations existent upon the lot, including an Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) easement, twenty feet (20') in width and bordering a sewer line at the rear of the property; and the fifty foot {50') stream setback located at the rear of the lot, both of which together render approximately 3,560 square feet (--29%a} of the total lot area undevelopabie. Staff has noted the existing walls of the residence are located between twelve feet X12'} in the most restrictive area and forty feet X40') in the most generous area from the nearest site constraint, which is the fifty foot stream setback in the former case. Therefore, had the original owner located the residence closer to the stream setback and the rear of the lat, between twelve and forty lineal feet of additional lot area at the front. of the lot might have been gained to provide for the extension of the existing deck and thereby the provision of additional parking, without encroachment into the front setback. The following listing includes the surrounding lots which have been granted variances for various reasons: ^ Lot 12, Vai! Village West 2"d Filing: Vanance requests for two encroachments into the side setback were granted at the time of original construction (1982) due to the unusual shape of the Lot. ^ Lot 14, Vail Village Wesf 2"~ Filing: A variance request for a eve foot {5 J encroachment info the side setback was granted in conjunction with new construction {2DD5) due fo the location ofmultiple FRWSI~ easements upon one lot: ^ Lot 15, Vail Village West 2'~ Filing: Variance requests for two encroachments into the side setbacks were granted at the time of anginal approval (1992) due to the small size of the lot, but such plans were never constructed. New plans were drafted and constructed in 2DD4 without any provision for encroachments into the setbacks. ^ Lot 16, Vail Village West 2"d Filing: No sefback variances were requested or granted. However, the ERWSD allowed free feet (5) of encroachment info their easement by the building in 1998. ^ Lot 18, Vail Village Wesf 2"~ Filing: Aside sefback variance for a one foot {1) encroachment was granfed in 1995. ^ Lvt 26, Vail Village Wesf 2ntl" Filing: A front setback variance was granted for the twelve foot (12) encroachment ofgarage area at a proposed single familyresidence in 2D05. ^ Lot 27, Vai! Village West 2"~ Filing: In 1987, two side setback variances were granted to provide for the enclosure of existing decks wifhin the setbacks. A vicinity map depicting the location of the residence is attached for reference (Attachment. A), as is a reduced copy of the proposed site plan and elevations (Attachment B}, and the pubic notice which preceded the request (Attachment C). III. ROLES OF REV~EWlNG BODIES Planning anti Environmental Commission: Acfr'on: The PEC is responsible for final approve!/denial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal far: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB Has no review authority an a variance, buf musf review any accompanying ©RB application. Town Council: Actions of the Design Review Board or the Planning and Environmental Commission maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council, Town Council evaluates whether or not the DRB or PEC erred with approvals or denials, and may uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the Board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the honing Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and fndings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUIVIENTS Zoning Regralations Section 72-2: Definitions: SETBACK; THe distance from a lof or site line, creek or stream measr~red horizontally to a • line or location within the Iof ar sife which establishes the permitted location of uses, 3 structures, or buildings on the site. Section 72-6D: Primary/Secondary Dis#rr`cf: 12-6D-fi: Setbacks: In the primary/secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (95), and fhe minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (95). Section 72-97: Variances: 72-77-1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistenf with the ob1ectives of this title as would result from strict arliteral interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations maybe granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physica! limitations, street locations or conditions in the r`mmediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict ar literal compliance with a regulation steal! not be a reason for granting a variance. 92-17-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONACTlON: Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shalt act on the application. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve fhe application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application. A variance may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. ?2-17-7: PERMITAPPROVAL ANQ EFFECT.' Approval of the variance shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction pat commenced and diligently pursued Toward completion within fwo (2) years from when the approval becomes final. V. ZONING ANALYSTS AddresslLegal: 1835 West Gore Creek ©rivelLot 20, Vaii Village West 2"~ Filing Zoning: Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Development Standard Allowed/Required Prooosed Lot Area: 14,000 sq. ft. 12,321 sq, ft. (no change) Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. 9 ft. Sides: 15 ft. 15 ft. (both sides} Rear: 15 ft. --82 ft. Building Height: 33' na change GRFA: 5,484 sq. ft: 5,41fi sq. ft. (na change} i 4 ~1 U Site Coverage: Landscape Area: Parking: 2,465 sq. ft. (20°I°) 7,396 sq. ft. (60°l°) 3 spaces Vl. SYJRROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use North: Residential South: Residential East: Residential Vi/est: Residential Land Clse designation: [Medium-Density Residential ~Jll. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 2,465 sq. ft. (20°J°) (no change) 8,971 sq. ft. (--73°f°) (no change) 4 spaces (+1 } Zonin4 Residential Cluster PrimarylSecandary Primary/Secondary PrimarylSecondary A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina the Setback and Parkins Location Variances: 1, The relationship of the requested variances to ether existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • This lot is located in a neighbofiaad with many smaller lets than the minimum let size requirementwithin the PrimaryJSecondarydistrictaf 14,000 square feet. Additionally, severs[ homes [n the neighborhood were approved ar constructed with variances allowing encroachments into the setbacks, as previously stated in Section [I of this memorandum. The variances were granted for reasons ranging from "awkwardly-shaped" tats to easement locations and small let sizes.. However, in spite of the frequency with which variances have been granted in this neighborhood, Staff believes that the requested setback variance has the potential to negatively impact other existing ar potential uses and structures in the vicinity by extending the bu[It environment closer to the right- af-way. This extension may have a negative impact on the other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity by limiting the amount of light and air available to such uses and structures, wh[le creating a lesser quality experience for the passerby on West Gore Creek Qrive, 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. • Staff believes the granting of this variance request may be a grant of special privilege in spite of the fact that other properties in the vicinity have been granted setback. variances for s[milar situations. Though approximate9y twenty mine percent (29%°) of the lot is unable to be developed due to existing site constraints, Staff believes that the current request could likely have been avoided had the residence been located closer to the stream setback line at the time of construction. Additionally, the previous owner had alreadyfulfilled the provision of an enclosed parking space for the EHU making the current 5 ' request unable to be justifiable for that reason. The extended deck design currently undergoing review does not require relief from the strict and literal interpretation without a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safetyr. The proposal may have a negative effect on the elements of this criterion. By increasing the amount of bulk and mass within the front setback, the applicant is affecting the amount of light and air available to the local and passing public. Though the applicant has proposed to berm the land fronting the residence by two (2} to three (3}feet and the addi#ion of three ~3) ten (10} to twelve (12) foot evergreens, Staff does not feel that the screening justifies the lessened quality of light and air that will result from the deck extension. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is not warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the request for a variance from Section 1 ~-8D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a deck within the setback, located at 1835 West Gore Creek Drive/l_ot 2Q, Vail Village West Filing 2. Based upon the review of the criteria in Section VI1 of this memorandum and 6 the evidence and testimony presented as well as the findings listed below, staff recommends that, should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny the application, the following findings be made a part of the motion: 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the Hmitatons on other properties classified in the same district, 2. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the strict interpretation ar enforcement of the specified regulation will not result in practical diffculty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Regulations.. 4, That the strict interpretation ar enforcement of the specified regulation will not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. However, should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the application, Staff suggests that the following conditions be made a part of the motion: 1. The applicant shall submit and receive Design Review Board approval of an application for a minor alteration far the proposed deck extension. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy from the Community Development Department, the applicant shall provide three (3} twelve foot (12'} evergreen trees according to the site plan to provide adequate screening from the right-of-way.. 3. Prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy from the Community Development Department, the applicant shall comply with the Public Works Department requirements for a revocable right-of-way permit. Furthermore, based upon the review of the criteria in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, staff recommends that, should the Planning and Environmental Gommission choose to approve with conditions the application,. the following findings be made a part of the motion: 1. That the granting ofi the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Regulations, 4, That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will deprive 7 ~ !S I ~ f S~ < I 1 ~ Y ~ 4 ~ t ~ j ~ ten". ~ ~ ~ ] {} ~ tt 2 A 1 I ~,. ~ I '4 ~'t~~.i 7 ~ ~ '4 ..1 A ` , y 1 p i~l ~~ .~'1 `li I' :1I _ I ~'~ ~ . .2. ~ u~. ~ ) ~ ~ ~ 1S ~ ~ 1 151 t~ i ~ ,r 1i+~~ ~1 I h I 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ •• ( ~'' k 11f Il fII I~YS j..~ Y '1 I ~ j, l 114111 1-: ; ~ :' ~ WWW t - ~ _ ~~ 11 i -'~1~ IE~I ~- ,; , ~~ l , ~ 4 c-+~= -- ~ l ~ M ~ ~ ''~ . 4z., . '1_ ~ t _,,4t,' • ~5 ,~ 1 ~~~ ' ° " ~~ vJ .~. ~ .. 1 _~ - ;a ~ a l ^ .. ti . -U ~ ~ , ~ w. ~ ~ ~ ~ ". ci. ~~ . ~ ~ Y~ ,~ `~ ' Y 1 ~, .~ , s s_y. ~ 1 4 7 ~_ zi.. ~~ _. ,,~ W , JQJ~ v l ~_r ~1 ' ~..,',`` Sgt ~°~- ''1+'p~ ---t p 4~ r ~ ~~ ~ _~_' nth. s. Si f ~ 1 °-ate: ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ r` ~i ^i1 Y ^~ ~ ~'t~~~ vw ~ ~ R7~ r s ~~~ N ~ W `~ f ~ ~ ~ eq ' ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ "si a are`" g ti, 1~ ~. p 3 .,~ ~T `~ J d 1- `~~ ~ ^~ ~ Q '1 ~' 4~ ~i t' ~ '141. ~...~ ~ f .r . .. ~.: V °.o _ - A` ~ 1 G8 ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 4. w ~,{ ~ ~ T J+ f W p ~ h r,~ L n9o ~u~E e. . °aa o1 ~~D vp~a~. V . O `p t V `{y.„ O N 'o a~ 4 cT ~'sai N ~, C ,rGY ; G, s V y. Z O s o~ ~,m°~<?m u ~. s~ V .M o D '~ U o Vy. "a°"°'o u 7 4 44° w~'C a C V O n V ~ O O a ~ N ~? U GY Qe.Nyrs O..r ~ E ° ~ o ~ a G ~'y c ~ a . o p u a u p m{$ ~ n c F~ m a o £ c ~'~ ~'~ a`~ w ~ ~ ~ S 6 ? ~ ~ O;ry V G 4. # a 6L E6x N~ Tv ~ x ~ ~ ~, u y ~ e J v. j is J m ~ c .` ~ a o 'Ur~ rj~a Y, 9~0aj wtn MD .~ wl _T ~ V q` u V ~ ?! O~ Y g O S w u ~~jl Y' 1 M d i~ f 7 C 7 a. u~ 4 p £ ~ L O a tws ~._ i R ~ 0 E ~ 'tr ..~`._._ _ y `. ~~ a -" ? i ,~ `~~ ~`__ •~ y _ 0 '~~_ 1 1 ~ ` ~`~,,. c '~ ~ ,~; a ~ 5 n~1h w. --= .u v.:i w~ , ~~~ me .1~ a. L ~I! ~-~$< ~ •~l~ R ~ .a~,, r .t~ y~ c ~P `~~ zap , ~ ti ~~ r , k ~ c ~ _ ~ ~' ~ t-~ ~' .. w ' m o .,~ ~g.5~ C~" ~ T.'~'~4 c o a E~ ~~~°'' c ~~ ~, _ ~ fJ t. . ~4. SC ~ '% 2D°nsa~~bj,5 ~ to ~-'-° lt7 r~ah3r'7.oa Feucc ~ro+~wd LWU..r {~.r ~t f yld~ ~~. ~a ~~_ ~a ,~ •'~~ ~° far ~ ,~. ~ ~~ to ~' ` ~~_~ ~° ~ ~ ~"f .~' ' ~ ~~'~{ ~a .~y~~-p ~G y~D ~~~r2 Ir, GSS 11~~•~A~A• 6 P (~fi 1~~ ~7 ~~>f {Q ~r ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~y~`` a~ r,s'r a° a. o. w 3 ~~~~5 i Attachment: G T'~WN O.A Y~IL ~~ THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT Y+DIlR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE N©TfCE PS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission ofi the Town of Vail wilt hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-5, Vail Town Code, on fNovember 28, 24U5, at ~:OQ pm in the Town of Vai! Municipal Building,. in consideration of: A request for a final review of a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 36, (Four Seasons Hotel}, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10A , Vaii Town Code, to allow for a new mixed-use hotel project, located at 13 Vai! Road and 28 South Frontage RoadlLots A and C, Vai! Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Development, LLC, represented by Thomas J. Brink Planner. Matt Gennett A request for a Ana! review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code; to allow for the construction of 124 accommodation units with kitchen facilities, located at 1783 1Jorth Frontage Road/Lots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Timberline Roost Lodge, LLC, represented by Maunelfo Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruttier A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail town Code, to apaw for a deck within the setback, located at 1835 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 20, Vail Village West ailing 2, , and setting far details in regard thereto. Applicant Kevin Raley and Kate Skaggs ~~`!" ` ~ Planner: Elisabeth Eckel ~~~ ~ I~ The applications and information about the proposals are available far public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 97Q-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published November 11, 2Q05, in the Vail Daily. MEMORANDUM TQ: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 28, 2005 SUBJECT: A request for a fnal review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditions! Uses; First Floor on Stree# Level, Vail Town Code; and final review of architectural deviations, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.A, Review Criteria fpr Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow far the development of 107 multi- family residential dwelling units, located at 728 West Lionshead CirclelLot 2, West Day 5ubdivisivn, and setting forth details in regard thereto, (Ritz- Carlton Residences}(PEC 05-OOfi2 and PEC 05-OOE33}. Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Braun Associates, Inc., is requesting a final review of a .major exterior alteration application, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review ofi a conditional use permit application, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code; and final review of architectural deviations, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.A, Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for the development of 10~' multi-family residential dwelling units, (Ritz Carlton Residences} located at 72$ West Lionshead GirclelLot 2, West Day Subdivision. Upon review of the various requests, staff is recommending that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the major exterior alteration and conditional use permit applications. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The purpose of this public hearing is to present the final plans and development review applications for the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences to the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission for final review. The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Braun Associates, Inc., is requesting a final review of a major exterior alteration application, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Cade, and a fnal review of a conditional use permit application, pursuant tv Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Tawn Code; and final review of architectural deviations, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.A, Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines far New Development, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for the development of 107 multi-family residential dwelling units, located at 728 West Lianshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision. The proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences project is on the third and final parcel of the comprehensive development site encompassing the existing Marriott Motel,. the Gore Creek Residences, and the West Day Lot parking area. The West Day Lot parking area and the existing Marriott parking structure sites total 2.399 acres in size and is location of the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences project. A vicinity map identifying the location of the development site has been attached for reference {Attachment A}. A reduced set of plans dated November 28, 2005, are attached for reference {Attachment B}. The Ritz-Carlton Residences proposal is comprised of two {2) different development review applications. Each application is intended to facilitate the redevelopment proposal. The development applications include: • A maior exterior alteration application for a new 107 multiple- famifydwelling unit structure; and • A conditional use hermit aQOlicatian far "lodge rooms or dwelling units" located on the basement or garden level and the first floor or street level of the structure. The key elements of the propvsa! include: • A 107 multiple-family dwelling unit condominium structure; • A total of 219,24+6 square feet of Grass Residential Floor Area {GRFA}; • A 390 space below grade parking structure to serve as parking far the Marriott Hotel and the Ritz-Carlton Residences; • A landmark tower feature which is 112 feet in height; • A loading and delivery facility comprised of three bays; • A labbyllvunge area with a front desk, concierge, and valet; and • A media room, game room, and pool/hat tub deck. III. BACKGROUND The subject development site includes several parcels of land currently used far the Marriott Hotel, the parking structure for the Marriott Hotel, the Gore Creek Residences, and the West Day Lat parking area. Marriott Ho#el History (Parcel 1 of the West Day Subdivison) The Marriott {previously "The Mark"} was approved by the Town in 1977 as a hotel and condominium project and was zoned Special Development District No. 7 by Ordinance 3, Series of 1977. The project was expanded 2 and modified throughout the 1980's and 199(?'s. In 1999 the Marriott property, along with the rest of Lionshead, was rezoned to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and SDD IVa. 7 was repealed, The Marriott as developed today includes 35 dwelling units, 276 hotel rooms, meeting rooms, a restaurant, and other hotel amenities. West Day LotlRitz-Carlton Residences History {Parcei 2 of the West Day S~bdivision~ The westem portion of the site {the Marcus Subdivision), known as the "West Day Lot", was regraded and used far Vail Resorts employee parking. Prior tv the rezoning of thus parcel tv Lionshead Mixed Use 1 in 1999, the property was zoned Parking District. fln August 22, 2095, the Planning and Environmental Commission held an initial hearing on the Ritz-Carlton Residences. At that hearing, Staff provided the Commission with parameters by which the project would be reviewed. At this hearing, the Commission requested to see how the parcels recently acquired by Vaii Associates and the potential of relocating the South Frontage Raad would affect this property. In addition, the Commission asked for a response as to why a conditiona{ use permit was appropriate for dwelling units on the ground floor next to a potential future lift and within. an overall greater portal to the mountain being created in western Lionshead. On September 12, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission expressed that there were no concerns with the conditional use permit application that was being request for dwelling units an the first floor or garden level. The Commission continued expressing concern regarding the height of the landmark tower. The general consensus of the Commission was that a height of 140 feet was inappropriate. In addition, the Commission stated that the height of the screening element for the mechanicals had not been justified in the presentation and other options should be examined, The Commission was not comfortable with approving the height of the screening element over the maximum height of 82.5 feet. Finally the Commission expressed that they would like greater information regarding the flat roof maximum area requirement found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Several members expressed a need for the westem elevation along the South Frontage Road to have step backs incorporated into the architecture. On September 2fi, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission generally expressed that of the three OptianslAlternatives presented that that QptianlAlternative Bwas preferable to Option/Alternative C. The Commissioners generally felt that while OptivnlAlternative Bncorporated the mechanical screening solution which exceeds the maximum height, it does not eesult in additional head height in the top floor units as in ~ptionlAlternative C. Some concern was expressed about how mechanical screening which exceeds the maximum height could be limited and controlled so as not to be abused on future projects. Qne thought expressed was to have more specific language in the Master Plan to address screening of roof-top mechanical units. Some members 3 believed that enough regulations, or safeguards, were in place to insure that mechanical screening abuse would not occur an other projects as they would need to pass PEC and DRB review. Far instance, the applicant was directed to provide a sample of the mechanical screening material, lank at incorporating roof-top terraces, and examine the possibility of creating a mare "cascading roof effect" on the southeast elevation. On October 10, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission gave direction to the applicant regarding the proposed architectural deviations. The Gommission, in general, felt that the proposed landmark tower was stiCl too tall at 120 feet and that there were concerns with the height of the architectural screening solution foe the meehanicals. The Gammissian was comfortable with the flat roof area of the building, however, they directed staff to call Jack Zehren, of Zehren and Associates, one of the individuals who participated in the writing of the Lianshead Redevelopment Master Plan to question the intent of the flat roof area regulation. On October 19, 2005, staff spoke directly with .lack Zehren regarding the intent of Section 8.4.2.7, Roofs, and what the design gaallintent was of 6imiting flat roofed portions of buildings to 500 square feet. Through conversation it was learned that a draft prior to the approved Master Plan identified a maximum of 250 square feet for flat roofs. He continued by stating that the number of 500 square feet was arbitrary and that the gaalfintent was to allow for larger buildings which have complex roof systems to utilize the flat roofed areas as "transitions" between the complicated systems. He stated that it was understood during the drafting of the Master Plan that some structures would have multiple flat roofed areas located on larger buildings which might total more that 5D0 square feet. He concluded by stating that the writers of the Master Plan realized that same flat roofed areas may exceed 5D0 square feet, however, if those flat roofed areas did not disrupt the overall roof system and architecture they could be approved per the following statement from the Master Plan: "Secondary roof forms which occur at logical breaks in buifdr`ng massing may exceed 50© square feef if the genera! intent of fragmented forms and visual harmony is met." On October 24, 2005, the Planning and Environmenta! Commission generally supported the architecture of the proposed structure. Regarding the proposed architectural deviations (flat roof area, mechanical screening, and a landmark tower) there were varying thoughts. Several members were comfortable with the mechanical screening solution as it was a good solution by which other developers could aspire, while other members were adamant that the height limitation of 82.5 feet not be exceeded. In regards to the flat roof area of the building, the general consensus was that the area proposed was appropriate. Several members wished to see the architectural landmark return to the design of the project. Some members felt the tower should 4 comply with the 97.5 feet height requirement and ethers thought it could go slightly taller. On November 2, 2fl05, the Design Review Board, at its regular hearing voted unanimously tv forward a recommendation of approval on the architectural deviations {flat roof area, and architectural landmark tower) to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Un November 14, 20115, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed revisions to the proposal which included the reduction in flat roofed area, elimination of the mechanical screening solution, and an architectural landmark tower measuring 11~ feet in height. The Commission expressed unanimous support of the changes and appreciation to the applicant far working to solve the concerns expressed by the Commission in the previous work sessions. Gore Creek Residences H~story- (Parcel 3 of the Wes# Day Subdiviisi©ny: On November 24, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally {on all levels of a building or outside a building), Vai( Tvwn' Gode, to allow single-family residential dwellings and two-family residential dwellings as conditional uses in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Drstrict and Section 12-16-7, Use Specific Criteria and Standards, Vail Town Cade, to provide criteria to which asingle-family and two-family residential dwelling proposal within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District must adhere. The text amendments were subsequently approved by Town Council upon second reading in Ordinance 36, Series of 20fl3, on December 16, 2003. On June 28, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved, with conditions, a cvnditivnal use permit and a major exterior alteration application on this site for eight two-famiiy structures for a total of 16 dwelling units. On December 13, 2004, the Planning artd Environmental Commission approved a minor subdivision establishing the West Day Subdivision which is comprised of three parcels. The approval and recording of the West Day Subdivision was the culmination of the review of the Gore Creek residences during which it was agreed that the three lots comprising the West Day Subdivision would be tied together far zoning purposes. A note was placed upon the West Day Subdivision which states the following:. "For the purposes of zoning, Lots 1, 2, and ~, creafed by this subdivision are to be Treated as one development site. Development standards shall be based upon the improvements and land area of the combined area of Lots 1, 2, and 3." As a part of the approval of the West Day Subdivision, a spreadsheet identifying the development potential for each of the three parcels was approved in conjunction with the minor subdivision. That spreadsheet, 5 was entitled, "'West Day LotlMarriott HotellGare Creek Place Approved Development P1anlDevelopment Allocations", and dated December 6, 2004. Staff has updated the "West Day LotlMarriott HotellGore Creek Place Approved Development PlanfDevelopment Allocations" spreadsheet to reflect the development potential to be utilized by the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences, dated November 28, 2005,.. which is attached for reference (Attachment C}. IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS The purpose of this section of the memorandum is to clarify the responsibilities of the Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission, Town Council, and Staff on the various applications submitted on behalf of Vail Resorts Development Company. A. Exterior AlterationlModification in the Lionshead Mixed-Use I zone district Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for impacts of use/development and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning acrd Environmental Gamnaissian: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/denial of a Major/Minor Exterior Alteration. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal for compliance with the adopted criteria. The Planning and Environmental Commission's approva! "shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements including siting, building setbacks, height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscapng.p Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Major ar Minor Exterior Alteration, 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. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals b or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. B, Cort+ditional Use Permit (CUPS Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning. and Environmental Commission for acceptability of use and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and ,Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approvalJdenial of CUP, The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the request for compliance with the adopted conditional use permit criteria and make findings of fact with regard to the project's campfiance. Design Review ~aard: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. 