The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007 PEC JANUARY - APRIL I Planning and Enaironmental Carmmisson I ~ ACTION FORM Department of Community Devel~rpment ~75 Sauth Frontage RQatf, Vait, Cafarada Si557 tel:970.479.2139 fax:970.479.2452 0C%%,,,MnrEVELOP,,,EW web: www.vaifgQV.totrt Project Name: WELTNER EXEMPTION PLAT PEC Number: PEC070015 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR AN EXEMPTION PLAT FOR A BUILDING ENVELOPE CHANGE Participants: OWNER WESTPORT-NALL INVE5TORS LP 03/13/2007 4520 MAIN ST STE 1000 KANSAS CITY MO 64111 APPLICANT SCOTT TURNIPSEED, AIA 03/13/2007 Phone: 970-328-3900 1143 CAPITOL STREET, SUITE 211 PO BOX 3388 EAGLE CO 81631 License: C000001848 ARCHITECT SCOTf TURNIPSEED, AIA 03/13/2007 Phone: 970-328-3900 1143 CAPITOL STREEf, SUITE 211 0 PO BOX 3388 EAGLE CO 81631 License: C000001848 Project Address: 1677 BUFFEHR CREEK RD VAIL Location: 1701 BUFFEHR CREEK RD ~ Legal Description: Lot: 1 Block: Subdivision: ELENI ZNEIMER SUBDIVISIO Parcel Number: 2103-122-1500-1 Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: Viele Vote: 4-3-0 (Jewitt, Pierce, CI Date of Approval: 04/09/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). ~ Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond: 113 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. ~ Cond: CON0008837 The applicant shall replace all trees removed by the construction of the stucture and the associated driveway on Lot 1 as depicted on the tree survey attached to the memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April 9, 2007, labeled, Attachment C, identifying all aspens on the lot that are at least 3 inches in caliper. The trees shall be replace one for one with the same caliper of tree as those removed. The landscaping plan provided in conjunction with the design review application shall depict this replacement requirement. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 • ~ ~ ~ Ptanrting and Environmental Gommisson # ACTIt]N FOFtM . Department of Community Develapment TO~~(VFLVA-1 75 Snuth Frantage Road, Vail, Cotarada 81557 te{: 9 70.479.2139 fax:970.479.2452 CCWWTrr~LOPWW vtireb: www.vailgav.tom Project Name: VAIL ESTATES ENTRY AWNING PEC Number: PEC070012 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A MA70R EXTERIOR ALTERATION FOR AN ENTRANCE AWNING Participants: OWNER )OSEPH SHANNON LLC 03/12/2007 PO BOX 3462 VAIL CO 81658 APPLICANT PAUL SMITH CONSTRUCTION 03/12/2007 Phone: 970-904-0444 P.O. BOX 3462 VAIL CO 81658 License: 151-A CONTRACTOR PAUL SMITH CONSTRUCTION 03/12/2007 Phone: 970-904-0444 P.O. BOX 3462 • VAIL CO 81658 License: 151-A Project Address: 292 E MEADOW DR VAIL Location: MOUNTAIN HAUS CONDOS Legal Description: Lot: Tr B Block: Subdivision: Vail Village Filing 1 Parcel Number: 2101-082-2800-1 Comments: GUNION RECUSED BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: K]ESBO Action: APPROVED Second By: KURZ Vote: 6-0-1 Date of Approvai: 04/09/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of • approval. Cond:il3 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the Pendin9 emPloYee housin9 re9ulations bY APril 15, 2007 , this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. Cond: CON0008835 The applicant must obtain and execute an encroachment agreement, or similar . agreement as deemed appropriate by the Town Attorney, for the entry feature prior to appiication for a buifding permit. Cond: CON0008836 The applicant shall not install or construct any landscape plantings, pavers, benches, or other similar improvements within the Slifer Plaza landscape planters. Instead, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall be a fee up to $5,000 to the Town of Vail for the cost of landscape planter improvements to be designed and installed by the Town of Vail. Planner: Bill Gibson PEC Fee Paid: $800.00 ~ • , . I Ptanning and Enuironrnerrta~ Commisson • ACTION F{3RM ~ ' ~ Department of Community Develapment TOW~1 75 SOlit~i Fl°OEt$d{~e R0~3t~, Va1l, CtSlOCadCF $16,57 te1: 970.474.2139 tax; 970.479.2452 cc&wUNMY rE.vEu~~ENr web: wv+rw.vailgov:.com ~ Project Name: AUGUSTINE RESIDENCE PEC Number: PEC070011 Projecfi Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE FROM SIDE YARD SEfBACK AND SITE COVERAGE STANDARDS Participants: OWNER AUGUSTINE, LISA M. 03/09/2007 5119 BLACK BEAR LN VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT JOHN M. PERKINS ARCHITECTS, 03/09/2007 Phone: 949-9322 PO BOX 2007 AVON CO 81620 License: C000002001 • Project Address: 5119 BLACK BEAR LN VAIL Location: 5119 BLACK BEAR LANE Legal Description: Lot: 8 Block: 10 Subdivision: GORE CREEK SUB. Parcel Number: 2099482-1000-7 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: WITHDRWN Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: Conditions: Planner: Bill Gibson PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 • ~ Planrring and Environmental Camrmisson ~ A~~ION FORN! )A' Department t~f Commu~aity Develapment ~75 South Frontage Road, Vaif, CoEorada 81657 te1:970.479.2139 fax:970.479.2452 cCaWJurYMuEt.WMENF We}}: WIIJW.V31lgf3Y.L4frt Project Name: VAIL TRAILS EAST PEC Number: PEC070010 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE ADDI7ION OF BAY WINDOWS (GRFA) TO THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING BUILDING AND ROOF AT UTILIIY EASEMENT (NORTH EAST CORNER) AT VAIL TRAILS EAST TOWNHOMES EXTERIOR RENOVATION Participants: OWNER ZIMMERMAN, J.D. 02/26/2007 3709 DARTMOUTH AVE DALLAS TX 75205 APPLICANT ]OHN G. MARTIN, ARCHITECT LL02/26/2007 . PO BOX 4701 EAGLE CO 81631 License: C000001843 • ARCHITECT ]OHN G. MARTIN, ARCHITEGT LL02/26/2007 PO BOX 4701 EAGLE CO 81631 License: C000001843 Project Address: 433 GORE CREEK DR VAIL Location: VAIL TRAILS EAST TOWNHOMES Legal Description: Lot: 1 TO Block: Subdivision: VAIL TRAILS CHALET Parcel Number: 2101-082-3300-1 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: KJESBO Action: APPROVED Second By: BERNHARDT Vote: 6-0-0 Date of Approval: 03/26/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of ~ Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Co nd : 300 PEC approval shail not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond:il3 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. • Cond: CON0008797 This approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining design review approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. Planner: Bill Gibson PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 ~ • • Planning and Environmental Commissan • ACTI4N FO RM Department of Cammunity development ~Tjnr /75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 1~1~ tel: 970.479.2139 fax; 970,479.2452 vo•.ra~,rro='v[u''1ai',- web: WWw.vailgov.corn Project Name: CHAIR 8 MA7 EXT ALT PEC Number: PEC070009 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL OF A MAIOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION FOR A NEW RESTROOM BUILDING ADJACENT TO CHAIR 8 SKI LIFT Participants: OWNER VAIL CORP 02/07/2007 C/0 VAIL RESORTS DEV CO PO BOX 959 AVON CO 81620 APPLICANT VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC.-BRIAN 02/07/2007 Phone: 970-331-5937 PO BOX 7 VAIL CO 81657 Project Address: 600 LIONSHEAD MALL VAIL Location: CHAIR 8 • Legal Description: Lot: 2 Block: Subdivision: LIONSHEAD 6TH Parcel Number: 2101-072-2000-1 Comments: See conditions in memo dated 3/12/07 BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Cleveland Action: APPROVED Second By: Kjesbo Vote: 7-0-0 Date of Approval: 03/12/2007 ~ Conditions: Cond: 8 (PIAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond:ll3 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing • regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. Planner: George Ruther PEC Fee Paid: $800.00 P'tanning and Env?ironmental Corrimisscan ~ ACTION Ft3RM . 1 Department of Cammunity DevelapmenE TO WW OF ~ '75 Sauth Frontage Road, Vait, ~Coinrado fSi657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax:970.479.2452 COMWJMrraevErOPUDa WBb: wv?rvn.vailgav.com Praject Name: Cerisola Exemption Plat PEC Number: PEC070008 Project Description: Request for an amended final plat for Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. The exemption plat exchanged equat sized parcels of land between the two lots to facilitate a new additian and retaining wa(I. Participants: OWNER LARCH, S.A. 01/29/2007 C/0 CERISOIA 805 POTATO PATCH DR VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT SNOWDON AND HOPKINS, ARCHITE01/29/2007 Phone: 970-476-2201 PO SOX 3340 VAIL CO 81658 • License: C000001763 ARCHITECT SNOWDON AND HOPKINS, ARCHTTE01/29/2007 Phone: 970-476-2201 PO BOX 3340 VAIL CO 81658 License: C000001763 Project Address: 805 POTATO PATCH DR VAIL Location: 805 POTATO PATCH DR. ~ ~ Lega) Description: Lot: 29 Biock: 1 Subdivision: VAIL POTATO PATCH , Parcei Number: 2101-063-0101-9 Comments: See Conditions I BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: )ewitt Vote: 6-0-0 Date of Approval: 03/26/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of ~ Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shali not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond:113 I All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. ~ Cond: CON0008798 The applicant and his successors and assigns, shall not be permitted to request any variances subsequent to the approval of this amended final plat for Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, on the basis that the resulting approved plat created a physical hardship for developing these lots. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 • ~ Plannirrg and Environmenta! Commissan ~ 14CTI+DN FQRM ~ Department af Community Develnprnent VK9 75 5outh Frantage Raad, Wail, Calorado 81657 te1:974.479.2139 fax:970.479.2452 CanUMrroE,,eUYUEW web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: Cerisola Retaining Wall Var. PEC Number: PEC070007 Project Description: Request to extend an existing retaining wall which exceeds 3 feet in height within the front setback. The proposed retaining wall is approximately 11 feet tall. Participants: OWNER LARCH, S.A. 01/29/2007 C/O CERISOLA ! 805 POTATO PATCH DR VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT SNOWDON AND HOPKINS, ARCHITE01/29/2007 Phone: 970-476-2201 PO BOX 3340 VAIL CO 81658 License: C000001763 ARCHITECT SNOWDON AND HOPKINS, ARCHITE01/29/2007 Phone: 970-476-2201 . PO BOX 3340 VAIL CO 81658 License: C000001763 Project Address: 805 POTATO PATCH DR VAIL Location: 805 POTATO PATCH DR. Legal Description: Lot: 29 Block: 1 Subdivision: VAIL POTATO PATCH Parcel Number: 2101-063-0101-9 Comments: See Conditions i BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: Jewitt Vote: 6-0-0 Date of Approval: 03/26/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). . Cond:300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond:il3 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. • Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 ~ . I • ~ • Pfanning and Environrnental Commisson o ACTI ON FQ RMI , - ~ ~ Department of Community Develapment rryy,~ tr~ a 75 Sauth Frontage Raad, Vailr Coforado 81657 ! U Y tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 470.479.2452 c0•.r4ArYarcuY1a1_<<7 web:, www.vailgQV.corn - Pro]'ect Name: Vail's Front Door Project PEC Number: PEC070006 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REVISED GRADING FOR THE VISTA BAHN SKI YARD AND A SLIGHT CHANGE TO THE PROJECT IUNNEt Participants: OWNER LODGE PROPERTIES INC 01/29/2007 PO BOX 7 VAIL CO 81658 ARCHITECT 4240 ARCHITECTURE, INC. 01/29/2007 Phone: 303-292-3388 1621 18TH STREET SUITE 200 DENVER CO 80202 License: C000001868 ~ CONTRACTOR HYDER CONSTRUCTION, INC 01/29/2007 Phone: 303-825-1313 543 SANTA FE DRIVE DENVER CO 80204 License: 109-A APPLICANT VRDC-THE CHALETS AT THE LODG01/29/2007 Phone: 970-845-2555 JARRIE WORCESTER 137 BENCHMARK ROAD ~ AVON CO 81620 ~ Project Address: 174 GORE CREEK DR VAIL Location: VAILS FRONT DOOR-SITE/BUILDING 'A' Legal Description: Lot: ABC Block: 5C Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE 1 Parcel Number: 2101-082-7800-2 Comments: See Staff memo dated 2/26/2007 BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: Cleveland Vote: 6-0-0 Date of Approval: 02/26/2007 ~ Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vaii staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond:113 • All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of I Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this' Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. Planner: George Ruther PEC Fee Paid: $250.00 i ~ • ~ ~ I Rfanning and Env?ironmental Comrnisson ~ ACTION F+QRM De,partment of ~Community Development TOWN ~~75 5QUtf~ Frar~tage Rt~ad, Vail, Colorada 81657 teh 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 aCWA,rnrY cEvEuOPMEr+r web: www.vaifgov.com Project Name: CROSSROADS AMENDED CUP PEC Number: PEC070005 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MODIFY THE PRIVATE PARKING CLUB Participants: OWNER CROSSROADS EAST ONE LLC 01/22/2007 329 MILL CREEK CIR Vail Co 81657 APPLICANT MAURIELLO PLANNING GROUP, LL01/22/2007 Phone: 970-748-0920 PO BOX 1127 AVON CO 81620 License: C000001697 Project Address: 143 E MEADOW DR VAIL Location; 143 E MEADOW DRIVE • Legal Description: Lot: P Block: 5-D Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 Parcel Number: 2101-082-0100-1 Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: Pierce Vote: 6-0-0 Date of Approval: 02/26/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vaii staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond:113 All devefopment applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if • the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. Cond: CON0008755 That the developer operates the parking club and rental program for the dwellings units in accordance with the pages 9-13 of the Application for a Major Amendment to Special Development District No, 39, Crossroads, and an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Private Parking Club document dated February 15, 2007, and the approved Developer Improvement Agreement which will be agreed upon by Town Council and the developer. Staff shail be able to approve a 5% increase or decrease in the • number of parking spaces included within the parking club. A greater change shall require an amended permit. Cond: CON0008756 That the Planning and Environmental Commission approval of the conditional use permits become valid upon approval of an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, on second reading by Town Council. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $650,00 • ~ • Rlanning and EnWironmental Comrnisson • ACTION Fi]?RM . ~ Uepartment af Community Development ~75 SQUth Frontage Road, Vail, Calarado 81657 te1:970.479.2139 fax.970.479.2452 TOWN CONS&AMcEVeurp,aM web: www.vailgo+r.com Project Name: CROSSROADS MA]OR AMENDMENT PEC Number: PEC070004 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO AN SDD WITH NO EXTERIOR CHANGES TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITION OF 6 UNITS Participants: OWNER CROSSROADS EAST ONE LLC 01/22/2007 329 MILL CREEK CIR Vail Co 81657 APPLICANT MAURIELLO PLANNING GROUP, LL01/22/2007 Phone: 970-748-0920 PO BOX 1127 AVON CO 81620 License: C000001697 • Project Address: 143 E MEADOW DR VAIL Location: 143 E MEADOW DRIVE Legal Description: Lot: P Block: 5-D Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 Parcel Number: 2101-082-0100-1 Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: ]ewitt Vote: 6-0-0 Date of Approval: 02/26/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:ll3 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. • Cond: CON0008742 The Developer shall prepare a written agreement, for Town Council review and approval, outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required offsite improvements, as indicated on the proposed Approved Deveiopment Plan. This agreement shall include, but not be limited to, all streetscape improvements along Village Center Road and East Meadow Drive, public access to the plaza for pedestrians and Town sponsored events, which may include the establishment of an easement on the plaza and language in the covenants and declarations for owners of property in the project regarding the use of the piaza for special events, inclusion of the loading • and delivery facility in the overall loading and delivery system, payment of traffic impact fees and credits given to offset fee, and details for funding public art. Cond: CON0008743 The Developer shall submit a final exterior building materials list, typical wall section, architectural specifications, and a complete color rendering for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to submittal of an application for a building permit. Cond: CON0008744 The Developer shall submit a roottop mechanical equipment plan for review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to the submittal of a building permit application. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the structure and enclosed and visually screened from public view. Cond: CON0008745 The Developer shall submit a comprehensive sign program for review and approval by the Design Review Board. Cond: CON0008746 The Developer shall receive all the required permits from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOI) prior to submitting for a building permit. Failure to receive the appropriate permits to access the South Frontage Road per the Approved Development Plan will require the project to return through the special development district review process. Cond: CON0008747 The Developer shall comply with the written final comments of the Town of Vail Public Works Department outlined in the memorandum from the Town of Vail Public Works Department, dated January 16, 2006, prior to submitting an app{ication to the I Town of Vail Community Department for the issuance of a building permit for this • project. Cond: CON0008748 The Developer shall submit a written letter agreeing to install a public safety radio communications system within the subterranean parking structure which meets the specifications of the Town of Vail Communications Center. The specifications and details of this system shall be submitted to staff for review and approval with the application for a building permit. Cond: CON0008749 The Developer shall submit a fire and life safety plan for review and approval by the Town of Vail Fire Department. Cond: CON0008750 The Developer shall be assessed a traffic impact fee of $6,500 per net trip increase in p.m. traffic. The trip generation report prepared by Fox Higgins Transportation Group states the net peak increase is 81 trips. The Public Works Department has asked that the study be revised to address a concern regarding the trip generation for the night club in the bowling alley. This change may cause the trip generation to increase. The applicant shall be responsible for mitigating the number of net peak trip increases depicted in the revised study. This impact fee shall not be offset by any public improvements. Cond: CON0008751 The Developer shall post a bond to provide financial security for 125% of the total cost of the required off-site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. This includes but is not limited to the proposed streetscape improvements. Cond: CON0008752 • The Developer shall commence initial construction of the Crossroads improvements within three years from the time of its final approval at second reading of the ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 39, and continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the developer does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the special development district or any stage of the special development district within the time limits imposed, the approval of said special development districk shall be void. The Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall review the special development district upon • submittal of an application to reestablish the special development district following the procedures outlined in Section 12-9A-4, Vail Town Code. ' Cond: CON0008753 Employee Housing: Crossroads shall provide the Town deed restricted employee housing ~ sufficient to accommodate 22 occupants by executing appropriate restrictive covenant(s) on form(s) provided by the Town. Any dwelling unit(s) restricted shall conform to the following floor area requirements: a one-bedroom unit shall contain at least 550 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more than 2 occupants; a two-bedroom unit shall contain at least 850 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more than 3 occupants; a three-bedroom unit shall contain at feast 1,350 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more than 4 occupants; and a four-bedroom unit shall contain at least 1,500 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more that 5 occupants. The Town may approve minor variations in floor area when the overall intent of the floor area requirements is being met. Any deed restriction shall be for property located within the Town. Such deed restriction(s) shall be executed and provided to the Town for recording and restricted unit(s) shall be available for occupancy prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the Crossroads Project or any phase thereof. Any deed restricted employee housing unit sha(f comp(y with the standards and procedures established by the Town Zoning Regulations. Cond: CON0008754 The approval of SDD No. 39, Crossroads, shall restrict the uses upon the plaza level tenant spaces to retail uses solely and shall not be utilized for professional offices, business offices, and studios. The second floor retail space may be utilized for any allowable or conditional use as listed in the Commercial Service • Center Zone District, No space noted as retail space on the Approved Development Plan shall be converted to a residential dwelling unit. Temporary real estate sales offices may be allowed on the plaza level of retail during the first two years ' foAowing the issuance of a certificate of occupancy in order to allow effective sales of dwelling units on-site. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $1,250.00 • Planning and Environmental Commisson • ACTIOM Ft3RM DeRartment of Cammunity Develapment ~~~'Of'75 South Ffantage Raad, Yait, Cc~lorado 81657 te1:970.474.2139 fax:970,479.2452 cON+AWrMvE"MEur web: rvww.vaifgov.corrt Project Name: HASSETT RESIDENCE PEC Number: PEC070002 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL OF A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARAGE AND ENTRY ROOF ENCROACHMENTS Participants: OWNER HASSEIT, NANCY 01/16/2007 PO BOX 68 MINTURN CO 81645 APPLICANT MIRAMONTI ARCHITECT PC 01/16/2007 Phone: 970-949-1138 PO BOX 5820 AVON CO 81620 License: C000001930 ARCHITECT MIRAMONTI ARCHITECT PC 01/16/2007 Phone: 970-949-1138 • PO BOX 5820 AVON CO 81620 License: C000001930 Project Address: 1895 GORE CREEK DR VAIL Location: 1895 W. GORE CREEK DRIVE Legal Description: Lot: 26 Block: Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE WEST FIL Z Parcel Number: 2103-123-0602-5 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: K]ESBO Action: APPROVED Second By: JEWITT Vote: 6-0 Date of Approval: 02/26/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 • PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond:il3 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if ' the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. Cond: CON0008725 This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant obtaining Design Review Board • approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. Planner: Bill Gibson PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 • I • Planning and Enviranmental Commisson ~ ACTI+Di~ gORM . # iiepartment of Cominunity Development TO75 SautF~ Frontage Road, Vai[, cot~arado s~1ssa te1:970A79.2139 fax:970.479.2452 crx,g,,Jti,rvMr"MM vaeb: www.uai4gov.com Project Name: Lot i l& 12 Bighorn 5th Add. PEC Number: PEC070001 Project Descripfiion: 51K-7j FINAL APPROVAL FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO RELOCATE A SHARED PROPER`tY L.INE BETWEEN LOT li AND LOT 12, Bi_OCK 7, BIGHORN 5TN ADDITION Participants: I OWNER MEADOWLARK DE1/ELOPMENT PARTNOI/15/2007 PO BOX 6605 TYLER TX 75711 , APPLICANT MEADOWLARK DEVELOPMENT PARTN01/15/2007 PO BOX 6605 ~ TYLER TX 75711 Prcject Address: 4852 MEADOW LN VAIL Loration: 4852/4856 MEADOW LANE . Legal Description: Lot: 11 B oo-ck: 7 Subdivision: BIGHORN 5TH ADDITION Parcel Number: 2101-131-0401-0 2101-13I-0401-1 Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: Bernhardt Vote: 6-0-0 Date of Approval: 02/12/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approvai shail not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approvai. Cond:ll3 All development applications submitted to the Town after the efFective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee hausing is regulations in whatever form they are fnatly adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April IS, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. Cond: CON0008680 The applicant shall not be permitted to request any varaince subsequent to the approva! of this plat for Lots 11 and 12, Biock 7, Bighorn Sth Addition, on the basis that the approved plat created a hardship for developing these lots. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 ~ • • Planning and Enrrironrrtentai Cammisson • ACTION FORM Dcpartment of Community DE~relapment ~Tjj~~~75 Sauth Fronta4e Raadr Vailf Colorado 81657 111M tel: 974.479.2139 fax; 970,479.2452 ~.oIX.,rJ-Yo_1,cu-";J,-.- wEb: u,rirrw.vailgaw.carn Project Name: TOV ZONING CODE CHAPTER 7 PEC Number: PEC060089 Project Description: FINA APPROVAL FOR A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO DELEI'E CHAPTER 7 FROM THE LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN Participants: OWNER VAIL COLORADO MUNICIPAL BLDG12/11/2006 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT RACHEL FRIEDE-TOWN OF VAIL 12/11/2006 Phone: 970-479-2100 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 License: 463-B • Project Address: 75 S FRONTAGE RD WEST VAIL Location: Legal Description: Lot: A@B Block: 5D Subdivision: Vail Village Filing 1 Parcel Number: 2101-064-0000-3 Comments: See conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Pierce Action: APPROVED ; Second By: Kjesbo Vote: 7-0-0 Date of Approval: 01/25/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Entry: 01/08/2007 By: RLF Action: COND 1. The text amendment shall be amended to add language regarding zoning. 2. All language in Chapter 7 shall remain except striking "Below grade development is not counted as site coverage." Cond: 113 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of . Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. I- _ Planner: RACHEL FRIEDE PEC Fee Paid: $1,300.00 • i • • I Planning and Enviranmenta! Commisson • ACTION FORM . ~ Department of Community Develapment +ZytT~~,,r~~ ~r~ s 75 Sauth Fronta4e Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 1114~lY ~r te?:97o.47g.Z139 fax:97a.4».z45z 07-',-EU3.~1P.7 weh: wwtv.vailgov.corn Project Name: VAILS FRONT DOOR AMEND TO DE PEC Number: PEC060087 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE ADDITION OF 1300 SF OF SUBTERRANEAN STORAGE/LOCKER SPACE, THE ADDITION OF APPROX 210 SF OF AIRLOCK SPACE , Participants: OWNER LODGE PROPERTIES INC 12/11/2006 PO BOX 7 VAIL CO 81658 CONTRACTOR HYDER CONSTRUCTION, INC 12/11/2006 Phone: 303-825-1313 543 SANTA FE DRIVE DENVER CO 80204 License: 109-A • APPLICANT VAIL RESORTS DEVELOPMENT INC12/11/2006 Phone: 970-845-2547 P.O. BOX 959 AVON CO 81620 License: C000001633 Project Address: 174 GORE CREEK DR VAIL Location; VAILS FRONT DOOR-SITE/BUILDING 'A' Legal Description: Lot: ABC Block: 5C Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE 1 i ~ Parcel Number: 2101-082-7800-2 Comments: See letter dated 12/21/2006 BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: STAFFAPR Second By: Vote: Date of Approvai: 12/21/2006 Conditions: r Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). • Cond:300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond: 113 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of ~ Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. • Planner: George Ruther PEC Fee Paid: $250.00 • • Ptanning and Envirvnmental Commisson • A?CTIaN FORM . - t L~epartment of Community Development r~~ O~ iT~ ~ 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colar-ado 81657 IV Ir tel: 974.479.2139 fax; 970,479.2452 cxn,,,I,I-Yo=•,EU3r\~f,~ web: wwvr.vailgov.corn Project Name: VAIL INT. CONDOS REZONING PEC Number: PEC060085 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE VAIL INTERNATIONAL CONDOS REZONING FROM LEGAL NON- CONFORMING HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY TO LIONSHEAD MIXED USE-1 Participants: OWNER VAIL INTERNATIONAL CONDO ASS12/04/2006 300 E LIONSHEAD CIR i VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT VAIL INTERNATIONAL CONDO ASS12/04/2006 300 E LIONSHEAD CIR VAIL CO 81657 Project Address: 300 E LIONSHEAD CR VAIL Location: VAIL INTERNATIONAL CONDOS • Legal Description: Lot: 4 Block: 1 Subdivision: VAIL INTERNATIONAL Parcel Number: 2101-064-0205-7 Comments: Ordinance No. 5 Series of 2007 BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Moffet Action: APPROVED Second By: Newbury Vote: 6-1-0 Date of Approval: 02/06/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:113 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. • Planner: George Ruther PEC Fee Paid: $1,300.00 ~ Ptanning and Environmental Commisson i ACTION FORM , 0VOIF-i Depa rtment of Community Develapment 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorada 81657 tel: 970.474.2139 fax: 970,479.2452 wab: www.aailgov.corn Project Name: TIMBERLINE CUP FOR EHU'S PEC Number: PEC060083 Project Description: TIMBERLINE LODGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FORMER ROOST LODGE)-FINAL APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE TO INCORPORATE TYPE 3 EHU'S INTO THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR TIMBERLINE LODGE Participants: ~ OWNER TIMBERLINE ROOST LODGE LLC 11/21/2006 I 12 VAIL RD VAIL CO 81657 I APPLICANT TIMBERLINE ROOST LODGE LLC 11/21/2006 12 VAIL RD VAIL CO 81657 Project Address: 1783 N FRONTAGE RD WEST VAIL Location: THE ROOST LODGE • Lega) Description: Lot: 9, 1 Block: Subdivision: BUFFER CREEK RESUB Parcel Number: 2103-123-0200-1 Comments; See memo dated 12/11/2006 BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: Cleveland Vote: 5-0-0 Date of Approval: 12/11/2006 Conditions: Cond: 8 ~ (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond: 113 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if • the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. Planner: George Ruther PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 I -r . R[anning and Enrrironmental Commisscfn 0 ACTI+C?N FO?RIr+1 . ~ Department of Community Development TOWN offYVA + 75 Sauth Fronta~ge Road, Vaif, Calarado 81657 tef: 970.479.2139 fax:970.474.2452 00WN,'Y CE,,E,.OPME,,T web: www.vailgav.com Project Name: RITZ MA7 EXT ALT PEC Number: PEC060082 Project Description: Amendment to the major exterior alteration to convert 41 dwelling units to 45 fractional fee club units and add one additional dwelling unit bringing the total number of units to 116. Participants: OWNER VAMHC INC 11/15/2006 PO BOX 7 VAIL CO 81658 APPLICANT BRAUN ASSOCIATES, INC 11/15/2006 Phone: 970-926-7575 ' 225 MAIN STREET, SUITE G- 002 EDWARDS CO 81632 License: C000001546 • Project Address: 715 W LIONSHEAD CR VAIL Location: 728 WEST LIDNSHEAD CR Legal Description: Lot: 2 Block: Subdivision: West Day Parcel Number: 2101-072-1400-1 Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: )ewitt Vote: 5-0-0 Date of Approval: 12/11/2006 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond:113 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing • regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. Cond: CON0008597 That the Developer submits a complete application to the Town of Vail Community r ' 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 Ritr-Carlton Residences improvements. • Cond: CON0008598 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 Ritr-Carlton Residences improvements. Cond: CON0008599 That the Developer prepares a Ritr-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 Ritr-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. Cond: CON0008600 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 for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. Cond: CON0008601 That the Developer provides deed-restricted employee housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) for 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 Ie9allY executed bY the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior I to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements The portion of this amended Ritz-Carlton Residences approved on December 11, 2006, shall be subject to Ordinance 26, Series 2006, and shall be subject to the pending employee housing regufations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications Cond: CON0008602 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, and a fee of $6,500 for the increased peak hour vehicle trips (4 trips) or $26,000, created by the amendment to convert 41 dwelling units to 45 Fractional fee club units and add one (1) additional dwelling unit, as a result of the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. The total fee of $306,000 shall be paid in full by the Developer prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy 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, or part, based upon the completion of certain off-site improvements. If the improvements as shown on the plans entitled 'The Ritr-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. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $800.00 . Rlanning and Enwironmental Comrnisson • ACTION FORM ~ ~ Uepartment of Cam,munity De~Velopment ~~~offix'"VIS ! 75 Sauth Frontage ~toad, Vail, Cal~arado 81657 tet: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 000,,,"FYCE,,,EU0PWr4T web: www.vailgov.tortt i Project Name: Ritz Carlton Res. CUP PEC Number: PEC060081 Project Description: Request for a conditional use permit to add an additional dwelling unit on the garden level and convert 6 dwelling unit CUPs to 6 fractional fee club unit CUPs. Participants: OWNER VAMHC INC 11/15/2006 PO BOX 7 VAIL CO 81658 APPLICANT BRAUN ASSOCIATES, INC 11/15/2006 Phone: 970-926-7575 225 MAIN STREET, SUITE G- 002 EDWARDS CO 81632 License: C000001546 • Project Address: 715 W LIONSHEAD CR VAIL Location: 728 WEST LIONSHEAD CR Lega) Description: Lot: 2 Block: Subdivision: West Day Parcel Number: 2101-072-1400-1 Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: ]ewitt Vote: 5-0-0 Date of Approval: 12/11/2006 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond: 113 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing • regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 Design Review Baard • aCTiON FORM a ~ Department of Cornmunity Development TO N OA ~~?5 Sau[ft Frantage Raad, Vail, Colorada 61fi57 tel:970.479.2139 fax:970.479.2452 CCA,,,,N„Y DEWLOP,,,FNT web: www.vailgou.com Project Name: RITZ CARlTON RES. CNGE TO APPR DRB Number: DR6060556 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL EXTERIOR CHANGES TO THE APPROVED PLANS FOR THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL Participants: OWNER VAMHC INC 12/08/2006 PO BOX 7 ~ VAIL CO 81658 APPLICANT BAILEY & PETERSON 12/08/2006 Phone: 970-476-0092 108 S. FRONTAGE RD STE 208 VAIL CO 81657 License: C000002169 Location: • Project Address: 715 W LIONSHEAD CR VAIL 728 WEST LIONSHEAD CR Legal Description: Lot: 2 Block: Subdivision: West Day Parcel Number: 2101-072-1400-1 Comments: SEE CONDITIONS BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: STAFFAPR Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: 01/17/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 0 (PLAN): DRB approval does not constitute a permit for building. Please consult with Town of Vail Building personnel prior to construction acfiivities. Cond: 201 I • DRB approval shall not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond:202 Approval of this project shall lapse and become void one (1) year following the date of final approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and is diligently pursued toward completion. ~ - Cond:ll3 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing • regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. Planner: Warren Campbell DRB Pee Paid: $20.00 • ~ I I I I ~ ~ I ~ I ~ Planning and Environmental Cornmisson • ACTION FORM Departrnent of Cammunity Development TOWN,,U qff) 75 South Frontage Raad, Vaik, Colora~do 81fs57' tsl:970.4 74.2139 fax:970,479.2452 eOW,uraM oE,ELrPuENT web: www.vailgov.cam Project Name: BERKOWITZ RESIDENCE PEC Number: PEC060080 Project Description: FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE Participants: OWNER BERKOWITZ, HOWARD P., JUDITHII/13/2006 C/0 HPB ASSOCIATES 65 EAST 55TH ST 30TH FLOOR NEW YORK NY 10022 APPLICANT MAURIELLO PLANNING GROUP, 1-1-11/13/2006 Phone: 970-748-0920 ~ PO BOX 1127 AVON CO 81620 License: C000001697 • Project Address: 315 MILL CREEK CR VAIL Location: 315 MILL CREEK CR Legal Description: Lot: 2 Block: 1 Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 Parcel Nurnber: 2101-082-4800-2 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: K]ESBO Action: APPROVED Second By: JEWITT Vote: 3-2 Date of Approval: 12/11/2006 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond:113 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing • regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. Planner: Bill Gibson PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 Rtanning and EnWironmental Commissan ACTION FORM A Department af Community aevelapment M75 WNw Sautf~ Frontar~e Road, V~ail, ColoradQ 81657 te1:970.479.2139 fax:970.474.2452 0CAWNrr MvELLPMErrr web: www.vailgov.corn Project Name: RIDGE AT VAIL EXEMPTION PLAT PEC Number: PEC060079 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR AN EXEMPTION PLAT TO MODIFY EXISTING LOT LINES TO ELIMINATE ENCROACHMENTS INTO COMMON AREAS. COMBINE 4 OPEN SPACE PARCELS INTO 1 PARCEL. EXCHANGE EQUAL SIZED PARCELS BETWEEN LOT 1 CLIFFSIDE AND THE RIDGE AT VAIL Participants: OWNER ELENIAL NV 11/06/2006 PO BOX 3117 VAIL CO 81658-3117 APPLICANT RIDGE AT VAIL 11/06/2006 Phone: 314-993-8271 CHARLES A. DILL 807 SOUTH WARSON ROAD Sl". LOUIS MO 63124 • Project Address: 1451 LIONS RIDGE LP VAIL Location: THE RIDGE AT VAIL Legal Description: Lot: 5-A, Block: Subdivision: RIDGE AT VAIL TOWNHOMES Parcel Number: 2103-121-1000-1 Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION . Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: Jewitt Vote: 5-0-0 Date of Approval: 12/11/2006 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond:113 A{I development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of • Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 • ~ • • Planning and Environmental Commisson • ACTION FQRM . ~ Department of Cammunity Development ~jj~r /~r tT~ ' 75 South Frontage Raad, Vailr Cobrado 81657 nlr t~t- r tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 ,;00.M.,,J-YcAEVcLOPae:- web: www.vailgav.corn Project Name: CHECK POINT CHARLIE AMENDMEN PEC Number: PEC060078 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE VAIL VILLAGE STREEfSCAPE MASTER PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE POSSIBLE RELOCATION OF CHECK POINT CHARLIE, AND SEMNG FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. Participants: OWNER VAIL COLORADO MUNICIPAL BLDG11/01/2006 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT VAIL COLORADO MUNICIPAL BLDG11/01/2006 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 Project Address: 75 S FRONTAGE RD WEST VAIL Location: VAIL VILLAGE STREEfSCAPE • Legal Description: Lot: A@B Block: 5D Subdivision: Vail Village Filing 1 Parcel Number: 2101-064-0000-3 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: WITHDRWN Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:113 Atl development applications submitted to the Town after the efFective date of Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. • Planner: George Ruther PEC Fee Paid: $0.00 d ui h cdt1t,c'; / 4 0 Pecl~.I Ptanning and Environmenta! Comrnisson ~ ACTION FORM ' A Department of Community i?evelapment TOM OVOINF1 75 Soutf~ Fr~antage Rt~ad, Vaif, Ca€oratlo 81657 tel: 970.474.2139 #ax; 970.479.2452 CCWuNM oE•V,~LOPMEr,T web; www.vai6gov.cam Project Name: CASCADE CLUB TENNIS COURTS PEC Number: PEC060077 Project Description: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE USE OF THE TENNIS COURTS FOR TEMPORARY CONFERENCE FACILITIES Participants: OWNER CASCADE CLUB LTD 10/26/2006 C/0 DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 555 1TfH ST STE 3600 DENVER CO 80202 APPLICANT VAIL CASCADERESORT AND SPA 10/26/2006 Phone: 970-476-6106 1300 WESTHAVEN DR VAQIL CO 81657 • Project Address: 1000 S FRONTAGE RD WEST VAIL Location: CASCADE CLUB TENNIS COURTS Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: CASCADE CLUB CONDO Parcel Number: 2103-121-1500-4 Comments: conditions modified by Town Council BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: MOFFEf Action: APPROVED Second By: NEWBURY Vote: 6-0 Date of Approval: 01/02/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond:il3 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of • Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. Cond: CON0008582 Prior to the applicant's use of the tennis facility for any conference or convention event, the applicant must obtain Town of Vail Police and Public Works Department approval of a"parking management plan". This parking management plan must address all operational issues related to implementing the plan, for example traffic and pedestrian safety, snow maintenance, enforcement, etc. This management plan shali • also prioritize parking locations associated with this conditional use permit as follows: A) Existing Cascade Village Parking Structure; then, B) Lionshead Parking Structure with shuttle service provided by the applicant; then, C) Westhaven Drive; and then, D) South side of the South Frontage Road only adjacent to the Cascade Resort and Spa building between the south guardrail and the Westhaven intersection. Cond: CON0008583 Prior to the app?icant's use of the tennis facility for any conference or convention event in 2007, the applicant must obtain Town of Vail Fire Department "pre-approval" of the conference or convention venue. Cond: CON0008584 Should any conference or convention invoiving attendees who are not the exclusive hotel guests of the Vail Cascade Resort and Spa, the applicant must obtain Town of Vail approval of a parking and shuttle plan prior to the use of the tennis facility for that conference or convention event. Cond: CON0008585 Additional conventions may be held during 2007, if in compliance with the criteria and findings within the staff inemorandum for this conditional use permit dated November 27, 2006. Cond: CON0008586 This conditional use permit approval shall expire on December 31, 2007. Planner: Bill Gibson PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 • • ~ ~ • Planning and Environmental Commisson • aCTION FORM . ~ Department of Community Development r~y~~ ~n ~ 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 Tu r tel: 97€3.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 ,;y.n,JY-Ya'JcuDPuE1.- web: www.vailgov.corn Project Name: THE WILLOWS CUP/EHU PEC Number: PEC060076 Project Description: ' THE WILLOWS REDEVELOPMENT-FINAL APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TYPE III EHU Participants: OWNER WILLOWS CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 10/17/2006 74 WILLOW RD VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT TRIUMPH DEVELOPMENT, LLC 10/17/2006 Phone: 301-657-1112 8120 WOODMONT AVE STE 800 BETHESDA MD 20814 • Project Address: 74 WILLOW RD VAIL Location: THE WILLOWS CONDOS Legal Description: Lot: 8 Block: 6 Subdivision: WILLOWS (THE) Parcel Number: 2101-082-1900-2 Comments: See conditions in the file BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Jewitt Action: APPROVED Second By: Cleveland Vote: 7-0-0 Date of Approval: 11/13/2006 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Planner: PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 ~ Planning and Environmental Carnmissa?n ~ ACTIOtV FORM ~ ~ D€~partrnent af Gommunity Developrnent T~~'"oF T~~ " 75 South Frontage Raad, Vaif, Colorada 81657 te1:970.474.2139 fax.970,479.2452 caaW%rr,Ir,•c~"MErrr web: www.vaiCgiau.com Project Name: LANDMARK MAJ EXT ALT PEC Number: PEC060073 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A MA]OR EXTERIOR ALTERATION-LANDMARK CONDOS RENOVATION AND ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING. Participants: OWNER MARY SULLNAN ]OSEPHS TRUST 10/16/2006 MICHELE H. 1308 E CAMPBELL ST ARLINGTON HEIGHTS IL 60004 APPLICANT FRTRLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS 10/16/2006 Phone: 970-476-6342 , 1650 EAST VAIL VALLEY DR, #C-1 VAIL CO 81657 License: C000001402 I • ARCHITECT FRIfZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS 10/16/2006 Phone: 970-476-6342 1650 EAST VAIL VALLEY DR, #C-1 VAIL CO 81657 License: C000001402 Project Address: 612 W LIONSHEAD CR VAIL Location: LANDMARK CONDOS Legal Description: Lot: 1 Block: 1 Subdivision: LANDMARK VAIL Parcel Number: 2101-063-0700-1 Comments: PIERCE RECUSED BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: KJESBO Action: APPROVED Second By: JEWITT Vote: 5-0-1 Date of Approval: 03/26J2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of . Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:300 PEC approval shali not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval, Cond: CON0008792 Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Design Review approvaf of this proposal. Cond: CON0008793 Prior to applicatiort for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of a construction staging plan for this proposal. • Cond: CON0008794 Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of civil engineering construction plans and off-site improvement plans for this proposal. Cond: CON0008795 Prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy for this proposal, the developer shall provide one deed-restricted employee housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13, Vail Town Code), and that said restrictions shall be made available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. 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. Cond: CON0008796 Prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy for this proposal, the developer shall be assessed a transportation impact fee in the amount of $6,500 per increased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated by this proposal. Planner: Bill Gibson PEC Fee Paid: $800.00 • • P{anning and Environmentat Commisson • ACTION FaRM . l Department af CommunitY Development ?5 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 te1:970.479.2139 fax:970,479.2452 cOO.p.1.+'J-Ya•OIuPo~E web; www.vailgov.corn Project Name: THUROW VARIANCE PEC Number: PEC060072 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE FOR A DECK ENCLOSURE AND DORMER AT UNIT 8 WITH 79 SQ Ff OF GRFA IN THE SEi"BACK Participants: OWNER SUE DUVAL - THUROW TRUST 10/16/2006 125 BOARDWALK PL PARK RIDGE IL 60068 APPLICANT MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC10/16/2006 Phone: 970-471-6122 PO BOX 7760 AVON CO 81620 License: C000001764 ARCHITECT MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC10/16/2006 Phone: 970-471-6122 • PO BOX 7760 AVON CO 81620 License: C000001764 Project Address: 400 E MEADOW DR VAIL Location: TYROLEAN CONDOS UNIT 8 Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: TYROLEAN CONDOS Parcel Number: 2101-082-5200-8 Comments: Overturned by Vail Town Council BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Moffet Action: APPROVED ~ Second By: Foley , Vote: 7-0-0 Date of Approval: 01/02/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:300 • PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Planner: Elisabeth Eckel PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 Planning and EnWironmental Commissan ACTION FORM • Department of Community Develapment 00Fk) 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 te1:970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 C:Y.n,J'J-YO=Mc~~,~~~,- web: www.vailgov.corn Project Name: DAVIDOFF ADDITION PEC Number: PEC060071 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE FOR A DECK ENCLOSURE OF UNIT 5 WITH 147 SQ Ff OF GRFA IN SETBACK Participants: OWNER DAVIDOFF, MARJORIE A. 10/16/2006 2170 HAYES RD GRANVILLE OH 43023 APPLICANT MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC10/16/2006 Phone: 970-471-6122 PO BOX 7760 AVON CO 81620 License: C000001764 ARCHITECT MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC10/16/2006 Phone: 970-471-6122 PO BOX 7760 • AVON CO 81620 License: C000001764 Project Address: 400 E MEADOW DR VAIL Location: TYROLEAN CONDOS UNIT 5 Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: TYROLEAN CONDOS Parcel Number: 2101-082-5200-5 Comments: Overturned by Vail Town Council BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Moffet Action: APPROVED Second By: Foley Vote: 7-0-0 Date of Approval: 01/02/2007 Conditions: . Cond:8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of • approval. Planner: Elisabeth Eckel PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 Planning and Environmental Cammissvn • A?CTI O N FO RM 1 jk Department af CommWnity Development r~Unl~ /~t,nr OF Tl~ ' 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Co{orado 81657 1 Y te{: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 ,,:y.x1.,'4rY07-vcuY'Mr%- web. www.vailgov.corn I Project Name: LEWIS VARIANCE PEC Number: PEC060070 Pro]'ect Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE FOR A DECK ENCLOSURE OF UNIT 3 WITH 197 SQ FT OF GRFA IN SETBACKS Participants: OWNER MORPHEW-LEWIS, PATRICIA A. -10/16/2006 2076 HARDSCRABBLE BOULDER CO 80305 APPLICANT MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC10/16/2006 Phone: 970-471-6122 PO BOX 7760 AVON CO 81620 License: C000001764 ARCHITECT MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC10/16/2006 Phone: 970-471-6122 • PO BOX 7760 AVON CO 81620 License: C000001764 Project Address: 400 E MEADOW DR VAIL Location: TYROLEAN CONDOS UNIT 3 Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Vail Village ist Filing Parcel Number: 2101-082-5200-3 Comments: Overturned by Vail Town Council BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Moffet Action: APPROVED Second By: Foley Vote: 7-0-0 Date of Approval: 01/02/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:300 • PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Planner: Elisabeth Eckel PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 0 ~ Rlanning and Environmental Commisson • ACTI4N FQRM , ~ f3epartment of Cammunity Development rtV y~~ ~ tr~ ~ 75 South Frant~age Road, Vail f Colorado 51657 1 ~ tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 ,,atir.,.,*J-ro=•vcuOPaE'.- web: www.vailgav.corn Project Name: THE WILLOWS CUP PEC Number: PEC060062 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE WILLOWS REDEVELOPMENT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Participants: OWNER WILLOWS CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 08/28/2006 74 WILLOW RD VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT TRIUMPH DEVELOPMENT, LLC 08/28/2006 Phone: 301-657-1112 8120 WOODMONT AVE STE 800 BETHESDA MD 20814 Project Address: 74 WILLOW RD VAIL Location: THE WILLOWS CONDOS • Legal Description: Lot: 8 Block: 6 Subdivision: WILLOWS (THE) Parcel Number: 2101-082-1900-2 Comments: See conditions in the file BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Jewitt Action: APPROVED Second By: Pierce Vote: 7-0-0 Date of Approval: 09/25/2006 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Planner: George Ruther PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 . Planning and Environmental Commisson • kCTION FORM . Department o f Community Develapment Tjn,~lr ur jf ' 75 Sou[h Fr4ntage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 ~1.~ tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970,479.2452 M 130'X.,r.1-ro='Ka'3,;,1^.- web: www.vailgov.corn Project Name: TOV WILDFIRE CODE AMENDMENT PEC Number: PEC060029 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL TO AMEND 12-21 HAZARD REGULATIONS AND 14-10 DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS AND GUIDELINE TO INCLUDE WILDFIRE HAZARD IN THE HAZARD REGULATIONS AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN HIGH WILDFIRE HAZARD ZONES. Participants: OWNER VAIL COLORADO MUNICIPAL BLDG04/06/2006 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 CONTRACTOR TOWN OF VAIL 04/06/2006 Phone: 970-479-2100 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 License: 463-B . APPLICANT TOWN OF VAIL-RACHEL FREIDE 04/06/2006 Phone: 970-479-2100 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 License: 463-B Project Address: 75 S FRONTAGE RD WEST VAIL Location: 75 S FRONTAGE RD Legal Description: Lot: A@B Block: 5D Subdivision: Vail Village Filing 1 Parcel Number: 2101-064-0000-3 Comments: SEE CONDITIONS BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: Cleveland Vote: 5-0-0 Date of Approval: 01/17/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of • Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: RACHEL FRIEDE PEC Fee Paid: $1,300.00 Rlanning and Enairanmentai Carmmisson ~ ACTICIN FORIw+I , Department of Community Develcrpment ~M ~75 Sauth Frontage Road, Vait, Colorado 81557 te1:9 70.479.2139 fax:970.479.2452 coAt,mrrcEvEUxw f,ar web: www.vaifgov.tom ' Project Name: LRMP Amendment West Lionshea PEC Number: PEC060008 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE 'WEST LIONSHEAD' AMENDMENT TO THE LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN Participants: OWNER VAIL CORP 01/18/2006 PO BOX 7 VAIL CO 81658 APPLICANT BRAUN ASSOCIATES, INC 01/18/2006 Phone: 970-926-7575 225 MAIN STREET, SUII"E G- 002 EDWARDS CO 81632 License: C000001546 • Project Address: 953 S FRONTAGE RD WEST VAIL Location: WEST LIONSHEAD Legal Description: Lot: Biock: Subdivision: Unplatted Parcel Number: 2103-121-2400-1 2101-072-0000-2 2103-121-0000-1 2103-121-0000-2 2103-121-0000-4 2103-121-0000-5 2103-121-0900-3 Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: Cleveland Vote: 5-1-0 (Jewitt opposed) Date of Approval: 12/11/2006 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). • Cond: CON0008676 1. The applicant shall have revised copies of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan supplemental Maps A through W addressing atl changes created by the text amendment prior to being scheduled for reading of a Resolution to adopt the changes to the Master Plan. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $1,300.00 • I • • : i`•~; r . qii ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 tel: 970-479-2138 fax: 970-479-2452 web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: WESTHAVEN CONDO PLAT REVIEW Application Type: CondThPl ADM Number: ADM070004 Parcel: 2103-121-0001-7 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR AND ADMINI5TRATIVE CONDO PLAT Participants: OWNER MIRUS LLC 03/26/2007 C/0 WN MANAGEMENT PO BOX 7270 AVON CO 81620 APPLICANT MIRUS LLC 03/26/2007 C/O WN MANAGEMENT PO BOX 7270 AVON CO 81620 Project Address: 1325 WESTHAVEN DR VAIL Location: ~25 WESTHAVEN DRIVE Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: CASCADE VILLAGE Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: STAFFAPR Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: 03/31/2007 Meeting Date: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: CON0008818 The applicant shall add a note to the plat stating the purpose of the plat, prior to submitting mylars for recording. Planner: Warren Campbell DRB Fee Paid: $100.00 ~ ADMiNiSTRATiVE ACTiON FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 tel: 970-479-2138 fax: 970-479-2452 web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: DANTAS 1772 PLAT Application Type: SFPIat 11018 1*789 ADM Number: ADM070002 Parcel: 2103-123-1205-1 Project Description: An amended final plat to adjust platted easements Participants: OWNER DANTAS BUILDERS INC 02/07/2007 PO BOX 4015 AVON CO 81620 APPLICANT DANTAS BUILDERS, INC 02/07/2007 Phone: (970) 376-5444 PO SOX 4015 AVON CO 81620 License: 290-A CONTRACTOR DANTAS BUILDERS, INC 02/07/2007 Phone: (970) 376-5444 1936 WEST GORE CREEK DRIVE i • VAIL CO 81657 License: 290-A Project Address: 172261A E DSRSVAIL Location: 1772 ALPINE DR. { Ia Legal Description: Lot: 10i~tock: Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE WEST FIL 1 Comments: See conditions BOARD/S'TAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: STAFFAPR Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: 02/26/2007 Meeting Date: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: Warren Campbell DRB Fee Paid: $100.00 i 41~rL tif~ ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 tel: 970-479-2138 fax: 970-479-2452 web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: REISS RESIDENCE Appiication Type: CondThPi ADM Number: ADM070001 Parcel: 2101-082-6000-3 Project Description: AMENDED CONDO PLAT FOR UNIT 3, BISHOP PARK CONDOS Participants: OWNER THE RICHARD AND BONNIE REISS0I/02/2007 Phone: 212-535-0158 1001 PARK AVE NEW YORK NY 10028 APPLICANT BISHOP PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOC01/02/2007 953 S. FRONTAGE ROAD W. SUITE 233 VAIL CO 81657 Project Address: 63 WILLOW PL VAIL Location: ~ISHOP PARK CONDOS, UNIT #3 Legal Description: Lot: 1& Block: Subdivision: BISHOP PARK CONDO Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: STAFFAPR Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: 01/15/2007 Meeting Date: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: CON0008626 A check made out to Eagle County in the amount of all recordation fees must be submitted along with two copies of the signed mylars to the Town of Vail for final approval and recordation. Cond: CON0008627 The piat's title block must be updated to include the Lot, Block, and Filing for Bishop Park Condos prior to submittal of the mylars to the Town of Vail for final • approval and recordation. Planner: Bill Gibson DRB Fee Paid: $100.00 ~ A. ~V f + ` ~1~ ~ti~~'~F~' ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 tel: 970-479-2138 fax: 970-479-2452 web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: Lot 5, Blk 9, Vail Intermtn. Appiication Type: DupSubPl ADM Number: ADM060022 Parcel: 2103-143-0103-0 I Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A DUPLEX SUBDIVISION FOR A NEW Participants: OWNER W. L. BROER CONST CO 12/11/2006 Phone: 480-893-9688 11628 S. WARPAINT PHEONIX AZ 85044 APPLICANT PETER COPE 12/11/2006 Phone: 970-479-0795 PO BOX 1832 VAIL CO 81658 Project Address: 2830 BASINGDALE BLVD VAIL Location; 2830 BASINGDALE BLVD. • Legal Description: Lot: 5 Block: 9 Subdivision: VAIL INTERMOUNTAIN DEV S Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Adion: STAFFAPR Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: 12/14/2006 Meeting Date: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these pians may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: Warren Campbel! DRB Fee Paid: $100.00 ' ~ A., • ~ii OWN' OFMITL ADMINISTR,ATIVE ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 tel; 970-479-2138 fax: 970-479-2452 web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: GORE CREEK PLACE PLAT REVIEW Application Type: CondThPl ADM Number: ADM060021 Parcel: 2101-072-0700-2 Project Description: FIANAL APPROVAL FOR A CONDOMINIUM PLAT FOR GORE Participants: OWNER VAIL CORP 12/08/2006 • PO BOX 7 VAIL CO 81658 APPLICANT BAILEY & PET'ERSON 12/08/2006 Phone: 970-476-0092 108 S. FRONTAGE RD STE 208 UAIL CO 81657 License: C000002169 Project Address: 825 FOREST RD VAIL Location; SPRE CREEK PLACE Legal Description: Lot: 3 Block: Subdivision: WEST DAY SUBDIVISION Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: STAFFAPR Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: ' 12/12/2006 Meeting Date: Ccnditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made withoufi the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: Warren Campbeli DRB Fee Paid: $100.00 0 }A. 5• 4,. *Wf1V OF I'ArL ADMYNISI'RATIVE ACTION FORNI Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 tel: 470-479-2138 fax: 970-479-2452 web; www.vailgov.com Project Name: PINOS DEL NORTE Application Type: CondThPl . ADM Number: ADM060001 Parcel: 2101-081-1000-1 Project Description: PINOS DEL NORTE CONDO PLAT Participants: OWNER PINOS DEL NORTE APARTAMENTO 03/14/2006 C/0 TOM NOONAN BOX 69 VAIL CO 81658 APPLICANT KAY LARSON, MANAGER 03/14/2006 Phone: 476-2747 PINOS DEL NORTE CONDO ASSOC. PO BOX 69 VAIL CO 81658 • Project Address: 600 VAIL VALLEY DR VAIL Location: PINOS DEL NORTE Legal Description: Lot: B(ock: C Subdivision: PINOS DEL NORTE Comments: i BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: STAFFAPR Second By: ' Vote: Date of Approval: 01/05/2007 Meeting Date: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of I Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Pianner: Bill Gibson DRB Fee Paid: $100.00 . PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING . ~ , ,y. January 8, 2007 ~rQ~y~ ~ 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Roilie Kjesbo Doug Cahill Bill Pierce Anne Gunion Dick Cleveland Bill Jewitt Chas Bernhardt No Site Visits 45 minutes 1. A request for a worksession to discuss text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to add commercial linkage requirements and inclusionary zoning requirements to I the Zoning Regulations for the purpose of mitigating employee housing impacts resulting from development in the Town of Vai{, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0084) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest ~ ACTION: Tabled to January 22, 2007 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 , • 10 minutes 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, ' Amendment, Vail Town Code, for a Zone District Boundary Amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail to rezone Lot 4, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, from High Density Multiple , Family (HDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use-1 (LMU-1), located at 300 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0085) Applicant: Vail International Condominium Owners Association, represented by Heidi Hansen Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Recommendation of Approval MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 4-3-0 (Cahill, Pierce, Jewiit opposed) George Ruther made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Doug Cahill asked what the current conditions are on the site. George Ruther responded that he did not have that information at this time but could provide it shortly. Bill Jewitt commented that being in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area does not grant specific development rights; however, zoning is the tool that provides for development rights. He commented that increasing the number of dwelling units will increase the traffic on the Frontage Road. He suggested a traffic plan be approved before rezoning the property. Heidi Hansen, the president of the Vail International Homeowners Association, made a ~ presentation as a representative of the applicant. She said that planning for redevelopment of the property is in early stages, but the plans anticipate building family-oriented condominiums, hot beds, underground parking and other amenities that conform with the Lionshead Page 1 ~ Redevelopment Master Plan. She stressed that redevelopment will help to alleviate some safety issues in the building. . Jim Lamont, president of the Vail Viliage Homeowners Association, said that he feit a traffic study would be necessary when a redevelopment application is submitted rather than during a rezoning application. He said that Vail International should be treated equally with their neighbors and get the same development potential as those buildings around Vail International. He asked whether Vail International is in the Lionshead Urban Renewal area. George Ruther acknowledged that a traffic study could be required at the time of development application review. Dick Cleveland said it was his recollection that all properties in the study area are part of the Urban Renewal area. , Jim Lamont continued that lowering the Frontage Road could occur to etiminate the backdoor , access of Vail International and also has other benefits, and would also give more development potential to the Lionshead Parking Structure. He also suggested that a new master plan occur that addresses Frontage Road access, since the WMC is considering expanding to the helipad site. He is looking for more detail in the master plan reiated to the Frontage Road. Dick Cleveland stated that all projects seem to meet the criteria of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. He said it seems that he is bound to approve this rezoning but would prefer to have some idea of what kind of increase would occur on the property. This property has the least impact of any property in Lionshead since it is in between the parking structure and the Dobson Ice Arena. George Ruther then gave information on development statistics and stated that rezoning would ~ only allow 7 net new dwelling units and over 100,000 square feet of additional GRFA. Bill Jewitt said that he is in favor of redevelopment of the property. However, he is concerned about giving away too many rights, but not getting enough benefit for the town. He is still ~ concerned about the Frontage Road and employee housing. ' Rollie Kjesbo said he agrees with Dick that since the criteria is met, he will vote for this item. ' However, the two issues of the Frontage Road and employee housing will need to be addressed at the time of a development application. Bill Pierce asked about the text related to Vail International. He feels that the discussion should be related to how people get from the parking garage to Lionshead. He said that a decrease in cars on East Lionshead Circle will be good for pedestrians. He also said that there should be specific language related to this property in the detailed section. He said that employee housing should be onsite at Vail International in proportions higher than in proposed employee housing legislation. Anne Gunion commented that all the issues discussed were contemplated at the time of the inception of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. An impact fee should have been specifically assessed for the right granted to all properties to increase development potential, but was not done. Chas Bernhardt agreed with Anne and said that the Frontage Road should be enlarged onto ~ these properties. He said giving Vail International the opportunity to triple their GRFA should Page 2 allow the town to place more restrictions on the property to require empioyee housing and other exactions. • George Ruther said that while zoning in most cases supersedes the master plan, the recommendations of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan should be followed. The tools to approve or deny a development application exist in the Master Plan and can be addressed at the time of the development application, not at the time of a rezoning application. He brought up criteria #8 and stated that the PEC should bring up any other criteria to the Town Council when making their recommendation. 15 minutes 3. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, for proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations; Title 13, Subdivision Regulations; and Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, for proposed corrections and clarifications to the Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0088) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Recommendation of Approval ' MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 7-0-0 Rachel Friede made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Rollie Kjesbo voiced his concern over the continued ban on maintenance of existing wood burning fireplaces and feels that this should be addressed. • Bill Jewitt questioned the definition of Employee Housing Unit, which does not include owners of units. Dick Cleveland suggested adding "unless otherwise defined in a deed restriction" to the definition. Dick Cleveland commented that in regulating exterior fire pits, duplexes should be allowed one fire pit per unit. 15 minutes 4. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, for proposed text amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to delete Chapter 7, Development Standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0089) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACT10N: Recommendation of Approval MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 Rachel Friede made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Bill Pierce made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments. Some commissioners were concerned about deleting the entire section due to the nature of master plans and the fact that zoning will always override the master planning document. . Jim Lamont, president of the Vail Village Homeowners Association, noted that there should be language to instruct users of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan that zoning will override the language in Chapter 7. Page 3 J Pierce amended his motion to add language regarding zoning, keep the remaining language in place except striking "Below grade development is not counted as site coverage." Kjesbo . amended his second. 5 minutes 5. A request for a final review of a minor amendment to an Approved Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-8E-18, Amendment Procedures, to allow for an increase in common floor area at Vail's Front Door Skier Services Building, located at 151 Vail Lane/Lot A, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0087) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by S. Jarvie Worcester Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Approved 6. A request for a variance from Chapter 14-3, Residential Access and Parking Standards, and Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to al(ow for the construction of a new driveway, located at 1325 Westhaven Circle/Lot 49, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0086) Applicant: Marc Lessans, represented by William Reslock Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to January 22, 2007 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewiit VOTE: 7-0-0 7. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a request for a final review of variances from Sections 12-7H-10, Setbacks, 12-71-1-14, Site Coverage, and 12-71-1-15, Landscaping and Site • Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an underground parking structure and a staircase within the setbacks, and deviations from the maximum site coverage and minimum landscape area requirements, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Btock 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0074) Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Geoff Wright ~ Planner: Bill Gibson CTI N• A O. Tabted to January 22, 2007 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 8. A request fQr a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master plan, pursuant to Chapter 1, Master Plan Process, to relocate Checkpoint Charlie, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0078) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: George Ruther ACTION: WITHDRAWN 9. Approval of December 11, 2006 minutes MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 10. Information Update 11. Adjournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 • Page 4 . The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Fronfage 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 (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is avaiiable upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) ~ 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing fmpaired, for information. I Community Development Department I Published January 8, 2007, in the Vail Daily. ~ I I I • • Page 5 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator DATE: January 8, 2007 SUBJECT: Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning to generate employee housing units 1. Introduction The Vail Town Council has set a goal of ensuring that there is employee housing available in the Town of Vail for at least 30% of the work force. With the projected job growth and free market real estate trends this will be challenging. In order to achieve this goal a number of strategies will need to be implemented. Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning are tools that Town Council is choosing to implement today. Commercial Linkage is a tool that the Town currently utilizes. In the case of a Special Development District the current requirement is mitigation for 30% of the net new employees generated. If the development complies with underlying zoning then the requirement is reduced to • mitigation for 15% of net new employees. At their January 2, 2006 meeting Town Council agreed that 20% mitigation for net new employees is their preferred new policy along with the addition of an Inclusionary Zoning requirement of 30%. Currently, there are no standards for mitigation. It is anticipated that the new requirements will have specific mitigation standards and also create a fee-in-lieu option. It is anticipated that Town Council would review mitigation preferences on a regular basis. The fee-in-lieu will be updated annually based on current wage information and current real estate prices. II. Time Line April, 2006 Vail Town Council authorizes the expenditure of $17,000 to have RRC Associates, Boulder, Colorado prepare an updated Rational Nexus study for the Town of Vail. This study is legally required for a Commercial Linkage requirement. September, 2006 • RRC Associates presents the completed Rational Nexus study to Town Council. , Town Council determines that maintaining employee housing for at least 30% of • Vail's workforce within the Town of Vail is critical to the long-term success of the community. October, 2006 Town Council reviewed housing policies and programs utilized by other resort communities in Colorado. Town Council determined that Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning are tools the Town should utilize to generate employee housing as new jobs are generated. November 7, 2006 Town Council passed an Emergency Ordinance stating that development projects submitted after this date will be subject to the fiiture housing requirements. The Emergency Ordinance anticipates Housing Ordinance will be adopted by April 15, 2007. December, 2006 Town Cotmcil reviewed various Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning scenarios. Staff recommended Commercial Linkage requirement of 30% and Inclusionary Zoning requirement of 15% for net new residential square feet. Staff • was directed to create additional scenarios placing more emphasis on residential development. January 2, 2007 Staff presented scenarios that placed a greater emphasis on Inclusionary Zoning (residential development). Town Council directed staff to revise the pending Housing Ordinance to include a Commercial Linkage requirement of 20% mitigation for net new employees and an Inclusionary Zoning requirement of 30% of net new residential square feet be created as deed restricted employee housing. Town Council also requested that this be on the agenda at the next evening Town Council meeting (January 16, 2007) to hear public comment. IIL Next Steus January 16, 2007 At Town Council's evening meeting Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning will be on the agenda so Town Council may hear public comment. January 22, 2007 I • . • At the Planning and Environmental Commission's (PEC) meeting staff will provide an overview of the two housing policies that Town Council is considering as well as a summary of public input. February 6, 2007 With public input having been received, Town Council will continue their policy discussion on Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning. February 12, 2007 Staff will request input responding to the Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning requirements and mitigation options. Staff anticipates that this may take two PEC meetings. If necessary this discussion will be continued on February 26, 2007. February 20, 2007 Town Council meeting February 26, 2007 • PEC provides a recommendation to Town Council regarding Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning requirements and mitigation. March 6, 2007 Town Council meeting March 20, 2007 1 " Reading of the Employee Housing Ordinance Apri13, 2007 2"a Reading of the Employee Housing Ordinance I • ~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 8, 2007 SUBJECT: 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, for a zone district boundary amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail to rezone Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing, from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use-1 (LMU- 1), located at 300 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0085) Applicant: Vail International Condominium Owners Association, represented by Heidi Hansen Planner: George Ruther • I. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail International Condominium Association, represented by Heidi Hansen, has submitted a development review application to the Community Development Department to allow for the rezoning of Lot 4, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) District to Lionshead Mixed Use-1 (LMU- 1) District. The applicant has submitted this application in anticipation of the redevelopment of the Vail International Condominiums. Staff is recommending approval of the applicant's development review application. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Vail International Condominium Association, represented by Heidi Hansen, has submitted a development review application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The purpose of the application is to amend the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail whereby Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing is rezoned to Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district. According to the applicant, the rezoning is intended to facilitate the redevelopment of the Vail International Condominiums. A vicinity map of the development site and surrounding area has been attached for reference. (Attachment A) • 1 ~ III. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BODIES Rezoning/Zone District Boundary Amendment Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is advisory to the Town Council. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority on zoning/rezonings. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides a staff inemo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: • The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of a zoning/rezoning. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code) 12-6H-1: Purpose; High Density Multiple Family District The high density multiple-family district is intended to provide sites for multiple-family dwellings at densities fo a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, privafe recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be /ocated in the same district. The high density multiple-family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation communify and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the district. • 2 • 12-7H-1: Purpose; Lionshead Mixed Use-1 District The Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District is intended fo provide sites for a mixture of multiple-family dwellings, lodges, hofels, fracfional fee clubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified developmenf. Lionshead Mixed Use 9 District, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenrties appropriate to the permrtted types of buildings and uses and to 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 the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This Zone District was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goa/ of these incentives is fo 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 Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the rncentrves are created to help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any development/redevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedesfrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway • improvements, and similar improvements. Town of Vail Land Use Plan Chapter ll - Land Use Plan Goals/Policies 9.9 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. • 3 V. ZONING ANALYSIS • The following zoning analysis provides a comparison of the development potential currently allowed for the development site under the High Density Multiple Family District to that of the proposed Lionshead Mixed Use-1 District. Legal Description: Lot 4, block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing Land Use Designation: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Lot Size: 78,976 sq. ft./1.81 acres Development Standard_ HDMF LMU-1 Lot Area: 10,000 sq.ft. min. 10,000 sq.ft. min. Setbacks: 20 ft. min. 10 ft. min. all sides all sides Height: 48 ft. max 82.5 ft. max. 71 ft. average Density Control: 45 d.u.s 63 d.u.s, unlimited a.u.s, f.f.u.s, • e.h.u.s, timeshare (33% over existing or 35 d.u.s/acre whichever is greater) GRFA: 60,028 sq. ft. 197,440 sq. ft. if entire site is buildable (33% over existing or 250% of buildable area whichever is greater) Site Coverage: 43,437 sq. ft. 55,283 sq. ft. (55%) (70%) Landscaping: 23,693 sq.ft. 15,795 sq. ft. (30%) (20%) Parking Per Chapter 10 of Per Chapter 10 of the Zoning the Zoning Regulations Regulations • 4 , • VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoninq North: I-70 ROW N/A South: Recreation General Use East: Residential Lionshead Mixed Use - 1 West: Public Parking General Use VII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Amendment to the Official Zoninq Map of the Town of Vail (rezoninq) Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, Title 12, Zoning Title, of the Vail Town Code authorizes amendments to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, in part, "an applicatron to amend the district boundaries of the Zoning Map may be initiated by petition of any resident or property owner in the Town." Furthermore, Section 12-3-7 C prescribes the criteria and findings the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider with respect to a request to amend the Zoning Map. • The applicant is seeking a recommendation of approval to rezone Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing, from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) District to the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 (LMU-1) District. According to Section 12-3-7 C, of the Vail Town Code, Before acting on an application for a zone drstrict boundary amendment, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider fhe following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendmenf: 1. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and Section IV of this memorandum outlines all of the goals and policies implemented or that are relevant to the proposed rezoning of Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing. The proposed rezoning specifically implements the Vail Land Use Plan land use designation of Lionshead Mixed Use - 1. According to Section 12-7H-1: Purpose; Lionshead Mixed Use-1 District, "The Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District is intended to provide sites for a • 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 5 development. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, in accordance with the • Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is intended fo ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. This District is meant to encourage and provide incenfives for redevelopment in accordance wifh the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan." This Zone District 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 Districf include increases in allowable gross residenfial floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goa/ of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, fhe incentives are created to help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any development/redevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the foilowing amenities wili be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvemenfs, and srmilar improvements. • The proposed rezoning is consistent and compatible with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and the Town's development objectives. 2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the Town's adopted planning documents; and The Lionshead Mixed Use-1 District establishes zoning that is consistent with both existing and proposed uses on the parcel. The proposed use of the property will remain residential thus providing permanent and short-term accommodations for guests and visitors to the Town. Special attention should be given however to the proposed Detailed Plan Recommendations outfined Chapter 5 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The zone district amendment is consistent with existing and potential uses on surrounding properties. According to the Vail Land Use Plan, the adjoining land use designations include Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, Resort Accommodations and Services, Tourist Commercial, Public/Semi Public and Medium Density Residential. Pursuant to the Plan, the existing land use designations are Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, Resort Accommodations and Services. The area governed • by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan is designated as Tourist Commercial. A review of the Zoning Regulations demonstrates that the 6 • uses allowed in the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district are compatible with both the intent and purposes of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, Resort Accommodations and Services and Tourist Commercial land use designations. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and The Lionshead Mixed Use-1 (LMU-1) District is consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. The proposed zone district implements specific goals of the Vail Land Use Plan and Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Staff believes that the proposed re-zoning presents a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship with land uses in the area consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. For example, while the overall density of development on the Vail International Condominium development site will increase as a result of the zone district boundary amendment, the proximity of the development site to the South Frontage Road, the detailed plan recommendations for the development site, and the anticipated off site vehicular and pedestrian improvements ensures a workable relationship among land uses. A review of the purpose statements of the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district and the High Density Multiple Family zone district reveals that both are intended to provide sites for "multiple family • dwellings, lodges, hotels and other uses relate to winter and summer recreation" 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and The proposed re-zoning establishes consistent zoning for the property. This re-zoning will create a zone district consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. The proposed re-zoning and development plan provide for the development of an orderly viable community consistent with the Town's development interests as expressed in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. For instance, the Vail Land Use Plan designates the site as "Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan". The purpose of this land use designation is, in part, "to provide areas where hotel uses will be concentrated, reflecting the community's goal to concentrate hotels within the core areas" : The purpose of the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district is, in part, "to provide sites for lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and timeshares" ,"to provide economic incentives for properties fo redevelop" and "to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing and commercial core area." Staff believes that this amendment furthers the development objectives of the Town and serves the best interest of the community as a whole. • 7 5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse • or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and The proposed re-zoning will not significantly alter the existing character or uses allowed on the site. As such, staff does not for see any adverse impacts on the natural environment to include water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, etc. In fact, given the language as adopted for the detailed recommendations for the site, it could be reasonably expected that beneficial impacts could result from the rezoning and redevelopment of the site. 6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. The Lionshead Mixed Use-1 (LMU-1) District is proposed for the subject property. The proposed zone district is consistent with the intended purpose of that zone district. A copy of the purpose statement of the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district is provided in Section IV of this memorandum. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the • subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. Since the original adoption of zoning on the property, the Town of Vail has undergone an extensive study for the redevelopment of the Lionshead area of Town. As such, the Town has adopted clearly identifiable goals and objectives for development in this general area of Town. In order to ensure that these goals and objectives for development are carried out, the Town adopted two new zone districts; one of which is the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 District. If approved, the applicant will be afforded the opportunity to redevelop the site with the Town's goals in mind. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of an amendment to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, pursuant to Chapter 3, Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to rezone Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Fifing to the Vail Town Council. • 8 • Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: "Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a zone district boundary amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Councrl shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. Thaf fhe amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordrnated and harmonrous development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of fhe highesf quality." IX. ATTACHMENTS • A. Vicinity Map • ~ Vail International Condominiums 300 East Lionshead Circle (Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing) Planning and Environmental Commission - January 8, 2007 - ~ 0 j ~ Subject Site (Vail lnternational) Lionshead Charter Parking Bus Lot , Structure . , ~ - I i r f - l f ; Evergreen Lodge a ~ • ~ ~ ~ _ . _ ~ _ <.~r _ / Dobson ~ !ce Arena Zon i ng Lionshead Mixed Use 1 • _ - Lod9e at ~ General Use Lionshead ~ Natural Area Preservation Vail Valley ~ Medicai Center dfl Housing , ; ~ ' - Parking Lot e . `r, r,~P was c;za[ea oy ine 7own o( Vail GIS workgmup. Use of this map shou eneral purposes only. The Town of Vail tloe5 not waRaM [he aCCUra(.y of th 0 50 100 atlOn COM2ine4 herein. (wnere shown. parcel line work is approximate) r>. . Vail international Condominiums 300 East Lionshead Circle (Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing) Planning and Environmental Commission - January 8, 2007 - _ ( ~ . . . f. a ~ . ' , 3 . . ' ~ ~ * • ~ 'a ' I Subject Site .s,'.',,.., ~ bs' ' .i • ~f,,~ r • r ' (Vail lnternational} *141 , ~ • ~ . ~ ~'~r , • . _ _ ~ • T`. : • ~ ~ ~ * C i ~ , ~ ~ , 4 ~ ' ~ ~ ~ * ~ ' i • : ~ ' ~y . , ~ ° - * ~ t ~ , - - - . • , • r ( i • ~ ` . ~ ~ - ~ ~ • - ~ h ~ e Feet This map was create0 by the Town of Vail GIS workgroup. Use of this map shou eneral purposes only. 100 The TOwn o( Vail tloe5 not warzaM [he eCCUraCy of V1 . a[ion Containetl hefein. 200 (where shown, parcel line wcfk is aDPmxim3[e) . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 8, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations; Title 13, Subdivision Regulations; and Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, for proposed corrections and clarifications to the Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0088) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section • 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations; Title 13, Subdivision Regulations; and Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, for proposed corrections and clarifications to the Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vai! Town Council for the proposed text amendments, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Throughout the development and design review process, the Planning staff has noted problems with specific code sections, many of which have occurred through zoning code amendments, changes in procedures, or errors in codification. Therefore, Staff periodically returns to the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council to "clean-up" the Sign, Zoning, and Subdivision Regulations, and Development Standards Handbook. In addition to text amendments to Titles 12, 13 and 14, Staff is proposing a text amendment to Title 5 regarding limitations on gas appliances. Staff requests that the PEC review these amendments and recommend approval to the Town Council. IIl. BACKGROUND • On October 24, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation to Town Council of approval with conditions regarding a major Code 1 clean-up initiative. Council approved Ordinance 29, Series of 2005, a document with • about 200 pages of changes to the Vail Town Code. Staff realizes the importance of code clean up and will continue to bring amendments to the Code before PEC and Town Council. In response to Ordinance 29, Series of 2005, Sterling Codifiers, the Town of Vail's provider of codification services, sent a letter to the Town outlining errors in codification that needed correction. Many of the proposed text amendments are in response to that letter, which is provided in Attachment A for your review. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 12 Vail Town Code: Zoninq Requlations Chapter 12-1: Title, Purpose and Applicability 12-1-2: Purpose A. Genera/: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the - health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. Chapter 12-3: Administration and Enforcement 12-3-7: AMENDMENT.• C. Criteria And Findings: 2. Prescribed Regulations Amendment: • a. Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in this title, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: (1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and (2) The extent to which fhe text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and (3) The extent to which the text amendment demonstrafes how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of fhe subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and (4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and (5) Such other factors and criteria the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. , Title 13 Vail Town Code: Subdivision Requlations Chapter 13-1: General Provisions 13-1-2: PURPOSE: • A: Statutory Authority: The subdivision regulations contained in this Title have been prepared and enacted in accordance with Co/orado Revised Statutes title 31, 2 • article 23, for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the Town. ~ B. Goals: To these ends, these regulations are intended to protect the environment, to ensure efficient circulation, adequate improvements, sufficient open space and in general, to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the Town. These regulafions also provide for the proper ~ arrangement of streets and ensure proper drstribution of population. The regulafions also coordinate the need for public services with governmenfal improvement programs. Standards for design and construction of improvements are hereby set forth to ensure adequate and convenient traffic circulation, utilities, emergency access, drainage, recreafion and light and air. Also intended is the improvemenf of land records and surveys, plans and plats and to safeguard the interests of the public and subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; and to regulate other matters as the Town Planning and Environmenfal Commission and Town Council may deem necessary in order to protect the best interests of the public. C. Specific Purposes: These regulations are further intended to serve the following specifr'c purposes: 1. To inform each subdivider of fhe standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated, and to provide informatron as to the type and extent of improvements required. 2. To provrde for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the • value of buildings and improvements on the land. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistenf with Town development objectives. 5. To guide public and privafe policy and action in order to provide adequate and , efficient transpo?tation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilitres and generally io provrde thaf public facilities will have sufficrent capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. 6. To provide for accurate legal descrrptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilifies, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability and 6eauty of the community and the value of fhe land. (Ord. 2(1983) § 1) Title 14, Vail Town Code: Development Standards Handbook Chapter 94-9: Administration 94-9-9: Purpose and Intent: It is the purpose of these rules, regulations, and standards to ensure the general health, safety, and welfare of the communify. These rules, regulations, and standards are intended to ensure safe and efficient developmenf within the fown • for pedestrians, vehicular traffic, emergency response fraffic, and the communify at large. The development standards will help protect property values, ensure the aesfhetic quality of the community and ensure adequafe development of property 3 within the Town. • V. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Issue: Chapter 5-3: Air Pollution Control, Vail Town Code, was created in order to regulate wood burning devices and control air pollution within the Town. The specific purposes of this i Chapter are to protect the air quality in the Town; to reverse the continuing trend toward increased air degradation in the Town; to provide heat sources that are efficient and have a I reduced polluting effect; and to generally protect the air for the purpose of the public's overall health, safety and welfare. Staff feels we should continue to regulate the amount of certified solid fuel burning devices and gas log fireplaces (which can be converted to wood burning fireplaces that are not certified) in order to keep the original intent of the regulation. However, in regulating the amount of gas appliances (see definition below), builders have installed electric appliances that are less energy efficient. Staff proposes to deregulate the amount of gas appliances in units. Staff is also correcting an error that requires a gas appliance or gas log fireplace in accommodation units. Staff is proposing to change the term "Restricted Housing Unit" to "Employee Housing Unit" which is the commonly used term in the Vail Town Code. Staff has also added a provision to limit the number of exterior gas appliances to one. Chapter 5-3: Air Pollution Control 5-3-2: DEFINITIONS: A CCOMMODA TION UNIT., 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 anofher accommodation unit or dwelling unit. CERTIFIED SOLID FUEL BURNING DEVICE: A solid fuel burning device which is certified by fhe Environmental Protection Agency and by the Air Pollution Confrol Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to produce seven and five-tenths (7.5) grams of particulates per hour or /ess. This shall include both catalytic and noncatalytic Phase 1l stoves as well as pellet burners and any other technology which can be shown to meet these emission criteria. COMMON AREA: The lobby of any "lodge" (as that term is defined in Title 12, Chapter 2 of this Code), the area of any condominium project available for the common use of all the unit owners and restaurants and bars. DWELLING UNIT: Any room or group of rooms in a single-family, two-family or multiple-family dwelling with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. Employee Housing Unit: A dwelling unit which shall not be leased or renfed for any period /ess than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be occupied by af least one person who is an employee. For the purposes of this definition "employee" shall mean a person who works an average of thirty (30) hours per week or more on a year round basis in Eagle County, Colorado. GAS APPLIANCE: A fully self-contained, Underwriter's Laboratories, Inc., (UL) listed and American Gas Association (AGA) "fireplace" unit which does nof require venting through a chimney and which does not permit fhe use of solid • fuel. GAS LOG FIREPLACE: A fireplace as defined below equipped with an AGA and UL listed artificial log unit which is approved for the burning of natural gas. 4 • oEc-roIGrEn ninic? i?NG i rnur, , SOLID FUEL BURNING DEVICE: Any fireplace, stove, firebox or device intended and/or used for the purpose of burning wood, pulp, paper or other nonliquid or nongaseous fuel. WOOD BURNING FIREPLACE: An open hearth or fire chamber or similar prepared place in which a fire may be made and which is built in conjunction with a chimney. 5-3-3: FIREPLACES AND FUEL BURNING DEVICES RESTRICTED: There shall be no wood burning fireplace and no solid fuel burning device, other than a certified solid fuel burning device, constructed or installed within any dwelling unit, accommodation unit, employee housing unit or common area within the Town. 5-3-4: PERMITTED DEVICES: Certified solid fuel burning devices, gas appliances, and gas log fireplaces shall be permitted to be installed or constructed in dwelling units, accommodation units, restricted dwelling units or common areas subject to the following provisions: • A. Dwelling Units: Dwelling units shall contain not more than one certified solid fuel burning device and, ' ' , , or ' ' , not more than two (2) gas /og fireplaces. and, ' ' , 8. fr~d Dwefflng Employee Housing Units: 'n RestriGted Employee housing units shall contain not more than one gas log fireplace-and, in additien, • C. Accommodafion Units: Accommodation units shall not contain certified so/id fuel burning devices and not more fhan one gas fireplace. ^r~ .n . All gas fireplaces located in accommodation units shall be constructed in such a manner that access to fhe firebox is prohibited except for the purposes of repair and maintenance. A sign shall be placed on each fireplace unit reading: "Caution - Gas Fireplace Only." All gas log fireplaces and gas appliances in accommodation units shall be equipped with a timing device or a thermostaf which shall cause an automatic shutoff of the fire for safety and conservation purposes. D. Common Area: Any common area shall contain not more than one certified solid fuel burning device, or ' one gas log fireplace; er-iri E. Exterior: Each lot shaN have not more than one gas appliance or nof more than one gas log appliance. 5-3-5: NONCONFORMING DEVICES, FIREPLACES AND APPLIANCES: A. Preexisting Devices: 9. Nonconforming solid fuel burning devices, certified solid fuel burning devices, • wood burning fireplaces, gas appliances and gas log fireplaces, lawfully constructed or installed prior to the etfective date hereof, may continue, subjecf to any limitations or restrictions contained in this Section. 5 2. Any certified solid fuel burning devices, gas appliances and gas log fireplaces • lawfuily designed and for which a completed Design Review Board appiication was received by the Department of Community Development prior to August 15, 1991 may be installed or constructed subject to any limitations or restrictions confained in this Secfion. 8. Consolidated Dwelling Unifs To Comply: If one or more separate conforming or nonconforming dwelling units, employee housing units or accommodation units are combined to form one larger dwelling, employee housing unit or accommodation unit, the newly formed unit shall comply in all respecfs with the provisions of this Chapter. C. Moved Or Altered Fireplaces To Comply: No existing wood burning fireplace shall be moved or structurally altered, unless it is modified in such a manner that it complies with all the provisions of fhis Chapter. D. Restored Units To Compiy: Whenever any dweliing unit, accommodation unit, emp/oyee housing unit or common area is substantialiy demolished or destroyed, whether by the intent of its owner or lessee, or by natural disaster, if such dwelling unit, accommodafion unit, FesWsted emp/oyee housing dwelling unit or common area is restored or reconsfructed, it shall meet all the provisions of this Chapter. Issue: An error in codification occurred as a result of a recent ordinance that added new requirements for timeshare units. While a new parking requirement was added for timeshare units, the requirement for accommodation units still includes timeshare units. Staff proposes to delete "(includes timeshare units)" from the accommodation unit parking requirement in order to . resolve this issue. Title 12: Zoning Regulations Chapter 12-10: Off-Street Parking and Loading 12-10-10: PARKING REQUIREMENTS SCHEDULES: Off street parking requirements shall be determined in accordance with the following schedu/es: B. Schedu/e 8 applies to all properties outside Vail's "commercial core areas" (as defined on the town of Vail core area parking maps I and ll, incorporated by reference and available for inspection in the office of the town clerk): Use Parking Requirements Accommodation unit 0.4 space per accommodation unit, plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of gross residential floor area, with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit Banks and financial 1 space per 200 square feet of net floor area institutions Eating and drinking~ 1 space per 120 square feet of seating floor area establishments 6 • Fractional fee club unit 0. 7 space per fractional fee club unit. Hotels with conference facilitres or meeting rooms 0. 7 space per fractional fee club unit, plus 9. D space per 330 square feet of seating floor area devoted to conference facilities or meeting rooms Hospitals 1 space per patienf bed, plus 9.0 space per 950 square feet of net floor area Limited service lodge unit 0. 7 space per limited service lodge unit Medical and dental offices 9 space per 200 square feet of net floor area Multiple-family dwellings If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 500 isquare feet or less: 1.5 spaces If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is more than 500 square feet, but /ess than 2, 000 square feet: 2 spaces If a dwellrng unit,s gross residential floor area is 2, 000 I square feet or more: 2.5 spaces Other professional and 1 space per 250 square feet of nef floor area business offices Quick service 1.0 space per each 200 square feet of net floor area for food/convenience stores the first 1,000 square feet of net floor area: 1.0 space • per 300 square feet for net floor area above 1,000 square feet Recreational facrlities, Parking requirements to be determined by the planning por private and environmental commission ~ Retail stores, personal 9 space per each 300 square feet of net floor area ~ iservices and repair shops ~ , Single-family and two-family If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is /ess idwellings than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 2,000 square feet or more, but less than 4, 000 square feet: 3 spaces If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 4, 000 square feet or more, but less than 5,500 square feet: 4 spaces !f a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 5,500 isquare feet or more: 5 spaces Theaters, meeting rooms, 1 space per 120 square feet of seating floor area convention facilities Timeshare units 0. 7 space per timeshare unit. Hotels with conference facilrties or meeting rooms 0. 7 space per timeshare unit, • plus 1. 0 space per 330 square feet of seating floor area devoted to conference facilities or meeting rooms 7 Any use not listed Parking requirements to be determined by the planning and environmental commission Issue: The Ski Base/Recreation District has been incorrectly referred to as the Ski Base/Recreation 1 District in Subarticle 12-8D-2. Staff proposes to delete the 1 that was added ' in error. Article 12-8D: Ski Base/Recreation (SBR) District ~ 12-8D-2: PERMITTED USES: E. Outside Of Lodge: The following uses shall be permitted outside the main ' base lodge and children's ski school buildings as shown on the approved development plan zoned ski base/recreation 4-district: Issue: When creating the Public Accommodation 2(PA-2) District, it was not added to the chart in 12-13-4 that outlines the types of EHUs allowed in each district. Staff proposes to add PA-2 to the list of zone districts that allow Type III EHUs. This is not a policy change, as Type III EHUs are already a conditional use in the PA-2 District. ' Chapter 12-13: Employee Housing 92-13-4: REQUIREMENTS BY EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT (EHU) TYPE: • ~ F,HU Zoning Districts Ownership/ Additional Adclitional Site Garage Credit/ Parking Minimum/ Densiry Per»ii(ted By Right Or Transference GRFA Coverage /Reduced Storage Requirement Ma.ximzui: CRPA 13y Catrlitional Use Lundscape Area Of An EHU Type Perniitted Use: The GHU may be The EHU Site Cvverage: Allowed 300 sguare Per Per zorte district Couttls as I Priniary/secondary sold or trmisferred is entided The site is entitled feet of garnge area chapter . second uiait residential as separate unit on to an to an additional S per enclosed vehicle 10 of this ori property. Two famrly residerttial t/ae property. addilional percent of site space at a niaximum title as a (Atl with lots less than (Previously required 550 square coverage for EHU. of 2 parking spaces dwelling 14,000 sguare feet) deed restriction on feei. Larrdscaped Area: (600 square feet). unit. both units to allow The site is entitled All units ttot sale.) to a recfuction of constructed with a landscape area by S garage shall be percent (reduced to reguired a ntininmnz 55 percent of site 75 sguare feet of area) for EHU. storage area in additior: to rtormal closet space. This 75 square feet shall be a credit for storage o,rty. Type Conditia:al Use.• Tlte LHUshall not The EHU n/a Al(owed 300 square Per 300 sqtiare feet Allowed as /I Single family residential be sold or is eittitled feet of additiona/ diapter ntinimuni. third urtit on Twn fantily resicleittial transferred to an garage area for 1he 10 of t{:is 1,200 squure feet properry. Prin:ary/secondary separately front the ndclilional EHU. title as a nzarirnuvi. Does not residential zone ctistricts unit it is associated SSO sguare All units iiot dwelling count m ~ eeting mini»>uan !ot with. feet. caistructed with a unit. densit size requiremertts garage shall be Agriculture and open required a mininaum 8 ~ace 75 sq:eare feet of storage area in addition to normal closet space. This 75 square feet shall be a credit for storage only. Type Permilted Use: The EHU may be Per n/a n/a Per A. Dwelling Unit Not counted I III Lionshead mized use 1 sold or transferred section 12- chapter Format: as density. Lionshead rnixed use 2 separately. 1 5-3 of 10 of tl:is 300 square feet Housing tlris title, title. minimum. Conditional Use: type Il! 1,200 square feet Residential cluster einployee maximum. Low densiry multiple- housing B. Dorn:itory ~ family ¢urits are Format.• Medium density excluded 200 square feet multiple family frorn the minimum. High density multiple- calculation SDD square feet ~ family of GRFA, mrzrintum. Public accommodation Dormitory format Public Accommodation may consist of 1 several bedrooms Commercial core 1 sharing common ~ Commercial core 2 kitchen and , Commercial core 3 bathing facilities Commercial service in a variety of certter formals or Arterial btesiness arrangements, in , Parking district wl:ich case may eneral use exceed the 500 ~ki base/ recreation square Type Any dwelling unit may The ENU may only Shall be n/a S{iall be determined by Per Sha!l be Shal/ be ~!V be designated and deed be sold or determined zoning on property. chapter determined by determined restricted as a type IV transferred by zoning 10 of t{iis zoning on by zoning ori enzployee housrng unit, separately. on title as a property. property. unless already property. dwelling designated as an unit. employee housing unit. Type Permitted Use: The F.HU s/:all not The EHU n/a The EHU is not Per 1,200 square feet Coimts as V HiUside residential be sold or rs not entitled to additional chnpter inarimum. secatd unit transferred entitled to garage area credit. 10 ofthis on property. separately froni tlje additional title as a ' unit it is assoeiated CRFA. dwelling with. unit. Type Conditiona! Use: As governed by the A llowable Allowab/e site Reguirentents shall be Per Al/owable GRFA AUowable VI Housing management plan. GRFA coverage and determined by tlle cliapter shall be density sliall Sliall not be shall be landscape area planning and 10 of tltis de[ern:ined by the be subdivided or determined shall be determined environ»7enta/ title or plannrng and deternlined divided into any by the by the plarining and conunission. as environmental by the , form of timeshares, planning environmental required canmission. planning interval ownership, and commission. by lhe atrd er:viroi:- or fractional fee. envirautte planning mental i iita( and commission. i commissio errviron- n. mental commissi on. ~ 9 ' Issue: Ordinance 29, Series of 2005 added the requirements for a site map into Subsection 13- • 8-1 B-2. This eliminates the necessity for a reference to Subsection 13-6-1 B that has the same requirements. Staff proposes to delete this reference. The same issue arose in Subsection 13- 9-1 B-1, where a similar sentence is proposed to be deleted. ~ Chapter 13-8: Duplex Subdivision 13-8-1: APPROVAL AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: B. Submittal Requirements: 9. Site Map; Statement: Two (2) Mylar copies of the duplex subdivision plat shall be submitted to the department of community development. Chapter 13-9: Sin9'le FamilY Subdivisions 13-9-1: APPROVAL AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 8. Submittal Requirements: 1. Site Map; Statement: Two (2) Mylar copies of the subdivision plat shall be submitted to the department of community development. • Issue: Ordinance 7, Series of 2006 amended Subsection 8-1-3A. This has made a reference to this section in Subsection 13-10-5-3 incorrect. Staff proposes to remove this reference, as it is incorrect and unnecessary for the content of the subsection. Chapter 13-10: Construcfion Design Standards, Methods and Details Section 13-10-5: Construction Regulations 13-10-5-3: EXCAVATIONS: F. Street Cleaning: VI/hen any earth, gravel, or other excavated material is caused to roll, flow or wash upon any street, the permittee shall cause the debris to be removed from the street by the end of the workday In the event fhe earth, gravel, or other excavated material so deposited is not removed, the Engineer shall cause such removal and the cost incurred shall be paid by the permittee or deducted from his/her bond. Issue: Understanding the location of the 100 Year Floodplain is essential on a plat. However, the 100 Year Floodplain data may change through updated studies, revisions and adoption of new data. Staff recommends a text amendment to add a note to plats delineating the 100 Year • Floodplain communicating the need to verify floodplain data. This note wiN be included in Chapter 13-11: Sample Certificates, with the title of this Chapter being amended to "Sample Certificates and Plat Notes." In the future, other required plat notes can be put in this Chapter. 10 • Chapter 93-19: Sample Certificates and Plat Notes Section 93-11-12: Plat Notes A. Floodplain Plat Note: The following plat note shall be added to plats that delineate 100 Year Floodplain data: "The 100 Year Floodplain line as shown hereon is based on the Town of Vail adopted FEMA Floodplain Study or the best available Floodplain data as approved by the Town of Vail Floodplain Administrator. For future reference, the 100 Year Floodplain line as shown shall be verified for consistency with the currently adopted version of the FEMA Floodplain Study." I fssue: Sections 12-14-19 and 14-10-11 regarding satellite dish antennas are almost identical. However, subsection 12-14-19D1i requires screening for exterior installations in CC1, CC2, LMU-1 and LMU-2. However, an inconsistency is found subsection 14-10-11 C9, which only requires screening for installations in CC1 and CC2. Staff proposes to add LMU-1 and LMU-2 to the zone districts that require screening in 94-10-11C9 to create consistency in the Vail Town Code. ' Title 14: Development Standards Handbook Chapter 94-90: Desrgn Review Standards and Guidelines ' . 14-10-91: SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS: ' C. Compliance With Requirements: 9. Due to the special aesthetic importance of the core areas of the town, exterior installations of satellite dish antennas in commercial cores 1 and 2 and in Lionshead mixed use 1 and 2 shall be permitted only if screened by some type i of enclosing structure. Said structures required fo enclose a satellite dish antenna in these areas shall comply with all applicable zoning regulations and , shall be architecturally compatible with the existing structure. ~ ~ i ~1 Issue: Tabie 8, Summary of Zoning Setback and Development Limitations is out of date. Staff proposes the following text amendments in order to update this table for ease of use by applicants. 8. Summary of Zoning Setback and Development Limitations. This section (Table 8) specifies site development standards for all Zoning Districts in the Town of Vail. These standards shall be considered the minimum i standards. When two or more standards conflict, the more restrictive standard shall apply. Additional and special standards may exist in accordance with Title 12, , Zoning Regulations. Table 8: Summary of Zoning Setback and Development Limitations Zone Districts Max. EHU Min. Min. Deck Min. Deck Max. Max. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max. Parking and Loading Location Density Allowanc Building (ground level) (not ground level) Archite Site Landscap Lot Size Frontage Sq. Building e Setbacks Setback Setback ctura] Coverag e (buildab Area Height Project e Area le area ion in Into sq fr) Setbac k Residential Districts HR 4- 2 units 1 Type 20' front May project not May project not 4' 15% 70% 21,780 50' 80' x 30' flat or See Title 12, Chapter 10, Hillside per lot IV or V 15' rear more than the more than the SO' mansard M*nk4p4-Vail Town Code Residential (units per lot as 15' sides lesser of 10' or'h lesser of 5' or'/z roof may not a the required the required 33' be sold pernutted setback setback sloping separatel use roof SFR 1 unit per ]'I'ype IT 20' front May project not May project not 4' 20% 60% 12,500 30' SO' x 30' flat or See Title 12, Chapter 10, Single Family lot per lot as 15' rear more than the more than the 80' mansard ~4~tic~a~Vail Town Code Residentia] a 15' sides lesser of 10' or'/z lesser of 5' or'/s roof condition the required the required 33' al use setback setback sloping roof R& P/S 2 units Type I 20' front May project not May project not 4' 20% 60% 15,000 30' 80' x 30' flat or See Title 12, Chapter 10, Two-Family per ]ot Type N 15' rear more than the more than the 80' mansard M4nk4p4-Vail Towa Code Residential & as a ] 5' sides lesser of 10' or'/: lesser of 5' or'/: roof Two Fanuly permitte the required the required 33' Primary/ d use, 4- setback setback sloping Secondary Type II roof per lot as a condition al use ~ 12• • ~ • ~ ~ . RC 6 units Type IV 20' front May project not May project not 4' 25% 60% 15,000 30' 80' x 30' flat or No parking in front setback. Residential per acre as a 15' rear more than the more than the (min. 80' mansard At least 1 parking space per unit Cluster permitte 15' sides lesser of 10' or'/s lesser of 5' or'/z 8,000 of roof shall be located within the main d use, the required the required buildab] 33' building(s) or accessory garage. Type III setback setback e area) sloping , Type 13.1 roof as a condition al use I LDMF 9 units Type IV 20' front May project not May project not 4' 35% 40% 10,000 30' 80' x 35' flat or No parking in front setback. I Low Density per acre as 20' rear more than the more than the 80' mansard Multiple permitte 20' sides lesser of 10' or lesser of 5' or %z roof Family d use the required the required 38' Type III setback setback sloping Type W roof as a condition al use MDMF 18 units Type IV 20' front May project not May project not 4' 45% 30% 10,000 30' 80' x 35' flat No parking or loading in front Medium per acre as a 20' rear more than the more than the 80' or setback. Density permitte 20' sides lesser of 10' or'/z lesser of 5' or'/: mansard 50% of parking shall be located in Multiple d use, the required the required roof main building(s) & hidden from Family Type III setback setback 38' public view or shall be completely T-ype-W sloping hidden from public view from as a roof adjoining properties within a condiYion landscape berm. al use HDMF 25 units Type IV 20' front May project not May project not 4' 55% 30% 10,000 30' 80' x 45' flat or No parking in front setback. High Density per acre as a 20' rear more than the more than the 80' mansard 75% of parking shall be located in Multiple permitte 20' sides lesser of 10' or'/z lesser of 5' or'/~ roof main building(s) & hidden from Family d use, the required the required 48' public view or shall be completely Type III setback setback sloping hidden from public view from T-59e--I.7,z roof adjoining properties within a as a landscape berm. condition al use 13 H Subject Deed 20' 4' 55% 30% Prescri Prescri Prescri Prescribe No parking or loading in any Housing to PEC restricte front and up bed by bed by bed by d by setback. A parkiag and in d 20' rear to 75% PEC PEC PEC PEC management plan is required conjuncti employee 20' sides at and shall be approved by the on with housing discreti PEC. Off street parking shall be EHUs units Variatio on of provided in accordance with permitte ns may PEC Chapter 12-10, Vail Town Code, d use, be with unless a need for fewer parking Type IV approve undergr spaces can be demonstrated in as a d by ound accordance with Article 12-6I. i condition PEC parking al use e ax. EHU Min. Min. Deck Min. Deck Max. Max. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max. Buildin Parkin and Loadin II Zon M g g g I Districts Density Allowance Building (ground (not ground Architectura Site Landscape Lot Size Frontage Square Height Location Setbacks level) level) Setback 1 Coverag Area (buildab Area Setback Projection e le area) Into Setback Commercial Districts PA 25 units per Type IV as 20' front May project May project 4' 65% 30% 10,000 30' 80' x 80' 45' flat or No parking/loading in Public acre a 20' rear not more than not more than 33°,ro s.f. mansard roof front setback. Accommo- permitted 20' sides the lesser of the lesser of 5' 48' sloping roof 75% of parking shall be dation use, Type Variations 10' or %z the or'/z the located in main III may be required required building(s) &hidden T-ype 13.1 approved setback setback from public view as a by PEC conditional and/or use DRB CC1 25 units per Type IV as None* N!A N(A N/A 80%* No 5,000 30' N/A 33' - 60% of No parking shall be Commercial acre a reduction s.f. building provided on-site. Core 1 permitted in existing 43' - 40% of use, Type landscapin building * No loading in front III g unless setback. T3peR1 sufficient as a cause conditional shown* use • 14~ ~ ~ • • CC2 25 units per Type IV as 10' front May project May project 4' 70%*A 20%*1 10,000 30' 80' x 80' 45' flat and No parking or loading Commercial acre a 10' rear not more than not more than s.f. mansard roof in front setback. Core 2 permitted 10' sides*-* the lesser of the lesser of 5' 48' sloping use, Type 10' or 1/2 the or %2 the roof** 50% of parking shall be IlI required required located in main T3pe-Al setback setback bui(ding(s). as a conditional use CC3 12 units per Type IV as 20' t-e May project May project 4' 40% 25% 25,000 100' N/A 35' flat or No parking or loading Commercial acre a not more than not more than s.f. mansard roof in front setback. Core 3 permitted on exterior the lesser of the lesser of 5' 38' sloping roof use, Type boundaries 10' or'/z the or'/z the IIT of zone required required T25pe-I3.7 district setback setback as a beufidar-ies conditional use CSC 18 units per Type III 20' front May project May project 4' 75% 20% 20,000 100' N/A 35' flat or No parking or loading Commercial acre T5velv 20' rear not more than not more than s.f. mansard roof in front setback. Service as a 20' sides the lesser of the lesser of 5' 38' sloping roof Center conditional 10' or'/z the or'/: the 50% of parking shall be use required required located in main setback setback buildin (s). LMU-1 35 units per Type IV as 10' atl May project May project 4' 70% 20°/a 10,000 none N/A 71' average 50% of parking must be Lionshead acre a not more than not more than s.f. 82.5' max. located within the main Mixed Use or 33% permitted the lesser of the lesser of 5' building or buildings increase use,-Type 10' or'h the or'/2 the ' over ~R required required existing T-5pe 13.7 setback setback units on as-a property EORditiOR84 ~se LMU-2 35 units per Type IV as 10' all May project May project 4' 70% 20% 10,000 none N/A 71' average 50% of parking must be Lionshead acre a not more than not more than s.f. 82.5 max located within the main Mixed Use 33% permitted the lesser of the lesser of 5' building or buildings 2 increase use;T}y3e 10' or'/z the or'/: the over IN required required existing T-3pe-13.1 setback setback units on as-a property eondi#ena1 tise 15 ABD 25 units per Type III 15' front May project May project 4' 60% 25% 25,000 100' N/A 32' (up to 70% of No parking or loading in Arterial acre T}Te-A, 60% not more than not more than s.f. roofl front setback. Business as a along S. the lesser of the lesser of 5' 40' (other portion conditional Frontage Rd 10' or'/z the or'/z the of the roofl use 20' for required required remaining setback setback Min. slope shall 40%) be 3:12 15' side 10% of roof may (bldg ht < be flat 20') 20' side (bldg ht >20') 10' rear , HS N/A N/A 20' front May project May project 4' 75% 10% 10,000 50' N/A 35' flat or No parking or loading in Heavy 20' rear not more than not more than s.f mansard roof front setback. Service 20' sides the lesser of the lesser of 5' 38' sloping roof Underground parking 10' or'/z the or'/z the may be in setback. required required setback setback PA-2 25 units Type IV as 20' front May project May project 4' 65% 30% 10,000 30' 80' x 80' 45' flat or No parking/loadiog in Public per acre a 20' rear oot more not more than s.f. mansard roof front setback. Accommo- permitted 20' sides than the the lesser of 5' 48' sloping roof 75% of parking shall dation use, Type Variations lesser of 10' or'/: the be located in main III as a may be or'/: the required building(s) & hidden conditional approved required setback from public view use by PEC setback and/or DRB • 16~ ~ Zone Districts Max. EHU Min. Min. Deck Min. Max. Mas. Min. Min. Lot Min. Min. Max. Building Parking and Loading Location Density Allowan Building (ground Deck Archite Site Landscape Size Frontag Square Height ce Setbacks levei) (not ctural Coverag Area (buildabl e Area Setback ground Project e e area) level) ion Setback Into Setbac k Open Space and Recreation Districts A 1 unit 1 Type II 20' front May May 4' S% N/A 35 acres N/A N/A 30' flat or No parking in any setback. Agricultural per 35 as a IS' iear project not project not (1 acre mansard roof and Open acres condition 15' sides more than more than buildable) 33' sloping roof Space al use the lesser the lesser of 10' or'/z of 5' or'/2 the the required required setback setback OR N/A N/A 20' front May May 4' S% As N/A N/A N/A 21' flat or See Title 12, Chapter 10, Outdoor 20' rear project not project not determined mansard roof Munisipal Vail Town Code. Recreation 20' sides more than more than by the 24' sloping roof (except as ihe lesser the lesser Design may be of 10' or'/2 of 5' or'h Review further the the Board restricted by required required the PEC in setback setback conjunction with a conditional use ermit NAP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N!A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Set by PEC Natural Area Preservation SBR 1 unit Type III Set by PEC Set-by Sei-4 Set by Set by Set by PEC 40 acres N/A N/A 35' (60% of Set by PEC per 8 as a F-EG F-BG PEC PEC (1 acre building Ski Base acres condition May May buildable) coverage) Recreation al use project project Type Al not more not more 40' (40% of than the than the building lesser of lesser of 5' • coverage) 10' or'h or'/: the the required required setback setback 17 SBR-2 8 units Type III Set by PEC May May 4' Set by Set by PEC 10,000' N/A N/A 43'* 95% of parkiug shall be per as a project project PEC located within the main Ski Base ace condition not more not more building(s) Recreation 2 al use than the than the lesser of lesser of 5' 10'or%: or%:the the required required setback setback Zone Districts Max. EHU Min. Min. Min. Max. Max. Site Min. Min. Lot Min. Min. Max. Parking and Density Allowance Building Deck Deck Architectura Coverage Landscape Size Frontage Square Building Loading Setbacks (ground (not 1 Area (buildable Area Height Location level) ground Projection area) Setback level) Into Setback Setback Special and Miscellaneous Districts P N/A Type III N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A See Title 12, Parking Type IV Chapter 10, as a conditional Altinieipa} use Vail Towu Code. GU Set by Type III Set by PEC May May 4' Set by PEC Set by PEC Set by PEC Set by Set by Set by PEC Set by PEC General Use PEC Type IV project project not PEC PEC as a conditional not more more than use than the the lesser lesser of of 5' or % 10' or'/2 the the required required setback setback SDD Set by Set by Council Set by Set by Set by Set by Set by Council Set by Set by Set by Set by Set by Set by Special Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Development District *unless otherwise designated by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations unless otherwise designated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan ' • 1• • I _ _ - - - - - VI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS • Staff believes that these text amendments are in accordance with the purpose and intent of Titles 12, 13 and 14, as they are all in line with the public interest and serve to ~ improve the Code. The review criteria and factors for consideration for a request of a text amendment to Title 12 are established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12- 3, Vail Town Code. As there are no formal criteria for text amendments to Title 14, the provisions from Title 12 will be used for all proposed text amendment to provide for stringent criteria. A. Consideration of Factors Reqardinq the Text Amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Sign, Zoning and Subdivision Regulations as well as the Development Standards Handbook; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments further the generat and specific purposes of Titles 12 and 14. The text amendments create a more comprehensive, clear, and concise Code that will promote the general welfare of the community. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and ~ policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the deveiopment objectives of the Town; and ' Staff believes that the proposed text amendments better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the development objectives of the Town. ~ 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and I Staff believes that the proposed text amendments align the specific language of the Regulations with the accepted interpretation and implementation of the regulations. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff believes that the proposed text amendments will facilitate and provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations that are consistent with the Town of Vail master plans and development objectives. ~ 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. 19 . B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followinq findings • before forwardinq a recommendation of approval for a text amendment: 1. That the amendments are c n' o sistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatib{e with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendments further the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the Development Review Handbook; and 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendatian of approval to the Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations; Title 13, Subdivision Regulations; and Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, for proposed corrections and clarifications to the Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. . Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve these proposed text amendments, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for fhe Town of Vail's requesf, pursuant to Section 92-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for proposed text amendmenfs to Tifle 12, Zoning Regulafions; Title 13, Subdivision Regulations; and Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, for proposed corrections and clarifications fo fhe Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning And Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the proposed amendments staff recommends that the following findings be incorporated into a motion: "1. That the amendmenfs are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of fhe Town, and 2. That the amendments further the general and specific purposes af the Sign, Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and the Development Standards Handbook; and ~ 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare 20 . . ~ of the Town and promote fhe coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest guality." VIII. ATTACHMENTS A. Letter from Sterling Codifiers to Lorelai Donaldson, Town Cierk, dated September 14, 2006 ~ ~ • 21 I r Attachment A I , ' • September 14, 2006 Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: POSStBLE CODE CONFLICTS Dear Lorelei: Enclosed is !he next supplement to your code. When codifying the ordinances in this supplement, we noticed the following: Ordinance 24, Series of 2005 . Subsection 12-10-10B regarding parking outside Vail's commercial core areas indicates that the accommodation unit use includes timeshare units. However, there is also a new use added for timeshare units with different parking requirements than shown for the accommodation unit use. As such, there appears to be a conflict in the parking requirements for timeshare units. Subsequent ordinance 2, series of 2006 also inciudes this same subsection 12-10-10B but . does not include timeshare units as a use, nor as stricken through text. which denotes deletion per the ordinance instructions, hence it appears that the timeshare unit use added by ordinance 24, series of 2005 should be retained. fn addition, ordinance 24, series of 2005 added fractional fee club unit as a use in subsection 12-10-10B. Although it was not included in subsequent ordinance 2, series of 2006, it was aiso not shown with the text stricken through and we therefore retained that use. Please review subsection 12-10-10B for both these issues. Ordinance 29, Series of 2005 The definition for "Frontage, Linear" was added to section 1 1-2-1. Figure 3 in section 1 1-6-3 aPPears to be out of date with this new definition. Subsection 12-8D-2E added the phrase "zoned ski base/recreation 1 district" to the text of the introductory language. However, in no other place was the "1" added to the ski base/recreation district name. You may want to review this article and make the language ~ consistent. v~ This ordinance revised chapter 8, "Duplex Subdivisions", and chapter 9, "Single-Family Subdivisions", of title 13. In subsections 13-8-1B1 and 13-9-1 B1 the text refers the reader to requirements in subsection 13-6-18 which are requirements for condominium and ~ ~ townhouse plats. However, requirements for the duplex subdivision plat and the • single-family subdivision plat are now included in subsections 13-8-1 B2 and 13-9-1 B2 . respectivefy. We did not change these references since the text at 13-6-1 B, although substantially the same, has slight differences from subsections 13-8-162 and 13-9-162 and we were therefore unsure if the reference should be changed. As such, we are bringing this to your attention for review. Ordinance 2. Series of 2006 7he new public accommodation (PA-2) district added by this ordinance was not added to the chart at section 12-13-4. Is this correct? Ordinance 7, Series of 2006 This ordinance amended subsection 8-1-3A. We noticed that subsection 13-10-5-3F, regarding street cleaning, refers to subsection 8-1-3A. This appears to be an incorrect reference. Development Standards Handbook The development standards handbook was codified in title 14 of your code. The following comments refer to title 14: The table at section 14-8-1 is missing the H, I and SBR2 districts as well as the new PA-2 district. In addition, although the introductary language indicates that where a conflict appears with title 12 the more restrictive standard applies, the town may want to review the table to ensure it is updated with the revisions made in ordinance 29, series of 2005, since we found many discrepancies (primarily in the "EHU Allowance" column of the table). We noticed that the text at sections 12-14-19 and 14-10-11 regarding satellite dish • antennas is almost identical, but subsection 12-14-19D1i requires screening for exterior installations in commercial cores 1 and 2 and in the LMU-1 and LMU-2 districts, whereas subsection 14-10-11 C9 only requires screening for installations in commercial cores 1 and 2. Unless otherwise indicated, we have left the above "as is" in the code as we are sure you will want to review this information and pass an amending ordinance if necessary to bring the code current. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Sterlin ' ' rs, Inc. , /C Robertson S. Rollins Vice President • ~ MEMORANDUM i • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 8, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, for proposed text amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to delete Chapter 7, Development Standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0089) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST i The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, of proposed text amendments to delete the content of Chapter 7, • Development Standards, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and add an explanation of the deletion in its place. The purpose of this amendment is to remove all confusion of conflicting information in the Lionshead Redevelopment ' Master Plan and the Zoning Regulations. The amendment is NOT to amend or 'I otherwise alter the overall goals, objectives and policies as stated in the Master I Plan. This arnendment is being proposed and shall be considered in accordance with Section 2 8 Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed text amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. II. BACKGROUND The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was adopted on December 15, 1998 by the Vail Town Council. The purpose of Chapter 7 is to outline recommended development standards for private property in the Lionshead study area. On April 6, 1999, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance 3, Series of 1999, which amended the Zoning Regulations and created the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 • and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Districts. These districts were established to implement the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and were based on the 1 recommendations made in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. • However, the recommendations for development standards in Chapter 7 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan were not all implemented in the LMU-1 and LMU-2 Districts. Since the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was adopted, the Zoning Regulations have been amended to include development parameters for the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Districts. The development standards in the Zoning Regulations are legally binding, whereas the Lionshead Redeve{opment Master Plan is a planning document for reference and is not codified. Recently, applications for redevelopment in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area have referred to development standards outlined in Chapter 7 as the basis for redevelopment. However, these development standards are not legally binding and are subject to the more stringent criteria outlined in the Zoning Regulations, which are legally binding. III. PROPOSED MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT Additions are in bold, and deletions are in tFi'-°+hF^W^" Chapter 7: Development Standards The intent of this Chapter was to outline recommended development • standards for zoning in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. Since the inception of this plan, the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and 2 Districts have been established in the Zoning Regulations, which outfine development standards for these districts. Therefore, this Chapter has been deleted to remove any confusion regarding conflicting information. I . , . . , fat+v r~i~cC~S ~rrc. o TE~R~u@d fBfvv n.+~ hor. r~. n1.~nrdnrrl O ri~ prvr- aic o~c-rr~~f in-rv~.. /m "''r ~"vrrc ' lI.~ .+niJLFit/n+iYvI.~ o }h~+n .+n..+her, ih~.4 in #ho ct.~nrlarrd thni c~L~.ell hr+ iL+e limi#i.+r. f..n+.~r ZLI TTIUTIZITIVCII . These-statadaFds-de-ne#-FepFese?at e„+;+n~en+s ; , FeF eXaMpl„ ;,e- GRF4-r-at+e e#-a-pFe fest-sanns#be fnetafteF ##e-bu+Id+ng#e+gh#, set ^ ^ ~~{-.o~ n A11r..h~+on~~ ~r..l y.~~ ~\JiQ.lolinVIlTfIJ c-+..cirl.~rrlc F~.~~ro b~oen n r~lier!, Fh.~r~ +F~n+ r. e~n+ :c r+of V~IIVIZ111ILV[lJlUl I e#+tled-te t#-ie-FnaxoFnuFn--allewable-r'~€A- ia--t-ki.. ,.ase +h„ „ .,+;+.,+c,,,. ,,.,d quakta#+ve-st,a+~daFds-o#-the-afGh+tee#.,l ~.-design gu;ael;,;eT ,,,,l,talqe ffersedenese eyeF the potential GRFA allOGatmen- 7.4 L.,.,dS,.a.,,, n,-,,., LFenshead-Tk}e Tewn's edFFent-sta-n~aFd, w,ns"-app;;es to-me Fn .,r+., ..f sices~ • 2 I 0 . ~ 7.2 c,fe r,.,,,,.ago • , GUFFent , , 0 ~ . . . . . , • 7,4 Gr-ess R nii-lonfial Rel+r r`+.. n _ An iFnpeFtant raempeRent ef the LoeRshead MasteF Plan PFOeess was the aRalysos ef GRFA' . , design . ~ . i Th F'n f r ss Ra PeOF Ar a /r`RCA\ I.~# ~-hr~~~lyd ~ i , , guidelines, not GRFA, ' suffiee. • 3 • 0 r~vic~}inn_r1~~ ellir~r~~ni+n ~ iiow ci4n ~~i~~ ~Irl .-lo.d L r! e 1 rr.~+ ,~...,..,,.,r...~,.. IR G.r7or tr. or~nr~~ ~r.~~e iie~~.~lr.n.v.~n~ ..f li.0 4.~.dv F~ev .1s 'n I' nurr~ 4~0uv.-! ~ w.~~~......~..~y., v~ n... vvu vi v.un~~ti-nr~rv, the masteF plaR FeeeFnFAends that aaeE)FnFnedation units, hetel FGGFns aRd fFaEA*9Ral owneFShip units not be eoURted ffiR the GaleulatieR ef dens'ty. FuFtheF, '"edge • n . , L~y ~vJ r.hie~r.#i~.~.v~rrc.r., z~rc ~F~i~a.. o r.lnn Tinin.. }c.~m roe+~mmer~r~e~ +h.~4 Ir.rlne i~ni+r n r~+ .~c ~ccrz - r~ rFor ef u ~ I v .Jvvc...Ilinn i~r~it /i o. A Ierlne ur~i+n '..i ~n+ n 1..~ollir~g u ri4\ • . ~ -~~1mur y ar~ ~ ti~.. FuFtheF, 9)-. IV. Criteria For Review Amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan require a public hearing review process as outlined in Section 12-3-6 of the Town Code. If approved, amendments are adopted by resolution by the Vail Town Council. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, amendments to the Master Plan must address the following review criteria: How conditions have changed since the plan was adopted: The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was adopted in December of 1998. Since the adoption, the Zoning Regufations were amended to add Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and 2 Districts, and included development parameters for these districts. Since there are some conflicts between the development standards in the Zoning Regulations and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, the more stringent and legally binding document, the Zoning Regulations, apply. . 4 a How the plan is in error: • Chapter 7 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan outlines recommendations for development standards. Some of those recommendations were codified in the Zoning Regulations, while others were changes due to various circumstances. While the recommendations are not in error, they are not the actual standards that have been adopted. How the addition, deletion or change to the plan is in concert with the plan in general: The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan serves as a guide for the Lionshead area, and when Chapter 7 is consulted, it can be confusing for applicants who have not referenced the Zoning Regulations. Not all of the recommendations were taken into consideration, and the deletion of this chapter will eliminate confusion and allow the rest of the document to gain credibifity. Adding a paragraph on the intent of the Chapter and reasons for deletion will aliow for a i historic documentation of this amendment. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ' The Community Development Department recommends that the Town of Vail , Planning & Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 2.8, Lionshead Redevelopment • Master Plan, for proposed text amendments to delete Chapter 7, Development Standards, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council, the Community Development Department recommends that the Commission makes the following finding, "The Commission finds that the proposed text amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan comply with the review criteria outlined in Section !ll of the memorandum to fhe Planning and Environmenfal Commission, dated August 22, 2005, and that the amendments, as proposed, further the goals, o6jecfives and policies, as stated in Chapter 2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Masfer Plan." ~ • ~ 5 r ~ ~ ~OWN OF VAI~ ' Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 www.vailgov.com December 21, 2006 Vail Resorts Development Company (ATTN S. Jarvie Worcester) 137 Benchmark Road P.O. Box 959 Avon, Colorado 81620 and Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission and Adjacent Property Owners; . Dear Mr. Worcester, PEC members, and adjacent property owners; The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Town of Vail Community Development Department has received a request for a minor amendment to the Approved Development Plan for Vail's Front Door, located at 151 Vail Lane. Pursuant to Section 12-8E-18 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, minor amendments to an Approved Development Plan shall be reviewed by the Town staff and the conclusions of the staff's review shall be forwarded to the applicant, adjacent property owners, and the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a request for a final review of a minor amendment to an Approved Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-8E-18, Amendment Procedures, to allow for an increase in common floor area at the Vista Bahn Skier Services Building, located at 151 Vail Lane/Lot A, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0087) On December 11, 2006, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by S. Jarvie Worcester, submitted an Amendment to a Development Plan application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department to allow for a minor amendment to the Approved Development Plan for Vail's Front Door. The purpose of the minor amendment is to allow for the construction of approximately 1,300 square feet of below grade storage area and a • 210 square foot airlock vestibule on the graund level of the Visa Bahn Skier Services Building. The additional square footage being added to the building is noted on Sheets A101 & A103, of the amended plan set dated, December 21, 2006, and attached for reference. ~~J RECYCLED PAPER 1. 1 H. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW AND FINDINGS • A. Section 12-8E-18: Minor Amendment (staff review): modifications to building plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved development plan and are consistent with the design criteria of this Chapter. The Community Development Department has reviewed the Amendment to an Approved Development Plan application and finds that approval of this minor amendment request neither alters the basic intent nor character of the Approved Development Plan for Vail's Front Door project. There is no change in the total number of dwelling units, the amount of allowable gross residential floor, change to the approved setbacks, or the amount of retail/commercial floor area approved for the building. B. Section 12-8E-18(A)(3): Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in subsection 12-8E-18 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 zone district that may be affected by the amendment. Notification shall be postmarked no later than 5 day following staff 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 date and time of the public hearing and a summary of the request • has been provided to all property owners within of adjacent to the Zone District. Based upon review of the criteria for review and findings in Section 12-8E-18, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, the Community Development Department finds that the above- referenced amendment to the Approved Development Plan for Vail's Front Door, located at 151 Vail Lane is approved, with condition(s), in accordance with the procedures as identified in the Vail Town Code. The conditions are as follows: 1) That the Applicant receives final review and approval of the proposed exterior changes to the building from the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to making an application for the issuance of a revised building permit. The approval of this minor amendment will be reported at a public hearing before the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission on Monday, January 8, 2007, at 1:00 p.m. in the Vail Town Council Chambers, located at 75 South Frontage Road. The Planning and Environmenta{ Commission reserves the right to "call up" this staff decision for additional review at this hearing, if deemed necessary. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970-479-2145. Sincerely, rL.~,- George Ruther, AICP • Chief of Planning Town of Vail 2 `5~s. f~~ \ , . ~ ~ ~ \~ra'., ' e',I~' , • . ~~cr o / C \ \ \ ~ ~t~, n ~ ,4i\ ~ J s~,y'a \ "f ~ / ~ \ - ~ ~ '~IN" o, k y R~. ` S^..• ~ h .Ei4.~ -~.`b J 1 ( '4,?~ .Y° ti'y ~ +uad'~aM~`~. ~ " s •s ..~j, - g b ! / b. P S y/ a- :s S f a w a ~ ~.~~rl'"~A' ~ ~ 2 ae~~ f'y~t~.P r'~ ' $ ~ x MR~ zf a ~ DOOR ~A 'S F' IL ~ ~ e, ~ a Cv ~ ~ ~ 72 4~ ~ U • C ~ : ~ ~ / ` ` ~ / . • ~ ~ r,,~\i ~ O r•14~') t~ ~ a ~ ` ~I A,` e ~ 4 ~yi -S / t A i 'J ~ / o O~ 1 1 ~ y N;d °°s ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ Y~p~, 1 ' J, 3~•'' ' i _ "f' ~ • \ ?A $ ~ ~ ~d'~ } ' • ~ c c \ ? ~ ~ ~ ~a~ 9 u p •n ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~i h s 4s~.xW, ' ~ q ? o ~p ~ ~ •K~ D \ p$ ° . U~ ~ Y s x o o~ ° E e~ a~ ~g= o m VAIL' SFRONT DOOR yo S ~ "g9 Hs4 24 „ ' y ~ ' ~ ,4 1~~ ~a~ ~ ~ 'JI- N~t~ ~ ~ Z ~ BU -3 N' _ • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ~ December 11, 2006 TpWNpFyAIL" 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Doug Cahill Chas Bernhardt Dick Cleveland Anne Gunion , Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo ' Bill Pierce Site Visits: None Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 20 minutes 1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master plan, pursuant to Chapter 1, Master Plan Process, to relocate Checkpoint Charlie, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0078) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: George Ruther . ACTION: Tabled to January 8, 2007 • MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 5-0-0 40 minutes 2. A request for a final recommendation of a proposed amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries, and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study "West Lionshead" area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road WesULot 54 and Tract K of G1en Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Recommendation of Approval MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 4-1-0 Warren Campbell presented an overview of the application and the staff memorandum. Jay Peterson, representing Vail Resorts, made a presentation on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Peterson gave a brief presentation on the history of the application and the revisions made to the proposed amendment in response to the input received to date. • There was no public comment. . Page 1 . , , Dick Cleveland inquired about the appropriateness of the information illustrated on Figure 5-25 and the ability of the Commission to enforce the height differences shown on a proposed project. He believed that the height of any future buildings needed to be responsive to the site. ~ Warren Campbell stated that he believed Figure 5-25 would be adequate for the Master Plan in allowing the Commission and architects flexibility in interpreting the stepping of a proposed ~I building in height as it went west. Bill Jewitt expressed concerns about tall buildings on the west side of Red Sandstone Creek. He believes that the proposed amendment fails to meet the criteria in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master. Mr. Jewitt would rather see an SDD for this area of Town rather that a master planned approach to development. ~ Bill Pierce expressed concerns that the lines on the figures crossed the South Frontage Road and thus affected the Glen Lyon Office Building site. The lines on the plans will be amended. Doug Cahill asked to see that the tapering down of the buildings taper down to four stories maximum on the west end of the master plan area. Warren Campbell referenced the proposed figures and maps and recommended that the illustrations be amended to reflect the concerns of the Commission with regard to building height. 30 minutes 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for proposed amendments to Chapters 14-2, Definitions, and 14- 10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to create wildfire regulations and require Class A roof covering materials for all structures within the Town of Vail, and setting forth • details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0029) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Recommendation of approval with amendments MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 5-0-0 Rachet Friede made a presentation per the staff memorandum. She clarified that on page 3, there was an error in the proposed text, which should read, "All structures shall have Class A roof assemblies or shall have Class A roof covering materials, as defined by the adopted building code." She added that per the Commission's request, a press release was issued last week regarding this item. The Commission asked about the effects of the regulations on various special circumstances. Several Commissioners asked questions regarding whether or not the regulation should apply to ' small additions, such as adding a dormer, or to small roof repairs. They also did not befieve an I entire duplex should be required to come into compliance if only one haff needs to change their roof. They were concerned about neighbors who don't get aiong withholding joint ownership approval for re-roofing. The Commissioners felt that these circumstances need to be addressed. Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, commented that wildfire is an important issue that needs to be addressed. He said that while a regulation like this is needed, perhaps such stringent regulations for materials should only apply to structures that are in high wildfire hazard zones of the Town. - Gwen Scalpello, 9 Vail Road, was concerned about how the regulation would affect buildings like • 9 Vail Road and stressed that the regulations need to consider multiple ownership buildings. Page 2 The Commissioners voted 5-0-0 to recommend approval with modifications. They • recommended that Class A roof assemblies or Class A roof covering materials be required on all new construction and re-roofing that replaces more than 50% of the total roof area. 10 minutes 4. A request for a final review of an Exemption Plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Ptat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the modification of existing building envelopes to eliminate encroachments into common area parcels, the combination of several common parcels into a single common parcel, and the exchange of equal sized parcels between Ridge at Vail and Cliffside Lot 1, located at 1460A-F Ridge Lane and 1452 Cliffside Drive/Lots A-L, Ridge at Vail Subdivision, and Lot 1, Cliffside Subdivision and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0079) Applicant: Ridge at Vail Homeowners Association and Mike Young Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-0 Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. The Commission expressed support of the proposed exemption plat. There was no public comment 30 minutes 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council that the Crossroads Reinvestment • Plan is consistent with the Vail Comprehensive Plan. The proposed urban renewal area included in the Crossroads Reinvestment Plan generally includes the Crossroads redevelopment ~ approved by Town of Vail Ordinance No. 5, 2006, and is entirely within Special Devefopment District No. 39, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Reinvestment Authority , Planner. Russ Forrest ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-0 Malcolm Murray, legal counsel for the Vail Reinvestment Authority made a presentation per the staff memorandum. I Dick Cleveland asked where the covenants are that are being removed. ~ Murray said that certain covenants may be reimposed in the future, but those removed will allow redevelopment of the property to occur. Jewitt expressed his support as the proposal was consistent with the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 25 minutes 6. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an addition above an existing garage within the front and side setbacks, located at 315 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 1, ~ • and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0080) Applicant: Howard and Judy Berkowitz, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Bilf Gibson Page 3 ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 3-2-0 (Cahill and Cleveland opposed) . Bill Gibson presented an overview of the application and the staff memorandum. Allison Ochs, Mauriello Planning Group, made a presentation as a representative of the applicant. Ochs outlined the reasons a variance should be granted and reviewed the hardships of the property. There was no public comment. The applicant's representative submitted two letters from the neighbors expressing their support of the application. Bill Pierce said he is not opposed to this because there is little impact to adjacent properties. Dick Cleveland said there were other solutions available that did not require the approval of a setback variance and he will support the staff recommendation for denial. Bill Jewitt said that this is an unusual situation and he will support the variance. Rollie Kjesbo said that a hardship exists, as it was built before zoning and the creek reduces the buildable area. He will support the variance. Doug Cahill noted that the increase in GRFA was from the recent change to the Town Code, • which was not intended to increase the bulk and mass of buildings. He did not support approval of the request. 20 minutes 7. A request for a final 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 12-71-1-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of 45 fractional fee club units and one additional residential dwelling unit, located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Ritz-Carlton Residences) (PEC06-0081 and PEC06-0082). Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-0 CONDITIONS: For Desiqn 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-Carlton Residences improvements. Page 4 Prior to Submittinq for Buildinq Permits . 2) 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 af Vail Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. 