5taft:• The staff is responsible for ensuring that a!I submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and fndings, and a recommendation an approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, ar overturn the board's decision. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Lionshead Redeveloament Master Plan Chapter 2, Introduction 2.7 Purpose of the Master Plan {in part) "This master plan was initiated by fhe Town of Vail to encourage redevelopment and new development initiatives in the Lionshead study area. Both public and private interests have recognized that Lianshead today lacks the economic vitality of Vail and falls to 7 offer a world class resort experience. Lionshead's economic potential has been inhibited by a number of recurrent themes: • Lack of growth in accommodation units ("hof beds'; • Four retail quality,' • Deterioration of existing buildings; Uninteresting and disconnected pedestrian environment; • Mediocre architectural character; and the • Absence of incentives for redevelopment. This master is a comprehensive guide for property owners proposing to undertake development or redevelopment of their properties and the municipal offrciafs responsible for planning public improvements. The plan outlines the Town's objectives and goals for the enhancement cif Lianshead and proposes recommendation, incentives, and requirements for redevelopment and new development." 2,2 Definition of a Master Plan In the development of the Lionshead Master Plan, the fflllvwing definition has been used as the basis far this work: A master plan is a guide, a flexible framework for future active. It articulates a community's fundamental land use policies, principles, and goals in a broad and general way. It plans for the future physical development or redevelopment of an area of the community, including its functional and circulation systems and its public facilities. The land use policies in a master plan are generally implemented through zoning ordinances. Existing zoning and land use codes may be modified and new provisions enacted in order to conform to the master plan and carry out the plan's objectives. A master plan does not convey approval for particular development proposals or concepts, nor can it be implemented in a short time frame. After adoption of the l_ionshead Master Plan, every development proposal will have to go through the applicable development review and approval process, with its attendant public notices and public hearings. A proposal's adherence to the policies contained in the adopted master plan will be one of the factors analyzed by staff, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), the Design Review Board {DRB), and the Town Council {as applicable) in determining whether to approve or disapprove the specific proposal. 2.3 Policy r~bjectives The Town Council adopted six policy objectives on November 4, 1996 to outline the important issues to be addressed in the master 8 plan and. to provide a poficy framework for the master planning process. 2.3.1 Renewal and Redevelopment Lionshead can and should be renewed and redeveloped to become a warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing and coherent identity, a sense of puce, a personality, a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character. 2.3.2 Vitality and Amenities We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest experience and community interaction through expanded and additional activities and amenities such as performing arts venues, conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape, parks and ether recreational improvements. 2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through kncreased Live Seds in order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vall, renews! and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates and the creation of additions! bed base (°Ilve beds" or "warm beds") through new lodging products. 2.3.4 Improved Access and Circulation The flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle and mass transit traffic must be improved within and through Lionshead. 2,3.5 improved Infrastructure The infrastructure of Lionshead (streets, walkways, transportation systems, parking, utilities, loading and delivery systems, snow removal and storage capacity) and its public and private senrlces must be upgraded to support redevelopment and revltalizafion efforts and to meet the service expectations of our guests and residents. 2.3.6 Creative Financing far Enhanced Private Profits and Public Revenues Financially creative and fiscally realistic strategies must be Identified so that adequate capital may be raised from al! possible sources to fund desired private and public improvements. Chapter 4, Master Plan Recommendations -Overall Study Area 9 This section of the master plan addresses issues that affect Lionshead as a whole. These issues, and recommendations to address them, should be considered in all planning and policy decisions as Lionshead develops. 4.1 Underlying Physical Framework of Lionshead The Lionshead resort area (that portion of the study area north of Care Creek} is a mixed-use urban environment with several discernible land-use sub-areas, ar "hubs" (see Map N). Although the hubs overlap somewhat, there is no consistent and comprehensive pedestrian connection between them. The primary goal of the master plan is to create a visually interesting and functionally efficient pedestrian environment that connects the hubs to create a cohesive and memorable resort environment. 4.1.1 Lionshead Master Plan Concept Twa primary pedestrian streets form the backbone of Lionshead's physical plan: an east-west corridor connecting Dobson fce Arena with the west end of Lionshead and anorth-south corridor connecting the proposed north day lot transportation center with the ski yard. The circulation system and new retail and lodging components will follow the underlying pattern set by these corridors (see Map T} and the entry portals associated with them. 4.1.5 West Lionshead - ResidentiallMixed-Use Hub The western end of Lionshead, currently undeveloped, is hams to parking lots, the Vail Associates service yard, the Vail sanitation plant, the old town shops, and a gas station. Uses proposed by the community on this site in the past include increased parking, employee housing, office space, mountain service access, and an eastbound 1-70 on-and off-ramp. The master plan recommends that this hub become a residential/mixed-use area with an emphasis an meeting the needs of the local community. Appropriate uses could include high density real estate development, lodging, community based office and retail space, employee housing and parking. The opportunity exists far a significant locals ar seasonal housing development in this area. To the extent possible development patterns in this. area should reflect north-south orientation of buildings, visual penetrations to the mountain, and a pedestrian oriented environment. In addition there is the opportunity for an underground public parking facility. All service and delivery demands created by development in this area shall be accommodated on-site. 1Q The site will continue to accommodate the existing and . potentially expanded functions of the Vail sanitation plant. The mountain service yard will be reduced in size, as some functions can be moved to less central locations. However as the area develops it is critical that new uses be connected to the primary pedestrian corridors and that they be served by the Town of Vail in-fawn transit system. 4.3 Connections to the Natural Environment One of the outstanding characteristics of Vail ViRlage is its spectacular visua( connection to Vail Mountain, particularly the protected view corridors up Bridge Street from the village parking structure and toward the Gore Range from l=ast Meadow Drive. Over the years the village has also strengthened its physical connections to the natural environment by improving creekside parks and trails and by integrating landscape into the built environment at every opportunity. Lionshead has. na similarly strong connection to the natural environment even though it is situated even closer to the base of the mountain. To remedy this critical deficiency, the following recommendations are made: ' 4.3.1 Visual Connections As development and redevelopment occur in Lionshead, it will be vital to protect visual connections to the ski mountain. These visual relationships strengthen the identity of Lionshead as an alpine resort and provide a visual reference that helps Lionshead visitors to find their way through the core. Visual connections to the natural environment should be established utilizing the following techniques: 4.3.1.2 North-South Orientation of Buildings The predominant east-west orientation of buildings in Lionshead acts as a visual and physical barrier, interrupting the connection to the natural environment. It should be a priority in future development and redevelopment to orient vertical building masses along a north-south axis whenever possible, This will help to accomplish the following objectives: a. Surr Access During the winter months, the sun is low in the southern sky, providing the greatest solar exposure to the south faces of buildings and to streets and spaces open to the south. A north-south orientation of building masses will increase the amount of sun reaching the Lionshead pedestrian care and the buildings to the north. 11 b. Views from New Bur"ldirrgs In double loaded buildings oriented an an east-west axis, units on the south side of the building get great views of the mountain, but units an the north side do not. Orienting the building mass on a north-south line creates angled southern views fvr both sides of the building, and units on both sides will get direct sun sometime during the day. c. Views from Existing Buildings Public input throughout the master planning process indicated that existing property owners in Lionshead are concerned that new development will block their priva#e views to the mountain. By orienting new buildings on a north-south axis, the potential visual impact on existing buildings is reduced. d. Creation of Streets A strong view corridor in the Vail Village is Bridge Street. The orientation of the street toward the mountain provides a constant sense of direction and draws people to the destination at the top of the street. >-ikewise, the proposed north-south orientation of buildings in Lionshead will help to create streets oriented to the views, something that is almost completely lacking today. 4.6 Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation 4.6.4 Visual [mprovernents It is essential that improvements for better traffic flow be accompanied with aesthetic improvements in order to break up the perceived width of the improved roadway and to give a stranger image to this north edge of Lionshead {see figure 6~5). Improvements c©uld include landscaped medians and a consistent landscape treatment between the South Frontage Road and the eastbound lane of I-70. Fragile understory plantings should be avoided in favor of street trees and hardy ground covers that can survive winter snowplowing activities. Theis corridor should also include new directional signage, described in section 4.10.'1.1 4.8.4.1 East Intersection of W. Lionshead Circle and S. Frontage Road This intersection will experience the greatest increase in traffic volume due to the projected increase in lodging units and the proposed north day lot transit center. Mitigation measures may be required, as outlined in the traffic study (see appendix A). i2 4.fi.4.2 Intersection of Lionshead Place and West Lionshead Circle Due to the projected volume of lodging traffic that will be accessing Lianshead Place {Montaneros, Antlers, Lionsquare Lodge, and the Vail Associates care site), it is recommended that this intersection be realigned sa the primary through-traffic axis is north-south {see figure 4-14). West Lionshead Circle would farm a T-intersection at the northeast corner of the Marriott, In addition to facilitating traffic flow, this realignment will create a much safer, logical pedestrian crossing from West Lionshead Circle into the Lionshead pedestrian core. 4.6.4.3 Pedestrian Sidewalks and Crossings A series ofi primary and secondary pedestrian walks should be created connecting the West Lionshead area with the Lionshead care, the frontage road, and the ski yard. These walks and crosswalks are identified an Map Q and Map T. 4.6.4.4 Visual improvements As the road systems and adjacent lodging properties in west Lianshead are upgraded it is critical that a consistent visual character be developed through the design of new pedestrian walkways, landscaping, retaining walls, lighting, and site furnishings. For further information an these systems, see chapter six, Site Design Guidelines. 4,7 Loading and Delivery 4.7.1 Properties with Direct Service Access As a general rule, properties that can provide far their own service and delivery needs should comply with the fioliowing guidelines: a. Loading and delivery facilities should be located deep enough Into the property that the estimated peak volume of service vehicles does not back up into or block the access road or pedestrian areas. b. Service drives and landing docks must be screened ' with landscaping, fencing, retaining walls or other appropriate design techniques. c. All reasonable measures shall be taken to prevent noise and exhaust impacts on adjacent properties. d. In nn case shall a property utilize the public roadway or pedestrian area to stage service and delivery vehicles. 13 4.8 Parking Parking is a critical component in a mixed-use resort environment such as Lionshead, and any efforts to enhance this component should adhere to the fallowing goals and guidelines. a. Parking musf be sufficient fo meet demand. Correctly assessing parking demand in an environment such as Lionshead is difficult but extremely important. C?verestimating parking demand can be as damaging as underestimating demand due to the extreme expense of parking space {especially if structured) in a real estate environment such as the Vail Valley. Likewise, parking is a large consumer of ground and should be designed to occupy as little real estate as possible. !n tight margin developments such as mid-range hotels and localsiemployee housing, the expense of parking can be the deciding factor as to the economic viability of the project. Due to these attributes of parking, it is important that frog demand, or desired demand, be distinguished from actual usage. For example, the "free after three" program currently in place far the Town of Vail parking structures has undoubtedly increased the usage of these structures during the evening hours (the Lionshead structure failed in the evening for the first time in 1998). However, there has not been a corresponding increase in sales tax revenue, which was the original intent of "free after three". {Note- concrete studies regarding the utilization of the "free after three" program have not been conducted and it is strongly recommended that this occur if the program is to continue). 1t is hypothesized that a significant portion of people utilizing the free parking program are in fact employees or people that would have used transit or other means of access if the parking were not as readily available. In other words, parking usage often wall rase to fill the available space, but the .profile of the user may not be who the parking was intended for. To be concise, the parking supply in Lionshead and the Town of Vail needs to not only meet the demand, it needs to meet the desired demand and should be structured or programmed in such as way to do so. Parking as important, but too expensive and land consuming tv be provided without solid reasoning. a. Parking should ,be visually inconspicuous. Parking should be structured below ground whenever possible. Surface parking areas should be heavily screened with landscaping, berms, and walls. Expanses of asphalt should be interrupted with islands of landscaping or replaced with pedestrian quality paving materials. Surface parking areas should be avoided in or near the retail pedestrian core area. Although structured parking may be more desirable visually, at must be properly designed sv as not to detract from the guest's arrival experience. 1~ 4.8.1 Potential Displacement of Existing Parking 4,8.1.2 1Nest Day Lot The west day lot is also owned by Vail Associates and is utilized primarily by mountain based Vaii Associates employees. This site offers the possibility of ahigher-return development opportunity that may make other less profitable west end developments feasible, and its existing use for parking is virtually certain to change. It is not anticipated that the employee base utilizing this surface lot will decrease: therefore, all the current parking (approximately 160 spaces) will have to be replaced. 4.8.2 Residential Properties As a policy, all residential properties should provide their own parking within their property according to existing Town of Vail regulations and the parameters described above. 4.9 Housing Recent community surveys and grass-roots planning efforts such as Vail Tomorrow have identified the lack. of locals housing as the most critical issue facing the Vail community. E=arly in the Lionshead master planning process, west Lionshead was identified as an opportunity area to implement same of the community's housing goals, particularly relating to employee housing. These opportunities and associated issues are autGned below. 4.9.1 Na Jet Loss of Employee Housing Ground rule number five of the master plan states that there shall be no net Eoss of employee housing in Lionshead as redevelopment occurs. 4.9.3 Policy Based Housing Qpportunities The frst means of implementing housing goals in Lionshead is through policy based requirements such as the employee generation ordinance currently being pursued by the Vail Town Council. As required by a future ordinance, all development and redevelopment projects, as a prerequisite to project approval, should provide housing far employees generated and to the extent possible this pausing should be located in the Lionshead area. 4.10 Gateways, Landmarks, and Portals 15 The lack of spatial hierarchy or organizational clarity is a fundamental problem in the Lionshead pedestrian and vehicular network today. This section discusses the need to create a series of gateways, portals, landmarks and useful public spaces that will increase and enhance the character and identity of the pedestrian environment. 4.14.2 Landmarks A landmark is a significant architectural element that all the visitors to Lionshead can identify and remember. Landmarks signify important points of entry, turning points and critical intersections in the pedestrian network, as well as destinations and visual reference points. The single landmark in Lionshead today is the Gondola clock tower, which will be replaced with the Vail Associates core site redevelopment. Appropriate locations for new landmarks in Lionshead are the east pedestrian portal, the central retail mall adjacent to the main pedestrian plaza, and the west pedestrian portal adjacent to the intersection of West Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place. In addition, the potential civic center complex at the east end of the parking structure should function as a sign cant architectural landmark for the east end of Lionshead, 4.11 Public Art Through the Art in Public Places Board, the Town of Vail has long recognized the importance of public art in pedestrian environments, Future development and redevelopment projects in Lionshead, especially projects impacting the retail mall and primary pedestrian environments, should seek to incorporate public art according to the Town of Vail Art in Public Places Master Plan (not adopted as of the writing of this document}. Pedestrian circulation systems, parta[s and gateways, landmarks, pedestrian plazas and architecture all present opportunities to incorporate public art. Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations This section of the Lionshead Master plan examines individual parcels and groups of parcels within the Lionshead study area, excluding the residential properties vn the south side of Gore Greek. The intent of this chapter -and the Master plan as a whole - is to identify important functional relationships and visual objectives within the district and to propose a framework for the long-term redevelopment of Lionshead. The document does not intend to limit or eliminate ideas relating to specific parcels; any proposals consistent with this framework should be considered even if they are not anticipated in this document. The parcels addressed here are organized generally from east to west, starting with the civic hub on the eastern end of the parking structure. 5.13 The Marriott 16 With approximately 320 rooms, the Marriott is the only supply of hot beds in Lionshead. The single largest structure in Lionshead, it is also very visible, especially from the west. It is consequently a high priority renovation project, and all reasonable measures should be taken by the Town of Vail to encourage and facilitate its enhancement. Specific issues regarding this property are as follows: 5.13.1 Redevelopment or Development of the Parking Structure The best opportunity for new development on the Marriott property is the existing parking structure (figure 5-17). If this site is developed, attention should be given to the relationship between the development, Gore Creek, the Gore Creek recreation path, and the west day lot, Vertical development should step back. from the recreation path, and there should be a clear separation most likely a landscape buffer} between the public space of the recreation path and the private space of the residential units. 5.17 West Day LotNail Associates Service Yardl Holy Cross Site Planning for the western end of Lionshead must consider two different sceneries; the realignment of South Frontage Road and its retention in the existing alignment. Higher densities and building heights may be appropriate in this area,. particularly to encourage the development of employee housing. However, any development must meet the overall character and visual intent of the master plan and be compatible with the adjacent existing development of the Marriott and the Vail Spa. As depicted in figures 5-21 and 5-22, realignment of the South Frontage Road will allow these properties to be consolidated for development while maintaining a transit connection through the property. Within the consolidated parcel, there are four distinct sub-areas separated by location and land use. The first is the existing west day lot. This site has Gore Creek frontage, is removed from the frontage road, and is the most appropriate for a higher-end fee simple or fractional fee development. The second, immediately adjacent to South Frontage Road, should have a strong relationship with the first (potentially by a connecting "greenbelt" as shown in figure 5-24), but its less desirable location suggests a different and potentially higher density product.. Affordable housing should be considered here to accommodate new employee generation. The third, west of the realigned South Frontage Raad, has been identified as an appropriate location for high density employee housing. The fourth has the longest road frontage and is the recommended location for a smaller Vail Associates service yard. From this location, a new snow cat access route to the mountain could be developed through the old town shops site and across the river to Cascade Ho ski trail. 17 If South Frontage Road is not realigned prior to bukdout vn this site, there would be a slight reduction in the amount of developable land north of the frontage road (see figure 5-23), and access points to the properties might be different. The removal of the central transit/pedestrian corridor will necessitate either an additional west Lionshead transit stop or the undesirable situation of people crossing the firontage road to access a single transit stop. Chapter B, Site Design Guidelines Chapters four and five identified important public spaces and pedestrian corridors that together defne the underlying structure of Lionshead and #orm essential connections between the district's primary destinations. This chapter on site design guidelines describes the detailed elements that fend character and quality to the overall fabric of public spaces. The master plan envisions a hierarchy of pedestrian spaces and, as outlined in this chapter, demands increasing attention to detailing in areas where public use will be more intense. Any projects or situations that do not fall within the framework described below shall conform to the existing Town of Vail regulations. 6.4 Secondary Pedestrian Walk Secondary pedestrian walks (see figure fi-3) are similar to primary pedestrian walks except that they are not located on primary pedestrian corridors and thus carry a lower volume of pedestrian traffic. The suggested minimum width for these secondary walks is six feet, although wider walkways may be required where anticipated pedestrian #raffic volumes are greater. Poured concrete may be used as a paving material. All other design parameters that apply to primary pedestrian walks also apply here. 6.fi Pedestrian Path Peden#rian paths are located outside of the primary Lionshead pedestrian. environment (see figure 6-4). They include stand- alone circulation corridors, such as the Gore Creek recreational path, that are mast often built. with asphalt surfaces. These pathways generally carry a lower volume of traffic, but their width should reflect both anticipated volume and' anticipated type of traffic, as bicycles, rollerblades, and skateboards also utilize these pathways. Lighting, signage, site furnishings and landscaping will be a function of a pathway's intended use, location, and traffic volume. Chapter 8, Architectural Design Guidelines 8.1 Vision Statement li 8 The Lionshead neighborhood in Vail presents the opportunity to establish a dynamic and exciting community within one of the premier resorts in the world. Lionshead's mountain location, proximity to the ski slopes, and ample residenfral base evokes the vision of a truly special place, full of vitality and interest. This vision can 'be achieved through redevelopment of the community by addressing site and architectural issues, and through consistent and effective transitions from existing to new buildings. The pedestrian experience of the public spaces within Lionshead is the most critical issue for redevelopment. Many of the existing spaces are static and uninteresting, due to a prevailing grid organization and lack of animation and architectural coherency within the spaces. One of the most effective ways to intensify this experience is through careful design of the architecture which defines the public spaces. Visually dynamic variation at the pedestrian level can help avoid a monotonous streetscape, and judicious use of ornament, detail, artwork, anal color can reflect individuality and establish a variety of experience. The architecture of Lionshead is envisioned as a unified composition of buildings and public spaces based an the timeless design principles of form, scale, and order, made responsive to their setting and environment. It is not envisioned as a strict dictation of a specific "style" or "theme.T Many existing buildings within the community are built of monolithic concrete slabs and lack any sense of order or personality. The new image for Lionshead should move towards the future- using historical alpine references and Vail Village as antecedents. This design framework will allow individual property owners freedom of expression within the personalities of their buildings while establishing and maintaining an overall unifying character and image for the entire community. In addition, it is paramount that the redevelopment effort address specific design considerations g aerated by the location, climate, and surrounding environment, such as addressing views, using indigenous building materials, and reflecting the alpine heritage. Designing in response to our regional heritage, adhering to a consistent architectural order, and enhancing the public experience wil{ enable Lionshead to define its awn identity-making it a distinct and special place not just within the context of Vail, but within kindred mountain communities around the world. 8:2 Organization, Purpose and Scope The organization of the Lionshead Architectural Design Guidelines is based upon describing the "big picture" of the redeveiopmen# effort. first, anal then studying the more detailed aspects. Sections 8.1 and 8.2 begin with the "big pictures and offer the "vision far Lionshead, and provide explanatory information regarding organization, purpose, and scope. Section 8,8 contains specie! provisions for new and existing structures, including redevelopment priorities, triggers, and transition tools, This Section addresses how flexibility in the application of the Guidelines should be applied to development applications under consideration by tt~e Town's hoards and Commissions. Section 8.4 contains the Guidelines I9 themselves, but begins first with the "big picture" of planning considerations which may overlap with the Lionshead Master Plan. Prospective developers andlor designers should study this portion of Section 8.4 carefully, to see what design criteria must be met if their project occupies a special site relative to building roles, pedestrian streets,. or transition spaces. The latter portion of Section 8.4 deals with the architectural principles of the Design Guidelines, starting first with overall issues such as building farm and massing, then moving into more detailed issues such as dimensional criteria for architectural components, materials, and colors. Section 8.'5 provides a "quick glimpse" of the quantitative values outlined in the Guidelines. The purpose of the Lionshead Architectural Design Guidelines (ADG) is to work in concert with the Lionshead Master Plan to enhance the existing experience within the community, improve the quality of life, focus direction fvr future growth, create visual harmony, and improve property values for businesses and homeowners. This document constitutes a design philosophy for the community, which when integrated with the Lionshead Master Plan, helps to establish Lionshead as a coherent, dynamic village with a true "sense of place." These Guidelines are intended to direct the growth of the community through distinct levels of perception, from views of the neighborhood from the mountain and the highway, to perceptions within its pedestrian streets,. to the detail level of artistry and ornamentation on the structures themselves. f The scope of the Design Guidelines includes all criteria related to the architectural design of new and redevelopment projects within Lionshead, along with site and planning criteria which relate directly to architecture. ©ther site and planning criteria may be found in the Lionshead Master Plan, and should be reviewed concurrently with these Guidelines.. Structures which have been reviewed and approved by regulatory agencies for Lionshead prior to the endorsement date of this document may present special circumstances with aspect to the criteria cited within these Guidelines, and will be handled per 5;ection 8.3. 