3) That the Developer prepares a Ritz-Carlton Residences Site Art in Public P/aces 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 tocation 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-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. 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 for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. Prior to Requestinq a Temporarv Certificate of Occupancv . 5) That the Deve{oper provides deed-restricted employee housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) 12 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 by 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 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. The portion of this amended Ritz-Carlton Residences approved on December 11, 2006, shall be subject to Ordinance 26, Series 2006, and shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications 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, and a fee of $6,500 for the increased-peak hour vehicle trips (4 trips) or $26,000, • created by the amendment to convert 41 dwelling units to 45 Fractional fee club units and add one (1) additionat dwetling unit, as a result of the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. The total fee of $306,000 shall be paid in full by the Page 5 Developer prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy 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, • 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 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 I MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-0 I I Warren Campbell presented an overview of the request and the staff inemorandum. ~ Jay Peterson and Bob Fitzgerald, representing the applicant, further described the application. Doug Cahill asked the appiicants to clarify the changes in the employee generation numbers of the employee housing requirement due to the proposed changes in use. Jay Peterson and Warren Campbell clarified that the increase in the number of employee housing units was the result in the change in uses in the building. The increase in retail and the more intensive employee generating of fraction fee club units resulted in three additional employee housing beds being required. Bill Jewitt asked the staff to clarify how the Town Council's potential new employee housing requirements affected this project. • , Warren Campbell stated that only the amended portion of the Ritz Carlton Residences project would be affect by any change in the employee housing generation. He continued that if there was a change in the employee housing generation a provision the Ritz Carlton Project would be retro-activefy assessed for those changes. ' There was no public comment. Dick Cleveland noted that more fractional fee units were positive for the Town and he would ~ support the other requests as well. Rollie Kjesbo, Bill Jewitt, and Bilf Pierce had no comment. Doug Cahill asked if there were any additional public benefits being proposed to address the additional bulk and mass. Jay Peterson explained how the new fractional fee uses affected the design, and that additional fractional fee units and retail were a public benefit. 10 minutes 8. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7J-3, Conditional Uses, Vai! Town Code, to allow for the construction of three (3) Type III Employee Housing Units, in association with The Timberline Roost Ladge Redevelopment, located at 1783 North Frontage Road/Lots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard • thereto. (PEC06-0083) Applicant: Timberline Roost Lodge Page 6 Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Approved • MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE:5-0-0 George Ruther presented an overview of the application and the staff memorandum. There was no public comment. There was no Commissioner comment. 5 minutes 9. A request for a worksession to discuss text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to add commercial linkage requirements and inclusionary zoning requirements to the Zoning Regulations for the purpose of mitigating employee housing impacts resulting from development in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0084) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to January 8, 2006 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-0 Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator, presented an update to the Commission about potential employee housing regulations currently being discussed by the Town Council. She noted that she will give the Commission a detailed "housing policy 101" presentation at the Cornmission's first meeting in January. At this time the Council is considering both residential and commercial requirements with various mitigation options. • Dominic Mauriello raised the concern of how these potential regulations could affect single family properties. Nina Timm presented an example of how the regulations may apply in a single family example. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, had questions about achieving dispersed employee housing. He also questioned the employee generation assumptions related to part- time residences. 10. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a request for a final review of variances from ~ Sections 12-7H-10, Setbacks, 12-71-1-14, Site Coverage, and 12-71-1-15, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an underground parking structure and a staircase within the setbacks, and deviations from the maximum site coverage and minimum landscape area requirements, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0074) Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Geoff Wright ~ Planner: Bill Gibson ACTtON: Table to January 8, 2007 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 4-0-1 (Pierce recused) 11. Approval of November 27, 2006 minutes - - . MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-0 12. Information Update Page 7 13. Adjournment MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-0 • The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 Development 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 December 8, 2006, in the Vail Daily. • • Page 8 PLANNING AND ENVI v.`NTAL 1822 PUCOMMISS~ Jsnuary 8. 200 7 ;OOpm PROOF OF PUBLICATION TCODME COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WEL- MEMBERS PRESENTMEMBERS ABSEIJT STATE OF COLORADO } No Site Visits J SS• 45 minutes COUNTY OF EAGLE } t.A request fo[ a worksession to discuss text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to add commercial linkage requrce- ments and inclusionary zoning requiremeMS to tlie Zoning Regulations for the purpose of mitigating I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same empioyee housing impacts resuking from develop- ment m the Town of Vad, and setting forth details m Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and ,P~TownoPVail~~4) has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and ~ R"~ F°"eS` uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior YOTION:SECOND:VOTE: to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has 10'"'""ws a e • Cown Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. tiary I The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under ° s; ast ; Colorado's Home Rule provision. °n ad to. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated January 08 A.D. 2007 and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated January 08 A.D. 2007. ~ ~y In witness whereof has here unto set my hand this 12''' January, 2007 Pub ' er, ener an ger itor Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this ~ 12th January, 2007. n I p~ amela Joan Schultz ,~a Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2007 'A4!unw~ ' au1 uo ai! 'nnainaano sjuauuusi1d ~ n+is rr~ w?r ~cr roua rr~o~arr vueucNOnce • • NOTICE IS HEREBV GiYEN that tNe and Environmental Commission of the tow 1 will 1801 12-3-6PVa11 TpwniCodeeon Jan sry . i: ai 2:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: _ PROOF OF PUBLICATION A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town ' Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for a Zone District Boundary I Amendmerrt to the OHicial Zoning Map of the Town STATE OF COLORADO } of Vail to rezone Lot 4, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, from High Density Muttlple Family (HDMF) to Lion- l SS~ shead Mixed Use-1 (LMU-1), locatetl at 300 East 1 Lionshead Circle/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead COUNTY OF EAGLE } ~ilin 3, and setting forth dehils in regard tberero. PE Applicant:Vail Intemational Condominium Owners Association, represented by Heidi Hansen i Planner.George Ruther I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same A request for a variance from Chapter 143, Resi- Dail news a er rinted, in whole or in art and ublished in the Count of Ea le, State of Colorado, and dential Access and Parking Standartls, and Sea ~ y P p p p P y g tion 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, pursuant to Chapter ' has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and 12-17. Variances, Vail Town Code, M allow forthe construction of a new driveway, located at 1325 uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior Westhaven Circle/Lot 49, Glen lyon Subdivision, eCs~ett~6 forth details in regard thereto. to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has ~ II~o~c~Int:Marc Lessans, represented by William Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. P~a„~e~:wan~,camPn~~~ The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Colorado's Home Rule provision. Town Councii, pulsuant taSBCtion 12-3-7, Amendmems, Va* Towm CpRp, ta proppsed text I amendments to Title 12. Zaninp Regufations; Title 13, Subdivision R7gM Titb 14. Devef- That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every oa-n, sta~'~~ vau r~, c«ft g~--~ ~S ~ .a. , number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of ~(~and 8~ ^4 torth detaNs in royar0 rown af vail I said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated December 22 A.D. 2006 and that the last publication ~~F"ede A request for a final recommendation to the Vail of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated December 22 A.D. ZOOG. Town Council, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption n and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead ~ Redevelopment Master Plan, for proposed text ' amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment • Masier Plan to delete Chapter 7, Development In witness whereof has here unto set my hand this 21st December, ZOOE) 3t~ar~ r~PEanC~d~9;ng forth details in regard i Applicent:Town of Vail Planner.iiachel Friede Publish~r/ eneral an er/Editor A request for a finel review of a minor amendment i to an Approved Development Plan, pursuant ro Section 12-8E-18, Arnendment Procedures, to al- Subscribed and sworn to before me, a not ublic in and for the Count of Ea le, State of Colorado this low for an increase in common floor area at Vail~s ' ~ P Y g FroM Door Skier Services Building, located at 151 29th December, ZOOE). Vail Lane/Lot A, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and ' setting forth detaits in regard thereto. (PEC06-0087) ApplicaM:Vait Resorts Development Company, I ~ n represented by S. Jarvie Worcester , i II planner.George Ruther I i 'I The applications and infortnation about the propos- mela Joan Schultz als are available for public inspection during office ! hours at the Town of Vail Commumty Develop- NOt11' pUbI1C ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The y public is invited to attend projecl orieMation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Tovm of Vait Community Development Department. My Commission expires• • November 1, 2007 Please call 970-479-2138 for additional informa- tion. Sign language interpretation is available upon re- quest, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Im- paired, for infortnetion. Published December 22, 2006, in the Vail oaiy.(6ee59) I i 1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING • January 22, 2007 Tp~,J~~~ ~ 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENCE Bill Pierce Rollie Kjesbo Ann Gunion Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Bill Jewitt Dick Cleveland NO Site Visits Driver: George 1. A request for a worksession to discuss text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to add commercial linkage requirements and inclusionary zoning requirements to the Zoning Regulations for the purpose of mitigating employee housing impacts resulting from development in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0084) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Nina Timm ACTION: Worksession, no vote • PEC Comments • Ensure that there is consensus around the goal. • Ensure that the policies achieve the intended goal. • Ensure that the policies are fair and assess the correct proportion of responsibility to the correct parties. • Ensure that there is a reasonable plan to spend any money generated. • Ensure that the long-term consequences are understood about proposed policies and the outcomes are what Vail wants. • April 15, 2007 is unrealistic based on number of outstanding questions/issues. Public Input • Reevaluate burden on local homeowner as proposed. • Reevaluate the use of the RETT - already paid by the development community • Consider the Conference Center funds • Have a plan to spend the money before generating the money. • Tax increase disperses the burden equally • Be reasonable • April 15, 2007 is unrealistic • Commercial Linkage will decrease office space in the TOV • Page 1 2. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the • renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a request for a final review of variances from Sections 12-7H-10, Setbacks, 12-71-1-14, Site Coverage, and 12-71-1-15, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an underground parking structure and a staircase within the setbacks, and deviations from the maximum site coverage and minimum landscape area requirements, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0074) Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Geoff Wright Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to February 12, 2007 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 3. A request for a variance from Chapter 14-3, Residential Access and Parking Standards, and Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new driveway, located at 1325 Westhaven Circle/Lot 49, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0086) Applicant: Marc Lessans, represented by William Reslock Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: WITHDRAWN 4. Approval of January 8, 2007 minutes MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 6-0-0 5. Information Update • 6. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 Development 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 January 19, 2007, in the Vail Daily. • Page 2 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator DATE: January 22, 2007 SUBJECT: Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning to generate employee housing units 1. Introduction The Vail Town Council has set a goal of ensuring that there is employee housing available in the Town of Vail for at least 30% of the work force. With the projected job growth and free market real estate trends this will be challenging. In order to achieve this goal a number of strategies will need to be implemented. Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning are tools that Town Council is choosing to implement today. Commercial Linkage is a tool that the Town currently utilizes. In the case of a Special Development District the current requirement is mitigation for 30% of the net new employees generated. If the development complies with the density controls of the underlying zone district • then the requirement is reduced to mitigation for 15% of net new employees. At their January 2, 2006 meeting Town Council stated that 20% mitigation for net new employees is their preferred new Commercial Linkage policy. At the January 2, 2007 Town Council meeting staff was directed to modify the ~ Employee Housing Ordinance to include an Inclusionary Zoning requirement of 30% net new employees. Following input from the Community, Town Council ~ has requested that staff further determines what measures are needed to achieve the goal of housing 30% of Vail's workforce and what percentage of net new employees generated from residential development must be housed through the use of Inclusionary Zoning in order to achieve that goal. Currently, there is no consistently applied standard for mitigation. It is anticipated that the new requirements will create specific mitigation standards and also create a fee-in-lieu option. The fee-in-lieu will be evaluated on an annual basis. II. Comments and Themes from the Communitv ? A dedicated funding source is critical to the employee housing solutions. Can the focus of these policies disperse the economic burden throughout the community. • o mill levy increase o reallocation of RETT 1 I r o$8.5 million in the conference center fund • o Dedicated sales tax o Aggressive use of TIF o Housing Authority ? Why were these policies not in place prior to the current wave of redevelopment? ? Why is the focus of these policies so heavily weighted on residential development? This is a fundamental change from previous employee housing policy. ? Quantify the true cost of these requirements. Can the market bear the costs? ? Create incentives/remove disincentives for the private sector to develop employee housing. Market-based solutions work best. ? Will these policies stifle growth and redevelopment? ? Can this requirement be phased in to be fair? The November 7, 2006 cut off is arbitrary. III. Comments and Themes from Town Council ? Establish an appropriate minimum threshold to which Inclusionary Zoning should be applied. The goal is not to penalize local residents for improving their homes. o The Town Council expressed interest in exempting either a certain square footage or a certain number of units. • ? Evaluate the mitigation standards to ensure that they are commensurate with the need. o Fee-in-lieu value o Minimum square feet per employee requirement for on-site and off- site units ? Determine a fair way to implement the new requirements. o Either a date certain or phased in over time IV. Request of Planninp, and Environmental Commission In light of the fact the Community and Town Council have expressed concern about the application of Inclusionary Zoning to all residential development, irregardless of size; staff is looking for a recommendation from PEC on an appropriate minimum threshold for these requirements. In the Housing Staff inemo to Town Council a recommendation for an exemption for the first 5,000 square feet of net new gross residential floor area per development parcel was suggested. The Vail Local Housing Authority has given Town Council a recommendation of exempting the first 4,000 square feet of net new gross residential per development parcel. See the memo from the Vail Local Housing Authority, dated January 16, • 2007, attached for reference. 2 V • Any exemption would be applied to all development parcels in the Town of Vail. Attached to this memo please find a series of graphs showing home ownership patterns by size and type of unit. The average size of a unit owned by a"local" is 1,578 square feet. This includes condominiums, townhomes, and single family units. The average size of a single family unit owned by "locals" is 2,816. The average size of a single family unit in the Town of Vail is 2,931 square feet. V. Criteria for Consideration on the Town's Employee Housint! Policv Before recommending an employee housing policy alternative to the Vail Town ~ Council, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission considers the following factors with respect to the employee housing policy amendment: o The policy ensures that there is employee housing available in the Town of Vail for at least 30% of the town's work force? o The policy takes a broad approach towards achieving the community's housing goals? o The policy addresses the housing needs of a wide range of Vail's present and future population (ie, seasonal, local, families, etc.) o The policy can be incorporated into the Town's adopted rules and zoning • regulations. o The policy furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations. o The policy implements and better achieves the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and o The policy demonstrates how employee housing conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the current employee housing policy and how the existing policy is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable. o The policy provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with the Town's development objectives. o The policy promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. o No action is NOT an acceptable alternative. • 3 VI. Next Steps • February 6, 2007 (Town Council) With public input and input from the Planning and Environmental Commission having been received, Town Council will continue their policy discussion on Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning. February 12, 2007 (PEC) Staff will request input responding to the Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning requirements and mitigation options. Staff anticipates that this may take two PEC meetings. If necessary tliis discussion will be continued on February 26, 2007. February 20, 2007 (Town Council) Town Council public hearing February 26, 2007 (PEC) Planning & Environmental Commission public hearing March 6, 2007 (Town Council) • Town Council public hearing March 12, 2007 (PEC) Planning & Environmental Commission public hearing and recommendation to ' Town Council on the proposed employee housing policy March 20, 2007 (Town Council) lst Reading of the Employee Housing Policy Ordinance April 3, 2007 2°d Reading of the Employee Housing Policy Ordinance • 4 • • • Town af Vail - Housing Pragrams and Po[icies Workshop - L R A TE NATIVE TOOLS TO ADDRESS AFFORDABLE ~ HOUSING Vail Town Council Work Session October 10, 2006 ~ Presented by RRC Associates, Inc. and Town of Vail Staff Town of Vail Housing Pragrams and Po[icies Workshdp AGENDA Review of Fundamental Policy Questions; 0 Percentage of total employees you want to house in Vail? ~ • Programs you want to use to ensure that employee housing is being created? • Role of "Catch Up" Tools - The Town wilf need to bear this responsibility - will require funding - Timber Ridge - Largest single opportunity II - Town owned lands - Chamonix, Arosa, Municipal Building,etc. , -"Buy Down" of units to create deed restrictions - Down Payment Assistance • Role of "Keep Up" Too1s - Commercial Linkage - Residential Linkage - Inclusionary Zoning • Discussion of working regionally to address a broader spectrum of housing needs Brief review of Housing Nexus Report ' Consideration of Linkage Draft Ordinance and Consideration of Policy Questions Summary of Findings and Next Steps 2 ~ • • • ~ • Town of Vail - Nousing Pragrams and Policies Workshop ~ ~ Total E m p loyees.Ge.ne rated at . Estimated Build=OUA 1,600 . _ . _ _ ~ . i 1,400 ; E 1,200 ?70% of employees generated -----1 ~ 30% of employees generated E ~ - - - - - - - - - 0 1,000 - - - - - ° ~ 977 F , 800 --------------------------------------F i o L ~ ~ E 600 ~ z ~ 400 473 ~ . , I 200 ~ 0 i Total potential Total net (potential - current) Build-Out Scenario 3 Town of Vail - Housing Programs and Policies Warkshop #1 - Estimated Employees to be Housed - Linkage Only (Ulustrating the Relative Contribution af Various Tools/Techniques) I, 1,400 . . _ . . . 1,200 . ; 1,000 sss "Catch Up" N r: O ppo rtu n ities d Ui y soo 711 "Keep Up" : d ~ Opportunities F i 111 - Corum Proposal a E 600 - ~ ' 0 600 - Currently Housed ' i ~ d E 394 3 400 z ; 200 48 24 0 . Exis6ng Deed Zoned for Timber Ridge Exis6ng Commercial Residential Restricted Units Development - Developer Linkage (30%) Linkage (30%) (Expressed as Town-owned Obligations "Employees Land (Chamonix Housed") and Arosa) 4 40 • • -Town ofi Vail -Housing Programs-and Policies Workshop #2 -Estimated Employees to be Housed -Linkage Plus Inclusonary j ' {Illustrating the Relative Contribution of Various Tools/Techniques~ 1,400 _ .....__~ . .. .. .................... ,.~~.._. ~...._.,w...._,,.,~ .._.._.~.._. _._..~...~_;....._.__....w...._~.;_... .: _.~:.~, 1,200 - u _ _ iJ ~~ 1,000 _ _ - ~. d 800 N d d 0 a w 600 0 d ~ 400 z 200 0 ••catcn up•• Opportunities 48 t I Zoned for Development - Town-0wned Land (Chamonix and Arosa) 711 111 - Corum Proposal 600 -Currently Housed Timber Ridge "Keep Up" Opportunities 394 1 a 220 ~6F 24 J Existing Commercial Residential Inclusionary Developer Linkage (30%) Linkage (30%) Zoning (20%) Obligations 5 Existing Deed Restricted Units (Expressed as "Employees Housed") Town ofi Vail - Housing Pragrams and Policies WorksMop #3 - Estimated Employees ta be Housed - Aggressive "Gatch Up". Effort as we11 as Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary -0 - (Illustrating the Relative Con#ribution of Various Tools/Techniques) 1,4UU . . , . . 1,200 ~ 1,000 I 936 y n n I Ca C~'] U a t p d Opportunities ~ 800 - - ~ ` N ~ "Keep Up" ' :2. Opportunities ~ Q 111 - Corum Proposal j E 600 ` w ~ 600 - Currently Housed i o ! m ~ 394 :3 400 own a, a ing ~ Z Structures, Middle j Bench, etc. ' 220 ~ 200 - - 166 I ; ~ o ~ Existing Deed Zoned for Timber Ridge Existing Commercial Inclusionary Restricted Units Development - Developer Linkage (30%) Znning (20°/a) (Expressed as Town-0wned Obligations "Employees Land (Chamonix Housed") and Arosa) 6 • • • • • • . Town of Vail - Housing Programs and Policies Workshop #4 - Estimated Employees to be Housed - Adjus# Commercial,Linkage to - 20%a, Keep Inclusianary at 2Q°lo {Illustrating the Relative Contribution of Various ToolsiTechniques} 1,400 . , . . . . . . . _ . . . _ _ . , . _ . _ ~ 1,200 r ~ - . f I - 1 l ~ ~ 1,000 a "CatCh Up" d Opportunities U, I ~ ~ 800 ; "Keep Up" ; o 'Opportunities Q '911y- Corum Proposal ~ W 600 0 600 - Currently Housed ' ~ d ~ E 400 z ~ 263 , 220 ; 200 166 ~ ~ 48 i ~ 0 3 Existing Deed Zoned for Timber Ridge Existing Commercial Inciusionary Restricted Units Development- Developer Linkage (20%) Zoning (20%) (Expressed as Town-owned Obliga6ons "Employees Land (Chamonix Housed") and Arosa) 7 Town of Vail Housing Pragrams and Policies Warkshop #5 - Estimated Employees to be Housed - Adjust Residential Linkage to 80%, Keep Inclusionary at 20% (II[ustrating the Relative Contribution of Various Tools/Techniques} 1,400 _.w.....~...._._.._ . . . 1 ~ _ - ~ 1,2oa ~ - I ~ 1.000 - 936 ~ y a n ~ Catch U pn I # E 4) Opportunities ~ 800 = ~ I "Keep Up" ~ a " Opportunities I o, 111 - Corum Proposal E 600 w 0 600 - Currently Housed L Q~ .a j 400 z 220 200 166 48 64 0 - F____1 ::1 F_ Existing Deed Zoned for Timber Ridge Existing Residential Inclusionary Resficted Units Development- Developer Linkage (80%) Zoning (20%) (Expressed as Town-owned Obligations "Employees Land (Chamonix Housed") and Arosa) 8 . • ~ ~ Town ofi Vait - Housing Programs and Policies Warkshop - , Scenario Qevetopment: Linkage and lnclusionary " -{1,395 total employees generated at build-out} 1,400 - _ . .e...~..,_._~ va ~ i 1,200 ~ ~ 1,000 757 781 ' y 913 ? Remaining employees d 977 ~ j 0 Inclusionary zoning ~ $00 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1,111 E Resitlential Linkage ~ ? Commercial Linkage 0 2. 600 - E 220 220 Z ~ 30% of employees 400 5 220 (419total) ~ 200 - 394 - - - - - - 394 - - - - - 394 - - - - - - - - - - - 220 ~ 263 ~ 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 (30% housed): (46% housed): (44% housed): (35% housed): (20% housed): Commercial lkg 30% Commercial lkg 30% Commercial lkg 30%; Commercial lkg 200; Residential lkg 80% Residential lkg 30% Residential lkg 30% Inclusionary 20% Inclusionary 20% Inclusionary 20% Inclusionary 20% 9 Town of Vail - Housing Programs and PoGcies Warkshop Questions Identifie.0 in., the Draft Linkage Ordinance= 1 • Consultants recommend that Linkage requirements not overlap (or minimize overlap) with inclusionary requirements in terms of the AMI range that these two programs serve. Typically Linkage programs might focus, on providing housing for incomes 80% of less of the median, whereas inclusionary often addresses higher income households. If Vail considers inclusionary requirements, in addition to linkage requirements, this distinction will be especially important. What is the Town Council's preference with regard to incorporating both Linkage and Inclusionary Requirements? 10 • • • • • • . , , Town of Vail - Housing Programs and Policies Workshop ` uestions Identifi edin Q the''Draft. , . Linkage Ordinance - Z ~ Deed restrictions should be consistent e. ' g . , it is not recommended that the code permit developers to implement their own deed restrictions, which causes confusion of implementation and operation of the program, as well as public understanding and "user- friendliness". We assume that Vail will want to ensure consistent guidelines. This will require some additional work on the part of staff and/or the Housing Authority. Does the Council want staff to focus on refining the deed restriction requirements. ~l Tawn of:Vail Housing Pragrams and Poficies War[cshop Questions, Identified i:the Draft.,. Linkage C~rdi nance 3 . • The Town may or may not desire to have :exemptions from Linkage, or may desire different exemptions than those included in the Draft Ordinance. We would appreciate guidance on the types of exemptions desired. ; ~ ~ 12 • • 0 s • • Town o# Vail - Housing Programs and Poticies WarKshop 1 Identified ' Quest ot'1s Linkage Ordinan'ce - 4 • There is a need to determine the mitigation rate for Commercial Linkage. -Also, will alternatives to on-site , development will be permitted and, if so, what type? We also request direction on payment in lieu policies and requirements. , • There is a need to determine the mitigation rafie for Residential Linkage. -Also, will alternatives to on-site development will be permitted and, if so, what type? We ' also request direction on payment in lieu policies and requirements - for residential linkage payment in lieu options will be especially important because the requirements typically generate less than whole units. 13 Tawn of Vail - Housing Programs and Policies Warkshop . : QIdentified In the-DrOft Linkage'Ord'inance 5 • The methods of appIYing the formula to existing _ development will be important. The Council is asked to provide some direction to staff/consultants regarding the approach they would like to see pursued. i 14 ~ • ~ • . • ~ Town of Vail - Nousing Pragrams and Pfllicies Workshop . . Questions Identified in the-Draft., , . ~ . . Linkage"Ordinance G • We request Council guidance on the approach to the job generation rates for Residential and Commercial Development. How detailed do you 'want the formula to be? Note that some - communities have required an independent audit of employment levels two years following occupancy in order to reconfirm the employment levels in a development. The pros and cons of this approach should be discussed. 15 ~ . Memo from the Vail Local Housing Authority Date: January 11 `h, 2007 • To: The Vail Town Council and the Vail local residential, business, and development community Regarding: The advancement of employee and affordable housing for the Vail Resort Community Executive Summary: In regards to the current public debate regarding affordable/employee housing within the Town of Vail, the Vail Local Housing Authority supports: • Codifying commercial linkage • Codifying inclusionary zoning • Providing appropriate exemptions for single family or very low density residential developments. • Utilization of the following implementation tools: o On-site mitigation (with qualitative standards) o Off-site mitigation (with qualitative standards) o Pay-in-lieu at $125,000 per employee to be housed (preferred initial option) • Provision for development incentives to reward creation of deed restricted affordable housing • Provision for a housing credit system • Pursuit of affordable/ employee housing options outside TOV boundaries • Establish permanent funding source(s) for affordable housing As members of the Vail Resort Community, and as the board duly appointed and tasked by the Vail Town Council to pursue these vital interests of affordable local housing, the VLHA emphatically supports a robust ongoing dialog regarding the short and long range provision of quality affordable local housing so important • to the Vail Resort Community. Before articulating our position on the most pressing policy matters in this discussion, the VLHA strongly encourages all the stakeholders in this crucial issue to remember and consider the following: • It is vital that the strong desire to come to resolution on these issues does not result in insufficient dialog, inadequate negotiation, or incomplete communication between all the involved parties. Specifically, it is crucial that undue haste in making decisions (even when motivated by a sincere desire for forward progress) does not result in the loss of any potential tools that may help achieve the Town's long range housing goals. This being said, the VLHA encourages all parties to work on these issues with great purpose and all due diligence. • The VLHA believes in the strength of the market as the primary force in ensuring the long range quality and sustainability of the Vail Resort Community. However, we also recognize that there are crucial elements in every community where market forces are not sufficient to ensure this ongoing health and balance. In such instances, it is both the ability and responsibility of the empowered governmental entities to enact and enforce the necessary regulatory provisions to provide this health and balance. The matter of quality affordable local housing is one such issue. • While endorsing the use of fair and well-structured regulatory mechanisms to accomplish the Town of Vail's housing goals, the VLHA encourages the inclusion of appropriate exemptions or limitations that protects the ability of the individual property owner to achieve homeownership and personal financial growth as residents of our community. A specific example of this is detailed herein. • Underlying all the above, the VLHA believes that the well-executed creation and security of quality local • affordable housing is absolutely essential to both the short and long term health and viability of the Vail Resort Community. We affirm the desire of many to see a diverse, sustainable local residential community, but we emphatically stress that the provision of quality employee housmg for our local business community is paramount to Vail's economic future and standing as a world class resort destination. Consistent with the above, the VLHA: • Supports the creation and codification of Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning as the two • principle regulatory tools for meeting the Town of Vail's housing goals. o Important clarification: Inclusionary zoning, as the regulatory mechanism impacting residential development, should include all residential developments in a broad sense. This includes not only pure dwelling units, but also commercially managed fee simple units, fractional fee units, lodging units, and the like. o All deed-restricted local/ affordable housing units should be exempt from these requirements o There should be a limited exemption for individual private property owners who desire to build, rebuilt, or expand their homes for either personal occupation or financial growth. One possible mechanism, for example, would be to exempt from the proposed regulations the first 4,000 square feet of NEW residential floor space. This exemption would not constitute an entitlement of additional development rights, but only would apply to residential creation or expansion already permitted under the TOV's existing codes. Additionally, this exemption would be limited to a single application per development parcel, NOT applicable on a multiplied basis to units within a multi- family or lodging unit development parcel. o If the Town of Vail believed further exemptions to be necessary, a potential option could be to exempt all development on parcels zoned for less than three units. • Encourages the Vail Town Council to give all due consideration to the final inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage percentages. The VLHA believes the currently proposed inclusionary zoning percentage of 30% is likely too high. The final percentage should represent not only the Town of Vail's housing goals but also a fair representation of the employee generation impact caused by residential developments within the town. • • Supports providing the options of on-site mitigation, off-site mitigation, and pay-in-lieu as implementation tools for commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning requirements • Recommends that pay-in-lieu should be the initially preferred mitigation alternative, as this mechanism provides the town with the greatest flexibility in the type, location, and density of affordable local housing units. While pay-in-lieu does place the burden of housing unit delivery on the Town of Vail, the town will benefit from an economy of scale, and the town has demonstrated it's ability to create strong and dynamic housing communities such as the Vail Commons and North Trail Townhomes • Strongly recommends that all on-site and off-site mitigation options include qualitative design standards reflective of the Town of Vail's architecture and quality of life. • Supports a reduction in the currently proposed pay-in-lieu fee of $178,000 per employee to be housed. The eventual agreed upon pay-in-lieu figure should: o Fairly represent the typical cost of an on-site housing unit to a developer, PLUS a premium representing the developers savings in time, design, and other unit delivery factors. (NOTE: The calculated typical cost is NOT the total cost to deliver a unit, but the differential between the units delivery cost and its reduced market value as a deed restricted EHU. In other words, an on-site EHU will still produce a revenue stream, just not a full market revenue stream) o Be an adjustable tigure tied to strong local economic benchmark o Based on the above principles and previous research undertaken by the VLHA, we recommend a pay-• in-lieu fee of 125,000 dollars per employee to be housed. ~ , • Recommends that the Town of Vail provide density and other zoning incentives to enhance the successful irnplementation of both inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage requirements. Incentives • could include consideration of site coverage, height, density, and the like. Such measures have precedent in the Town of Vail (see the Lionshead Master Plan), and will incentivize on-site (and perhaps to a lesser extent off-site) fulfillment of a projects housing obligations. • Recommends the creation of an `employee housing credit system' that will also increase the success of the commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning requirements. Such a system would allow a developer to build or purchase deed-restricted housing units and `bank' them in advance of a future development project. • Recommends pursuing employee housing options outside the boundaries of the Town of Vail. Such opportunities should: o Be `well-located' in proximity to the Town of Vail and public transportation nodes. o Include appropriate mitigation rate increases. For example, if the inclusionary zoning rate within the Town of Vail was `X' percent, the rate for such externally located projects may be `X+Y' percent. • Recommends that the Vail Town Council explore utilization of alternative tools to secure a dedicated housing funding source, such as sales tax, property tax, lodging tax, or the re-allocation of RETT. • Reminds all involved parties that even with the goal of housing 30% of our employees within the Town of Vail, this still ]eaves 70% who must commute into the town. As such, the VLHA strongly encourages the Town of Vail to work with Eagle County and our sister Eagle County municipalities to provide improved, affordable, and new public transit opportunities. • Finally, the VLHA restates is recommendation that all necessary due diligence and negotiation take place on these vitally important measures to the health, viability, and long term sustainability of the Vail Resort Community. • I % of Homes Owned by Size of Residence 60% ~ 50% -48% - - 41% 40% 36% ~ 0 Locals N Out-of-area owners 30% 7% - 20% ' 13%15% ' 10% - o ~ :6% 5/o I 3% 2% 1% 2% 0% , Under 1,000 1,000 to 2,000 2,000 to 3,000 3,000 to 4,000 4,000 to 5,000 Over 5,000 , Sq ft Square Footage o NOTE: "Locals" bars add to 100/o o, . "Out-of-area" bars add to 100/o . • • • ~ • s • % Locai Vail Ownership by Size of Single Family Homes 60% 52% z o 50% 46 /o ~ 40% ~ 37% 34% _ 35 /o ° A. . i ~ ~cu r~ . ~ 30% 24% ~ ~ 20° ~ n = o~ /o . . , r„ O ~a . . . ' : 10% ~ • ~::W, ° - , : ~ _ . . . . ~ . ' 00/0 . , . . . , ; - Under 1,000 1,000 to 2,000 2,000 to 3,0no 3,000 to )00 4,000 to 5,000 Over 5,000 sq ft Scti iare Footage % of Single Family Homes Owned by Size of Residence 45% - 42% 40% - 37% _ 35% 30% 26% ; 0 Locals . . ~ 0 Out-of-area owners 25% 20% 20%20% 18% . - ~ 15% - 10%10% ~ 10% • a-% 5% , I 5% 2% _ 1% ~ 0% . , Under 1,000 1,000 to 2,000 2,000 to 3,000 3,000 to 4,000 4,000 to 5,000 Over 5,000 sq ft Square Footage NOTE: "Locals" bars add to 100%; "Out-of-area" bars add to 100% ~ • • • • • % Local Vail Ownership (Condominiums and Single Family Homes) 40% 38% 35% - 34% 34% 30% - - 28% 29% . ~ , . , i_. - . C 0 a`ni 25% 25 /o ~ 20% ~ : . ~ 15% 3 . , O . . 0 10% - . " 5% ~ . 0% - , Under 1,000 1,000 to 2,000 2,000 to 3,000 3,000 to 4,000 4,000 to 5,000 Over 5,000 sq ft Square Footage *Very few condos over 3,000 square feet (55 total) - single family home influence beyond this point (551 total) % Local Vail Ownership by Size of Condominium 40% o _ I 38 /o i ~ 35% ~ ~ , . , ~ 30% ~ I ~ 26% ~ ~ 25% 20% > 20% a - ~ i ~ - a) 15% 3 ------13%~---- O _ - ~ ~ 10% . _ . . i 5% . 0% Under 1,000 sq ft 1,000 to 2,000 2,000 to 3,000 3,000 or more Square Footage . ~ ~ ~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBUC MEETING • 1. January 8, 2007 1~?W~V 0~' VAII,: " 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Rollie Kjesbo Doug Cahill Bill Pierce Anne Gunion Dick Cleveland Bill Jewitt Chas Bernhardt No Site Visits 45 minutes 1. A request for a worksession to discuss text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to add commercial linkage requirements and inclusionary zoning requirements to the Zoning Regulations for the purpose of mitigating employee housing impacts resulting from development in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0084) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest ACTION: Tabled to January 22, 2007 • MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 10 minutes 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for a Zone District Boundary Amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail to rezone Lot 4, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use-1 (LMU-1), located at 300 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0085) Applicant: Vail International Condominium Owners Association, represented by Heidi Hansen Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Recommendation of Approval MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 4-3-0 (Cahill, Pierce, Jewiit opposed) George Ruther made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Doug Cahill asked what the current conditions are on the site. George Ruther responded that he did not have that information at this time but could provide it shortly. Bill Jewitt commented that being in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area does not grant specific development rights; however, zoning is the tool that provides for development rights. He commented that increasing the number of dwelling units will increase the traffic on the Frontage Road. He suggested a traffic plan be approved before rezoning the property. Heidi Hansen, the president of the Vail International Homeowners Association, made a . presentation as a representative of the applicant. She said that planning for redevelopment of the property is in early stages, but the plans anticipate building family-oriented condominiums, hot beds, underground parking and other amenities that conform with the Lionshead Page 1 Redevelopment Master Plan. She stressed that redevelopment will help to alleviate some safety issues in the building. • Jim Lamont, president of the Vail Village Homeowners Association, said that he felt a traffic study would be necessary when a redevelopment application is submitted rather than during a rezoning application. He said that Vail International should be treated equally with their neighbors and get the same development potential as those buildings around Vail International. He asked whether Vail International is in the Lionshead Urban Renewal area. George Ruther acknowledged that a traffic study could be required at the time of development application review. Dick Cleveland said it was his recollection that al1 properties in the study area are part of the Urban Renewal area. Jim Lamont continued that lowering the Frontage Road could occur to eliminate the backdoor access of Vai( lnternational and also has other benefits, and would also give more development potential to the Lionshead Parking Structure. He also suggested that a new master plan occur that addresses Frontage Road access, since the WMC is considering expanding to the helipad site. He is looking for more detail in the master plan related to the Frontage Road. Dick Cleveland stated that all projects seem to meet the criteria of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. He said it seems that he is bound to approve this rezoning but would prefer to have some idea of what kind of increase would occur on the property. This property has the least impact of any property in Lionshead since it is in between the parking structure and the Dobson Ice Arena. • George Ruther then gave information on development statistics and stated that rezoning would only allow 7 net new dwelling units and over 100,000 square feet of additional GRFA. Bill Jewitt said that he is in favor of redevelopment of the property. However, he is concerned about giving away too many rights, but not getting enough benefit for the town. He is still concerned about the Frontage Road and employee housing. ' Rollie Kjesbo said he agrees with Dick that since the criteria is met, he will vote for this item. However, the two issues of the Frontage Road and employee housing will need to be addressed at the time of a development application. Bill Pierce asked about the text related to Vail lnternational. He feels that the discussion should be related to how PeoPle 9et from the Parkin9 9ara9e to Lionshead. He said that a decrease in cars on East Lionshead Circle will be good for pedestrians. He afso said that there should be specific language related to this property in the detailed section. He said that employee housing should be onsite at Vail International in proportions higher than in proposed employee housing legislation. Anne Gunion commented that all the issues discussed were contemplated at the time of the inception of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. An impact fee should have been specifically assessed for the right granted to all properties to increase development potential, but was not done. Chas Bernhardt agreed with Anne and said that the Frontage Road should be enlarged onto • , these properties. He said giving Vaii International the opportunity to triple their GRFA should Page 2 allow the town to place more restrictions on the property to require employee housing and other exactions. • George Ruther said that while zoning in most cases supersedes the master plan, the recommendations of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan should be followed. The tools to approve or deny a development application exist in the Master Plan and can be addressed at the time of the devefopment appiication, not at the time of a rezoning application. He brought up criteria #8 and stated that the PEC should bring up any other criteria to the Town Council when making their recommendation. 15 minutes 3. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, for proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations; Title 13, Subdivision Regulations; and Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, for proposed corrections and clarifications to the Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0088) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Recommendation of Approval MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 7-0-0 Rachel Friede made a presentation per the staff memorandum. , Rollie Kjesbo voiced his concern over the continued ban on maintenance of existing wood burning fireplaces and feels that this should be addressed. • Bill Jewitt questioned the definition of Employee Housing Unit, which does not include owners of units. Dick Cleveland suggested adding "unless otherwise defined in a deed restriction" to the definition. Dick Cleveland commented that in regulating exterior fire pits, duplexes should be allowed one fire pit per unit. 15 minutes 4. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, for proposed text amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to delete Chapter 7, Development Standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0089) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Recommendation of Approval MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 Rachel Friede made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Bill Pierce made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments. Some commissioners were concerned about deleting the entire section due to the nature of master plans and the fact that zoning will always override the master planning document. • Jim Lamont, president of the Vail Village Homeowners Association, noted that there should be language to instruct users of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan that zoning will override the language in Chapter 7. Page 3 Pierce amended his motion to add language regarding zoning, keep the remaining language in place except striking "Below grade development is not counted as site coverage." Kjesbo • amended his second. 5 minutes 5. A request for a final review of a minor amendment to an Approved Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-8E-18, Amendment Procedures, to aliow for an increase in common floor area at ~ Vail's Front Door Skier Services Building, located at 151 Vail Lane/Lot A, Biock 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0087) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by S. Jarvie Worcester Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Approved 6. A request for a variance from Chapter 14-3, Residential Access and Parkin9 Standards, and Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new driveway, located at 1325 Westhaven Circle/Lot 49, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0086) Applicant: Marc Lessans, represented by William Reslock Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to January 22, 2007 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewiit VOTE: 7-0-0 7. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a request for a final review of variances from Sections 12-71-1-10, Setbacks, 12-71-1-14, Site Coverage, and 12-71-1-15, Landscaping and Site • Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an underground parking structure and a staircase within the setbacks, and deviations from the maximum site coverage and minimum landscape area requirements, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0074) Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Geoff Wright Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to January 22, 2007 MOTION: Kjesba SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master plan, pursuant to Chapter 1, Master Plan Process, to refocate Checkpoint Charlie, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0078) App{icant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: George Ruther ACTION: WITHDRAWN 9. Approval of December 11, 2006 minutes MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 10. Information Update 11. Adjournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 • Page 4 i The applications and information about the proposals are availabie for 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 Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additionai information. Sign tanguage interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing lmpaired, for information. Community Development Department Published January 8, 2007, in the Vail Daily. • • Page 5 ' pLANNING AND ENYIRONM AL COMMtSS10N PUBLIC " 1874 l.un wlll . TOWN COUNCIL CHANBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME f.: PROOF OF PUBLICATION MEMBEHSPRESEHT MFJNBERSABSEHT ~ ~isft: STATE OF COLORADO } I 2.Hassett Residence n 1895 We Gore Creek Drive } SS. Driver: George COUNT Y OF EAGLE } 1.A request for a recommendatlon to ihe Vail Town Council on a proposed major amendmetrtlD Spedal Developmern Discrid No. 39, Crossroads, pursuarrt to Ntide 12-9jA). Special Development Dletrict, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in the number of dweNing units from 69 units to 75 units; located at 141 and 143 Mea~w Drive/Lot P, BloCk 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details i~re08rd mere- I> Steve Po e, do solemnl swear that I am a ualified re resentative of the Vail Dail That the same to. (PEC07-0004) p y q P Applicarrt:Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossrqads West One, LLC, represeMed by Maui(9Uo Pianning DailY newsPaPer Printed, in whole or in Part and Published in the CountY of Eagle, State of Colorado, and Group, LLC. ~a~ne~:wa~ camvt~+ has a general circutation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and ACTION: uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior 2.A requestfor conditional use permits, pursuarrtto Section 72-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for muftiple-family dwellings and lodges and private club (parking club); located at 141 a n d 143 to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vad Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in r e g a r d t h e r e t o. (PEC07-0005) Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. roads east one, lLC and Crossroads West One, LLc, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Planner.Warren Campbeli , AGnON: Colorado's Home Rule provision. INOTION:SECOND:VOTE: 3.A request for a final review of a major amendment to the Approved Development Plan, pursuarrt to Sec- tion 12-8E-18 (B), Major Amendments, to atlow for a revised greding plan at Vail's Front Door Vista Bahn That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every Ski Yard, located at 157 Vail Lane/Lot A, Block SC, Vail Village Fting 1, and setting torth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0006) ApplicaM:Vad Resorts Development Corp. number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of Planner.GeorgeRu[her ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 2/23/2007 and that the last publication of said notice 4.ArequestforaworksessiontodiscusstextamendmentstoTi11e12,ZoningRegulations,VailTown Code, to atld commercial linkage requirements and inclusionary zoniny requirememts to the Zoning Reg- was in the issue of said newspaper dated 2/23/2007. ulations for the purpose of mRigating employee housing impacts resulnng from development in the Town ~ of Vail, aad setting forth details m regard thereto. (PECOS-ooea) Pal n ner.NnaNTmmVail ~ /1 ' ACTiON: In witness whereof has here unto set my hand this 26`'' day of February, 200 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: S.A request for a final review of a vanance, from Seclion 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1895 West Gore Creek DrivelLOt 26, Block 2, Vail Village Wes[ Filing 2, and seUing forth details lr~ ~ in regard thereto. (PEC07-0002) PUZ711 r/ ' eneral Mana ~ditOC /WPlicant:Nancy Hassett, represented by Miramorrti Architect PC Planner.8ill Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: YOTE: Subscribed and sworn to before me a notar ublic in and for the Count of Ea le, State of Colorado this > y p y g ~ 6.A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for add'Aions to, antl the renovabon of, the landmark 26th da Of FebrUar , 7007. Condominiums; and a request tor a final review of variances from Sections 12-7H-10, Selbacks, 72-7H-14, y y-- , Site Coverage, and 12-71-1-15, Landscaping and SRe Development, Vail Town Code, ptxsuant to Chapter " 12-1 ~ Variances, to allow for an underground parking structure and a staircase withm the setbacks, and ite coverage and minimum landscape area requiremergs, located at 610 ~~r( p ` P~finela Joan Schultz 4' 0 ~.••"'••Ue~j Notary Public . ~ . • : PAMELAJ. ~ My Commission expires: November 1, 2007 : SCHULTZ . . . ••~8 . 4 ~ CCl?- OF I 777777 7- 7 ` PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTALID • • ~QO37 PUBL~JC'qEETING Jenu~n2pp7 i. TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS PROOF OF PUBLICATION ! PusucweLcoMe AEMBERS PRESENTMEMBERS ABSENT STATE OF COLORADO } JO Site Visits ~ Jcs. )river. George r ~ TIME COUNTY OF E[~GLl.+ . Arequest tor a worksession to discuss text imendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail "own Code, to add commercial linkage require- I nents and indusionary zoning requiremems to the I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same zonin9 Re9u,at;ons,o, the pu,Pose or m;,;9at;n9 employee housing impacts resulting from develop- Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and ment in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0084) has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and Applicant:Town of Vail Planner:Russ FoneSt unintenuptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior ACTION: to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has MOTION: SECONO: VOTE: 2.A request for a final review of a major exterior Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. alteration, au,suant to se«ion 12,71-1-7, Ma;or ex- terior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under to allow for additions to, and the renovation of, the Lantlmark Condominiums; and a Colorado's Home Rule TOV1S10I1. request tor a final review of variances trom Sec- p tions 12-71-1-10, Setbacks, 12-71-1-14, Site Cover- age, and 12-71-1-15, Landscaping and Site Devel- opment, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every 12-17,Variances,toailowforanunderground parking strueture and a staircase within the set- I I backs, and deviations from the maximum site cov- number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of era9e and minimum lenascape area re,uiremenis, ~ located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Btock 1, Vail Lionshead Filin 3, and setting forth details said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 1/20/2007 and that the last publication of said notice in regard thereto. (PE~os-oo7a) Appiicarrt:landmark Condominium Association, was in the issue of said newspaper dated 1/20/2007. Inc., represented by Geoff Wright Planner:Bill Gibson ACTION:Tabled to February 12, 2007 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TIME In wiiness whereof has here unto set my hand this 5"' February, 2007 3.A request for a variance from Chapter 14•3, Residential Access and Parking Standards, and ~ Section 74-6-7, Retaining Walls, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to al- low for the construdion of a new driveway, (ocated at 1325 Westhaven CirclelLot 49, Glen Lyon Sub- p 1S r/CJ ra Mana er/Editor division, and setting forth details in regard thereto. g (PEC06-0086) - •Marc Lessans, represented by William, Ea 31{; _ _ Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this =i~ s'Paq 5 ~o} 6;iun}iauw~-~ _ sau~oyw~wl SP~H~oN £-d 5"' February, 2007. ~ 'niA 39, , woD•aJe;saIYaJIiQn•,wMnn }0u_J0111sp Mue4n ~tY PV P ela Joan Schultz uoJdwEJJ 19 141!wS ia}ilS Q Notary Public ; E1 . . ~ pAMEIAJ. ~ My Commission expires: November 1, 2007 ~ SCHULTZ i ~ ~ (~1. . PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING • February 12, 2007 TO~r'~' OF VAII..` ` 1:00 pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt Bill Jewitt Doug Cahill Bill Pierce Anne Gunion Dick Cleveland Rollie Kjesbo NO SITE VISITS 60 minutes 1. A request for a worksession to discuss text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to add commercial linkage requirements and inclusionary zoning requirements to the Zoning Regulations for the purpose of mitigating employee housing impacts resulting from development in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0084) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Nina Timm ACTION: Tabled to February 26, 2007 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE:6-0-0 • Nina Timm gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. The Chairman opened the meeting to public comment. Peter Knobel stated that all of the employee housing needs to be provided in the Town of Vail. He would also like to see any requirements phased in over time so that the market values of properties can adjust. Dominic Mauriello representing Lionshead Inn and other clients expressed concern that the PEC has not been provided the Rational Nexus or Town Council Memorandums. The same information is not being shared with PEC as Town Council. Jim Lamont commented that there is too much growth and redevelopment occurring in Town. Kaye Ferry stated that the PEC should determine who the employee housing program should house. Town Council is looking for the PEC's direction and was confused at their last meeting that they were seeing the item again. The Commission stated they understand that there is an employee housing issue in the Town, but expressed concern about the lack of an overall employee housing plan for the Town of Vail. Concern was expressed about who this housing program is supposed to provide units for and without that answer it is difficult to know how many units and what type of units are needed. There was support for linkage programs for both commercial and residential development Support was also expressed for a funding source, as long as there is an acceptable plan in place • for spending the money. The Commission would like more answers prior to providing a recommendation to Town Council. Page 1 10 minutes . 2. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 11 and 12, Bighorn Subdivision, located at 4852 and 4856 Meadow Lane, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0001) Applicant: Meadowlark Development Partners, LLC, represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE:6-0-0 CONDITION(S) 1) The applicant shall not be permitted to request any variances subsequent to the approval of this plat for Lots 11 and 12, Block 7, Bighorn 5th Addition, on the basis that the approved plat created a hardship for developing these lots. Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. John Martin, the architect of the homes to be proposed on the lots, representing the applicant, explained why the access to the design to be proposed necessitated the shift in the shared property line. There was no public comment. The Commission expressed there support of the application. Commissioner Cleveland suggested a condition be placed upon the approval stating that no variances could be requested • in the future as a result of the replat. 3. A request for a final review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section 12-3-313, Appeal of Administrative Actions, Vail Town Code, appealing a determination made by the Zoning Administrator that for zoning purposes Condominium Unit E, Covered Bridge Building shall be considered the "first floor or street level" of the building, located at 227 Bridge Street/Lot C and D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Appellant: Covered Bridge, Inc., represented by Carson, Carson and Dunkelman, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Uphold MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE:6-0-0 George Ruther made a presentation per the memorandum to the Planning & Environmental Commission dated, February 12, 2007. Based upon review of the evidence and testimony, staff was recommending that the Commission upholds the administrative action of staff dated, December 1, 2006. Paul Dunkelman, representing Covered Bridge Inc. the owner of Condominium Unit E, indicated that based upon his review of the Zoning Regulations, Condominium Unit E can not be interpreted as the first floor or street level of the building. Mr. Dunkelman went on to present photographs of the Cover Bridge Building and urged the Commission to overturn staff's interpretation. The Chairman opened the meeting to pubic comment • Page 2 Kaye Ferry, on behalf of the Vail Chamber indicated that Vail's Zoning Regulations were very clear on the issue. The space in question was and always has been required to be retail by • Zoning. Kaye asked the Commission not to change 34 years of development history in Vail Jim Lamont indicated that he was the author of the 1975 ordinance cited by the staff. He further stated that it was understood that physical conditions such as those existing at the Covered Bridge Building were contemplated and understood when the ordinance was adopted. The Commissioners stated their support for the administrative decision of staff determining that Condominium Unit E in the Covered Bridge Building was the street level of the building and the second floor as contended by Mr. Dunkelman. In coming to this conclusion, the Commissioners cited the purpose of the 1975 ordinance, the fact that all codes are open to a certain amount of interpretation, the information presented by staff and the longstanding and consistent application of the regulation by the Town of Vail. In voting to uphold staff's interpretation, the Commission cited the findings of fact listed on page five of the staff memorandum 4. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a request for a final review of variances from Sections 12-71-1-10, Setbacks, 12-7H-14, Site Coverage, and 12-71-1-15, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an underground parking structure and a staircase within the setbacks, and deviations from the maximum site coverage and minimum landscape area requirements, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0074) Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Geoff Wright Planner: Bill Gibson • ACTION: Tabled to February 26, 2007 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE:6-0-0 5. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1895 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0002) Applicant: Nancy Hassett, represented by Miramonti Architect PC Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to February 26, 2007 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Berhardt VOTE: 6-0-0 6. Approval of January 22, 2007 minutes MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Kjesbo) 7. Information Update 8. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional • information. Page 3 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 February 9, 2007, in the Vail Daily. • • I I • Page 4 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 12, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section 12-3-313, Appeal of Administrative Actions, Vail Town Code, appealing a determination made by the Zoning Administrator that for zoning purposes Condominium Unit E, Covered Bridge Building shall be considered the "first floor or street level" of the building, located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots C and D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Block 5-13, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Appellant: Covered Bridge, Inc., represented by Carlson, Carlson and Dunkelman, LLC Planner: George Ruther • I. SUBJECT PROPERTY The Covered Bridge Building, Condominium Unit E, is located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots C& D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Vail Village First Filing. II. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION Pursuant to Section 12-3-36-1, Appeal of Administrative Actions; Authority, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town of Vail administrative official with respect to the provisions of the Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. III. PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR APPEALS Pursuant to Sections 12-3-36-2 and 12-3-313-3, Appeal of Administrative Actions; ~ Initiation and Procedures, Vail Town Code, there are three basic procedural ~ criteria for an appeal: A) standing of the appellant; B) adequacy of the notice of appeal; and C) timeliness of the notice of appeal. • 1 A) Standinq of the Appellant • The appellant, Covered Bridge Inc., is the owner of Condominium Unit E within the Covered Bridge Building. As the owner of the subject property, the appellant has standing to appeal the administrative action. B) Adequacv of the Notice of the Appeal An Appeals Form was filed on behalf of the Covered Bridge Inc., by Carlson, Carlson, & Dunkelman. The Appeals Form and the materials required for its submission have been determined to be complete by the Community Development Department. A copy of the Public Notice of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission February 12, 2007, Public Hearing was sent to adjacent property owners, pursuant to Section 12-3-3(B)(3), Procedures, Vail Town Code. C) Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal The Administrative Section of the Town's Zoning Code (12-3-313-3, Procedures) states the following: "A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Administrator or with the department rendering the decision, determination or interpretation within twenty (20) calendar days of the decision , becoming final. If the last day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a Town-observed holiday, the last day for filing an appeal shall be extended to the next business day. The - Adminisfrator's decision shall become final at the next Planning • and Environmental Commission meeting (or in the case of design related decision, the next Design Review Board meeting) following the Administrator's decision, unless fhe decision is called up and I modified by the Board or Commission." A complete Appeals Form was filed with the Community Development Department within the twenty (20) day requirement. I IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL On August 8, 1973, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No.8, Series of 1973, and thereby enacted Zoning Regulations for the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, the Commercial Core I(CC1) zone district was established. On September 16, 1975, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1975. Pursuant to Section 1, Title, of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1975, this ordinance shall be known as the "Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance by Imposing Horizontal Zoning in CCI" : (Exhibit A) The purpose of this ordinance was "...to maintain and preserve the character of the Vail commercial area", "...to continue the balance between the many I commercial and residential uses permitted in the Commercial Core 1 District", and "...to promote a variety of retail shops at the pedestrian level." • 2 • In addition to imposing horizontal zoning in CC1, Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1975, aiso established definitions for the specific floor levels of a building or structure. In accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 16, the "basemenY" or "garden " level of a building shall be defined as, "that floor of a building that is entirely or substantially below grade." Additionally, "first floor" or "streeY" level of a building shall be defined as, "that floor of a building that is located at grade or street level." These definitions have remained unchanged and the regulation has been consistently applied by the Town of Vail to meet its development objectives for the last 32 years. On August 27, 1990, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission approved an application for a major exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building pursuant to the development standards prescribed for development within the Commercial Core I district. On February 14, 1994, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission held a joint worksession meeting with the Town of Vail Design Review Board. According to the approved (PEC) meeting minutes, dated February 14, 1994, in part, it is clearly understood by the decision-makers that retail space was ~ proposed for the first two levels of the building, as required by the Zoning Regulations. (Exhibit B) On March 14, 1994, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission approved an application for a major exterior alteration to allow for the "demo/rebuild" of the Covered Bridge Building. According to information contained in the Town's legal files, in part, "The proposal calls for major design modifications to the front enfrance (east elevation) of the existinq commercial spaces, the creation of lower level commercial spaces which would be accessib/e from stairs directly on Bridge Street, the infill of the norfhwest section of fhe property, the addition of an elevator at the west end of the building, and the addition of two upper level floors to accommodate one condominium." The major exterior alteration application was approved pursuant to the development standards prescribed for development with the Commercial Core 1 district. On April 19, 1994, the Town of Vail Community Development Department approved a building permit application to allow for the construction of the Covered Bridge Building. According to the Office Copy of the building permit plan set dated March 28, 1994, the "garden" level of the buifding (Sheet A2.1) is 6.08 feet lower than Bridge Street and the "streeY" level of the building (Sheet • A2.2) is 3.76 feet above the street. 3 On May 5, 1995, the Covered Bridge Condominiums Map was approved by the • Town of Vail Zoning Administrator and, in part, establishes Condominium Unit E. According to the Map, Condominium Units E& G comprise that portion of the building described on the Office Copy of the building permit set as "Lower Retail C" and "Upper Retail C". (Exhibit C) On November 20, 2006, the Town of Vail Community Department received a letter from Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, LLC, requesting that the Town of Vail provide an interpretation of the specific floor level and, therefore, the permitted and conditional uses of Condominium Units C& E, Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Street, as defined by the Vail Town Code. (Exhibit D) On December 1, 2006, the Zoning Administrator provided the requested interpretation. In making a determination of the specific floor levels of Condominium Units C and E, Covered Bridge Building, the Community Development Department relied upon the following documents presently on file with the Town of Vail: (Exhibit E) • Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code • Covered Bridge Building, Building Permit Set, dated 4/19/94 ("CBBBPS") • Town's legal file for Lots B, C and D, Block 513, Vail Village 1 S' Filing On December 21, 2006, the Town of Vail Community Development Department received a complete Appeals Form filed on behaff of the appellant. (Exhibit F) V. REQUIRED ACTION • To Uphold/Overturn/Modify the administrative action. Section 12-3-313-5, Findings, details the requirements for action taken by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: "The Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by fhe requirements of this Title have or have not been met. " VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning & Environmental Commission upholds the administrative action which determined that, for zoning purposes, Condominium Unit E is located on the "first floor" or "street" level of the Covered Bridge Building, located at 227 Bridge Street. In accordance with the information presented in this memorandum, and the exhibits attached hereto, staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission makes the following findings of fact based upon the evidence and testimony presented: • 4 • • Due to the sloping topographic conditrons of Bridge Street, specifically, and the Town of Vail, generally, instances will exist where a reasonable change rn elevation (3.76 feet) from the pedestrian level to the "first floor" or "sfreeY" level of the building will occur. Said conditions, however, shall not be construed to circumvent the Town's longstanding development objective of maintaining and preserving the character of the Vail commercial area and promoting a variety of retail shops at the pedestrian level. • For zoning purposes, the "street level" of the building shall be that floor level located at elevation 8162'-6 as depicted on the approved plans. • For zoning purposes, the "grade" on fhe east side of the Covered Bridge Building shall be 8158.74; not 8952' 8" as suggested by the appellant. • The east and south sides of the Covered Bridge Building are entirely or substantially below grade, as depicted on the approved plans. • The presences of a"garden" level of a building shall reasonably infer fhat some portion or portions of a building or structure will be exposed for purposes of visual exposure and ingress and egress. • • According to the approved (PEC) meeting minutes, dated February 14, 1994, in part, it is clearly understood by the decision-makers thaf retail space was proposed for the first two levels of the building, as required by the Zoning Regulations. The definitions of "basemenY" or "garden" level and "first floor" or "streeY" level have remained unchanged and fhe regulation has been consistently applied by fhe Town of Varl to meef its development objectives for the last 32 years. • To except the appellant's arguments will fundamentally alter the , character of Vail Village and the development objectives of fhe Town. For rnsfance, after 32 years, it would now be interpreted that existing first floor and street level retail businesses such as Russell's, Ore House, Vendetta's, Red Lion, Moose's Caboose, Vail T-Shirt Company, Axel's, Sweet Basil, Rucksack, Laughing Monkey and numerous other retail businesses could be converted to non-retail uses such as business offices and professional offices. This change in use is clearly contrary to the adopted goa/s, objectives and policies of the Town of Vail. • Any other interprefation of the Town's horizontal zoning regulation is contrary to the horizontal zoning intent of the Code and development goals and policies of the Town. To interpret the Code otherwise would result in office uses on the street level of buildings throughout the Town's crucial commercial core areas. • 5 • VII. EXHIBITS A. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1975 B. Approved Meeting Minutes, in part, February 14, 1994. C. Covered Bridge Condominiums Map, dated May 5, 1995. D. Letter to Warren Campbell, Community Development Department, from Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, LLC, dated November 20, 2006. E. Letter to Mr. Paul R. Dunkelman, Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, LLC, from George Ruther, Town of Vail, dated December 1, 2006. F. Appeals Form, dated December 21, 2006. • • 6 ,i , • ( - . r Exhibit A • ORDINANCE N0. 16 Series of 1975 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE SECTIONS 8.200 "PERMITTED USES", 8.300 "CONDITIONAL USES", 8.400 "ACCESSORY USES", AND 8.510 "PARKING AND LOADIDIG", RELATING TO COMMERCIAL CORE 1 DISTRICT, BY THE ENACTMENT OF NEW SECTIONS 8.200 •"PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - SPECI- FIC", 8.300 "CONDITIONAL USES - GENERAL", 8.400 "ACCESSORY USES - GENERAL", AND 8.510 "PARKING AND LOADING", SPECIFYING THAT PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL, AND ACCESSORY USES AND PARKING IN COMMERCIAL CORE 1 DISTRICT SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO AND DETER- MINED BY SPECIFIED FLOOR LEVELS WHEREAS, it has been and continues to be the intent of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, to maintain and preserve the nature and character of the Vail commercial area, which is designated as zoning district Commercial Core 1 District, with a mixture of residential and commercial uses; WHEREAS, it has been and continues to be the intent of i the Town Council to promote and protect said area as a pedestrian access area and to discourage vehicular use therein; and WHEREAS, because of changing conditions, the Town Coun- cil considers that the municipal qovernment must protect the char- acter of said area and that this ordinance is necessary to continue the balance between the many commercial and residential uses per- mitted in the Commercial Core 1 District, to prevent entire build- ings therein from becoming commercial space at the expense of dwelling and accommodation units, and to promote a variety of ~ retail shops at the pedestrian level; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF I THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title. This ordinance sha11 be known as the "Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance by Imposing Horizontal Zoning in CCL", ~ Town er ~I .r-.--• • . • • • i ~ • ord, 16, 1975 Page 2 ~ Section 2. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled; Planninq • Commission Report. The amendment procedures prescribed in Section 21.500 of the Zoning Ordinance have been fulfilled, with the report of the Planning Commission recommending the enactment of this ordi- nance. Section 3. Amendments to Zoning Ordinance. I ' Sections 8.200, 8.300, 8.400, and 8.510 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. S, Series of 1973, of the Town of vail, Colorado, are hereby amended to read as follows: A. Section 8.200. Permitted and Conditional Uses - Specific. A. Permitted and conditional uses - basement ~ or garden level within a structure: 1. The "basement" or "garden level" shall be defined as that floor of a build- ing that is entirely or substantially • below grade. 2. The following uses shall be per- mitted in basement or garden levels within a structure: I a. Retail shops and establishments, including the following: Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises Book stores Camera stores and photoqraphic studios Candy stores Chinaware and glassware stores • 41- Ta Clerk i . ! ~ ~ Ord. 16, 1975 Page 3 Delicatessens and specialty food stores Drug stores and pharmacies Florists Gift stores Hobby stores Jewelry stores Health food stores Leather goods stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Stationery stores Sporting goods stores Toy stores Variety stores • Yardage and dry goods stores b. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barber shops Beauty shops Small appliance repair shops Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies c. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to prepara- tion of products specifically for sale on the premises Cocktail lounges and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops • Restaurants Town er ~ ~ • Ord. 16, 1975 Page 4 d. Professional offices, business • offices, and studios e. Banks and financial institutions f. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in subparagraphs (a) through (e) above, in accordance with the provisions of Section 21.200 of this ordinance, so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic g. Lodges 3. The following uses shall be permikted in basement or garden levels within a structure, subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance. a. Meeting rooms b. Household appliance stores • c. Liquor stores d. Luggage stores e. Radio and TV stores and repair shops f. Multiple-family housing g. Theatres B. Permited and conditional uses - first floor or street level within a structure: 1. The "first floor" or "street 1eve1" shall be defined as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level. 2. The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level floor within a structure: a. Retail stores and establishments, including the following: • 1 " • Oxd. 16, 1975 Page 5 Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores Chinaware and glassware stores Delicatessens and specialty food stores Drug stores and pharmacies Florists Gift shops Hobby stores • Jewelry stores Leather goods stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Sporting goods stores Stationery stores Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry goorls stores b. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to preparation of products speci- fically Eor sale on the premises Cocktail lounges and bars • Tow lerk II _ r., ~ • Y Ord. 16, 1975 Paye 6 Coffee shops • Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants c. Lodges d. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in subparaqraphs (a) and (b) above, in accor- dance with the provisions of Section 21.200 of this ordinance, so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic. 3. The following uses shall be permitted on first floor or street level floor within a struc- ture, subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Arti- cle 18 of this ordinance. a. Liquor stores b. Professional offices, business offices, • and studios c. Banks and financial institutions d. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barber shops Beauty shops Business and office services Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies Small appliance repair stores e. Multiple-family residential dwellings f. Household appliance stores g. Luggage stores h. Radio and TV stores and repair shops i. Theatres • Tow, lerk • ' t • • Ord. 16, 1975 Page 7 C. Permitted and conditonal uses - second floor above grade within a structure: 1. The following uses shall be permitted on the second floor above grade within a structure; provided, however, that a Condi- tional Use Permit will be required in accor- dance with Article 18 of this ordinance for any use which eliminates any existinq dwelling or accommodation unit or any portion thereof. a. Multiple-family residential dwelling b. Lodges c. Professional offices, business offices, and studios d. Banks and financial institutions e. Personal services and repair shops, • including the following: Barber shops Beauty shops Business and office services Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies f. Retail stores and estabLishments, including the following: Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores • Chinaware and glassware stores To lerk V ii Ord. 16, 1975 Page 8 Delicatessens and specialty food • stores Drug stores and pharmacies Florists Gift stores Hobby stores 7ewelry stores Leather goods stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Photographic studios Sporting goods stores Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry goods stores g. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: • Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to preparation of products speci- fically for sale on the premises Cocktail lounges and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants 2. The following uses shall be permitted on second floors above grade, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance: a. Meeting rooms b. Liquor stores c. Household appliance stores • Town er i • Ord. 16, 1975 Page 9 d. Radio and TV sales and repair shops e. Luggage stores f. 'I'heatres D. Permitted and conditional uses - any floor above the second floor above grade wiihin a structure: 1. The following uses shall be permitted on any floor above the second floor above grade: a. Multiple-family residential dwellings b. Lodges 2. The following uses shall be permitted on any ftoor above the second floor above grade, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance: a. Retail stores and establishments, ~ including the following: Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Chinaware and glassware stores Delicatessens and specialty food stores Drug stores Florists G i ft shops Hobby stores Household appliance stores . Jewelry stores i Town lerk ~ t ~ • Ord. 16. 1975 Page 10 Leather goods stores • Luggage stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Photographic studios Stationery stores Toy stores t V ariety stores Yardage and dry goods stores Liquor stores Radio and TV stores and repair shops Sporting goods stores b. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to preparation of products speci- • fically for sale on the premises Cocktail lounges and bars Coffee shops ~ Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants c. Professional offices, business offices, and studios d. Banks and financial institutions e. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: B arber shops Beauty shops Business and offices services Small appliance repair shops Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies • own er t ~ • Ord. 16, 1975 Page I1 f. Theatres q. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in subparagraphs (a) through (e) above, in accordance with the provisions of Section 21.200 of this ordinance, so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic B. Section 8.300. Conditional Uses - General. The following uses shall be permitted, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of A rt i c I e 18 of this ordinance: a. Ski 1 i ft s and tows b. Public utility and public service uses • c. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities d. Public park and recreational facil- ities C. Section 8.400. Accessory Uses - General. The following accessory uses shall be permitted: a. Swimming pools, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily inciden- tal to permitted residential or lodge uses b. Outdoor dining areas operated i n conjunetion with permitted eating and drink- ing establishments c. Flome occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.300 of this ordi- nance d. Other uses customarily incidental and • accessory t o permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. ~ Tow____1iR erk I~ Ord. 16, 1975 Page 12 • D. Section 8.510. Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading s h a l l be pro- vided i n aecordance with A r t i c I e 14 of t h i s ordi- nance. A t least one-half of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings. Parking within buildings shall be restricted to the basement. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. Section 4. Development Factors Pertaining to Conditional Use Permits. In considering in accordance with Article 18 of the Zoning Ordinance an application for a Conditional Use Permit within Commercial Core 1 District, the Following development factors shall be applicable: A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core 1 District. • B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commer- cial Core 1 District. C. Reduction of nonessential off-street parking. D. Control of delivery, pick-up, and service vehicles. E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians. F. Continuance of the various commercial, resi- dential, and public uses in Commercial Core 1 D i s t r i c t so as t o maintain the existing character of said area. G. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Core 1 District So as to maintain the existing character of said area. • ~ Town lerk II • ~ _ . ~ . • Ord. 16, 1975 Page 13 H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the environinent of Commercial Core 1 District. Section 5. Continuing Enforcement of Amended Sections as to Prior Acts. The amendments of the aforesaid sections of the Zoning Ordinance shall not bar the enforcement of said sections as to an act or acts heretofore committed or the prosecution and punish- ment of an act or acts heretofore committed or omitted in viola- tion oF said sections; said sections amended by this ordinance shall remain in full Force and effect in the form preceding this ordinance for the purposes oP sustaining any and a t I actions to enforce the same, suits, proceedings, prosecutions instituted, and the penalties imposed therefor which arose prior to the effec- tive date of this ordinance. • Section 6. Repeal of Any Conflicting Section. Any sections or parts of sections of the "I.oning Ordinance or other ordinances of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in conflict with this ordinance or inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed, pro- vided, however, that the repeal of any section or parts of sec- tions of said ordinances shall not revive any other section of said ordinances heretofore repealed or superceded. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect five days after publi- cation following the final passage hereof. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVEll, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE I N FULL, th i s 2nd day of September, 1975, and a public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of V a i I, Cotorado, on the • Town C-lerW ti " . Ord. 16, 1975 Page 14 16th day of September, 1975, at 7_30 P.M., in the Municipal Suild- • inq of the Town. M yor ATTEST : • TOwn `c • • II • • ~ ' . \ ~ Ord. 16, 1975 Page 15 INTRODUCED, RF.AD ON SECOND READING, APPROVED, ENACTED, AND ORDERED PUBLfSHED ONCE I N FULL, t h i s 1 6th day of September, 1975. ~ Nlayor ATTES"I' : , ; Town C1 k I'I • • Exhibit B i • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 14, 1994 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Greg Amsden Kristan Pritz Bill Anderson Tom Moorhead Jeff Bowen Mike Mollica Diana Donovan Andy Knudtsen Kathy Langewalter Jim Curnutte Allison Lassoe Randy Stouder Dalton Williams Russ Forrest 1. A request for a conditional use to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit to be located at 1358 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 21, Block 3, Vail Valley 1 st Filing. Applicant: Chris Kempf , Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff inemo. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the requested conditional use permit to allow for a Type II . Employee Housing Unit with the two conditions stated in the staff inemo. Diana Donovan stated that she would like the Design Review Board (DRB) to carefully review the proposed architecture for the project since it is somewhat unusual and different from what is present in the neighborhood. Dalton Williams agreed with Diana's comment. Dalton Williams made a motion to approve this request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit per the staff inemo and the two conditions contained on Page 6 of the staff memo with a directive to the DRB to carefully review the architecture of this project to ensure that it is harmonious with the character of the Town of Vail. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion. A 7-0 vote approved this request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit. 2. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District; Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space District; and Chapter 18.36, Public Use District of the Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jim Curnutte • Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 1 r 3. A request for a joint worksession with the PEC and DRB for a major CC1 exterior ~ alteration to a11ow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building focated at 227 Bridge StreeULots C and D and a part of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail ViHage 1 st Filing. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica made a presentation per the staff inemo. He stated that this proposed redevelopment involves no variances at this time. He summarized Section IX, Discussion, of the staff inemo. Ned Gwathmey, the architect for this project, stated that they have been "wrestling with this site" since 1990. He said that the applicant has spent a great deal of time studying the feasibility of this project. Bi11 Anderson stated that the view corridor line should be adjusted to accommodate a II sloped roof for the Covered Bridge Building. He also supported moving the building 5 feet to the west property line. Saundra Spaeh, architect representing Pepi Gramshammer, stated that Pepi was concerned with the fifth floor. Greg Amsden stated that he was concerned with the proposed staging area in the pocket park. Mike Mollica explained the staging plan to the PEC. • Ned Gwathmey stated that they had approached Pepi about doing the Covered Bridge Building construction at the same time as Pepi's building is under construction. Saundra Spaeh stated that Pepi is adamant about not using the area behind his building as the staging area for this project. Greg Amsden inquired whether moving the buifding height interpretation line was an option. Mike Mollica stated that staff was open to amending the line and discussed the staff's reasons. Peter Dan, of East West Partners, stated that the applicants were open to shifting the fourth and fifth floors to the west. Allison Lassoe inquired whether the building height interpretation line could be moved horizontally. Ned Gwathmey stated that such a change to the project would delay construction for at least one year. Planning and Environmental Commission • February 14,1994 6 ~ • Dalton Williarns asked the applicant that if the project was approved, could they be flexible on which roof form they used, depending on whether an encroachment into ~ View Corridor #1 is approved. Ross Bowker stated that this would be okay with them. Bob Borne, DRB representative, asked whether the building would be out of the view corridor if the building was shifted back 5 feet to the west. Mike Mollica stated that the building would still be located in the view corridor. Jeff Winston, the Town's design consultant, stated that he felt moving the building back ~ 5 feet would helP this ProJ'ect. He questioned whether the whole building would have to be moved back. Ned Gwathmey stated that they could not do this and still satisfy the ADA requirements for disabled access. Jeff Winston stated that a small portion of flat roof may be acceptable but that it must not appear to be flat. He said that another concern that he had was that the building did not appear to be one piece of architecture and he suggested that the applicant tie the roofs together in some way so that the different sections of the building do not look so segmented. He stated that the Town did not intend for the line of View Corridor #1 to effect this site in the way that it has. He would like to see the upper portion of the • building be reworked in order to avoid the flat roof as well as tie it to the rest of the building. He said that the proposed design of the building resembles the Gateway Building and that the architecturat design needed to relate better to the Village core. ' Jeff su99ested a more unified aPProach to the building. He added that he also supported the applicant pursuing an encroachment into View Corridor #1. Dalton Wi!liams supported changing the building height interpretation line, or eliminating it entirely. Mike Mollica stated that the PEC and staff have some flexibility to modify the line. He stated that the 60%-40% for roofs was a hard and fast standard that had to be followed. A variance would be required if the roof departed from this standard. Sally Brainerd, DRB representative, stated that her concerns are mainly with the storefront. She is concerned with the split-level retail. She stated that the building design is not in keeping with Vail's guidelines. She stated that she did not feel the separateness of the upper levels was ideal. She agreed with Dalton's comments about the building height. Bob Borne agreed with Dalton's comments. He added that he was concerned about the construction activity occurring during the summer. • planning and Environmental Commission February 14,1994 7 ~ Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with the prsvious comments concerning the roof • height line. He said that he would like to see the building go back to the west at least 5 feet. He added that the staging for this site would be difficult. He added that he understood Ned's concerns about proceeding through the variance process. Bill said he would be willing to approve the project if Ned brought the roof issue back to the PEC for a view corridor encroachment assuming the top portions of the building were shifted to the west. Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see the building height interpretation line moved. She said the building needs to be moved back and that this will help widen Bridge Street in this area. She felt the criteria for view corridor encroachment could be met but not if the view corridor line became the height limit. She stated that an alternate location woufd need to be determined for trash removal and that it should not be via Bridge Street. Greg Amsden stated that he did not want to see the building height interpretation line set at this stage of the game. He was in favor of shifting the building back. He added ~ that he would like to see the staging area located to the west of the Covered Bridge Building. Jeff Bowen stated that the view corridor has been considered from the Transportation Center and that the view from upper Bridge Street is also affected. He said that he would like to see a different roof form. He added that he would like to see the building dropped down from the north so that the building will appear less massive. Allison Lassoe said she would like to see the building pulled back 5 feet and that this • would help the building appear less massive. She stated that she felt that Dalton's previous suggestion could help the roofs for this project. Dalton Williams inquired whether there was a way to internalize the trash removal on the Bridge Street. He said that he likes the way the front of the building looks pushed back but that he is concerned what that would do to the Bridge Street shopping - experience. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she agreed with the other Board members comments. She added that more integration of the roof forms is needed. She is concerned about how the roof form will look. She said that shifting the building back 5 feet is positive. She stated that trash removal will be difficult because this site is "land locked". She added that the staging for this project will be difficult and she did not feel that it would be acceptable to lose a mature tree due to construction staging. She said that she felt that there was a way to do this project without a height variance. She stated that the diagonal line could be stepped. Ned Gwathmey stated that he did not want to advise his clients to go forward with this variance. He said that it would be helpful for them to have an interpretation of the ordinances from the PEC. He said that this site is very tight. Planning and Envlronmental Commission • February 14,1994 8 • Dalton Williams suggested that they efiminate the diagonal line and go off of Bridge Street with the 60%-40% and a view corridor encroachment. All the members of the PEC agreed that this was acceptab(e. Ned stated that this would not necessarily help them get this project going. Kristan Pritz stated that staff had sat down with the architects for this project previously and it was deemed by the Town Attorney that a modification to the 60%-40% rule is not possible without a variance. Peter Dan stated that he would like to shift the building back and go off of Bridge Street to determine heights. He added that they would like to connect the roofs on the fourth and fifth floors together. Bob Borne summarized that the applicant wants to get this project going and that the main issue seems to be the roof and that the PEC seemed to be generally in favor of the design of the building and that some caveat be made regarding the roof. Jeff Bowen stated that the Covered Bridge Building is the entrance to Bridge Street and the Village and that he would like to see the building mass lessened, the building shifted back, and the roof element changed. Jeff Winston stated that the building design was a result of the diagonal line and that if • the fine were to be etiminated, then the roof forms could be integrated. Kathy Langenwalter inquired about the transition of siding to stucco. Dalton Williams made a motion that the PEC has reviewed the prior PEC determination , regarding the building height interpretations and that after careful review, and that since View Corridor No. 1 determines the Covered Bridge Building maximum height, the building is restrained by the view corridor. Due to this, the height calculation can be taken from Bridge Street with the understanding that the mass will be pushed to the west and that the building be stepped back. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Kathy Langenwalter restated Dalton Williams motion. A 7-0 vote approved the height determination from Bridge Street as stated above. Kathy Langenwalter stated that there were still issues and details that had not been discussed at this worksession which would need to be discussed in two weeks. • Planning and Environmental Commission February 14,1994 c] 7 I V ~ ~ ui w wm T O o t z i > ~ ° i a Ia OeM> dU a~l I p, 1 ~ E R Y U ~G L 1 YC a 1 1~ N [i ON I Y t-C G~DCS \T O i 0~ 1 ~C 1U m ~ ; Ge .QI 1 i- 0 - U~ I 1- L+~'O[ aSCO~'¢ 1. O L ~E ¢ ;J ~d O ; O 2 X I <f ~~QI~1 Q I IV J -OTGYtl4 i _ ~ Y N I I y~LI WL N-69~ tl JdOE ~JrQ ' ~ i0 Y ~ - c°~ o~ a' o I I 14 «i I~I~Z~ . b [ 4 0~~ ~ ~b~ O ~ I O I c I 1 1 L 1 L 1 LL c I I I O -~1 ~I W h U a' O a E O T- C N a- E 0Y H ~ Y O b I- ~ 1 d 4 4 tl 1 i O 1 5' ~ 1Ji i. cm i di`a C ewuae--m i i i ~l V ~ I~. I L 6 l Y c 4 Y i~~ ! p~ Y • 1 Y O b 1 O I 1 P Y ~ C I ~ a O 1 VD ~ 6 ~l~'1' y"~n L Wf~ 1 3~ J O L Gc-U O b¢f~: 0 M: U S 1II 1 ~tl ~ I LU 1 L i Ib ~~y1•i1~1 i tlOVI Oi ~IC mVnOOLY>-~j:~ Y1 YXO p~ Y ic 1 W c i i ~ i bN ~ I~ ~`IO+w~ ~ ~d~ i~ ~e -or~oNYtlNOd ~ 1 Ol~~ ~ O I 1 - L L n~ i ~V'1~1 "Y i m I at0 N al'~O:,1SN ` s~ I lo 'e ID IKY i SY a~!Ih~11f7 ; YLL 10 ~OEE92u O~O O o o ;`J i1la .c- v-ou<n~'••PAU w o ¢ ii i im uou o o w w u r e r c- m- ~o o oa a u n O m 01 ~ Ln I N j~ H, -~d bV NL-CUMN. -C•~~r~~~llil~'~O'0 1010 C 1 I Yd IQ 4tlII- i'4]Ld-i' Stl C?. C - I c I I N O~ I 14 VI ~ do~ v a l v LNOODN-Ea]YM Ic0 n-Op I t l 1o 1 Id 4~L' ~ IiNP - ~ ~N~ U ID 1 IF W 'OQ~ 0~ e ~ty~ I 1 V~1`.~1 ~9 O 6 b 3 3 3 m~/1 O~ ~y- N ~04 '.1 ; I~? I~~ J~> ~ tlLU4WLSLGiO - EP INU Q 1 ~ 1~ 1 ~ Q D ~ Ib p 1U41 t{>, M N- V m Y~ Y ~i - U L ~ L E4LCJTMO'O-~ K Oi - y.-V. LI(~ b 4 4V ~ 1 „IUQ U y LON I O W 00UO lN-~ O tl C9 NC! ~ Q Y 1 I I E 4 Qy~ 1 ~ Y 4 C • S N O O b I - L C 1 1- ~.p Y l MUO Oc i N Q~~I 4 SY40U. 2OU4J. o W NY I Q OD W tl V a i u d n,y p O . W U1E L N : Yi O tl• U - I O d O b O U t O~ O ? V~ ~y \1Ni F -,C-" 3'0 L L C 4' 4 pUU S I V E U M C; ~ ~ 4~J S7 ~ I]NYQ Ori \+9l1YVC 6 ` E ]OOLEa 1 ~¢L d V1 6o I E O ~ O q 1U 1 I l ,'`1 1T < S'MUU-O'O ~ p 40 I C W 'O4M ON a K El 1 l M~ I b I~I~W,J'W~ ~'6 M L V N E l6~ 1 CY ~ X iou [V ~~,a~' n,1 4MN'Dtl"OC •3S Q~L 4; a tl Q bTb W 4 I O Y L +'CO£YG-V 3 Oi 1 3Y U PQ~ 1' ] LYO U ~ V ON Y ~dm 'A1~yry~.i a[~ s L Q~ 2tl tl ~i10 l 1 -N - C O -OCO Y IY N~ .W ~!l1 V ~ d~tlU Ca$30 Y4i Y 1 Z - W~~ ~ Lcl I W ~6 Q u UcE-EO I-d ao-a au i c`-~6 u ra rc ez c c 1- W-lJ IY{~~1 1 N £GLNCG-c~~. OCQ~O ~ 4 q O I- ] ~ K E c ~.I I - ~n aV JaY.- O 30 a O 1'1 CV T" L 6 Y O U~1 - O ~Ea IYC~ c, ~ l~ SM d d- > O U- N~ 6 Q$` l IN~U ]J y Q P 1 C N ~ U~~p~~ IY9 \Y 1('~ ~ r~~-o'dem`o-`anoe l'1 Ut$p UO a~F 4ut~ Il O E W E h ti a Ebtl¢-[-CCE Y; ~ Ox SvIW3 a Y Y~ O D tlY 1 J ~ (~j N d W NOYE ]i• tl UyC ~ y ~ YUYY K N L4 D Y N ~ 1 IV U~~(j7~~N1 Y K afAGtl ~UD~ w Np~p~ J~VO3U 1- JY> 1 1 IGN I 1`1l 4l N•+iUQiE~UO- O~ ~ ~ ^Yd- C U UQ ~ U ~ ~`~lr1JA:M~ V ~ ^1 ~ u v c u i ° m,. ns o~.w o ~xi r^ ~ aN tl a~ b i O~ d O fA C O 4V ~ ~ i i ~ P< . Y O~ L I 1V C- O G J C- 06 a Q 0M ~Y 'c Yy d~ `I,~ O w0 O 6 \ i 1 ~ JO 'a0 W-E J aa [N t o "O i W JOO O > ~ CN ¢ N i YnU- :Yli O ?Y'O EE~ L db~ a 1 ; D I E E O J 1( ~V" ^ G ~ O 0~ l N WO O 11 'R L O - O 1 -D m 1',S~Y m~ ORi r~ d- M 04 - ' j,~ WI ~/l~ I~ Oi C N b L O; Ny O N Ou I N~Y CO DU ~Y 4 CN 1 O OOU O~i 0 O in OC I ~ O 4M 0 1 EJ I M1SO'O W W 4Y i N 1 L O y d~ ~ ' q C l- OU.J 0 4 h ; ~-CU Ntl~ ~ ~ 1+ F N L L~ ~ K q 06~ N 4'OUL UOtl O~ ~ G- LWJ.I U OO D-~NY N Ol ~1 I J fC6 WTl 0 ~ ab ~O a 4iU~ `I.Q 1 i 0 iC0 OE[O ~Ca aO E S ~6T0 W.~4.~C O~YO N~R i LO V~ O ~ M- Y.a~N W~ PiOOC L IL m Oe a 3 4 a ' ] L y-~ i Y K ;N IG1 3 aac ~ S Udc OT l.OUO aytl I DLSU ~Ub 1=O ad •C IaN l~ yl AOUO utl U~~ ~Y y y~ ; d„ Ea ~ 41 U E l tl 1 G O mi C b W iTN Q yY O U E O T~-- F TL a V eM ~ f ~ d' L UN W 1 ~--1 WQ O .O > L4 l'f L UN O 1 O• ~ 1/y _ 2 LLbO MtlmN ZU lJ=~ ~ CU V 11D 1 tcf.~ MtlO~N N} 1~~.1~ L~ Iv O 4 U, Ma ~ ~ C VVy ~ W ~ T` l O ~6~ 40WC LG ~ C~'I UO~Od9 NT UN0. \I 12Q Z Y~ • bWWC Oc le-l. t.~> NT UPOPIIZ6 p O O Y~VO L~.ry E > 6Y rv.' tlPLO ~ti I NY~ ~~ne HEY~ tlP OI `vS P O ~ L 2 - M~L JO La``V' O 3c ~2 -00 0 0;:, a c`aua ]-MM U'O N tl.YL- `V 1~ Nl] o >3M0 I~ H3c L N4 p coi ?•iCS V\ Na+O N1. 4 N I ~ L~~9 yY O-~ ~ E[ ~ I MQdL1 O i4u Y 0-~ aUC ` I C u o ry «y N F e e ~ Y ~ a- b U SC b o ~ D ~ I I C¢ Y 6 c - 4 oi i c•x v N- n O0~ 1~- O Y O W I J ~b-l -CU 4 1 3 11 Y Q~ N~tD D UU I L ZOtl L'O bbW 'E 4c V ~~1 LII t w- r ~~i r i ~n - w Ya .o-- ki r.nod s i r~Jo ~d0oc ciu'bi iaea n`o w~ d~ `omoc °u 3'f Q~' c il~i x°O C1~ >.eao aeme srw ; ea,s d OOby - soma m i i ~ rv ao 98 & 6 i .c ~ ~ r 3 I q ~v1.1 O> Y-'Y C N H m I O W L U i. I~ O y• - Y I O 2~ O O O NON ~ I~1 OE Of:•••••' •.•~~J J Ou bN CNNE ~ F N O r-- J> c U i. E ~ c- I• d T~w > c S i - G O~ n c~~ M~ ~ EU tl0 - QN 3 ~ - J] Y '~I c I~ ~:••••••,L~, p-U..• u e~~ 4C v~ ~oc a 4~ mrMa CS : t O D~ O-- 1~ 'g •G q d ~ ~ J tl yb 4-- N . ? L V E~ Y G' tl U1o Utl NN Ucc i L. V Y •.O F L- c O E~T >3'O LNE i' N N OY.DdE ~ y K - >E3 ).E[ Q F 11 .r M U l t - D ] K ib OO N0 9 U lu-F Z 4O~q! D~C = U ~O S~tlCY O H d C~ .00 N>a V W C ~ ti Q ~ w O° o o a V o(] sH '6 2YV S3 US YgY J1l1CK .CUtJ W H L'6.N~ P~,~ufj~ pN.. •.Sc U YJOU JV~Id' a°nu W O N 11-4 ~-4 < < ~ Na u~8 .~ovam tl~ o 0 o i VV ~ ~ &in. ~°um~ a c r ` ° a w -Wd ~ _ . . E;," ~ ;E ~af 0 ~ou g >o e sa a y s ~ ~~0 J Om V V E y 2 -w'uaEO ~~C~O 6~0 mE4 _ ^V Yy.~. d tii W.~A d b Z ~.c b I 6i' c mO(J O O QYJY ~ N uOJat ~~rfObOYtl~ i~L~' ~ ydi e OUeYC p 5yQC Y~i ~ ry l T bo? D V> ~PO Ob ua u c0 C y \ ~ ~ ~ 4 Nb Y V _ ~Uy~d bA~Y4 cNOO 300 WGI~ W ~,~y ~ ~ c ~ - u4 d Oa _-r' g ~ PY~~new+ nOO~ 5- ~da- '~'~csd°a $mOSSm°c au _ _ _eoi~u ~u °cH~~°' o ~ ~ O ~N .~,zoo ac_c.~c a~N~- : r a ~ ~ ~ o/ ~y ~ "~d/~S ~n ~ O/ O -M• _ ` ~ OO ~a-=ao ~ 6>• cW d Y~NY%W~mltOU~uL be~d ZI Q ~OS ~C ^ M1 \ ~VO/ m ~ ~ NN~ WM~N N R V1 L <.mi`pn~ ~ OC C V L N c Y O w - tl h ~ ~ [ \ r'tit\ ~ ~ \ W ~ Y \p ~ ; -j b06~yi.WDNNdSb~dS ~T ~ o? > 3% SOS6t E O w O `.'c^.`o_J~•ns ``mN ~y \7s~q e c X ~ C ~ .O~M~bKVdi 1I OtlO~ c op ~w Y L dC4N N b ~ V a~nm00i°n wnw.¢Yaww°Oa~° ° & d u 4~~~a ~o •.d~dy~ad ~~~do ~ ~ ~ \ _m c H g° ~ ~y ~i5 Z ~ = D~`>Ly n€.e d f ~ i w t°a ~m `5~ Hm a E / ~ ~J'+°~ ~ °uu u:€»4~85i ~~~o,'uySe / ~ e YC'YYYM> EO-VC~~Q~P I ~ ~ $ y Q) A~ . ~ yw n~~ fba° u°Sde ~ a ° o h/a• W U' (n QO R) % CD M ~ / ~ W J / 0 ? tu <<r mZ~ / 1040 ~-4 LLJOo ~ "bo' ~ z V gJ ~ WZo / lWo ~ ~ I M~ (D ~ 3~ a~ /~e2 I ~ r t ~ _ R o qmN 8e$°9 E~g M ~ F m S .m a ~ V WW Q ~ o . mr_ c.~ X °e=oz8 ~ UJ~ ~ O O U OtP~ • J~ yd y ~ ~ r~ S F m Q p~r~ ~ UO~abiO 3~U~ ~ r . . ~Yg'oov 4po+ ~ qm~w ~ * • m~ roX ~ i"_4 ~ E > d R R ~ roa I s .9a 0 w ~ i c - i n ~ i xn +a C ~ ea b W 3""EA 41 a ~i(1 ~ VV B r s+ aF: ~ tu+ 0 ~ O . J z ~ ~ ~m ~ z p~n ~ sa a .o _ ~ -i . .'mn Qim 0 Q ~ B.9 V ~ O ~ 6V1 I n _ ~ O I a'. P~ ~ I g e4 O J~LJ . ~ _ ~ Y9 b sT O I I 6 BE I I ZAm' 4 ~ J m ~ . _ . . _ . . - . . - _ . . _ , m I ( I b ~ IA ~M ~ ZLE 7.4 ( I P ~ n ~y O + O I ` l~a g ~ n d ,r/ ~ s ~ I I ~ ~ a t o 1.7 ' r - ~ a . . E6.7 N_ o 0 aZr - ~xz elco d 7.3 . 1 u~ ~ h B ~ I I Ie.s m il-1 H y I 9'S 1 .3 O a P (T7 ~ P I f 6~ I.7 I I g 6'B t CS P I e r L_ sa g _ ees i O ~ ~ ~G I o t~ 1 ~ a Z . ~ <.9 ~ • 123 ~p . - . . . . . . O . . _ . . . . . . _ . I 36 ~ ~ S.0 O ~ ~ D u ~ 3.0 3,0 I 4.4 • . I ~ n e o rz,l mm z 0 N Ln o m~ in • • • a a~ Q m o r Z W m N ~ s.~ S9 ~ _1- ~ - l~. 1 ~ - ` 1 a ~ I ~ • ~ Z , ~ 1 "----------------r_ _Z`---- 8'6 U51 ~ ~ {'t tOL ~14, ~ W gg ~ u 6.~ Z4 Ltl t q . ~ I rn 7.7 1z ~ / ~I~ t('f\~,: . 9.6 1 do a - ' ~ } u y__--- ~ ~ ~ W r I 32 i 3.4 ~ . j Q ~ • I ~ ~ ti CY l `LJ q ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~y ~ . Q'r ~ 4 .a y ~ 146 ~ 7.4 U a l r V O . . 2'LC I d ~ ~ 0 4 ~ W ` ~ ~ o?_ . ~ ~ o fi s, 6e ~ " ° 7.6 P J3 ~ 1 0'9 7.5 0'Ot Zl O wJ a+ 9.6 L L1 0 J`.J ~ ~ e C ~O r r~ P .q y y Q 1,2 a ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ; L.C S,L 1 S'9 N 6.1 e9 O n 4 Qy ~r za.e Y O 6A 6.7~ ~ Q P'm 4 ~ 6.4 2,4 72 " 'd I ' I 9'S2 6.7 ` rm 2?0 V LS 1 c-----..`,---~'_ ~F ~ i4 ~4^y Y ~ 6 ~e Q ~ ~ - ~ ~ a N ~ m ~ ~ Lq p ~ D . F..y u ~ ~ b r~ . a~ e ~ ~ tA ~ Z ~ N f~"1 C)1 O Z ~ ~ m~ z O ~ ~ p ~O ~ ~ i Exhibit D Carlson,Carlson & Dunkelman, L.L.C. Ronald W. Carlson Attorneys at Law Paralegals • Judith James Carlsnn + Maria E. Ritiiz Paul R. Dunkelman Drake Landing ? 975 N. Ten Mile Drive f P.O. Box 1829 Frisco, Colorado 80443 Carla M. Ha_yden Christopher D. Tomchuck Patricia J. Craig November 20, 2006 COPY Warren Campbell Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Unit E, Covered Bridge Building 227 Bridge Street Vail, CO Dear Mr. Campbell: • We would request that the Town of Vail provide an interpretation of the specific floor level and, therefore, the permitted and conditional uses of Condominium Unit E, Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Street as defined by the Vail Town Code. In providing this interpretation, we believe that it is also necessary to provide an interpretation of the specific floor level of Condominium Unit C, Covered Bridge Building. It is clear from the language of the Vail Town Code that Unit E must be considered a second floor unit and Unit C must be considered a first floor unit. The relevant definitions in this determination are the terms "basement or garden level," "first floor" and "second floor," as follows: 1. A"basement or garden level" is defined "as that floor of a building that is entirely or substantially below grade." Of note is that the term "street level" is not part of the definition. 2. A"first floor or street level" is defined "as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level." 3. The relevant language for usage of "second floor" is "above grade within a structure." Again the term "street level" is not used. ~ (970) 668-1678 ? Ff1X (970) 668-5121 + E-mail: carlson2@colorado.net ? Vail Valley ?(970) 845-7090 ` In construing a statutory code, it is black letter law that strict construction must be • given to statutory language. You must first look at the "plain language of the statute." If the language is clear, it must be interpreted as written. The architectural design for Unit E show that the level is a minimum four feet above street level and approximately fifteen feet above grade. A walk by of the Unit confirms tnis. Unit E is neither at street level, nor at grade as is required for a determination that this is a"first floor level." This requires a finding that this unit is above both street level and grade and therefore a"second floor" unit. This position is strengthened by the fact that Unit C must be considered a"first floor level." In the Code, there is a difference between street level and grade. While Unit C may be below street level, it is not below grade. It is in fact at grade. As this Unit is at grade, it cannot be considered a"basement ar garden level. Again, the defiiiition of basement or garden level is limited to "substantially below grade." The Unit must be considered a"first floor" unit which is at grade. Any other interpretation will be contrary to the Code and legally unsupportable. It would also contrary to the goals and policies of the community. It would create a situation were retail space would be above street level and, therefore, unattractive to potential users. The end result would be a perennially vacant unit. I would appreciate it if you would coordinate a time with me to walk the unit in • order to provide the appropriate usage interpretation. Sincerely, Paul R. Dunkelman cc: Covered Bridge, Inc. • ~ ~ WWN OF VAI~ ` Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road ' Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 www.vailgov.com December 1, 2006 Mr. Paul R. Dunkelman Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, L.L.C. P.O. Box 1829 Frisco, Colorado 80443 RE: Covered Bridge Building Street Level Determination 227 Bridge Street • Vail, Colorado Dear Mr. Dunkelman, The Town of Vail Community Development Department is in receipt of your letter dated November 20, 2006, regarding the specific floor levels of Condominium Units C and E, respectively. In making a determination of the specific floor levels of Condominium Units C and E, the Community Development Department relied upon the following documents presently on file with the Town of Vail: • Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code • Covered Bridge Building, Building Permit Set, dated 4/19/94 ("CBBBPS") • Town's legal file for Lots B, C and D, Block SB, Vail Village 151 Filing Upon review of the aforementioned documents, the Community Development Department has detennined that, for zoning purposes, Unit C is to be considered the "basement or garden" level of the building. In contrast, Unit E shall be considered the "floor or street level" of the building. While it is mutually understood that Unit E is a minimum of four feet above the level of the street, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission and Vail Town Council have consistently held, when ~ interpreting the applicable sections of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, that such a change in elevation shall not constitute an "above street level" condition. Any other interpretation is ~ECYCLED PAPER contrary to the horizontal zoning intent of the Code and development goals and policies • of the Town. To interpret the Code otherwise would result in office uses on the street level of buildings throughout the Town's crucial commercial core areas. Therefore, Sections 12-7B-2 and 12-7B-3 of the Vail Town Code shall apply to Units C and E of the Covered Bridge Building, respectively. As you are likely aware, Section 12-3-3, of the Vail Town Code outlines a procedure for , appealing an action of the Administrator. Should you wish to appeal the Community Development Department's determination regarding the specific levels of Condominium Units C and E, a form for filing said appeal is on file at the Offices of the Community Development Department. Sincerely, George Ruther, AICP Chief of Planning Town of Vail ~ • • 2 FILE COPY ; ~ ww Or 1Ji1J j Exhibit E Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Uail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 www.vailgov.com December 1, 2006 Mr. Paul R. Dunkelman Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, L.L.C. P.O. Box 1829 Frisco, Colorado 80443 RE: Covered Bridge Building Street Level Determination 227 Bridge Street • Vail, Colorado Dear Mr. Dunkelman, The Town of Vail Community Development Department is in receipt of your letter dated November 20, 2006, regarding the specific floor levels of Condominium Units C and E, respectively. In making a determination of the specific floor levels of Condominium Units C and E, the Community Development Department relied upon the #'ollowing documents presently on file with the Town of Vail: • Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code • Covered Bridge Building, Building Permit Set, dated 4/19/94 ("CBBBPS") • Town's legal file for Lots B, C and D, Block SB, Vail Village lst Filing ~ Upon review of the aforementioned documents, the Community Development Department has determined that, for zoning purposes, Unit C is to be considered the "basement or garden" level of the building. In contrast, Unit E shall be considered the "floor or street level" of the building. While it is mutually understood that Unit E is a minimum of four feet above the level of the street, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission and Vail Town Council have consistently held, when i interpreting the applicable sections of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, that such a change in • elevation shall not constitute an "above street level" condition. Any other interpretation is ACYCLED PAPLR I contrary to the horizontal zoning intent of the Code and development goals and policies • I of the Town. To interpret the Code otherwise would result in office uses on the street level of buildings throughout the Town's crucial commercial core areas. Therefore, Sections 12-7B-2 and 12-7B-3 of the Vail Town Code shall apply to Units C and E of the Covered Bridge Building, respectively. ~ As you are likely aware, Section 12-3-3, of the Vail Town Code outlines a procedure for appealing an action of the Administrator. Should you wish to appeal the Community Development Department's determination regarding the specific levels of Condominium Units C and E, a form for filing said appeal is on file at the Offices of the Community Development Department. Sincerely, George Ruther, AICP Chief of Planning Town of Vail • • 2 , Exhib~t F Carlson,Carlson c~ Dunkelman, L.L.C. Ronald W. Carlson Attorneys at Law ~ Paralegn[s Judith James Carlson Paul R. Dunkehnan Druke Landing + 9i5 N. Trn Mile Drive ? P.O. Box 1829 Marin E. Rui; Frisco, Colorado 80443 Car(a M. Fetice Christopher D. Tomchuck Patricia J. Craig December 21, 2006 via Facsimile (970) 479-2452 and U.S. Mciil Town of Vail Attn.: Warren Campbell Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Unit E, Covered Bridge Building 227 Bridge Street V ail, CO ~ Dear Mr. Campbell: Enclosed please find the Appeals Form as well as the necessary attachments. The Appeals Form has been sent by both facsimile and U.S. Mai1. Please advise as to when the matter will be brought before the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Paul R. Dunkelman cc: Covered Bridge, Inc. o jA;d o • °TOW11 OF WN!"- (970) 668-1678 + FA?C (970) 668-5121 ? E-mail: carlson2@colorado.net + Vail Valley ?(970) 845-7090 i. qPpea~ Farm CC [E QW [E D `-deparlment of Cammu.nity:Develapmcnt. 20:~ 75 Sauth Fcor~fiage Road., Vdll; Cdlo.rado 81557' tPl: 970.479.2139 fax, 970.1792152 web: www,vai v.com T()WN (JF \/AlL General InFurmation: This form is required for-filing an appPal uf a 5taff, Design Review Board, or Pfan,niny and Erivirunrnental (:ommission actiorr/dcci5ion. A carTjpke .form and associated i•equ'ir'cirrtPnts musl kie submttted to the Communiky Devclopment Denar4ment withirT tWenty (20): calCndar days-of the'clispiited action/deCi5ian. Aitian/Decision being appealed: Annellant is a-ppealzng the Community Development Department determination that for zoning puxposes U'nit E Covered 13ridge Suilding, 227 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado is fo 6e considered a"floor or street level" of the building. Datepf Action/Decision: December 1, 2001 Boar.d or Staff person rendering actionJdecisSon: George Ruther Does this appeal involrre a specific parcel of IaAd?. 1& (no) If yes, are you an adjacent property- owner? (yes ~p Name of Appellant(s): Covered Bridge,lnc. , Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1829, Frisco, CO 80443 . , Phone: (970) 668-1678 • Pltysic.at AdrJress in Vall: 227 Covered Bridge Building, Vail, CO Legal Descriptian of Appellant(s), Aroperty 'in Vail: I-ot C and Lot b, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Blocl~ 5-B, 'Vai1 'V'illage, accordina to the Appellartt(s) Signaturs(s}: recordedplat thereof Eaele County. Colorado (AC'tach a liq of signatures if ntore spdcN is required). Suhmi#ta.i Requirem.ents; l, On a separale stieet or separate-sheets of pap.er;; pro.vicle, a Mailed 8xplanation of how you are an "aggrievgd or aclversely aFfected person". 2. On a separdCe sheeC or separ.a:te shects of paper, speciPy the Arecise nature oF thc app.eal. f'leasr,. cile specifrc code sections haVing re(evanee lu the action being pppealed. 3. Pruvide a list of nam.es and addr'esses (bulh rrrailing and ohu'sical 'add1'CSSES lll VaII) of all owfierS Uf property who ai•e the subject af the appeal and all adjacent praRerry nwners, (iricluding ov+rn:er,s whose propcrties arP spp'awed from the suaject propcrry by a rigfll-uf-way, stream, or other interveninq barrier). 4. Provide stamped, addrrtisr'.d envelopes fvr each property ovrner listed in (3.). PLCASE.SUBMIT THIS FORM ANU ALL.5t1HNITTI"AL. •RCQUIREMEIVTS TO: TOWN QF V,4LL, OFPARTMCNT OF CON1MUNITY DEVELOPMENT, /b, Stll1TH fRONTAGE R4Ai7,'1JAIL, GOLOf1AbQ 9165/. For QFfice Use (fnly: Z 6 (9 Date Received: Acti.vity No-.: • Planner, 'nru'ect p:\r_dev\FUPN15~IIERMITS\Planfting\Applic.atic;ns\lpreals.doc. i ~•6-2tro5 E'd 99WON all NHW13W4 NOSIHO NOMb0 WdZ9:9 900Z 'lZ'Oa4 r A,ttacbmenti 1 Aggrieved nr Adversely Impacred Per-son • Appellant is the owner of 227 Covered Bridge Building, Vail, Colorado. The Community Planning Department has determined that for zonin.g purposes Unit E Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Street, VaxX, Colorado is to be considered a"floor or street level" of the building. Tt is the Appellant's position that Unit E, Covered Bridge must be considered a "second floor" unit. Appellant is adversely affected by the determination that Unit E is . considered a"floor or street level" unit. A"floor or street level" unit has the most restxictied uses. The permitted uses of "floor or street level" units are retail stores, eating and drinking estiablishments, lodges, and type IV emplayee housinb. The permitted use of a second floor unit includes the permitited uses of the "floor or street level", but also provides for many additional uses, including but not limited to lodges, bank and frnancial institutions, business and office services. The Community Planning Department determination se'verely impacts pxoperty rights, its right to use of the property under the Town Code, the rentability and marketability of the real property and will result in vacancies. The property is not in fact at street level. This has been agreed by the Plannxng • Department. Pedestrians axe required to wallc up a set of stairs to enter the U'nit. Unit E is a minimum of 4 feet above street leyel. It is also approximately fifteen (15) feet above grade. This makes it clear that this Unit cannat be eonsidered at street level, but also makes the unit unattractive for the type of use requixed on street level, i.e. retail use. Appellant presently has a renter interested in renting Unit E for use not permitted under the Planning Department ruring. This has limited the ability of the Appellant to fiully rent Unit E. • ti'd 998ti'ON 011 NbW13INAa ~ vOSIM NOSIM WdZ9:9 900Z 'lZ'364 . Attachm,ent 2 Nature of Appeal • The Community Planning Department has determined that for zoning purposes that Unit E Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado is to be considered a"floor oz street level" of the building. Appellant is the owner of 227 Covered Bridge Building, V'ail, Colorado. It is important to consider the relevanti definitions of "basement or gazden level," "first floor or streeti level," and "second floor." 1. A"basement or garden level" is defined "as that floor of a building that is entirely or substantially below grade." Of note is that the term "street level" is not parC of the definition. 12-7B-2, Vail Town Code. 2. A"first floor or streef le'vel" is defined "as t1iat floor of the building that is located at grade or street level." 12-7B-3, Vail Town Code. 3. The relevant language for usage of "second floor" is "above grade within a sttucture." Again the term "street level" is not used. 12-7B-4, Vail Town Code. Xt is not disputed by the Planning Department that Unit E is a minimum of four • feet above the level of the street. It is also approximately fifteen (15) feet above grade. Unit E is neither at street level, nor at grade as is required for a determination that this is a "first floor lewel." This requires ainding that this Unit is above both street level and grade and therefore a"second floor" unit. This position is strengthened by the fact that Unit C should be eonsidered a"first floor level." The Planning Department has determined that C7nit C is a"basement or garden level unit." This is not part of the appeal due to the 1ack of adverse impact which is considered in the appeal process, i.e. Atta.clament 2. While Unit C xs below street level, it is at grade. In the Code, there is a difference between street level and grade and in this instance only the term grade is considered . As this Unit is at grade, it cannot be considered a"basement or garden level. The definition of basement or gazden level is limited to "substantially below grade." The Unit must be considered a"first floor" unit which is at grade. • 9 Id 99gti IoN 011 NdWI3JIPdH q NOS1M NOSIW WdZ9 :9 900Z ' ll' 0aa _ It is clear from the language of the Va,il Town Code that U'nit E must be considered a second floor unit and Unit C must be considered a first floor unit. Tt is well • esta,blished lavv that in interpreting statutory language, you must first look to the plain language of the statute. See In re the Marriage of Cieslulc, 113 P.3d 135, 141 (Colo. 2005); see also Peonle y. 'Y'ascavaee, 101 1°.3d 1090,1093 (Colo. 2004) The Planning Departtnent has decided to ignore the strict language of the Towm Code a.nd determine rthat a Unit four feet abo've street level and fifteen feet above grade is in fact at grade or street level. The determination by the Planning bepartment is contrazy to the language of the Town Code, is legally rn error and is, i.n fact, an azbitrary and capricious decision. This ruling is conlxary to the goals and policies of the communiYy. It would create a situation were zetail space would be abov'e street level and, therefore, unattractive to patential users. The end result would be a perennially vacant unit. • • , 9'd 99WON o11 NdW1DNn0 q PIOSIM NOSIPD Wd£9:g 900Z 'lZ'060 Attachment 3 Adjacent Property Owners • Covered Bridge Bui.lding A,ssociation, Ync. . P.O. Box 2636 Edvvards, CO 81632 Pepi Sport, 7na c/o rosef Gramshammer 231 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 Slifer, Smith and Frampton, LLC 230 Bridge Street 'V'ail, CO 81657 David Luther c/o Craig Denton 1116 beer Blvd. Avon, CO 81620 • ~ L ' d 99WON O11 NdW1DNO4 q NOSIP3 NOSIP3 WdE9:9 9001 'lZ'080 . Carlson,Carlson & Dunkelman, L.L.C. Ronald W. Carlson Attorneys at Law Paralegals ~ ,~udich James Carlson • Maria L. l~uiz Paul R. Dunkelman ]~rake Lunding + 975 N. Ten Mtle Drtve t P.O. Box 1829 Frisco, Colorada 80443 Carla M . Fclice Chriscopher D. Tomchuck !'acricia J. Craig December 21, 2006 Via Facsimile (970) 479-2452 and U.S. Mail Tovvn of V'ail Attn.: Warren Campbell Department of Community Development ' 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Unit E, Ca'vered Bridge Building 227 Bridge Street Vail, CO . Dear Mr. Campbell: . • Enclosed please find Supplemental Attachment 3. 5incerely, ' Paul R. Dunkelrnan ~ cc: Covered Bridge, In,c. • (970) 668-I678 + FAX (970) 668-5121 + E-mail: ca,-Ison2@colorado.nec ~ VailValley +(470) 845-7090 Z 'd 998ti' oN 011 NaWI';INAa ~ NOS1M NOS1NdO WdZ£ I 900Z ' lZ' 0aa Supplementay Attachment 3 Adjacent Property Ovvners • Covered BrSdge Building Association, Inc. 227 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 P.O. Box 2636 Edwards, GO 81632 , Pepi Sport, Ync, c/o rosef Gramshammer 231 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 ~I Gastof Gramshammer, Iuc. c/o 1'epi Crramshammer 231 E. Crore Creek Drive, Vail, CO 81657 Mountaxn Haus Condominium Association Attn: Barbaxa $anks 292 B. Meadow brive Vail, CO 81657 • Slifer Building, LLC 230 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 Charles David Y,uther c/o Craig Denton 227 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 1116 Deer Blvd. Avon, CO 81620 Charles David Lather 227 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 16 Paddock Road Edna, IvIN 55436 • d 99WON O11 N'dW13INna '8 1\I0SIPO NOSIPO WdlE l 9001 ' ll' 3aa ~ ~ . P 8z R Partners-Vail, LLC I 228 Bridge Street, Units A, C, D& E • Vail, CO 81657 , Attn.: Michael Staughton 228 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 Charles &Etfzabeth Koch Real Estatie Trust 228 Bridge Street, Units F& G Vail, CO 81657 411 B. 37th St. N. Wichita, KS 67201-2256 • • ~'d ggWoN 011 NdW1DNAO ~ NUS103 NOSIM WdZEI 900Z 'lZ'Oa4 . Carlson,Carlson & Dunkelma.n, L.L.C. . 12onald W. Carlson Attorneys at La,a.v 1°aralegd.ls Judich James Carlson Maria E. Ruiz Aaul R. DunkeGmnn 1'~rake Lunding ? 975 N. Ten Mile 1?rive + P.O. Box 1829 . Frisco, Calarado 50443 Carla M. Felice Chriscopher D. Tomchuck Pacriciu I. Craig • becernber 21, 2006 Via Facsimzle (970) 479-2452 and U.S. Mail Town of'V'ail Attn.: 'W'anen Campbell bepartment of Communzty Development 75 5outh Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Unit E, Covered Bridge Building 227 Sridge Street Vail, CO Dear Mr. Campbell: Enclosed please find the Appeals Form as well as the necessary attachments. The • Appeals Form has been sent by both facsimile and U.S. Mail. Please advise as to when the matter will be brought before the planning Commission. Sincerely, ' Paul R. Dunkelman cc: Covered Bridge, Inc. `,t.%` , ~ i, , DEC 2 i 2005 F VA1L TOLNN 0 ~ (970) 668-1678 + FAaC (970) 668-5121 + E-mait: cccrCson2@colorado.ner + 'tlcri.l Valley + (970) 845-7090 Z'd 998ti'ON 011 NdW131W0 q NOSIy'd3 NOSIPO WdZ9:9 900Z 'lZ'Na • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 12, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12- 12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 11 and 12, Bighorn Subdivision, located at 4852 and 4856 Meadow Lane, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0001) Applicant: Meadowlark Development Partners, LLC, represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Warren Campbell 1. SUMMARY The applicants, Meadowlark Development Partners, LLC, represented by Greg Amsden, are requesting approval of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13- • 12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundacies, Lots 11 and 12, Bighorn Subdivision, located at 4852 and 4856 Meadow lane. The purpose of the proposed plat is to reconfigure the shared property line between Lots 11 and 92 to facilitate the redevelopment of the lots with residential structures. The proposed final plat amendment results in the addition of 1,045 square feet of property to Lot 11 from Lot 12. Staff is recommending approval of this application subject to the findings and criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Meadowlark Development Partners, LLC, represented by Greg Amsden, are requesting to modify the shared property line between Lots 91 and 12two existing lots resulting in two new lots. The reconfiguration of the shared fot line results in Lot 11 increasing in size from 24,960 square feet to 26,005 square feet (+1,045 s.f) and Lot 12 decreasing in size from 25,352 square feet to 24,307 square feet (-1,045 s.f.). This purpose of this exchange of property is to facilitate the redevelopment of the two lots. The applicant will be subsequently be proposing a new duplex residence on Lot 11 and new single-family residence on Lot 12. There is an existing structure Iocated on the common property line of Lots 11 and 12 which would be removed to facilitiate this redevelopment. A vicinity map is attached depicting the subject property (Attachment A), as is a reduced copy of the proposed, reconfigured plat (Attachment B). A conceptual set of • the proposed site plans are include (Attachment C). ~ ~ • 111. BACKGROUND Lots 11 and 12, Block 7, Bighorn 5th Addition, were annexed into the Town by Ordinance 20, Series of 1974, which became effective on November 5, 1974. With the exception of several Design Review applications for the structure located on both lots which included a re-roof and deck repair, there has been no significant actions since annexation. The existing structure was constructed on the lots prior to annexation. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS PlanninQ and Environmental Commission: Action: Pursuant to Section 13-12-3C, Review and Action on Plat, Vail Town Cod, the Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the final plat. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on an exemption plat, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: The Town Council is the appeals authority for an exemption plat review procedure in accordance with Sub-section 13-3-5C, Council May Appeal, Vail Town Code. • Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TITLE 13, VAIL TOWN CODE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (partial) 13-2-2 DEFINITIONS EXEMPTION PLAT.• The platting of a portion of land or property that does not fall within fhe defrnition of a"subdivision" as contained rn this sectron. 13-12 EXEMPTION PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES 13-12-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: • 2 . The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and an appropriate review process whereby the planning and environmental commission may grant exemptions from the definition of the term "subdivision" for properties that are determined to faU outside the purpose, purview and intent of chapters 3 and 4 of this title. This process is intended to allow for the p/afting of property where no additional parcels are created and conformance with applicab/e provisions of this code has been demonstrated. 13-12-2: EXEMPTIONS IN PROCEDURE AND SUBMITTALS: "Exempfion Plats"; as defined in section 13-2-2 of this title, shall be exempt from requirements re/ated to preliminary plan procedures and submittals. Exemption plat applicants may be required to submit an environmental impact report if required by title 12, chapfer 92 of this code. 13-12-3: PLAT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: C. Review And Action On P/af: The planning and environmental commission shall review the p/at and associated materials and sha/l approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within finrenty one (21) days of the first public • hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to mutual agreement between the p/anning and environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plaf shall be as contained in section 13-3-4 of this title. • VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zonin North: Open Space Agricultural and Open Space East: Residential Primary/Secondary District West: Residential Primary/Secondary District South: Residential Primary/Secondary District VII. SITE ANALYSIS The following is a zoning analysis of Lots 11 and 12, which are proposed to be amended by the proposed application. Lot 11, Block 7, Bighorn 5'h Addition Zoning: Primary/Secondary District Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Two-Family Duplex Residence Development Standard Allowed Existin Proposed Lot Area: 15,000 s.f. 24,960 s.f. 26,005 s.f. (+1,045 s.f.) Dimension: 80'X80' min. 85'X85' 901X90' • Frontage: 30 ft. min. 88.96 ft. 88.96 ft. 3 GRFA: NA 7,795 s.f. 7,930 s.f. (+135 s.f.) • Access: The access is taken off of Meadow Lane. Lot 12, Block 7, Bighorn 5'h Addition Zoning: Primary/Secondary Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Two-Family Duplex Residence Develoqment Standard Allowed Existinq Proqosed Lot Area: 15,000 s.f. 25,352 s.f. 24,307 s.f. (-1,045s.f.) Dimension: 80'X80' min. 100'X100' 100'X100' Frontage: 30ft. min. 44.04 ft. 44.04 ft. GRFA: NA 7,846 s.f. 7,709 s.f. (-137s.f.) Access: The access is taken off of Meadow Lane. Comparison of Proposed Lots 11 and 12 to a selection of other lots in the immediate vicinitv within the Biqhorn 5th Addition Subdivision Lot ZoninQ Lot Size GRFA Lot 5 Primary/Secondary 50,530 J. 9,681 s.f. Lot 7 Primary/Secondary 29,098 s.f. 8,332 s.f. • Lot 8 Primary/Secondary 25,134 s.f. 7,817 s.f. Lot 9 Prima ry/Seconda ry 24,916 s.f. 7,789 s.f. Lot 10 Primary/Secondary 26,092 s.f. 7,942 s.f Lot 13 Primary/Secondary 30,318 s.f. 8,469 s.f. Lot 14 Primary/Secondary 21,823 s.f. 7,749 s.f. Lot 15 Primary/Secondary 23,261 s.f. 7,574 s.f. VIII. APPLICATION CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The purpose section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to ensure that the proposed subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. The criteria for reviewing an exemption plat shall be as contained in section 13-3-4 of this title which are as follows: (9) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive P/an and is compatib/e with the deve/opment objectives of the town; and Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat and found it to be in compliance with all applicable elements of Vail Comprehensive Plan. (2) The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the • standards of this Title, as well as, but not limifed to, Tit/e 12, Zoning 4 • Regulations and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable; and Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat and found that all submittal documents were received and the resulting lots will comply with all applicable portions of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. (3) The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workab/e relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and Staff Response: The proposed final plat modifying the shared property line between Lots 11 and 12 will not negatively affect the workable relationship among land uses as the proposal will maintain the current land uses, low density residential. (4) The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area; and , Staff Response: The proposed final plat modifying the shared property line between Lots 11 and 12 will not negatively affect the future development of the surrounding area. (5) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to • avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a"leapfrog" pattern of development; and Staff Response: The proposed final plat modifying the shared property line befinreen Lots 11 and 12 will not negatively affect the elements identified in the above criterion. (6) The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines; and Staff Response: The proposed final plat modifying the shared property line between Lots 11 and 12 will not affect the currently level of utility service required in the vicinity. (7) The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a who/e; and Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed final plat to modify the shared property line between Lots 11 and 12 will continue to allow for the orderly growth of the community and serves the interests of the community as the owner of the lots will be able to replace a legal non-conforming structure with two new structures which will comply with the Town's adopted regulations. • 5 (8) The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or • beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirab/e natural features; and Staff Response: Staff does not believe the proposed final plat to modify the shared property line between Lots 11 and 12 will result in any adverse impacts to any of the items listed in the above criterion. (9) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicab/e to the proposed subdivision. B. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a major subdivision, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings with respect to the proposed major subdivision: (1) Th.at the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Subsection 13-3-4A, Vail Town Code; and (2) That the subdivision is consisfent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the deve/opment objectives of the Town; and (3) That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and • (4) That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner thaf conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves a final plat pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to ated at 4852 shared property boundaries, Lots 11 and 12, Bighorn Subdivision, loc and 4856 Meadow Lane, subject to the following conditions: Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the final plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The P/anning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for a fina/ p/at, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption P/at Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, fo allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 11 and 12, Bighorn Subdivision, located at 4852 and 4856 Meadow Lane, and setting forth details in regard thereto.. " • 6 • Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the final plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "The P/anning and Envrronmenta! Commission finds: (1) That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Sub-section 13-3-4A, Vail Town Code; and (2) That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatib/e with the development objectives of the Town; and (3) That the subdivision is compatible wifh and surfable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and (4) That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmoniaus development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. X. ATTACHMENTS • A. Vicinity Map B. Copy of the proposed final plat C. Proposed site plan of new structures D. Public Notice i 7 • . ~ p€e b$~ t Z y.; eSe R~ ~ ~ R y 8 ~a . ~•3 IFAp r;1 k ~ A~,.- "~Ii~+• b . ~ a ~ ~gs ~ . jy~ {y~ b ~".71~E,.iQ~ 7 . • 1 I .a~re ~~!'~'3 ~'.i a~ Q ~ a'T~FS L~ {4/Y 4 1 . ~ ~ a. , 4 ~t I F'. y ~ ~ta > ~ I ~ • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator DATE: February 12, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to add commercial linkage requirements and inclusionary zoning requirements to the Zoning Regulations for the purpose of mitigating employee housing impacts resulting from development in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0084) 1. Introduction The Vail Town Council has set a goal of ensuring that there is employee housing available in the Town of Vail for at least 30% of the work force. With the projected job growth and free market real estate trends this will be challenging. • In order to achieve this goal a number of strategies will need to be implemented. Commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning are tools that Town Council is choosing to implement today. Commercial Linkage is a tool that the Town currently utilizes. In the case of a Special Development District the current requirement is mitigation for 30% of the net new employees generated. If the development complies with the density controls of the underlying zone district then the requirement is reduced to mitigation for 15% of net new employees. At their January 2, 2006 meeting Town Council stated that 20% mitigation for net new employees is their preferred new commercial linkage policy. At the January 2, 2007 Town Council meeting staff was directed to modify the Employee Housing Ordinance to include an inclusionary zoning requirement of 30% net new employees. Following input from the Community, Town Council has requested that staff further determines what measures are needed to achieve the goal of housing 30% of Vail's workforce and what percentage of net new employees generated from residential development must be housed through the use of inclusionary zoning in order to achieve that goal. It is important to remember that the Town Council is considering two specific policy tools at this time to address employee housing demand as it is created. Inclusionary zoning includes focus on not just the primary job generation of development and commercial linkage focuses exclusively on the primary job • generation of specific commercial uses. To ground the discussion in the purpose 1 1 of these tools that require employee housing as new demand is generated the following definitions are critical: • Inclusionary Zoning: requires a minimum percentage of residential development ' be provided at below-market rates to serve lower income households as part of new residential developments. Inclusionary zoning is a housing production obligation based on the Community's need for affordable housing as related to many factors, including a scarcer supply of land, rising home values, insufficient provision of housing affordable to residents by the market, etc., in addition to any direct employee generation impacts. Commercial Linkage: Requires that a development provide housing for a specified percentage of new employees generated by the development. Linkage programs focus only on the development's impacts as related to employee generation and do not take into account secondary impacts. Residential Linkage: Requires that a development provide housing for a specified percentage of new employees generated by the residential development. Linkage ' programs focus only on the development's impacts as related to employee generation and do not take into account secondary impacts. II. BackSround Employee and Housing conditions in the Town of Vail: • (1) 6,400 Dwelling Units in Vail (a) 1,500 employee households in Vail (Rental or Ownership) (i) 624 employee occupied dwelling units are deed restricted (ii) 876 employee occupied dwelling units are non deed restricted (2) 9,100 jobs held by 6,100 employees (Average employee holds 1.2 jobs) (a) 4500 jobs are entry level ($9 -$12 hour) (3) Where do employees live? (a) 30% of Vail employees live and work in Vail today (b) 34% of Vail employees live between Eagle Vail and Edwards (c) 14% of Vail employees live in Lake County (4) 1,500 new jobs/1,154 new employees needed by approved projects (a) 257 new beds to offset new jobs (b) 385 new beds needed to maintain 30% status quo (i) short 128 beds to maintain current status (5) 1,175 new jobs/980 new employees anticipated by redevelopment in West Lionshead, West Vail, and Vail Village ~ 2 • (6) There is continuing loss of existing employee occupied housing (a) High rate of ownership by non-employees (b) Increasing property Values - existing owners are moving down valley or out of County (c) New owners are not typically renting their units (7) January, 2007 there were 17 units listed for-sale in Vail under $500,000 (a) 3 units were studios (b) 4 units were one-bedroom (c) 10 units were two-bedroom Employee and Housing conditions in Eagle County: (1) In the next five to ten years there will be 7,370 new jobs between Eagle- Vail and Edwards (a) Today, 37% of Vail's workforce lives between Eagle-Vail and ' Edwards (2) The Ginn development will add approximately 1,000 new jobs (a) Currently 14% of Vail's workforce commutes in from Lake County (3) The average sales price of a unit (2/06) in Gypsum was $351,897 ' • (4) The average sales price of a unit (2/06) in Eagle was $437,363 (5) The average sales price of a unit (2/06) in Homestead was $913,333 II. Questions from the Januarv 22, 2007 PEC Meeting o What are the type and quantity of employee housing units needed? The types and guantity of employee housing units that are needed will vary as development actually occurs in the Town of Vail. The need is across the entire spectrum of housing. The focus of the housing developed by the Town and through the Town's policies will need to be varied to address seasonal workers to employees with families. The entire need will not be addressed through either policy or development and the focus will need to be continually reevaluated to ensure that it is meeting the community's goals. It is estimated that the currently approved redevelopment projects will create 1,500 new jobs or the need for 1,154 new employees when they are complete. When looking at a model that estimates potential • redevelopment in West Lionshead, West Yail, and Vail Village there will 3 be approximately 1,175 new jobs or 980 new employees in those three areas alone. • • What types of jobs are being created by redevelopment? The types of jobs anticipated by the redevelopment are predominately service sector/customer service jobs rypically associated with resort residential development. For example, it is not anticipated that there will . be a significant increase in office space. • What are the possible development sites within and outside of the Town of Vail to build employee housing? It is possible that employee housing may be built on-site with every , development project. The Town of Yail is largest owner of undeveloped land in Town. The Town Council and the community will ultimately need to determine what sites are appropriate for employee housing development. To the extent possible, publicly owned sites should be used to address the "catch up component" of the employee housing issue and should not be used to mitigate demand generated by new redevelopment. Commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning address keeping up with need as it is generated and therefore not exacerbating the problem. • Looking at parcels outside of the Town will require regional cooperation. The Blue Ribbon Panel on Housing may begin to identi,fy appropriate sites on a regional basis. Again, elected officials and the community will need to determine what sites are appropriate for employee housing development. • Do we understand what the budget needs are for employee housing? o Can a portion of RETT be redirected, a dedicated mill levy increase or a dedicated sales tax increase pay for some of the employee housing need? Town Council recognizes that a dedicated funding source is a critical component of the employee housing solutions. At this point in time, they have expressed an interest in exploring a reallocation of RETT (requires the passage of an Ordinance), a dedicated mill levy increase (requires a vote of the Town), and a dedicated sales tax increase (requires a vote of the Town). Town Council acknowledges that some mitigation from inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage requirements will generate a fee-in-lieu. The funding benefit from these requirements will likely vary greatly. Any funds generated by an inclusionary zoning or commercial . linkage requirement will need to address the new need being created by 4 • the specific development project generating the demand. Additional funding sources will be needed to address existing demand shortfall. ~ Town Council also recognizes that the Blue Ribbon Panel on Housing is i exploring a dedicated County-wide funding source and Town Council wants to ensure that they are not duplicating efforts. • Is 30% the right goal? Is it too high or too low? Town Council has determined that the stated goal of ensuring that at least 30% of Vail's workfarce lives in the Town of Vail is an appropriate goal at this point in time. This goal has been further validated through the Yail 2020 strategic planning process. • Where are the units going? On-site, off-site, etc. o Do we understand the impact of building additional units in ' Town? At this point in time, Town Council has supported mitigation options that include on site and off-site units as well as fee-in-lieu. While there is not consensus, there is support for preferring off-site units (deed restricting existing housing units) and fee-in-lieu currently. However, on-site units • wild remain an option. I • Who benefits from employees living in Town? The communily benefits from having a year-round resident base and employers benefit from having year-round customers as well as employees in proximity to their jobs. The community also benefits from a reduction in commute times and fewer employees requiring parking spaces in Town. • What do we want this housing to look like? This will need to be evaluazed on a periodic basis. • What are successful incentives for the private sector to create employee housing? Reduced permitting fees, increased densiry, increased GRFA. • Please provide information about what has been required of recently approved projects. Attached to this memo is a chart (Attachment 2) that provides an overview • of recently approved projects. 5 III. Comments and Themes from Town Council • 1) The goal is to maintain deed restricted housing for at least 30% of the workforce in the Town of Vail. a. An inclusionary zoning requirement of 10% of net new residential square footage and a commercial linkage requirement to mitigate for 20% of net new employees achieves that goal when analyzing the anticipated redevelopment model for West Lionshead, West Vail, and Vail Village. 2) Application of commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning to certain zone districts is in keeping with the intent of the current proposed policy direction. The model driving the policy direction looks at specific areas of redevelopment and does not encompass the entire Town of Vail. a. High density multiple-family (HDMF) district, Public accommodation (PA) district, Public accommodation 2(PA-2) district, Commercial core 1(CC1) district, Commercial core 2(CC2) district, Commercial core 3(CC3) district, Commercial service center (CSC) district, I Arterial business (ABD) district, Heavy service (HS) district, Lionshead mixed use 1(LMU-1) district, Lionshead mixed use 2 (LMU-2) district, Ski base/recreation (SBR) district, Ski base/recreation 2(SBR2) district, General use (GU) district, and Special development (SDD) district. • 3) The established deadline of April 15, 2007 to enact a new Employee Housing Ordinance needs to be achieved. IV. Request of Planning and Environmental Commission In light of the fact the Community, Town Council, and PEC have expressed concern about the application of inclusionary zoning to all residential development, irregardless of size; staff was previously looking for a recommendation from PEC on an appropriate minimum threshold, for these requirements. At the most recent Town Council meeting staff was directed to look at applying inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage requirements by zone district. Because the current model that staff has been using looks only at three areas of redevelopment (West Lionshead, West Vail, and Vail Village) Town Council believes that application of these requirements by specific zone district may be appropriate. There is not a specific request of PEC at Today's meeting. A draft Employee Housing Ordinance will be presented to PEC at the February 26, 2007 meeting for discussion. • 6 • The action requested at the March 12, 2007 PEC meeting will be to make a recommendation to Town Council regarding the proposed Employee Housing Ordinance. V. Criteria for Consideration on the Town's Emplovee HousinE Policv Before recommending an employee housing policy alternative to the Vail Town Council, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission considers the following factors with respect to the employee housing policy amendment: 1) The policy ensures that there is employee housing available in the Town of Vail for at least 30% of the town's work force? 2) The policy takes a broad approach towards achieving the community's housing goals? , 3) The policy addresses the housing needs of a wide range of Vail's present and future population (i.e., seasonal, local, families, etc.) 4) The policy can be incorporated into the Town's adopted rules and zoning regulations. • 5) The policy furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations. 6) The policy implements and better achieves the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 7) The policy demonstrates how employee housing conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the current employee housing policy and how the existing policy is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable. 8) The policy provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with the Town's development objectives. 9) The policy promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated. and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. 10) No action is NOT an acceptable alternative. • 7 VI. Next Steps • February 20, 2007 (Town Council) Present draft Employee Housing Ordinance for discussion February 26, 2007 (PEC) Present draft Employee Housing Ordinance for continued discussion March 6, 2007 (Town Council) Town Council public hearing March 12, 2007 (PEC) Planning & Environmental Commission public hearing and recommendation to Town Council on the proposed employee housing policy March 20, 2007 (Town Council) lst Reading of the Employee Housing Policy Ordinance April 3, 2007 (Town Council) • 2"a Reading of the Employee Housing Policy Ordinance VII. Attachments 1) MaP showing location of proposed zone districts to be affected by inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage. 2) Chart showing employee housing requirements for major projects completed in 2005 or later. 