8.3 lVew and Existing Structures 8.3.1 Special Provisions White these Guidelines offer a rvadmap for the redevelopment of Lionshead, they are not intended to limit the efforts of developers andfor designers involved with new and existing structures. It is understood that many of the buildings within the community or may be unable to comply with some of the criteria described in the ADG. Many existing buildings, far instance, may already exceed the height criteria identified. Some existing roof pitches within the community may not meet the numerical _ values described, And many of the existing pedestrian streets may fail well. short of the °`ideal" proportions depicted. These and similar issues will be handled on a case-by-case basis, with determination of 20 compliance based upon whether the building meets the general intent of these Guidelines and the tenets described herein. Similar to existing structures, it is also understood that from time to time the Town may determine that it is desirable to afford flexibility in strict application of the Guidelines to new development projects. In these instances, the reviewing body shall rely upon the stated review criteria far deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines auflined in sub-section 8.3.3.A captained herein. Propased renovations or additions which meet the general intent of the ADG will be offered more latitude with respect to specific non-compliant items than those which stray from the overall vision of Lionshead as described within-variances will be granted from the detail of the Guidelines if the overal! intent is met. in addition, any meaningful efforts to enhance existing structures will be recognized as positive progress, and strict compliance with the "letter" of these Guidelines is not meant to discourage potential improvements. 8.3.3.A Review Criteria far Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development Similar to the implementation policies of the ADG prescribed for existing structures, the Tawn has determined that there may be instances where flexibility in requiring strict compliance with the Guidelines for new ` development maybe in the best interest of the carnmunity and the furtherance of the goals and objectives stated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. That said, however, it is acknowledged that such instances are rare and extraordinary, and shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. To aid in determining when flexibility shall be afforded to new development from strict compliance with the Guidelines, review criteria have been established. The degree of design deviation flexibility afforded to a development project shall bear proportionately to the extent of the improvements Propased. Far example, a development application that proposes the construction of a new structure which includes the demolition of an existing structure or adds significant volume ar mass to a property, shall more fully comply with the prescribed Architectural Design Guidelines outlined in the master plan than an application which proposes a renovation or addition to an existing building The fallowing criteria shall be used by the Town of Vail Planning 8 Environmental Commission and Design Review Board to determine if deviations to the Guidelines should be granted:. !t shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission following a recommendation from the Design Review Board that: • The request for design deviatians are in compliance with the Purposes of the zone district; and The proposal which includes the design deviations is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and 21 • The proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a significant negative effect an the character of the neighborhood; and • The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan; and • The design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the speck design standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and, • A public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation; and,... • The design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes as stated in Sections 2.3, 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 8.4.2 Architecture 8.4.2.1 Introduction The architectural portion of these Guidelines is intended to provide a unified, conceptual framework using historical alpine references. It is imperative that the redevelopment effort address specific architectural design considers#ions generated by the location, climate, and surrounding environment such as addressing views, using indigenous building materials, and reflecting the alpine heritage. However, within this framework, the architectural language of buildings within Lionshead should strive to reinterpret its heritage and look to the future, instead of simply mirnieking the past. 8.4.2.2 Building Farm and Massing Building form and massing-as design determinants--are especially critical to the success of Lionshead as an interesting, inviting resort. The forms of buildings and the ways in which they are massed offer opportunities to ,present a comfortable, pedestrian scale to the Lionshead traveler, and to strengthen the continuity of the streetscape throughout. Other vital corridors within Lionshead which are not along primary pedestrianlretaii routes-such as the Gore Creek Corridor- can also benefit from well-designed massing which relates to the scale of those corridors. Form and massing act to marry a building to its site, whether the site is part of a paved plaza or sits within natural topography, and serve to "break dawn" the scale of the village fabric when viewed from the ski hill. The overall design strategy of building form and massing shack relate to the horizontal organization found within Lionshead 22 (such as shopfront heights, important floor lines, and critical eave lines), and to the planning considerations outlined in the Lionshead Master Plan (such as build-to fines, sun pockets, and view corridors}, The intent of this section is to guide the creation of a village which is appropriately scaled through the use of segmented forms and masses. The underlying fabric shall be constructed of structures which rise out of the ground gradually, rather than being vertical blocks set on the ground plane. At the pedestrian scale, the street level should be dynamic and interesting, by varying forms anti masses at the bases of buildings. These building "skirts" should not be uniform one- or two-story masses, but rather fragmented forms which offer interest and diversity. 8.4.2.3 Building Height General The following building height and massing criteria shall apply to the Lionshead Master Plan study area, excluding all residential properties south of Gore Greek. Primary Retail Pedestrian Frontages On any property edge fronting a retail pedestrian street or mall (see site design guidelines for definition and locations}, at least 50% of a building face shall have a maximum 16' initial eave heigh#, at which point that face must step back a minimum of 12'. The remaining percentage of building face may have a maximum 3fi' initial eave height, at which point the building face shall step back a minimum of 12'. Eave height is defined as the distance from finished grade to the initial primary eave of the structure. Gable faces of buildings are also measured to their eaves, excluding the actual wall area which comprises the gable. The intent of this retaillpedestrian street requirement is to present a dynamic, fragmented streetfront to outdoor spaces, rather than uniform blocks of building mass (see Section 8.4.2.2}. Ski Yard and Open Space Frontages This paragraph applies to the portion of any property not meeting the criteria of the Primary Retail Pedestrian Frontages section above, and fronting on the ski yard or the Gore Creek corridor. Due to the unique and highly visible nature of these areas, building faces fronting them shall be limited to maximum initial eave heights of 48', at which point those faces shall step back a minimum of 12'. 23 It is critical to note that the 48' maximum initial save height does not allow for an unarticulated, flat building face from grade to 48'. The horizontal and vertical maximum unbroken building face requirements, as well as al! other guideiines contained in this chapter and the Master Plan, shall apply. f?ernaining Budding Frontage Building faces that do not meet the special site criteria of the sections above may have a maximum initial save height of 60', at which point those faces must step back a minimum of 72'. To the extent possible, all new and redeveloped buildings in Lionshead should avoid "turning their backs" on other buildings or important pedestrian corridors. However, it must be acknowledged that very flew buildings have prime frontage on all sides and almost all buildings will have different programmatic requirements and visual characteristics on their different faces. Toward that end, a building's greatest vertical mass and "back of house" functions should occur on the frontage with the least volume of pedestrian traffic. In addition, components of a building with the greatest vertical mass should be oriented north-south to minimize the blockage of southern views and suniight. It is critical to note that the 6d' maximum initial save height does not allow for an unarticulated, flat building face from grade to 6Q°. The horizontal and vertical maximum unbroken building face requirements, all other guidelines contained in this chapter and the Master Plan, and DRB review and approval, shall still apply. Wail Surface Criteria Notwithstanding the previous height and setback requirements, there shaCl be no vertical wall face greater than 35' on a building without a secondary horizontal step in the building face (the horizontal step may be a cantilever or a setback). This requirement is intended to preventlarge, unbroken planes in the middles of building faces, to further mitigate the visual impact of building height, and to provide for higher quality and more interesting articulation of structures. While many instances will necessitate a distance of at least 24" for this movement, it shall be incumbent upon the developer to demonstrate that the intent of this requirement has been met. A,bsoiufe Maximum Heights Absolute Maximum Height is defined as the vertical distance from existing, finished or interpolated grade -whichever is 24 more restrictive - tv the ridge of the nearest primary roof farm to that grade. With this in mind, the Average Maximum Height of any building shall not exceed 71 ft. Notwithstanding the notion of Average Maximum Height, the Absolute Maximum Height of any building shall not exceed 82.5 ft. Within any building footprint, height shall be measured vertically from the ridgeline of the primary roof form on a proposed or existing roof to the interpolated ar existing grade directly below said paint an a proposed or existing roof to the imaginary plane created by the interpolated grades {see Figure 8-15a-c} Calculation of Average Maximum Height The intent of implementing an Average Maximum Height far buildings is to create movement and variety in the ridgelines and roof forms in Livnshead. Toward that end, the Average Maximum Height of a building shall be calculated based upon the linear footage of ridgeline along primary roof forms. Any amount of primary roof farm ridgeline that exceeds 71 ft. must be offset by at least an equal amount of primary roof form ridgeline falling below 71 ft., with the distance below 71 ft, equivalent to or greater than the distance exceeding 71 ft. The average calculation shall be based on the aggregate linear footage of primary roof forms across an entire structure, not separate individual roof forms (see Figure 8-15c} Average Maximum Height Calculation Average Maximum Height = [Primary Ridge Length (A) X Average Height of Ridge (A}] + [Primary Ridge Length {B} X Average Height of Ridge (B}] +[Primary Ridge Length (C) X Average Height of Ridge {G}] +[..] [Primary Ridge Length {A) + Primary Ridge Length {B} + Primary Ridge Length {C) + (......)] Additional RequirernentslExceptions All buildings, regardless of permitted building heights and massing principles, shall conform to all established Public mew Con'idors (see Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan). Special "landmark" building elements, such as chimneys, towers, or other unique archteotural forms, may exceed the Absolute Maximum Height, subject to approval by the reviewing board. This provision is intended to pravide for architectural creativity and quality of building form, and shall not be used as a means or circumventing the intent of the building height limitations. In addition, regardless of fnal building height, buildings shall avoid monotonous, unbroken ridge lines, and shall pravide visual interest through the use varied peak heights, roof forms, gables, and other appropriate architectural techniques 25 8.4.2,4 Exterior Walls General Exterior walls. within Lionshead shall be designed with clear definition of base, middle, and tom. This organizing principle will weave the separate pieces of the community into a consistent fabric. The tripartite strategy of base, middle, and tap will estabfsh key datums, or special horizontal layers, within. the community which reinforce the form, massing and height guidelines described earlier. To this end, the three-part definition of buildings shall relate directly to organizing principles such as existing datums, architectural elements such as storefront colonnades and awnings (where applicable}, and massing strategies such as building setbacks and maximum heights. This strategy can relate to farm and massing principles through the development of street-level setbacks defining the bases of buildings where appropriate, and minor setbacks relating to the middles and tops of buildings. The bases of buildings should be visually dynamic to heighten the pedestrian experience. In addition, their interface with the topography of the site is crucial, as they act as the transition zones between man-made structures and natural grade. Visual dynamics at street level 'are most effectively accomplished through the introduction of secondary farms, materials, colors and detailing. However, the use of indigenous materials at the primary elements (see following sections for definitions} is critics! in tying buildings to their sites. Rhythm and order should be introduced to guide the traveler through the streetscape, and offer an enhanced sense of movement through Lionshead. To reinforce this intent, street-level walls shall not span mare than 30 feet horizontally without significantly varying at least 2 of the following 5 characteristics: • Massing or Height • Material, Fenestration, or Color 1Nhen massing or height are varied, buildings with street-level walls may vary material, fenestration, ar color to meet the 3D- foot span requirement; however, if massing or height are not varied within 30 feet, materiaC, fenestration, and color must be varied. 26 Existing buildings may disregard the 30'-maximum horizontal' wall guideline if their structural bays or other organizing elements exceed 30', provided that the distance over 30' falls within reasonable limits. An existing building with 35' structural bays, for instance, is not required to further divide those bays; however, an existing building with 48' structural bays may be required to divide those bays into 24' sections, depending upon the nature of the pedestrian street frontage. The muddles of buildings within Lionshead shall read as "quiet" masses when compared to building bases and roofs, and should act as a unifying background throughout the community. This should be done through the use of simple materials, such as stucco, and more consistent, repetitive fenestration and detailing (see Sections 8.4.2.5 and 8.4.2.9). Building middles should not be designed as less important, banal elements, but rather as elements which present interest and articulation through subtle detailing-through fenestration, shutters, trim, and the like-instead of massing. The tops of walls shall be designed tv comfortably engage their pitched roofs, without the abrupt changes inform and massing so commonly found in structures with primarily flat roofs. Walls should also be used to visuaNy reduce roof heights, through the careful design of lowered plate heights and integrated dormers, which help to merge wall planes with roof forms and interlock building masses with roof masses. The tops of buildings shall be capped with well-proportioned, pitched roofs, acting as the uppermost unifying image within the architectural fabric of Lionshead. Roofs viewed from pedestrian streets should nearly disappear from view as travelers approach, due to their pitches relative to ground-level sightlines. However, viewed from a distance, roof forms within Lionshead should offer a consistent roofscape to the observer within the community or on the .mountain adjacent to it. Guidelines which direct the design of the roofscape are described in Section 8.4.2.7. Materials ~Generai) As mentioned earlier, building materials should be carefully selected to recall the heritage of our alpine antecedents, yet look forward to the vision of Lionshead as a modern cesort community. The specific requirements and limited palette of major building materials described herein are intended to reinforce the visual harmony envisioned for the community and act as additional unifying thread far the resort. 27 Materials used at primary building elements-defined as those which exceed 50t) square feet (SF} in wall surface area-shall recall and relate to the indigenous materials of the area and enhance the sense of our Colorado mountain resort heritage. They are described below according to their most appropriate locations within the tripartite order of individual structures. Secondary building elements, or those which cover an area of bg0 SF or less, may be comprised of varying materials to add design flexibility, encourage individual expression, and enhance visual interest. `they are not specifically listed within these Guidelines, but may include materials such as painted steel, canvas and similar tex#iles, colored unit masonry, and the like. Within this framework, creative use of materials is encouraged, but "patchwork° designs of inconsistent material locations or patterns should be avoided. All secondary building elements will be approved at the discretion. of the reviewing body. Base Materials Materials selected for the bases of buildings must balance the transparency required at retail shopfronts with the strong, anchoring elements needed to tie buildings to their sites, That is, they must successfully integrate the nations of mass wall and frame wall. In addition, they should offer both large- and small-scale texture at the ground plane, to add varying levels of interest and heighten the pedestrian experience. With this in mind, building bases shall be primarily constructed of individual pieces or unit materials such as stone veneer. When using stone, veneers should be selected which lend authenticity to mass walls-thin veneers or those which appear as mere surface applique should be avoided. Battering may be used as an additional-but optional-design tool to visually strengthen the bases of structures. As mentioned earlier, secondary elements within building bases may incorporate accent materials, but these materials should be carefully selected to ac# in concert with the rest of the archi#ecture. shopfronts and other special street-level amenities have the most latitude with respect to material selection, but can be very successful if constructed of hand- crafted, durable materials. These types of materials can hold up to the careful scrutiny of the street-level observer, along with the physical abuse common to public ways, Acceptable accent materials include-but are not limited to--wood, wrought iron, forged or formed metals, and etched glass. Middle Wall Materials The middles of buildings shalC be constructed of neutral field materials such as true stucco, EIFS, or wood. These types of materials help to establish the "quiet" or "background" vertical 28 surfaces necessary at the major wall planes which typically make up the bulk of structures. In addition, they offer an interesting difference between the dynamic nature of building bases and the more repetitive, subtle patterns of building walls above street level. Materials such as stucco should be designed as an expression of mass, rather than infill between structural members. Where building walls meet roofs, materials which successfully integrate the tops of buildings to their middles, such as waod in the farm of brackets, rafter tails, and the like, are most effective.. Approved materials for use on building roofs are described in Section 8.4.2.7 of these Guidelines. Calc~rs Building colors for structures within Lianshead should be chosen to blend structures with the mountain environment, while offering visual and psychological warmth to observers. Ta this end, earth tones and other low-intensity colors derived directly from the surrounding mountains should be used on primary building elements, defined as those which cover more than 500 SF. Earth tones include hues such as off-whites, beiges, tans, and light grays, introduced in shades slightly darker than their natural counterparts. Colors inherent to the materials used, such as natural stones and naturally- weathering woods, generally offer the hues ar~d textures mast desirable within Lianshead, and such materials should not be painted. However, integrally-colored concrete, stucco, and semi-transparent waod stains are acceptable as well. In an effort to limit the palette of colors used on buildings and avoid thepatchwork" effect, no more than three colors should be used on primary building elements. Secondary building elements 450D SF or less in area) may be clad in accent colors to add visual interest to the overall streetscape. They should act as highlighting elements at storefronts, primary entries, and signage, and are most appropriate at lower levels to engage pedestrian interest. Upper levels, in an effort to act as the more "quiet" fabric of l.ionshead, should avoid brighter colors and remain true to the earth tones listed above. When used, accent colors should reflect the natural mountain environment of Lionshead, with golds, granges, reds, and shades of green, blue, and purple used mast often. Colors foreign to the mountain setting should be avoided. Trrm 29 Trim colors, generally used an elements to express structure, door and window openings, significant floor lines, fascias, and the like, shall act in concert with field and accent colors. This is most effectively accomplished through the selection of deep or vibrant colors having the same ar similar hues, but using different shades or tints. At street level, accent colors may be used on trim to express storefronts and reinforce the rhythm of the streetscape. 8.4.2.5 Exterior Doors and Windows General In the tradition of mountain antecedents, openings for exterior doors and windows in buildings within the Lionshead community shall be treated as recessed elements in mass walls of stone, concrete, or stucco, rather than flush surfaces on them. Within frame walls, they shall be expressed as infill material between structural members, and recessed from those members. This treatment lends itself to the image of structures comprised of significant mass or structure, instead of curtain walls clad aver lightweight frames. Given this general approach, however, door and window sizes, shapes, types, materials, and colors should relate to the tripartite order established through development of base, middle, and top. Exterior Daor Srzes, Shapes, and Types Door sizes should be appropriate to their materials, with rustic, "heavy' doors generally used in stone or concrete to accentuate mass, and glazed, `light" doors used infield materials such as stucco and wood siding, or at window wall assemblies (see commercial front exceptions to follow in this Section}. Entry doors located along retail streets and other public ways offer the first true glimpse of buildings when approached from those spaces, and should therefore be designed with hand-crafted quality and attention to detail. These dears should be oversized when possible, but in proportion to the frontage of which they are a part. Entry doors for large retail. centers or hotels should be significantly larger than those found in smaller, more intimate chaps. tither doors far structures, regardless of location, should be designed as part of an obvious hierarchy, with primary entry doors the largest, secondary entry doors somewhat smaller, and private or egress-only doors smaller yet. Shapes of doors should relate directly to their locations on the building, with rectangular shapes be%ng the most prevalent. Specially-shaped doors and double doors are encouraged at primary entries along retail firontages, or as custom portals for 30 private residences, while the middles of buildings should be characterized by more standard shapes. Special shapes should not be overused or used in a random, ad-hoc fashion; shapes such as arched heads or square, overhead doors should relate to the overall building architecture. Exterior Door Materials and Caiors All exterior doors within Lionshead shall be constructed of high-quality, durable materials such as wood, metal-clad wood, or metal; Boars at primary hotel, condominium, or retail entries may also include large areas of glass to attract pedestrians. Glass doors should relate to building orientation, views, ar functions, with large areas of glass generally avoided in locations other than those noted. Maintenance-free materials such as copper, baked aluminum, and naturally- weathering woods are encouraged-painted metals and woods shauld be avoided whenever possible. Copper cladding and wrought iron doors may be left to patina naturally, while industrial metals such as steel and aluminum should be baked or anodized with finish colors to match building trim. Commercial fronts and private entries offer the unique ability to introduce hand-crafted, custom-built portals for businesses i and private residences, and must also have the ability to ! display shop wares. They are therefore permitted more latitude with respect to materials, colors and amounts of glazing. Aluminum storefronts may be used on commercial structures, provided they are finished in factory finish. All- glass doors are permitted as well, with no Cimits set on the amount of glass permitted at retail level. Etched glass is encouraged to bring a level of detail to special storefronts. Doors which are part of window wail assemblies may also have large glass areas, to take full advantage of mountain views. All exterior door glazing shall be non-reflective, to minimize off-site glare, particularly from the ski mountain. Exterior Door Hardware Variations in designs and materials for exterior door hardware at primary entries are encouraged to br°rng a level of fine detail and creative expression to buildings within the community.. Approved materials include brass, copper, wrought iron, wand, and industrial metals such as aluminum or steel Industrial metals should 13e prefinished in colored or clear factory finish systems to reduce maintenance problems. Door hardware in areas other than primary entries should complement the surrounding materials and details. Window Sizes, Shapes ar~d Types 3I As with exterior doors, window sizes should be appropriate to their surrounding wall materials, with narrow, relatively tall windows used in stone or concrete, and larger, more expansive windows used in field materials such as stucco and wand siding, or in window wall assemblies. Fenestration within field materials should be designed with decorative trim and sills, or heavy structural frames, so they do not appear as "punch-outsA within those materials. Windows located along retail streets and o#her public ways offer locations in which to display goods to pedestrians, and should therefore be designed with particular care. Window walls should be designed in proportion to their associated frontages, with windows at large retail centers or hotels significantly larger than those found in smaller, more intimate shops. Other fenestration, regardless of location, should be designed as part of an obvious hierarchy, with lower-level, retail street openings the largest, and windows above somewhat smaller. Shapes of windows should also relate directly to their locations on the building, with rectangular shapes being the most prevalent. Fenestration located within the middles of buildings should be shaped and organized into fairly regular patterns, to establish rhythm and continuity. Specially-shaped windows are encouraged at walls along retail frontages, or as custom. openings in distinct areas of private residences. They are also appropriate at dormers and other special roof elements. As with doors, specially-shaped windows should relate tv the overall building architecture. And as a general rule, the variety of geometric shapes used should be limited to 3 on any given building. Acceptable window types include high~ua1ity #ixed, dauble- hung, awning, and casement units. Sliding windows and multiple-opening units such as jalousie are generally lesser- qualityunits not conducive to the mountain environment and should be avoided. At retail levels, bay, box and bow windows are encouraged to animate the pedestrian street and integrate public and semi-public domains. All windows should strive to add visual interest through careful design of mullions, muntins, and divided liter. The intent of the Guidelines is to recall the regional heritage through the thoughtful design of fenestration and how it relates in scale, proportion, and materials, to the tripartite order of structures within the community. Window Materials and Colors 32 Windows within Lionshead shall be painted or stained wood, or clad in maintenance-free metals such as copper, or aluminum and steel with baked finishes. Copper cladding may be left to patina naturally, while baked enamel colors for aluminum and steel cladding should be similar to trim colors, and in similar complementary hues to ,wall colors or stained wood colors. Factory finishes should be selected to withstand the intense ultraviolet radiation found at higher elevations, and prolonged fade-resistant warranties should be considered. In addition, glazing shall be non-reflective, to minimize off-site glare, particularly Pram the ski mountain. Decorative shutters are permitted within Lionshead only if they are designed to operate or appear to operate. When used, they should be constructed of wood and finished with durable stains ar paints. Their design and placement should be consistent and should not take on a random or haphazard appearance. Design freedom is encouraged within these parameters, and within the context of the other architectural elements found an the building, including handrail designs, ornamental iron, and similar detailing. 