3) A letter from Lin and Betty Grubbs dated February 1, 2007. ~ • 8 : • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 12, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12- 71-1-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a request for a final review of variances from Sections 12-71-1-10, Setbacks, 12-71-1-14, Site Coverage, and 12-71-1-15, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an underground parking structure and a staircase within the setbacks, and deviations from the maximum site coverage and minimum landscape area requirements, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0074) Applicant: Landmark, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson 1. SUMMARY • The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. I1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Landmark building is located at 610 West Lionshead Circle. A vicinity map identifying the location of the development site has been attached for reference (Attachment A). It is located within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan area and within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District. The purpose of this work session is to provide the Planning and Environmental Commission with information from the Town's regulatory documents addressing how the proposed Landmark renovation will be reviewed. Please refer to Section V of this memorandum. Additionally, excerpts from Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan have been attached for reference (Attachment B). This work session will also provide the applicant an opportunity to introduce the Landmark renovation proposal to the Commission and for the Commission to provide initial feedback to the applicant. The applicanYs variance request (Attachment C), preliminary zoning analysis (Attachment D), preliminary architectural renderings (Attachment E), and preliminary architectural plans (Attachment F) have been attached • for reference. The scope and design of this proposal is continuing to evolve and the applicant has not yet finalized their proposal. However, at this time the applicant is requesting a work 1 l session to discuss a Major Exterior Alteration application and several variance applications (i.e. setbacks, landscaping, and site coverage) to allow for the construction • of 13 new dwelling units, a new on-site employee housing unit, a new underground parking structure, a new load i ng/del ivery bay, a new entry/lobby addition, a new fitness facility, a previously approved new elevator tower, elimination of the existing alley adjacent to Concert Hall Plaza, a significant re-face of the existing residential portions of the building, and a potential re-face and expansion of the existing commercial spaces adjacent to the Lionshead Mall. The existing Landmark is deficient in landscape area and the proposed loading/delivery bay will further reduce the amount of net landscaping on the site. Therefore, at this time the applicant is requesting a landscape area variance. The applicant is exploring design alternatives to address this issue without the need for a variance. The applicant is proposing to construct an egress stair tower at the northwest corner of the existing townhome units which encroaches more than the four feet allowed by the Town Code into the ten foot setback area. The applicant is exploring design alternatives to address this issue without the need for a variance. The applicant is proposing to construct a new below-grade parking structure to the south of the existing structure (i.e. below the existing alley between Landmark and Concert Hall Plaza). The applicant is currently proposing to extend this new parking structure to the south property line, and therefore is requesting a setback variance. Additionally, Chapter 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, defines below-grade structures as site coverage. While the proposed above-grade improvements comply with the Town • Code's site coverage requirements, the addition of the below-grade structure exceeds the site coverage limits. Therefore, the applicant is appealing a Staff determination that the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan does not exempt below-grade structures from the site coverage calculations and has submitted a site coverage variance request. 111. BACKGROUND The Landmark site was annexed into the Town of Vail in August of 1969. According to Eagle County records, the existing Landmark was originally constructed in 1973. The property was originally zoned Commercial Core 2 District and was rezoned to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District in 1999. At its February 14, 2005 public hearing, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a major exterior alteration application to allow for the construction of the proposed elevator tower located between the two existing building elements of the Landmark. The applicant has incorporated that same elevator tower design into this more comprehensive redevelopment proposal. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS The following checklist was created to provide a means of evaluating the Lion Square Lodge North proposal for compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The checklist is intended for the Planning and Environmental Commission to use in conjunction with their copies of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to locate relevant portions of the Master Plan which pertain to this proposal. • Lionshead Redevelopment Master P/an 2 ~ Chapter 2: Introduction ? 2.1 Purpose of the Master Plan ? 2.2 Definition of a Master Plan ? 2.3 Policy Objectives Chapter 4: Master Plan Recommendations - Overall study Area ? 4.1 Underlying Physical Framework of Lionshead 0 4.3 Connections to the Natural Environment ? 4.6 Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation ? 4.7 Loading and Delivery ? 4.8 Parking ? 4.9 Housing ? 4.10 Gateway, Landmarks, and Portals ? 4.11 Public Art Chapter 5: Detailed Plan Recommendations v 5.10 Montaneros, Concert Hall Plaza, Lanmark Tower and Townhomes Chapter 6: Site Design Guidelines ? 6.1 Primary Pedestrian Mall ? 6.2 Secondary Pedestrian Mall ? 6.3 Primary Pedestrian Walk ? 6.4 Secondary Pedestrian Walk • ? 6.5 Vehicu(ar Pedestrian Retail Street ? 6.6 Pedestrian Path ? 6.9 Compliance with the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan Chapter 8: Architectural Design Guidelines ? 8.1 Vision Statement 0 8.2 Organization, Purpose and Scope 0 8.3 New and Existing Structures ? 8.4 Design Guidelines Zoninq Reaulations Lionshead Mixed Use -1 Zone Disfrict 12-7H-1: PURPOSE: The Lionshead Mixed Use-9 zone district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multip/e-family dwellings, lodges, hote/s, fractional fee clubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, otfices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a c/ustered, unified deve/opment. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Masfer P/an, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. This Districf is meant to encourage and provide incentives for • redevelopment in accordance wifh the Lionshead Redeve/opment Master P/an. This Zone District was specificaNy developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The u/timate goa/ of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercia/ core area. The incentives in fhis Zone District include 3 increases in allowable gross residentia/ floor area, building height, and density over the • previously established zoning in the Lionshead Redeve/opment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorab/e to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master P/an. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. Wifh any development/redevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. 12-7H-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL: A. Definition: The "basement" or "garden level" shall be defined as that floor of a building that is entirely or substantially below grade. 8. Permifted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure: Banks and financial institutions. Commercial ski storage. Eating and drinking establishmenfs. Personal services and repair shops. Professional offices, business offices and studios. Public or private lockers and storage. Recreation facilities. Retail establishments. • Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare. Trave/ agencies. Additional 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 in basement or garden levels within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Conference facilities and meeting rooms. Liquor stores. Lodges and accommodation units. Major arcade. Multiple-family residentia/ dwelling units, time-share units, fractiona/ fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and emp/oyee housing units (Type 111 (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title). Radio, TV stores, and repair shops. Theaters. Additional uses defermined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance wifh the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. 12-7H-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL: • A. Definition: The "first floor" or "street level" shall be defined as that floor of the building that is /ocated at grade or street level along a pedestrianway. 4 • B. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street leve/ within a structure: Banks, with walk-up teller facilities. Eating and drinking establishments. Recreation facilities. Retail stores and establishments. Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare. Travel agencies. Additiona/ uses determined to 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 conditional use permit in accordance with fhe provisions of Chapter 16 of this Tit/e: Barbershops, beauty shops and beauty parlors. ' Conference facilities and meeting rooms. Financial institutions, other than banks. Liquor stores. Lodges and accommodation units. Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type /ll (EHU) as • provided in Chapter 13 of this Title). Radio, TV stores, and repair shops. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsecfion, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. 12-7H-4: PERMITTED AND CONDIT/ONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE: 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 !ll (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title). Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. 8. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on second f/oors and higher above grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Banks and financial institutions. Conference facilities and meeting rooms. Eating and drinking establishments. • Liquor stores. Personal services and repair shops. Professional offices, business offices and studios. Radio, TV stores, and repair shops. Recreation facilities. 5 Retail establishments. • Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare. Theaters. Time-share units and fractional fee clubs. 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-5: CONDITIONAL USES; GENERALLY (ON ALL LEVELS OF A BUILDING OR OUTS/DE OF A BUILDING): The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject fo issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Tit/e: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of fhis Title. Brew pubs. Coin-operated laundries. Commercial storage. Private outdoor recreation facilities, as a primary use. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities. Public or private parking lots. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Television stations. 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-6: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone districf: Home occupations, subject 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 conditional 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 recreation facilifies 'I customarily incidental to permitted residential or lodge uses. Other uses customarily incidenta/ and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12-7H-7: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alferation of an existing building that is not a major exterior a/teration as described in subsection B of this section shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. • 1. Submittal Items Required: The submittal items required for a project that is not a major exterior alteration shaU be provided in accordance with section 12-11-4 of this title. 6 • B. Major Exterior A/teration: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing bui/ding which adds additiona/ dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, timeshare unifs, any project which adds more than one thousand (1, 000) square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off site impacts (as determined by the administrator) shall be reviewed by the p/anning and environmental commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance with this chapter and section 12-3-6 of this title. Any project which reguires a conditional use permit shall also obtain approval of the p/anning and environmental commission in accordance with chapter 16 of this title. Comp/ete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in accordance with administrative schedules developed by the department of community development for planning and environmental commission and design review board review. 1. Submitta/ Items Reguired, Major Exterior Alteration: The following submittal items are required: a. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the condominium association in conformity wifh all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's dec/arations. b. Application; Contents: The administrator shall establish the submitta/ requirements for • an exterior a/teration or modification application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be mainfained by the administrator and filed in the department of community deve/opment. Certain submittal requirements may be waived and/or modified by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materia/s required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicab/e to fhe planning documents that comprise the Vail comprehensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samp/es and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. C. Work Sessions/Conceptual Review: If requested by either the applicant or the administrator, submittals may proceed to a work session with the p/anning and environmenta/ commission, a conceptual review with the design review board, or a work session with the town council. D. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental commission shall be he/d in accordance with section 92-3-6 of this title. The planning and environmental commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the planning and environmental commissron may be appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this tit/e. E. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration as prescribed by this article shall lapse and become void two (2) years following the date of approva/ by the design • review board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to comp/etion. Administrative extensions shall be allowed for reasonab/e and unexpecfed de/ays as long as code provisions affecting the proposa/ have not changed. 7 92-7H-8: COMPLIANCE BURDEN; • It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before fhe Pianning 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, thaf the proposal is consisfenf wifh applicab/e elements of the Lionshead Redeve/opment Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significanf negative effect on the character of fhe neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicab/e elements of the Vafl comprehensive plan. 12-7H-9: LOT AREA AND S1 TE D/MENSIONS; The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area. 12-7H-10: SETBACKS: The minimum building setbacks shaii be ten feef (10) unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as a build-to line. 12-7H-11: HEIGHT AND BULK: Buildings shall have a maximum average building height of seventy one feet (71) with a maximum height ot' 82.5 feet, as further deffned by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. All development shall comply with the design guidelines and standards found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master P/an. Flexibility with the standard, as incorporated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, shall be afforded to redevelopment projects which meet the intent of design guidelines, as reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. . 12-7H-12: DENS/TY (DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE): Up to a thirty three percent (33%) increase over the existing number of dwelling units on a property or thirty five (35) dwelling units per acre, whichever is greater shall be allawed. For the purpose of calcu/ating densrty, employee housing units, accommodation units, time share unifs, and fractional fee club units shall not be counted as dwelling units. Additionally, a'7odge dwelling unit" as defined herein, shall be counted as twenty five percent (25%) of a dwelling unit for the purpose of calculating density. A dwelling unit in a multiple-family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (113) of the total f/oor area of the dwelling. 12-714-13: GROSS RESlDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA): Up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area shall be allowed for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area, or an increase of thirty three percent (3391o) over the exrstrng GRFA found on the property, whichever is greater. Multiple-family dwelling units in this zone district shall not be entitled to additional gross residential floor area under the 250 ordinance, section 12-95-5 of this tit/e. 12-7H-14: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed seventy percent (70%) of the total sife area, unless otfrerwise specified in the Lionshead Redeve/opment Master P/an. 12-7H-95: LANDSCAPING AND S/TE DEVELOPMENT.• • At /east twenty percent (20%) of the tota/ site area shali be landscaped, uniess otherwise specified in the Lionshead Redeve/opment Master Plan. 8 • 12-7H-16: PARK/NG AND LOADING: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this fit/e. At least one-half (112) the required parking shall be located wrthin the main building or buildings. 12-7H-97: LOCAT/ON OF BUS/NESS ACTIVITY.• A. Limitations; Exception: All offices, businesses and services permitted by zone district, shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas, the outdoor display of goods, or outdoor restaurant seating. 8. Outdoor Displays: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishmenYs own property. Sidewalks, buildrng entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. 12-7H=18: M/TIGAT/ON OF DEVELOPMENT /MPACTS: Property owners?developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. /mpacfs may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goa/s of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the ~ following: roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streefscape improvements, stream tract/bank improvements, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large sca/e redevelopmenbdevelopment projects which produce substantial off site impacts. V. ZONING ANALYSIS Address: 660 West Lionshead Place/ Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 1, Vai( Lionshead Filing 3 Lot Area: 0.95 acres (41,513 sq. ft.) Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1(LMU-1) Land Use Designation: Lionshead Redevefopment Master Plan Area Development Standard Allawed/Required Proposed Setbacks All Sides: 10 ft. min. 10 ft. Building Height: 71 ft. avg. 52 ft. avg. 82.5 ft. max. 78 ft. max. Density (dwelling units): 36 DUs (133% of 27) max. 36 DUs GRFA: 103,782 sq.ft. max. 49,394 sq. ft. Retail Space: N/A 650 sq. ft. • Site Coverage: 29,059 sq.ft. (70%) max. 26,509 sq. ft. (64%) Landscape Area: 8,302 sq.ft. (20%) min. 11,100 sq. ft. (27%) 9 Parking: 53 totat spaces min. 53 total spaces • (51 DUs + 2 Retail) Employee Housing 1 Type III/IV EHU min. 1 Type III/IV EHU (off-site) VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zonin North: Parking Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District South: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District East: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District West: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District VII. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRITERIA Section 12-71-1-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria for major exterior alteration applications proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1(LMU- 1) zone district. According to Section 12-71-1-8, Vail Town Code, a major exterior , alteration shall be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria: ses 1. That the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purpo of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district; Staff Response: • The purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district are stated in Section 12-71-1-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code. 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 commercial/retail 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. The applicant is proposing the construction of 9 new dwelling units, 650 sq. ft. of new retail space; a new fitness center for owners/guests; 53 total structured and surface parking spaces; a significant re-face of the existing building exterior; and re-landscaping of the development site. Each of these proposed uses comply with both the stated purpose of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District and the technical development standards of the district. Therefore, Staff finds that the major exterior alteration application complies with not only the intent of the zone district, but also the development standards of the district. 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; Staff Response: Chapter 2: Introduction • 10 • Section 2.3 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan outlines the six policies objectives of the plan: 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 p/ace, a personality, a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character. 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 other recreational improvements. 3) Stronger Economic Base Through lncreased Live Beds In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates and the creation of additional bed base ("live beds" or "warm beds') through new lodging products. 4) Improved Access and Circulation The flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle and mass transif traffic must be improved within and through Lionshead. • 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 servrces must be upgraded to support redevelopment and revitalization efforts and to meet the service expectations of our guests and residents. 6) Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits and Public Revenues Financially creative and fiscally realistic strategies must be identified so that adequafe capita/ may be raised from all possible sources to fund desired private and public improvements. Staff believes the proposed major exterior aiteration conforms to these policy objectives. The proposal will significantly upgrade the architectural and aesthetic quality of the Lion Square Lodge North property in keeping with the identity and character of the adjacent redeveloped properties such as Arrabelle, Marriott, Antlers, and Montaneros. Staff believes the improved pedestrian access, streetscaping, and landscape improvements along the south of the Lion Square Lodge North that are being proposed and that have been coordinated with the Arrabelle project, in addition to a new street level retail space at the east side of the property, will increase the vitality of the Lionshead area adjacent to the Lion Square Lodge North property. The existing Lion Square Lodge North building is only comprised of dwe(fing units • with no existing accommodation or fractional fee units. However, many of these existing dwelling units are rented to guests and function as "warm beds" (not "hot beds"). The proposed major exterior alteration only includes the construction of additional dwelling units, and as allowed by the provisions of the Lionshead 11 Mixed Use 1 District, no accommodation or fractional fee units are proposed. It ~ is anticipated that both the existing and new dwelling units will continue to function as "warm beds" in the same manner as the existing Lion Square Lodge North. The Lion Square Lodge North has been, and plans to continue, coordinating with the Arrabelle development project to improve the access, circulation, and infrastructure of Lionshead adjacent to the site. Chapter 4: Master Plan Recommendations Section 4.3 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan address the physical connection of Lionshead to the natural environment. Sub-Section 4.3.1.1 address the need for the preservation "public" view corridors (none of which exist near this site), but not the preservation of "private" view corridors. Sub-Section 4.3.1.2 recommends a north-south axis orientation for buildings to lessen negative impacts to sun access and mountain views for streets and existing buildings. Staff believes the applicant has addressed this plan recommendation by designing "tower-like" additions to the west and east ends to the existing Lion Square Lodge building. The existing building has an east-west axis orientation which can not be re-ariented without the demolition of the existing building. Staff believes the proposed "tower-like" additions will have much less impact to sun access or views than a zoning compliant design adding building bulk/mass and height over a larger area, or the entire area, of the existing building. • Section 4.6 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Staff believes the applicant's proposed landscaping and site improvements, plus ongoing coordination with the Arrabelle project improve the vehicular and pedestrian traffic and circulation adjacent to this site. Section 4.8 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses parking. The proposed major exterior alteration provides sufficient parking for the proposed new uses and remedies an existing non-conforming parking situation for the existing Lion Square Lodge North dwelling units. Section 4.9 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses housing. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the Lion Square Lodge North's employee housing needs by purchasing and deed-restricting an off-site employee housing unit of no less than 700 sq. ft. and one bedroom in size. The Town of Vail Housing Coordinator has determined that the applicant's proposed mitigation meets the Town's employee housing requirements and is consistent with the mitigation methods approved for other similar re-development projects. Section 4.11 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses public art. Since the Lion Square Lodge North is not located on the Lionshead "retail mall", the applicant is not proposing any public art at this time. Chapter 5: Detailed Plan Recommendations • 12 • Section 5.12 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses the entirety of the Lion Square Lodge (North, East, and South buifdings). This detailed pian recommendation was drafted prior fo the review and approval of the Arrabel(e development project. In Section 5.12, concerns were noted about the no longer existing vehicular traffic through the Lion Square Lodge site and recommendations were made for an improved pedestrian connection between a!I the Lion Square Lodge buildings. With the current Arrabelle project, a significant portion of the vehicular circulation through the Lion Square Lodge is now located below grade. The pedestrian connection between all three buildings and the pedestrian connection to the Lionshead ski yard and mall have also been enhanced. Section 5.12 also discusses the screening of parking at the Lion Square Lodge (primarily the East and South building's surface lot). The applicant is proposing to construct below grade structured parking and surface parking with a sod roof cover to screen the new parking. Chapter 6: Site Design Guidelines The Lion Square Lodge North building has coordinated with the Arrabelle project to improve the pedestrian circulation and access adjacent to this site. The applicant is proposing sidewalk, landscaping, and lighting consistent with the Lionshead streetscape design. • Chapter 7: Development Standards This proposed major exterior alteration request conforms to the development standards of both the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District. Chapter 8: Architectural Design Guidelines In addition to the Planning and Environmental Commission's review of a major exterior alteration request, the Town of Vail Design Review Board wil( afso be reviewing this proposal for compliance with both the Town of Vail's general design guidelines and the architectural design guidelines of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Since the Board has conceptually reviewed this proposa( and the Board's initial response was very favorable, a more detailed review has tentatively been schedule for July 5, 2006. As this proposal involves the renovation of an existing building, rather than the construction of a new building, the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan requires the review of the applicant's request on "a case-by-case basis, with determrnation of compliance based upon whether the building meefs the general intenf of these Guidelines and the tenants described herein" rather than the strict and literal compliance with the guidelines. Staff believes the appiicant's proposal is consistent with the architectural style • encouraged by the master plan and the character of the recently developed/re- developed adjacent Antlers, Marriott, Montaneros, and Arrabell. 13 There are several "quantitative criteria" outlined in Chapter 8 of the Lionshead • Redevelopment Master Plan related to building eaves, wall surfaces, wall spans, ridge heights, building materia(s and colors, and roof dimensions and pitches. This major exterior alteration conforms to the guidelines for waU spans, building materials and colors, roaf dimensions, and roof heights. The proposal does not conform to #he roof eave heights, roof forms, wall surface, or wall span requirements. Staff believes these deviations are caused by the existing building form and design. Staff believes the applicant's request meets the intent of these guidelines, and is in keeping with the architectural and aesthetic qualities encouraged by the master plan. For example, the entirety of the existing Lion Square Lodge North bui(ding has a flat roof. The master plan guide lines require pitched roof buildings with only secondary flat roof elements (imited to 500 sq. ft. in size. The proposed new elements of the building (i.e. the two "tower-like" elements) comply with this standard. To upgrade the existing building to meet the intent, not the strict requirement, of this guideline the applicant is proposing to construct new mansard and hipped roofs features. These mansards and hipped roofs will mask the existing large flat roof, give the appearance of a pitched roof building, and improve the overall aesthetic quality of the building. 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 proposa( 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 project. The proposal conforms to the development standards af the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District. Staff believes the proposal is in keeping with the general architectural style encouraged by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the general character of the recently redeveloped adjacent properties including Antlers, Marriottt, Arrabelle, and Montaneros. As with other redevelopment prajects in Lionshead, such as the Arrabelle, this proposal will affect sun/shade and the private mountain views af those adjacent properties located to the north. The proposed major exterior aiteration will cast more shadow on the adjacent Montaneros building and poof compared to the existing Lion Square Lodge North building. However, the non-conforming, close proximity of the Montaneros building to the Lion Square Lodge North property line (less than 1 foot) and the location of the Montaneros swimming pool patio (6 feet from the property line, 3 feet from the easement) exacerbate the shading effect of this proposal. Staff believes the applicant's two "tower-like" elements will have less impact to sun/shade and private views than other design alternatives allowed by zoning and the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Neither the Vail Town Code, nor the Vail Comprehensive Plan, regulate or protect private views. The Planning and Environmental Commission is oniy • charged with preserving "public" view corridors adopted by Chapter 12-22, View Corridors, Vail Town Code. 14 • This proposal is subject to review by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. The Board is charged with ensuring that this proposal complies with both the Town's general design guidelines and the architectural design standards of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Based upon a traffic study prepared by Kimerly Horn, which has been reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department, there will be an increase of 7 vehicle trips to the Lion Square Lodge North site at peak times. The applicant has been assessed a traffic impact fee by the Town of Vail to mitigate this increase in traffic. Staff does not believe this increase of 7 vehicle trips will have a significant negative effect in comparison to existing traffic conditions. In summary, Staff does not believe this proposal will have a significant negative effect upon the character of the neighborhood; instead this proposed major exterior alteration will redevelop the Lion Square Lodge North to be more in keeping with the intent of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the Vail Comprehensive Plan to determine which elements of the Plan apply to the review of this proposal. Upon review of the Plan, Staff has • determined that the following elements af the Plan apply: • Transportation Master Pian (adopted 1993) • Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (adopted 1998) This proposal conforms to the Town of Vail's transportation and engineering standards. The applicant has also agreed to make a financial contribution to the Town of Vail in the form of traffic impact fees in accordance with the recommendations of the Transportation Master Plan. Therefore, Staff believes this proposal substantially complies with the applicable elements of the Transportation Master Plan. Staff also believes this proposal complies with the applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (refer to criteria #2 above). In summary, Staff believes that the applicant has presented evidence that the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, 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. VIII. MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS Emplovee Housinq • 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 major exterior aleration proposals. 15 !n reviewing the proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town • of Vail Employee Housing Report. This report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate employee housing needs. The guidelines contained within the report were used most recently in the review of the Austria Haus, Marriottt, Four Seasons, Manor Vail Lodge, Vail Village Inn, Crassroads, Ritz Carlton, Arrabelle, etc. development projects. The Empioyee Housing Report was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall, Remmen and Cares. The report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, staff analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use) that results from the redevelopment. The figures identified in the report are based on surveys of the commercial-use employment needs of the Town of Vail and other mountain resort communities. As of the drafting of the report, Tel(uride, Aspen and Whistler, B.C. had "emp(oyment generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide affordable housing for a percentage of the new employees resulting from commercial develapment. "New" employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial redevelopment. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of affordable housing a developer must provide for the new employees. For example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 40% (0.40) of the new employees, Aspen requires that 60% (0.60) of the new employees are provided housing, and Whistler requires • that 100% (1.00) of the new employees be provided housing by the developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined that developers shali provide housing for 15% (0.15) or 30% (0.30) of the new employees resulting from cammerciai development. When a project is proposed to exceed the density a(lowed by the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure is used in the calculation. If a project is proposed at, ar below, the density altowed by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15) figure is used. Since this proposal complies with the allowed density, the 15% figure has been used. Emplovee Generation Calculations a) Multi-Family (Dwelling Units) 9 new units propased @(0.4/unit) = 3.6 employees According to the calculations above, the applicant must establish 1 new deed- restricted employee bed ("pillows"). The applicant is proposing to provide the required deed-restricted empldyee housing unit off-site by purchasing and deed restricting a unit of no less than 700 sq. ft. with no less than one bedroom. The Town of Vail Housing Coordinator has reviewed the applicant's employee hausing mitigation praposal and has determined that proposal meets the Town of Vail's employee housing requirements and is consistent with other mitigation proposal approved for similar development projects. Parkinq The Lion Square Lodge North has 29 existing, functional parking spaces. The • original approval of the building required 38 parking spaces for the existing 26 dwelling units; however, the configuration shown an the original condominium 16 a • plat of the project was not constructed. With this major exterior alteration proposal, the applicant will be providing the required parking for the new retail space and the 9 new dwelling units. Additionally, the applicant will be constructing 9 additional new parking spaces to remedy the existing parking shortfall. As part of this major exterior alteration, the applicant is proposing to construct a total of 53 parking spaces with 29 constructed in a below grade structure and 24 constructed above on a surface lot. The majority of the surFace spaces will be screened from view by the installation of a sod roof covering. Traffic The proposed new dwelling units and retail space will likely increase the traffic flow to and from the Lion Square Lodge North site. To mitigate the effects of this increased traffic, the applicant will be making a financial contribution to the Town of Vail in the form of a traffic impact fee of $45,500. This fee is based upon an assessment of $6,500 per increased traffic trip at peak hour. A traffic study by Kimerly Horn, which has been reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department, has determined that at peak hour this proposal will add 7 new vehicle trips. Landscapinq/Streetscape ~ As noted above, the applicant is proposing to install a sod roof covering over the majority of the parking area to screen it from view. The existing Lion Square Lodge North has minimal existing landscaping, which primarily consists of a grass lawn. As part of this major exterior alteration request, the applicant is proposing to re-landscape the site (including trees, shrubs, planting beds, sod, etc.) to provide both screening of the building and an improved street presenee for the property. The applicant will be coordinating the installation of landscaping with the Arrabelle development project. Coordination with Other Redeveloqment Proiects As noted by the applicant, Lion Square Lodge North has granted easements and access agreements to Vail Resorts for pedestrian and vehicular circuiation, construction staging, water retention, and utility upgrades associated with the Arrabelle redevelopment project. The applicant will also be coordinating the installation of their proposed landscaping with the Arrabelle development project. Art in Public Places and Off-Site Road/Streetscape Improvements At this time the applicant is not proposing specific contributions to art in public places or off-site road/streetscape improvements adjacent to the Lion Square Lodge North (currently being constructed and funded by Vail Resorts as part of the Arrabelle development project). • IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission evaluate if a ~ contribution to art in public places and/or the off-site road and streetscape improvements 17 f along Lionshead Place (currently being funded by Vail Resorts) are necessary as • mitigation of this proposal's development impacts. Staff also recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission consider forwarding a recommendation to the Vaif Town Council to amend the "build-to-lines" of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow the applicant to construct the proposed parking area sod roaf within the required setback. Staff believes extending the sod roof and creating a continuaus lawn/landscape area between the Lion Square Lodge , North and the Montaneros better meets the intent of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan than the strict application of the 10 foot setback requirement prescribed by the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District. Staff believes such an amendment to facilitate a continuous lawn/landscape area would create a"win-win-win" for the Montaneros, Lion Square Lodge North, and the Town of Vail's citizens and guests. The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth detai4s in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the major 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 this major exterior alteration request with conditions, Staff recommends the Commission make the ~ following findings part of the motion: "Pursuant to Section 92-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that fhe proposed major exferior alteratian is in compfiance wifh the purposes of fhe Lionshead Mixed Use 9 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 on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of fhe Vail Comprehensive Plan." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this major exterior alteration request, Staff recommends the following conditions: Prior to Application for Buildinq Permits 1) Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Design Review approval of fhis proposal. 2) Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vai! Public Works Department approval of a construction staging plan for this proposal. 3) Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail • Public Works Department approval of civil engineering construction plans and off-site improvement plans for this proposal. Prior to Repuestinq a Temporarv Certificate of Occupancy 18 ~ • 4) Prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy for this proposal, the developer shall provide one deed-restricted employee housing of no /ess than 700 sq. ft., with no less than one bedroom, that complies with the Town of Vai! Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 92-13, Vail Town Code), and that said restrictions shall be made available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a femporary certificate of occupancy. 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. 5) Prior to requesting a femporary certificate of occupancy for this proposal, fhe developer shall be assessed a transportation impact fee in the amount of $6, 500 per rncreased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated by this proposal. Per the Traffic 5tudy dated June 15, 2006, this major exterior alteration will result in 7 additional vehicle trips in the peak hour. Therefore, the appircant shall pay a transportation impact fee of $45, 500. At the sole discretion of the Town of Vaii Public Works Director, said fee may be waived in full, or part, based upon the completion of certain otf-site improvements. For the Life of the Proiect 6) For the life of the project, the development shall insta!!, operate and mainfain an approved infelligent transportation sighf distance system. This shall include • adequate detection devices and warning system. The system shall address all turning movements that have inadequate sight distance. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Calculations C. Applicant's Master Plan Compliance Analysis D. ApplicanYs Mitigation of Development Impacts Letter E. Proposed Architectural Plans i • ~ 19 • V>,~ ~ C p 7 I O V C A.'. L ..S:. LOC~=ctlp7~ND •iOUp~ C 7mo~DO°-Em~ N=6~ ~ C °n~1--aaa~am~ NC C1 d~ ~ r CVrpL~NmVa.C ~.-rp N¢ O ~3O S C Q CV y~C O cdG~C ~ m7mC ~LCh.. C 01 ~ • F~L O mrta~3o. '13 mt~vw o ~ ~.0'a 08 iwrnts°mo G3oa, m mm Lt. NiorccMyCc~n Oma'o, Z. ~N ~ + ` mW -iaia-5 U"`~°'>=am cm"io 1 11') I tn EN m •`-'mE~'O~~°< ~ ~ EZ a~d ~,o o~'m•- ~o r o m m 0 p.p 00 "QCL) `n•ymmm prn inna~ V Qr ' QO Lo~~~~Yt,.. O C OY A~ V~J N C O G ~ • + Oo~ N ~ E G 7] p~ y N T.. ~ ` t z 'E9 N ~ N m N~ N'7•~• m N °m ci °ua3c°1~~ . °dw 1ty- L ~ -0r Z mp~r- Win>.~ J 0N 7W 7~V~~mN~NwV 19l-~ ldfd `~-'4 tm°10~c°2 cZ $ ~.9 iV ~t~.~ c ~ • ,•z m c~~°: u, cu~au~ N cd ~p ay 9mv 10 `yamrZ oz ~ W ~omZO a 2 ~ JO 1~N ~ iazy c!~ oO dNai~v~`~mo:`-Q~ cc~ ~ o rn~GY q o p m y Npµ'' y4~E' rn aN c ca~7~ > '-v d v r c ? I ¢¢~i~"`[ a~o 3: ooo°y"" u~t°Q~m °'Em c6'VN~i NC ^CQ1~dYt7~J mVC CO.-30Cp,'O ~ `at NG c6Up6j~ylUUdUN~NUM N p C N U2fl'N 'O mE oom oT„O cmu,dE~ai6 i . cbt6 tdC ON j0 ~Q+N ~ cC N11.`N d~a40 ~16 : 1->~m£mo'flJ-~ i~ m ~ mv c0 ~4 001~q) ui~` r,~a.. m d 7+ ~ ui ccE 8 m r Q~ d a~ tC u' m'o h nO3macENwNa 3 ~ E w4 C°i Y O ~ A O A O" O - N~{-- ~N'b... N'6 01 C N 3 S OE dGNr v~ '~p~ 9CL~ ~G~rLEApcVGr7ir o E o oo 4 m°~'~ ~voEo.°°'3o ~ - o ~ - ~ ~ o ~c Z ~s ~ c ~ c a m "o~ O V ~ pc' NG' O N~ mc mN~o O fna2ST~ . :!Naw m N ~m ~ O O N~ O?~ .cC 4L61C7 N~ 7'tt3 0 .C N'O.-O' O i? ~ ~j p'9 7 OiC~ d'~ G ~U C1 O aj7N(~ Cj C~ CO'.~C ~N r 90 d~VmOCCa"y JC pCplll iA~~Ory'j.-~~`.X 4J I+r {A ~ wavma~c?m ov,tv V~~?Z vo~':~oE~r=..0 ~cm•~>'o~L6°0 d~mc~aUmO 0 •~5=~'dc >mm m~~om 15 p~~' A! U(n u3i y~ T =0 .2i°~ Wn~. a r ~ + ,,J~ oLL~4„a~ A07~•-C v°% d.-a. CEio~wa -'0°mo aro v ~~u'Em~m3 us ~(o a--a4) 't 3m~'vcrn-rr ~ .i~~ ~ r N ~p r ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ c6 ~ ~ 4 ~U % d N O N ~ N U~ b E 4 O d"6 GL C~j'j N, ~ N ~ ~ G4 RC ~CD `pL ~ 5 ~6~ " 3 dNy N'dC U : aANO0 c~J'6C~ N~ ~ o ~ NNc'iTo-O'O 1 LaJtG7;p 4I1~ . i ~F U~J OCU17C~ ~ > U~.O a'OOm C o.~ Q .c o.'~ c- m cc ,~yE ,a mC ~ap.ap N,,., w', oa G ai pa fl Q ~ d aV Trn r~mo o~n uj o~ocoY~,a > >o. c a~xs o0 +a ~~eow~~o QM~ ~ ~1~~aC~ O t~m `t m~~ y° m c 0 '6~ E o U y C V .°T.~~~ ~~~o y.OCa~~ca as~+ am W cc+lasc- m~o ~ d{ss~c°~S m o,m m~ y ~Ea> o mw O ' NNy00/t~N ~'6J N,~[6 • U7.~'. Z QcCC C C 7 m~°°' dmp ~o~°.~~~~~a~0a a° U?'~a~ c N mu.=~iaEotN ~ 3(08a 3 M', ~~tY ldW ~ ~ C O OQ~ X O Nr ~.peL C0.Q~ ~ O ~ t,a v1 i' U1 f6 ~ 'J l:y 0 r y l1S F"' N (0 C NG Q1 7`~ ~ O tUJ ~ N N OiU O O T Q i- ~Qds`a0 6 coEr' `c°'Eco,E>~S ~ O N. 11...N r, j C C) 0 07 Ql Qy N tp 0.-0 N"~ 4y" r c O (n 1.Y* W N N N~ C G-ro a c'~ Q>? ~ d O (L <n r O'~ O~ ~ 1 c c~ ~ c~ t~ p W a~ y c N=~`° T oU Z Oz?N m Y=~cOL~a~a~t6 ov=!n ~b d~- aa~ £ g oF'" o y,~.~ w o`m> E ~ y~vm°c oN+a7iai • >NWra = 1- ;°UmoQmc~oE ZN`~ o V W~ c~NNNpvc~ ~ ~~r,~~3 vQo~cd a; Og v~r 1 WN cf~ orooVa~ipcco'oc o, , cp ~ E~ am dF-•- K ,a Z v ~ LL 4U~ a ~ >dus Aa ~ Lti au- 7~ NN 7~m>'~~01~FNt7C~+' ~ J U7v~~ Z UO mto c~t) it oxrn o°' N 3 ;a',~oo ~y3 4~ Q W 2wW O .o avi~, °4.'•~ e~u 3 a. o z ao~ ~ ~ry r ~ a~ Q, 3aLL ~ 1 PLANNINO ANO ENYIAONMENTAL MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: four feet of lof B, Bloch COMMISSION Flrsi Filing, and setting fc , PUBLIC MEETING 10 minutes gard thereto. February 12, 2007 2.A request for a final review of an amend- Appellant:Covered Bridg 1:00P?r? ed final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12, ed by Carson, Carson ant n Migf Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Planner:George Ruthsr Location, location, location. This lbed dup ~OWN COUMCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC Town Code, to allow for a modification to MOTION: SECOND: VOT ibath 400 sq. ft. Condo is r~ght at the bus offe ELCOME shared property boundaries, L ot s 11 an d stop and behind MaY PataCe & City 12, Bighorn Subdivision, located at 4852 4.A request for a final r ?vlarket. South faCing perfeCt for MEMBERS PRESEN7 and 4856 Meadow Lane, and setting forth exterior alteration, purr eekenders or first Yme buyers MEMBERS ABSENT details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0001) 12-7H-7, Major Exterior" yy Applicant:Meadowlark Development Part- Madifications, Vail Town + NO SITE VISITS ners, LLC, represented by Greg Amsden additions to, and the rene Under Contract Planner:Warren Campbeli Landmark Gondominiums; 376.pM/ ;;7-~30 60 minutes ACTION; a final review of variances' Wi~~~U m~ ountain Properties 1.A request for a worksession to discuss MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: t 2-7H-10, Setbacks, dari4aidmanC~msn.com text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regu- Coverage, and 12-7H-15, lations, Vail Town Code, to add commercial 3.A request for a finai review of an appeat Site Development, Vail' (inkage requir'sments snd inclusionary zon- of an administrative action, pursuant to suant to Chapter 12-17, v yy . EST VAIL ing requirements to the Zoning Aegulations Section 12-3-3B, Appeai of Administrative for an underground parkin for the purpose of mitigating employee Actions, Vail Town Code, appealing a de- staircase within the * housing impacts resultin~ trom develop- termination made by the Zoning Adminis- deviations from the maximi ment in the town of Vaft, and setting forth trator that for zoning purposes Condomini- and minimum landscape aE ~ details in regard thereto. (PEC06•0084) um Unit E, Covered Bridge Buifding shaii be focated at 610 West lwnst< Applicant:Town of Vail considered the "first floor or street Ievei" of Block 1, Vail Lionshead FiW ~ Planner:NinaTimm the building, located at 227 Bridge forthdetailsinregardthera ACTION: Street/Lot C and D, and the southwesterfy (PEC06-0074) I ' ~ o ro a~ ° ~ ~ ° v o cli :3 o° ~~n ~ ;,d o ~ a c~1 ~ 00 tLd 4. ~ ~ • ~r F+ U ir ~ ~y o -a > cw-'C - ~ ~ C • Q CIS cC cC m N o O ~ ~ ~ ci 3 ~s ov a~ ~ ~ a X r~,y :J.c 'y^ U ct a~ N ° • ~ a C'S O U t: ~ > cl w cn ~ a~ (u O" ~ ~ Q. ~ ir.+•i ~ ~ ~ N y ~ ci O, ~D c~ ~ ~ a N ~ ~ C^.vC ~ ~A" 3 a > G' i ~ ~ i ~ ~ N.L) N yj i cl RY u N~ N 4- nY "60 a~ ~ 0 ~ i~ p O a Q ~ W .L ~ ~ ~ V ~v~~ U (U~•°:ti~~=PS ~ ;b ~ ° ?.a W ° a ~ ~ . ° ; , 9 a~ ~ ~ 9 0 ~ ' ~ • u a~i' -o ~ • ~ o • ~ O o A,~~~'~~.:.o o u a~ ~ ~ > a ~ E LI) .o .a u u: a~ ~ ~ •3 i t ~ m C/I G, E-+ U ~kr) cn - _ N~ G1 CO ~y - - _ ~ ~ ~ c U y °c d7N"O`y_O NJ 'Y3NOCC_•_C~.p.-~ j~=~ - ~XC~NO~~C N Cp ~N U N~ ~ Y1 ~O>DN 7U~ ~~t" N NC73~N~~ mr~oEu. c~Omc°vro o-m `-°~s c ~.-~~c.~~~~,o~r pa~a~~~-~°~~ •c~F`m_~ o c a mcve ynia ~m m> C~ N CcO N C0 E~ ~Cn,•..u.v d c o.d d aeaL m~ ~ occ c c°~ mc~~ E'~yo"-mv »r=~~m-.O d cOy:Cida~Lrn`p°f tcmc°Oq ~tLn-- .L+OCj~~ CNNC~Nt ~XNNy~y6) Na 57EaCpp~rCN`~` ~9 Od~NF'~~~~ aNN~ N Io o 0 0 o U m a'o p.•- c rnc ` ac_ ia~m `o dm._ ~o..._m ,y.oro, c m 3 Q»-~cU acu,mmj ~'m` ;~d~" ~ m c °v..~3_w m ca~~~wd'o L ~u ~ oo•:.~E t c';'r•~ ~ omrm m~ ~c°' °-'d m'v,~om~ d `ooy~3o ° ~ ~=o Woacvgm mL 151 a'~ ~ fla~ w~m3~C7~y roUd ~mot,orDO~o5ro v`a m>m>~~~oN~' m,.;°~' ~v ~()7rNCL >VOJNt`Y, LNOy=•- Lti f661NU & pt6y~9 N d lE N~4UN t~C~m~ 01NQ1_- Y -y- ° ~cNii doa E y N E ia ~ VC d:° SFso ~dacn~o.-o'~~im s a~--€ =p~ o CorC ;C6LLl-mN rn o C~OCON:ij=m >.N O OC i~~TG` cmiN~a O » plQV= Ym~'~ 5 ~aa m _ c~a.oNV tUnav u~ Q m ovca0._v"c~ei'r Ug$ uH~'=oao.>,;c cm ~ tr m omZ'a ~as'>oiac -emc 0co*,rn>sc~c~C7 0: tAr~.- ~a a, Y, CC C'^ Qy pl N... WE~2 m~-vo m ~ cm ~ NM_Eo~'-°cO- ~v~ am•-~tic~omm yG) . T t0~ ~o.~~,~p> ~~~o~~y~m ~o~o~~Y°~Z~Ct in.5c~~cNa)rccm`~~ ~U 7 ~ ~OV£;ro rno°-mm 7"m ~ 2>._- o o,~o- o•-„~ N• ~o ~ c c IE No o> pm y aEo ceaamnv muornrM~iv"`O'o~..v or~~m~y~c~imorc GVd~7~J~ i V-U~a mooHma~yc~a°::Eruim.a m~E p o o w m a d-a cv ~ i«~ 4w ~ a _ Z'~H c0 U mU ~ ~ N tr O 4) ci N Q. w cti ~O ~ p Vj ~ r-+ -p vCdi C13 ~ O ~ cl 1- . ~ U .,u ~ w ~ o a~, 00 ~ 3 ~ ~ „ ~ cr' ~ ro ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~o ~ ~ _ ' `a R+ N O U ~ ~ W X Q a cz • >~~~y ~ a~~i ~ ~ ~ > ~j v, L. c~'o LO) ~ 3 s, ~ a' ~ y p~j cc C> 7 Ln ' C ca"a e4 ~ o ~ p., ^d v~- bA -1:3 "0eC a+ c~d Vl ~ ~ C~A 'b ? N ~ b ~ w~~ 's ~ ^ ~ ~ O a~ 'v, ~ N ~ ~ ~ O : _ • Z r-. ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ v a, o o. ~ v ~ ; ~ ~ Q V) 3 e.) Q" :5 0 0 o (L V3 H p T•~ ~ O ~ ~ CUC ~ ~Q9~CjP V) ~1 cd a~ v~ 'J O v~i O 7~ . ~ o L .b o ~ ~ W' o ~ ~ o ~ -d ~ ~ ~ - ~ • O O H a c ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ s~ ° ~ IZ) O H ~ ~ 3 V)Ca~ CA . . PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ~ February 26, 2007 *ViAl 12:00 Noon ~~Lunch will be served TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt Anne Gunion Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo Bill Pierce Site Visits: None Driver: None 1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, pursuant to Article 12-9(A), Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in the number of dwelling units from 69 units to 75 units; located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0004) . Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE:6-0-0 CONDITIONS: The Developer shall address the following conditions of approval prior to appearing before the Vail Town Council for second reading of an adopting ordinance for the establishment of Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads: 1. The Developer shall prepare a written agreement, for Town Council review and approval, outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required offsite improvements, as indicated on the proposed Approved Development Plan. This agreement shall include, but not be limited to, all streetscape improvements along Village Center Road and East Meadow Drive, public access to the plaza for pedestrians and Town sponsored events, which may include the establishment of an easement on the plaza and language in the covenants and declarations for owners of property in the project regarding the use of the plaza for special events, inclusion of the loading and delivery facility in the overall loading and delivery system, payment of traffic impact fees and credits given to offset fee, and details for funding public art. The Developer shall address the following conditions of approval prior to submitting a building permit application (a grading permit/excavation permit shall constitute a building permit); ~ 1. The Developer shall submit a final exterior building materials list, typical wall Page 1 r I ~ section, architectural specifications, and a complete color rendering for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to submittal of an application for a building permit. • 2. The Developer shall submit a rooftop mechanical equipment plan for review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to the submittal of a building permit application. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the structure and enclosed and visually screened from public view. 3. The Developer shall submit a comprehensive sign program for review and approval by the Design Review Board. 4. The Developer shall receive all the required permits from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) prior to submitting for a building permit. Failure to receive the appropriate permits to access the South Frontage Road per the Approved Development Plan will require the project to return through the special development district review process. 5. The Developer shalt comply with the written final comments of the Town of Vail Public Works Department outlined in the memorandum from the Town of Vail Public Works Department, dated January 16, 2006, prior to submitting an application to the Town of Vail Community Department for the issuance of a building permit for this project. 6. The Developer shall submit a written letter agreeing to install a public safety radio communications system within the subterranean parking structure which ~ meets the specifications of the Town of Vail Communications Center. The specifications and details of this system shall be submitted to staff for review and approval with the application for a building permit. 7. The Developer shall submit a fire and life safety plan for review and approval by the Town of Vail Fire Department. The Developer shall address the following conditions of approval prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy or a final certificate of occupancy; 1. The Developer shall be assessed a traffic impact fee of $6,500 per net trip increase in p.m. traffic. The trip generation report prepared by Fox Higgins Transportation Group states the net peak increase is 81 trips. The Public Works Department has asked that the study be revised to address a concern regarding the trip generation for the night club in the bowling alley. This change may cause the trip generation to increase. The applicant shall be responsible for mitigating the number of net peak trip increases depicted in the revised study. This impact fee shall not be offset by any public improvements. 2. The Developer shall post a bond to provide financial security for 125% of the total cost of the required off-site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. This includes but is not limited to the proposed streetscape improvements. 3. The Developer shall commence initial construction of the Crossroads • Page 2 . ~ improvements within three years from the time of its final approval at second reading of the ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 39, and • continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the developer does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the special development district or any stage of the special development district within the time limits imposed, the approval of said special development district shall be void. The Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall review the special development district upon submittal of an application to reestablish the special development district following the procedures outlined in Section 12- 9A-4, Vail Town Code. 4. Employee Housing: Crossroads shall provide the Town deed restricted employee housing sufficient to accommodate 22 occupants by executing appropriate restrictive covenant(s) on form(s) provided by the Town. Any dwelling unit(s) restricted shall conform to the following floor area requirements: a one-bedroom unit shall contain at least 550 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more than 2 occupants; a two-bedroom unit shall contain at least 850 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more than 3 occupants; a three-bedroom unit shall contain at least 1,350 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more than 4 occupants; and a four-bedroom unit shall contain at least 1,500 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more that 5 occupants. The Town may approve minor variations in floor area when the overall intent of the floor area requirements is being met. Any deed restriction shall be for property located within the Town. Such deed restriction(s) shall be executed and provided to the Town for recording and restricted unit(s) shall be available for occupancy prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of • occupancy for the Crossroads Project or any phase thereof. Any deed restricted employee housing unit shall comply with the standards and ' procedures established by the Town Zoning Regulations. 5. The approval of SDD No. 39, Crossroads, shall restrict the uses upon the plaza level tenant spaces to retail uses solely and shall not be utitized for professional offices, business offices, and studios. The second floor retail space may be utilized for any allowable or conditional use as listed in the Commercial Service Center Zone District. No space noted as retail space on the Approved Development Plan shall be converted to a residential dwelling unit. Temporary real estate sales offices may be allowed on the plaza level of retail during the first two years following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy in order to allow effective sales of dwelling units on-site. Warren Campbell presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. ' Dominic Mauriello, applicant's representative, further explained that the proposed changes to the number of dwelling units is based upon structural design, building codes, fire codes, etc. He also recommended modifications to the conditional use permit for the private parking club to allow for future flexibility in the number of spaces in the club. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, questioned how this proposed amendment might affect the Solaris TIF District and the plan for a turn- arou nd/round-about on the Frontage Road. • Page 3 . , Warren Campbell stated that Staff would further review the issue with the Public Works Department, but he believed that the future turn-around was much farther east on the Frontage Road and not at the intersection of Village Center Road and the Frontage Road. • Dick Cleveland, noted that a reduction in parking within the project and commercial space are a reduction in the "public benefit". He also expressed concern over the increase in traffic as another negative of the proposal. There are no new or additional public benefits proposed to justify the amendment. He expressed his opposition to the amendment. Bill Jewitt reiterated Cleveland's concerns about the reduction in the commercial floor area. He also noted his concerns about the need for additional employee housing. He expressed his ~ opposition to the amendment. Dominic Mauriello clarified that the net floor area of the commercial/retail space actually increased. He also clarified how the floor area was reallocated to accommodate the additional units. He also clarified that the number of storefronts did not change, only the floor area calculations. Rollie Kjesbo reiterated the concern that the decrease in parking is a reduction in public benefit. He asked how many EHU would be required if the new regulations would be applied. I Warren Campbell indicated that 33 EHUs would be required under the provision of the draft Inclusionary and Commercial Linkage regulation to be discussed latter in the meeting, instead of the original 12 and the newly proposed 13 units. Rollie Kjesbo stated that additional public benefits are necessary to approve this request. Bill Pierce had no additional comments. . Chas Bernhardt clarified that more EHUs would be required if the new EHU requirements were adopted than are currently proposed. Doug Cahill noted the need to obtain additional employee housing as a benefit to both the developer and the Town as a whole. Dominic Mauriello noted that the only significant part of the application that has changed is the II number of dwelling units. He noted that the parking club was not considered a public benefit. Peter Knobel stated that they have shoved as many parking spaces as they can into the building. Doug Cahill noted that this is an opportunity for the developer to step forward to help address the Town's employee housing shortfall and the proposed 13 units is very small for a development of this size. Dominic Mauriello noted that the applicant can walk away and only build 12 EHUs, and he believes it would be bad precedent to reverse the clock. Pete Knobel gestured to Dick Cleveland. I Dick Cleveland stated that that was an unacceptable behavior for a public meeting. Mr. Knobel asked Mr. Cleveland how many EHUs he wanted. • Page 4 • ? Chas Bernhardt asked if Mr. Knobel was willing to work with the Staff once the potential EHU regulations were formalized. Chas did not feel a specific EHU number could be given to him at • this time as the new regulations have not been adopted and are only in draft form. Bill Jewitt argued that there is no "formula" since this is a special development district, especially since this is a major amendment. Peter Knobel noted that he is currently the largest employee housing owner in the Town of Vail. George Ruther re-emphasized the review criteria for an SDD amendment. I Bill Jewitt proposed that in-lieu of the reduction in parking spaces, increased traffic generation, reduction in retail space, and increase in density that 10 employee beds must be provided. He suggested that a total of 22 employee housing beds be provide in place of the 13 recommended by Staff. 2. A request for conditional use Permits, Pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for multiple-family dwellings and lodges and private club (parking club); located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0005) Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Pierce VOTE:6-0-0 CONDITIONS: • 1. That the developer operates the parking club and rental program for the dwellings units in accordance with the pages 9-13 of the Application for a Major Amendment to Special Development District No, 39, Crossroads, and an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Private Parkinq Club document dated February 15, 2007, and the approved Developer Improvement Agreement which will be agreed upon by Town Council and the developer. 2. That the Planning and Environmental Commission approval of the conditional use permits become valid upon approval of an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, on second reading by Town Council. Warren Campbell presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriello, applicanYs representative, asked for flexibility in future amendments to the number of parking spaces in the parking club. Warren Campbell clarified how the spaces are allocated between uses in the building and the parking club. Pete Knobel further clarified how the parking club will operate. Rollie Kjesbo noted is concern is the total number of spaces, rather than how those spaces are used. . Bill Pierce proposed that future changes within 5% of the existing number of spaces, 84, do not require amendments to this conditional use permit approval. Page 5 Cleveland, Jewitt, and Kjesbo no further comment. Warren Campbell clarified that a 5% change in the 84 parking club spaces meant that as long as • the parking club did not go below 80 or above 88 Staff could approve the change. 3. A request for a final review of a major amendment to the Approved Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-8E-18 (B), Major Amendments, to allow for a revised grading plan at Vail's Front Door Vista Bahn Ski Yard, located at 151 Vail Lane/Lot A, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0006) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Corp. Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 6-0-0 CONDITION: 1) That the Developer prepares a Vista Bahn Ski Yard Use Agreement outlining the terms and conditions allowing public use of the ski yard for special events. The Agreement shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the review and comment of the Town of Vail Commission on Special Events. The Agreement shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. George Ruther presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. Tom Allender, Vail Resorts, explained how these amendments are being driven by concerns and goals of the ski company's mountain operations rather than Vail Resort's development company. He further explained the details of the proposed amendment. Brian McCartney, Vail Resorts, further described how the public event space will function. • Jim Lamont, Vai! Village Homeowner Association, asked questions about the logistics of public events in the ski yard. He noted the proposed circulation was an improvement, and that the association supported the proposal. I Bernhardt and Cahill noted this is an improvement. I There was no other Commissioner comment. ' 4. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1895 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0002) Applicant: Nancy Hassett, represented by Miramonti Architect PC Planner: Bill Gibson ~ ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 CONDITION: 1) This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant obtaining Design Review Board approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. Bill Gibson presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. • Page 6 There were no comments from the applicants, no public comment, and no comments from the • Commissioners. 5. A request for a worksession to discuss text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to add commercial linkage requirements and inclusionary zoning requirements to the Zoning Regulations for the purpose of mitigating employee housing impacts resulting from development in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0084) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Nina Timm ACTION: Worksession, no action MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6-0-0 George Ruther and Nina Timm presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. Dick Cleveland asked whether one could determine in the future that more employees were generated for a specific use. Ruther answered that at this time, the rational nexus was being used for employee generation. Bill Pierce asked about the definition of dormitory. Ruther answered that the definition has not been created yet but one will be available in two weeks. Pierce asked about language related to secondary impacts. Ruther noted that he would discuss the issue with the consulting attorneys. • Pierce asked for a clarification of "eligible household". Pierce said that the definition of spa may be too verbose, and may not include a lot of spa like products. Ruther responded that this ordinance would be subject to PEC review, and that PEC could make that determination. Dick Cleveland commented that the employee requirement is based on averages, and there could not be exceptions to the rule. He felt that negotiations of the requirements would be unwieldy. Cahill asked if You have a ski shoP and You add a coffee shoP, would You be assessed? Ruther responded that from one permitted use to another permitted use, the resulting change would be analyzed for incremental increases in employees requirements. Cleveland commented that this backwards formula does not provide for checking whether the regulations have met the goal. He said that commercial employers should be required to mitigate for 30% of employees generated versus requiring mitigation based on foreseeable redevelopment. George Ruther said that the policymakers gave direction to staff to utilize commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning to achieve the Town's employee housing goal. Nina Timm discussed how inclusionary zoning is different than residential linkage. Inclusionary zoning would mitigate broader impacts, versus just assessing for direct employee generation • from residential. Page 7 • Dick Cleveland asked about the legality of requiring mitigation of impacts not directly related to the development. George Ruther responded that with residential and commercial linkage, you cannot assess for • anything but net new generation based solely on a rational nexus. However, inclusionary zoning would allow you to mitigate for secondary impacts resulting from development. Cleveland was concerned that there is no guarantee that this would help achieve the goal of 30% of workers living in Vail. Jewitt said he wanted to make his little speech then he would shut up for most of the rest of the meeting. What we have here are a couple of ordinances that provide a means for collecting tax dollars. They do nothing for mitigating employee housing problems. We do not know if we collect the money what type of housing the 30% of people want to live in, or how much they want. Talk about getting the cart before the horse. But to say that this effort will provide 30% of workers with housing is a joke. Again, he thinks it's a joke! ' Chas Bernhardt agreed with Jewitt. We need a plan for what types of housing Nina Timm explained that these ordinances will actually help businesses to have housing for their staff. ' Cahill said that different employers will want different types of housing for their employees. Cleveland asked how the staff plans to implement this regulation. Ruther explained that 12-23-9: Administration helps to explain this issue. However, one may not know what type of uses will be in each space. But, the requirement will be outlined before TCO. • ~ This is similar to the parking requirement, which is similarly linked to type of use. ~ Jewitt asked who would pay, the owner or the tenant of the space. Ruther explained that there are debits and credits applied to an entire development site, and not just an individual space. Cleveland asked if staff anticipates a cash rebate or a credit. Ruther answered that no checks would be written to tenants, but rather a system of providing credits would exist. Kjesbo asked about the provision that EHUs not be attached to DUs. Ruther answered that he would look into it, but it is there to prevent people from using the EHU as part of the dwelling. Cahill asked about the parking requirements and parking credit for enclosed parking. Kjesbo said that may be a very tight garage is someone only built the minimum. Kjesbo asked whether assessment would occur each time a commercial use changes. Bernhardt said it seems to be a disincentive to do business here that maybe it would be better to scrap the whole thing and go to a tax. Jewitt agreed with Bernhardt that a tax would work well. Bernhardt said that it would be burdensome on business owners who may go out of business and then have employee housing. • Page 8 i. Pierce said we are missing the big picture here and are concentrating on the language of the regulation. • Jewitt said the major issue is that employers cannot find workers with housing. Timm said that the most successful businesses in town have developed emploYee housin9 on ' their own, regardless of Town regulations Pierce said that many employers do not want their employees to live in their units because they may trash the units. Bernhardt said that the Town of Vail should own all of the units and all would be pay-in-lieu. Ruther said that the purpose of the commercial linkage regulation is to create housing opportunities for 20% of the employees generated by new commercial development. He explained that there are various mitigation methods including on-site, off-site, fee-in-lieu or conveyance of property. Pierce had questions about conveyance of land. Would it be conveyed to the Town? Cleveland wanted to ensure that land conveyance need to be in the Town of Vail. Cleveland asked about the administrative fee and whether it would be used to administer the money, or whether it would be used to establish and run a real housing authority. Timm answered that a set pay in lieu fee would be assessed on an annual basis by resolution. • The administrative fee would disappear on the next rendition of the ordinance. Cleveland asked where the fee structure will come from. Nina Timm answered that AMI and Eag1e County data would be used. AMI data is updated annualfy. Cahill asked if someone could transfer the housing credits. Ruther said that at this time, the EHU credits could be transferred as outlined in the ordinance. Cahill asked about a scenario where someone would want to sell their unit. Timm answered that the deed restriction would remain. Jewitt said that the town could pay a homeowner to put a deed restriction on their unit with a fee in lieu. Pierce asked about 12-10E-4, each tenant residing in the EHU must be an employee, did we intend that? Timm answered that was a mistake and unintended. Pierce asked about the issue of variances and allowing the process to occur, as it may be in conflict with other provisions in the ordinance. Ruther answered that this is necessary to provide a clear procedure for an applicant to demonstrate their arguments. The lawyers were adamant about this section being part of the code. I Dick Cleveland said that no one on the PEC is experienced enough to make the determination of ' an illegal taking. Ruther said that this provision provides for legal administrative remedy and places burden of proof on the applicant. • Cleveland said that the new housing ordinance if goes into effect, should apply to other zone districts if they apply for variances to GRFA< height, etc. Ruther answered that a variance is Page 9 . granted due to the hardship or special circumstance that appears on the property. It is not a grant of special privilege and should not be assessed because of it. Kaye Ferry, who did not introduce herself, said that the PEC should recommend denial because • we don't have the answers yet. She said these regulations do not house a variety of people, but will only house the people like in Middle Creek. People who work in retail do not need a laundry room down the hall. Ruther stated that the answers to Kaye's questions are in the ordinance, where a developer would build the type of housing that they need. Cahill agreed that the developer should have their choice of type of housing. Jewitt said that his fear is that the developer will build units for their own employees, and not in the best interest of the community. Dominic Mauriello, also did not introduce himself, said that the variance provision would not be redundant and should remain in the ordinance. He said that all three provisions should be in both ordinances. Mauriello said that he was challenged to prove that his proposal met the goal i of 30%. He said that his proposal did meet the goal. He said that the inclusionary zoning percentage should be 7.66% in order to achieve the 30% goal. He also pointed out that the nexus is based on peak employment during the year. He said the square footage for each employee was quite low. In commercial core areas, parking requirements should be reduced, because if you live in a core area, you may not need a car. Jewitt interrupted and said that if they decide they want housing for seasonal employees and I allows bonus points for not having a car. They want to encourage use of the bus system. • Mauriello said that the term density control should spell out specific terms within density control (note: the overarching term is density control) He continued that it is not clear about applying credits from inclusionary to commercial linkage. He said the change in use section should include a tracking mechanism so people are not required to mitigate over and over. He also said that the PEC should understand the pay-in-lieu fee before they make any decisions. He agrees that the proof of financing is not required now and could be stricken. He asked why the rental rate would be required to be provided. The definition of mixed use is not included but should be included. He said that its not staff that is cramming the ordinance down PEC's throat, but it is the Town Council. He said PEC should recommend denial of these regulations and list all the reasons and that would send a clear message to the Town Council. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners, is not comfortable with the nexus or comments that he has heard. He has yet to hear Nina say that the NWCCOG study shows that part-time homeowners support the same percentage of the economy. He said there is not enough credit to part-time residents. He does not want residential development to be unfairly charged. He is also concerned about Greg Moffett and Mark Gordon's discussion of social engineering. He does not see densities being increased for the purpose of employee housing. The developer will want to provide employee housing on-site versus paying in lieu if its cheaper to build on site. He said that iYs wrong to do inclusionary zoning because its slimy. He wants the numbers to be realistic and the nexus to be negotiated. He doesn't think iYs fair to ignore the contributions of the part time residents. Brian Gillette, owner of an employee housing unit, said that by allowing an employee to work anywhere in Eagle County allows EHUs to be given away to other people, and not Vail residents. • Page 10 . Dick Cleveland asked if we can resolve the problem with these regulations, and how much more development can Vail sustain before this problem is solved. Cahill said that with Ordinance 7, they should look at 30% mitigation for commercial linkage. He 'i I also wants a breakdown of what kinds of units are needed within the Town. Also, there should ~ be a parking variance. If a restaurant moves into a retail space, they would not be able to survive. In Chapter 23-3, more garage credit should be given. With regards to pressure from Town Council, he does not feel any pressure as it has always been his understanding that the Council is seeking the Commission's input. Bernhardt asked for the highlights of his list of discussion points. Cleveland asked who the applicant is, the leasee or the owner. Ruther said that the EHU is tied to the development site and the ordinance does not stipulate who the applicant is. Mauriello asked about the change to 30% and wondered if that comment applied to residential. Ruther answered that the numbers only work to achieve the goal if you get the correct ration or proportionality to continue through the development review process. Mauriello said the garage credit is not appropriate in this ordinance because it is not applicable to this ordinance. Ruther answered that it was a quality of life issue to add the garage credit. Bernhardt asked for the number of units will be needed, the size, location and quantity in how many years. Cleveland said it should be a five-year window because we don't really know what will occur beyond five years from now. Bernhardt said that is what he has been asking for the past several meetings, but he needs his questions answered. ~ Pierce said talk of some of the details may be irrelevant. Developers are going to go out and buy existing units and deed restrict them. They are not going to go out and build a lot of extra units. It is desirable to have people who can serve on PEC live in town. Have a Town sponsored buy down program, loan guaranty program, etc. There will not be bag loads of money sent to the Town. Eventually we are buying out homes of our customers. Kjesbo asked if we force developers to have units on site? There is not enough other opportunity. This wifl become a necessity. Cleveland stated on site housing means that you are housing your employees, which is good. Pierce is concerned that we are creating an equivalency between existing units and new units. Perhaps additional credit for a new unit rather than deed restricting an existing unit. Cleveland painted out that inclusionary zoning doesn't work as well for us being we are using it in redevelopment rather than new development. George Ruther then made a presentation on Ordinance #8. Ruther noted changes in 12-24-9A and 12-24-1 B to add "changes in use" to why one would be required to mitigate. Also, a minimum GRFA requirement per employee is added to provide for a conversion factor between inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage. Ruther commented that it is necessary to consult with our attorneys on whether you can link the square footage from inclusionary zoning to a square footage per employee. • Page 11 Kjesbo does not feel that remodels (and increases in GRFA) that are not redevelopment are not accounted for in this regulation. Cahill asked about how to calculate fee-in-lieu for square footages. • Timm said that when fee in lieu is established, it will be broken down into a per square foot number for the inclusionary zoning regulation. Kjesbo asked if an HOA deed restricted a unit today, could it be a credit for future additions? Ruther said that the deed restricted unit would give you a credit if the deed restriction was not provided to meet a previous requirement. Cahill asked if there is a use change from restaurant (who paid in lieu) to an office and there is a surplus that has been paid for, who administers the credits? Ruther answered that paragraph 12-24-7 explains this issue. A document gets recorded that shows the deed restrictions (or pay- in-lieu). Cleveland asked about appreciation caps on deed restrictions. Timm answered that it would be a taking to put a price cap on private property. Cleveland asked if the EHU would be a commodity that is tradable. Ruther said yes, that EHUs will be traded as a commodity. Pierce asked about the preamble and it seems like its irrelevant mumbo-jumbo. He asked about AU's and Lodge units in commercial and why the rest (FF, etc) are considered residential and part of inclusionary zoning. Ruther answered that there are certain nuances that required certain types of property (DU, limited lodge, etc) that would be part of inclusionary zoning. Pierce said that a table should be added to create a rate per unit, so you could do residential linkage versus inclusionary zoning. • Ruther said that residential development does not pay its way in public services. Inclusionary zoning allows the town to assess the residential development to pay part of its way through housing. Pierce said that the residential units should be assessed more than just a nexus, so the numbers for assessment would include primary and secondary impacts. Mauriello said that if you use the nexus study, you would prevent yourself from double dipping. There is a residential linkage formula that would be very fair and assess fairly the secondary impacts. He also said that changing the 550 sq ft! employee versus 350 sq ft/ employee hurts his client trying to get a credit. Pierce said that if he was a developer, he would want the 350 sq ft per employee so that he could build for more employees. Ruther said that if you used residential linkage, you would have to mitigate more than 100% of the residential linkage to meet the goal of 30%. Residential linkage does not allow you too assess more than 100%. However, inclusionary zoning does. Nina Timm said that residential linkage only covers direct impacts and there are more impacts beyond the residential linkage number. Ruther said that in order to meet the goal of housing at least 30%, if commercial linkage is increased, the inclusionary zoning mitigation rate could be reduced, because more obligation is • Page 12 . , put on the commercial side. Ruther stated, however, that this was not the goal stated by the Town Council • Kjesbo said that the commercial should pay more because they generate more jobs. Residential development should not be taxed for a larger proportion. The second homeowners already pay a lot of taxes and should not be punished any more. Ruther said that the commercial is being asked for 20% and Cahill said that the board could recommend more, if they see fit. Mauriello said the goal is met at a lower number. Ruther answered that he doesn't know if the , 30% closes the gap. Pierce asked why we are saying we want 10 times more than we need. He said the numbers seem way off. Ruther answered that we are asking residential development to mitigate all direct ' and some secondary impacts and that is the policy direction that has been given from the Town Council. Ruther made a great comparison between girl scout cookies and this policy. I love it. Cahill asked the Commission whether they would want residential linkage or inclusionary zonin9 and then go by dwelling units and not square footage. Ruther said that he agreed the PEC could deny these ordinances, perhaps a more appropriate approach would be to recommend approval with modifications and make these the best regulations possible. Cahill said that the board supports increasing commercial linkage to 30%, and perhaps do away with inclusionary zoning. • Ruther pointed to criteria #1 in the staff memorandum. If we can answer yes to that question, perhaps we can move on from there. Keep that in mind! Cahill wants to understand how much inclusionary zoning or residential linkage needs to occur to fill the gap from the commercial linkage. 6. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a request for a final review of variances from Sections 12-71-1-10, Setbacks, 12-71-1-14, Site Coverage, and 12-71-1-15, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an underground parking structure and a staircase within the setbacks, and deviations from the maximum site coverage and minimum landscape area requirements, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0074) Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Geoff Wright Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to March 12, 2007 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0-0 7. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of three feet within the front setback, located at 805 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, and . setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0007) Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Page 13 ? Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to March 12, 2007 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0-0 • 8. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, located at 805 and 807 Potato Patch Drive, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0008) Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Warren Campbelf ACTION: Tabled to March 12, 2007 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0-0 9. Approval of February 12, 2007 minutes MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-1 (Jewitt recused) 10. Information Update Russ Forrest Farewell Party 11. Adjournment MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 Development 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 February 23, 2007, in the Vail Daily. I • Page 14 ; - • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, pursuant to Article ~ 12-9(A), Speciai Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in the number of dwelling units from 69 units to 75 units; located at 141 and 9 43 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0004) Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell 1. SUMMARY The applicants, Crossroads East One, LLC, and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC, are requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town • Council on a proposed major amendment to Specia! Development District No. 39, Crossroads, pursuant to Article 12-9(A), Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in the number of dwelling units from 69 units to 75 units; located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1. Upon review of the applicable elements of the Town's planning documents and adopted criteria for review, the Community Development Dep'artment is recommending the Planning and Environmental Commission foruvards a recommendation of approval, with conditions of the applicanYs request for a major amendment to Special development District (SDD) No. 39, Crossroads, to the Vail Town Council. A complete summary of our review is provided in Section VIII of this memorandum. !I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC, are requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, pursuant to Article 12-9(A), Special Development Disfrict, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in the number of dwelling units from 69 units to 75 units. Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, was established by the Town Council on the recommendation of the Planning and Environmental Commission on March 21, 2006 to facilitate the redevelopment of the existing Crossroads site, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1. A vicinity map has been attached for reference (Attachment A). The applicant is still proposing to remove the existing improvements on the • site and construct a new structure and public plaza. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the proposed development site is located in the Commercial Service Center 1 ~ i (CSC) zone district. As such, development on the site shall be governed by the regulations outlined in Article 7E, Commercial Service Center (CSC) District, Title 12, Zoning • Regulations, Vaii Town Code. The key elements of the proposed major amendment to SDD No. 39, Crossroads, include: • An increase in the number of dwelling units from 69 to 75 and the retention of the incorporated five (5) lock-offs. A proposed deviation from the allowable number of dwelling units (53) which is 28 dwelling units greater; • A decrease in the proposed Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) from 199,830 square feet to 198,859 square feet. A proposed deviation from the allowable amount of GRFA (45,080 sq. ft.) which is 153,779 sq. ft. greater; • A decrease in the number of subsurface parking spaces from 338 to 299 (84 in excess of Town Code); • A decrease in the landscape area from 47,192 square feet to 43,316 square feet; • A relocation of the approved public restrooms located within the subterranean parking structure to the at grade plaza level in the southeast corner of the plaza; and • A decrease in retail space from 58,804 square feet to 45,160 square feet of new retail and restaurant (does not include theater and bowling alley area) space at the pedestrian level and one floor above surrounding the public plaza; A reduced copy of the floor plans and elevations dated January 15, 2007, have been attached for reference (Attachment B). A copy of the text detailing the application entitled Application for a Maior Amendment to Special Development District No, 39, Crossroads, and an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Private Parkina Club dated February ' 15, 2007, is attached for reference (Attachment C). • Pursuant to Section 12-9A-9, Development Standards, Vai! Town Code, the applicant is • requesting a major amendment to the SDD No. 39, Crossroads, to request changes in the deviations from the prescribed development standards for density (number of units), Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), and landscape area. III. BACKGROUND • This property was annexed into the Town of Vail by Court order on August 26, 1966, as a part of the Original Town of Vail. • The existing Crossroads was developed in the 1970's as a mixed use development which has changed little since. • The Crossroads property is one of three properties zoned Commercial Service Center. The other two properties are the Gateway Building and the WestStar Bank Building, both of which are Specia! Development Districts. • On January 3, 2006, Staff went before the Town Council to discuss finro options regarding the review of the proposed Crossroads development. Staff recommended that the option of looking at potential amendments and updates to the Commercial Service Center zone district and Vail Village Master Plan was the appropriate course of action. At that meeting the Town Council voted 5-2-0 (Logan and Slifer opposed) to proceed forward with the Special Development District review process and to not take a look at amending the Commercial Service Center zone district and Vail Viilage Master Plan. In addition, they affirmed four assumptions staff has made in the previous review of the project. • On January 9, 2006, the Commission held a work session to discuss the need for • 2 - - • any additional material other than that submitted to aid in the review of the proposed Crossroads redevelopment. The Planning Department Staff recommended that a physical model which inciuded adjacent properties to the Crossroads site be submitted to aid in the review and understanding of the project. The Commission found no physical model of adjacent properties and that no other additional information was required in order to review the proposal. One member did suggest a desire to have some demonstration of height of the proposed structure on site or in the vicinity. • On January 23, 2006, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 5-2-0 (Viele and Lamb opposed) to forward a recommendation af approval of SDD No. 39, Crossroads, to the Vail Town Council. The Planning and Environmental Commissian vated 7-0-0 to approve the conditional use permits for a major arcade; a theater; meeting rooms, and convention facilities; multiple-familydwellings; a private club (parking club); a bowling alley; and the outdoor operation of an accessory use i (ice skating rink). • On March 21, 2006, the Town Council on second reading of Ordinance 5, Series of ; 2006, voted 4-3-0 (Slifer, Foley, and Logan opposed) to approve the adoption of SDD No. 39, Crossroads. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Maior Amendment to a Special Development District I Order of Review: Generaily, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for impacts of use/development, then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning, I and final approval by the Town Council. • Plannina and Environmental Commission: The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council j based upon the findings made on the criteria located in Chapter 12-9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code. Desi4n Review Board: The DRB has no review authority on a SDD proposal, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB review of an SDD prior to Town Council approval is purely advisory in nature. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submiftal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: • The Town Council takes into consideration the PEC's recommendation when reviewing an 3 _ ~ application for a special development district and is responsible for final approval/denial of an SDD. The Town Council shall review the proposal and approve/approve with • conditions/deny the application based upon the findings made on the criteria located in Chapter 12-9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Vail Villaae Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whole. It is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly, this Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. Furthermore, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. While there is a certain amount of overlap between these six goals, each focuses on a particular aspect of the Village and the community as a whole. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of objectives outline , specific steps that can be taken toward achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have ' been developed to guide the Town's decision-making in achieving each of the stated ii objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in • ; implementing capital improvement projects. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deai with such development. The most significant elements of the Master Plan are the goals, objectives, policies and action steps. They are the working tools of the Master Plan, They establish the broad framework and vision, but also layout the specific policies and action steps that will be used to implement the Plan. As noted on page 35 of the Master Plan, "It is importanf fo note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for fhose proposa/s that can fully comp/y with fhe Vail Village Masfer Plan." Staff believes this statement re-emphasizes that the Master Plan is a general document providing advisory guidelines to aid the Town in analyzing development proposals and that full compliance is not required in order for a project to be approved. The stated goals of the Vail Village Master Plan which staff believes are applicable to this application appear in Section VIII under staff's assessment of Criterion D. Specific Sub- Area Details found in the Vail Village Master Plan Mixed Use Sub Area (#1) • 4 • The Mixed-Use suB-area is a prominent activity center for Vail ViNage. It is distinguished from the Viilage core by fhe larger scale buildings and by the limited auto traffic alang East Meadow Drive. Comprised of five major developmenf pro%ects, this sub-area rs characterized by a mixture of residential/lodging and commercial activity. There is a great deal of potential for improvements to both public and privafe facilities in the area. Among these is fhe opportunity to develop gateway entries to the Village at the 4-way stop and af the intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive. It is a/so a long term goal to strengthen the connection between this area and the Vi!lage core area by reinforcing the established pedestrian linkages. Pedestrianization in this area may benefit from the development of retail infill with associated pedestrian improvements along East Meadow Drive and the development of public access to Gore Creek. A significant increase in the Village's overnight bed base will occur in this sub-area with the development of the final phase of the Vail Village Inn projecf. In addition, commercial and residential/lodging development potential is identified in sub-area concepts 3, 4, 6, and B. The completion of these projects will essentially leave the sub-area "built out" #1-6 Crossroads Infi!! Commercial infill over new underground parking !ot in conjuncfion wifh a large public plaza with greenspace area (exrsting and new parking demand fo be provided on site). While configuration of infill may be done a number of • ways, it is the overall intent to replace existing surface parking with pedestrian corridors into a commercial area, as well as to provide a strong building edge on Meadow Drive and streetscape improvements. lmprovements of the planted buffer adjacent fo the Frontage Road is a/so important. Relocation of the loading and delivery functions and entry to parking structure is strongly encouraged to reduce traffic on Meadow Drive. Potential to improve fire access also exists in the redevelopment scheme. Special emphasis on 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 4. 9, 5.1, 6. 9, and 6.2. Town of Vail ZoninQ Requlations Staff has reviewed the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code). We believe the following code sections are relevant to the review of the applicant's request: Article E. Commercial Service Center (CSC) District (in part) 92-7E-1: Purpose; The Commercia/ Service Center District is intended to provrde sites for general shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town, fogefher wifh limifed mulfiple-family dwelling and lodge uses as maybe appropriate without interfering with the basic commercial functions of the Districf. The Commercial Service Center District is intended fo ensure adequate lighf, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted fypes of buildings and uses, and to mainfain a convenient shopping center environment for permitted commercial uses. • Article 12-9A: Special Development (SDD) District (in part) 5 Secfion 12-9A-1: Purpose: • The purpose of the special deve/opment district is to encouraQe flexibilitv and creativity in the develoament of/and in order to promote its most a,vproariate use: to improve the desian character and ciualitv of the new deve/opment with the fown; fo facilitate the adepuate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of o,nen s,oace areas; and to further the overall qoals of the communitv as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. An approved development plan for a special development disfrict, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish fhe requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. The special deve/opment district does not apply to and is not available in the following zone districfs: Hillside residential, single-family, duplex, primary/secondary. The elements of the development plan shall be as ouflined in section 12-9A-6 of this article. Vi. ZONING ANALYSIS ~ According to the appiication infarmation provided by the applicant, staff has performed an analysis of the proposal in relation to the requirements of the Vail Code. The deviations to the prescribed development standards are shown in bold text in the table below. December 12, 2005 PEC Recommendation of Aqproval The following is the zoning analysis of the proposal the PEC recommended appraval of with conditions on January 23, 2006. The deviations to the prescribed development standards are shown in bold text in the tabie below. Development Standard Allowed Proposed ~ LotArea: 20,000 sq. ft. 115,129 sq. ft. (2.643 acres) • Buildable Area: 115,129 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front (Frontage Road): 20' 3' to 19' West Side: 20' 3' (loading dock) to 25' East Side: 20' 0' to 25' Front (Meadow Drive): 20' 0' to 150' Building Height: 38' 99.9 ft. Density: 18 units/acre 26.1 unitslacre 47.5 D.U.s 69 D.U.s GRFA: 46,051.6 sq. ft. 199,830 sq. ft. (40%) (173.6%) Site Coverage: 86,346.8 sq. ft. 107,772 sq. ft. (75%) (93.6%) Landscape Area: Total 23,025.8 sq. ft. 47,192 sq. ft. (20% total site) (41.0% total site) Minimum Softscape of total permitted • 18,420.6 sq. ft. 18,581 sq. ft. 6 • (80%) (39.4%) Maximum Hardscape of total permitted 4,605.1 sq. ft. 28,611 sq. ft. (20%) (60.6%) Parking: 235 spaces 338 spaces (103 surplus spaces) Januarv 15, 2007, Proqosal The following is the zoning analysis of the currently proposed major amendments to SDD No. 39, Crossroads. The deviations to the prescribed development standards are shown in bold text in the table below. Development Standard Allowed Proposed Lot Area: 20,000 sq. ft. 115,129 sq. ft. (2.643 acres) Buildable Area: 115,129 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front (Frontage Road): 20' 0' to 19' West Side: 20' 2' (loading dock) to 25' East Side: 20' 0' to 25' Front (Meadow Drive): 20' 0' to 150' • Building Height: 38' 99.9 ft. Density: 18 units/acre 28.4 units /acre 47.5 D.U.s 75 D.U.s GRFA: 46,051.6 sq. ft. 198,859 sq. ft. (40%) (172.7%) Site Coverage: 86,346.8 sq. ft. 107,772 sq. ft. (75%) (93.6%) Landscape Area: Total 23,025.8 sq. ft. 43,316 sq. ft. (20% total site) (37.6% total site) Minimum Softscape of total permitted 18,420.6 sq. ft. 13,433 sq. ft. (80%) (31.0%) Maximum Hardscape of total permitted 4,605.1 sq. ft. 29,078 sq. ft. (20%) (67.1 Parking: 215 spaces 299 spaces (84 surplus spaces proposed to be in private parking club) • 7 Vli. SURROUNDtNG LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoninq • North: CDOT ROW None South: Mixed Use Commercial Core II District/Public Accommodation East: Public Parking General Use District West: Mixed Use SDD No. 6 VIII. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAJOR AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCESS Chapter 12-9 of the Town Code provides for the review of a major amendment to an established special development districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1, the purpose of a special development district is, "To encourage flexibility and creativity in fhe development of land, in order to promofe its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; fo preserve the natura/ and scenic feafures of open 'I space areas; and to further the overa!l goals of the community as stated in the Vail I Comprehensive Plan. An approved development p/an for a Specfa/ Development Disfrict, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the ~ requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District." i An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses, • and activities of the Special Development District (SDD). The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters to which the special development district shall adhere. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to: the approved site plan; floor plans, bui(ding sections, and elevations: viciniry plan; parking plan; preliminary open space/landscape plan; densities; and permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. The Town Code provides nine design criteria which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of a major amendment to an established SDD. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The following is a staff analysis of the projecYs compliance with the nine SDD review criteria: A. Consideration of Factors Reqardinq Special Development Districts: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. In a memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated January 23, 2006, staff discussed in detail the architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation in great detail. As this proposal for a major amendment to SDD No. 39, Crossroads, does not include any changes to the architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrify and ~ 8 ~ orientation of the approved structure staff has not included the discussion on these review points. As stated previously the major amendment proposes to increase the number of dweiling units from 69 to 75 and decrease the GRFA by 971 square feet. These changes are accomplished within the approved bulk, mass, and height of the structure. The reduction in GRFA is a result of the need to provide more common area hallways for the increased number of units. There are no changes to the approved heights and setbacks of the structure. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. In a memorandum to the Planning and Environmenta! Commission dated January 23, 2006, staff discussed in detail the uses, activity, and density of the redeveloped Crossroads site and its compatibility to surrounding uses and activity. As this proposal for a major amendment will affect the number of dwelling units on the site staff will focus on this aspect of the proposal and its impact on this criterion. The above criterion specifically identifies the proposed density of a project as needing to be compatible with surrounding properties. This property is restricted to 18 dwelling units/acre per the underlying Commercial Service Center zoning. The applicant is proposing a density of 28.4 dwelfing unifs/acre with 198,859 square feet of GRFA. The neighboring property to the south, the One Willow Bridge/Sonnenalp Hotel development, is limited to 25 dwelling units/acre, which the new development has proposed $ dwelling units for a density of 2.9 dwelling units/acre with 135,184 square feet of GRFA. One Willow Bridge/Sonnenalp Hotel was substantially accommodation units (123 units) and fractional fee units (14 units) which • do not count towards density. The adjacent property to the west, Vail Village Inn Phase li1 (SDD #6), is limited to 25 dwelling units/acre with the underlying zoning. In the Ordinance adopting SDD #6 it is not clear the number of dwelling units allowed, however, it identifies a minimum of 148 accommodation units and 64,267 square feet of GRFA shal) be located in Phase 1V of the project, however the overall project has a much greater density. As can be seen the proposed Crossroads project has a greater density than the constructed or proposed neighboring properties and more GRFA. In the previous memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission staff provided an analysis of the development potential shifted from the area to be devoted to the public plaza to other portions of the site. Staff showed how the GRFA being proposed was less than possible deve(opment potential of the public plaza area in relation to the recommendations of the Vail Village Master Plan on height and density. Staff befieves the proposed Crossroads redevelopment complies with this portion of the criterion as the proposed public benefits outweigh all deviations proposed. Emplovee Housina 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 SDD proposals. In reviewing the proposal presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission on January 23, 2006, for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report. This report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate employee housing needs. That analysis showed a net new • generation of employees by the Crossroads project to be six (6) employee beds. In the recommendation of approval to the Town Council the Planning and Environmental 9 Commission placed a condition upon that recommendation to require the applicant to provide six employee beds. • The Employee Housing Report was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall, Remmen and Cares. The report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, staff analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use) that results from the redevelopment. The figures identified in the report are based on surveys of the commercial-use employment needs of the Town of Vail and other mountain resort communities. "New" employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial redevelopment. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of affordable housing a developer must provide for the new employees. For example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 40% (0.40) of the new employees, Aspen requires that 60% (0.60) of the new employees are provided housing, and Whistler requires that 100% (1.00) of the new employees be provided housing by the developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined that developers shall provide housing for 15% (0.15) or 30% (0.30) of the new employees resulting from commercial development. When a project is proposed to exceed the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure is used in the calculation. If a project is proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15) figure is used. The Crossroads special development district does exceed the density permitted by the underlying zone district in both number of dwelling units and GRFA so the 30% ratio was used. Proposed Project • Emqlovee Generation Calculations - Middle of Ranqe a) Multi-Family (Dwelling Units) 75 new units proposed @(0.4/unit) - 30.0 employees b) Retail and Service Commercial 36,336 sq. ft. @(5.0/1000 sq. ft.) = 181.7 employees c) Bar/Restaurant/Arcade/Theater/Bowling 22,779 sq. ft. @(5.0/1000 sq. ft.) = 113.9 employees 325.6 employees Existing Crossroads Project Emplovee Generation Calculations - Middle of Ranqe a) Multi-Familiy (Dwelling Units) 22 units existing @(0.4/unit) = 8.8 employees b) Retail and Service Commercial • 22,116 sq. ft. @(5.0/1000 sq. ft.) = 110.6 employees 10 ~ c) Office: Professional/Other 20,000 sq. ft. @(5.0/1000 sq. ft.) = 100.0 employees d) Bar/Restaurant/Night Club/Theater 13,550 sq. ft. @(5.0/1000 sq, ft.) = 67.8 employees e) Bank 2,750 sq. ft. @(2.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 6.9 employees f) Grocery 6,240 sq. ft. @(1.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 9.4 employees 303.5 employees 325.6 new employees - 303.5 exisitinq emplovees 22.1 net new employees x.30 6.63 required # beds According to the calculations above, the applicanf must establish 7 new deed-restricted employee beds ("pillows"). The appficants are proposing to provide the required deed- • restricted employee housing beds off-site through the purchase of units throughout Town or through a pay-in-lieu program, if established by the Town prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO). The applicant will deed restrict the units under the appropriate deed restrictions depending upon which zone district the property is located within the community under the appropriate review process. In a previous meeting, the Commission asked for greater detail on how a"bed" will be defined in regards to the deed restricting of units. For example if the applicant purchased a structure containing three bedrooms this could potentially count as six employee "beds". As expressed by the Commission a unit as described previously may likely be rented by a family and would still count as six employee beds. Staff recommends that the developer submit to staff, prior to issuance of a TCO or Certificate of Occupancy, the location of the units proposed to be deed restricted a(ong with the appropriate review application which is applicable or remit payment in funds commensurate with any adopted pay-in-lieu program. In adopting SDD No. 39, Crossroads, the Town Council required the applicant to provide twelve (12) employee beds. Staff recommends that this be increased by one (1) employee bed per the increase generated by the proposed major amendment. Staff would suggest the following language be forwarded to the Town Council. Deletions are shown in s`N,roug# and additions in bold. Emp/oyee Housing: Crossroads shall provide the Town deed restricted employee housing suffl'cient to accommodate 42 13 occupants by executing appropriate restrictrve covenant(s) on form(s) provided by fhe Town. Any dwelling unit(s) restricted sha/l conform to the followrng floor area requirements: a one-bedroom unif shall contarn at leasf 550 sq, ff. of floor area and accommodate no more fhan 2 • occupanfs; a two-bedroom unit shall contain at leasf 850 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more than 3 occupants; a fhree-bedroom unif shall confain at leasf 11 - 1,350 sq. ft. of floor area and accornmodate no more than 4 occupants; and a four- • bedroom unit shall contain at least 1,500 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more that 5 occupants. The Town may approve minor variations in floor area when the overall intent of the floor area requirements is being met. Any deed restriction shall be for property located within the Town. Such deed restriction(s) shall be executed and provided fo fhe Town for recording and restricted unit(s) shall be available for occupancy prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the Crossroads Project or any phase thereof. Any deed restricted employee housing unit shall comp/y with the standards and procedures established by fhe Town Zoning Regu/ations. Staff believes that the proposal does comply with this portion of the criterion. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12-10 of the Vail Town Code. As indicated in the Zoning Analysis outlined in Section VI of this memorandum, the total number of required parking spaces for the Crossroads project is 215 spaces. The applicants are proposing to provide a total of 299 spaces, all of which are to be provided in the proposed underground parking structure. The 84 additional parking spaces proposed to be constructed above and beyond that which is required are proposed to be placed in a private parking club. The proposed subterranean parking structure permits a public plaza on the surface which contains an ice skating rink. In order to establish a private parking club offering parking spaces, the Town Code requires the review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Commission. The applicant is • proposing to establish an 84 stall private parking club. Staff addresses the criteria for the establishment of a private parking club in the Conditional Use Permit memorandum accompanying this memorandum. The applicant is proposing to utilize all of the 84 surplus parking spaces in a private parking club in which participants would lease a space or potentially purchase if the applicant chooses to condominiumize the spaces. The applicant desires to maintain ownership of the parking spaces to avoid not having enough parking for the retail, restaurant, and office uses if the project becomes as successful as anticipated. There is a possibility that as various tenants begin to design and occupy their spaces that additional surplus parking may become available. When calculating the required parking staff and the applicant were conservative in estimating what percentage of restaurant spaces will become areas not assessed parking. An analysis will need to be run as each tenant goes in for building permit and as tenants change out in the future. The applicant can return before the Commission at a later date if additional surplus parking is created based on tenant make-up to amend the conditional use permit. In the memorandum to the Commission accompanying this majoramendment, staff recommends that the developer be permitted to establish an 84 parking space private club. The applicant has not proposed any changes to the compliant loading and delivery facility associated with the project. Staff believes that the application complies with this criterion. . • 12 • D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. In a memarandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated January 23, 2006, staff discussed in detail the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan and how they applied to the Crossroads redevelopment. As this proposal for a major amendment will affect the number of dwelling units on the site staff will focus on this aspect of the proposal and its impact on this criterion. The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for the establishment of a special development district. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following goals and policies are relevant to the review of this major amendment ta SDD No. 39, Crossroads, proposal: 1.0 General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance befinreen residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infifl areas). 4.0 Vii(age Core / Lionshead • 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved thorough implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of Vail Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (scale, alpine character, smal( town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be • accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. 13 According to the Official Town of Vail Land Use Plan map, the applicanYs proposed • redevelopment site is located with the "Vail Village Masfer P/an"land use category. Pursuant to the Plan, the "Varl Village Master Plan" land use category description, "Vail Village has been designated separately as a mixed use area and accounts for 77 acres or about 2% of the P/an area. This area has not been ana/yzed in this Plan document because the Vail Villaqe Master Plan study addressed this area specifically in more detail." Staff believes that the application complies with the goals and objectives identified above. Vail Villape Master Plan Staff believes that the following stated goals of the Vail Village Master Plan are applicable to this ma1'or amendment application: Goa/ #2: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-around unifY as a economic heaIth and viability for the Village and for the comm whole. Objective 2.5: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing /odging and commercial facilities fo better serve the needs of our guests. As discussed in this section of the memorandum, staff believes that the application complies with all the goals and objectives of the Vail Comprehensive plan. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the • properly on which the special development district is proposed. According to the Official Town of Vail Geologic Hazard Maps, the Crossroads development site is not located in any geologically sensitive areas. Staff believes that the application complies with this criterion. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. In a memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated January 23, 2006, staff discussed in detail the site plan, building design and location and open space provisions in great detail. As this proposal for a major amendment to SDD No. 39, Crossroads, does not include any changes to the site plan, building design and location and open space provisions of the approved structure staff has not included the discussion on these review points. Staff believes the proposal complies with this criterion. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site trafFc circulation. The Town of Vail Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed plans for circulation • to ensure that it is designed well for both vehicles and pedestrians on and off the site. 14 • Following the review of the plans, the Public Works Department forwarded their written final comments in a memorandum, dated January 16, 2006. Many of the final comments are time sensitive actions that can only be accomplished at a later date or are only necessary to address if the applicants receive approval of this request. To require full compliance at this time would thus be inappropriate. A copy of the memorandum with the final written comments from the Public Works Department has been attached for reference (Attachment D). The traffic report submitted by the applicant depicts overall infersection ievels for existing and future service being maintained at a Level Of Service (LOS) A. However, the Village Center Road northbound left tum movement is a LOS of C and with the development of this project this movements delay increases by approximately 15% but the LOS remains at a level of C. The overall impact on Village Center Road's north bound left turn lane is a queue increase of 15 feet in length to 40 feet in length. Staff believes that it will be imperative to assess the applicant a fee of $5,000 per additional peak PM trip generated by this project should it be granted approval. The traffic report identifies that there is a net increase of 81 PM Peak Hour trips for the Crossroads project. At $6,500 per net trip this results in an impact fee of $526,500. The Public Works Department is still working ouf the final details of the revised traffic report with the applicant and believe the peak net trip increase may go up slightly based on a change to the way fhe study they have requested This impact fee sha!l not be offsef 6y any public improvements. The impact fee shall be submitted to the Town of Vail to be used specifically for traffic improvements as deemed necessary by the Town of Vail. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and • preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The applicant is still proposing a large plaza along East Meadow Drive which contains an ice skating rink in the winter and a pop-jet water feature in the warmer months. The approved plaza has been reworked to address Design Review Board input since the Planning and Environmental Commission recommended approval of the establishment of SDD No. 39, Crossroads. The planter bed locations and the landscaping to be planted in each have been carefully selected in order for the retail to be as visible as possible. The applicant's proposal complies with the landscaping minimum requirements as depicted on the landscaping plan. Staff believes that the changes are an improvement which now makes this proposal comply with this criterion. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant is proposing to construct the project in one phase and a subdivision of the property will be necessary to facilitate the development of the Crossroads project. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, with conditions to the Vail Town Council on a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. • 39, Crossroads, pursuant to Article 12-9(A), Special Deve(opment District, Vail Town Code, 15 to allow for an increase in the number of dwelling units from 69 units to 75 units, located at • 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1. Staff's recommendation is based upon a review of the criteria and findings as outlined in this memorandum and from the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions of the applicants' request, staff recommends that the following findings be made as part of the motion: Special Development District No. 39 Crossroads "That fhe proposal to amend Specia/ Development District No. 39, Crossroads, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Vail Town Code. Furthermore, the applicant has demonstrated to the safisfaction of the Commission, based upon fhe testimony and evidence presented during the public hearin9, that anY adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided. Lasf/y, the Commission finds that the request is consisfent with the development goa/s and objectives of the Town. That the proposed gross residential floor area of 172.7% of lot area, additional twenty- eight dwelling units over allowable (af 28.4 units per acre total) in the Commercia! Service Center zone district is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Master Plan. That the development is in compliance with the purposes of the Commercial Service ~ Center zone district, that the proposal is consistent with applicab/e elements of the Vail Village Masfer Plan, fhe Vai! Land Use Plan, and the Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of fhe neighborhood, and thaf the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval the applicanYs requests, staff recommends the following conditions: The Developer shall address the following conditions of approval prior to appearing before the Vail Town Council for second reading of an adopting ordinance for the establishment of Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads: 1. The Developer shall prepare a written agreement, for Town Council review and approval, outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required offsite improvements, as indicated on the proposed Approved Development Plan. This agreement shall include, but not be limited to, all streetscape improvements along Village Center Road and East Meadow Drive, public access to the plaza for pedestrians and Town sponsored events, which may include the establishment of an easement on the plaza and language in the covenants and declarations for owners of property in the project regarding the use of the plaza for speciaf events, inclusion of the loading and delivery facility in the overall loading and delivery system, payment of traffic impact fees and credits given to offset fee, and details for funding public art. The Developer shall address the following conditions of approval prior to submitting a • 16 ~ building permit application (a grading permibexcavation permit shall constitute a building permit); 1. The Developer shall submit a final exterior building materials list, typical wall section, architectural specifications, and a complete color rendering for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to submittal of an application for a building permit. 2. The Developer shall submit a rooftop mechanical equipment plan for review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to the submittal of a building permit application. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the structure and enclosed and visually screened from public view. 3. The Deveioper shall submit a comprehensive sign program for review and approval by the Design Review Board. 4. The Developer shall receive all the required permits from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) priorto submitting for a building permit. Failure to receive the appropriate permits to access the South Frontage Road per the Approved Development Plan will require the project to return through the special development district review process. 5. The Developer shall comply with the written f+nal comments of the Town of Vail Public Works Department outlined in the memorandum from the Town of Vail Public Works Department, dated January 16, 2006, prior to submitting an application to the Town of Vail Community Department for the issuance of a building permit for this ~ project. 6. The Developer shall submit a written letter agreeing to install a pubiic safety radio communications system within the subterranean parking structure which meets the specifications of the Town of Vail Communications Center. The specifications and detai(s of this system shall be submitted to staff for review and approval with the application for a building permit. 7. The Developer shall submit a fire and life safety plan for review and approval by the Town of Vail Fire Department. The Developer shall address the following conditions of approval prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy or a final certificate of occupancy; 1. The Developer shall be assessed a traffic impact fee of $6,500 per net trip increase in p.m. traffic. The trip generation report prepared by Fox Higgins Transportation Group states the net peak increase is 81 trips. The Public Works Department has asked that the study be revised to address a concern regarding the trip generation for the night club in the bowling alley. This change may cause the trip generation to increase. The applicant shall be responsible for mitigating the number of net peak trip increases depicted in the revised study. This impact fee shall not be offset by any public improvements. 2. The Developer shall post a bond to provide financial security for 125% of the tota! ~ cost of the required off-site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. This includes but 17 is not limited to the proposed streetscape improvements. ~ 3. The Developer shall commence initial construction of the Crossroads improvements within three years from the time of its final approval at second reading of the ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 39, and continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the developer does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the special development district or any stage of the special development district within the time limits imposed, the approval of said special development district shall be void. The Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall review the special development district upon submittal of an application to reestablish the special development district following the procedures outlined in Section 12-9A-4, Vail Town Code. 4. Emp/oyee Housing: Crossroads shall provide the Town deed restricted employee housing sufficient to accommodate 13 occupants by executing appropriate restrictive covenant(s) on form(s) provided by the Town. Any dwelling unit(s) restricted shall conform to the following floor area requirements: a one-bedroom unit shall contain at least 550 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more than 2 occupants; a two- bedroom unit shall contain at least 850 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more than 3 occupants; a three-bedroom unit shall contain at least 1,350 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more than 4 occupants; and a four-bedroom unit shall contain at least 1,500 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more that 5 occupants. The Town may approve minor variations in floor area when the overall intent of the floor area requirements is being met. Any deed restriction shall be for property located within the Town. Such deed restriction(s) shall be executed and provided to the Town for recording and restricted unit(s) shall be available for ~ occupancy prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the Crossroads Project or any phase thereof. Any deed restricted employee housing unit shall comply with the standards and procedures established by the Town Zoning Regulations. 5. The approval of SDD No. 39, Crossroads, shall restrict the uses upon the plaza level tenant spaces to retail uses solely and shatl not be utilized for professional offices, business offices, and studios. The second floor retail space may be utilized for any allowable or conditional use as listed in the Commercial Service Center Zone District. No space noted as retail space on the Approved Development Plan shall be converted to a residential dwelling unit. Temporary real estate sales offices may be allowed on the plaza level of retail during the first two years following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy in order to allow effective sales of dwelling units on-site. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Reduce plans of the proposal dated January 15, 2007 C. Application for a Maior Amendment to Special Development District No, 39, Crossroads and an amendment to the Conditional Use Permitforthe Private Parkinq Club Dated February 15, 2007,Public Works memo dated January 16, 2006 D. Memo from Public Works dated January 16, 2006 E. Public Notification • 18 ~t 11A, .~:3. I~ . i~ tx~ ~ • , 3 . . °sp ~.`~y. F ~ ~.O<`,~ W +a£ ' r 'yJ~ YX ly~ M f~l J!; ) ~r ~S d 1 r r A• y~^ ~ ~ s ~ ~ + ! r a a t ~ R~' ~,~~~I} a ~ ~a ~ 4~ ~ t ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ i 1' Y, ~ Y a ~ 4.J f' ~F ~ Ul j~ a ; 31N3~ 3~ y . %+q Yh t'~~ ~ g- ~ # { ~ac' • • ~-d .1`~r { ~y~° a ~;~z~„~~ ~y.' ' ,t~ • ! s~ Eii r : • € p ~,',,l ~ ~ ~y~~ ~ S ~ _E~7~r+~i . • t 1 ~A,p. A ^ • '~a°~' I 1 7 ~-7~ bo ' a t . I O ~"ff r ? '.~Y,~ ~3 ~~A,A'SL i • . Y . C v t ~ , ; ~ , , r. • a ~ ~ ~ ~ t~~ ~~,~~r~~za .w . 10 k ~ ~ . • ~ ~ ~ B ~ ~ ~ f ` ~ S ,~s • . ~ ` ~ . ~ 1 , w,,~ .~e ~ , . , p d ~ } ~ 11 4Y u- ~t ~ aa39oIaa .nno~~irn 3~+ ~ X 4 " ' ~ ~ t ~ . ry M ~ ) a h ( • ~ f ~ ~ . «..a ~ ' ^ ~ ~ r j ~ :4 ~ ~e~w - ' t .3'a i~q, `..t } ~ t. jF b~. ? M t~~ ilyd+9~J~ . yy~qg, . ?fi A( x . ~ ; • ~ • ~S _F~ . ~ F~ 4 w k~ ~ J af t~ ~ " ~ ' y ~ ' ~ , x , = „a~ ~ c • . ~ ~ ~ ~ w ( ~ ~ r f r~"~ ~ J: s, zrR • ~ g~~~.~ js r .rm"''~i y ~ ~`s` tt {x Y Si't ~ r~t . a~ y ~ "~`q$~ y ,,~,~;i T~• ~ ~ • . ~ a . ~ f~'' k t~"" ~ ~ ~j 'r~, ~e ° . ~ , 1! ~ ~ fre n ~4g a1 ~j ~ 5a" ~..,y }a i y~°"~ . ° , { f ~ ~ s "^Ww: ~ A§ A? ~h~ ~ ~ d ~•p"~'1:,Y'. 8!~'~ b ~,G ~ ~ ~ ~ .L~`~~' ..~s?riSr._ • ~ ~ 50LAR15 , .r , . . ~ i. cSiD EhaC E 5 . Application for a Major Amendment to Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, * an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Private Parking Club January 2007 . Amended February / 5, 2007 Submitted by :1 cl Maurieilo Planning Group Attachment C Owner and Consultant Directory ~ Owner/Applicant: Production Architect Peter Knobel Davis Partnership Crossroads East One, LLC 0225 Main 5treet, Unit C 10 I 143 EaSt Meadow Drive Edwards, CO 81 632 ' Vail, CO 81 620 970-926-8960 Plannmg Traffic Consultant Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Fox 1liggin5 Transportation PO Box I 127 PO Box I 9768 . Avon, CO 81 620 Boulder, CO 80308-2768 970-748-0920 303-589-90 I I Design Architect Construction Management Barnes Coy Architects English t Assoaates, Inc. ' PO Box 763 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Brid9ehampton, NY I 1932 Vail, CO 81 657 63 I -537-3555 970-479-7500 ~ ~ ~ Tabie of Contents I. Introduction 3 II. Application Process 3 III. Submittal Requirements 4 IV. Detailed Project DeSCription and Zoning AnalySis 5 V. Public Benefits of Project 13 Vi. Specia) Development District - Standards and Criteria 15 VII. Conditional Use Permit - Review Criteria 19 VIII. Adjacent Property Owners 21 ~ ~ 2 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC I . Introduction ~ Ordinance No.5, Series of 2006, approved Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads (SDD 39), to facilitate the redevelopment of Crossroads. Solaris was approved for 69 dwelling units and 5 attached accommodation units, totaling 199,830 sq. ft. of GRFA. At this time, we are rec[uesting a major amendment to SDD 39 to allow for 75 dwelling units, an increase of 6 units over the previous approval. This will not impact GRFA, and is due to interior changes to meet Iife safety requirements and interior unit configurations. The additional dwelling units and modifications to the parking structure have also lead to the elimination of parking spaces, which will be removed from the parking used for the parking club. There is still excess parking for the uses on the site. As a result, we are also submitting an application for an amendment to the conditional use permit for the private parking club which was approved for 103 spaces. We are requestmg that the conditional use permit be modified to allow for 84 spaces to be included in the private parking club. It is important to note, that as tenants are finalized, the number of excess parking spaces will continue to change (i.e. restaurants vs. retail). As a result of these changes, we are submitting an application for a major amendment to SDD 39 and for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the private parking club. • II. Application Process The addition of 6 dwelling units is a major amendment to SDD #39. The following is the definition a major amendment an SDD: MAJOR AMENDMENT (PEC AND/OR COUNGIL REVIEW): Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district (other than "minor amendments" as defined in this section), except as prooded under section I 2- I 5-4, "Interior Conversions", or I 2- I 5-5, "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)", of this title. The modification of the number of parking spaces for the private parking club is an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. The purpo5e of the conditional use permit is as follows: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the obJectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subJect to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or speaal characteristics, conditional uses recluire review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses m the various districts may be 3 ~ Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC All plans must aiso be submitted in 8.5. x I I. reduced Submitted . format. An Architectural or massing model Refer to the original submittal - no chan e Photo overlays Refer to the original submittal - no chan e Parkin needs assessment and vehicular arculation analysis Submitted An Environmental impact Report Refer to the original submittal - no chan e IV. Detailed Project Description and Zoning Analysis A. Project Site and Ownership The Crossroads property, located at 143 East Meadow Drive, contains 2.643 acres of land. The site is bounded on the north by the South Frontage Road and I-70, on the east by Village Center Road, on the south by East Meadow Drive, and on the west by the Vail Village Inn. The site is now owned by two LLC's, managed by Peter Knobel. B. Proposed Uses • The plan was developed as a package that provides substantial benefits and revenues to the Town, needed outdoor plaza and gathering spaces, and entertainment uses that create excitement and activity within the village. The following is a breakdown of the proposed uses (approximate): • 36,336 scl. ft. of retail area on pedestrian level and one floor above; • 8,824 scl. ft. of restaurant and bar area on pedestrian level and one floor above; • 14,409 5cl. ft. I O-lane bowling alley; • I 1,485 5.1. ft. of theater space with 3-5creen5 and 396 seats; • 24,000 scl. ft. plaza with winter ice rink and summer water feature; • 75 dwelling units containing 198,859 scl. ft. of GRFA. (A reduction of 97 I scl. ft. - see Section E) The following is the list of uses as characterized by the CSC zone district: • Retail Shops Use by Right 0 Restaurants Use by Right 0 Bars and Nightclubs Use by Right • Professional Offices Use by Right ~ 5 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ~ • Outdoor Skating Rink Accessory Use • Bowling Alley Conditional Use • Movie Theaters Conditional Use • Meeting Rooms Conditional Use • Multiple Family Residential Conditional Use • Prwate Parking Club Conditional Use C. Building Design The major amendment to SDD #39 does not impact building design. No exterior changes have occurred as a result of the increase in dwelling units. Any changes that have occurred are a result of changes made during the DRB process to respond to comments and concerns. The proposed building design and materials were developed with careful consideration of the alpine mountain environment, location of the property on the periphery of the village and bordering Interstate 70, and the high cluality of architectural treatment that the town strives for. The design is characterized as a forward looking expression of European alpine heritage and more contemporary forms. Images of lodges, ski chalets and village • centers of Austria and Switzerland, that hold such timeless beauty and charm, gave inspiration to the appearance of the project. The vernacular of the project reflects features of craftsman revival style. Architectural details yield the look of handcraftsmanship; exposed beams, rafter tails, log columns, and braces turn construction details into built-in ornamentation that tie the design back to the earth and to the history of the log and timber architecture of the west. D. Commercial F'/oor Areas The commeraal floor area can be dwided into six categories: retail, restaurant, bowling/arcade/sports bar, and theater. The gross floor areas are approximately: Retail: 36,336 sq. ft. Re5taurant/6ar: 8,824 sc. ft. Sub-total 45, I 60 sq. ft. Theater5 (including concessions, restrooms, 150f1): I 1 485 sq. ft. Bowling: 14,409 sq. ft. Sub-total 25,894 sq. ft. Total Gross Floor Area (excluding circulation) 7 1,054 scl. ft. ~ 6 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC F. Residential Floor Areas . While we are requested an increase in density from 69 units to 75 units, there is no change in the approved gross residential floor area. The gross residential floor area of the site which does not include common areas such as arculation, parking, and pool areas is approximately 198,859 561. ft. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006, approved SDD #39 for 199,830. We are rec[uesting to maintain 199,830 scl. ft. as our allowable GRFA to maintain some flexibility as the design of units is finalized. Residential floor area is an area of deviation from the underlying zoning however is consistent with the designation of high Density Residential per the Vail Village Master Plan adopted 20 year5 after the zone district was established. F. Parkrng Below is a table documenting the parkincj requirements for the proposed Crossroads redevelopment. The proposed development plan includes a total of ' 299 parkincj spaces to meet the parkincj requirements of the project mcluding the 84 space private parkincj club. Use # of Units/S . Ft. Code Ratios Total Dwellin Units 75 1.4 105 ~ Retail 35,1 17 0.0023 80.77 Theater seatin 3,248 0.006060606 I 9.68 Restaurant seatin 4,412 0.004 I 7.65 Bowlin 1,170 0.0023 2.69 Total 225.79 5% reduction I 1.29 Net Re uired Parlun 2 14.5 Parwn Provided 299.00 Parkin Glub Parkin 84 The parking lot will be operated with a fee structure that will allow the public to park on-site. This private parkincj facility will essentially free up parkincj within the municipal parking structures thus improving the Town's ability to accommodate skier and Vail Village parking. 6. Parkmg Club The surplus parkincj spaces provided on-site will be provided as part of a parking club, where parkincj spaces will be leased and/or sold. Originally, the approval ~ 7 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC . was for 103 parking spaces to be used as part of the parking club. Nowever, the addition of dwefling units, and internal changes to the parking 5tructure, have reduced the surplus parking available for the Parking Club. The total number of spaces in the parking club will be 84. Therefore, the overall impact of the parking club to the community is also reduced. H. Access and Circulation There are no changes to access and arculation as a result of this major amendment. A supplement to the traffic report has been provided. l. Loadmg and Delivery The changes we are requesting as part of this major SDD amendment do not impact the loading and delivery requirements. The Zoning Regulations require a certain number of loading berth5 be provided based on the uses being proposed. For a mixed-use facility such as the Crossroads redevelopment project, the maximum number of loadincj spaces that the regulations rectuire is five loadincj berths. The proposed plan provides five formal loading berths and opportunity for I additional UPS style loading spaces within the porte cochere. All of the loading for the site is accessed directly from the South Frontage Road per the ~ Vail Village Master Plan direction and Town policy. The entire loadincj facility is enclosed thus reducing the noise of trucks being unloaded and eliminating any visual concerns. The loading and delivery facility will operate as part of the overall Vail Village dispersed loadincj program. J. Density Density is expressed as the number of residential dwelling units per acre of land. The proposed amendment includes an increase from 69 units to 75 units. This results in a proposed density of 28.3 dwelling unit5/acre. The original approval was for 69 dwelling units, resulting in a density of 26. I dwelling units/acre. K. Building height There are no changes to building height as a result of this major amendment. I L. Setbacks There are no changes to setbacks a5 a result of this major amendment. ~ M. Site Coverage ~ There are no changes to setbacks as a result of this major amendment. 8 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC i N. Landscape Area/Streetscape There are no changes to the landscape area as a result of thi5 major amendment. 0. Condominium Renta/ Program Intent: The condominium rental program is being developed by input and direction from Stan Cope who has more than 30 years of experience with 5ucce55ful rental programs. The rental program is focused on three main goals, which have proven successful for Stan at the Lodge Tower, as well as numerous other high cluality, tourist oriented properties: I . Owner asset management; 2. Owner rental income; and 3. Owner's personal usage and satisfaction. When these three goals can be achieved, condo owners in a large condominium projects will rent units voluntarily. Currently, 75% of the units in the Lodge Tower rent and the renting owners yield 63% of the gross rental revenue. In summary, the key to achieving the above goals is to emulate the management ~ of a fine, high cluality, luxury hotel. The management program is a hospitality program above all else. On-site management and management offices are a necessity. Top level services need to be provided to renting gue5ts and owners alike. Great 5ervice and a first class property will attract the kind of clientele that not only can afford a fine resort but will respect the property of others. Owners become proud of being part of the re5ort and have confidence that their asset is bemg well cared for while producmg a painless, welcome mcome to off-5et their ownership expenses. The level of service to be offered includes daily or twice daily maid service> 24- hour desk and concierge, bell and valet staff, local transportation service, pre- arrival activity, ski and grocery 5ervice and premium rental ec[uipment. An in- house maintenance staff not only cluickly prov1de5 for guests needs but corrects problems in units before they become a major problem and expense to the renting owner. Owners become confident that their arrival will be hassle free and a5 enjoyable as a vacationing guest in spite of a renting guest occupying their unit the night before. The final piece to encourage owner5 to rent is creating a finanaal structure that strongly rewards owners that rent. The cost 5haring structure between the flomeowners' AsSOaation and the Rental Program needs to be an integrated program that ecluitably balances all of the service5 being offered to owners and ~ I 9 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ~ renters alike. Properly and effiaently designed, owners will be finanaally rewarded for renting instead of carrying the service costs for all owners, as is the case in many condominium hospitality program5. Strategies for successful asset and rental management: I . Client asset management. Condo owners are reluctant to rent their homes if they percewe that their asset 15 at risk from damage, theft, or other property degradation. When there is proper staffing to allow for daily inspections of property and proper assurance of damage replacement, condo owners feel more comfortable renting their homes. Crossroads will employ an adecluate staff to insure proper property supervision and inspection to the highest level of cluality. Daily maid service is made available to owners and automatically provided for guests in order to provide convenient service to the guests as well as a supervision mechanism for the management of the property. If the property is managed at the highest level of quality then owners feel comfortable allowing their asset to be utilized. Crossroads plan5 to manage the property at the highest level of ciuality with 24-hour on-site management, security, and client services. 2. Client rental income. + Condominium management can be an expensive non-deductible expense for condo owners. The Crossroads rental I'ro9ram will be structured similar to that of the Lodge Tower where the overall condominium ownership expense can easily be offset by the income generated by the rental program. Additionally, condominium owners can expect net rental income reaching 63% of the total revenues from renting one's condominium. 3. Personal u5a~je and satisfaction. Probably the most important a5pect of a rental program is flexibility. Some owners will purchase a condominium in Vail for personal use as a higher priority to rental income. 1laving one5 home available when one wants to use it is extremely important to the success of a rental program. An owner does not want to feel trapped by committing to certain days or weeks. To create flexibility owners are asked to set aside dates they think they may be in Vail and dates they know they will not. Owners are able to check back frequently with changes to schedules. Additionally, management staff stays in close contact with owners when bookings are being made to make sure the owners usage is not being infringed upon. ~ 10 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Based on Stan's experience working at the Lodge Tower, we believe that ~ at least 50 of the 70 proposed condominiums will be successfully rented. This exceeds the predictions utilized in the revenue analy5i5 prepared by Steve Thompson who a55umed only 30% of the units would be rented. A more detailed management program will be developed in the coming months. Key Elements of Rental Program: • 24 hour front desk and concierge • 11igh level of service to unit owners • Fee structure allowing those participating in rental program to offset management and maintenance fees and obtain rental income • Daily maid service available/recluired • Full-time management/rental staff located on-site • Food service delivery available from on-5ite restaurants • Full-time on-site security • Active marketing program for rental units locally and nationally • Partiapation in national condo rentaVexchange club P. Parkmg Management Summary and lntent: ~ Crossroads intends to maximize the occupancy and efficiency of the entire Crossroads parking facility by not restricting individual parking spaces for individual users 100% of the time (i.e., when a condo owner is not in residence or not otherwise occupying a parking space, that space becomes available for other users). There are four basic users of the parking garage: condominium owners; business owners/employees and customers; parking club members; and the general public when shopping or taking advantage of amenities onsite. Crossroads will be utilizing technology that will allow the management of the Crossroads garage to understand which parking spaces are in demand by certain users and when they can be made available to other users. Residential Parking: The owners of the condominiums in the project will have a right to use their parking 24 hours a day 7 day5 a week. The condominium documents will include provisions that ensure that every condominium owner has the right to use its recluired number of parking spaces so there is never an instance where a condominium is bought or sold without the absolute right to park within the facility. Therefore, condominium parking spaces will not be individually deeded or condominiumized. tiowever, if an owner is not in residence and is not otherwise occupying a parking space, the parking management will reserve the right to use 11 ~ Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ~ condominium parking spaces for short term rentable public parking; skier parking, shopper parking, or plaza event parking. This 5ystem will work utilizing a temporary pass, card, or code system. The residential system will generally operate as follows: when an owner or renter arrives to a condominium unit they will be recluired to check in with the concierge. Owners will be provided with a pin number or magnetic pass (or similar device) that can be changed periodically (in some cases daily) to access the parking structure. The codes for temporary guests will expire upon the end of a gue5t5 or owners stay which prevents abuse of system (i.e., providing cards or pin numbers to others). This system will allow owners to always have a right to park but allows management to maximize the use of parking spaces and keep the parking facility active for the community when the owners are not using the facility. Business and Commeraal Parking: Parking required for the commercial businesses will always be available to the general public, business owners/employees, and retail consumers via the gate system. Business owners and employees will be provided with a pass or access code that allows them access to the parking facilities. The general public will have access to the parking facility on a fee basis. In order to ensure success of • the commeraal and retail establi5hment5 a credit, rebate, or reduced parking charge 5y5tem will be established (i.e.> validation system; free parking for first 30 mins; as examples). Parkmg Club/Sul-plus Parklng: There are 84 parking spaces that are not rec[uired by the Town Code for either residential uses, commercial uses> or entertainment uses on the property. These parking spaces will be operated under a parking lease system or made available to the general public when not otherwise in use by a lessee. Similar to the Front Door project, these parking spaces will be leased to individuals or bu51ne55e5 on a seasonal or annual basis. Member5hips or lease5 will be sold at a greater number than the number of parking spaces available (which will be known to the lessee) so that use of the parking spaces is maximized (guaranteed access, not a space). These memberships will be sold at prevailing market rates. If the all of the spaces are not able to be leased, parking spaces will be made available to the general public on an entry fee basis. In no case will any of the parking club 5pace5 be condominiumized or sold individually. The goal is to maximize the u5e of the parking facility in a way that allows for convenience to residential owners, ensure success of business, retail, and commercial establlshments located onsite, and generally aids in the supply of parking accessible by the general public. ~ 12 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC We antiapate that tho5e taking advantage of the parking club (surplus parking ~ spaces) will breakdown as follows: 60% restaurant or retailer from within the Vail Village area; 35% real estate professionals and other office users within the Vail Village area; 5% downvalley residents and business professionals (vendors, 5ervice providers, etc.) who have daily business activities within the Vail Village area. Additional Public Access to Parking: The proposed parking management system will be able to recognize how many of the spaces are being occupied at any gwen time and what the usage trends are over the long term. With this knowledge, management will be able to allow the additional parking spaces to be used as hourly parking during the daily hours of operation. We anticipate having an attendant on site from 7:00 am to I 2:00 am, 7 days a week. Access for tenants and owners will be allowed 24 hours a day. • V. Public Benefits of Project The list of public benefits being proposed by this project is extensive. Not only are the direct community benefits such as the ice rink and the entertainment complex rncluded in the list, but also the more indirect benefits of redevelopment in and of itself. The list below includes all of the direct and indfrect public and community benefits thi5 project has to offer the Town of Vail: • New 24,000 sq. ft. public plaza with winter ice skating/summer pop-Jet fountain • Public restrooms at pedestrian levei • New high cluality retail and architecture in heart of Vail • Implementation of 5treet5cape master plan recommendations • Enclosed loading and delivery faality for public use • New bu5 stop • New landscape medians in S. Frontage Road Public Amenities: • 3 screen movie theater with 5tadium seating 0 I O-lane bowling alley ~ 13 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ~ • $ I. I million in public art Revenuelncrease: • Increase in annual revenue to the Town from $ I 79,236 to $ 1 .29 million. • ` 14 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC VI. Speaal Development District - Standards and Criteria ~ "The purpose of the speaal deve%pment district is to encourage flexibility and creativrty in the deve%pment of land in order to promote its most appropriat-e use; to improve the design character and quality of the new deve%pment wrth the Town; to faalitate the adeguate and economical provrsion of streets and utilitles; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated In the Vail comprehensive plan. " The following design criteria are used by the Town in the evaluation of a Speaal Development District. The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan adecluately addresses each of the5e criteria. Below is a summary of how the project implements each of these criteria. Please note that the entire application and submittal materials for the Crossroads Redevelopment address the criteria below in addition to the summary provided. A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Our Analysis: ~ The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan was designed to be compatible with the mountain environment and the new trends alpine architecture. While the site is not located in the area regulated by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, most of the recommendations and goals of that plan are implemented by the proposed development plan. The site is located on the periphery of the village adjacent to the South Frontage Road. The Vail Village Master Plan recommends taller buildings be concentrated along the Frontage Road and 5tep down toward the village core. The proposed structures follow this guideline. The site is also being redeveloped in the context of recent approvals made by the Town on adjacent sites. The Vail Plaza tiotel and the Four Season projects have both been approved following the same general concept of taller buildings along the Frontage Road. 1lowever, the Crossroads project, unlike the other two, focuses more of the building bulk and mass along the Frontage Road in order to maintain a large public plaza ( I/2-acre in area) along the south side of the site. The proposed plan provides generous setbacks to adjacent development located to the west of the site and the buildings are oriented to help maintain views in the area. 15 • Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ~ The buifding was also designed to appear as several building forms. The roof ridges were turned north south to prevent a long continuous roof ridge running east west across the site which has been fairly common on other redevelopment projects. There are no major flat roofs proposed on this structure. The materiais are of the highest cluality and include Telluride Gold stacked stone, strip sandstone (laid on side), wood-like siding, dark zinc roof and siding elements, timber arches and braang, rolled logs, heavy deck rails, planter boxes> and proportional glazing. The proposed materials are such high cluality that maintenance is minimally rectuired. The building was designed to stand the test of time and to respond to the Rocky Mountain climate and harsh conditions. A 5tatement from the Lionshead Master Plan sums up our belief about new Vail architecture: "the architectural language...should strwe to reinterpret its heritage and look to the future, instead of simply mimicwng the past." The de5ign of the building also creates an identity to stimulate visuai interest and help anchor the East Meadow Drive area of Vail as a sought after destination. The design will help draw people to back to Vail and East Meadow Drive in particular. The proposed development plan is compatible with the area. The site 15 ~ located across the street from the Sonnenalp redevelopment project and adjacent to the Vail Plaza 1lotel redevelopment project. While the proposed building will not be the same scale as the exi5ting three to six- story 5tructure5 that make up the remainder of the Vail Village Inn (VVI), the plan recognizes the long-term need to redevelop the remaining portions of the VVI to a scale and cluality reflective of current trends. B. Relationship: Uses, actwity and density which provide a compatible, effiaent and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Our Analysis: The East Meadow Drive area is characterized by residential, lodging, and commeraal development. The Vail Village Master Plan recognizes this area of Town as mixed-use commeraal and high density residential. The proposed redevelopment plan responds to the uses already developed in the neighborhood and also provides a high ciuality mix of uses along EaSt Meadow Drive. The proposed project provides an increase in retail and restaurant space, new movie theaters, bowling alley, and arcade which do not exist to this degree of ciuality in Vail, new public plaza spaces and amenities, and high cluality residential development. The proposed uses will anchor this portion of the Vail Village and generate activity that will not only benefit the retail shops at Cr055road5 but all of the businesses in the • 16 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC surrounding area. The parking provided on this 5ite will generate • pedestrian traffic to all areas of East Meadow Drive and the village core. The proposed project creates a compatible, effiaent, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activities. C. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. Our Analysis: The proposed redevelopment plan meets or exceeds all of the parking and loading standards found in Chapter 10 of the Zoning Regulations. Please refer to other sections of this report and the proposed development plan for details on parking and loading. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. Our Analysis: The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan complies with all relevant master planning documents and Town poliaes. The plan also complies with ' relevant sections of the Urban Design Guide Plan; however, this plan is not ~ applicable to this site. E. Natural and/or Geologic 1lazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the speaal development district is proposed. Our Analysis: There are no natural or geologic hazards existing or mapped by the Town on the Crossroads site. F. Design Features: Site plan, building de51gn and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and ` sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the commurnty. Our Analysis: The Crossroads site has been developed for more than 30 years and therefore there are no natural features on the site and Iittle in terms of vegetation. The proposed project was designed to reflect mountain alpine architecture, the alpine climate, and cluality demanded by the Town. The project was also developed around the master plan direction and the community desire to extend a public plaza into the site. The proposed • 17 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC • plan includes a large open plaza (nearly 20% of the area of the entire site). This I12-acre plaza will improve the Town's ability to accommodate outdoor gatherings and events. The proposed landscape plan introduces additional tree5 and vegetation in meaningful locations throughout the site to improve the aesthetics of the site and the surrounding area. G. Traffic: A arculation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic arculation. Our AnalYsis: The Crossroads project has been designed to address three major issues within the Town: availability and adequacy of parking; pedestrian circuiation and gathering; and loading and delivery. A long-standing goal of the Town is to remove loading and delivery entering the Crossroads 51te through E. Meadow Drive and require acce55 directly to the South Frontage Road. The proposed plan includes a new, enclosed loading dock facility that is accessed directly from the South Frontage Road. The loading faality includes five loading berths, the maximum required by the Town Code for a mixed-use facility. The loading dock also includes a trash faality for the project. The loading dock provides access to grade on the west side of the site to allow for use by merchants on adjacent sites. ~ All of the parking for the 51te is accessed from Village Center Road. All of the parking is located below grade. The control gate for the 51te 15 located deep within the garage to prevent cars from stacking into Viflage Center Road. Cars exiting the faality cue within the parking structure, thus preventing any blocking of traffic on Village Center Road. Additionally, there is a porte cochere along the South Frontage Road for residential guests arriving at the site. The porte cochere will provide temporary pick-up for guests and valet parking. A trafFic report is included in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project and a fetter amending the analysis has been provided with thi5 application. This report indicates that all roadways adjacent to the site have excess capacity upon completion of this redevelopment project. There i5 no need for major roadway improvements due to the traffic generated for the proposed uses on-site. There is no vehicular access proposed to the East Meadow Drive frontage of the site. The pedestrian improvements assoaated with this site are extensive. PedeStrian access 15 provided on all adjacent roadways and between the VVI project and the Crossroads site. The applicant is propo5ing a significant public plaza on the site that will allow for pedestrian traffic and public gatherings. ~ 18 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 11. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order ~ to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Our Analysis: The Crossroads project is currently developed with buildings, structured parking, and surface parking. There is very little existing landscaping on the property. The site is located within an urban setting which presents challenges in terms of providing landscape areas and materials. Retail, plaza areas and gathering places, and pedestrian walks all compete with landscape improvements. however, the proposed redevelopment plan for Crossroads provides significant landscape materials in strategic locations which do not interfere with retail store fronts or needed gathering spaces. The proposed hardscape areas of the site provide an aesthetic quality not currently existing in the area. The proposed development plan and landscape plan optimize the site as a gathering space, a recreation complex, and as a place to sit and view the surrounding urban fabric. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdwision plan that will mamtain a workable, functional and effiaent relationship throughout the development of the speaal development district. Our Analysis: ~ The project is proposed to be developed in one phase. Permits for demolition and excavation will be pursued prior to a full building permit being issued for the project. A condominium plat will be required prior to CO of the project. VII. Conditional Use Permit - R.eview Criteria Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed conditional uses of a private parking club: A. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation faalities, and other public faahties needs. Our Analy515: The proposal to establish a private parking club will address several of the goals and obJecbves established in the Vail Village Master Plan. Further, we believe the parking club could have a positive effect on the parking issues the Town faces through out the year by providing an opportunity for individuals to lease or purchase spaces and therefore not be parking in the Vail Village or Lionshead • 19 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC i parking structures. As previously approved, the prwate parking club consisted of 103 parking spaces. As the parking analysis in this application indicates, the addition of dwelling units, and modifications to the commeraal space (i.e. changing spaces from retai( to restaurant, and vice versa), and modifications to the parking structure for mechanical, have modified the excess parking available for the private parking club. B. EfFect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convernence, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Our Analysis: The proposed parking club will generate additional vehicular traffic in the area. The payment of the traffic impact fee and the construction of roadway traffic improvements to the South Frontage Road and Village Center Road will off-set any negative impacts. Parking is being located underground and all pedestrian areas are being heated so there 15 no need for traditional snow removal from the site. The parking areas and access ways are all being developed within the Town's standards to allow for sufficient flow and maneuverability. C. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, ~ includmg the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Our Analysis: The proposed parking club is located within a completely subterranean structure. The subterranean nature of the parking club has no n.egative impacts on neighboring uses. • 20 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC VIII. Adjacent Property Owners ~ VILLAGE INN PIAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION JOSEF STAUFER 100 E MEADOW DR #3 I VAIL, CO 8 I G57 VAIL DOVER ASSOGIATES LLC 4148 N ARCADIA DR P110ENIX, AZ 85015 111BBERD, FRED, JR 400 NW RIDGE RD JACKSON> WY 83001 VAIL CORE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. 1lelen E. Bird P O BOX 5940 AVON, CO 81620 CROSSROADS EAST ONE LLC 329 MILL CREEK CIR ~ VAIL> CO 81 657 TOWN OF VAIL C/O FINANCE DEPT , 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL, CO 81 657 AUSTRIA 11AU5 CONDO ASSOC INC 20 VAIL RD VAIL, CO 8 1 657 TOWN OF VAIL 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL, CO 81 657 VILIAGE CENTER ASSOC 124 WILLOW BRIDGE RD VAIL, CO 81 657 SONNENALP PROPERTIES INC 20 VAIL RD VAIL, CO 81 657 • 21 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC • CROSSROADS OF VAIL CONDOMINIUM A550CIATION cJo CRAIG COtiN I 143 EAST MEADOW DRIVE, SUITE 3 ' VAIL, CO 81 657 CROSSROADS OF VAIL CONDOMiNIUM A550CIATION 143 EAST MEADOW DRIVE, SUITE 300 VAIL, CO 81 657 VILIAGE INN PLAZA-PIIASE V CONDOMINIUM A550CIATION COLORADO REGISTRATION, INC 880 f10MESTEAD DRIVE No. 25 Edwards, CO 81 632 VILLAGE INN PLAZA-Pt1A5E V CONDOMINIUM A550CIATION COLORADO REGISTRATION, INC ~ PO BOX 666 VAIL, CO 81 658 VILLAGE INN PLAZA-PhASE V CONDOMINIUM A550CIATION 100 EAST MEADOW DRIVE STE 31 VAIL, CO 81 657 VILLAGE INN PLAZA CONDOMINIUM A550CIATION COLORADO REGISTRATION, INC. 880 hOMESTEAD DRIVE, NO. 25 EDWARDS, CO 81 632 VILLAGE INN PLAZA CONDOMINIUM A550CIATION COLORADO REGISTRATION, INC. POST OFFICE BOX 666 VAIL, CO 81 658 • 22 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC VILLAGE INN PLAZA CONDOMINIUM • ASSOCIATION 100 EAST MEADOW DRIVE NO. 31 VAIL, CO 81 657 AUSTRIA t1AU5 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. JOhN MILLS C/O SONNENALP f10TEL 20 VAIL ROAD VAIL, CO 81 657 VAIL VILLAGE PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION SALLY HANLON 385 GORE CREEK DRIVE- NO. R-2 VAIL, CO 81 657 VAIL VILIAGE PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 143 E. MEADOW DRIVE NO. 360 C/O SLIFER MANAGEMENT CO VAIL, CO 81 657 VAIL VILLAGE PIAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C/O ABPLANALP IAW OFFICE LLC ~ POST OFFICE BOX 2800 VAIL, CO 81 658 CDOT 420 I E. Arkansas Avenue Denver, CO 80222 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Post Office Box I 127 I Avon, CO 81 620 I 23 ~ Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC i MEMO To: Warren Campbell, Senior Planner From: Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer Re: Crossroads Redevelopment-Public Works Comments Date: O l -16-06 After a review of the submittal of the Crossroad redevelopment plans, the Pubiic Works Departments finds the following issues that will need to be adaressed prior to final approval. The following outlines comments that will need to be conditions of approval of PEC. Public Warks conditions of approvat: 1. Final Civil Engineering drawings and Final Drainage Report must be approved prior to Bui]ding permit submittal and meet all Town codes and standards. An additional2 to 6 month review and comrnent period will be required for this submittal. 2. The access off the S. Frontage Rd. is key to this development. A C-DOT access pennit shall be approved by CDOT prior to Building pennit submittal and shall be a condition of PEC approval. If chaiiges to the PEC approved plans are required ~ by C-DOT to faciiitate an Access Pennit the applicant will be required to return ~ for an amendment to the PEC approved plans. , 3. Prior to submittaI of building permit CDOT shall have approved the construction drawings for the S. Frontage Rd. 4. Village Center Road shali be graded with a normal crown. 5. The plaza grading sha11 match the proposed East Meadow streetscape plans grading currently be designed by the Town of Vail. This may require an elevation change of the plaza. Please coordinate with the Town of Vail. 6. The alignment of East Meadow drive may be required to shift to the north at the intersection of Village Center Rd. as a result of improveinents being proposed by Village Center. Piease coordinate wittt Village Center and Town of Vail. 7. Applicant shall be responsible for tlle coinplete design and construction of the roadway improvements as shown on the Crossroads Public Iinprovements plan dated 12/12/05 and also the complete design of the remainder of Willow Bridge Rd. going south to the International Bridge, excluding but matching those improvements being designed and constructed by One Wi11ow Place Road. This includes streetscape, heated sidewalk and streets, landscape, planters, lighting, irrigation, signage, and storm drainge improvements on Village Center Rd., East Meadow Drive, WilYow Bridge Rd., and the South Frontage Rd. 8. The heated streetscape proposed within the public ROW shall be constructed, operated, and maintained by Crossroads as delineated in the plan dated Decernber 12, 2005. The heated improvements proposed to be consh-ucted an Village Center Rd. will be a beneft to the snow maintenance of Village Center Rd., however . currently it is not within the Town's plan to pay for the construction of a boiler Attachment D plant of this area nor is it within the Town's plan to pay for its operation and V maintenance. This will require further commihvent from the Town once these • improveinents are constructed. If the Town does not commit to paying for the said improvements or operations, it may be beneficial to leave this street as asphalt pavement. Non-heated brick pavers on this stretch of steep roadway will be required to be plowed regularly and will cause significant damage to tlle pavers. 9. All private improvements within the public ROW, including any temporary shoring that is to remain in place, will require a Revocable ROW perniit. 10. All shoring walls shall remain within the private property limits. 11. The proposed drainage system along the S. Frontage Rd. shall be coordinated with Vail Plaza Hotel and tied into the Vail Plaza hotel proposed storm sewer system. 12. All grading and drainage for parking structure is required to be shown. Provide a sand/oil separator. 13. A Traffic impact fee of $5000 per additional pm peak trip generation (68 trips @ $SOQO =$340,000) shall be assessed to the developer and held by the Town of Vail to implement a future traffic solution east of crossroads that facilitates traffic and U-turn movements. 14. All necessary easements, agreements, bonds, and permits must be in place prior to building permit submittal. (i.e. construction easements on adjacent properties, utility easements, pedestrian easements, drainage easeinents, access easements, revocable ROW permit, ROW permit, etc...) 15. An excavation shoring plan shall be required to be approved prior to Building L permit submittal. This shall include cross sections, profiles, and plans showing all • conflicts and nail locations. It should be noted that a.ny encroaclunent into CDOT ROW (i.e. shoring) will require their approval and may include, a lease agreement, pennit etc... 16. The developer shall be responsible to construct all necessary storm water improvements in order to convey all contributing on-site and adjacent off-site drainage to gore creek. 17. The open plaza should be dedicated, siniilar to the Lionshead Core Site Pedestrian Plaza as a public access easement. , 18. The developer shall incorporate Art in Public Places and coordinate with AIPP for implementation. 19. The loading and delivery facility shall be made available to provide capacity to other sites. This will require easy access froin the delivery facility, down a service elevator, then direct access to the plaza level, an easement for this access wi11 be required. 20. A stormwater discharge pennit and erosion contral plan will be required prior to building permit approval. 21. An approved staging plan, phasing plan, and construction schedule shall be required priar to Building Permit approval. ~ • • *ILL rorvN THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmenta! Commission af the Town of Vail will hoid a pubiic hearing in accardance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code on February 26, 2007, at 9:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, pursuant to Article 12- 9(A), Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in the number of dwelling units from 69 units to 75 units; located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0004) Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Pianner. Warren Campbell A request for corrditional use permits, pursuant to Section 92-7E-4, Conditional Uses, ` Vail Town Code, to allow for multiple-family dwellings and lodges and private club (parking club); located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0005) y' Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a major amendment to the Approved Development Plan pursuant to Section 12-8E-18 (B) Major Amendments, to allow for a revised grading plan at Vail's Front Door Vista Bahn Ski Yard, located at 151 Vail Lane/Lot A, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0006) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Corp. Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, located at 805 and 807 Potato Patch Drive, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0008) Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a retaining wall in excess • of three feet within the front setback, located at 805 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0007) Attachment: E ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmenta! Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for multiple-family dwellings and lodges and private c(ub (parking club); located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0005) Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell 1. SUMMARY The applicants, Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC, are requesting conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for multiple-family dwellings and lodges and private club (parking club) located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Vi!lage Filing 1. These conditional use permit requests are being made in conjunction with • the request for a major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 39, Crossroads, which is intended to facilitate the redevelopment of the existing Crossroads. Upon review of the applicable elements of the Town's planning documents and adopted criteria for review, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, the applicant's conditional use permit requests. A complete summary of Staff's review is provided in Section VI of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC, are requesting conditional use permits, pursuanf to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for multiple-family dwellings and lodges and private club (parking club). The requested conditional uses are being submitted in conjunction with the request for a major amendment to SDD No. 39, Crossroads. The conditional uses include the following: . • A multiple-family dwelling totaling 75 units (an increase in 6 from previously approved CUP) and measuring 198,859 square feet; and • A private club (parking club) of 84 spaces (a decrease in 19 spaces from previously approved CUP). The applicant is proposing to remove the existing improvements on the site and construct a • new structure and public plaza. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the proposed development site is located in the Commercial Service Center(CSC) zone district. 1 , As such, development and land uses on the site shall be governed by the regulations outiined in Article lE, Commercial Service Center (CSC) District, Title 12, Zoning • Regulations, Vail Town Code. III. BACKGROUND • On January 23, 2006, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 5-2-0 (Viele and Lamb opposed) to forward a recommendation of approval of SDD No. 39, Crossroads, to the Vail Town Council. The Planning and Environmental Commission voted 7-0-0 to approve the conditional use permits fora majorarcade; a theater; meeting rooms, and convention facilities; multiple-family dwellings; a private club (parking club); a bowling aiiey; and the outdoor operation of an accessory use (ice skating rink). • On March 21, 2006, the Town Council on second reading of Ordinance 5, Series of 2006, voted 4-3-0 (Slifer, Foley, and Logan opposed) to approve the adoption of SDD No. 39, Crossroads. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Conditional Use Permit Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for acceptability of use and then by the DRB for comp(iance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planninq and Environmental Commission: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of CUP. The Commission's decision to • approve/approve with conditions/deny a conditional use permit are based upon the criteria found in Chapter 12-96, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code and conformance of the proposal with the zone district in which it is located. DesiQn Review Board: ° The DRB has no review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo confaining background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation an approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. • 2 ~ V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zoninq Requlations Staff has reviewed the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code). We believe the following code sections are relevant to the review of the applicanYs request: Article E. Commercial Service Center (CSC) District (in part) 12-7E-1: Purpose: The Commercra! Service Center District is intended to provide sites for general shopping and comrnercial facilities serving the Town, together with limited multiple-fami/y dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate without interfering with the basic commercial functions of the District. The Commercial Service Center District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient shopping center environment for permitted commercial uses. ~ 12-7E-4: Conditional Uses: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the CSC distrrct, subject to issuance of a conditiona/ use permit in accordance with the provrsions of chapter 16 of this title: Any use permitted by section 12-7E-3 of this article, which is nof conducfed entirely within a buildrng. • Bed and breakfast as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Brew pubs. Child daycare center. Commercial laundry and cleaning services. Dog kennel. Major arcade. Multiple-family dwellings and lodges. Outdoor operation of the accessory uses as sef forth in section 12-7E-5 of this artrcle. Private clubs. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and fows. Theaters, meetings rooms, and convention facilities. Type lll employee housing units (EHU) as provided in chapter 13 of this title. Chapter 12-16: Conditionat Uses Permits (in part) Section 92-16-9: Purpose; Limitations !n order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permrtted in certain districts subject to the granting of a condifional use permit. Because of their unusua/ or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located proper/y wifh respect to the purposes of this title and wrth respect to • their effecfs on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter rs intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditronal uses and 3 surrounding properties in the Town at /arge. Uses listed as condrtional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the • Town may prescribe to rnsure that the Iocation and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the deve/opment objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditiona/ use permits shall be denied. Vail Villaqe Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whole. It is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly, this Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. Furthermore, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. As noted on page 35 of the Master Pfan, "It is important fo note that the likelihood of project approva/ will be greatest for those , proposals that can fully comp/y with the Vail Village Master Plan." Staff believes this statement re-emphasizes that the Master Plan is a general document • providing advisory guidelines to aid the Town in analyzing development proposals and that full compliance is not required in order for a project to be approved. Staff believes the following Goals and Objectives found in the Vail Village Master Plan are pertinent to this conditional use request. Goa/ #1: Encourage high quality, redevelopment while preserving unique architectural scale of fhe Village rn order ta sustain its sense of community and identity. Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment ofresidential and commercial facilities. Goal #2: To foster a strong tourist industry and promofe year-around economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. Objective 2.4: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatrble with existing land uses. Policy 2.4. 9: Commercial infill development consistenf with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide acfivitygenerators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. ~ 4 • Policy 2,4.2: Activify fhat provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. Goa! #5: Increase and rmprove the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the ~ transportation and circulafion system throughout the Village. Objective 5.1: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. Policy 5.1.1: For new development fhat is located outside the Commercial Core 1 Zone Distrrct, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning code. Policy 5. 1.2: The expansion of the Vail Village parking structure shall maximize the number of additional parking spaces availab/e for public parking. Policy 5. 9.3: Seek locations for additional structured public and private parking. Policy 5.1.4: Continue to promote the lease parkrng program . as a means for maximizing the utilization of private parking spaces. Policy 5.1.5: Redevelopment projects shall 6e strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. VI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Consideration of Factors Reqardinq Conditional Use Permits: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Multi-famiiv Dwellinq Units: In conjunction with the proposed major amendment to SDD No. 39, Crossroads, the applicant is requesting an expanded conditional use permit for an additional six (6) dwelling units. This proposal increase then umber of dwelling units proposed from 69 to 75 dwelling units. Section 12-7E-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code, states: "The Commercia/ Service Center Districf is intended to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town, together with limited multiple- family dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate wrthout interfering with the basic commercial functions offhe Disfrict. The Commercia/ Service CenterDistricfis intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate • to permitted types of buildings and uses, and to maintafn a convenient shopping center environment for permitted commercial uses." 5 The purpose statement anticipates that multiple-family uses could be located on • properties zoned Commercial Service Center zone district as long as they do not interfere with the primary commercial functions of the district. Staff believes the number of proposed dwelling units does not interfere with the commercial nature of the zone district. There is a requirement in the Commercial Service Zone District limiting GRFA to 50% of the total flaor area of a development, Section 12-7E-9, Density Control, Vai{ Town Code. The GRFA requested in addition to the limit identified previously is a deviation which staff believes the public benefits within the proposal off-set. Staffwould also point out that the land use plan for this site as contained in the Vail Village Master Plan does identify this site as being substantialiy high density multiple-family. Staff believes that this request complies with Goal #1 and Objective 1.2 of the Vail ViAage Master Plan as found in Section V of this memorandum. The applicant has provided a plan which they believe encourages owners of condominiums to be involved in the rental pool. According to the applicant, the key to achieving the participation in a rental pool program is to emulate the management of a fine, high quality, fuxury hotel. The management program is a hospitafity program above all else. On-site management and management offices are a necessity. Top level services need to be provided to renting guests and owners alike. Great service and a first c4ass property will attract the kind of clientele that not only can afford a fine resort but will respect the property of others. Owners become proud of being part of the resort and have confidence that their asset is being well cared for while producing a painless, welcome income to offset their ownership expenses (Attachment A). The level of service to be offered by Crossroads includes daily or twice daily maid • service, 24-hour desk and concierge, bell and valet staff, local transportation service, pre-arrival activity, in-house amenities such as workout rooms, massage rooms, a lap pool, meeting rooms, and a world class lobby, ski and grocery service and premium rental equipment. An in-house maintenance staff not only quickly provides for guests needs but corrects problems in units before they become a major problem and expense to the renting owner. Owners become confident that their arrival will be hassle free and as enjoyable as a vacationing guest in spite of a renting guest occupying their unit the night before. The final piece to encourage owners to rent is creating a financial structure that rewards owners that rent. The cost sharing structure befinreen the Homeowners' Association and the Rental Program needs to be an integrated program that equitably balances ail of the services being offered to owners and renters afike. Properly and efficiently designed, owners will be financially rewarded for renting instead of carrying the service costs for all owners, as is the case in many condominium hospitality programs. Private Parkinq Club: Staff believes that the proposal to estabiish a private parking club will address several of the goals and objectives established in the Vail Village Master Plan. Those goals are Goal #5 and Objective 5.1 as identified in Section V of this memorandum. Staff believes the parking club could have a positive effect on the parking issues the Town faces through out the year by providing an opportunity for individuals to lease or purchase spaces and therefore not be parking in the Vail Village or Lionshead parking structures. The proposal no longer identifies the parking club as a public benefit but as a public amenity which has indirect benefit to the community. Staff has attached a portion of the • 6 i i- . submitted materiais which address the operation of the parking club (Attachment C). 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. ' Multi-familv Dweliina Units: A great majority of the bulk, mass, and height of the proposed structure is generated by i the six floors of condominium units. The proposed increase in dwelling units from 69 to 75 dwelling units occurs completely in the previously approved bulk, mass, and height. As with any development on this site, there wifl be shade and shadow on the adjacent properties. However, the magnitude of shade and shadow prvposed is really no different on the adjacent property than if the building was constructed even a story or two shorter. Private Parkinq Club: Staff believes that the proposal to establish a private parking club will address several of . the goals established in the Vail Village Master Plan. Those goals are Goal #5 and Objective 5.1 as identified in Section V of this memorandum. The private parking club, which is subterranean, will not have any negative impacts on the above listed criteria. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removat of snow from the street and parking areas. • Multi-familv Dwellinct Units: The proposed 75 dwelling units will generate increased vehicular traffic. The payment of the traffic impact fee and the construction of roadway traffic improvements to the South Frontage Road and Village Center Road will off-set any negative impacts. Private Parkinq Club: The proposed 84 space parking club wifl generate additional vehiculartraffic in the area. The payment of the traffic impact fee and the construction of roadway traffic improvements to the South Frontage Road and Village Center Road will off-set any negative impacts. 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. Multi-familv Dwellinq Units: The Purpose statement of the Commercial Service Center zone district identifies multiple-family dwelling units as a conditional use because the primary function of the district is commercial. It is primari(y the impact of six floors of residential which give this project its bulk, mass, and height. As stated previously the increase in dwelling units from 69 to 75 occurs completely within the approved bulk, mass, and height fo the proposed structure. Private Parkinq Club: The proposed parking club is located within a completely subterranean structure. The subterranean nature of the parking club has no negative impacts on neighboring uses. • B. The Plannin4 and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findings 7 before aranting a conditionai use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of • the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Commercial Service Center Zone District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Vtl. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the applicanYs request for finro conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code to allow for a, multiple-family dwellings and lodges and a private club (84 space parking club), located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria described in Section VI of this memo and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicanYs I request, staff recammends that the following condition(s) be made as part of a motion: 1. That the developer operates the parking club and rental program for the dwellings • units in accordance with the pages 9-13 of the Application for a MaiorAmendment to Special Development District No, 39 Crossroads and an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Private ParkinQ Club document dated February 15, I 2007, and the approved Developer Improvement Agreement which will be agreed upon by Town Council and the developer. 2. That the Planning and Environmental Commission approval of the conditional use permits become valid upon approval of an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, on second reading by Town Council. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's request, staff recommends that the following findings be made as part of a motion: 1. That the proposed locations of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed locations of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. • 8 • VIII. ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed Rentai Program B. Parking Club Program C. Public Notification • i • s ~ • ~ N. Landscape Area/'Streetscape I There are no changes to the landscape area as a result of this major amendment. 0. Condommium Rental Prvgram ~ lntent: The condominium rental program i5 being developed by input and direction from Stan Cope who has more than 30 years of experience with successful rental programs. The rental program is focused on three main goal5, which have proven successful for Stan at the Lodge Tower, as well as numerous other high cluality, tourist oriented properties: I . Owner asset management; 2. Owner rental income; and 3. Owner's personal usage and satisfaction. When these three goals can be achieved, condo owners in a large condominium projects will rent units voluntarily. Currently, 75% of the units in the Lodge Tower rent and the renting owners yield 63% of the gross rental revenue. in summary, the key to achieving the above goais is to emulate the management • of a fine, high cluality, luxury hotef. The management program is a hospitality program above all else. On-site management and management office5 are a necessity. Top level 5ervice5 need to be provided to renting guests and owners ~ alike. Great service and a first cfass property wiN attract the kind of clientele that not only can afford a fine resort but will respect the property of others. Owners become proud of being part of the re5ort and have confidence that their asset 15 being well cared for whife produang a painiess, welcome income to aff-set their ownership expenses. The level of 5ervice to be offered includes daily or twice dai{y maid service, 24- hour desk and concierge, bell and valet staff, local tran5portation servtice, pre- arrival activity, ski and grocery service and premium rental ecluipment. An tin- house mamtenance staff not only quick{y provide5 for guest5 needs but corrects problems in units before they become a major problem and expense to the rentmg owner. Owners become confident that their arrwal will be hass{e free and as enjoyable as a vacatiornng guest ,n 5pite of a renting guest occupying thetir unit the rnght before. The fina{ p,ece to encovrage owners to rent 15 creat,ng a finanaal structure that strongly rewards owners that rent. The cost sharing structure between the flomeowners' Assoaation and the Renta{ Program needs to be an integrated program that ejuitably balances aN of the 5ervices beting offered to owners and 9 . Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Attachment A • renters alike. Pro erly and effiaentl desi ned, owners will be finanaall f' Y 9 Y rewardeci for renting in5tead of carrying the service costs for all owners> as is the case in many condominium hospitality program5. Strategies for successful asset and rental management: I . Client asset management. Condo owners are reluctant to rent their homes if they perceive that their asset is at risk frorn damage, theft, or other property degradation. When there is proper staffing to allow for daily in5pe0t1on5 of property and proper assurance of damage replacement, condo owners feel more comfortable renting their homes. Crossroads will employ an adec[uate staff to insure proper property 5uperv151on and inspection to the highest level of quality. Daily maid service is made available to owners and automatically provided for guests in order to provide convenient service to the guests as well as a 5uperv15ion mechanism for the management of the property. If the property is managed at the highest level of quality then owners feel comfortabie allowing their asset to be utilized. Crossroads plans to manage the property at the highe5t level of cluality with 24-hour on-5ite management, security, and client services. • 2. Ciient rental income. Condomirnum management can be an expensive non-deductible expense for condo owners. The Crossroads rental program will be structured similar to that of the Lodge Tower where the overall condominium ownership expense can easily be offset by the income generated by the renta( program. Additionally, condominium owners can expect net rental income reachmg 63% of the total revenues from renting one's condominium. 3. Personal usage and satisfaction. Probably the most important aspect of a renta( program 15 ffexibility. Some owners will purchase a condominium in Vail for personai use as a higher priority to rental income. Having ones home avaifabfe when one wants to use it is extremely important to the success of a rentai program. An owner does not want to feel trapped by committing to certain days or weeks. To create flexibility owners are asked to set aside dates they think they may be in Vail and dates they know they wiff not. Owners are abfe to check back frec[uently with changes to scheduies. Additionally, management staff stays in close contact with owners when bookrngs are being made to make sure the owner5 usage 15 not being infringed upon. • 10 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Based on 5tan's experience working at the Lodge Tower, we believe that • at lea5t 50 of the 70 proposed condominiums will be successfully rented. This exceeds the predictions utilized in the revenue analysis prepared by 5teve Thompson who assumed only 30% of the urnts would be rented. A more detailed management program will be developed in the coming months. ~ Key Elements of Rental Program: • 24 hour front desk and conaerge • 11igh level of service to unit owners • Fee structure allowing tho5e partiapating in rental program to offset management and maintenance fees and obtain rental mcome • Daily maid service available/required • Full-time management/renta! staff located on-site •foad service delivery available from on-site restaurants • Full-time on-site security • Active marketing program for rental units local{y and nationally • Participation in national condo rentaVexchange club , P. Parwng Management I 5ummary and lntent: Crossroads intends to maximize the occupancy and efficiency of the enttre • Crossroads parking facility by not restricting individual parking spaces for individual users 100% of the time (i.e., when a condo owner is not in residence or not otherwise occupying a parking space, that space become5 available for other users). There are four basic users of the parking garage: condommium owners; business owners/employees and customers; parking club members; and the general public when shopping or taking advantage of amernties onsite. Crossroads will be utilizing technology that will allow the management of the Crossroads garage to understand which parking spaces are in demand by certain users and when they can be made available to other users. Resldentra/ Parklng: The owners of the condominiums in the project will have a right to use their parking 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The condommwm documents will include provisions that ensure that every condominium owner has the right to use its reauired number of parking spaces so there is never an instance where a condominium is bought or sold without the absolute right to park within the facility. Therefore, condomtnium parking spaces will not be mdividually deeded or , condominiumized. 1lowever, if an owner is not in residence and is not otherwise occupying a parking space, the parking management will reserve the right to use ; 11 • i Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ' Attachment B • condominium parking spaces for short term rentable public parking; skier parking, shopper parking, or plaza event parking. This 5y5tem will work utiilzing a temporary pass, card, or code system. The residential 5y5tem wlll generalfy operate as follows: when an owner or renter arrives to a condominium unit they will be recluired to check in with the concierge. OwnerS will be provided with a pin number or magnetic pass (or 51milar device) that can be changed periodically (in some cases daily) to access the parking structure. The codes for temporary guests will expire upon the end of a guests or owners stay which prevents abuse of system (i.e., providing cards or pin numbers to others). This system will allow owners to always have a right to park but allows management to maximize the use of parking spaces and keep the parking faality active for the community when the owners are not using the faahty. Busmess and Commercial Parkrng: Parking recluired for the commercial businesses will always be available to the general public, business owners/employees, and retail consumers via the gate system. Business owners and employees will be provided with a pass or acce55 code that allows them access to the parking facilities. The general public will have access to the parking facility on a fee ba515. In order to ensure 5ucce55 of • the commercial and retail estabhshments a credit, rebate, or reduced parking charge system will be established (i.e., validation 5y5tem; free parking for first 30 mins; as examples). Parklng Club/Surplus Par-klng: There are 84 parking spaces that are not recluired by the Town Code for either residential uses, commeraal uses, or entertainment uses on the property. These parking spaces will be operated under a parking lease system or made available to the general public when not otherwise in use by a lessee. Similar to the Front Door project, these parking spaces will be leased to individuals or businesses on a seasonal or annual ba515. Member5hIp5 or lea5e5 will be sold at a greater number than the number of parking spaces available (which will be known to the lessee) so that use of the parking spaces is maximized (guaranteed access, not a space). These memberships will be sold at prevailing market rates. If the all of the spaces are not able to be leased, parking spaces will be made available to the general public on an entry fee basis. In no case will any of the parking club spaces be condominiumized or sold individually. The goal is to maximize the use of the parking facility in a way that allows for convenience to residential owners, ensure success of bu51ne55, retail, and commeraal estabiishments located on51te, and generally aIds in the supply of parking acces51ble by the general public. • 12 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC We antiapate that tho5e taking advantage of the parking club (surplus parklng • spaces) will breakdown as follows: 60% restaurant or retailer from within the Vail Village area; 35% real estate professionals and other office users within the Vaii Village area; 5% downvalley residents and busine5s professionals (vendors, service providers, etc.) who have daily business activities within the Vail Village area. Additional Public Access to Parking: The proposed parking management system will be able to recognize how many of the spaces are being occupied at any gwen time and what the usage trends are over the long term. With this knowledge, management wili be able to allow the additional parking spaces to be used as hourly parking during the daily hours of operation. We anticipate having an attendant on site from 7:00 am to I 2:00 am, 7 days a week. Access for tenants and owners will be allowed 24 hour5 a day. • V. Public Benefits of Project The li5t of public benefits being proposed by this project is extensive. Not oniy are the direct comsriunity benefit5 such as the ice rink and the entertainment complex included in the list, but also the more indirect benefits of redevelopment in and of itself. The I15t below include5 al{ of the d+rect and indirect public and community benefits this project ha5 to offer the Town of Vail: • New 24,000 scl. ft. public plaza with winter ice skating/summer pop -jet fountain • Public restrooms at pedestrian {evel • New high quality retail and architecture in heart of Vail • Implementation of streetscape master plan recommendations • Enclosed loading and delivery faality for public use • New bu5 stop • New landscape medians in 5. Frontage Road Public Amenities: • 3 screen movie theater with stadIum seating • I 0-lane bowling alley 13 • Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC , • 41L T04YN ; THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY i PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE iS HEREBY GIVEN that the Pianning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail wili hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code on February 26, 2007, at 9:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, pursuant to Article 12- 'Le d. 9(A), Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in the number of dwelling units from 69 units to 75 units; located at 141 and 143 Meadow t~ll Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth detai(s in regard thereto. ~ (PEC07-0004) Applicant: Crossroads Easf One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Maurieifo Planning Group, LLG Pfanner. Warren Campbell A request for conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, ~ Vail Town Code, to allow for multiple-family dwellings and lodges and private club (parking club); located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0005) ~ Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbelf A request for a final review of a major amendment to the Approved Development Plan pursuant to Section 12-8E-18 (B) Major Amendments, to allow for a revised grading plan at Vail's Front Door Vista Bahn Ski Yard, located at 151 Vail Lane/Lot A, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0006) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Corp. Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, located at 805 and 807 Potato Patch Drive, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0008) Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Warren CampbeA A request for a final review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a retaining wall in excess • of three feet within the front setback, located at 805 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0007) Attachment C 4 ! • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a major amendment to the Approved Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-8E-18 (B), Major Amendments, to allow for a revised grading plan at Vail's Front Door Vista Bahn Ski Yard, located at 151 Vail Lane/Lot A, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07- 0006) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Corp. Planner: George Ruther 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC), is requesting a final review of a development review application intended to facilitate the development of Vail's Front Door project. The purpose of the application is to amend the grading • plan for the Vista Bahn ski yard, relocate the entrance/exit to the underground access tunnel and maintain the location of the Vista Bahn chair lift. Staff has reviewed the application and is recommending that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the applicant's request. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the applicable criteria, as outlined in the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations and the evidence and testimony presented. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC), is requesting a final review of a development review application intended to facilitate the development of Vail's Front Door project. The purpose of the major amendment to the Approved Development Plan is to: 1) Revise the grading plan for the Vista Bahn ski yard; 2) Relocate the entrance/exit to the underground access tunnel approximately 9 feet; and, 3) Maintain the location of the Vista Bahn chair lift rather than relocating it as originally contemplated. A copy of the reduced plans has been attached for reference. Upon consideration of the development review application, the action requested of the Commission by the applicant and staff is to either, approve, approve with conditions, or deny the applicant's request. ~ 1 .i .y III. BACKGROUND • On September 22, 2003, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission adopted an Approved Development Plan for Vail's Front Door project. The purpose of the Plan is to facilitate the redevelopment of the Vista Bahn ski yard. Since the adoption of the Plan, the Town of Vail Community Development Department has issued a building permit allowing for the construction of Vail's Front Door project. Construction of the project is currently underway. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 12, Zoninq Regulations, Vail Town Code Ski Base Recreation -2 (SBR-2) District 12-8E-18: AMENDMENT PROCEDURES B. Major Amendments: 1. Major amendments are any proposal to change uses; increases to residential floor area greater than 5% of the approved square footage; increases to retail, office, or common floor area greater than 5% of the approved square footage; increases or decreases to the number of dwelling, accommodation, or fractional fee club units; any request to modify, enlarge or expand the boundary of an approved development ~ plan and any amendment to the approved development plan that is not a minor amendment as determined by the Administrafor and defined in this Article 2. Requests for major amendments to an approved development plan shall be evaluated based upon fhe degree of deviation of the amendment from the basic intent and character of the approved development plan and reviewed in accordance with the procedures described in Secfion 12-8E-7 of this Article. All major amendments shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of Community Devetopment. 3. Owners of all property requesting the amendment, or their agents or authorized representatives, shall sign the application. Notification of the proposed amendment shall be made to owners of all property adjacent to ~ the property requesting the proposed amendment, owners of al/ property I adjacent to the district, and owners of all property within the district that ~ 2 • may be affecfed by the proposed amendment (as determined by the Department of Communify Development). Notification procedures shall be ' as outlined in subsection 12-3-6C of this Tifle. Vail Villape Master Plan As noted on page 35 of the Master Plan, "It is important to nofe fhat the likelihood of project approval wrll be greatest for those proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Plan. " ' Staff believes this statement re-emphasizes that the Master Plan is a general I document providing advisory guidelines to aid the Town in analyzing development proposals and that full compliance is not required in order for a project to be approved. FRONT DOOR SUB-AREA (#11) The followin is la g nguage descnbes fhe Front Door Sub-Area: The Front Door sub-area plays a critical ro% in the interface between the ski mountain and the fabric of Vail Village. As the premier guest partal to i Vail Mountain, the Front Door area should reflect in both use and design I • the world-class stature of the Vail resort and community. The goals for development in this sub-area are as follows: • To provide for a year-round, world-class guest experience at the interface between Vail Village and the ski mountain. • To provide new and improved guesf service facilities af the top of Bridge Sfreet fhaf wi/l not only improve fhe quality of the entire guest experience, but will increase evening guest retention in Vail Village. • Provide for new below-grade loading and delivery facilrties to better serve the Front Door and upper Bridge Street areas, consistent with the overall "dispersed quadrant" approach of the Vail loading and delivery master plan. • To provide a venue for outdoor cultural/art and sporting events and other similar special community events. • Provide for the removal of surface vehicular traffic and parking that currently occurs within the sub-area. • To provide for limited (6-10 dwelling units/acre) medium density residential development. • With the exception of development that may be approved wifhin Sub-Area Concepts 11-1 and 11-2, the balance of the Front Door Sub-Area should remain in a predominantly undeveloped, open space condition. The Front Door Sub-area includes two Sub Area Concepts. Please refer to • the Vail Village Master Plan Action Plan for a graphic depiction of these concepts. 3 # 11-1 Lodpe Exchanqe Parcel • Limited development of this site provides an opportunity fo consolidate and/or remove existing uses and in doing so improve the visual quality of this area. Medium density residential development and associated uses respecfing and complimenting the adjacent Lodge at Vail, Lodge Tower, and Vista Bahn ski yard are appropriate. Most parking except temporary guest arrival spaces should be located below grade. Existing mountain and USFS access shou/d be maintained and if feasible placed below grade throughouf the parcel. To the extent feasible, service and delivery facilities, including existing service and delivery facilities for the Lodge Tower, the Lodge at Vail, and surrounding commercial uses should be located below grade. A pedestrian/bicycle , connection between Willow CircleNail Road and the Vista Bahn ski yard should be retained. Development of this sub-area will attract additional traffic and population to this area and may have significant impacts on sub area 1- ' 12 (Willow Circle). # 11-2 The Vista Bahn Park Redevelopment of ski yard should improve and emphasize the connecfion between fhe Visfa Bahn lift area (the mountain) and fhe lower skier plaza area (fhe village). Opportunifies exist to re-grade the ski yard to improve access and usefulness of the site. Existing modular ~ ski storage sfructures in the ski yard should be replaced with new skier/guest service facilities to improve year-round use of fhe area and to encourage summer season usage. lf developed, the sca/e of a skier/guest service building should be limited to one-story as viewed • from the skier plaza area. V. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoninq North: Mixed Use Commercial Core 1 South: Open Space Resource (Eagle County) East: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary West: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary VI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR REVIEW 3) Approved Development Plan The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of a proposal to amend an Approved Development Plan. It sha11 be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the submittal material and the proposed amendment complies with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved: A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate . environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to 4 . ~ architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, • character, visual integrity and orientation. The proposed amendment to the Approved Development Plan is consistent in design, character, and mass with the Town's Design Guidelines and with neighboring uses and structures. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The applicant is not proposing to change any uses, activities, or densities which would negatively affect the compatibility or efficient workable relationship with surrounding uses and activities. The Front Door area is surrounded by a mixture of uses including ski runs and skiing facilities, retail, lodging facilities, and multiple-family/single-family residential dwellings. C. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. The proposed amendment to the Approved Development Plan has no negative impacts on the approved parking and loading facilities. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. The proposed amendment to the Approved Development Plan continues to • comply with the Town's master planning documents as applicable to the site. The proposed development plan continues to implement numerous Town policies and goals. E. Natural And/Or Geo(ogic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the development plan is proposed. Staff continues to believe that the proposed development complies with the intent of the prescribed hazard regulations. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The proposed amendment to the Approved Development Plan is designed to respond directly to the skier services and activities currently existing in the area and proposed for the site. The proposed plans are responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation, and the aesthetic qualities of the community. Vail's Front Door Project site is situated in an area where skiers, shoppers, and residents interface with the Vail Village and the ski mountain. The proposed design responds to this interface to provide order, interest, and vitality. Open space areas are created and preserved as shown on the proposed amendment ' to the Approved Development Plan. • G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. 5 : The Approved Development Plan includes a circulation system designed with • both vehicles and pedestrians in mind. The on-site circulation system provides for a mostly separated pedestrian and vehicular system. The bulk of cars and trucks enter the site through a subsurface tunnel to parking and loading areas. Pedestrians are provided pathways on the surface of the site in efficient and logical locations. While there is some intermingling of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the surface of the site, the type of vehicular traffic in very minor and similar to that found in low-density residential areas throughout the Town of Vail. The amendment to the Pian includes a request to shift the east entrance/exit of the access tunnel for the Forest Service road nine feet (9') to the south. The purpose of the shift is to increase the width of the pedestrian walkway/bike path adjacent to the skier services building. The shift in location does not negatively impact the location of the road on the property or the location of the road within the easement. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. The proposed amendment to the Approved Development Plan maintains a significant amount of open space areas and tandscape treatment. The open space areas created will provide for and maintain public views of the ski mountain as well as provide adequate open areas necessary for running a ski base facility and ski lift area. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a • workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the development plan. The amendment to the Approved Development Plan does not impact the phasing or construction timing of this project. Therefore, the amendment maintains a workable, functional, and efficient relationship among the planned uses. J.Annexed Lands: Conformity with the terms of an annexation agreement and demonstration of a compelling public benefit which furthers the public interest. The amendment to the Approved Development Plan does not impact the annexation which has already been approved by the Town of Vail. I VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with condition(s) the request for a final review of a major amendment to the Approved Devefopment Plan, pursuant to I Section 12-8E-18 (B), Major Amendments, to allow for a revised grading plan at Vail's Front Door Vista Bahn Ski Yard, located at 151 Vail Lane/Lot A, Block 5C, Vail Village Fifing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the evidence presented and the testimony provided at the public hearings on these requests. • 6 i • Should the Commission choose to approve the applicant's request, staff recommends that the following findings of fact be made as part of the motion: "That fhe applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence and festimony presented before the Planning and Environmental Commission at a public hearing, that the submittal material, as presented, and the development plan, as proposed, comply with each of the design criteria outlined in Section 12-8E-9 of the Zoning Regulations, or has demonstrafed that one or more of the criteria is not applicable to the proposed development, or has demonstrafed thaf a pracfical solution consisfent with the publrc interest has been achieved as a result of the proposed developmenf plan. Furthermore, in keeping with the adopted purpose statement of the Ski Base Recreation - 2 zone district, as prescribed in Section 12-8E-1, of the Zoning Regulations, due to the likelihood of the disfrict being locafed af fhe base of Vail Mountain, and upon some of the mosf critical and importanf lands to the fufure success and resort character of fhe Town, development within the district shall be evaluated based upon its ability to meet the specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations and to provide "compelling public benefits which further the public interests" that go beyond any economic benefits to the landowner, the Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated to the safisfaction of the Commission, that the proposed development plan for Vail's Front Door Project, will provide compelling public benefits which further the public interests. Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed amendment to the Approved Development Plan for Vail's Front Door Projecf • furthers the developmenf objectives of the Town as outlined in fhe applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan and provides benefits and amenities that will serve the residents, guests and community at-large, both now and into the fufure." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the three development review applications, as proposed, the staff recommends that the Commission make the following conditions part of the approval: 1. That the Developer prepares a Vista Bahn Ski Yard Use Agreement outlining the terms and conditions allowing public use of the ski yard for special events. The Agreement shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the review and comment of the Town of Vail Commission on Special Events. The Agreement shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. • 7 ; . r . 11ESIPKiEJ VMm B I - y ' ~ . + - . ~ fNEC wo. em~~]1 . I ~ ' ~ I 1 \ l ' _ + ' . 1 1 i I 1 . i I - I I a c- ! ' ~ . ~ . ~ . 01 ~ ~ ~ - ~ ' ~ i ~ ~ VAIL'S FRONT DOOR - VISTA BAHN SKI YARD ` ' . ~ ~ ~ i ~ ALPINE I CUlB SERVICES f BLOC` ~ ~ o ~ , i.F.S. \ ~ I ' ' ~ \ \ \ ` 1~ / - ~ ~ - - _ LOT 4. BLOC+( 7FtACT E . i Yr / . - 1•~'~ / 01 ~ U.S.F.S. a a u p ~ ~ n r -^i w. ° ~ :y . - m.`"" _ ~ _ _ VAIL'S FRONT DOOR - VlSTAPA~N SKI YARD • • ~ . ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vai! Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front setback, located at 1895 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 26, Vai1 Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. ( P EC07-0002) I Applicant: Nancy Hassett, represented by Miramonti Architects I Planner: Bill Gibson I i ' I. SUMMARY , The applicant, Nancy Hassett, represented by Miramonti Architects, is requesting a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to al)ow for the construction of a garage within the front j setback, located at 1895 Gore Creek Drive/Lot 26, Vail Viflage West Filing 2. ~ Based upon Staff's review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, subject to the findings noted in Sections V(II of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Nancy Hassett, represented by Miramonti Architects, is proposing to construct a new 3,652 sq. ft. (GRFA) single-family residence at 1895 West Gore Creek Drive. At its October 10, 2005, public hearing the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a variance to allow the applicant to construct a new single family residence with 210 sq. ft. of a two-car garage located 12 feet into the 20 foot front setback. The applicant did not construct that proposed residence. Since that 2005 public hearing, the applicant has redesigned the proposed residence and is re-applying for a new front setback variance. The applicant is currently proposing 105 sq, ft. of garage (instead of 210 sq. ft.) located 5 feet (instead of 12 feet) into the 20 foot front setback. The applicant is also requesting a front setback variance for 49 sq. ft. of entry roof averhang that encroaches 3'/2 feet into the 16 foot roof setback. The subject property is located within the Two-Family Primary/Secondary Zone District and is legally non-conforming in regard to lot size. This lot is only 9,984 sq. ft. in size (minimum lot size in this zone district is 15,000 sq. ft.). Gore Creek cross the rear ~ (north) portion of this lot. The Gore Creek floodplain, the Gore Creek 50 foot setback and two 20 foot wide east/west utility easements extend across the entire width of the lot and a 10 foot north/south drainage easement extends the lengfh of the west edge of the I t property. The floodplain alone occupies 36% (3,570 sq. ft.) of this lot and the various • easements occupy another 37% (3,698 sq. ft.). These factors yield the rear half of this lot un-buildable. As a result of these site constraints, the applicant is requesting a variance to locate approximately 105 sq. ft. of a two-car garage and 49 sq. ft. of a front entry roof overhang within the minimum front setback areas. The applicant is not proposing to locate any gross residential floor area (GRFA) within the front setback in association with this request. A vicinity map (Attachment A), the applicant's request (Attachments B), the proposed architectural plans (Attachment C), and the Public Notice (Attachment D) are attached for reference. III. BACKGROUND Vail Village West 2"d Filing, including Lot 26, was annexed into the Town of Vail through passage of Ordinance No. 18 in August of 1986. At that time it was zoned Two-Family Prim ary/Seco ndary Residential, which allows for single-family or two-family dwellings and the possibility of a Type I Employee Housing Unit. No structure has yet been constructed upon this site. However, plans were proposed for new single-family residences upon this lot three times previously: in 1984, 1987 and 1997. A Planning and Environmental Commission approval of a 6.5 foot setback variance request was approved in conjunction with the 1984 proposal. For reasons not documented in Town files, none of the proposals were ever constructed. • At its October 10, 2005, public hearing the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a variance to allow the applicant to construct a new single family residence with a portion of the garage located within the front setback. The applicant did not construct that proposed residence. Since that 2005 public hearing, the applicant has completely redesigned the proposed residence, reduced the setback encroachment, and is re-applying for a new front setback variance. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Section 12-6D-1: Purpose The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilrties as may appropriately be located in ihe same district The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by ~ establishing appropriate site development standards. 2 ~ . • Section 12-6D-6: Setbacks In the primary/secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15). Chapter 12-17: Variances (in part) 12-17-1: Purpose: A. Reasons for Seeking Variance: ln order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cosi or inconvenience to the applicant of stricf or literal compliance I wirh a regulation shall not be a reason for 9ranting a variance. I V. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 1895 Gore Creek Drive Legal Description: Lot 26, Vail Village West 2"d Filing Zoning: Two-Family Primary/Secondary Land Use Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Current Land Use: Undeveloped • Lot Size: 9,984 sq. ft. (0.2292 acres) Standard Allowed/Reauired 2005 PEC Approval Proposed Setbacks (min): Front: 20 ft. 8 ft. 15 ft. Sides 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. Rear: 15 ft. 66 ft. 67 ft. Density (max): 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit GRFA (max): 4,592 sq. ft. 3,725 sq. ft. 3,652 sq. ft. Site coverage (max.): 1,997sq. ft. (20%) 1,819 sq. ft. 1,992 sq. ft. (20%) Landscape Area (min.): 5,990 sq. ft.(60%) 7,666 sq. ft. 7,527 sq. ft. (75%) Parking (min.): 3 3(2 enclosed) 3(2 enclosed) VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zonin North: Residential Residential Cluster South: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary East: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary West: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary VII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS • The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. 3 ~ A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina Variances: • 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Front Setback Variance The width and location of the ERWSD easement renders approximately 15% of the lot unusable. As was mentioned in the background section, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a 6.5 foot setback variance for a proposed structure upon this Lot in 1984. Other existing uses and structures in the vicinity have not requested or been granted variances due specifically to the easement because the easement intersects the surrounding lots at angles that allow for more development upon those lots. However, the small lot sizes within this subdivision have prompted other homeowners to request variances from the setback regulations. Staff believes that the proposed front setback variance is necessarY due to the existing site constraints and will not be detrimental to the existin9 or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. ~ 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 that relief from the strict and literal interpretation and I enforcement of the front setback regulations would grant this homeowner some amount of flexibility in constructing a residence upon this lot. This relief is necessary to achieve compatibility among sites in the vicinity through the construction of a well-designed residence on a previously empty site oft-used for construction materials. Staff does not view the ' approval of this request as 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. Staff believes that the requested front setback variance will not have a negative effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic utilities, public facilities and utilities, or public safety. Furthermore, Staff believes that the requested variance will have a positive effect by continuing quality (re)development within the Vail Village West 2"d Filing. Additionally, Staff believes that the applicant should make every effort to mitigate the effect of a structure built within the front setback through increased landscaping. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems app(icable to the proposed variance. • 4 \ V • At its October 10, 2005, public hearing the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a variance to allow the applicant to construct a new single family residence with a portion of the garage located within the front setback. The applicant did not construct that proposed residence. Since that 2005 public hearing, the applicant has completely redesigned the proposed residence, reduced the setback encroachment, and is re- i applying for a new front setback variance. ! B. The Planninq and Environmental Commission shaA make the followinp findinqs ~ before granting a variance: ' 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special ' privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in ~ the same district. 2. That the granting of the variarace will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: ~ a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. • b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for a new single family residence within the front setback, located at 1895 Gore Creek Drive/Lot 26, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, fo allow for a new single family residence within the front setback, located ai 1895 Gore Creek Drive/Lot 26, Vail Village West Filing ~ 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto, subject to the following conditions: 5 1. This approval shaN be contingent upon the applicant obtaining Design • Review Board approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsisteni with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two-Famrly Primary/Secondary Districf. 2. The granfing of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safefy, ' or welfare, or materrally injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town j Code. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of fhe variance that do not apply generally to other • properties in the same district. I~ c. The sfrict interpretation or enforcement of the sPecified re9ulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district." IX. ATTACHMENTS i A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Request C. Architectural Plans ' D. Public Hearing Notice . • 6 . . aPO.fli~~''~ t ' ~ iL l ~ 41 ~~ks ~ , rty ~V~t. ~ p r. i y... ~A•.~' ~ { ,4. . ~ 'jw ~ ~ r; ~R,~ ' q. ~ y b . • n ~ ~6~'~, r s"~. { , 4 r ,y , ~ " , , 'r ~ ~ el~ ~ ~ • ~i~ . ~ p • -y,T I ~ ~ * r ~r. :'F~1 ~ ~ ~jr ~p~ A t c , < 4JA ~ . ~ ~ . ' y ~ " ~ ~ ~,.r~ 3~ ~V°~. , ' ? . 4 ~ ~v ~ y~* f.~\ • t~ M ' .F, ' ~ ~ ZF 2. 'op ~O0 ~ . ~ "M`' , ' • ~~~'5~~~~ ? ~ . } ~ ` . - .r. ~ t ~g ~ `~.t . 1~ g~ k•~~.~t ~ g.«~~ -~1 ' . ~ i" T ~ '1 'h , - # , , ~~t •4 ~ ' . y ~+~'e ~4 ~ ~ ~ r~~ ;'+~.1~ • , Vt ' .lt, , ~ ~ • 't.* f ~ ' . , A ~ S. ( F ,~t , y~ • • ~W ; , '~j r ~ ' ~ • • .:ld1r. 1aw~''e' r`,~. ..X ,1~'` p . ~ ' ~ • yy do ,Xt:.: T t ~ , ~ S ~ } t . ~ ~ ~ ~ .y ~~•.c ` ~ . . ~ Y ? . ,~.,4'1 . r . 3 s~ ~ ~ ~ ~P; • ' ` ~ , ~ r , ' ~ • '~w ,t . y+~'~ I ~ ~R ~ ~ C~, i°., '^M ^ r 1 ~ . t ~ ~ y.~. '•i a '.~i a ~ ' ' `'wJ ~ { y E * ~ • _ S -'R ' o- • i , i r r ~ „yi~ -'~r > . . ~l : ~ , ~ fi Y ry/~ y+~ y i 4i~ y ~V V•JY . ~ 'T5W ~ f,:~ •`h woo o~~ Attachment B ~ _ . : ~ - . • ivt~ . + ~ Date: February b, 2007 ~ TO: Town of Vait From: Gerry Meremonte, AIA Subjech Hassett Residence I Written description of the nature of the variance requested: The variance requested consists of a 114 square foot (6' encroachment) two-car garage and a ~ 75 squaze foot (7.5' encroachment) entry portico encroaching into the front setback. ~ • Written statements: a.) The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Many of the lots on the northern side of West Gore Creek Drive are bisected by a sewer easement. This easement greatly reduces the buildable area of the lots, and necessitates any buildings be moved forward on the lots toward the street. As a result, many of the existing garages are located within the front building setback. Most of the residential drives along West Gore Creek Drive are orientated perpendicular to the street and off street parking is located in the right of way. b.) The degree to which relief from the sfrict or literal interpretation and enforcement ot 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 a special privilege. The area enclosed by the setbacks on the sides and front, and the sewer easement on the back is 1,918.5 S.R. This is 78.3 S.F. less than the 1,996.8 S.F. allowed 20% site coverage by the building. Therefore, the combination of setbacks and utility easements make it impossible for the Owner to benefit from the maximum site coverage as alIowed by Town • of Vail Zoning Code. • c.) The effecE of the variance on light and air, distribution ot population, transporEation, traffic, facilities, utilities, and public safety. There aze no negative affects expected in any of these areas. d.) How the request complies with adopted Town of Vail planning policies and develapment abjectives. The angled drive access with turn azound allows for safer street access. • • RESIDENCE HASSETT DRB SUBMITTAL LOT 26, BLOCK 2, VAIL VILLAGE WEST 1895 W. GORE DR., VAIL, CO 2I12I07 J i 1-I- -1- TZ A -NI ~ ~ • ~ , • s ~ . N r ~ ~ W 1yy ~ ~j.1 $Q uu~1 ` j x, ~S 4[. m O : Q s u~i ~ mr Il~ ~ y. w. ~SJ IL S V- rt~^' ~ 7~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ' ti . ` `1~`` y.