8.4.2,6 Balconies, Guardrails, and l-landrails Lc~cafron and Srze Balconies should be carefully located with respect to their orientation to the sun, involwement with public spaces, and snow and watershed from structures shove and onto structures or passers-by below. They should be sized as outdoor rooms, with ample space for outdoor furniture and other amenities, or merely as small, private parapets used as `°step-outs" tv allow fresh air into the adjacent. roam. False balconies and balconies which straddle these two roles should be avoided, as they tend to lack the benefits of either and are often left unused. Proper location and size will ensure that balconies become animated spaces, rather than outdoor storage areas. As animated spaces, their placement in public plazas and pedestrian streets straddling the semi-priwate and public domains-will infuse those spaces with the vitality needed to draw visitors to Lionshead. Balconies which face service alleys or are located within other socially "dead" spaces, or are susceptible to water or snowshed are generally unsuccessful spaces and should be avoided in Lionshead. The intent of this Section is to infuse public spaces with the energy of occupied balconies, and encourage designers to avoid the design of lifeless balconies which remain unoccupied and therefore detract from public spaces. 33 Maferials and laesfgns Custom designs far balconies, guardrails, and handrails offer the opportunity for truly creative expression within these Guidelines, and unique design solutions are encouraged. Approved materials for primary elements such as guardrails, handrails, posts, and support brackets include stucco-covered walls (far guardrails only), naturally weather-resistant woods, wrought iron and other decorative metals, and steel. Materials such. as glass, plastic, pipe rails, and metal panels are strongly discouraged. Secondary elements such as pickets and ornamental detailing may use other materials not listed above but will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Materials which meet the intent of the Guidelines and work in harmony with the architectural language of the building can lead to positive solutions, but all secondary building materials will be approved at the discretion of the reviewing body. Drainable balconies-or these which shed water off them via waterproof membranes as opposed to letting water trickle through them-shall be designed whenever other balconies, pedestrian streets, ar other public ways are exposed to water ar snowshed from those balconies. Placement of the drain systems should be carefully considered to avoid passers-by befvw. Non-drainable balconies may be used in all other locations and should be constructed of weather-resistant woods or omamental metals. Within these general parameters, balcony, guardrail, and handrail designs should be patterned after a rational order of structure and detail. Primary structural or decorative members should be in proportion tv the balconies they are supporting, which in tum should relate to the overall building scale. An honest, straight-forward expression of structure should be sought whenever possible, avoiding design faux pas such as stucco-covered beams or grossly undersized brackets. 8.4.2.7 Roofs General In keeping with the spirit of the area's mountain architecture, primary roofs within Lionshead are to be predominantly gables and hips, with sheds or flat roofs permitted at smaller, secondary raafs. Primary raafs are defined as roofs which cover mare than 500 SF of roof area, while secondary roofs are these which cover 500 SF of roof area or less. Secondary roofs which occur at logical breaks in building massing may exceed 500 SF if the general intent of fragmented fom~s and visual harmony is met. Free-standing sheds and butterfly 34 roofs are not permitted. Mansard roofs are permitted on buildings where pitched roofs would be impractical, if the mansards are of similar form, pitch., material, color, and detail to other roofs within the community (and identified within these Guidelines). If used, these types of roofs should be considerate not only of views from the pedestrian street, but also those from the ski mountain. To this end, areas of flat roof within the slopes of the mansard shall be limited to the practical minimum, and the materials for the flat roof shall be black or in a color to blend with the sloped raaf. In addition, rooftop equipment within the flat areas shall be painted to blend with the roof material (see "Miscellaneous Equipments Section to follow). The overall image for Lionshead takes its cue from the simple, fragmented, gabled roof forams of European alpine villages, where views of the roofscapes from the mountains are paramount. All new construction shall comply with the following roof criteria. Substantial expansions and renovations shalt also adhere to these Guidelines, along with the remaining portis~ns of the building which are not being expanded or renovated (see exceptions above, in Sections 8.3.1, 8.3.4.2, and later in this Section}. Roof framing shall be expressed wherever possible, particularly through exposed ridge beams, outriggers, rafter tails, and fascia boards, Dimensional Guidelines Roofs should be constructed with 34"minimum save and rake overhangs, with dimensions dependent upon overall building size. Secondary roofs may have overhangs as small as 18", but should work with the overall scale of the raafscape. Ridge beams and outriggers should be of visually sturdy members (6x or 8x material far wood, and equivalent sizes for other materials), sized to support rafters and overhangs; decorative end cuts or patterns are encouraged. Rafter tails shall also appear sturdy (2x or 3x material for wood) and be exposed to express structure. l=ave and rake fascias shall be wide enough to screen end protrles at metal roofs, and to offer a consistent image with respect to structural roof members. Pr'#ch Roof pitches for primary roofs shall be from fi:12 to 12:12, inclusive. Pitch breaks are permitted when they occur at architecturally appropriate locations such as plate fines, changes in plane, etc. To add variety to the Lionshead roofscape, secondary sloped roofs may have pitches ranging from 4:12 to 12:12, and flat roofs may have limited use as secondary forms. Existing structures with especially large footprints may deviate from the pitch requirements if they meet 35 the overall intent of the roof guidelines and are responsive to views from both the pedestrian street and the ski mountain. Steep mansard roofs which exceed the 12:12 maximum pitch criteria are not encouraged, but may be necessary in certain instances when excessive building dimensions make the 12:12 pitch requirement impractical. These buildings will be handled on a case-by-case basis, and evaluated on intent rather than quantitative criteria. N-aterials and Calars Primary roofs shall be covered with a limited palette of unit materials to present a coherent image for Lionshead. Approved materials far primary roofs include-but are not limited to-metal shingles, cementitious shingles, concrete tiles, wood shakes or shingles, and high-quality, asphalt shingles which offer acceptable colors and depth. Metal shingles may be of copper (16 ozISF minimum weight), terne metal, ar other materials with natural patina. Secondary roofs may be covered with metal panels, in corrugated, rolled, or standing seam profiles, Primary roofs shall be in neutral, earth-tone colors, with brown or gray tones-bright colors or reflective materials are not permitted. Roofs may incorporate blends to achieve desired colors-on-site mock-ups are required when blends are proposed. At retail levels, accent colors are permitted for secondary roofs to add vitality to the streetscape. Changes in roof materials or colors shall take place in logical locations, such as changes in pitch or changes in plane. Dormers Dormers are considered secondary roof elements, and as such are permitted some latitude in terms of form, pitch and material. Qormers may be gables, hips, or sheds, with pitch as identified previously for secondary roofs. UVhen designed as an extension of upper-level walls, they should be constructed in the more traditional manner, above broken eaves on both sides of the dormers, as apposed to continuous eaves up and aver the dormers. Design freedom is encouraged, and dormers with non-compliant farms or pitches will be considered if the overall roofscape provides the image intended. Snawguards, Gutters and Downspouts Snawguards or snowclips shall be used wherever significant amounts of snow may accumulate over occupied areas, such as pedestrian streets, entries, patios, decks, balconies, or uncovered parking areas. Pitched roofs which face norkh are particularly susceptible to snow and ice accumulation, as are 36 lower roofs to the north of--and therefore in the shadow vf- their higher neighbors. In these cases severs! rows of snowguards or many snowcfips may be necessary. Snow and ice accumulation on metal roofs-which heat quickly during sunny winter days-is especially dangerous to unsuspecting persons or equipment. Metal roofs which face south or are located significantly higher than adjacent, lower roofs shall be equipped with snowguards or snvwclips #o prevent injury to people ar damage to Ivwer roofs. Outdoor gathering areas which face south and are not completely covered may be exposed to water drip from the roofs above them. These locations-which may include heavily-used public spaces such as sun pockets or packet plazas-are ideal candidates far gutters and downspouts. Where roofs are in constant shadow ar have northern exposures, gutters and downspouts used in conjunction with heat tape may work well. Gutters used below snowguards should be designed to take the load of the accumulated snow and ice which snowguards frequently release. Approved materials for gutters and downspouts within Lionshead include aluminum or steel with baked finish, and copper or lead-coated capper.. Gutter sections may be traditional ar half-round. snowguards shall be constructed of painted plate steel vertical supports painted black, or to match roof or building trim color) with horizontal members made of materials which recall the structure of the building, such as timbers, lags, or tube steel . Large structures, where snowguards are not readily visible from street level, may use the more utilitarian expanded metal or mesh dams, welded to steel horizontal sections and vertical supports. All exposed steel shalt be painted. MrscelJaneous Equipment AI6 miscellaneous rooftop equipment, including roof vents, antennas and satellite dishes, shall be painted to blend with the roofs to which they relate. Major pieces of equipment on commercial buildings shall be strategically located to conceal them from view, ar hidden in cupolas or other structures- exposed equipment is not permitted. All flashings shall be copper ar painted metal to match those found on exterior walls. The intent of these provisions is to present awell- blended rovfscape throughout the community, as seen from the pubic spaces as we[I as from the mountain, Skylights/Salar Panels 37 Skylights and solar panels are permitted within Lionshead if they are less than 3 feet higher than the surrounding roof. Both elements must be included in maximum roof height calculations, and shall be well-hidden from street level and the mountain. 8.4.2.8 Fireplaces and Chimneys Fireplace Requirements Fireplaces shall be designed to meet all applicable Codes, including the restriction on woad-burning units within Lionshead. Exposed flues and vents for gas-operated fireplaces or other equipment such as furnaces should be hidden from primary views, and painted to blend with the nearest building materials. Chimney Sizes end Shapes AlI flues 6" diameter or greater which penetrate roofs shall be designed with chimneys. The sizes of chimneys should be in scale with the architecture of the building-not small enough to be lost in the massiveness of the structure, but not large enough to overwhelm the structure. Chimneys should be designed with relatively slender proportions when viewed from at least one profile, with height greater than width, and in rectangular shapes Heights ofgas-burning chimneys or boiler flues shall be designed to proportionally match their woad- burning counterparts, to lend authenticity and consistency to the overall roofscape. Chimney Materiels Chimneys within Lionshead shall be covered in stone veneer (to match building veneer) or stucco, to express the alpine heritage of the area. Wood or metal-clad chimneys are permitted at small, residentially-scaled buildings only. Chimney Caps Chimneys may terminate in decorative caps of stone, stucco, or metal Creative designs, such as arched openings within caps, barrel ar pitched metal roofs, and the like are encouraged to lend interest to the building roofscape. Chimney caps should act as elegant crowns to nicely- proportioned chimneys, and should not seem bulky ortop- heavy. When flat or pitched stone caps are used, they shall have a minimum thickness of 4°'. All chimney caps shall be designed to screen spark arrestors and other utilitarian equipment as much as possibCe. 38 8.4,2.9 Detail Detail should be introduced to the architecture of Lionshead to infuse heritage, culture, and artistry to the Lionshead environment. V+Jelf-designed arnamentaiion can serve to complement and perhaps intensify the other architectural principles discussed in these Guidelines, but should be designed to work in harmony tinrith-and not against-the basic architecture. The design of signage, brackets, lightposts, and the like should present ahand-crafted quality, particularly at street level. Detail at the middles of buildings should rely more upon pattern orcarefully-designed repetition to visually connect parts of a building together or separate buildings to one another. Fesolution 18. Series of 2004: A Resolution A.mP_ nrlina Certain Sections Of The Lionshead Redevelopment _Ma~ter Plan Gl~rifvina Anri A~ffordinp ALL Tvoes Qf Development Projects, "New And Redevelooment" Flexibifty In The AopGcatian Of The Archit~rtural Design Guidelines. As_PrPSCribe~i In Chanter 8 Of The Lionshead F2edevelopmpnt Master Plan. And Se#tina f=orth Details In Renard Thereto. 8, 3.3.A Review Criteria for Deviations to fhe Architectura! Desr'gn Guidelines for New Development Similar fa the implementation policies of the AEG prescribed for existing structures, the Tawn has determined that there may be instances where flexibility in requiring strr`cf compliance with fhe Guidelines far new development maybe in the best interest of the community and the furtherance of the goals and objectives stated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. That said, however, it is acknowledged that such instances are rare and extraordinary, and shall be considered an a case-by-case basis. Ta aid in defermining when flexibility steal! be afforded to new developmenf from sfrict compliance with the Guidelines, review criteria have been established, The degree of design deviation flexibility afforded fa a development project steal! bear proportionately to the extent of the improvements proposed. Far example, a development application fhaf proposes the construction of a new structure which includes the demolition of an existing structure or adds significanf volume } ar mass to a property, shall more fully comply with the prescribed Architectural Design Guidelines outlined in the master plan than an application which proposes a renovation ar additr`on to an existing building The following criteria shall be used by fhe Town of Vail Planning & Lnvironmenfal Commission and Design Review ward to determine if deviations to the Guidelines should be granted: !f shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town of Fail Planning & Environmental Commission following a recommendafian from fhe ,Design Review Board that: • The request for design deviations are in campliance with the purposes of fhe zone districf; and 39 • The proposal which includes fhe design deviations is consistenf with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and • The proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a significant negative effect on the character of fhe neighborhood; and • The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan; and • The design deviation meets or exceeds fhe intent of the specific design standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and, • A public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation; and, • The design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes as stated in Secfions 2.3, 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopmenf Master Plan. Zoning Regulations Lionshead Mixed Use -1 Zone District {in part) 12-TH-9: PURPOSE: The Lionshead Mixed Use-i zone district is intended to provide sites fora mixture of multiple-family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, , open space and other amenities appropriate to fhe permitted types of buildings and uses and fo maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. This District is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with fhe Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This Zone Disfrict was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this Zone District include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead fedevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of fhe incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopmenf consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopmenf Master Plan. Additionafly, the incentives are creafed to help frnance public otf--site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any developmenf/redevelopmenf proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, fhe following amenities will be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedesfrr"an/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. 12-TH-2: PERMITTED AND ~CONDlTIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL: 40 A. Definition: The "basement" or "garden level" shall be dellned as that floor of a building that is entirely ar substantially below grade. B Permitted Uses: The fallowing uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure: Banks and financial institutions. Commercial ski storage. Eating and drinking establishments. Persona! services and repair shops. Professional offrces, business offices and studios. Public or private lockers and sforage. Recreation facilities. Retail establishments. Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare. Travel agencies, Additional uses determined fo be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 72-3-4 of this Title, C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1 fi of this Title: Conference facilities and meeting rooms. Litluor stores. Lodges and accommodation units. Major arcade. Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type 1II (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title}. Radio, TV stores, and repair shops. Theaters. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. 12-7H-3: PERMITTED A1VD COIVDITI4NAL USES,• FIRST FLUOR CR STREET LEVEL: A. Definition: The "first floor" or "street level" shall be defined as That floor of the building that is locafed at grade ar street level along a pedestrianway. B. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level within a structure: r Banks, with walk-up teller facilities. Eafing and drinking establishments. Recreation facilities. Retail stores and establishments. Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare. Travel agencies. 41 Additions! uses determined fo be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3- 4 of this Title. C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level floor within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditionaf use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Barbershops, beauty shops and beauty parlors. Conference facilities and meeting rooms. Financial institutions, other Phan banks. Lr`quor stores. Lodges and accommodafion units. Nfultiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type !!l (€HU} as provided in Chapter 73 of this Title,. Radio, TV stares, and repair shops. Addifiona! uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Sectr`on 72-3-4 of this Title. 12-7H-4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVF• A. Permitted Uses; Exception- The following uses shall be permitted on those floors above the first floor within a structure: Lodges and accommodation units. Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units Type III (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title). Addifiona! uses determined fo be sr"milar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3- 4 of this Title. 12-7H-6: AGC,ESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district: ' 1-lome occupations, subjecf to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title. Loading and delivery and parking facilities customarily incidental and accessory to permitted and conditions! uses, Minor arcade. Offices, lobbies, laundry, and other facilities customarily incidental and accessory to hotels, lodges, and multiple-family uses. Outdoor dining areas operated in conjunction with permitted eating and drinking establishments. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios or other recreatr'on facilities customarily incidents! to permitted residential or lodge uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory fo permitted or conditions! uses, and necessary far the operation thereof. 42 12-7H-8: COMPLIANCE BURDEIV.• It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district; that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does naf otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of fhe Vail comprehensive plan, 12-7H-18: M1TlGAT1ON OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property ownersJdevelopers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relafion 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 commissr'on in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: roadway improvements, pedesfrian walkway improvements, sfreetscape improvements, stream tract/bank improvements, public an` improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. VI. ZONING ANALYSIS Address/Legal Description: Parcel Size: Zoning: Land Use Designation: 720 and 728, West Lionshead Circle, and 825 West Forest RoadlLots 1, 2, 3, West Day Subdivision 6.82 acre (29T,165 sq. ft.) Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Resort Accommodations and Services The West Day Lot Development is comprised of three parcels which include the existing Marriott Hvtel and the 16 Gore Creek Place Residences, and the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences. As was stated previously in the memorandum, these three parcels are tied together and treated as one large development site by the recorded plat, for zoning purposes. Below is a zoning analysis which incorporates all three parcels and the developments which exist, are under construction, and are proposed on the three lots. This analysis will become a part of the Approved Development Plan for the three parcels included within the West Day Lot Development Site, Development Standard Allowed Existing Proposed Land Uses: Lot 1 - Marrt Hotel Lot 2--West Day Lot and Marriott Hotel Parking Structure Lot 3 -Gore Creek Residences Lat Area: 10,000 sq. ft. 297,165 sq. ft. 297,165 sq. ft. 43 Setbacks All Sides: 10 ft. 10 ft. 90 ft. Building Height: 71 ft. avg. 70 ft. avg. 67.9 ft. avg. 82.5 ft. max 84.5 ft. max 82.5 ft. max Density: 238 DUs {35/ac.} 51 DU (7.5/ac.} 158 DU (23.11ac.} Unlimited AUs 276 AU 276 AU GRFA: 742,912 sq. ft. 213,239 sq. ft. 527,136 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 208,015 sq. ft. 148,076 sq. ft. 203,234 sq. ft. {70%} {49.8%) (68.4%) Landscape Area: 59,433 sq, ft. (24°!°} 139,713 sq. ft. (41 %) 118,092sq. ft. (39.7%) Parking: 158 {1.41DU) 347 spaces 500 spaces 276 (0.71AU) The fallowing analysis is performed solely an the site proposed to be the lacatian of the Ritz-Carlton Residences. AddresslLega[ Description: 728 West Lionshead CirclelLot 2 West Day Subdivision Parcel Size: 2.399 acre (104,500 sq. ft.} Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Land Use Designation: Resort Accammadatiians and Services DeveloQment Standard Allowed Existing Pror~osed Land Uses: Lot 2 -West Day Lot and Marriott Hotel Parking Structure Lot Area: 10,004 sq. ft. 104,500 sq. ft. 104,500 sq. ft. Setbacks All Sides: 10 ft. NA 10 ft. Building Height: 71 ft. avg. NA 65.3 ft. avg. 82.5 ft. max 82.5 ft. max Density: 83 DUs (351ac.) NA 107 DU (44.61ac.) Unlimited AUs GRFA: 261,250 sq. ft. NA 296,224 sq. ft. Site Coverage; 73,150 sq, ft. NA 77,760 sq. ft. Landscape Area: 20,940 sq. ft. {24%} NA 25,060sq. ft. (23.9%) Parking: 145.6 (1.41DU) NA 390 spaces` Loading 3 berths IvA 3 berths 44 * Of the parking spaces proposed, 1 b3 spaces will serve the Ritz-Carlton Residences and 237 will serve as replacement spaces far the Marriott Hotel. VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Residential Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District South: Open Space Natural Area Preservation District East: Residential Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District West: Public Utility General Use District Vlll. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRITERIA Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria for major exterior alteration applications proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-'[) zone district. According to Section 12-7H-8, Vail Town Code, a major exterior alteration shall be reviewed for compliance with the foClawing criteria: That the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district; Staff Resoonse: ~ The purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district are stated in Section 12-7H-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code and reiterated in Section V of this memorandum. As stated, the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district is intended to provide sites within the area of Lionshead for a mixture of multiple-family dwellings,. hotels, fractional fee clubs, restaurants, skier services and commerciallretail establishments. The development standards prescribed for the district were established to provide incentives for development in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. In reviewing the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences project far compliance with the expressed purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, staff finds that the major exterior alteration application complies with the intent of the zone district. The applicant is proposing to develop a 107 fee simple condominium project and is leaving two areas (potential condominiums) available far commerciallretail uses. Initially the proposal was to create 1®g condominiums, however, as the Town and the applicant are currently involved in a master planning effort for West Lionshead and the potential for a new ski lift, the applicant has chosen to leave two potential condominiums available for future commerciaEfretail usage. Each of these proposed uses comply with the stated purpose of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district.. Employee Housing Requirements As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed through the planning process for special 45 development district proposals. In reviewing the proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Employee lousing Report. This report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate employee housing needs. The guidelines contained within the report were used mast recently in the review of the Austria Haus, Marriott, Four Seasons, Manor Vail Lodge, and Special Development District No. 6 - Vail Village Inn development proposals. The Employee Housing Report was prepared for the Tawn by the consulting firm Rosall, Remmers and Cares. The report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, staff analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use} that results from the redevelopment. The figures identified in the report are based on surveys of the commercial-use employment needs of the Tawn of Vail and other mountain resort communities. As of the drafting of the report, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler, B.G. had "employment generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide affordable housing for a percentage of the new employees resulting from commercial development. "New" employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial redevelopmen#. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of affordable housing a developer must provide for the new employees. For example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 40% (4.40) of the new employees, Aspen requires that fi0% {4.60} of the new employees are provided housing, and Whistler requires that 140% {1.04) of the new employees be provided housing by the developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined that developers shall provide housing for 15% (0.15) ar 30% {4.30) of the new employees resulting from commercial development. Wher> a ,project is proposed to exceed the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 34% (0.34} figure is used in the calculation. if a project is proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15} figure is used. The Crossroads special development district does exceed the density permitted by the underiying zone district in both number of dwelling units and GRFA so the 30% ratio was used. Proposed Project Emalovee Generation Calculations -Middle of Ranae a} Multi-Family (Dwelling Units} 1.47 new units proposed @ {0.41unit) = 42.8 employees b} Retail and Service Gommercial 4,239 sq. ft. @ {5.011040 sq. ft.) = 21.2 employees • • 46 fiA~.0 employees x.15 • 9.fi employees According to the calculations abave, the applicant must establish 10 new deed-restricted employee beds ("pillows"). The applicants are proposing to provide the required deed-restricted employee housing units off-site through the future construction of an employee housinglvffice facility on the North Day Lot. The applicant has agreed that the units will be provided prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the project, The applicant will deed restrict the units under the appropriate deed restrictions depend'ong upon which zone district the property is located in. In the previous meeting, the Commission asked for greater detail on how a "bed" will be defined in regards to the deed restricting of units. Far example if the applicant constructed a unit containing three bedrooms this could potentially count as six employee "beds". Staff believes that the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district as demonstrated by the discussion abave. 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; Staff Response: On August 22, September 12 and 26, October 10 and 24, and November 14, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Cammission held public hearings to discuss the implementation policies of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and to review the proposed project's compliance with goals and objectives stated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Following discussions of the goals and objectives of the Master Plan, the Commission generally believed that the ' proposed major exterior alteration was consistent with the applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. In these six public hearing the Cammission identified issues which required additional study and consideration by the applicant that were identified by a majority of the Commissioners. Those issues included the amount of flat roofed area on the structure, the height of the proposed mechanical screening, and the height of the architectural landmark tower, The applicant has responded to each of the issues identified by the Commission. The current proposal has eliminated the proposed mechanical screening solution located on the center building abave the port-cochere, reduced the amount of flat roofed area to 6.7% or 3,91Q square feet, and reduced the height of the landmark tower to 112 feet. Pursuant to Resolution No. 18, Series of 2004, the applicant has proposed various deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines as prescribed in Chapter 8 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master flan. In accordance with the prescribed procedures, the applicant appeared 47 before the Town of Vail resign Review Board on October 19, 2405, for the final review of the proposed variations to the architectural guidelines prescribed in the Master Plan and the zoning regulations. Upon listening to a presentation by the staff and applicant on the deviations being proposed the Board voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval of the request to the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. Specifically, the Board found that, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.A, of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pkan, "the design deviations meet or exceed the intent of the specific design standards as prescribed in Section 8.4 (of the Master Plant; a public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation; and that the design deviations further the goals, objectives, and purposes as stated in sections 2.3, 2. b, and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan." Chapter 5 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan outlines the possible land uses which should be constructed on the West Day Lot. According to Section 5.17, in park, the West ray Lot is identified as, " the most appropriate for ahigher-end fee simple or fracfionaf fee development." Staff believes that the proposed major exterior alteration for the Ritz- Carlton Residences is consistent with the applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 3 That the proposal. does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and, Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the proposed Ritz-Garltan Residences project in an attempt to identify any significant negative impacts that may be created on the character of the neighborhood as a result of the construction of the hotel project. While staff was able to identify several significant negative effects that the original proposal would have had (i.e., amount of flat- roofed area,. exceeding maximum allowable heights in order to construct mechanical screening, and an excessively tall X144 feet tower} on the character of the neighborhood during our initial review of the development application, the applicant has made revisions to the proposal to effectively eliminate those negative effects. For example, the flat roofed areas have been reduced and roof-top terraces have been incorporated, the mechanical screening which exceeded the maximum allowable height has been removed, and the landmark tower has been reduced to 112 feet in height. Staff believes that the proposed major exterior alteration will not result in any significant negative effects on the character of the neighborhood. 4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 48 Staff Resaonse: Staff has reviewed the Vail Comprehensive Plan to determine which elements of the Plan apply to the review of the Ritz-Carlton Residneces project. Upon review of the Plan, staff has determined that the following elements of the Plan apply: • Transportation Master Plan adopted 1993) + Comprehensive Open Lands Plan (adopted 1994) • Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pian (adopted 1998} • Art in Public Places Strategic Plan (adopted 2Q01) The applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution to the Town of Vail or to construct physical improvements in accordance with the recommendations of the Transportation Master Plan and the Art in Public Places Strategic Plan. A review of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan affim~s that the recommended actions outlined in the Plan have already been fuEly implemented within the west Lionshead (Vilest Day Lot) area, and therefore, no further action is required at this time. And lastly, as discussed under Criteria #3 above, the applicant is implementing the numerous actions and recommendations as stated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pian. For these reasons, staff believes that the applicant has complied with the above criteria. Overall, staff believes that the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that the proposal is consistent wifh applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment 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. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the major exterior alteration application, staff recommends that the Commission makes the fallowing finding as part of the motion: "Pursuant fa Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, fhe ' applicanf has proven by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmenfal Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed major exterior alferation is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use ?zone district, That fhe proposal is consistent wifh applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and thaf the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect an the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with ether applicable elements of the `Val! Comprehensive Plan. IX. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEYV CRITERIA 49 As previously discussed in Section II of this memorandum, the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit application, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12- 7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Frst Floor on Street Level, to construct dwelling units within the Garden Level and on the First Floor of the pr©posed structure, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions outlined in Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code. Section 12-15-6, Criteria; Findings, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria for conditional uses permit requests proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) zone district. According to Section 12-1fi-6, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. Staff Response: The proposal requesting 22 dwelling units on the garden level and first floor is consistent with the development objectives of the Town. The Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district allows for dwelling units on the garden level and first floor as aconditional use in order to allow for each individual site and circumstances to be reviewed for the appropriateness of the use. Typically, retail uses are preferred on the garden level and first floor of a structure in Lionshead. However, the grade of the Ritz-Carlton Residences site, surrounding land uses, and the lack of pedestrian activity make retail a land use which is not appropriate nor likely successful within the project. In addition, Section 5.17 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identifies the site of the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences as "appropriate fora higher-end fee simple"development. In response to concerns from the Town Council and staff, the applicant has removed two dwelling units which were previously proposed to be condominiums from this request (initially requested 24 units).. These spaces will be held as potential 'locations for retail uses if it is determined through the West Lionshead master planning process that retail is appropriate in these locations with the possibil'cty of a new ski lift and mare redevelopment on the adjacent parcels to the west. If it is determined that retail is not appropriate for these two spaces the applicant will return to a future hearing and request a conditional use permit for the spaces to become dwelling units. 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. Staff Response: The proposed dwelling units will have little, if any, negative impact on the above- described criteria. The proposed dwelling units are allowed with the zone district and are not likely to significantly effect the distribution of population, negatively impact schools, utilities, parks, etc, or put a strain on existing public facilities. SO 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference tv congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flaw and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. Staff Response: The proposed development of the Ritz-Carlton Residences will more likely result in significant positive improvements to the above-described criteria rather than result in negative effects. For example, automotive and pedestrian safety will be improved due to the construction of streetscape improvements to the South Frontage Road and removal of snow from streets and parking areas will be improved due to the proposed snawmelt system on the access drive between the Marriott and the Ritz-Carlton Residences and the construction of the underground parking structure. 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. Staff Response: The proposed dwelling units and accompanying structure are being constructed in conformance with the development standards and design guidelines established for the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district. That said, a considerable amount of time has been spent to date to ensure that the development as a whole will have a positive overall effect upon the character of the area. Also, as discussed in Section VIII of this memorandum, the overall development of the Ritz-Carlton Residences complies with the gaals and objectives specifically slated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pian. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the application, staff recommends that the Commission make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed bcation of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would 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 complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations. X. RES(3LUTION 1$. SERIES OF 2004, REVIEW CRITERIA The applicant is requesting two architectural design deviations which are permitted flexibility under the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and are subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission under a set of 51 criteria. ff certain findings can be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission, upon receipt of a recommendation by the Design Review Board, flexibility can be granted. The two architectural design features the applicant is requesting flexibility from are: 1. Flat Roofed Area of the Structure: The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identifies a maximum area of 500 square feet for flat roofed portions of a structure. Staff believes that the intent of this provision is to limit buildings to minimal flat roofed areas so as to encourage true sloping roof forms. The proposed structure has a total roof area of approximately 58,433 square feet and the proposed flat roofed portion of the structure is proposed to be approximately 3,910 square feet, or 6.~ percent of the total area. The can-ent roof plan now incorporates 4,454 square feet of roof-top terrace. The applicant has proposed a roof design in which they believe that the flat portion is secondary to the sloped roofed areas. Through the use of sloped mansard roof forms the applicant has attempted to reduce the visibility of the flat roofed portions of the structure from many perspectives. The flat roofed areas will not be visible from a pedestrian perspective, nor from the surround properties as the height of the building is above a majority of the neighboring structures. The flat roofed areas wilt, however, be visible from the ski mountain. 2. Landmark Tower Element: The applicant has proposed to locate a architectural landmark tower element on the northwest corner of the proposed structure. The Master Plan identifies the importance of landmark elements on projects within Section 8.4.1.2, Landmarks. The specific language in the Master Plan is as follows: "A landmark provides a sense of orientation for the community, and reinforces ifs "sense of place" or image. As such, if must be visible from key locations within fhe community, such as portals and major public spaces, and must offer an image consistent with Lionshead. As a unique architectural element, a landmark should be designed to clearly stand ouf from the rest of the community, while still presenting a consistent design language. Care should be taken to provide a clear hierarchy between the village landmark and other, secondary landmarks. Landmarks are most successful when they serve special functions such as be11 towers, clock towers, monuments, or public art, rather than being self-serving. Furthermore, they should be carefully scaled to the buildings adjacent fo them, as well as fo the overall scale of fhe urban village. " 52 Title 14 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code states that. Trawers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar architectural features not useable as habitable floor area may extend above the height Iimif a distance of not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the height Iimif nor more fhan fifteen feet (15). The proposed tower has a height of 112 feet, measures approximately 25 feet by 25 feet, and is located in close proximity to the intersection of the South Frontage Road and West Lionshead Circle. The proposed architectural landmark tower does not contain any CRFA above the maximum height of 82.5 feet in height, At a height of 112 feet the proposed tower is 14.5 feet (14.9%) taller than the maximum height of 97.5 feet identified in the Master Plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission following a recommendation from the Design Review Board that: 1. The request for design deviations are in compliance with the purposes of the zone district; and • Staff Response:. Staff believes the request for several flat roofed areas exceeding 500 square feet and for an architectural landmark tower of 112 feet tall are in compliance with the purpose of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district in that they further the goal of redeveloping properties within the zone district. In order to create incentives for redevelopment the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district increased building heights, densities, and allowable GRFA. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identified that with larger buildings there would be the need for flat roofed areas and some of those areas identified as "secondary roof forms" could exceed 5Q0 square feet in area in order to accommodate complex roof designs, The proposed architecture! landmark tower furthers the purpose of the zone district in that it allows for the creation of an architectural feature which will enhance the architectural character of Lionshead. 2. The proposal which includes the design deviations is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and Staff Response: Staff believes the request for several flat roofed areas exceeding 500 square feet and far an architectural landmark tower cif 112 feet tall are consistent with the applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as the plan identifies the in Section 8.4.2.7, Roofs, the necessity of having flat roof areas on large structures with complicated roof forms and the potential for those areas being greater than 500 square feet. S3 In addition, the Master Plan in Section 8.4.1.2, Building Roles; Landmarks, discusses the importance of landmark elements and the need to incorporate landmark features into structures in order to reinforce the image of Lionshead. 3. The proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a significant negative effect on the character afi the neighborhood; and Staff Response: Staff believes the request far several fiat roofied areas exceeding 500 square feet and for an architectural landmark tower of 112 feet tall will not have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. In previous public hearings the flat roofed areas of this project were shown to be obscured from view from all perspectives with the exception of the gondola and Buffehr Creek Road. The location of the proposed architectural landmark tower on the northwest comer of the project will not abstract any views from adjacent buildings and will enhance the architecture of the neighboehaad by providing a feature at the westernmost boundary of the Lionshead Village. 4. The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan; and Staff Response: Staff believes, after reviewing the Vail Comprehensive Pian that the proposed architectural deviations comply with ail elements of the Plan. 5. The design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific design standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and, Staff Response: Staff believes the request far several flat roofed areas exceeding 500 square feet and for an architectural landmark tower of ~ 12 feet tall. meets and exceeds the intent of the specific design standards as prescribed in Section 8.4 of the Lionshead redevelopment Master Plan. The proposed flat roofed areas occur in logical breaks in the building and do not fragment the overall roof farm of the proposed structure. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan places great importance on the use ofi landmark elements to create sense of place and architectural interest within Lionshead. Staff believes that the proposed tower measuring 112 feet is appropriate in scale for the propased structure and surrounding structures. 6, A public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation; and, Staff Response: Through the proposed deviations the public benefits by gaining a structure which has much greater architectural character, The ability to have several roof areas exceed 500 square feet has allowed for the proposed 54 structure to have a much mare interesting roof design as the goal of the architecture was to create a single structure which appears to be comprised of three separated buildings built over a longer period of time. The proposed architectural landmark tower also adds to the architecture character of the structure and the surrounding neighborhood, The tower will provide a recognizable landmark at the western edge of Lianshead, which currently is surrounded by primarily flat roofed buildings. Maior Exterior Alteration The Community Development department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the request for a major exterior alteration to allow far the construction of the 147 dwelling unit Ritz- Carlton Residences, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, located at 728 West Lionshead CirclelLot 2, West Day Subdivision. Staffs recommendation is based upon the review of the major 7. The design devia#ion furthers the goals, objectives and purposes as stated in Sections 2.3, 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lianshead Redevelopment Master Plan Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences furthers the goals, objectives, and purposes of Sections 2.3, 2.5, and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as detailed in Section V of thus memorandum. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the major exterior alteration application, staff recommends that the Commission make the following findings before granting a flexibility under the recommendations of the Livnshead Redevelopment Master Plan:. 1. That the request for design deviations are in compliance with the purposes of the zone district; and 2. That the proposal which includes the design deviations is consistent with applicable elements of the Lianshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and 3. That the proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and 4, That the proposal substantially complies with ether applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan; and 5. That the design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific design standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and, fi. That a public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation; and, ~. That the design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes as stated in Sections 2.3, 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lianshead Redevelopment Master Plan. XI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 55 exterior alteration review criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the application as recommended, staff recommends that the Gommission makes the following finding as part of the motion: "Pursuant to Section 12-7H-8, Camplfance Burden, Vail Town Cade, the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed major exterior alteration is in compfiance with floe purposes of the Lfonshead Mixed Use l zone district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect an the character of fhe ner'ghborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of fhe Vail Comprehensive Plan. Should the Planning and Environmental Gommission choose to approve the major exterior alteration as submitted by the applicant, staff recommends that the following conditions be placed on the approval: For Design Review 1) That the Developer submits a complete application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the final review and approval of the proposed development plan by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to making an application for the issuance of a building permit for any of the Ritz- Garlton Residences improvements. 2) That the Developer prepares aRitz-Carlton Residences Site Art in Public Places Plan._for input and comment by the Town of Vail Art in. Public Places Board, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz-Carlton Residences site improvements. Subject to the above input and comment by the Art in Public places Board, Vail Associates will determine the type and location of the art to be provided. Said Plan shall include the funding for a minimum of $100,000.00 in public art improvements to be developed in conjunction with the Ritz-Garlton Residences site. The implementation of the Plan will be reasonably incorporated by Vail Associates into the Ritz-Garlton Residences construction schedule in accordance with generally prevailing construction practices. Prior to Submitting for Building Permits 3) That the Developer submits a Construction Staging PCan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the review and approval of the proposed staging plan by the Town of Vail Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. 4) That the Developer submits a complete set of civil engineered drawings of the Approved Development Plans including the required off site improvements, to the Tawn of Vail Community Development Department for review and 56 the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of ether properties in the same district. • IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Reduced Plans C. Publication Notice 0 0 a approval of the drawings, prior to making application for the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz Carlton Residences improvements. Prior to Reauestina a Temoorarv Certificate of Occuoancv 5) That the Developer provides deed-restricted employee housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-'f 3} 10 employees, and thaf said restrictions shall be made available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy far the Ritz- Carlton Residences improvements. In addition, the deed-restrictions shall be legally executed by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy far the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements The Developer may provide required employee housing on an interim basis, not to exceed four {4} years (November 28, 2008} except that ultimately the Developer will be required to furnish permanent facilities for the Ritz-Carlton Residences employee housing requirements.. 6) That the Developer shall be assessed a transportation impact fee in the amount of $5,000 per increased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated {56 trips), or $280,000, as a result of the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. The fee shall be paid in full by the Developer prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. At the lobe discretion of the Tawn of Vail Public Works Director, said fee may be waived in full, or part, based upon the completion of certain off-site improvements. If the improvements as shown on the plans entitled "The Ritz-Carlton Residences {based on CDOT requirements)", dated October 21, 2005, and as approved an November 28, 2005, by the PEC are constructed and completed by the ' Developer, said fee shaA be waived in full by the Town. Conditional Use Permit The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the request far multiple-family dwelling units on the garden level and first floor pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement ar Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Fkoor on Street Level, Vail Town Code, located at 728 West Lianshead CirclelLot 2, West Day Subdivision. Staffi s recommendation is based upon the review of the conditional use permit review criteria. outlined in Section IX of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applications as recommended by staff, the Commission must make the following findings before granting the conditional use permits: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the Lianshead Mixed Use a zone district, 57 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations. Architectural Deviations The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the request for architectural deviations, flat roofed areas and a landmark tower, pursuant to Section $.3.3.A, Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for New 'development, kocated at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision. Staffs recommendation is based upon the review of the conditional use permit review criteria outlined in Section X of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the architectural deviations as recommended by staff, the Commission must make the following findings before granting the deviations: 1. That the request for design deviations are in compliance with the purposes of the zone district; and 2. That the proposal which includes the design deviations is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and , 3. That the proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a ~; significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and 4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan; and 5. That the design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific design standards as prescribed in Section 6.4; and, 6. That a public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation; and, 7. That the design deviation furthers the goofs, objectives and' purposes as stated In Sections 2.3, 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Xll. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Vicinity Map Attachment B: Reduced copy of the proposed plans dated November 28, 2QQb Attachment C: "West Day LotlMarriott HotellGore Creek Place Approved Development Plan/Development Allocations" spreadsheet dated November 28, 2Ql)5. Attachment D: Reduced copy of proposed South Frontage Road improvements associated with the impacts of the project. 58 ~~A ~E ~~o ~ B{ N ~,,~Aw Mf 4 i V ..~ .r H H '~_ s 0 to c L 4~ L .~ L ,a W L Q .~ L Q N 3 a' d d u L .~ V d 0 J .i y d N ti 0 L a~ f .~ .~ 0 U cc C {L .j c W N C_ C z w 46 c~ ce .Q 7 tdJ *0! T 3 O C ~' 0 3~tV E~ ~] ~~ 9~ j ~ ~EE } Y~ C tl ~ 5 f3 > rt~ ?£ `o ~~ 0 E ~4' r $., a Attachment: A ~~ ~'`' ~ ~~ ~4~~;~ ~~ n~ C^ A ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~g z1 ~~~ a':~ ~~ ~~~~ ~I ~~~~~~ tp~ ~ V " g~ ~ ~ r- ~ ~~~~~ ~g~~r~ ~~~g~, ~~a~ ~5 5 ~~~ z~~~~ og R~ ~~. ~~ ~~~ ~F~w~ ~s~a~Ed3 '3 ~ ~ (7 a 4~a a ~~ s ~ ~ ~N~~~w ~t~~'qq" e~'~ 1.k ~J, .g a~.~V ~ ~ ~ ~~~R ~~~~~~~ ~~ }}yyaq d~~SW` QQqQ G~~~ ~~~ ~; ~g ~x ~ N lJ ^5~~~~u. ~yG~~~ ~ ~ ' ^~ ` e33 , Y°,''~~~ a ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ s Q ~ e~ ~~~ ~~° ~_~o~~~~ e~ 'q3 $ ~4~} K ~ n~i °O 3 ~ q ~ rv ii ~, ~ 'a S 5 ~~ 0 H w U u. ~i' Q O ~ H ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ,Ja ~ ~ ~, ~, 0 0 r-r Cr. .r:a N 'C: 43 C~ Q t, C a U t0 U cC 4) f. ts0 .~ "C1 .-u .~ ^~ I I y 1 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ r , 1 ~ ~ ~ ,r.~ / J ~P 4' }r~~-t r / - y.- .6 a ~'. 6m / v w ' ~ o b" :t ~$ i ~~' } ~ ~ C / ' d 4 "^ s ' N ~ + ~~ r aW ~ ~ a~ y ~ ~~c V :,` 3 ~ }'~ ~' r , `' V d It <u'® n ' V~ R R V 1 ~ , ~ 5~. Y O U '4J'. , l ` ` t l ~ p ~ ~ .ry ~ ~ u , z ,§_ l __11JJ ~ ~L ~ ! I ~ z 1 ~~*' /~ _ mW ;` ti n u ~~ ~a a z J jx' ~ ~ +' ~~Q "~~ d4 w0 ~~ ~ ~~s~ Vl:.~y wLiD U 44 d`t S ~ W zNz~ - F n Q 4 ¢ h~ ~ Q p 2n, F- ~w U G UV ~ { V ryll F W ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ a w U O ~ S Y~ G1 y y VAS 2W l . - 4S ~ w m U ~ a r. I _ - 2 ~ I m o d ,. J ~ I ~" ~ ~ r n ~° Yn a ~_ 7 z~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 11 ~.,.~.5\ ,. \~-= '~ J 3 • ~ ~` \ ~_~ ~/ ~t/~~ _ ~_~__-411 ~ 0~~~~ ~' ~ 1 1Y ~ 1 I I ~~ f 1 5 I 1 I _a z "I f19~ . rUiRt~Y [P`"~x153Y3~ 1 ~' ~ N W 2 'Y f A6 10''+ No. Viz' II ~y19 ~'Y p°ys` ! I CREGC~'` 1 r "- ~ Nn f ~ ° 69~ ` 'm1 ~ ` _ j 4 7 ~ ~ ~1Sr'I C~'W 1 m1 4 1 N~ f F ,~~+ -'l~ ~1 ~ 1 N ~ 1 ~~ '35 5$~ r 1 1 1 1 1 4•W ` , 1 r 1 1 1 w `~, ~~ ! •`l ~ ~~ _ 1 ~ r 11 }} 1 ~~3 t~ ~ 1 ~ \ F! ~ !` 1 `Q,1 wM O 1 w ti` '` , ~f'1B fN ~~~. ~ \ / !l X11 W ~~ `~ 1 \ ~ ..,7 ~ ~O ~ -m 'z i~ Z -+` _ ' ~L i.y3~,sy` QN /,,~Hy 91 ` ~ `~- . 1 ~~ 1 ~ ~.1 w^s y 'V~' 2/' • 4 l :n N 1 J d ,~ :~^y~ z t I f € ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ }9ae6~~'~ yGpt 5 qx i~ 9~~ d N 8~~ 3~ * ~ I iy}j I ~ ~ I I~ ~I I ,~ I I I I ~~7 ,~~~~~~~~~"~ \\\ \l z I~ r ~ ~ r ~~ '~ t I ll\ l v ~~ ll I I 1 1 1~ h y~ a S a o~ 3~ 1 ~ ~ ~d ~ JY r ~ ~3 ~ a~ ~~~ U ~ f « n8. ~ o ~{'~ _: `~. ~..w fv ~,~1,,` * , 4~ 4 \1 ~;, ``4\y\1~ 1'Y 1 ~l1 " i \,` 1 ~~ w w ~ ~ ~ /~ i _ J r~1~~~1 Y ~ t' • ~6, L__' I ,- ~ +' ~ ~ 1 S o ~ i ~.> ~° ~~~~ 4 l ~ ~ Y ' T t 1 ~~ ~ ~~ ~`~~ti K ~: '/ j- / ~ f r y~ ~ -~ ~ / f !r r ~' .a. f r ~' gc3 r / 27 its ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~. ~, ,'e~ .,, y t gad k "C 3 ` °~ ~~ ~g gO• i~~=~ ~ '1_ ~1 ~ ~ ay'~ "y 4 ~~~",~ a ~~ aj~ ~~ `~ 4 `~ ~ ~ ~ ,oy "r ~~ r aa~~ 4 ti ~. ~ ~ 't0s r ~~~ .~ ~~ _ ~~~ °a~~ ~ r ~a ~ ~ r ~u ~/~f, ~ ,,~~' ,~ lit 4 r~ p sys ~1 ~ W ~ ~ N '-' C/3 cy A ~ ~ w '~ ® a, C3 0, w Ll Q. N ~ F" _ ~--~ N ~ ~ ~ z a~ ~- ~ ~ ,~ w 0 a~ N W' E ~-+ N ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ O ~ C7 ~- x W ~, w ~. N ~ ~ ~, m ~ w H ~ d ~ LJ ~ Ely '1 $ ,,1 :~ \i ~\ ' t ~ ~`~ s I `6 ry r~ u ~ ~~~~~ ~ I .~ -~ ~< ~ ~+~~ I f i.: 7f j. _1 1r r~ ,. f ~A i ! ~\ j~ `~~~ ~ -~,r ~~ ~ •~ ~ g ~;, ~ ~° -~~ ~ ~ yp y .~'' , r.. -4~ ~'`~ ' ~ ~r-`~l }~' ` ~~` r~~f ~='~ I i ~ ~ 4 ^ ~ ..\ ~; 1 ~` vYf \ ` ~, ~~` ti, 1 ~ ~~~ ~1 \ ~•4 ~';~~ ~ 11 ri 1 I~ 1-~ ',\ `, ,~ ~ ~ \~ i ~ ~ .. Y,~- 1 /`Y'' ~\ ,.~~ ~ ~.i-' j ~ f ~'` •~ ~q ~ ~ s. ', s :' a w cs II ~~ 1~ 11 + a e ~ s ~ ~ l I ~ ~ ~ i a~ r~~~ ~ 1 1 I I I I I I I I I ~ I ~ k 1 ~ - t ~ 1 ~ \ y ~f~, Y ~E {;~" F,rr t=y~ ifg +i~, ~.~ '~ ~ ¢x a 4~~~ y~~~~T~a''m, o w~~s~',- ~ ~,'~ _- _ vY~~F 1,.~ I'' AOc~~~O~shESit#eeaoo#~ ~.u ~11~ 4 3t l r S ~. \ o~ n° 0 6 3 W ,. y 'air' "~ ~ ~ ' ~' ~ ~ t ~_ s~ a} it °~Q ~ 1tit 1 1 ~ `~ ~ ~~t~aA~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,` t1 ~ Y ,4 ~ ~t ~~ `^~~ ,tiS~\I n`,5 t4 n~~ $~ 1~ ' ~ `~. * ~~~}' .~tr 1, c~ i.~ A ~ ~~ ~~; } a .1 ~ 5 r . r. ~,~~ ~ .`.... h 4S ~=.>-- ~ ~ 1 ~ r~ ~ a E ~ I ~ ~ l ' "~f. f ° 1yy. '. ~ ~ r ae* ~ X ~ "~ Fyn s~~"' x~ 'i ` '. 5 t1t i' ~ ~ r ~y -~ I '~ _ w - r 'u~~ ~ y, ~~~ 1 r r ~ ~r~ ~ ~~ti ~ ~ ~ ,r ~r ~qx .r" 1 ~ 't ~ + 1 , ~,ry~ ~~`~ ~ ro; ~~~' =° ~ ma'y` „F ~ '. ~" ~; ..... -,H~. ~ 1 f' a ~,~ r ~ r$ 45 '~+" ~,. qtr . ~ ~ti > ~ 1'~~.. ' i S ~ '. i Y,~S"~ `:\` \,~~I .A A ='~=~ `~Z~. ~`\'~'.. ~ .;~:~~. ~~;. ~ '_- 1. ~.4J~y',c~r~,. ..r°~--y ~ -. er~~ ' ~~ \ a ~ .,... ~ . t Icy - ~ ` ~ ~ ;, ~„ \~ 1 ~\ r ~ r ~m_ _._n ~.ry~ _<_. ~~ ` _._~L,-~.~ ~V 1 '~ = L ` 1 C~ Q_ ~.~ i ." -+ ~l1 ~~~ '\I .il1J 1 ~ ,++ F 1 ~ r 1 d W Zt ~ "r a ~ ~ .. ,.,.r u ~~ ^~~ ~,\ ~_~-~ ~ ~'4 ` ,1 Jam ~~ ~ \ may" " ~ `~ Inf. ~~'' ~ U5 w ~ . ~ ~ aT 1 JL W.. -- - ~~ } ~ 1 , . ,. ~ , , " r ~9~~ } ~ e1 y r• i4e~„ x~ \\~~ ~~\ 1 `, , ~~ i^ t .141 i e sue: ~,~ .s4-F~ '~ : ~,~'""~' ~ , x, ~~ \ ~~ ~~~ \, t' k ~ I ~ " Sal ~r~'~~ ~ s ear- ,/` ivr~; ~ W ~~~i ..~ ~ ,/~ ~ ~ `} • • ~~ ~ \ r a ~ ~ P 4 > • ,1 ,.T r }ems '~ ~ t1't3~, ~ `\~ v~ ~ • l~ ~~'~ { r ~ ~ "l ~ '~ i ~ ' r r~ w ~lr 'r i e_-~_ r~ i I Vi.,s -- -- UI ~ ~L+ ~ V' ~ ~ Q ~ W !f< Q~~,' jUp' ~ { O.~;Zi 7.I; '~'¢ @/ ~ Chi -- -.. -, ~ ~ ~ ~ ,' i ~~~I e ~~w~; rl ;_~. ~~+ fz ~ , f~Rti s ^~:-... ~u„ S ~ ~ `.~ g ~ ti~ ~ ` $"' ` . j _ !~``~ 1 ~ l~ _l V F 1 iy_ ~ r _ X11 ,` ~~~~ ~ r ~ ~ , l_ r rin` .~~~E~ `_y ~ ~_ - yr~ ~ ~ Y -; ~~'" 4- 'n ~ `` ~ ~\` ~ ` , \ \ { J \ •l ~ l~ - - ~.h ~ ~~ ~ ~ \ ~`~. ~ \ ~\~~ 77 ~~ ~~ ,~ ~ ,mot ~~/ ~ ~ J ~ ,~ a1; i 4 ~ ~~ ,'.'~, ,y> ~ 1k p ~ ~ ,11 or ~ ~ ~ f, ~~;,~ ..mot". f 3 r ~~ J \~ ~ %~' s \ • F 1 ,` r1 r 1'~ ~1~ r 1~ ~ ! ,r1 ~ ~~ ~. l 5~ +' ~ \~ ~ } ~~ ,1 ~ , ~~ ~ { lk ~~,•~,r,:~, ~ 11,.1 ~t} ~~\4'.\`,^11}11 PS 1 Y \ 1 1 `•~~\ } +~ .. _ ,~X~•1\ ~. 11'11`} ~~ y ~1 ~~~ ~'~ .*.1 11~~11-~ ~ ~ 1~,• V ,~ y1 ~G ~~~ ~ y ti ~~ ~~ ' ti: ~~` ;~~ ~~ r'~f~~*~~•`.~• _~ __ ~'.C,. ~' J 4 'fir ~, F ~ 1 r ~ ~ ~, i~ }` f !'.. `~~a ~~ ~: ~~ t t ~ ', l S .•~'• 1, ~ ~a 7--: ~. I t•. 4 .~~,,a It'~S ~ ~ ~' ~: ~~~ l ~~~ ~~ ~l I ry ir~ r ~ i 1• l !: 1 ~ ~ r: ~' ~ ~~ 1 r ~~ ._ uti ~.. K/i..yyyrtw ~P 1 `, ~ ~~r -- ~~ ` ~~ z . r. „, ~ ~ ~ i l - ,~ n -. .~ .. Y. ~ \ :~>-~, a $. ~~~ ~ S ~~ S „ ~ yy ~ ~ ~ yy c 3 6 ~~i€ ~~~z~~ ~`Y"sue M~a a~~~~~ aG 38 ~~ `~yf ` `' J f/ ~f +~~ ~'S3 ~'~11 ',1 ~~' ` 1` ~. ~ { ..` M~ ~t• ~ ~ ~5 h 1 ,, i ~ tip, ~ ..'",, ~, }-` i l \ y4'C ~ V . ~ , ,~ t } '~`,, 1~1~t s / ~ ^ ~~- 4 'l,~ ,~,,~4 l ~~~• ~y t °~ ~ fyr, ~ ! , ~ \\\11~, ~~ ~l ~ S ' ~• I 1 a° `l ~ ~ ~ s --r, ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~t I}~1 ay'I~1 ~~ ~ t Y ~~ 1Y1 4 4 Y rl~ ~ ~ t I i 5 i~~ ~4 ~ .. ~ '~ t ~ II t ~ t 4 l 5.,. .. $~ - I i 5~n ~ V ~ $ • !; ~ ~ X11 t 1 •. ~~= ~ 1~ ~l 45 ~ '01J~ \~ ~~ 1` 1 '~~ ~~ ~A~¢~ r ~, t ~ -~~ a ,~ •," ~ ,' i ~ ~ ~ 5 ~~ ~y~y ~R Y OI ~~ ~~ ~~ ~e 0 '1•r- 0 pp~gg$ 3 ~ p ~ ~~R~ 5 ° q~~L ~~ ~ ~ ~ x ~g~~ ~ s A Q ~'. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ --f+.I- a~ ~~ m~ ~~ ~ ~ e ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ '~ ~ 6 ~< EJ ~ ~~ 3 ~~'z Y3 3. ~ !ti ~ _ ~ £~~ ~ a G ~ 4~ g & ~~ ~ ~ ~~c ~ ~A~ ~~ ~ She 4~! ~~ S# ~o `~ d ~~~ ~~ ~~ S~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~y ~ ~x ~~ (¢ G r i g i Q ~ a Y S n m ~~ ~ ~~ ~ S # ~ ' ~o ~4 ~~( ~ ~ ~FF ~ 'G .... N E ~ P 4 . Y~~ ~8~ 6~t ~~ PEA ~~~ ao ~~5 S a~ ~ ~ a~~ ~~~ ~e~= ~e c~5o .6e< k.ig: µµQ I I mg 6 S 6~ _~ n~ ~fi ~~ Y d~ Se .6 sY 6e ^I O ~, ~. h ~ ~ Sn vH. 4ffi~ r ~~ ~ c ~ ~ ' o e Z~ or ~$~ b asp ~ ~ ~~~ c~ y .rya ~ _ ~ - F ~ ~ _ ~ ~~ F w g~"^r - ! ;'~~8 Q 1~~ ~ uWi s- N y ~ ~-~rs ~ h..i~y~~ m° 3 - ~ s a • ~ ,~ i d ~ U s is ~ ~y _ ~ ~~S g~~p ~ § ~~ x ~I ~ ' ~ ~ ^ Q ~ C ~ , ~ Q p c ~--_ ~~~j _"tc.. ~ 5 I I 6 ni'- ~l ~ } GI `I ' „ . ~~ o~ ~~ a ~ ~ 9 ~ r~ 5s~ _~ _ !`~ ~I~~ A+ L/~ I~ I d¢ ,y .v~ r ~6 a~ ~~ ~_ ~ ~n ~~ _'~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ U ~~ ~~9 S~°~ ~;~5 ~-~~ T~~~ F t VJ ~E ~~t }E ~' E£ ~ ~ °5 ~~ ~E; a c°$F 0 ~Y '~ ~~ ,: s J~ ~~ I?. $ r}i ~ ~ +C: ° s' ~" e~ v~ ~1 ~ ~~! r~~. ~~ ~ ~~<b i~ sl~~ ~ ~ f ~g~, ~~ ° ~~~~ x :°~~ ~a ,~~ ~ y~ s$~~ mo ~~tt $ S~jE ~YS~ ~€k ~d u I. °ce 4rs~~s5 ~}b ~14 ~: / ~G g ~= ;~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ g~ ~ ~:~~ ~ ~ ~ a~~~ ,~ @~: ~a ~~'~'`5 ~~a~'$d ~~x Y ~ 5 ~ ~ - ~~~a,~~ a ~ ,~~y ~~ ~e~~~~~ga~F ~mg~gY~iia~33 N n r n en ~S s~# 3 i ~ W m Y ~~Q g~ gg sY2 Y 1 I R b xx ~ A k ~ ~F~gy~g ~ ` l' ~ _ l ~ ~> > ) l sin„ ~_ ~ Q ~ ~ ` d~ ~ $~ W F ]~ , ~ x -LS ~ W it ~, ~..~ ~`~ C;~~ . '~a~y ~~ .3t i ~ ~ a w ~~ ~~K~a~a~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~~ ~~ ~'~ 8 r ~ s~~ Fy,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ yy~ ~_ ~' ..s A_ ~ ~ ~ ---- , ~ as .~ i ~~ '~ i L S~ L !Q ~$ ~g ~Ef h`; +~a 3a y's ~~~ ny ~~~ !G +-{ ~~ ~ ~~ .~ ~a $~ a wvn ,w 2~ ~ ~ ag e E~ :~ i E ~ - ~ E~' F- i ~r- E ~x @ i~ n $~ ~~ a~ s~ 3 A ! 4~ ~g ~+ ~~ ~~ ~~ F]Y ., 4'f `~ag ~~~~~ ~;-~~ ~~~g~ ~;:' `dE~~~S E~~g~ C ~ a ~ ~ g ~ t E B ~ ~~ ~ ~ z ~ a ~ o ~ -' $ 8 sa o a 8 +v zy ~~ ~ ~ E~ 3 ~ ~ ~ 5 S~ e= Y ~a E ~~ $ E ~ ~ c a L ~° 2 _ 2 ~~ u h ~ .~ a .r 5 x fib i 9n° C 'e~ , ~ a ~ g ~ w ~iF ~ -~ b fo f'e iY~Y. ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~u ~E 5 A E ~~ 1O g ~g k ' E ~y a -2. '$ ~ V g4 LL Y ~ g $ o ~ ~ w ® a$ S$ f F - L Z ~~ °t E ~ ~ ~£ Eo a~ r z ~_ O Z Q C~ U F-, ~ ~ .M h' ~ ~ a, $~~ ~ @~g ~~ ~~~ ~~ E ~~~~ ~? ~~~ ~~~ ~F;~i $$~ g°gQ~ D_~ r ei"~ CE L°~ ~~ `~ ~~ ~a~~ ~~ g~- '~ ~~a g$ siEi ~~~ sLS° ~~~j!Y ~~E#E ~e~3 -~e •~3i ttSS y S a ifiE~ 3J gS :~gS eff~ sg'i sg 5~ Eb BS~°~E ~'s S~8' 7 • = 3'~S _,~~ F e_ y~Y .. ~~' . 4~0ss ~E'1 bas "~ ~~a ASS Bests Ab.S "~ ~:do ~°: es~R §a i$95 6d $~Y 9 ~ ~~~ ~~ B~E~ 6F~ ~~~~ v E Sdi >o .+a3~ ~Sa »~Y. wag ~~N PO Md~ ' ':.~ ~' - "'i\ ~:. g~ r> m a $~! ~A ~ f~~~w ~# g ~~ $~ ~# 1 sa ~ c >. ~~ L ~~ '~ F- $~ 4~ a' .~ ~~-J--~- --~----___zW.~___-1, ~o ~33at ~~~ ~ ~ 4M4 !! ~~ ~S` I N~ U~~ ~aa ! d~ pi 3 m _~ ~ U W P ~ ~ 1 ~~ fix` =o~ pq V r m 11~ ~~ ~I. ", ~ ~~o ','d w ° IIr ~ !1 ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 i ~ \~~\\\. \\\\ \\ `til: ~\`~\~\\\ n ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n R 1~~, e ° .. ~ ..~ ~ ~ i .~ W U x ~~ o~ ~ hl 4 K1 ~~~ LK~ u »~ ~ ~~ I~ I I I ~ }, a' a L_J `I I~ ~G S~ a G'~'1 .-~ . r .~,1 I .. g' ~ _ J s ,. ~~ o `~~ z ~' ~ ~ o n ~~ ~~ i ~~ v 4~4m ~ g t ~N 151 ~" Om V ~ ~rv u iSm" ` ~~~~ ~ --~-- - ..o o - --~-- v, in o ~ C G ~ ~ ~ C, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ j ~ c > > p > e> ~~ ., > > p > > > > > e f .. .' ~ ~ I I f s 1 ~ sy ~ ~ I~ ~p ~ ~ ~ ~. r ~I ~r---~ ~_ ~ > ~ ~ f `~ ~- ~ "~ - ~ a p ~ I~~~ ~ ~ I i a~ ~ ~ I r a~; ~ n o N y ~ ~ ~.. I ~~ ~ ~a I I i9 I ~ 0.Q "~ ~ ~ i u~ O ~~ ~g i ~ i pl 7'~ I z ° ~ ~ 4 I I satiN ~ I' au .F I I a m~ G I~ _G-.8~ 0 0 ~ i ~ ~~~ i ii .I X313 ~ ~ I - _ p _ . J ~W ~I I~~II IIW~ ~I~ `I ti~~ ~, ~ ~~ mp ~~~ ~ ~_~ ~ I ~, I~ o~ II P ~1 ~ rv it ~ a ~ ~ o~ L - , r~ L _ J C r . ~~ N ~.. 3 L - J °D ~" ~~ zm ~N 3 1I 4 ~ ~~ ~~ I~ to ~o .o lG io ~9 ~~ ~~ ~~ +~ ~~~ ~~ ~rrt~r-~~ ~~ 1 ~J 1J'~ ~9a ~& ! r J ~ ~- I ! !7 HC HC 0 HC ~ I :if D HC ~ MC HC ! I ~ I K ! I I Y ~ N > ~> ~ '- ~ l~ JJ /! - tl i `n amp /, ~ I I ~ ~ ~ / / ~' ~ _ ~ I ~ n / G ~ ~, 1 i~~ ~ p v ~ ~ a ,/ ~ ti ~ ~ ~ + ~a i r a I~ 4- . ~ ~. ~. -. 'I a.u Mi ,d-,9 r r r ,9-,9~ .A^,ri ~~@~ ~ 4 3333 1 `\ a e ~~~ ~ I ~ ~ I 0~~ ~ ~ ~s ® o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ •, ~~~~~ - ~ ,~ y ' ~ J~ '~! ~ ~ ~ qQp I a M ~~C! ~'r ` ~ U OA ~ ~ ~ N a ~ a ~ ~ ~a ° { ~, ~ ~, ~ ~ < ~ ~ v ~ \ r ~ .~ ,\ ~. \ 1 4 L 1 9 M l 1 z ' i t. 1 I ~~, I . '\~. V ~; J ,~ ~ T ~..~.;.~ `~ r' 4 I } G 1 W U d VS ~` W ``^~`\ S Y • € W d' U W K O t~ m I ~ I l m "' x - m S ct N x V i X313 ftl N ~~ m oe ~2 t? O z 7 Om `- ac m a ~N h N ~'1 Q ¢] 07 m a fL n e; C =1~ N ~ ~~ m M m !'e Q N m m N __~ r._~ ¢I 6 ~ I m CL Q ~~, ~ J ~~ ~V' D °I~ W <~; ~~ L.. s n I I • _ I ~ I __--.- ._ _r~ __~ ~ - ~`~ f i \/ ~y/ ~ r, 1 f , ~ ~f 1 f ~` f f f f ~__~ ~f ICI ~j ~ ! ~a ~~ ~ ,~ ! I .~ ` ] ~ ~~ - ~ f a F1 ~ q + r~ ++ f+ rr~ I~ U r ~I f ~~f g ~ f -. i~ ~~ f r f f ~ r~ j ~ ~. f III ~ ~~ + I ~. r r I ~ t_ '~ . 1 _ y ~ ' A ° Y' I ~ ~'; ;,' f f ~ ~ _ _~,~` ~~; ,' ~ , ~~,` ~ '~ ,r _ _ ~~ I ~ 1 ~ ! I ~ ~ ~ y t= ~l ` I I r /-~~~ ~ ~ I +~ 911 ' ! A\ _ ~ ~ , ~ ~ w ~ 1 ~, ~ I ,F i I, ~ ~ ~ ~'~ 1 1 f ~ f III I ~~~/ Y ~ / 11 M t ~ ~ f ~! 1 ~~ ti ~, ~~ 1 f~ 1^~ '1 ~ _ f/ - ~ \ 1 _ __I~__~- --- r i ~ ~ ~- ~ { f q 31 ~ l~ ~ ', e ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ /. ~ ~,. l I ~~ I ` ! II !~ ~ Ili ~ II I ..~ ' x ` f I I' ~ ~`, ` ` 1~ 1 1 , 1q1 ~1 ~ ~ ~I ~, ~~ ~ _ ~' . r _ l I l ,~/ ~ ' ~~ ~ '1 ~ ~ I ~ ~~ ~ m a ~ ~ `1 ~. ~~ I ~a ,- -`~ a _ m _ le. _ ~ _..w, _ ~ ~ ~ _ m ".~ - _ __ _ _ ~. ~. _~ ~. J -- ., d _~_~ ti ti ,~ ~ '- - - --- - t ,~ I ,~~ i . -- _. _ .-- ___ ~ I -- _ f= _ ~ I ~ I_ ~ ----- -__ _~_ ~- _--. ._ ._~_; _~.. _- - '~:~~ ~ . _ ~ti . =1-`-! _ III , p ~ I ~ ~i . _ - ~ ~ __ i -- 4 "~ i _ - ~' " M R ~ p ~~.,F '~ ~~~.~ ,n ~ ry ai,N y{m b e~a o 5.~'~ ~!m a a~n ~ m'I~ °d m 'N ,c ~ ~ ~'.°n I,~ ~ X51 I. ~~ -- --- l n. a; _ Iii \ '~ ~ - ~ I I f ~~ '~I ¢;;~ f' ~ \ 311 - _.- _- _ _ .- ~. I / ~~~------ - -~- -L- ~l ,_, t ~ r- - I - I----. _ _ _.._ - I -- Y- -, - - - ~: ~ ~ ~ I - r I B ~;, I, I I ~ I { I ~ ~ { _,, _ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ -- I I!, I ~-~ A~ I ~ ~ I ,~. 1. ~, I ~,~~ , ~ ~ ~ ~' 1~ ~ 1 ` I~l ~ ~ I ~~~- - ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i,,, ~~ ~ ~ 1? ~- ~ ~ ? ~\ ~ }_ i l ~~_- _a_ a -'. _ _ ._ ~ ~ _- ~ 111 r~ ~r_ 1 I < a `- ~ I ~~ ~E ~ u~~~ ~]~ ~ d ~ ~ 4 I : i,4; ~ I {J~---~- -- r - r .~ , _.~ - -_- 1 -- -_ I I ss . --~- I ~ _' ~ ( i ~r ~ ~ ~l~A ~ ~ I ~~ ._ - i i_- ~ ` < ~ ~ r ¢~' ~ ~ , ~ I I r~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ I I j ~Y~r -- - -- --- I I I ~.`~- - ~1 1 I__._ -_ -"~J .-o ~{ I{ I I II ~- I ~i I II t I---- I f i' I~ I I I t iP~" r ..~ - {I h ~'' ~ _, ~ ~' .~ '' ~ I I ~~ ' f p~r~.~,i I I I , _ _ ' { I I ~ I I ' _ + I '' ~ i9 f~ ~ ~~ a~ i _ ' i I =I I I ~ I I i!i ~ ~ 3lfiN~I3N 11MancVn 9- 28 I ' I . ~~.__ I __~ . t JI 1 t ~ ~~ ~ f~ ~ ~ lu JU,ILC . I E` 4 ..~ ~ ~ ,' P I ~ ~ I .LIa-F i i I ~ I I' }~ ~~ ,~ ~ I ~ ~ .~y 1 rh; 1 I ~ - j... --- , .:. - - I =J - - ~ ~ ---- I.~: ~14~ , _ -- - ~ - - I r ~ ,,_ I ~ ~ ~ `~~ ~ ~ ~I~~ ~~ I ~ ~ ~ i I~ Ii _ ~ . ~ { ~, { ly ~~~~,~~ , ~ i' I I 9 i I I ~ ~ , ~ ~~ I~ ICI ~i !q ~ ~ I f { ., ~ i ~ - ~ u, , I I I ,h ~ I ~~ "' .: _ ~ I ~ I ~ 'If , 'I,~IL I ~ {• ~, ~ ~,. I {~ _ .- _ _y~_. [~ _- , ~ ~'I~'k ~~ I_ I__ u I ~ { I ~ _.~_ ~~' ~~; 1~ ~ ~, ~ E:.. ~ , Ca ~ ;;., ~~ ~ i .. ~ I ® _ I ! _ I _ I I ~~ ~ I I ? I :i { ~ i E ~ i f 1 ~ k I ~ai~ oacnoenaaHl i i ~ ~ ~Hfl J}17~}IV refNYl?'MII I ,~.LB ~ { ~ i I ~ d4'/d~ IIStN~i f 3 Hli vU'IbII rtI1MXVYl ~~ ~~~--- ~'~--- - - L I I I I I I I - I 6 I I I 1 I I I I I t t I ~I I ~- L GV II F 3 CI 4 i I +~+ 1 1I 11 ^~ F ~~ ~'L-- - - ~~ F--, r' ~~_ _ _ 1 1~~7---- ~,L- - JI y J I ~~ I 1 w ,I i i E ~ I { I 3r+n W ~ml E 1! ~.9-.L$ 1 1 C f I -~ ~ C 1 I I °'~ ~~C I ~ C~i~ n~w 4 E I 9 b I ~w I z ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ N ^ ,I I V' a ~_l1 V I '° E a w ~~ ~~ x ~ i E-~ ~ ~~ - I ~ ~~ 3 ~. I [.~• I ;~ i ~ -T, ~~ a~ R~ ~Y p~ ~tl ~ _ I <, ze l ~ - ~ ~~ G$ G _ ~` ~$ ~_ it 'i~ ~~ ~ 5 ~~ _i ; - ~ ,- ~; i ~~ ~ I ~.j :~- - I I ~ , ~i a I I Y I f ~ .. I~- __ - ~ ` ~_ I~ I ~ I i I I j `~~ x~~~~~ ~ Is a ~ 7N ~'~ 5~ ~~ ~~~~t ~ ~ ~ o ~ I u I I i ~ ~ ~ ~ r, !P~ !ll~~ 9 ! I I` ~ . ~, 4~ gz ~~ g § ~.:: ~~~ a ~~ _~ ~ ~ a i ~, _ _ e~ ~ mom. _ _ _ Vii' i ~ i ~ ~ k}+ ~ ~ SF F Y I Y~ ~ ~~ J ~~ ~~ I %~~ ~ y ! ~~ G f 8 Vl E ~~ a F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ € ~ ~~ s ~ i 1 ~ ~ ', ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~i ~ v i ~ ~~ ~~ ! ~- ~ ~ i i o 0. - - `~ 1 yJ f "-~I x ... `` I Y~,~ ' f i ~'~ 1111 - ~ ~ it ~ ~ f -. ~ ~ --- s ~~ - '. I I ~. T rir ~ P ~~~ ~ ~:~~ , ~ ~ y ~ ~ 1 L f ` tt 1 - - - - _-. ~ .~~~. ~.~~ uj~ 7I {r { t ~ Tl- ~ ~~ I ~ E ~ ' ~{ .fi . _ ~ SJ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ I ~ I O ~\ `~ , 1`~! _. d .~..~_ I - E ~_ - .., w I I I Imo- `~~ ~'(-{f -! ~ li - ~ - I i I I I I ~ - III ~ E-, ~ 1W W ~ J - --- - .-..._ -- ~~ ~ s I _--- _. ___ ~ f ~ ~ ~~ w I I ~ - IR ~ a~a ~ T r i I . I ~ I ~ z ~ ~ ~ w n : .. ~ ~-- ~. ~~ I _ o - J ~, _ ~ ~ ~ . - ~.+ _ _ ~_- } ~ :. _ _ - / , i ,~ . ~~ _ _ =~r. _- __- -~ '~ - _T1 i s f i' = i ~ _ ~ - ~ ~ . ~ _~ __~_ - i _. -. _- - - - ~ uJS i ~ r ~ - - - I '~ ,~ J ~ i ~b ii ~; ~ ~ ~ s ,r u ~ - i I _ I ~ 'i i ~ ~ ~ ~ _ z ~ ~ ~ 'r~ ~~ ` i ~_ i _ _ . . - ~ M1 v ~i I i V g~ ge,~2sn ._ - '-.- _ -- ._- _- { a ~ ~ ~ - .. I ~ ~ ~, ' - t i i~ tl ~ - ~~ jJ I ~ I ~ .. II i i ~ i r i ~ ~ t T ~ ~ ~ J - I . I ._ i ni I ~ af I I f II~~qqq ~ NII ~IE~I I ~ o~ z ~1 ~g w ~ y, W ~ I ~ ~Ef ICI 1 ~~ r rA l- r ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ j f F !'~ ~ {~ - ~ -~ . A , - f ~ , - - h I i - , r ' ~~ it ~ in,l I' t - . i ~ i~ ~ ~~ ~ ' ' fu ~ - t I ~~'"~'' ~ 's ~V ~ ~ ~~ ~ '~ i I i I ~~ ~. r l ~ _ _ _ - ; 1 ~ ~~ g zo w ~ " f;_ I , ~- R -. -i . ~ I. - I X17 ~ i ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ .r - _° ~ ~ 3 i ~ T ,~- : --- ~ - ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~~~ i _ . z ~ w i MY - . L- I ti .~_ ~ I ~ o ~ ~~ . i ' ~ ~I N ~q I yz (( n I 4 f•E~2-~ .!''~~rl~ - r I.7-'~ .. r r~ r~r ~ ~ ~ l~ ( ~ t / g ~i' a ~ ~ cs w '" ~ --- _ _ __ ~- - _ - fi "~ ~ ~~ - i ~ w. ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ti ~~ R 1 h L L 1 ti i I I I I __ • ~` ~~ ~° y p 5y ~ ~ ~F ~ n~ ~~~ a~ ~s to r ~^ ~; ~' '` '`~.i n ~ ~ ~ ~o I ~j ~~ r ~ a ~ , ~ ~ ~ I ,i ~ I ! I ~ i pI l j F ~ r= I ~ 3 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~! y FF~ F~ P ~ ~; s ~ s ~3 ~ irk ~~ ' ~ ~ ! ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~: ~ J `i1F ~ ~ ~ j ~:' `:I ~ I . ;~ `_ -~ ~ ~ ~ 11~ r 1 ~ . ~ 1 ~ i G r ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~', ® ® ~ U ~` cs ~ - ~, ~ ~ -~#fi ;~ - ~•` - ~ _ f~ - _ - - I , - ~ z r ~ a , ~~ { ~ ~ i ~ a & ~~ ~ t• r ~ ~ - ~ ~~ ~ 3a W ._ ~ r 1 I~ ;~: ~ III I ~~ ~ EI ,~ ~ ~ l I I j{ ' ~- I y~ I f I t. y _ , __ ih _ 1 ~ ` .:a 0 =--- ~~ ti~ ~1 (<~ .~ ~~ ~t--__~ - . -~ f~,Y______--- -- `' I '~ A I ~. ~d ` '~ :,. 1 kI 1 I ~ ~ ~I ~ i I Ntl ~ tt 6 ~ t { ~~ ~ I I C ~- ~~ _e F e ~ a I ~ `I I ! ~ C E ~ ~ I ~ i F ~ T/ ~~ ! (+i ~ _ ~ ~yd ~~ I I I i s I~ ~ I ~~ ~~ ~~ y', ~ ~ ~ W~ ~ Q ~o F~ ~§ ~ ' ~~ i ~~ i i ~~ ~~ g ~~ ~ ~ ' ~~~ I ! ~ ~; Mv.~i p ~ ii - ~ i~ ~i~ ---~ I i~~ r~ e.m rrr irFa _ ' ~ yin I~~ ~I~ ~~ II III ~< ~iui M ~o ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ 4. it ~ I A I Q- Inr ie f { , I i I III'-n ~I I.-p.~ll._ ~-_-_1"~11-1. I11._Q. z~ 0 ~a ~. QQ ~~ ~n as I [ ~J ,9•,41 .9-.II ,9-.II .9 -.II .9-.IL I I I ~i ~v~. t i ~' jl ~ ~ '~ n n w fw ~ ~ ~ -~ i ~~ y l ~ ~ w~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~. li h Il ~ 41 x ii ~ f ',, - ---- ti~ ~ ~~ ~: ~ P tr i = ; EI ~,~ I~hI~ - 4+113 3i._ 1$I L~~.• ~ i t ~'"' i ti ~ $ t - ~f _ : w l ~, ~~ I ~x >:+ t I ~ x- _ h ~ `~'~ ~ 1 ~~~ ' f ~: g , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l 'f"' 7 ~ ca I. -,t 1 .9-.91 I ~ -4~. II > _ e I ~i •~~I~ill4~~. I ~,.`~~ +-u+rr' AIYtl'J k11M1 iNll f~'N3N nllnlKylry ]-,l9 3dYk9 931ViMtLIUn . ]Nel 1N~i3ie nflM%tln ,9-,ZB 11 ,i Ut C 0 w U O W ~ ~ tC ~, 0. ~ m a m > O ~ ~ C ~' ~ Q ~ ~ C J f ~~ ~" ~ ~ 4 ~ ,` ~ ~~ ~, ~. ~ ~ F- ~D ~ Arc ' D ~ ~ o ~ Q ~ w ~ Sao ~ v c G O S N C3 t0 4 H Q :~uaw~y~e~~ t I ~]~ ~ ~ ~ V s~ ~ f X {` ~ ~ ~~ ~ si .. (4 ~ -~Ci - ~ - I ~, ,~ ~~~~,~`_; f , ~!~, I~ :-~. , - ~ yam, ~ ~t .. ,~ ~ .c'' ~,r 5 l ` z g ~ ti°"~ _ ~ rr ~4 a i f ~r ~ ,~ ~' • - f , Q ~ ~. 2 oC s ,. / r .~~# i .~,,~ ~ ,mil ~~ f . r`'~ ~~` , l ts, 1 ,~~ ~ ~ o~ .r ~ :i ~ F ,. J^1 ~~ ~ 9Q ~y ~ ' ~ f ~~, i ~~, \ p, ` ~!~ •~j 'V ~.,!~ '~°c` ~ ~ ~~1: ~i 'i t,.~ ~!'~ ~. ~. Y~tJ`Y f.r - / figs ~. r ~ F rY ~ .' ~ ~ ~ ~ `~x • • rro~oFVn~ Department of Public Works & Transportation i3~9 Elkhorn Drive mail,. CO 51637 97079-2138 Fax.• 97D-479-2i66 wrvw.vailgov.corn MEMO} Ta: Warren Campbell From: Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer Re: Ritz Carlton Residences at Vail Development PEC Review Date: 11/23/05 The Town of Vail Public Works Department has received the Planning and Environmental Commission submittal plan set dated 11!28105 far the Ritz Carlton Residences Development. Based on our review we can support PEC approval of the development based an the following conditions. Conditions of Annrovarl 1. The Developer shall implement the Frontage Rd. Improvements as per the preliminary South Frontage Road Proposed Lane li.xY~ovements (Based on CDOT Requirements) plan provided by Alpine Engineering dated 10-21-05 as made a part of the arr~,~ved PEC plan set dated 1.1128f05. These improvements will require review and approval by CDOT. This shall include a section as follows, 1,~i~, north to south; Minimum 4' shoulder, 12' westbound lane, 16' left turn lanellandscape median, 12' eastbound lane, 12' continuous aecel/decel lane, curb&gutter, 10' concrete walk. This shall also includes signage, lighting, lanscape and irrigation. 2. A Traffic impact fee of $280,000 shall be assessed to the developer. This fee will be offset by the Frontage Rd, improvements mentioned above in condition #1. 3. The proposed storm sewer at the southwest corner of the project from the western most inlet labeled Proposed 3'x 3' Type "C" inlet to its outfall at Gore Creek will be required to be maintained, repaired and replaced as needed by the developer in perpetuity, since it is aligned thru/above/below private structures. The Town will not accept maintenance of thes storm sewer. 4. All proposed utility easements and easement vacations will be required to be approved by the ~YY. opiate agencies. 5. The Developer complies with Public Works General. Conditions of Approval. (See attached] • Attachment E Town of Vail Public Works General conditions of Annroval 1. Please add the Town of Vail General 1'~ates. (1Votes can be e-mailed upon request} 2. Please add Utility 'Signature block and have all utilities saga acknowledging acceptance of utility design. 3. All construction staging issues shall be resolved prior to construction including staging, phasing, access, schedules, traffic control, emergency access, etc... 4. A R©W',/LTtility permit shall be obtained and approved by the Town of Vail and CDOT prior to commencing any construction within public Right of Way. S. A Town of Vail Revocable Rl7W permit shall he recorded for all private property improvements located within public ways. 6. Prior to approval of a Building permit all necessary permanent and temporary easements are recorded with Eagle County. 7. Prior to approval of a Building permit a shoring and excavation plan shall be submitted including; excavation phasing, engineered shoring plans with plan, profile and cross sections. Cross Sections and plans shall include all existing conflicts (i.e. utilities). S. Any excavation shorting methods used that encroach upon adjacent public or private property shall have approval by the appropriate owner and have a recorded easement prior to construction. Currently CDOT does not allow any shoring within their R~QW including soil nails without approval and a permanent lease and an environmental assessment. If this is being considered contact CDQT as soon as possible. 9, A CDPHE Permit and all applicable ACOE permits (i.e. Dewatering) shall be submitted prior to construction. 14. Provide full civil construction drawings meeting Town of Vail standards prior to building permit submittal. • i l TOWN OF VAIN ` Department of Community laevelopment 75 South Frontage Road Pail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 w~wrv.vailgoucom November 1 Q 2005 Mr. Thomas J. Brink Vail Development, LLC 600 Fashay Tower 651 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 and Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and Adjacent Property Owners: Re: Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 36, (Four Seasons Resort), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10A ,Vail Town Gode, to allow far a new mixed-use hotel project, located at 13 Vail Road and 13 Vail Road and 28 South Frantage RaadlLots A and C, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting faith details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Development, LLC, represented by Thomas J. Brink Planner: Matt Gennett Dear Mr. Brink, PEC members, and adjacent property owners: On October 21, 2005, Vail Development, LLC, represented by represented by Thomas J. Brink, submitted an application to the Tawn of Vail Community Development Department far a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons Resort. The purpose afi this minor amendment is to allow for the relocation of the approved structure by one fioot (1'), thereby changing the front, rear and side setbacks by na more than one foot (1') in association with this shift. I. DESCRIPTION QF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vail Development, LLC, represented by represented by Thomas J. Brink, has requested a minor amendment #o Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons Resort, to allow far the relocation of the approved structure one foot {1') book from the South Frantage Raad and northerly property line in order to satisfy the concerns expressed by CDQT (Colorado Department of Transportation), located at 13 Vail Road and 28 South. Frontage RaadlLots A and C, Vail Village Filing 2. The purpose of relocating the building is to move the building a sufficient distance away from the CDQT right-of-way for the South Frontage Raad to appease CDQT and their concerns related to underpinning the foundation within the South Frontage Raad, CDQT owned right-of-way. Per the proposed plans, there *~tECYCLELYF.BP~t r other modifications are proposed. A "minor amendment" is defined as: "Modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and characterafthe approved special developmentdistrrcf, and are consistent with the design criteria of this Chapter, Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, variations of not mare than eve feet (5') to approved setbacks and/or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans that da naf adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation thmughaut the specia! development district; or changes to gross floor area {excluding residential uses) of not more than >xve percent (5°ro) of the approved square footage of retail, office, common areas and othernonresidential flaorarea, exceptas provided underSections t~2-75-4 (interior Conversions) or 92-75-5 (250 Additional GRFA) of this 7"itfe. 11. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Section 12-9A-2: Minor Amendment {staff review}: modifications to building plans that do not after the basic intent and charac#er of the approved special development district and are consistent with the design criteria of this Chapter. Staff finds that approval of this minor amendment request does not alter the basic intent and character of Special Development District Na. 36, Four Seasons Resort. As stated above, there is no change in the total number of dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional units, employee housing units, or in the amount of allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA). B. Section 12-9A-10. Minor modifications consistent with the design cri#eria outlined in subsection 12-9A-2 may be approved by the Department of Community Development. Notification of a proposed minor amendment and a report of staff action shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the district that may be affected by the amendment. Notification shall be postmarked no later than 5 day following staf# action on the amendment and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time and date of when the Planning and Environmental Commission will be informed of the staff decision. Notification of the public hearing and a summaryof the request. have been provided to all adjacent property owners. III. PROCEDURE, Section 12-9A-1 Q, Amendment Procedures, Uail Town Code, provides the procedure for a minor amendment to a Special De~lopment District. The procedure is as follows: 12-9A-90: AMENDMENT PRC7CEDUJ4,ES: A. Minor Amendments: 1. Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in subsection 12-9A-2 (definition of "minor amendment") of this Article, may be approved by the Department of Community Development. All minor . modifications steal! be indicated an a completely revised development be approved by the Department of Community Development All minor modifications shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan, Approved changes steal! be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of Community Development. 2. N©tificatian ofa proposed minoramendment, and a reportofstaffaction of said request, shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the special development district that may be affected by the amendment. Affected properties shall be as determined by the Department of Community Development; Notifications shalt be postmarked no later than eve (5) days following staff action on the amendment request and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time and date of when the Planning and Environmental Commission will be informed of the staff decision. !n alI cases the report to the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be made within twenty (20~ days from the date of the staff's decision on the requested amendment, 3. Appeals of staff decisions may be filed by adjacent property owners, owners of property within the special development district, the applicant, Planning and Environmental Commission members or members of the Town Council as ouflined in Section 92-3-3 of this Titfe. Based upon review of the criteria and findings in Ar€icle 12-9A, Special Development ©istrict, Vail Town Code, staff finds the above-referenced amendment to Special Development District No. 36 is approved in accordance with the procedures as identifed in Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code. Staff's approval of this minor special development district amendment wilt be reported at a public hearing before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission an Monday, November 28, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. in the Vail Town Council Chambers, located at 75 South Frontage Road. The Planning and Environmental Commission reserves the right to "call up" this staff decision for additional review at this hearing. Pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vaii Town Code, appeals of staff decisions may be filed by adjacent propertyowners, owners of prapertywithin the special development district, the applicant, Planning and Environmental Commission members or members of the Tawn Council as autiined in Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Cade. Should you have any questions, please da not hesitate to contact me at 970-479-2140. Sincerely, ~~~~~ Matthew R. Gennett, AICP Tawn Planner Tawn of Vail Attachments: Reduced Set of Drawings • 3 • f J d ~_ m • 0 0 a 0 c~ W' l J rs 'I F II W'+ ' ~ ~~ Q 0 m~ ~o W~ ~. ~~ ~m ~~ p r o. w J a LL F • • • w w J h ~ ~ ~ N ~/ _, U ~ J ~ - ~ ~ J W W uI J Wslai { ~ ~ ` W4 ` ~~ Z 3 Q ' 3iVld'"i`d' s aOS'3 a SNOSt~3~ anQ~ o .„ i f ~~ w f ~ .. ~ , ' v ///~~~ j 4 J f 7 I ! , r ~ ~~ ,,~ ~ ~~~~", ~ f ~ ., ~yy: ~ ., ~ r _ ~~~ ~~ l I ~~~~~ j ~ I I ~ l ~ I p~~ I R1 ~ I ~~ I ~~ ,~ Il ee i r !1 , s s a~ r r i r r ~ , 0 rg i r ~'~ Yf ~ rte; ~ 1 ~ r`¢ r r 4 ~r., r ~ r r~, +~ . 'r•• , + ' .. g '~ r 1 r ' ~! i a'~. ~ V - + f/. 1 r, r r f r y? 1 7~ # r 1 r r i 1 / r ;r ~r~r >r~ 1 1 / ' 1 I /~ r ~ i I / ~/ ` r z ~~ ~~ 5 _~ ` ~ ~ Sr ~~ Ef b `~ gX ~_ -~ -- ~ ~ r ~.ElI _~ ~ ;C ! ,,rid j . f _ !~ f e 2 ~ 1I e, a ~'; 1s ~ . - I I U I! f ~ I f ~ ~ ~976'fRS ara o cwaex ao ecr ~ ~., ~, ~..rz, ~d ~ a.~~ W ° ~_`~` ~~ 8 ~~ I p I ~ -~ ~ '... ~- _ - ao.~ y r„~a. " -7 ~e ..d,- / ' ..-~. r } "' ~ `` '~~ ~~~ .,~ ,y ~, ~ ~,. `__` ~ ,. ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~~ 'Ef ~ ~~~~~r~~ ~~~~~ ° a ~~a~~~~~~ ~ ~ /~ =1IiE~l L IIIIII " lliill • :~ t- ~' Fr ft t J, (~ Z ~~ p ~4~ ~~ f ~ _ 1 } ~ f 1 ~ ~ / 1 € ! ~ ~ / 1 .~ 11 ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ' ~ Ii t=° , ~ ~ ~~ ~ .~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ / F ~f t ~~ ~ a o n ~ Z . ` 1 j, ''B ~ ~ ,'p I g ~ F ~ a ~ I - ~ ~ Y 1 ~ ~e ~ a t ~ ~ S f a ~ J d i i n ~~ ~ ~ I f 0. ~i -~.. ~1 ~~~~ ~i • { i ~ li F ~ ~ , S' ~ 1 r ~ ©~ $~ ' r g I ~~ f n N ~ p r ~~F~ ~~ ~ ` ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ o. a 4 1.4 . f t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ? i -: j ~ ~ "~ Nk ~ .\ ~ ~i~ fi'x' ' ~~~" gt ~~ ~ ~V~ , & ~ { ~ ~~ a -~ ~~j~ ~ a ~ ~ -~ , r ~ d~ ~ ~ g g ~~ t~S~ r~ r_1 i J p "' 1 ~~~ ~l 6cp y j~ I~` ~ ` f I as q~ ~ ~ ~ f ? ~ ~ ~. ~. mod j ~ If I 3- ~ ~ 1.1 Il i vs 1a1 {~ _ n f ~ i r ~4j .~ e~ P ~ • yy A f ~ f ! r p a r r ~ ~~ r ; ~~ f r ~ ~f t ~~ s 1 I ~ ~ II ~ ~, j. f / /f f ~ ~ !'/f ~ ~~ ~ ~~ r r t ~ _ - ' ~ ~ ~ f ~ t ~: I r. h 1 1 ' ~ { (j ~ /, e f~ f ~ _ ~ r ( 1 ~ 1 /} qM r '~ _ L a' a • ;~~ ~`~ ~~~ ~' ~_~ I~ I I~ ! - ~ 1 .~ /.~ n :~ ` ~ ~~~f e i} ~ / /!(/ f j f ~~' ! If4 r ~ ~~ ~,i. ~~t ~~~ ±~~~,, ~~ 5 r'`r ~s' n ~a ~~ ~~ 3~ a a _ 8~ dda d~ a ~ R~ g r ~~ ~ ~!1 l~,j'f ~( ~ ~ ~~ 47 U ~ ., .t 4 ,.~~ ,~ 1 A~1 a _, l `d; r ~] , (1 ~ i ~~ ~0~ m~Ynl Rood -`~~-~_.-. _, ,_ __-' `g -~ ~~$f, ~~6 °4'a ~~ y ~:ff ~,_ ~~ ~ _ __ FOUR SEASONS RESOR S $~-,~~'' °'~ ~ ~~a VAIL, Ct~LORADO n.R~ SHALLOW UTILfTY PLA}V E€~c3vEE~iE Rau, . , ~`: • • _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ II ` .`t' _ ~ __ a - v ~~ ~ ~ ~, !~ ~, r ~ ~ ~~ 4~ ''~ ~. - j~ ~~r~ ~ ~~ ~, ~ ` ° ~ J ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ o . ~ / f ~ `\ ~ ~ ~ ~~ l ~ .;r v ~ _ _ F ~ ~". ~/ /~ ~ ~ f i v r ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ `~. f ~ ~ ~ ~ } ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ f ~ I I _-- f~ ~ ~ E ! u v U ~ ~ t<< ~~ ..-4 _ I~ ~ ff~ ~ _ ~ ~~l l I ti ~ ~ ~- ~ 1 r,, j , 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~{ ~ ~ !1 ~ i - ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ _. -' -- o ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a n ~~ ~ ®-~ h p 4 n.uE _~- _ n, . ~, _ _ ,,, tide _:~~ _ ~ __ =y~~-~ ~ f~~ f ~ ~ ~ j G~ki4- EI w ~ ~ r x ~ ~ R ~ fn '~' c O ~ W c ~~~ ~7 w ' z~ wu w" nii • • ~~~ ~~,~ ~~ a~~ i i ~ ~_ =a ,~: ~~ I, - ~ ~, ~.,_~ - I/ ____ 0 K ~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~ a a Z~ ~~ r N< ~~ ,~~~ ~~ ~ f ~ ~ Ir- ~ i= 9 _--- -~ - ~-- _ i f~ J _ 1' ~~~ ~ ~1~ f f 1 +' ~ ~ ~ `. + ~g ~`'. '` ~:. 1 ~S f '~l o '~ ~~ f ~ ~ ,,~.~~~ ~ ~ ~. 5~ ~ ~ ~``~ ~t,.~+A ~~ I ~ ~~ I i~-~ i I ~ 1 ~ I ~ I ~ i I ~ t I ~ I i ~- i i s I ~ I 1 jt! ~ f ~ 1 f ! ~ 1 l I a ~ i 1 1 - 1 I a ~ ~~° ~' r -_ °~ ,~ f~ ~~ ~ ~° ~ a~ ~~~ "~~,i ~~ . i O ' I ~~ f y ~ r-~ r ~ tp ~ _ - ii ~ ~' 1 µ I ~ f i ~ !~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ *g f l ~i f ~` ,` ~,~; ~, 1 f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ --~- ~- ~ s- ~' t - -~~ tt -- ~ - ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ' i ~ ~ ~~ ~j~ L_ _ _ _ -- ~ l ~ ~ ~ .. ~ 1 + l ~ I ~ o I ~~ ~ ~ ! I d _ -` ! I ,, -_ A _ t ~~ y ~~-~ _ , I I 11 I _ ` t ~~ ~~~~ 1 ~~ l 1 1 ~ _ ~~! ~ _- ~- _ -~- - - ~- ~~ _ _ J u~nA - - r r~~~ ~ ~ ~4 I ~- _=~ 1 --- b 1 0~ __ ~ o< ~ ~ ~ , ~ a; ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ f ~ `~ 1 ~ `~~ ~ ~ l 1 i ~~ -~ ~ ~- ~ ~ .~. ~ ~' ~: r f ~~ ~~ ~ f ;,'~ i i f 1~ e r i ~ ~ a I' i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ti I` I 1 fI f i i i .,va n. P ~ f ` --- ~ ~ ,' -- ~ ~ e r - i i i i i i i i I ~ 1 ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ !' 'i ~i ' 1 f I ~ l ~ 1~ f f r r( ! 1 ff~ `~ 1 i i i i ` ~~ r i }~ r - f f i r a r JJ f 1 ~ V n~ ud~e. a ~ ~ N ~ a ~ a O -d° "~ ~'!} ~ U w v%~ • • ~i ~. f l I I I ! ! I I I .f !~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I ! I I I I ! I ! ! I I l i l I I I I I N N 00 O~ H da ~ s¢ M 9! J¢ ~ . I I I I I ~i * h I I I f I I I I 9 R I ! f I I 1 ®~ , ,,-~, I f I I I V I I I a I M1 ~ k 1 A I G I I I 1 I V "4 ~~ r ~ Ad ~ as Jd I I I I I P I I I I I I I I I I trd k¢ I I I I I I ~ I I I ~ A I C f I I f I l k I I I I I I I I I ! I ~' I 1 1 l i l I d l l l a4 I I I I f ~~ I I I I l ~~ V I ~ I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I ~ I I I I I I 14 I I i l i l l l I i l l I I l i l I ~ I I I I I ! I 9 A I i l l I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I l t I I l i l I ! I I 1 I [ I I I 1 9 1 1 1 I I I I I s ~ t x 7 4 ei~3 :: ~ p I-~j '~ ~1 r~~ ti+ .--~ rTl ~ ;~L~,,~ ~~: q ~~ • - ~ - ~ ~e . ~a ~ - ~~ eo ps.. ~„ !; I ; ~, 3 I I ,~~ ils~~ 1 _ ~ la I I I I I I I I I IQ I I I I I I I! I la i i i i i ~ i i i i. 1 [+! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I P I I '1 I I I I I -~ ~ ~ ! I I l f t as aT:. .P ~` n I I I I I I I I I I I I 116 I I I ! I I ! I I ! I I ~I I I of f I ~I I I ~I i I ~I _: ,.~ 1~ L~~-~Y ~. o }" a pp e e. as J o. oa I u. sn ~ A. .o ra ~ uu .a r I I I I I l l l l i j l I I I I! I I I ~ I l l I I P I l l l ~ I t ~ I ~ I I I I I I I I i l' I I I I I d ~'~: I I I I I I 3, I I I I I I =- 1_ I f l G f l f I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I ~~ _ I I I ! ' I I I ~ I 't~ ~,.~ ~ I I ¢y~_ I I R - ~ ~;a I r Ti ~ ~~ I I d ~,~~ ~ I ~ 'WI ~j I I pq 4 ~ - ,3p. I I '~~ Gnn~; ~ I f l l l ~,,.,,, I f I ;~ ~ " I I ~ ! I j ~ _. I I w; w I ~ ~ i I ~ I J f £ '` I i I ~~ ' ~ i l ~ I I I I I I I l l l i l l l l l l I f l l l l l l l l f N~o~ ~~ < a~fj ~~ 0 0 V g ~ '~ to ~ nn. '° qr ~ an ~ so ~ ~ ea ~~~ ~ ~. ~, Il~~~~~--~' ~` ~ ~, `, i i~+~ i~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ i ! ~1 ~I ~~~ ~ii~ ~ ~ i ,iii ~~ i i ., i ~~~~~ i! • • ~~ ~ r ~ Lo ~~ /~yy Y f°q ~p ~_ ~ Ii ~~~ s ~ ~ i ,~ ~a d ~~~w a,. • ~) I..__..~._. 1 YT ~~ I -_ _~ ~--- '~~° ~ ~ ~ C~ ' ~ 3 -~ ~ ~ x R - I_o -- 0 4 .S set 4 /1 ~ V ~~~~ ~ =9~C E~. ~~< ~~ • • 1 ~ ' ~~ i ~' i } 1 WWW~ `l y,.` ~ o ~f ~~ a ~, ~ i ~ 1 ` o ~}~ li w ~~, ~ ~l ~~ I w~ ~I 6, 1 W~ t p~ N `\` d'C'~ 9~~ ~ =s= u ~ ~i C: i ~ § U y ~, ~S f ~ ~ 1 dQ~ ~° .gypp ~ •~~C~, ~~~4 I~aa ~~,~ • • ~, ~I ~- i ~, ~p - .-~~ I' ~: ~. ,~ veil ytQad ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ &# E~,~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~ 4 f ~~ - ' m __ _ y __ - - ' -- - - Q ' - - - I~ ~ l ~ e. ' i x R ~ s o l ~I El - ~ Y ~,y B z ~i,~ y ~ ~. A ~' ~a ~ a~ a ~ . `~ I I .'~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ E g -. ~ I F 5 e E ~I ~ ~' ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ °. ~ 5 ~ W 5 ~ „ ~ gt .s ~ ~ a ~ 5 $ x ~ a I 9 ~ u ~ ~ y~ EE F 3 [C F 3 ~ ~ c F 9 E ~ ~ E ' ~ E ~. i ~ 3 F ~ .w -- a~ 0 w U z a 1~• ! ~ y k ~ '~^ ~ N $ F ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~~ 3 3 ~' o~ ~~ ~~ _~ 1~ m$z :~tj ~`~ m3 s~ ~~ qab o' ~~~ s'O ~w~ ova og~ ~~ n `~~~a ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~i Z vu~ ~~ ~ m=a ~~n s~~ ~~~ w ~~~ s~Q ~ ~Foq y U g m g L a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t. ~~ ~8~ 9s~e. • __I ~-- r ~~ ~ 1 ! f f 1 ~ ~~ ~ r % ~ i~ I r r i i 1 I f l 1 , ~. I !t f r~ t ~ ~ I f i 'I ~ r ++' 1 j I r '~ ~ f / if ' I I ~ I ! ~ ~' ~/ ! I 11 ~ I I 1 I I-~ 1 ~~ ! ~ ~% ~~ I I I ~ I I r I I i ~ h, ~i ~ ~ 1 I - ~~~ I '~ }I ~ ~ - - - -~ ~ - III - _ ~ ~ l ~- ~ - ~r~ ~ ~r~ ~ 1~ I ` Jj~~ ' r ~~ _ ~--- I - ~ f J r r f ~ 1 ~r~i ~ 1 ~ , / ~! 1 a ~- ~~~ r I r a i / .. ~ f I i I 1 L1J ~ ~ E rr 1' ) .rte` I ' ~ ~. r ,`tl ""' ~ I r I I r r~ ~` ~ -~ ~ ~ I ,- 1 i r P ~ ~ I ~ ', r I F if f _ ~+ 1 r /~ ~ /~ ~f f ~ ~~,~~ .. 1~ II ~I ~ ~' ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1, ~ ,f r I ~,; P,-,,~ r ~ II ~ a _I _ ~ _ r ~I f _ ~T~ r ! f~ 1 r II ~ I 1 ~l ~ r/ ~ 1/ ~_ ~ r 1 ~1~ ~ ~ ~ f r< ~r ``~ fr I J ~ r I ~/~~ ~~ y f ~ ~~ ~~ f ~ f ~ - ~ I f~ , ~ f ,l ~ ~~ r ~ I I I t r ~ ~ } ,~~ ~ ,+ ~ ! I I ~ ~ f r II I I ~ : ~~ ~ /'I / _~ r 4 ~ I i 1 1 1 l~ / ~ i" ~ ~ ~~,` r i RI J l i I I i P l I I ~~ ~ I~ / ~~ ~~ o I I I I I I ~ f l ~ rr!/ II ~ I I I '^w -~- I j ' I ~ ~ r II ~ D~ I i I I I ~ I~I I 1 I I~ ~ P~ ! ~~. l~ ~I I I ~ I le i I I ~~!! I f ~ II I~ I ~ I f # I I ~~ '~{. ~ rl I rl~ "~ ` $ ~I ~ _ f ` !!I `"~ ~~~ ! ~~ T -~= s.._..I r I _r~ ~- I f~ 7 I I~ ~ rl I I i i ! I:: P _~ -I t i t i~ !~ I a ! we ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ i ~ ~ I~ I II I ~ ~ ~~ S i I ~ ~ I I~ ~ I II I ~ ~ ~~ I I III I F r~ r II ~ P I`°'1 ~ I I I I ' I I 11 ' I 1 I I II 4 I I ~ I I ~~ ~ ~I I_ I ~ i ~ ~ II I I 4~.r ~ I - I I I I I I I i ~ ~ ~ I I ~ II I e I -! I I C I I ~ I , I - II I ' I I ? I I I I C I ~ ~ „.., I f I II + I--h'I ' -i"''T i I I I~ I I I I I I I I -I--_ ~ I- t- I I P ~- ~ I ~' .; ~ ~ It ~ o ~ < d ~ ~- i ~ r~ r r f1 ~I~ may. ~~W° rv _ I J ~ I ----r- v 1 r r I r JJ _ r i .-~ q i 'rr r' I , i r rt u u r r r I I r I JJJ Y I I 1 ! I r I N /r J ~ ~ I !r r ~ r i ~ ~ I ~ I r r I ' ? i i ~ i ~ i i r I I I III x 1 V 1 1 I ! Y if ) I III dl fF~-° 1 ;.S rr I~ r 1 ~ ~' , _ _-- I ~. ~ ~~ , ,r' YI -`y ~I I _ ~, ``-~ p~ I ~, I I _-r- r ' ~' -~ _+~-~'`I l -1`~~ I ~~' ~~-iI( ~I i +y- 1 ~Y 1 --~r-- ~~~~ ' 1 ~ ~~~ Wi~ 1 II ~IyI yI __.. -~I I ____Ir'f ; 1 1 i , I t ' r ~ z Yy5_~______SI-- -ilJ 1 ,~~.~ I 1 ~ I Y I 1-=""~ I r ~ Jr J !r J I ~ _f_~~ ~ I l I ~ 1 \\\\\~JJ~)) l I~1 YI r ! Y % r I V. LI'~L i ~ f J /Y 1 A 1 ~I 1 1 I f J ` y ~Y1~'~Ji } I ! I JJ / ~ ~ F J 1 V tl I~ I ~ 1 -~. ! t I 1 rJ I J" F r'FF f rF AAA I I I 4 I ~~ !!! I I I 1 f I I I /Y I'V// ~ I 1 :'. 1 1 I ~ I i / F /~~ f~ J/ 1 1 , } I r 1 I i A 1 I I % y J Y P j I ! 1 ( I I j A !'/ /Y ~ ; I 1~ ~W ~ e l II 1 I I i + I 1 1 r 1 1 I S '`?~°_ r ~ ' " Il 1 ~ ! e + i i !F I r +Yr i'Y p. ~~ ','J I 1 1~ I I j I ~ '~ f I ! I }.~ I I I I f ~ r f l !r 4 1 !I I ~ I Y i I I r f f 1 I 1 f r~ r 1 1 I ~ I I I r I ~ r r `~ I" r " I ~ I I a ~ I , r ~ ~~ r ~, j I i r" J I II i f _ I ~ I` ~I .'., rrr 1 _ I 1 ~JI[t I 1 I ' ~ I ' + I ~ I ~ r i err ~~ ~ +~ rr i~ ~ I ~~ ~ fi IJ i I 1 t !; " i ? r' 1 a ` 1 f ) ~ i I I ill 1 f h rl ~1 ~Y r~~. :r'' r// Y~~ ~r Ir r, 6F r ~.:. I I rr.. ~ ~ ...r i t dJ r Y J / 1 + 1 I !. i r 1 ! , ; Y YJ ; !J ~ Sal. ~ ~ I 1 rl I r. , r t r r r / 1 t ~ ! r I I ! f I ~ i rr Y i i Jr~~ ,rA ~,' \ r 1 ` 7 ~ ! rl rr Yf"Y Jr` f t I ~ ~+ i i ~ ~ r~ r fJJ f x i ~ 1 r I 1 r 1 ; ; I Y' I , r t ~ t ~ i , i ~ , ) I r i r `~ 1 ~ + ~ r J i l e I ' ! I ~ r I .... ~' 1 I S I ±' r r , { i r J f J IllWll4lll11~l1~ 1 '~-_,. Y r r ` ~ r ' rY 1 - ~ _ ~ ~i~ i : ~ ~ ~~ ' F r r r Y !JI ~ 1J i r ;-~i --~~'~~ 1 I `~I'}~ ~_~ J f I a ~ J 1 J /J r ,~ ~ li ~~ r,S I +~ f ~1 I, rr ~ ; rJ rr r r r/ ~i Yr fff))) JJ 1~ Y I~~',.. ,~i11 rr~! ~ t ~y- '~ 1 J ..~ Y Y / J Y J r r ~ ( v u~ r I _ ' j + r !r 1Y / Y~ -_ f r~ I ..... i 1 i ~j 1 ~ "e i I ~ rll ~ 1 /r ~ t i r ~ -~ ~, ~ ~ r a 'i< ~C~ I r ~ I, n r r r r r_ + ! r I I - 7 F. ji --r+' Ir' r f i I J Jr 1 J ~/ 1 /Y rr 1 + f _~ r t __' i I ' / J r ` r /Y ~ ~I f' Y r k = Yr I ~l i • li 1 it I ! `i ? t Yj 1' Y JJJ r r r rA:Y 1_ ~ r e I 1~ r ~ I I 1 /: h; r l i i i t i I r i /` /` ~ J /~ t 4Y4 / ~! ; 4 II + rr 1 r r i! ` j I 1 ` c 1 I t i % 1 J { rJ l 1 1 i r' ~ i / ~1{; _'' o / P i 1 I I d r , I 1 I + f I i,~ f I I I I I 1 I I I - Y rr ~' /1 ( n J " 1 ~ i I J i i~ r~ i lY r i ~ ~~ r 1 r 1 1 1 I I I 1 I / ~ rl i I; ~ r i 1 - I r YW r dJ t . - i I~ I I ~ 1 ~,~. ; 1 I I ~ r I I I _! .. I; I i ~ r + i ~ _. _.l I A~ I -~. s _. i ~i i (((~ ~Y II it I t I II r I o ( r :'. ~ fl ~ 1 I ~ ~ I I ~ 0 I I ~ ~ ~ d I I I 1 ., ~ I I I I ~{ I .I ' ,~- 'uV_ 4 I~ ~``=1'`-- I ~ f ~~- s f i gib` I; _.. __ -- - - - 5 Q 1 I 1 l ~ ~! ! t T~ f : x : x t : x : : s -- 1 ' ,' ~ 1 ; 1 1 I I I 1 I ~ 1 J 1 I I i ~ I I 1 1 ! - I I I 1' S ; ~ I I I ~ 1 1 a '~ 'I'~ ~ w! i I ~ 1 1 I 11 j i i 1 I i I ~ I 1 1 y I 1 i 11 I ~ ~ i I I I J i ' I fill 1 `. ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ I I I i ,~ r i 1 1 1 ~ 1 I I I 1 " ~ ~ 1 ~ I I I T"'_ 1 1 i I ~ I 1 1 1 ~ I I I 1 f , I I I I I! ~ ~ ~ i ;1 ~ ~ I ; I I I I ~ 1 ~ y~ ~ ; 1 II !I , i~ I ~ , I + I I r ~~ }j I I , I I I 1 I 1 , I 1 o g _ - v 1 O~v°! ~~'~8~ (I • fiAEM{3RANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 28, 2405 SUB,lECT: A request for a recommendation tv the Vail Town Council of a tent amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Vail Town Code; to amend Title 12 of the Zoning Regulations, as necessary, to allow accommodation units to include "kitchen facilities", and setting forth details in regard thereto. {PEC05-407'9) Applicant: Planner: SUMI'4~ARY Town of Vail George Ruttier The applicant, Timberline Lodge, L.L.C., is proposing a text amendment to certain sections of the Zoning Regulations, Val Tvwn Gode, to allow accommodation units to include "kitchen facilities", and setting forth details in regard thereto. The Cormunity Development Department recommends that the Planning & Environmental Commission evaluates the merits of this policy change request and, if deemed appropriate, forwards a recommendation of approval of one of the proposed options to the Vail Town Counci! for further review and consideration. II. DESCRIPTION QF THE REQUEST The applicant, Timberline Lodge, L.L.C., is proposing a text amendment to certain sections of the Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow accommodation units to include "kitchen facilities", and setting forth details in regard thereto. The Zoning Regulations currently define an "accommodation unit"as, "any room or group of rooms without kitchen facilities designed for or adapted to occupancy by guests and accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit ~r dwelling unit." According to the applicant, the goal of this text amendment is to allow Vail to remain competitive in the destination resort market by ensuring a wide range of share-term lodging opportunities to meet the needs of our guests and visitors. For zoning purposes, the Zoning Regulations define "kitchen facilities"as, "Fixtures and equipment for food storage and preparation of meals, including a sink, stove, and refrigeration and f©od storage facilities. " The applicant is proposing to amend Section 12-7A-3, Conditional Uses; Public Accommodation zone district; Vail Tawn Code to allow "accommodation units with kitchen facilities" as a new conditional use, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. At the November 14, 2045 public hearing of the Planning & Environmental 1 Commission, the Commission tabled the applicant's request -and directed Staff to provide a list of additional options far achieving the goats of the requested text. amendment. In response to the Commission's direction, Staff has assembled a list of six options for achieving the goals of the requested text amendment and includes a list of potential pros and cons for each option. The list of options is outlined in Section VI of this memorandum. BACKGROUND A review of the Town's files and records c{early identifies the intent of the existing regulations regarding accommodation units and the prohibition against allowing accammodation units to contain "kitchen ~aciiities". The files show that the legislative intent behind the current regulation is to: ~) discourage long-term occupancy of what are intended to be short-term rental. units; 2} prevent the likelihood of the sale of accommodation units as dwelling units; 3) encourage visitors and guests to frequent the many eating and drinking establishments in the town during their stay in Vail; and 4} ensure compatibility amongst surrounding land uses. A further review of the Town°s files shows that the existing language pertaining to definitions of accommodation units, dwelling units, kitchen facilities and kitchenettes has remained unchanged since their adoption in '1973. The only recent and notable amendment to the regulation of accammodation units came in the late 1990's when the development standards for density were amended and accommodation units were no longer counted towards density. finally, a review of the other resort communities' regulations pertaining to kitchen facilities within hotel rooms reveals a wide range of approaches. For example, the City of Aspen Land Development Regulations, by definition, permits kitchens within individual hotel rooms in a hotel or lodge while the Town of Breckenridge Land Development Code states that "no ki#chens of any kind are permitted within the ~rnits" of hotel, lodges or inns. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the CommlSSian will forward a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendmenk, Vail Tawn Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Town Council. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. Town Gauncil: The Tawn Council is responsible for final approval, approval with madificatians, or denial of a .text amendment application, pursuant to Section ~2-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code. 2 r The Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission andlar Design Review Board. The Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or'Design Review Board. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and. Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and fndings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria and factors for consideration for a text amendment application are established by the provisions of Section i 2-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code. 7. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specifc purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and, ~. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and beaker achieve the applicable elements of the adapted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the llai! Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town;. and, 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions . have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and, ~ The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among [and use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and, 5. 'Such other factors and criteria the Commission anchor Council deems applicable to the proposed text amendment. VI. OPTIONS FOR Ct?NSIDERATI©N The Community Development Department has generated a list of six possible options for allowing accommodation units to contain kitchen facilities with the goal of allowing Vail to remain competitive in the destination resort market by ensuring a wide range of short-term lodging opportunities to meet the needs of our guests and visitors. The list of options includes: 1. Create a new zone district (ie Public Accommodation=7 & 2 zone districts) This option would essentially create a second zone district in the Town with the primary goal being the provision of accommodation units. An exception to the second district, however, would be the ability to construct accommodation units containing kitchen facilities. This zone district could be useful in better regulating development on those properties presently zoned Public Accommodation (PA) 3 district, but located well away from the Town's commercial core areas. Pros: Preserves integrity of accommodation units Cocated near the commercial core areas of town; Cons: Adds another zone district to the Town's already long list of zone districts; Other less confusing and more impfementable options exist; 2. Add "accommodation unifs with kitchen facilifies" to the list of allowable conditional uses This option is what has been proposed by the applicant. As contemplated, the zoning regulations in the Public Accommodation zone district would be amended to add "accommodation unifs wifh kitchen facilifies" as a conditional use to Section 12-7A-3 of the Zoning Regulations, ©eveiopment projects within the Public Accommodation zone district could then apply far a conditional use permit to allow for "accommodation unifs with kitchen facilities" subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations. Pros: Ease of implementation; Procedure for review already exists; Cons: Qoesn't address the real problem or issue; Can not truly be enforced as a conditional use; 3. Redefine "accommodation units" and "dwelling units" This option would entail amending the definitions of "accommodation unifs" and "dwelling units°. As presently defined, the only real readily identifiable distinction between an accommodation unif and a dwellrng unit is the presence of "kitchen facilities", as defined in Section 12-2-2 of the Zoning Regulations. By way of reference, an "accommodation unit" is defined as, "Any room or group of rooms wifhout kitchen facilities designed for or adapfed to occupancy by guests and accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies wifhouf passing through another accommodation unit or dwelling unif." and a "dwelling unit" is defined as, "`Any roam or group of rooms in atwo-family or mulfiple-family building wifh kitchen facilifies designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unif." An opportunity exists to further refine the definitions of these two terms to mare clearly state the meanings of these terms which in turn may more clearly articulate the purposes of these two land uses. For example, regardless of the presence of a stove, an accommodation unit for the Town's land use purposes is clearly intended for short-term occupancy of guest and visitors on a nightly ar weekly rental basis. However, the current definition makes no reference to the length of occupancy, the inability to subdivide the units into individual condominium units, the difference in density calculations, or the availability for short-term rental. 4 • ` O --`, ~ t4 a-` ~]x ~ ~ ~ a a 3 d ~ S Zi ~~ xa Ni ~~ • ~y i i , ~~ f, ~' i ~ _u ~: +, ~ . ~' ,,~ i~'~~~ ~ / ~ , ~ / ! N i /~ ~ ! r f' 1 -- y.~ ~ I 1 _ - - ~ ~ ~ \ • ~ ~ J } ~ ~ ~) ?f~ ~,E, f ,' ~ ., ~~ ,~ . f, ., .__.~ ~~ ~ ~--- i o~ H' ~a; ~~ ~ ~. ~~ ~~ !~t~ d i i 3 z. ill v ~~ ~i N: s--~~ _~ ' ~~ ., I 1 lE ' r, '1 ~. ~p i! r~ I i f ~~ Z `--- ~ ~ E -- __ 1 ,~ .~ ` ~ y 11 1 ~ -* ___`_~ ~i vl-~ _, ~,, j ~~ ,r ~~ ~.~~ r~ ~~ i~r f ~~ ;~, s r ~ r ~ ~ ~ r i '•~`~~ 41 1,~~ ~~ ~~ ~ '~~ ~ ~ ~ `~ & l 1 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 } ~ ' 1~~1 l ~ , ~~ ~ ti ` 1 ~ , ~ . ~1 ~11~ 1 1 , ~ 1 1 1 1 i ~1 1 1 E '1 E 1 1 1`i ~ E E 1 1 41 1 E 11 IEi Ei 1 ~~~` ~~~ ~°~~ w~ ~~ ~ ~, .. . ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~, ~~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~1 1 ~y ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ y l 1 11~t y ~l~; ~ f f rt~ /f ~ I~ {/ 8 ~; ~ -~ ,~ , ~,~ t ~ _ \ ~' ~ , ~ i `~-,, ~ o =,I ~ ~ ~_' ~ e ti Z_r~l ~ -_ - `~ r `. - ~ ,~~ ~ o t~ v____ o a.'~~ sz~ ! a ~~_'~r/ ~ l_--' ~~ ~ ~ , x' 1 F t 1 t 1 1 1 1 J t t i I I 1 1 w 1 1 1 t 1 1 SS ~~ • • ~, `~- ~~ ~~ ~_~ ti J 4 1 ~~ -~ .-- -- --= ~~, .. y 4 t d i i i ~~ ^~'v,~L x• ~~ z~ w n~ 1 1i `~.J ~! r r r' r - ~'~ - -- ~~ `__ _~-~ ~ r~ yF ip I N 4; d yr -~ m x~~7 { ~~ ` aka ^ Y q a ~ _ • rl r r t r r I ~I Y A 1 1 i A I ~ { ~~ i i I r ~ ~ ~ r I l ~ I 1 1 ~ I r I A i I 1 I t 0 C t I I I r I A I I I I A 3 I l 1 I I t r N ~~ If 1 „ 1 ® ~ r J -:". - I \\ ~ i ~ I ----'~~ l ~~ L D ~ r _ ~ ~. ~.:, 7, _ ._.. u-I .I .. 1 I °, r ~ ~~~ +r ~~ ~ r t r 1 i ~yi o t l i ! 1 I 1 1 ~~ 1 P a ~,a r r r r '3 Y r r w r t 1 I l 1 r I 7 t I I I - r z; I wu i r ~p ~» ! nt I I t I I 1 K I t • • ~ ~ ~ -- f ti ~ ~ ~- ~~ - ~ I '` ~ I ~I ~ ~ ~= ~ a a ~ ~ ~ o m . ~~ o ~~~ p~ ~ W z~ Yr W` N: • • i- v t~ 0 d ~~ U~ a~ ~~ \._ ~ -~ , r~ 1 a ~ ~ 4 d a ~ z~ wq w•1 N: ~~ t i i 1 I I 1 1 -i ~_ I I w ~, ~ _ ___--- ~'. y PLANNING AND ENVIRONMI=NTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING November 14, 2005 TOWN QF All; ' PROJECT ORIENTATION - Cornmurlity Qevelopment Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Dahill Rollie Kjesbo Ann Gunion Chas Bernhardt David Viele Bill Jewitt George Lamb MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits: 1. Roust Lodge - 1783 North Frontage Road 2. Buffehr Creek Partners -1701 A-F Buffehr Creek Road 3. Cascade Village Theatres - 131 Q Westhaven Drive Driver: Ges~rge Public Hearing -Tawn Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-4, Permitted and Conditional Uses, Second Floor and Above, Vail Town Code, to allow for the operation of a kitchen facility, boated at 710 Lionshead Circle, Units A and B (Vail Spa}/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail L'sanshead Filing 3, and setting faith details in regard thereto. Applicant: Kyle and Lorraine Webb Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Approval MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 Matt Gennett gave a presentation pursuant to the staff memorandum. Doug Cahill opened up the hearing for public comment and there was none. PEC deliberation: no comments from any of the PEC commissioners. 2. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Tawn Council of a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Cade, to rezone Lat 2, Block 3, Vail Lionshead 2`~ Filing, Evergreen Lodge at Vail, from High Density Multiple Family {HOME} zone district to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 {LMU1) zone district, located at 250 Soufh Frontage Road WestlLot 2, Block 3, Vail Lionshead 2`~ Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Evergreen Lodge at Vail, Ltd., H.B. Development Co., represented by Thomas J. Brink Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Forwarded a recommendation of approval MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 Page 1 George Ruther gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Jim Lamont representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association made several comments regarding boundaries of the Master Plan, traffic impacts, and unspecific language surrounding this proposal when it was before Town Council. Lamaist does not find any factual proof supporting the rezoning. This is a critical piece of property and the Tawn needs to know how changing the zoning will impact infrastructure. Gwen Scafpello, stated that over the next 3 or 4 years the Frontage Road will become a wall of 80- foot tall buildings. Concerned about preserving open space. The 10-foot setback in LMU-1 is much too small, 20 feet would be much more appropriate. The Commission supports the rezoning as the memorandum adequately addresses the criteria and to have a zone district applied to the proper#y will be more favorable than an 5171]. Several members expressed concern that traffic impacts will need to be understood upon submittal of a development application. The opportunity to work with the hospital should be explored in earnest. The CornmisSian felt that bringing one more parcel into the Master Plan area was benefcial as it applied criteria for review of a development plan. The Commission believed that all the issues Jim had raised have been addressed over the course of several meetings regarding the rezoning proposal. In addition, Resolution 15, Series of 20x5, addressed many of the concerns raised by Mr. Lamont. 3. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-TA-12, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Cade, to allow for the construction of the Timberline Lodge, located at 1783 North Frontage RoadlLots 9-12, 8uffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Tirraberline Roost Lodge, LLC, represented by MaurieAo Planning Group, LLC Planner: Gorge Ruther ACTION: Tabled to November 28, 2005 MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 George Ruther gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. There was no public comment. The Commission agreed this was a request which deserved further exploration and directed staff to return to the November 28~' public hearing with options including pros and cons for this text amendment. ,, 4. A request for final review of a text amendment to Section 12-7A-3, Conditional Uses, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Cade, to add "accommodation units with kitchen facilities as a new conditional use in the Public Accommodation zone district, and setting forth details in details in regard thereto. Applicant: Timberline Roost Lodge, LLC, represented by Mauriella Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tablets to November 28, 2005 MOTION: Vie[e SECOND; Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 George Ruther gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. The applicant, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group, LLC, gave a power paint presentation. Page 2 Pros: Addresses a real problem in the Zoning Regulations; Results in a clearer understanding of the two differing [and uses; Maintains the integrity of accommodation units; Furthers the purpose of the PA zone district; Cans: More difficult to implement; Results in additional time 4. Redef ne "kitchen facifities" and/or "klfchenette" Similar to the option above, this option would essentially amend the definitions of "kitchen facilities" and "kitchenette". As presently defined, "`kitchen facilities" means, "Fixtures and equipment for food storage and preparation of meals, including a sink, stove, and refrigeration and food storage facilities'; and "kifchenette" means, "A room containing not less than the following fixtures and appfiances: a microwave oven and/or cooking surface, sink, and refrigerat©r." Arguably, the definitions are very similar in meaning with only minor differences. As interpreted and implemented #oday, an "accommodation unit' may be a "kitchenette" but may not contain "kitchen facilities". An opportunity exists to better define and implement the meaning and intent of these two terms. Today, it is unclear whether a "stove" is a "cooking surface". In refining the definitions of these two terms, further amendments to ether relevant sections of the Zoning Regulations may be needed. Pros: Addresses a real problem in the Zoning Regulations; Results in a clearer understanding of the two differing land uses; Maintains the integrity of accommodation units Cans: Mare difficult to implement; Results in additional time 5, Create a new land use (ie, extended stay hotel/lodge, select service hotelllodge, residential hotel,} This option would create a new fend use in the Zoning Regulations which could be added to the fist of permitted ar conditional uses in the Public Accommodation or other zone districts. The terms listed above have been used by other communities to describe a type of land use which permits short-term rental of hotel roams vn a nightly, weekly, ar longer basis to meet the special needs of their guests and visitors and to fill a void within the lodging market. Regardless of the term used however, each of these land uses permits kitchen facilities, cooking facilities, or kitchenettes. Pros: Gets to the root of the issue; ease of implementation; More thorough than other options; Maintains integrity of accommodation units; Furthers the purposes of the PA zone district; Cons: More difficult to implement; Results in additional time 5 6. Add "lodge dwelling unit" to the list of permitted or conditional uses in the Public Accommodation zone district This option would add a land use and term already defined in the Zoning Regulations to the list of permissible uses in the Public Accommodation zone district. According to Section 12-2-2 of the Zoning Regulations, a "lodge dwelling unit" is defined as, "A small dwelling unit with limited kitchen and floor area and which contains six hundred fifty {650) square feet or less of floor area and is intended to be rented on a short term ,basis." Lodge dwelling units are currently allowed in the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 & 2 zone dis#ricts. In both zone districts, lodge dwelling units are conditional uses allowed on the ground floor or first level of the building and permitted uses on the floors above the first level. One important distinction of "lodge dwelling units" is that while they are intended to provide short-term rental opportunities for guests and visitors, they are first and foremost dwelling units which can be subdivided into individual condominium units and sold as free market dwelling units. Pros: Definition already exists; Review process already exists Cons: May not maintain the integrity of the PA zone district, 1111. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning ~ Environmental Commission evaluates the merits of this policy change request and, if appropriate, forwards a recommendation of appra~al of one of the proposed options to the Vail Tawn Council for further review and consideration. More specifically, Staff recommends that the Gommission directs Staff to prepare a text amendment which incorporates Options #3, #4, & #5, as generally described in Section Vi of this memorandum, for Tvwn Council review and consideration. While the crux of the text amendment would be the creation of a new land use as contemplated in Option #5, Staff believes that the revisions contemplated in Qptions #3 & #4 are also needed to fully implement Option #5 to the greatest extent possible. In the end, this hybrid of the various options achieves the goal of the applicant and would further the development objectives of the Town of Vail. 6 ' Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowners, stated that his group's issue is that there is no master plan for this area. He believes that the property should be looked at a in a larger picture, perhaps in conjunction with the Timber Ridge redevelopment. Concerned about future CDOT improvements to increase the width of 1-7~1 and the impacts on the Frontage Road. These changes could affect the number of curb-cut allowing access to the site. Suggested that rezoning the property may be mare appropriate in order to give the developer greater flexibility. Kevin Dieghan, principle of Timberline Roost Lodge, stated that the Roost is the most heavily used hotel in Tawn. This is a telling sign that there is a need for a lower priced lodging option. This is a perfect site for a select service hotel which currently does not exist in this market. The Marriott finds that fewer than ~ 0% of guests use the kitchen in the unit.. Pat Dauphinais, neighboring property owner, wanted to address traffic concerns. He pointed out the possible need of a left turn lane at the Buffehr Creek Road intersection. He does not believe that a left hand turn lane would be needed for a hotel with three curb-cuts. Mr. Dauphinais asked George Ruttier far clarifcation on the EHU provisions requirements. Mr. Dauphinais believed the EHU rec{uirement is awfully fight, Mr. Dauphinais informed the applicant that they would be paying for any construction easement that may be needed. Mr. Dauphinais has concerns about the architectural elevations, but does not see any reason for denying the project, Bill Jewitt agrees with most of what Jim Lamont stated, Commissioner Jewitt would like to see architectural styles match in the West Vail area; need to break up ridge, concerned about constructability of project, Physical model would be very helpful and maybe a digital model as well. Ropie Kjesbo agrees property needs to be redevelopment. The design would be better suited for a fiat lot. The design does not respond to site. The unbroken ridgeline is a concern. Three access paints probably excessive and turn lane likely necessary. Commissioner Kjesbo agrees text amendment affecting entire town would be problematic regarding kitchens in accommodation units. George Lamb believes the applicant's schedule is too aggressive. Model is imperative. Commissioner Lamb is in favor of the concept of redevelopment and a lower price point hotel, though is cancerned that the plan does not respond to the site appropriately in terms of grading and drainage. Commissioner Lamb feels it is worth the effort to wark with the applicant but thinks there is a lot of work ahead in terms of bulk, mass, and height. Anne G~nion agrees that the project does meet most of the development standards, however, there are criteria for review which the project does not meet. She feels design bulk, mass, and height} is not appropriate for site; is concerned with how retaining walls will work in terms of landscaping. ,Commissioner Gunian li6ce same site sections submitted. Would wait to do a model until DRB comments are obtained. David Viele sees the project as a use by right and the project was designed fhat way. He believes doing a master pion now would be inappropriate; thinks the building has a long way to go in terms of architecture and design. This site is different than thane found in the Village (property values). Chas Bernhardt likes the concept and under ground parking. He does not like the steep cuts and thinks the retaining wall is a concern. Project does not comply with Criteria 4. Maybe establish a Public Accommodation 2 zone district to address the kitchen desire. Page 3 Doug Cahill stated that he agreed with all the previous comments. He believes a model is necessary. Believes the architecture is °stale". Three access points in terms of function will probably work. Goncerned about how EHU requirements are calculated. Tom Kassmel addressed several traffic issues and concerns in regards to GDQT designation. Frontage Roads are arterials within Town. This project is doubling in size and a turn lane would be required. Bill Fox, the applicant's traffic engineer, stated that the requirements for a frontage road or an arterial are the same in terms of warranting turn lanes. Does not believe this project requires a turn lane. 5. A request for a final review of an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, to allow for modifications to the existing platted building envelope (Lot 1 }, site access (Lot 1 }, an increase in Gross Residential Floor Area Lots 1-~}; and a request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Ghapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Gode, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area, within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivisi©n located at 1701A-F Buffehr Greek RoadfLots 1-6, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Buffeter Creek Partners, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Warren Campbell en ment to the Aoorove A~ d Devel©pement flan ACTION: Approval MOTION: Kjesbo SEGOND; Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-~ (Gunion and Lamb recused) Amended Final Plat ACTION: Approval MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-(1-2 (Gunion and Lamb recused) Warren Campbe[I gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Attention was brought to the concerns of the neighbors who had submitted letters. Bill Pierce, representing the applicant gave a presentation supporting the relocation of the access to Lot 1. The"retaining walls would have a potentially negative visual impact. There was no public comment The Commission felt that the requested amendments to the development plan and the associated amended final plat maintained the intent of the approved development plan and resulted in a better solution. 6. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-~, Exterior Alterations ar Modifications, Vail Town Gode, and a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7'H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code; and final review of architectural deviations, pursuant to Section $.3.3.A, Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for the development. of 107 multi:-family residential dwelling units, located at 7~g West Lionshead GirclelLot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Corp., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to November 28, 2U05 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 Page 4 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING November 14, 2005 PROJECT ORIENTATION - Comme,nity Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:DD pm MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Cahill Rollie Kjesbo Ann Gunion Chas Bernhardt David Viele Bill Jewitt George Lamb MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits: 1. Roast Lodge -1783 North Frantage Raad 2. Buffeter Creek Partners - 1701 A-F Buffeter Creek Raad 3. Cascade Village Theatres -1310 Westhaven Drive Driver: George Public Hearing -Tawn Council Chambers 2:D0 pm 1. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-4, Permitted and Conditional Uses, Second Flaor and Above, Vail Tawn Code, to allow for the operation of a kitchen facility, located at 710 Lionshead Circle, Units A and B (Vail Spa~lLot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Kyle and Lorraine Webb Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Approval MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-D-0 Matt Gennett gave a presentation pursuant to the staff memorandum. Doug Cahill opened up the hearing far public comment and there was none. PEC deliberation: na comments from any of the PEC commissioners. 2. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Cade, to rezone Lot 2, Black 3, Vail Lionshead 2"~ Filing, Evergreen Lodge at Vail, from High Densifiy Multiple Family (HDMF) zone district to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU 1) zone district, located at 250 South Frantage Road WestlLot 2, Black 3, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto.. Applicant: Evergreen Lodge at Vail, Ltd., H.B. Development Co., represented by Thames J. Brink Planner: George Ruttier ACTION: Forwarded a recommendation of approval MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: T-O-D Page 1 George Ruttier gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Jim Lamont representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association made several comments regarding boundaries of the Master Plan, traffic impacts, and unspecific language surrounding this proposal when it was before Town Council. Lamont does not find any factual proof supporting the rezoning. This is a critical piece of property and the Tvwn needs tv know how changing the zoning will impact infrastructure. Gwen Scalpello, stated that over the next 3 or 4 years the Frontage Road will become a wall of 8(}- foot tall buildings. Concerned about preserving open space. The 10-foot setback in LMU-1 is much too small, 2l3 feet would be much more appropriate. The Commission supports the rezoning as the memorandum adequately addresses the criteria and to have a zone district applied tv the property will be snare favorable than an SDD. Several members expressed concern that traffic impacts will need to be understood upon submittal of a development application. The opportunity to work with the hospital should be explored in earnest. The Commission felt that bringing one more parcel into the Master Plan area was beneficial as it applied criteria for review of a development plan. The Commission believed that ail the issues Jim had raised have been addressed aver the course of several meetings regarding the rezoning proposal. In addition, Resolution 15, Series of 20Q5, addressed many of the concerns raised by Mr. Lamont. 3. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of the Timberline Lodge, located at 1783 North Frontage RoadlLots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting firth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Timberline Roost Lodge, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner George Ruttier ACTION: Tabled to November 28, 2005 MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 George Ruttier gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. There was no public comment. The Commission agreed this was a request which deserved further exploration and directed staff to return to the November 28~' public hearing with options including pray and cons for this text amendment. 4. A request for final review of a text amendment to Section 12-7A-3, Conditional Uses, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to add "accomrrrodation units with kitchen facilitr'es as a new conditional use in the Public Accommodation zone district, and setting forth details in details in regard thereto. Applicant: Timberline Roost Lodge, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruttier ACTION: Tabled to November 28, 2005 MOTION: Vlele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE:7-0-0 George Ruttier gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. The applicant, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group, LLC, gave a power point presentation. Page 2 Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowners, stated that his group's issue is that there is no master~~plan for this area. He believes that the property should be looked at a in a larger picture, perhaps in conjunction with the Timber Ridge redevelopment. Concerned about future CD~3T improvements to increase the width of I-70 and the impacts on the Frontage Road. These changes could affect the number of curb-cut allowing access to the site. Suggested that rezoning the property may be more appropriate in order to give the developer greater flexibility. Kevin Dieghan, principle of Timberline Roost Lodge, stated that the Roost is the most heavily used hotel in Town. This is a telling sign that there is a need for a lower priced lodging option. This is a perfect site far a select service hotel which currently does not exist in this market. The Marriott finds that fewer than 10% of guests use the kitchen in the unit. Pat Dauphinais, neighboring property owner, wanted to address traffic concerns. He pointed out the possible need of a left turn lane at the 13uffehr Creek Road intersection. He does not believe that a left hand tum lane would be needed for a hotel with three curb-cuts. Mr. Dauphinais asked George Ruther for clarification on the EHU provisions requirements. Mr. Dauphinais believed the EHU requirement is awfully light. Mr. Dauphinais informed the applicant that they would be paying for any construction easement that may be needed. Mr. Dauphinais has concerns about the architectural elevations, but does not see any reason for denying the project. Bill Jewitt agrees with most of what Jim Lamont stated. Commissioner Jewitt would like to see architectural styles match in the West Vai! area; need to break up ridge, concerned about constructability of project. Physical model would be very helpful and maybe a digital model as weft. Rollie Kjesbo agrees property needs to be redevelopment. The design would be better suited for a flat lot. The design does not respond to site. The unbroken ridgeline is a concern. Three access points probably excessive and turn lane likely necessary. Commissioner Kjesbo agrees text amendment affecting entire town would be problematic regarding kitchens in accommodation units. George Lamb believes the applicant's schedule is too aggressive. Model is imperative. Commissioner Lamb is in favor of the concept of redevelopment and a lower price point hotel, though is concerned that the plan does not respond to the site appropriately in terms of grading and drainage. Commissioner Lamb feels it is worth the effort to work with the applicant but thinks there is a lot of work ahead in terms of bulk, mass, and height. Anne Gunion agrees that the project does meet most of the development standards, however, there are criteria for review which the project does not meet. She feels design (bulk, mass, and height} is not appropriate for site; is concerned with how retaining walls will work in terms of landscaping. Commissioner Gunion like some site sections submitted. Would wait to do a model until DRB comments are obtained. David Vieke sees the project as a use by right and the project was designed that way. Ike believes doing a master plan now would be inappropriate; thinks the building has a long way to go in terms of architecture and design. This site is different than those found in the Village (property values). Chas Bernhardt likes the concept and under ground parking. He does not like the steep cuts and thinks the retaining wall is a concern. Project does not comply with Criteria 4. Maybe establish a Public Accommodation 2 zone district to address the kitchen desire. • Page 3 Warren Campbell gave a presentation pursuant to the staff memorandum. Jay Peterson and Bab Fitzgerald, representing the applicant, gave a presentation an the changes made to the Ritz-Carlton project since the last meeting. Mr. Peterson stated that the changes represent the applicant's response to each of the PEC members' comments. Mr. Petersen concluded by stating that the applicant would be removing two of the condominium spaces from the requested Conditional Use Permit request and would be reserving a common space far potential retail area once the West Lionshead Master Plan including a possible lift was explored further. The Commission was positive and praised the changes made by the applicant. Commissioner Bill Jewitt stated that he felt that retaillcommercial in this project was not appropriate and felt that the Master Plan anticipated this high density condominium project. Uther members of the Commission felt that the flexibility of not requesting Conditions! Use Permits for condos on all the units at this time was good until more was known about the potential development in the West Lionshead aria. 7. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for additional dwelling units and affce uses in SDD Alo. 4, located at 1310 Westhaven DrivelCascade Village, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Cascade Village Theatres, Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner; Matt Gennett ACTION: Approval M©TION: Kjesbo SECOND. Viele VOTE: 7-0-a Matt Gennett~gave a presentation pursuant to the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, gave a presentation. Doug Cahill opened up the hearing to public comment and there was none. PEC deliberation: Anne Gunton asked for clarification an criterion number one and Matt Gennett explained the rationale beh~nd.that particular criterion, r David Viele voiced his support for the project and stated no condition related to parking is needed. Chas Bernhardt agreed with David Viele and had no additional comment. Bill Jewitt voiced his support for the amendment but added he does not like the architecture. Rollie Kjesbo agreed with David Viele and had no additional comment. George Lamb agreed with the rest of the commissioners and had no additional comment. Doug Cahill tsriefly summarized the clear benefits of the project and had no additional comment. Page 5 8. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to rezone Lots 1-3, Vail das Schone Filing 1, Lot 1; and Vail das Schane Filing 3 from the Commercial Core 3 {CC3} zone district to the Public Accommodation {PA} zone district, located at 2211 North Frontage RoadlLats 1-3, Vail das Schone fling 1 and 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vanquish Vail I LLC, represented by Bharat Bhakta Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION; Tabled to January ~, 20p1a MOTION; Vide SECOND: Bernlharcit VOTE: 7.0-0 9. A request for final review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Tawn Cade, to allow far the subdivision of the Conference Center development site; final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to a11ow for a public convention facility and public parking facilities and structures; and final review of architectural deviations, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.A, Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines far New Develapment, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow far a public convention facility and public parking facilities and structures, located at 395 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, Lot 3 and 5; Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Pylman 8~ Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: 1NITHDRAWN 10. A request far a correction to the Vail Land Use Plan to designate the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Area, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: BIII Gibson ACTION: VIIITHDRAWN 11. Approval of C3etaber 24, 2005 minutes MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Vie1e VOTE; 7_p-p 12. Information Update 13. Adjournment MOTION: Viele SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 7-0-0 The applica#ions and information about the proposals are available far public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Develapment Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970} 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published November 11, 2005, in the Vail Daily. Page 6 Doug Cahill stated that he agreed with all the previous comments. He believes a model is necessary. Believes the architecture is "stale". Three access points in terms of function will probably work. Concerned about how EHU requirements are calculated. Tom Kassmel addressed several traffic issues and concerns in regards to CDOT designation. Frontage Roads are arterials within Town. This project is doubling in size and a turn lane would be required. Bill Fox, the applicant's traffic engineer, stated that the requirements for a frontage road or an arterial are the same in terms of warranting turn lanes. Does not believe this project requires a turn lane. 5. A request far a final review of an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, to allow for modifications,, to the existing platted building envelope (Lot 1), site access (Lot 1 }, an increase in Gross Residential Floor Area ~Lats 1-6); and a request far a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area, within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision located at 1701A-F Buffeter Creek RoadlLots 1-6, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Buffeter Creek Partners, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Warren Campbell Amendment to the Aooroved Develooment Plan ACTION: Appr©val MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Dewitt VOTE: 5-0-2 (Gunion and Lamb recused} Amended Final Plat ACTION: Approval MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Dewitt VOTE: 5-0-2 (Gunion and Lamb recusedy Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Attention was brought. to the concerns of the neighbors who had submitted letters. Bill Pierce, representing the applicant gave a presentation supporting the relocation of the access to Lot 1. The retaining walls would have a potentially negative visual impact. There was no public comment The Commission felt that the requested amendments to the development plan and the associated amended final plat maintained the intent of the approved development plan and resulted in a better solution. 6. A request far a final review of a~majar exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations ar Modifications, Vail Tawn Cade, and a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Ganditianal Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Ganditianal Uses; First Fioar an Street Level, Vail Town Cade; and final review of architectural deviations, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.A, Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines far New Development, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for the development of 107 multi-family residential dwelling units, located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard tllereta. Applicant: Vail Corp., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to November 2$, 2005 MOTION: Dewitt SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-4-0 Page 4 Warren Campbell gave a presentation pursuant to the staff memorandum. Jay Peterson and Bab l~itzgerald, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the changes made to the Ritz-Carlton project since the last meeting. Mr. Peterson stated that the changes represent the applicant's response tv each of the PEC members' comments. Mr. Petersen ccancluded by stating that the applicant would be removing two of the condominium spaces from the requested Conditional Use Permit request and would be reserving a common space for potential retell area once the West Lianshead Master Plan. including a possible lift was explored further. The Commission was positive and praised the changes made by the applicant. Commissioner Bill Jewitt stated that he felt that retail/commercial in this project was not appropriate and felt that the Master Plan anticipated this high density condominium project. Other members of the Commission felt that the flexibility of not requesting Conditional Use Permits for condos an all the units at this time was good until mare was known about the potential development in the West Lionshead area. 7. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Tawn Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for additional dwelling units and office uses in SDD Nv. 4, located at 1310 Westhaven DrivelCascade Village, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Cascade Village Theatres, Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLG Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Approval MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Vlele VOTE: l-t)-0 . Matt Gennett gave a presentation pursuant to the staff memorandum, Dominic Mau~iella, representing the applicant, gave a presentation. Doug Cahill opened up the hearing to public comment and there was none. PEC deliberation: Anne Gunion asked far clarification on criterion number one and Matt Gennett explained the rationale behind that particular criterion. David Viele voiced his support for the project and stated no condition related to parking is needed. Chas Bernhardt agreed with David Viele and had no additional comment. Bill Jewitt voiced his support for the amendment but added he does not like the architecture. Rollie Kjesbo agreed with David Viele and had no additional comment. George Lamb agreed with the rest of the commissioners and had na additional comment. Doug Cahill briefly summarized the clear benefits of the project and had no additional comment. Page 5 8. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a zone district boundary amendment, :pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Tawn Cade, to rezone Lots 1-3, Vail dos Schone Filing 1, Lot 1; and Vail dos Schone Filing 3 from the Commercial Core 3 (CC3) zone district to the Public Accommodation (PA} zone district, located at 2211 North Frontage RoadlLots 1-3, Vail dos Schone fling 1 and 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vanquish Vail I LLC, represented by Bharat Bhakta Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Tabled to .January 9, 2008 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 7-Q-Q 9. A request for final review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Cade, to allow far the subdivision of the Conference Center development site; final review of a conditional u$e permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Tvwn Cade, to allow for a public convention facility and public parking facilities and structures; and final. review of architectural deviations, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.A, Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan,. to allow for a public convention facility and public parking facilities and structures, located at 395 East Lionshead Circle! Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, Lot 3 and 5, Black 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Pylman & Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION; WITHDRAWN 1Q. A request for a correction to the Vail Land Use Plan to designate the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Area, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: WITHDRAWN 11. Approval of October 24, 2Q05 minutes MOTION: Kjesi~o SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-d-0 12. Information Update 13. Adjournment MOTION: Vielle SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Tawn of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (974) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970} 479-2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, far information. Community Development Department Published November 11, 2005, in the Vail Daily. • Page 6 IJ S W cV `7 ti C • c`ar~-~ ac 3cW.~m ~~~u~a 1- mmE~ m r o ~ ~ r~oo~ ~~UZ_ Em je~o~ L7 w y `a YE~gc ~ €'c (~ i ~C3~ c o txi- 3 c~'o ZryVI-°~C w E n7'c Uom~c+`ati C ORf~'J Z lIJt~N U a E-~ V I~-, ~1 w Z _oaw o_ p~ ti='~= 9J~00 ~C}tL C ~OCN ~NO~ ~ Qj~a~7~ Cm~~iro~~ ,~, a~rmyac' ~ d icc~'iw~m ~~~E~.~~ J~ u¢Ys`2 cn rT ~ ~~mya !Vstit? 6Y (LO}'Q JO NN p~ d C ~ U. ~_ N~?D a« c m` GH or33mm Q: `n'1°~m=Cµ c~ U o~ m c N >?'~ rn ~o~0°"mom=' E~'.. morocco gn~m ~'~ c,, -~ C p a'~ N o w c ~~ p 3.",} m'$ a 5 y u r x U ^vm, ~c3^¢-m tom ~stioL~° E'c o¢ acv~y-o~ C O,,JA~ yp~ OUP a OU NT~u~S m ~~~L~11 CN~~O ~.c9 ~ma-°ro~~ 3'P?~ ~Om$cE`°¢£ i=~'~f7 mmw„mc ;~~.-:y cmc~~o~ ~~8~~~v pis 3y_ N U O Q~ ~ f 4 m~ W~ c} LL ~ u oU ~ ~'n~ E ~ a~m N U a ~~ `~ f w~ ~~~3'p p'U a ~ n~~iE~~~cc ,~ ~ ao o~m~ NN W - ¢8r°n~-°nci~ ¢ a 2`a'~oam'9 ~ ~ ¢ra mU a~i 'd$ ~] .~ .-~, d ,.+yti V O W E~ a a LI ~Gy V ti. O O ,~ r~. an a ~,° G~ ~ .~ o ~, c u~-. y y p F-~ n~ ~ a~ ~. ~ ~, > ~ O a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~~ .~ ~ ~ C ~FM ~ W ~ o ~ a v o ~ ~ •-~ ,~ cr O ~ c. Y .~ 3 .~ ~a 0 ~~~a~ w o . ~ ~+ ~ ~~~L~~o O ~ ~ ~ C ,K ~ m c" a a~ ... w. :: ~ ,~ -~s a ~. py GL p O ~" .~ c~ •~ y ~ ZS' ~ ~ d ~ p C OJ ~ Y a} CC ~ 3 7 ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ L~ ~ "O.J ~ ~ W ~ U L9 ~ G ~" G v cj 4 0 ~ O U o ~ ~ ~ ~~°~~~~a G `~ ,~ ~ s'}., .'~ y ~o Q, ~ h ~ a, O a~b ~~ ~x ~c~~~~?~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O Q~ U n v .~ a.~ c ou ~_ a~ ~_ v "~ of .a ~s bA ~.} >C v :~ w N w v_ my ~w OL qC c`o L p )C W ~~ C q4 4d b b c N N .b C T O] a 7 C'~ C 3 ,~ 0 7 s c 0 n d ~ri 0 a Z T Z7 N ~ U N ~ ~a 6n ~' ~ o ~~ cd N R. n c v ;> O .~ x a~ 0 .~ 0 U ` @? : ~ ~~ • • ~ '~' W ~ ~U • ~ • ~ -/. +•• ~ • ~~