+t, +a o ~ ~ d ~ b / ? ~ ~ ~ l . •G ~ v Ni~ I a~ y ,1 ~p ug 3q ~Y~~ 'r ~ ! p 2 , ~ ? s~Y. Y.~ . ~ N ~ : / ? ~ x ~ ~ t`' K ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 1''. , \ ~ , ' ~ ; , ~~~`z +y ~ ~ ' ~ n w ~ a ~ w\•, ' ~/f'~ 1 \ / ~~~`J~ M ~ ' , X , /~q'~ ~n 3t- i 1Z ~ \ C Z p s ~ ~ r-a ~ r o oq a s t,~,~ ~y N o m Z ~ ~ ~ Z~ ~ ~ ~ Q rU . aY m o a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LS~ , r ~ ~"61 a ~tY. I ~ o q q : • ~tl . ~ a \ . t~- ~ ' ~ ~ - ~ r }o I ~ 1 . ~;p}, ~ G . i ~ ~ "w~ IAt ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ Gi ~ O A U ~ 4 b Y ~ ~ w~ W ~ \ r : ` \ \ lf ~ /.%i~ ~ \ U ~ ~ . ~ l ti",~; / ~Lw6 4~ J , `y ~ . n ~ A ~ ~ p N ~ ~ = w4 y 11 ~I I ~ ~ r~ ~ ! - ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ 1 1 }1 ~ ~ • ~ N ~ ~ ? ~ ~ J J • ~.Fiv930 ~p~h • I ~ ~ _ ---a _ - _ 1-. Ul~ - - ; , ' ' • „ ~ - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~ . , , LL3 ~ 1_ I. -I I I 1 1 ~ I - I I I 1 I 1 I I ~ I 1 ~ I ~ 1 El. I l l ~ , ~ 3 . N W J 5; u U ~ J ~ I - ~~p • 'S 3 r ~ ~ a ' i I ~ i ~ CD - , - ' , • - I . I 11 y ~i - ? ~ . I III _ ~ _ I I W Z I 11 1 I I T Tj'- - tl) S 1 I II ~ ~ II - ~ , ~ ,{MINY'd 77VIq I I ~^~a I • - _ 1 , ; ~ ~ ~ ~ Rl ~ 1 ~ l ~ ~ 1 - -r^ 1 _ --J _ =~j ` ~ , 1 1~ I ~11 L IL i ~ I l _ _ LJ , ' ~ - - ' ' - ~ ' „ ~ 1 ~ 1 _c- l 1 ~ . ~ N ~ I W • ~ J ~ U> } ~ - ~p IL • ~ r ~ U WQ ~ = _ mO f- I i ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I I 1 I I I I il ~ ~ I I I1 ' - - -----i ~ ~ ~ I ~ II ~ I I I I ' ' o ~ ~ ' IO ~ I II w~ ry ~ ~ I ~ ? , Fff 7- li 'a ~ - - ~ - - ~ ~ , - - - I I o ~ II ~ - - - -11--------~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? Y „ ~ ( I Y t ~ i ~ W ~ ~ J i r~ r 1 W . ~ rm~ - • ~ - _ - r- c`~,. 3 i I II I I II I I ~ il ! I ~ I I I II I I I i FF=:] I ~ - i - - I - I I ' I Z ~ II ~ I I ~ o r I ~ ~ II W ~ j W W ~ i I ~ I I my ~ I I - ~ - - - - - - \ - - - - _ ~ - - , - I I i II I ~ I ~ ~ --i - ~ j I I ~ ~ ~ I I a ~ ,I I It Ii Ilt ~ Y c~ • II . ~ • Attachment D ~ 4VAILL TOV6N THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY I PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town I Code, on February 12, 2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to I shared property boundaries, Lots 11 and 12, Bighorn Subdivision, located at 4852 and 4856 Meadow Lane, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0001) Applicant: Meadowlark Development Partners, LLC, represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Warren Campbe(I A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence AO within the front arzd side setbacks, located at 1895 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 26, Block ' 2, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0002) . Applicant: Nancy Hassett, represented by Miramonti Architect PC Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section 12-3-36, Appeal of Administrative Actions, Vail Town Code, appeaiing a determination made by the Zoning Administrator that for zoning purposes Condominium Unit E, Covered Bridge Building shal( be considered the "first floor or street ievel" of the building, located at 227 Bridge Street/Lot C and D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Appellant: Covered Bridge, Inc., represented by Carson, Carson and Dunkelman, LLC Planner: George Ruther The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orienfation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please ca11 970-479-2356, Tefephone for the Hearing lmpaired, for information. Published January 26, 2007, in the Vail Daily. . Page 1 PLANNING AND ENVfRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING • February 12, 2007 ~i~d~y~," 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt Bill Jewitt Doug Cahill Bill Pierce Anne Gunion Dick Cleveland Rollie Kjesbo NO SITE VISITS 60 minutes 1. A request for a worksession to discuss text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to add commercial linkage requirements and inclusionary zoning requirements to the Zoning Regulations for the purpose of mitigating employee housing impacts resulting from development in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0084) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Nina Timm ACTION: Tabled to February 26, 2007 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE:6-0-0 • Nina Timm gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. The Chairman opened the meeting to public comment. Peter Knobel stated that all of the employee housing needs to be provided in the Town of Vail. He would also like to see any requirements phased in over time so that the market values of properties can adjust. Dominic Mauriello representing Lionshead Inn and other clients expressed concern that the PEC has not been provided the Rational Nexus or Town Council Memorandums. The same information is not being shared with PEC as Town Council. Jim Lamont commented that there is too much growth and redevelopment occurring in Town. ~ Kaye Ferry stated that the PEC should determine who the employee housing program should house. Town Council is looking for the PEC's direction and was confused at their last meeting that they were seeing the item again. The Commission stated they understand that there is an employee housing issue in the Town, ' but expressed concern about the lack of an overall employee housing plan for the Town of Vail. Concern was expressed about who this housing program is supposed to provide units for and without that answer it is difficult to know how many units and what type of units are needed. There was support for linkage programs for both commercial and residential development Support was a{so expressed for a funding source, as long as there is an acceptable plan in place • for spending the money. The Commission would like more answers prior to providing a recommendation to Town Council. Page 1 10 minutes . 2. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 11 and 12, Bighorn Subdivision, located at 4852 and 4856 Meadow Lane, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0001) Applicant: Meadowlark Development Partners, LLC, represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE:6-0-0 CONDITION(S) I I 1) The applicant shall not be permitted to request any variances subsequent to the approval of this plat for Lots 11 and 12, Block 7, Bighorn 5t'' Addition, on the basis that ' the approved plat created a hardship for developing these lots. ~ Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. John Martin, the architect of the homes to be proposed on the lots, representing the applicant, explained why the access to the design to be proposed necessitated the shift in the shared property line. There was no public comment. The Commission expressed there support of the application. Commissioner Cleveland suggested a condition be placed upon the approval stating that no variances could be requested • in the future as a result of the replat. 3. A request for a final review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section 12-3-313, Appeal of Administrative Actions, Vail Town Code, appealing a determination made by the Zoning Administrator that for zoning purposes Condominium Unit E, Covered Bridge Building shall be considered the "first floor or street level" of the building, located at 227 Bridge Street/Lot C and D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Appellant: Covered Bridge, Inc., represented by Carson, Carson and Dunkelman, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Uphold MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE:6-0-0 George Ruther made a presentation per the memorandum to the Planning & Environmental Commission dated, February 12, 2007. Based upon review of the evidence and testimony, staff was recommending that the Commission upholds the administrative action of staff dated, December 1, 2006. Paul Dunkelman, representing Covered Bridge Inc. the owner of Condominium Unit E, indicated that based upon his review of the Zoning Regulations, Condominium Unit E can not be interpreted as the first floor or street level of the building. Mr. Dunkelman went on to present photographs of the Cover Bridge Building and urged the Commission to overturn staff's interpretation. The Chairman opened the meeting to pubic comment ~ Page 2 ~ / Kaye Ferry, on behalf of the Vail Chamber indicated that Vail's Zoning Regulations were very clear on the issue. The space in question was and always has been required to be retail by • Zoning. Kaye asked the Commission not to change 34 years of development history in Vail Jim Lamont indicated that he was the author of the 1975 ordinance cited by the staff. He further stated that it was understood that physical conditions such as those existing at the Covered Bridge Building were contemplated and understood when the ordinance was adopted. The Commissioners stated their support for the administrative decision of staff determining that Condominium Unit E in the Covered Bridge Building was the street level of the building and the second floor as contended by Mr. Dunkelman. In coming to this conclusion, the Commissioners cited the purpose of the 1975 ordinance, the fact that all codes are open to a certain amount of interpretation, the information presented by staff and the longstanding and consistent application of the regulation by the Town of Vail. In voting to uphold staff's interpretation, the Commission cited the findings of fact listed on page five of the staff memorandum 4. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a request for a final review of variances from Sections 12-71-1-10, Setbacks, 12-71-1-14, Site Coverage, and 12-7H-15, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an underground parking structure and a staircase within the setbacks, and deviations from the maximum site coverage and minimum landscape area requirements, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0074) Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Geoff Wright Planner: Bill Gibson . ACTION: Tabled to February 26, 2007 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE:6-0-0 5. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1895 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0002) Applicant: Nancy Hassett, represented by Miramonti Architect PC Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to February 26, 2007 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Berhardt VOTE: 6-0-0 6. Approval of January 22, 2007 minutes MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Kjesbo) 7. Information Update 8. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional • information. Page 3 I ~ 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 February 9, 2007, in the Vail Daily. • • • Page 4 ~ ~ • ZONINGPRACTICE Se tember zoo P 4 ~ AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION u~•,'" OO ISSUE NUMBER NINE PRACTICE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PART ONE ,r ~ ; ~ r . ~ . . , y ~ ~ I - • The Inclusionary Housing Debate: The Effectiveness of Mandatory Programs OverVoluntary Programs 8y Nicholns 1. Brunick In response to the nationwide afFordable housing crisis, many local governments are turning to inclusionary zoning as an effective tool for creating much needed afFordable housing. In crafting an inclusionary housing progrem, first in a two-part series on affordable hous- fact, the report found that only six percent of every community faces a major decision: ing, will examine inclusionary housing pro- the 107 communities reporting to have an should the indusionary housing progrem be gram experiences and studies from across the inclusionary housing program said the pro- mandatory orvoluntary? country. R°~~~'t; This decision reises questions common to any policy debate involving markets and MANDATORY PROGRAMS govemmental regulation. Is a mandate PRODUCE MORE ~ ~ ~ • needed to Produce affordable housinS orare HOUSING .ed \ " incentives sufficient to spur developers to cre• Experience and research , ate affordable homes and apartments? Can a indicate mandatory community provide enough incentives indusionary housing l ; : . (through density bonuses, flexible zoning programs are more effec• _ standards, fee waivers, etcJ to entice devel- tive at generating a ~ i opers to build affordable housing without a larger supply of afford- mandate? Will mandates for affordability and able housing than volun- the production of affordable housing, even tary progrems. A 1994 when coupled with generous "cost offsets," study by the California p . ~ ~ ~ chill market activity and exacerbate afford- Coalition for Rural Housing These o o , . . ability problems by restricting su I? (CCRH) sa s, "Mandatory . . o PP Y Y A.. . ~ Mandatory or voluntary-which approach will programs produce the most B . . o . . . . townhomes. produce more housing and more affordable very-low- and low-income p • of ho . O inclusiorlary housing forthe preferred populations? affordable units compared o , pro, . stimulates innovation , d creativitV to pro Every community will engage in its own with voluntary programs, duce high-quality o housing. political debate and evaluate its own legal both in terms of authority to determine its position on man- absolute numbers and W. dates and incentives. However, experience percentage of total - with inclusionary housing, both recent and development." long-standing, provides a number of insights A 2003 study by on this important policy decision. Overall, CCRH and the Nonprofit mandatory pragrams produce more housing, Housing Association of + m` ~ including housing for lower-income popula- Northem California found tions. They also provide more predictability similar rewlts. The 15 . for developers and the community, and do most productive inclu- y~~~~~~ ¦~~~R~' ~ t:. . i not stifle development activiry. As a result, sionary housing pra more communities are choosing mandatory grams in Califomia are . _ : . approaches. This issue of Zoning Practice, the mandatory programs. In • ZONINGPRACTICE 09.04 AMERKANPUNNINGASSOCIATION I page7 • ~ ASKTHEAUTHOR JOIN US ONLINE! , I / o ro online o pa ii o ? orum, a •octive Nicho. orney and the fecittire ofZoning Practice. Nicho i i• ava • r o i ons abo Regional ' Drd.ble Ho article, o to • i plonning.o • r • o r o r DireCtDT at Business and PrDfessional '•op section. r bmityout, q • iio • article g a i o • •o. outhor, tvill reply, po • • answers cuinulatively o r ' b• o r • b• • ovo I b • orselected issues ofZoning Practice ot Dnno • r , times. A cocli online I 1 I ' I a ' archive ovoiloble • I D //I' , gram was voluntary. Two of those communi- untary" inclusionary housing component a without at least a 15 percent affordable hous- ties (Los Alamitos and Long 8each) "specifi- highty attractive option. For ettample, in ing component or plans to pay a fee in lieu of cally blame the voluntary nature of their pro- "Inclusionary Housing in California: The building affordable units. Planning staff in grams for stagnant production [of affordable Experience of Two Decades," authors Calavita Chapel Hill explain that developers construe housing] despite a market-rate boom." and Grimes attribute the success of the volun- the inclusionary zoning expectation as According to the National Housing ConFerence, a Washington, D.C.-based afford- able housing advocacy organization, experi- ence in Massachusetts shows that mandatory approaches were critical to the success of inclusionary zoning programs. In Cambridge, • after ten years of voluntary indusionary zon- ing districts that failed to produce any afford- able housing, a mandatory inclusionary hous- ing ordinance was adopted in i999• As of 1une, the program had produced 135 afford- able homes with 58 more in the deveiopment - pipeline. Fnally, experience from the Washington, ' D.C., metropolitan area supports the same y ~ rRUFF3 conclusion. Four mandatory countywide pro- grams have worked effectively to create ~ • clup - D • cotc • bly p ' d ' ' affordable housing in a mixed-income context ome next door to this dup ' oo ' identical, ' ' in some of the nation's most affluent coun- • or • • County ' ' ' " ' ' e " ' ' ties. In Montgomery County, Maryland, over 13,ooo housing units were produced du(ng the past 30 years through a mandatory pro- tary inclusionary zoning progrom in lrvine to mandatory because residential development gram requiring a 12.5-15 percent affordability an "unusually sophisticated" and "particu- proposals are diFficuit, more expensive, and component in large developments. larly gutsy" staff committed to making the less likely to win approval without an afford- Voluntary inciusionary housing progrems program work Uournal o(the Americnn able housing component. Chapel Hill's volun- can be successful. Frst, it should be recog- Planning Association, i998). Similarly, in tary program has produced 162 affordable nized that, theoretically, with enough oF a Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the voluntary 15 homes since zooo and has collected approxi- subsidy any voluntary program could work percent affordable housing program for mately $178,000 in fees. extremely well. Realisticaliy, however, housing developments that require rezoning is also Lexington, Massachusetts, followed a subsidies are becoming scarcer. Nevertheless, quite successful. The program is so rigor- similar approach with the adoption of a firm voluntary programs can work well when they ously marketed by town staff and the town policy related to affordability on all discre- are implemented as if mandatory, or when a council that no new residential developer, tionary approvals. Consequentiy, tfie commu- • community's broader planning policies (like regardless of requiring a rezoning request, nity succeeded in creating a significant mandated growth limitations) make the "voi- has approached the planning commission amount of new affordable housing, joining ZONINGPRACTICE 09.04 AMERIUN PtANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3 . • Chapel Hill as a modei for communities that w~ Roseville to meet its regional affordable hous- may lack the authority to implement a manda- ing goal through its voluntary program. With a. tory indusionary zoning law. mandatory indusionary zoning program, some The Morgan Hill, Ca(ifomia, policy on lim- of these affordable homes could be produced iting growth has enabled the success of its Z through a combination of density bonuses, voluntary inclusionary housing program. flexible zoning standards or other offsets, and Developers have a better chance of obtaining the market adjustmenu and developer cre- a one of the limited number of development ativity that result from a mandate to produce permits each year if they indude affordable affordable housing. housing in their proposed development. Under this fremework, a voluntary approach PREDICTABILITY FOR COMMUNITIES can ensure the production of some affordable AND DEVELOPERS units. However, even with an especiaily Mandatory programs offer reliability and pre- aggressive staff or broader policies, including dictability to generate results. Mandatory pro- growth limitations that make inclusionary grams provide developers with predictability housing more attrective, voluntary approaches „ by setting uniform expectations and require- are not likely to produce as much affordable ments and establishing a level playing field for all developers. Developers cannot price housing. ~ 'r- - and value land appropriately and make SERVING LOW- AND VERY-LOW-INCOME F 0 , ~ S' ~ infortned investment decisions unless they HOUSEHOLDS a- b'•d' 'op ' o know what the local community will allow In general, mandatory programs are better ors in Mo County, them to build and what is required of them. suited to produce housing that is affordable to deVelDpeinctust'oriarv The worst barrier to housing production and • low- and very-low-income households (house- ' development ' hous- constricted supply is an unpredictable devel- holds below 8o percent and 5o percent of the ' opment atmosphere. area's median income respectively). The 15 ' Undervoluntary or ad hoc inclusionary most productive programs in Califomia target housing progrems, a developer may not know low- and very-low•income populations at a work with the city to voluntarily build afford- what he or she wiil be allowed to build or much greater rate than the 92 other programs able housing within residential developments. what wiil be required of them until they enter in the state, according to the California Since 1988, the AHG program produced 2,000 into and compfete the negotiated develop- Coalition for Rurel Housing and the Non-Profit affordable uniu through significant federal, ment process with the community. Housing Association of Northern California in state, and local subsidies. However, nearly Development decisions are usually fraught Inclusionary Housing in Californio: go Years of $234 million in subsidies would be necessary with community politics and can be applied Innovation, published in 2003. The mandatory to meet the city's goal of 5,944 affordable unfairly to different developers depending programs in Montgomery County and Fairfax units by 2007-almost $218 million more in upon their political connections. County, Yrginia, succeeded at producing funding than the city is expected to capture Under a mandatory inclusionary housing affordable homes for extremely low-income between zooz and 2007. In the absence of program, developers will always know up front households by allowing the local housing expanded funding, it will be impossible for what is required of them. Hopefully, they also authority to purchase some of the newly cre- will know up front what cost offsets they will ated affordable units. WEB-BASED receive from the communiry with the afford• Without a mandatory requirement, com- OR ZO able units. The highly successful inclusionary I munities will most likely have to provide an In order to provide better service to Zoning zoning programs in Montgomery and Fairfax extremely high level of subsidy to entice Pradice subscribers, with this issue we offer Counties (over 13.ooo and 2,3oo affordable developers to produce homes and apartments the complete list of references for Nicholas units produced, respectively) are two such affordable to low- and very-low-income house• J. BNnick's article and affordable housing examples. Like other zoning regulations, holds. Voluntary inclusionary zoning programs Web resources on the Zoning Pradice web mandatory inclusionary housing programs that do succeed in generating affordable Pages of APA's website. We invite you to With clear cost offsets provide key players in housing units for a range of low-income check out this enhancement at www.plan- the housing market with the information ning.org/ZoningPractice/currentissue.htm. households must rely heavily on federet, needed to make efficient decisions about alio• state, and local subsidies in most cases. For We will do this whenever we determine that We can use the Intemet to heighten the cation of resources. In fact, developers in exampie, Roseville, California, adopted its Irvine recently lobbied the city council to • infortnational value we are delivering to our Affordable Housing Goal (AHG) program in subscribers. change the city's inclusionary housing ordi- 1988. The program encourages developers to nance from voluntary to mandatory enforce- ZONINGPRACTICE 09.04 AMERIUN PUNNING ASSOCIATION I page 4 • ment due to the confusion and uncertainty ing production or whether development aiso impacts levels of production, and to what developers experienced in the development has declined in communities without inclu- extent other independentvariables impact process under a voluntary program. sionary zoning. housing production. The Rosen study meas- Of course, mandatory programs are less A more diligent and reliable study of 26 ures the effect of indicators like the unem- predictable if the cost offsets are uncertain California cities over zo years by David Paul ployment rete, changes in the prime rate, and decided on a case-by-case basis. Rosen and Associates reaches the opposite median price For new constnuction homes. Simi(arly, voluntary progrems, if applied con- conciusion. Like the Reason Institute study, the 30•year mortgage rate, and the 1986 Tax sistently and aggressively, can be made Rosen analyzes residential building permit Reform Act, which eliminated many incen- clearer and less arbitrary. Overall, mandatory data obtained from the Construction Industry tives in the U.S. Tax Code that had served to programs are better suited to establish pre- Research Board. Unlike the authors from the stimulate the production of rental housing. ' dictable results for both the Iocai community Reason Institute, the Rosen study accom- The study condudes that the adoption and private market actors. plishes the following: of inclusionary zoning does not negatively ¦ Includes communities with and without impact overall leveis of housing production. ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT7 inclusionary zoning programs in the sample In fact, in a number of jurisdictions, includ- In addressing the need for more affordable of 28 California cities; ing San Diego, Carisbad, Irvine, Chula Vista, housing no one wants a policy that will depress ¦ Inciudes communities from a variety of Ioca- and Sacramento, he found that housing pro- or stifle housing production. The best available tions in Califomia (Orange, San Diego, San duction increased (in some cases signifi- evidence indicates that mandatory inclusionary Frencisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento cantly) aker passage of inclusionary housing housing programs have not done this. Counties) as opposed to just one region; programs. Only in Oceanside did housing One recent study by economists at the Los ¦ Performs a regression analysis to determine production decrease. The drop was most Angeles-based Reason Public Po(icy Institute the extent to which inclusionary zoning likely caused by rising unemploymen[ and entitled, Housing Supply ond Afjordabiliry: Do high rates of housing AJfordabie Housing Mondates Work?, claims vacancy associated with • inclusionary zoning programs in the San the economic recession Francisco Bay area led to a decline in housing of the early i99os and production in those communities, contributing V the Gulf War (Oceanside n~'s is near a military base). to rising housin ~ g prices overall. The study daims an analysis of building permit data from N5,~O r"1 Overall, the study found 45 communities with inclusionary zoning that housing production showed a decline in housing production in the was most heavily "average city" the year after passage of the pro- affected by unemploy gram. The study also claims that an analysis of FIF ment levels, the median building pertnit data for gg communi[ies with E price of new construc- inclusionary zoning in the same region showed ~ - W tion homes, and the ove: FD that less housing was produced in those cities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i986 Tax Reform Act. includes . o • o . • • o • . ordinarice in the seven years aher passage of an inclu- Rosen's fndings has . . • ~ . sionary zoning ordinance than in the seven . • are more consistent ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ years prior to passage. ~ . a with the balance of The study's methodology exhibits a num- , on subdivisio . ~ ~ . . on-dollar mansions that too available evidence on ber of failings, including a failure to include .ownho, .o classic .p.of ho this issue nationwide. like communities without inclusionary zoning in . d. orv pro, . . d inno . o Planning officia?s and the analysis and a failure to account for or . _ d. d to prod , , d, , _ , . local monitors of pro- hold constant other factors that could have an affluent , grams in San Diego, effect on levels of housing production, such Sacramento, Boston, as the unemployment rate, the prime interest ~a San Frencisco, Denver, rate, growth boundaries, lack of avaitabie Chapel Hill, North ,~.land, vacancy retes, etc. As a result, the Carolina, Cambridge, study's condusion that inclusionary zoning is and Boulder claim not the cause (or a significant cause) of decreased to have seen a decrease housing production in these communities in development activity remains wholly unsupported. One cannot tell ~,;a . o following the implemen- whether other factors independent of inclu- tation of inclusionary • sionary zoning are causing a dedine in hous- housing programs. ZONINGPRACTiCE o9.04 AMERIUN PUNNING ASSOCIATION I page 5 I • ROM VOLUNTARY i A iATO• ONARY ZONING MANDATORY ORDINANCES IN LARGE CITIES Municipality The five largest cities to adopt inclusionary zoning-Boston, Denver, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco-chose mandatory Mandatory ordinance went into ordinances in the face of severe affordable Tnroughout the i98os and effect in zooo. As of June zooy, the Boulder, 199os, the ciry's voluntary program had created approximately housing shortages. This decision reFlects Colorado ordinance proved ineffective at 300 units of housing and had col- both the perceived and documented effec- genereting affordable housing. lected $i.5 million in fees. tiveness of requiring developers to set aside affordable units or pay a fee in lieu of build- In 199i, Cambridge switched to a ing units on-site. Denver's mandatory ordi- Ten years of voluntary inclu- mandatory program. As oF June Cambridge, sionary zoning districts failed Zooy, this mandatory program had nance is credited with the production of Massachusetts to generate any affordable produced 135 housing units with 58 approximately 3,400 units of affordable housing. more in the pipeline housing (constructed or in the development . pipeline) since the law was passed in zooz, New mandatory ordinance (adopted reinforcing the argument that mandatory in the spring of 2003) is a concise programs are more productive. Developers initiated a switch Progrem with uniform expectations The October issue of Zoning Practice I to a mandatory ordinance after and rewards for developers. As of Witl feature a review of big-city inclusionary une zooq, the mandatory and vol- J Irvine, Califomia more than Zo years of confu- untary programs together had cre- zoning programs. sion and uncertainty under a I voluntary program. ated 3,40o affordable homes and apartments with 750 more in the TNE MIDWEST SIGNS ON pipeline. The program also had col- Mandatory inclusionary zoning programs are no ~ lected $3.8 million in fees. longer exclusive to high-cost housing markets • Passed mandatory ordinance in late on the Coasts. In August 2003, the first inclu- A voluntary ordinance proved zooo. As of June 2004, the program sionary housing ordinance in the Midwest Pleasanton, ineffective at creating afford- had created 408 affordable units became law when Highland Park, Illinois, an California able hou5ing in the face of ~uith 254 more in the pipeline. The affluent North Shore suburb of Chicago, increasing housing costs and Program also had collected $iq mil- adopted a mandatory indusionary zoning law decreasing availability of land. lion in fees. requiring a zo percent affordability component in any development with five or more units of THE MANDATORYTREND affordable housing. According to Orange housing (See "Affluent Community SeLs The current trend in inclusionary housing pro- County staff, the county no longer has a for- Precedent with Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance," grams is toward the mandatory end of the mal inclusionary housing program. The countY October 2003). In 1anuary 2004. Madison . implementation spectrum. A survey for this does negotiate for affordable housing units wsconsin, followed with its own mandatory article of available literature and existing pro- on the few remaining vacant parcels that program. The ordinance requires developers of grams around the country reveals only one sit• receive development proposals. Conversely, projects with io or more units to price 15 per- uation where a community switched from a communities nationwide have switched to cent of them as affordable. mandatory to a voluntary program: Orange mandatory programs for additional affordable County, Califomia. According to a 1994 report units and the benefit of greater predictability. THE BOTTOM LINE produced by the Califomia Coalition for Rurel Details for some of these communities are With inclusionary zoning, the path most cho- Housing, the switch led to a dramatic drop in summarized in Tables i and z. sen appears to be the more desirable. The experience of municipalities and counties , O , D, O. O VOLUNTARY INCLUSIO , ZONING nationwide demonstrates that mandatory inclusionary zoning works as a practical and Municipality o effective tool For creating affordable hous- ing. While the success of voluntary programs A decrease in the production of is contingent on the availability of subsidies affordable housing units. The volun• and aggressive staff implementation, tary program produced 952 units in mandatory programs have produced more Orange County, political environment ii years (1983-1994). The manda- California uced 6,389 units affordable units overall, as well as more tory program prod of affordable housing in fouryears units for a wider range of income levefs • (1979-1983)• within the affordability spectrum-all with- out stifling development. ZONINGPRACTICE os.oa AMERIUN PUNNING ASSOCIATION I paye 6 • A selection of inclusionary housing ordi- doilars to acquire development rights and Community Affairs (which houses the Ofrice of nances featured in this article is available to cluster new development in a much smaller Smart Growth) and the New Jersey league of Zoning Prodice subscribers by contacting the land area. The resuit is that municipalities Municipalities. Planning Advisory Service (PAS) at placeanin- have more control over where growth occurs, Burrows says the new law is a step in the quiry@planning.org. landowners are compensated fairiy for their right direction. "It is one more tool that can be The author thanks Lauren Go(dberg, /essica land, developers have a clear picture oFwhere used to manage growth and developmenG" Webster, and Melissa Buenger for hours o( they can build, and less of our limited public she says. The TDR law in New Jersey has research, interviewing, ond wri[ing thot con- funds at the local and state levels have to be important implications for smart growth and tributed to this orticle; Susannah Levine and spent on land acquisition " development in the state. "Growth manage- Ellen Elias /or their editing assistance; and Before a municipality adopts a TDR ordi- ment is a serious issue here," Burrows says. speciol thanks ta 8ernie Tetreaulf and nance, it must prepare a development transfer "We see the point where the state will reach Patrick Maier ot the Innovotive Housing plan, which includes the location and cost of build-out." Institute and Dovid Rusk for their assistonce infiastructure improvements, infrastructure cost- The New Jersey transfer of development in providing many of the photographs for sharing methods, growth projections, planning rights law and program information featured this orticle. objectives, and design standards forthe receiv- in this article is available to Zoning Pradice ing zone. The municipality also must prepare a subscribers by contacting the Pianning utility service pian and a real estate market Advisory Service (PAS) at lm N S B R I E FS analysis. To assist municipalities with preparing placeaninquiry@Planning.org. these documents, the law established a plan• Rebecca Retzla/~ aIca, is o researcher with the ning assistance grent program for the develop• American Planning Association and a PhD. NEW JERSEY PASSES TRANSFER OF ment of utility service elements, development student in ur6an planning and policy at the DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS LEGISLATION transfer elemenks, real estate market analyses, University o(lllinois-Chicago. By Rebecca RetZlatJ; Aicr and capital improvement programs. • In March, New Jersey passed a transfer of Susan Burrows, assistant executive development rights (TDR) law (SB 1287/AB director for extemal affairs with New Jersey o I• p 248o) enabling municipalities to adopt and Future, a smart growth advocacy organization implement TDR programs. Under the law, that helped develop the new law, says one of landowners in targeted conservation areas the major hurdles to its passage was concem may sell their development rights and place a from farmers that the value of TDR credits restrictive covenant on their land to preserve would be priced fairly and that there would be in perpetuity. Developers may purchase the a market forthe credits. To that end, economic VOL si, N0.9 TDR credits to build at higher densities in tar- analyses of TDR ordinances are to be com- mning Practice (formeryzoning News) is a monthy geted development areas. pleted by outside tonsultants under the new publication oftheAmerican PlanningAssaiation. The aCt follow5 a 1989 bill that estab- law. Suhscriptions are available for S65 (U.S.) and $90 (For- lished a pilot TDR progrem in Buriington The bill requires review and approval or eign). W. Paul Farmer, ucr, Executive nirector, witliam R. County. According to the newTDR act, "The recommendation of a jurisdiction'sTDR ordi• xlein,ucr, DirectorofResearcA. Burlington County pilot program has been a nance by the county agricultural development zoning Pradice (ISSN 3548-0135) is produced atAPA. Jim success and should now be expanded to the board, the counfy planning board, and the Schwab, Aicr, and Michael oavidson, Editors; Barry eain, remainder of the state of New lersey." New Jersey Office of 5mart Growth. Further- Alcv, Fay oolnick losh Edwards, Megan Lewis, aIcr, Marya The law aliows jurisdictions to shik more, jurisdictions passing a TDR ordinance Morris, a¢r, Rebecca Retzlaff, AICP, Lynn M. Ross, Reporters; development from environmentally sensitive, must also receive endorsement from the Kathleen Quirsfeld, Assistant Editor; lisa Banon, Design and Production. historic, and agricultural areas to receiving Office of Smart Growth for compliance with Copyright Ozooy by American Planning Association, izz S. zones more appropriate For development. the sfate plan. Michigao Ave., Suite 16oo, Chicaga, IL 60603. The According to the law, designation of the receiv- Burrows says there is already high inter- American Planning Association also has offices at 1776 ing zones will occur after infrastructure avaibil- est in creating TDR ordinances throughout the Massachusetts ave., N.W., washington, DC 20035; ity; zoning issues, such as density and lot state, although no municipality has passed a wyw Planning.org. size; and market conditions are considered. TDR ordinance yet. According to Miranda, "The All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro- According to E.J. Miranda, spokesperson Office of Smart Growth receives calls everyday duced or utilized in any form or 6y any means, electronic or for the New Jersey Department of Community from municipal officials, planners, and devel• mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any Affairs, the new TDR law will benefit develop- opers interested in hearing more about how information storage and retrieval system, without permis- ers, Farmers, municipalities, and smart growth TDR works." Furthermore, mOrE thetl 80 p20• sion in writing from Ihe American PlanningAssociation. • advocates. "TDR presents an opportunity to ple attended a recent training session co- Printed on recycled paper, fncluding 50-70%recycled preserve open space by using private-sector sponsored by the New Jersey Department of fiberand 2o% postconsumer waste. ZONINGPRACTICE o9.04 AMERIGN PUNNING ASSOCIATION I page 7 , ~ pctobeY 2OO4 ~ T1 . ~ 0 SpC1A~ ~ G pM ASlON ~.J NN?N ~ ERICAN PIA ~ ~ I ~ ~ V SlNG ~ oNaRY H° sl ~ . . ~ , cLI3 , , ~ Y c k ~ ~ i ~ T 4i r ti ~ • Inclusionary Housing: Proven Success in Large Cities ByNicholosl. Brunick For nearly three decades, inclusionary housing served locally as an effective tool for medium-sized cities and wealthy suburban counties to address the need for affordable housing. In a climate of decreased federal support, growth for low- and moderate-income house- lations (extremely low-income, disabled, local governments in affluent communities holds. The extension of the affordable hous- homeless, etc.) and preserving more of the found inclusionary zoning to be a cost-effec• ing crisis to working-class and lower-middle local tax base for other pressing public needs. tive way to produce homes and apartments income households has heightened the The globol economy. To be competitive in for valued citizens, including seniors, public urgency to address the problem. a global economy, urban communities need a employees, and working•poor households, No (unding. Inclusionary zoning is the sufficient supply of affordable housing For every who would otherwise be excluded from the market-based tool cities need for producing level of the workforce, a basic level of economic housing market. affordable housing without using tax dollars. equality, and a healthy consumer class. Until recently, no large U.S. city had Public revenues remain tight despite the Inclusionary zoning provides large cities with a• adopted an indusionary housing program. With urban resurgence, and the fiscal capacity of multipurpose policy tool to help maintain a the 199os resurgence of many utban centers as large cities has been severely hamstrung by strong economic environment by creating vibrant locations for new investment, inclusion= the 3o-year retrenchment in federal spending afFordable housing for entry-level occupations ary zoning has surfaced as a policy solution to on cities and housing in general, the poor in key industries, by strengthening the eco- rising housing costs in big cities. economic conditions of the past three years, nomic security of low• and moderate-income This issue of Zoning Practice-the second and the recent federal tax cuts and other fed- households, and by integrating affordable in a two-part series on inclusionary housing- eral policies that dismiss any significant level housing into market-rate developments and tra- discusses why large urban centers are examin- of federal revenue sharing to aid states and ditionally market-rate neighborhoods. ing and adopting inclusionary housing strate- cities during these historitalty tough times. Ratial and economic segregation. Inclu- gies. The article also presents five case studies Through the use of creative cost offsets sionary housing can mitigate the symptoms of of recently enacted inclusionary housing pro- such as density bonuses, Flexible zoning stan- racial and economic segregation plaguing many grams in Boston, Denver, Sacremento, San dards, and expedited permitting processes, American cities today, including crime, failing Diego, and San Francisco. Fnally, lessons that large cities can create affordable housing schools, and social instability, all of which deter other local govemments (large or smalQ can white preserving the Federel and state housing human and capital investment. By producing draw from the large-city inclusionary housing dollars they receive for more vulnerable popu- low• and moderate-income housing in an attrac- I experience will be proposed and examined. tive, mixed-income fashion within market-rate WER-BASEVENHANCEMEN ~ developments, inclusionary zoning programs NGPPACTICE WHY LARGE CITIES? 0. O help to reverse exclusionary development pat• ~ It is dear that indusionary zoning is no longer In order to provide better service to Zoning terns, which discourage companies and moder- a policy tool used exclusively in affluent sub- Practice subscribers, with this issue we offer ate-income households from choosing to locate urbs and small cities. Why are large cities now the complete list of references for Nicholas or remain in the city. beginning to adopt and implement inclusion• 1. Brunick's article and affordable housing Sprow(and disinvestmenL Sprawl pulls ary housing programs? Though the reasons web resources on the Ioning Proctice web public and private investment away from the are varied, they all stem from the need to pre- pages of APA's website. We invite you to urban core. If affordable housing cannot be serve the livabiliry and attractiveness of cities check out this enhancement at www.plan- found in the city, developers and citizens will for capital investment and people. ning.org/ZoningPractice/currentissue.htm. took where land costs are lowest For invest• Formore than the poor. Large cities are We will do this whenever we determine that ment-usually on the fringe of the metropoli•• adopting inclusionary housing programs we can use the Internet to heighten the tan region. Indusionary zoning programs I because of their proven effectiveness in informational value we are delivering to our allow large cities to use density bonuses and addressing the dearth of affordable housing. subscribers. other cost offsets to produce and maintain a In the i99os, housing costs outpaced income sufficient supply of affordable housing within 20N1NGPRACTICE 10.04 AMERIUN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I poge 2 , • ~ 1 ~ • o a ~ . ~ s ~ . ~ , ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ , „ . ~ ~ ~ . . . , . . . , ~ . • , ~ . • , , . , • . • ~ ~ / 0' •I I' I / 11 ' I / ~ ' / / 1 'I I 1 • / / / ' I / I ' / i I the ciry core, thereby reducing the economic Thomas Menino to sign an executive order in The ordinance, passed by the city council in pressures that send people, employers, and February Zooo creating an inclusionary hous• zooz in response to the city's workforce hous- investment away From the city. ing poiicy. ing needs, was an amendment of the housing Large cities face housing shortages that The progmm. Under Boston's policy, any and zoning codes to create a moderetely threaten the economic and social well-being residential project that contains ten or more priced dwelling unit (MPDU) program. of their communities. In the a6sence of a units and, i) is financed by the City of Boston The progrom. Unlike many local inclu- coherent federal urban policy and significant or the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), sionary zoning ordinances, the Denver pro- federal funding for affordable housing, inclu• 2) is to 6e devetoped on property owned by gram covers new construction and existing sionary zoning provides large cities with a the city or BRA, or 3) requires zoning relief, buildings that are being remodeled to provide markei-based tool to address the need for a triggers the requirements of the program. Due dwelling units. Most programs cover new con- ~ wide range of housing options. to the antiquity of the city's zoning code, struction only. Existing developments that are nearly all residential developments over nine for-sale must include a io percent affordable LARGE-CITY CASE STUDIES units are covered by the executive order. component. Because of a state statute and a Since zooo, five major U.S. cities with popula- The Boston policy states that in all qualify- Colorado Supreme Court ruling prohibiting tions exceeding 400,000 people have ing developments, io percent oFthe housing local ordinances From Iimiting rent levels, adopted inclusionary housing progrems. units must be affordable. While the policy pro- Boston has an executive order requiring vides for off-site development of affordable developers to build affordable housing in new units, a developer who exercises this option developments, and Denver, San Francisco, must include a i5 percent (rather than io per- San Diego, and Sacramento have inclusionary cent) affordable component. This requirement housing ordinances that require affordable creates an incentive for developers to construct homes and apariments in new developments. the affordable units on-site. Boston's program These programs provide trail-blazing exam• also allows fora fee-imlieu paymentto BRA. r4~ M~ ~ 4; Y yf ples that other urban centers can follow. The results. In the initial year of implemen- tation, eight privately financed high-end housing Ia~~~` B o s t o n d e v e l o p m e n t s w e re s u b j e c t t o t h e p o l i c y eackground. The economic boom of the requirements. As a resuit, approximately 246 t~rf?'' (''i ; F.~~ i99os raised income levels for Boston area affordable units were constructed with many residents, but housing prices went even more in the pipeline. A total of $1.8 million in t Y higher, soaring at a double-digit pace. As com fees were coUected, with millions more commit- struction and land costs increased, gen[rifica- ted. New housing development continues to ~ tion spread from the central downtown areas boom in Boston, and development projects to surrounding neighborhoods, displacing remain lucrative, even with the affordable unit . moderate-income families. In addition, afford- set-aside requirement. Pleased with the results able-housing advocates said the city's unoffi- thus far, the city is now conducting a demonstra- p • ~ cial inclusionary housing program was failing tion project to see how a 15 percent affordability . . - to produce affordable units, pointing to two requirementwould work. • . ~ • ~ . . ~ ~ high-profile developments devoid of afford- • . . . . . ab(e housing. Boston's tight housing market, Denver . . • ~ . . . and pressure from community-based organi• Background. Denver has one of the newest zations and housing advocates, led Mayor inclusionary housing programs in the country. ZONINGPRACTICE 10.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIA770N I pOg2 3 • rental developments can voluntarily choose ro • price io percent of the units as affordatrle. . . , . , . • „ , . , . - . , , In addition to density bonuses, reduced parking, and an expedited review process, ThresAold: ten ormore units Incame TargeC at least onr D2f1V2! al50 prOVIdfS a C85h SUb51dy t0 d2V2lOp- hal(nfartordable units for Boston, MosadmsN4 246lncluslonary units com- nouseholds earning less ers for the affordable units (state law does not zooo pleted since xooo; than Bo perrent of the AMI; io Percent "Maximum allowable by allow the city to provide fee waivers). The 589,147 $1.8 mlllion In fees remalning affordable units law" for Denver ordinance permits the developer to build households eaming 8o- uo percent of the AMI, with the required affordable units off-site but within an average of too percent of the AMI the "same genera{" area. Instead of construct- ing the affordable units, developers also may contribute an in-lieu fee to the special revenue fireshold:3o unitsormare Denvn, Colondo Incomt TargeC 65 pertent of io percent of for•saie units or fund in an amount equal to 5o percent of the aooz 3395 units campleted since the AMI tor rental units and a wluntary io percent for i5 Years rice affordable unit not Cled. 554•676 2002 less than Bo percent oF [he rental units P Per PfOVi AMI (or for-sale units The resutGs. Denvers program stands out as the most successful to date for adty this , size. Since its passage in Zooz, the program has 7Areshold: any development produced (or is in the process of producingJ wer9 units Inmme Target: 25 Oerrent of 3,395 affordable units. To the surprise of city Sacnm"to,cauromu 649 units completed since theunitsmustbesetasideas staff, no Fee-in-lieu mone has been collected 2000 aooo; more in the pipeline aRordaEle.One-third of 25 Pertenl 30 years y 407,075 households making So-Bo thus far. Though Denver is considering a few percenl o(the AMI. Two-thirds of households making lezs fT11f10f ChBfI$25 t0 th2 PfOgr0rt1'5 IITPlEIT12Tlt3• Ihan So percentoflhe AMI tion, it is deemed a tremendous success. Furthermore, the program has not had a nega- Threshold: ten or morc units tive effect on develo ment levels in the ci . P tyIncome Taryet• rental units San Dlefo. GUfomla 1,=00 units completed are set aside for househalds 1992, expanded in 7003 6etwem 1992 and 2oo9; earnin6 at or below 65 Per• io Pe¢ent 55 Years Far r Sacremento 2,223.341 zoo units in [be pipeline cenl of the AMI; Fot-sale forsale units S300,000 in fees units are set aside for house- Background. In the i99os, SaC2RIEf1t0 fXP2f1• holds eaming at or below fflCOd SIgRIfiCBRt $lOVJth {fl f251d2iltldl 8tld COffl- ioo percent of the AMI mercial development on its periphery. The com- mercial development created new jobs for a variety of income levels, but the majority of residential fireshold: ten or nore units 128 units completed Inmme torgeh for rental development was upscale. To provide housing to San Fnnclsco, GliFomla between iggz and aooo; units, households eaming Sa years for rental and low- and moderate-income families near or within tg9z, expanded in 1002 450 unl[s mmpleted since go percmt or less of the lo percent for-sale units 776,733 zooz; 440 units in Ihe qMl; lor for•sale unlls, these job-rich areas, the city council explored an pipeline households earning ixo per- inclusionary housing progrem. Through the work of cent of the AMI a broad coalition of affordable-housing advocates, labor unions, neighborhood associations, environ• mental groups, minority-led efforts, faith-based ~a a sity bonus, developers aiso may receive organizations, and the local chamber of com- ~ expedited permit processing for the afford- ~y~~f merce, the cih~ council ^assed the Mixed-{ncome able units, fee waivers, relaxed design ~rs-xc ~7 r Housing Ordinance in zooo. guidelines, and priority status for available ` ~ ~~5}~.~s~~~ • ~ local, state, and federal housing funds. The pro gram. The ordinance applies to ali {y~~ F residential development over nine units in "new The resu(ts. The Sacramento ordi- growth areas," including large undeveloped nance is responsib(e for the creation of areas at the ciry's margins, newly annexed 649 units to date with more to come; areas, and large interior redevelopment areas. this ordinance has not had a negative The affordable requirement under the ordinance effect on development. is 15 percent of all units, which can be single or ~ m u l t i f a m i l y. F l e x i b i l i ty i n u n i t t y p e h e l p s d e v e l- S a n D i e g o opers determine a cost-effective way to con- e, Background. In 1992, San Diego voters imposed an inclusionary housing struct the affordable units. Sacramento provides a density bonus of 25 requirement in the North City Future percent, which follows the density bonus Urbanizing Area (FUA), a developing sec- required under Califomia law for certain types of tion of the city with no rental or afford- affordable developments. In addition to the den- able housing. The requirement reserves ZONINGPRACTICE 10.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIA710N I page 4 that included formerly skeptical developers. A market, the architects of the law were concemed detailed economic analysis of the potential that it might generete substantial fees and little impact of a citywide ordinance convinced devel- affordabte housing, but city staff are thus far opers that they would be able to do business pleased with the performance of the ordinance is[ be equal [o 15 per. the toWinumberoF under the new law. and say it has not stifled development. rate uNts times an No dtywide developer Immn• blehousingcosthttor None [Ives.butlntreasedheight The program. The ordinance requires all andFARallowancespermit. f251dEf1tlal deVEIO ments often or more units San Frencisco : may build oH•site, ted in the fnancial district p -aside requirement to include a io percent affordable housing Bockground. In 1992, San Francisco adopted a es [o i5 percent component. The FUA is exempt from the city- limited inclusionary housing program to address ~ SS,ooo reimbursemem for wide ordinance and will continue to adhere to the shortage ofaffordable housingforvery-low-~ . each for-sale uni4 up to 5a the 1992 FUA inclusionary zoning framework. and low-income residents. The 1992 ordinance ~ percmt of the Drire percent of [he fotal uni[s in rtdable unit not bulit the development; Sio,ooo Neither the 1992 FUA inclusionary zoning applied oniy to planned unit developments ~ Up to ao percent for single : allowed IFdeveloper /amilY units; uP toio Percent reimbursementForeach ordinance orthe 2003 citywide ordinance pro- (PUDs and Pro1ects reQuiring a conditional use ; [he same number of for mWtlfamily units affordable rental uNt I( unit ' ble units In the is priced forhauseholds at vides developers with incentives or cost offsets permit, neither ofwhich affected a substantial ~ general" area 5° Pe'ce"' °f'n° ^"`i . below; ezpedited permit for building affordable units. The city opted to not amount of residential development in the city. ~ process; parking reductions I ~ p • ~ W"" ~ 4 . ~ dicate land oR•site or fl-site if: r~ Expedited permit process For ~ r is insufficient land affordable units; fee walvers; is mulNhmily omsite 25 percent relaxed design guidelines: native land or units may receive priority For sub- = in'new growth" sldy funding . ~ ~ r d , culated 6ased on are footage of an ble uniL Fee es6etweenzoo3 F~o per - foot per None None foot developers can opt oR-site(seFaslde . , . , r~ a inaease) ~ f A I ermined by severai ncluding the p ro. °c ' F , alue olon-slte aHoM- [s; In•lieu paymentS •r e to Ihe Citywide ReFunds available on the -le Housing Fund None emGonmental review and °-y N developers wn 6uilding permi[ fees that -~y a build aHordable apply ro the aRordable unlts -site, hul the seo- 0 1 8 1 a ~ - • ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ' ~ • ~ ~ • . ~ . quirement increases , rcent ' ~ • ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • i ~ ~ zo percent of all new rental and for-sale offer cost offsets, such as fee waivers or density In )anuary zooz, the inclusionary zon- dwelling units for households earning 65 per- bonuses, because developers can easily cover ing ordinance was expanded to include all cent of the area median income (AMI). the cost ofaffordable units through the sale of residential projects of ten units or more, Developers must build affordable units market-rate units, according to an economic including live-work units. The progrem's because payment of a fee-in-lieu is not an analysis conducted forthe housing commission. expansion came in response to the ongoing option. According to San Diego planner Bill Developers can opt to make a fee-in•lieu affordable housing crisis and political pres- I Levin, the FUA's inclusionary zoning program payment, which is based on the square sure from community groups concerned produced i,zoo affordable units over the last footage of an affordable unit compared to the about the displacement of low-income decade. Development has continued rapidly in gross square footage of the entire project. households as a consequence to rising the FUA. The city estimates that i,zoo addi- Upon approval from the plan commission and property values and unattainable live-work tional affordable units will be produced before the city council, the inclusionary housing units. Live-work units starting at $300,000 the FUA is completely built out. requirements also can be satisfied by provid• in the mid-i99os had reached $700,00o by In July 2003, San Diego adopted a citywide ing the same number of units at another site the end of the decade. inclusionary zoning ordinance. The effort to pass within the same community p(anning area. The program. Under the new ordinance, ~ • the ordinance was based on the success of the The resu(ts. Under the citywide law, zoo io percent of the units in a residential devel- ~ FUA progrem, the rising demand for affordable affordable units are in the development opment of ten or more units must be afford- i housing for many groups, and the recommenda- pipeline, and $300,000 in fees has been col- able. The affordabie requirement iumps to 15 ; tion of an inclusionary zoning working group lected. Because of the robust San Diego housing percent if the units are provided off-site. PUDs i I ZONINGPRACTICE 10.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 5 , • and developments that require a conditional centers, encouraging sprawl and exacerbating its program so that two-thirds of the housing use permit are subject to a iz percent afford- affordability problems. Evidence from the five units produced will serve very•low•income able component, increasing to 17 percent iF cities proFled in this article, including inter- households (households below 50 percent of the affordable units are built off-site. views with planning staff, shows this to be the AMI). One•third of the housing units pro- San Francisco offers minimal developer unlikely. City staff in San Francisco report that duced serve households at or below 8o per- incentives. Incentives are limited to refunds the overall pace of development has actually cent of the AMI. on the environmental review and building per• accelerated since passage of the mandatory Denver and Sacramento provide devel- mit fees for the portion of the housing project inclusionary housing ordinance-not surpris- opers with some flexi6ility in complying with that is priced affordably. Developers can make ing considering the broad experience of inclu- these eligibility requirements. Denver devel- fee•in-lieu payments to the Citywide sionary housing programs across the country. opments that are taller than three stories, Affordable Housing Fund instead of building In fact, analytical studies, anecdotal evidence, equipped with elevators, and where over 60 the units. The amount of the fee is determined and developer and communiry reaction from percent of the parking is in a parking struc- by several factors, including the projected communities nationwide indicate that inclu- ture may have affordabie for-sale units value of the affordable units iF the developer sionary housing programs have not caused priced up to 95 percent of the AMI and constructed them on-site. overall levels of development to slow. rental units up to 8o percent of the AMI. In The results. Since the adoption of com- Sacramento, on small projects (less than 5 prehensive inciusionary zoning in aooz, the Large-city administrators acres), a developer may meet the inclusion- program has generated 45o affordable homes ary obligation by pricing all of the affordable and apartments with approximately qqo more must not buy into the homes at or below So percent of the AMI if units in the development pipeline. Planning all the homes are for-sale units and on-site. staff report an increase in development activ- R115C011C2pt1011 tI18t In addition, with special approval, small ity since passage of the ordinance. IIIClUSi011at')I I10U5111g WIIl condominium developers may price two- thirds of the affordable units below 8o per- BENEFITS drive development cent ofthe AMI and one-third ofthe afford- Though large cities are newcomers to inclu• able units below 50 percent of the AMI. . ~ sionary zoning, three valuable benefits can be out of urban centers. Programs in large cities also can create a seen from the experience thus far. Frst, inclu- mix of income levels, with some units going to sionary zoning is a highly versatile policy tool Three of the cities profiled provide little moderate•income households and others to that can be used effectively in large cities, in the way of cost offsets to developers. Most low-income households, as is done in Boston affluent suburbs, and smaller communities. inclusionary housing programs include den- and San Diego. Fnally, a large city can success- Second, inclusionary housing programs, when sity bonuses, flexible zoning, fee waivers, an f411y use an inclusionary housing ordinance for properly designed, will not chill development expedited permitting process, or other bene- moderate- to middle-income residents, as in in large urban centers. Third, inclusionary zon- fits to help developers offset the cost of pro- San Francisco, which sets the highest income ing can successfully serve a broad range of ducing affordable homes. The San Diego, San targets of the five cities profiled. income levels and populations in need of Francisco, and Boston programs appear to be affordable housing in urban centers. working quite well despite offering little or no NOT JUST fOR SUBURBS AND Versotility. Given both the poor prospects cost offsets. Denver and Sacremento provide SMALL CITIES ANYMORE for a renewed federal commitment to afford- a generous list of offsets, and on balance, After decades of decline, American cities are able housing and the proven success of inclu- have created more affordable units (which on the rebound. But continued success cannot sionary zoning programs around the country, could be attributed to many factors independ- be taken for granted. Ensuring the future more cities with higher-cost housing markets ent of the indusionary ordinance) than their growth and vitality of large urban centers should feel emboldened to explore inclusiom counterparts. This fact demonstrates the ta- a housin ''~t ry g programs. The cities profiled in importance of carefully examining and under- this article have successfully created many new standing the local housing market when units of affordable housing (or collected com- designing a progrem. I K"` VAL Parable fees-in•lieu) usinS a variety of Wha Is beln9 served? Indusionary hous- approaches with cost offsets, income levels, ing programs in large cities can be a flexible a n d a d m i n i s t re t i o n, d e m o n s t r a t i n g a h i g h l y t o o l s e rvi n g a w i d e v a r i e t y o f i n c o m e l e v e l s. A versatile tool that can be tailored to meet the large•city program need not serve only house- , ~ ~ y~'`"~^--~ `~'=r sPecific needs of cities larSe and small, holds at or near ioo Percent of the median . , . ~ . E( fec t on deve lopmen t nn d cos t o( fse tr. income. Denver, t he mos t pro duc tive o f t he .~;c;. . Large-city administrators must not buy into large•city programs, provides for the "deep- a the misconception that inclusionary housing est" income targeting, primarily serving - ~ will only work in large-tract, suburban subdivi• households at 65 percent of the AMI in rental ~ sions, and that indusionary zoning require- units and 8o percent of the AMI for owner- ments wiU drive development out of urban occupied units. Similarly, Sacramento targets ZONINGPRACTICE 10.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I pag¢ 6 ~ ~ requires deliberate policies and significant The authorthonks Lauren Gold6erg ond ingly, vacation homes of wealthy New Yorkers political wiit. Census data for 2003 show that lessico Webster for hours of research, inter- inFlate area home values, and encroaching cities such as Chicago, which saw population viewing, and writing that contributed to this sprawl from the metro area exacerbates the gains from 1990 to zooo, have again begun article; Susannah Levine and Ellen Elios for problem. Though development translates into losing population to suburbs with better editing assistance; David Rusk and Teresa property tax revenues for the affected Long housing options for working-class house- Ojeda at the City of San Francrsco; and Bever(y Isiand towns, it also forces many people to holds. Large U.S. cities must preserve afford• Fretz-Brown and Emi(y Hottle af the City o/ live elsewhere. Town officials say the afford- ability for a broad range of income levels if Sacramento /orassistonce in providing photo• able housing shortage is a threat to the local they wish to maintain and enhance their place graphs for this article. economy, as workers in lower-paying jobs in thegiobal economy and provide a desirable simply cannot afford to live in the area. Even environment for moderate-income house- MNEWS Horton commutes to work from a nearby town h°'ds. B R I E FS because Southold is too expensive. Offcials Inclusionary housing is working in the hope the ordinance will combat gentrification cities profiled in this article and elsewhere. AFFORDABLE HOUSING GETS HUGE BO05T ON and attract young professionals and families Though a versatile tool in the creation of LONG ISIAND who may not otherwise be able to afford a affordable housing without having to use ByJosh Edwords home in Southhold. major public subsidies, inclusionary housing In August, Southold, NewYork, passed an Copies ofthe Southhold, NewYork, afford- programs cannot be the only answer to hous- ordinance requiring developers to set aside abie housing ordinance, and the ordinance ing needs. Until there is a more effective 25 percent of the new units as affordable establishing the affordable housing fund, are option, inclusionary zoning does offer U.S. housing for every subdivision over five units. available to Zoning Pradice subscribers by con- cities a market-based policy tool that can help The ordinance passed unanimously with tacting the Ptanning Advisory Service (PAS) at with this critical effort. strong support from both residents and devel- placeaninquiry@planning.org. A selection of inclusionary housing opers. Lacking any loopholes, the ordinance losh Edwards is a researcher with the ordinances featured in this article is avail• will require the highest percentage of afford- American Plnnning Association in Chicago. abfe to Zoning Practice subscribers by con• able units on Long Island, a measure ~ tacting the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) intended to help stem the alarming affordable at placeaninquiry@planning.org. housing shortage in this mostly affluent east• . em section ofthe island. ~ After months of refinement, the board nq~~ ~ . . . . . . agreed on the details: one quarter of all units tJ Z.. Fl. must be affordable to individuats or families i~' ~ ; y?, y , ~ earning a t or be low 8o percen t o f t he me dian .1% income for the eounty, which is $68,250. In VOL. zs, N0. ia May, Sou t ho l d approve d a housing fun d t o Zoni n g P m c t i c e ( form e r l y Z o n i n g N e w s) i s a m o n t h l y r r acCOmpany the ordinance. Funds wiU be distrib- publicatian of theAmerican PlanningAssociation. uted in the Form of grants and low• and no-inter- Subscriptions are available for $65 (U.S.) and $90 (for- est loans for income-eligible residents for eign). W. Paul Farmer, eicr, Executive Director; wiuiam R. affordable units and will also be used directly Klein, nicP, oirector of Research. for the creation of affordable housing. Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548-0195) is pToduced at APA. Jim Developers who choose not to meet the 25 per- Schwab, nica, and Mithael Davidson, Editors; Barry Bain, cent requirement must pay a fee toward the mca, Fay Dolnick, )osh Edwards, Megan Lewis, AICP, Marya housing fund to subsidize affordable units else- Morris, AICP, Rebecca Retzlaff, aca, Lynn M. Ross, 5arah K. where in town. Southold is using the fund to Wiebenson, Reporters; Kathleen Quirsfeld, Assistant Editor; ensure that affordable uniis remain perma- Lisa Barton, Design and Production. ~ ~ nently affordable. Affordable units are resold to Copyright @zooq by American Planning Association, 122 ~ ~ the housing fund at market-rate prices. Buyers S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, il 60603. The ' ' then purChase the units from the housing fund American Planning Association also has offices at 1776 ~ ~ ~ ~ at the lower subsidized price. Massachusetcs nve., N.w., washington, DC 20036; County Supervisor Joshua Horton www.planning.Org, ' ' describes the affordable housing ordinance All rights reserved. No part oFthis publication may be repro- as "a giant step forwafd" and nOtes that duced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or ' ' ' SOUthold and othef neafby COmmUnities haVe mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ • ' ~ • • ~ ' reached a crisis point as home prices escalate information storage and retrieval system, without permis• beyond the reaCh of most prospective resi- sion in writing from the American Planning Association. dents. The average home price in Southoid Printed on retycled paper, including 50•70% recycled surpassed $500,00o in 2003. Not surpris- fiherand io% postconsumer waste. ZONINGPRACTICE 10.04 _ AMERICAN PIANNING ASSOCIATION I pag! 7 / • • ~ 1 ' • ' ~ 1 • ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , • ' ~ ~ / ~i ~l t ~k t pk1 ~ ~ .n . . . ~ il . . . . . . . t,.,. . . . . . ~ . . . a . . . . . ~ . . . . . , y. . , . I y . . _ . . . < . ~ . , . . . . ~ ~ . ~ - - . . . , • . ~ h~ ~ ; . ~ ~ y . . 'Ak a ~ ~ q ~ t 7 ! -t1 ° . ~ . t k • 1 t W , , ~ , . ~ I ~ , My 1 . Y ~t . k d e ~ . , ~ , • ; . ~ Zoning to Expand Affordable Housing By/effrey Lubel( Despite a recent slowdown in home sales, working families continue to struggle to find affordable homes-both rental and for sale-in communities around the country. - • r'+` ' r challenge facing working families and the range of policy options available to state and . Ar local leaders seeking to address it. Following this overview, the article examines the poten- ~°a= tial of each ofthe three zoning policies to increase the availability of homes affordable to working families. The article condudes with brief suggestions on how to build on these ~ policy proposals to launch a comprehensive and coordinated effort to meet a community's need for affordable homes. ~ HOUSING CHALLENGES FACIN6 - WORKING FAMILIES - According to Barbara J. Lipman, author of The Nousing Londscape farAmerica's Working ; Families, a publication ofthe D.C.-based E Center for Housing Policy, five million working ~ families nationwide had critical housing ~ ~ • ~ • ~ • • . ~ needs in 2003-an increase of 6o percent since 1997. For purposes of this calculation, The problem has grown to the point where it is cannot solve this problem alone, there are a "WOrking families" are defined as families no longer of concern only to the affected fami- num6er of steps they can take to make a mate- With earnings equal to at least full-time mini• lies, but also to the communities in which they rial difference in increasing the availability of mum wage work but less than 120 percent of live or wish to live. homes affordable to working families. area median income. These tabulations of Communities that cannot provide afford- This issue of Zoning Practice highlights data from the 2003 American Housing Survey able homes for teachers, nurses, fire fighters, three zoning tools used by communities to are the most recent available. Updated tabula- police officers, and other essential workers are increase the availability of affordable homes: tions will be available in early to mid-2007. at a competitive disadvantage in attracting • Revising zoning policies to make more land The vast majority of these families spent half dedicated workers for these positions. Sim- available for residential use and increase or more of their monthly incomes on the costs ilarly, employers will be less likely to stay in or allowable densities within residential zones. of owning or renting a home. Others had criti- relocate to communities that cannot provide • Adopting zoning policies that support a cal housing needs because they lived in an adequate supply of homes that are afford- diversity of housing types, including multifam- homes with severe physical problems, such as able to their workers. ily, accessory dwelling units, and manufac- lack of reliable plumbing or heating. Providing affordable homes is a major tured homes. Millions of additional working families • challenge that requires multiple responses by a • Establishing inclusionary zoning require- have moderate housing cost burdens or can variety of actors at the federal, state, and local ments or incentives. only afford to live far from their places of work, levels. While city planners, zoning board offi- To set these tools in context, we start by forcing them to endure long commutes and cials, and others involved in the zoning process reviewing the scope of the affordable housing spend much oftheir housing cost savings on ZONINGPRACTICE 12.06 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I poge 2 I • ASK THE A i' • ONLINE! . . . . . , , , . o interactive , g . available , answer . . Housing •o , , , , o . . www.planning.org , , . . the National Housing . - , A - Author sectioti. . submit . . .o . D.C. This article is b. o reply, . o . o.d• o . . omising state and locat . web5ite forthe . . b• available . housing policies by the same autho •d Increasing selected . . . • . . Availability . . - . . . . . saved . . • through • A•A Zoning . . Local . . accom- Practice pages. p . -d . d co -d jointly . or Housing Poticy . Homes . orking Families. Tho www.homesforworkingfamiiies.org . www.nhc.org. according to Lipman's 2oo6 OPTIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL and addressing the regulatory barriers that report for the Center For Housing Policy, A Heavy GOVERNMENTS drive up costs, such as overly restrictive zon- Load: The Combined Housingand Transporta- State and local governments can choose from ing rules and building codes and regressive tion Burdens ofWor/cing families. These prob- six principai options to increase the availabil- fees, state and local governments can cut lems undermine the well-being of both the ity of affordable homes. through the red tape and expand the supply affected families and the communities in which Erpand theovaila6ilityofsites/orthe of affordable homes. they live or wish to live. Families that cannot developmentofafforda6le homes. In most com- Harness the power of strong housing afford the costs of their homes may be only one munities where homes are fiscally out of reach marketr. The greatest housing challenges are paycheck away from foreclosure or eviction. for working families, land is expensive. By mak- found in hot housing markets where the costs • They also may have insufficient income left over ing publicly owned land and tax-delinquent of buying or renting a home increase much to afford necessary food, health, and education properties availabie forthe development of faster than incomes. Fortunately, state and expenses, leading to adverse nutrition, health, affordable homes, local governments can neu- local governments can take steps to capitalize and education outcomes for their children. Such tralize this obstacie. Local governments also on strong markets to expand the supply of problems are compounded by the stress of con- can expand the supply of sites for new develop- affordable homes. These policies inciude tinually struggling to meet unafFordable housing ment through changes in zoning rules or maps strategies for tapping the increased tax rev- costs and the high cost and lost time with fam- that make new areas available for development enue associated with increases i n property ily associated with lengthy commutes. or expand the number of homes that can be values and an active real estate market, as For many communities, the high cost of built in existing residential areas. well as incentivizing or requiring the develop- homes makes it difficult or impossible for ment of a modest number of affordable police officers, fire fighters, ana ocner es5en- For many com munities, homes as part of the process of developing tia( workers to live in the communities they the high cost of homes more expensive homes. serve, reducing their capacity to respond Generate additional capital fora(ford- promptlyto emergencysituations and to par- maICe5 It CJIffiCUlt OC oble homes. While successful efforts to ticipate in community life after 5 p.m. The i mpossible for police reduce regulatory barriers can help expand high cost of homes also makes it difficult for the supply of affordable homes, in many com- officers, fire fighters, and munities additional resourceswill be needed communities to attract teachers, nurses, and othervaluable community servants and for other essential worlcers to to bringthe price of homes within reach of employers to attract the workers they need to working families. There is a range of promis- sustain and grow their businesses live in the communities ing approaches for generating revenue for this . These are serious problems. But fortu- tI12y SeCVE. purpose, including leveraging additional fed- nately, there is a wealth of experience in how to eral funds through the four percent low- address them. While in earlier decades the fed- Reduce red tape and other regulatory income housing tax credit program, support- eral government may have taken the lead in barrlers to o(forda6le homes. In the develop- ing the issuance of general obligation bonds developing solutions, the focus of decision ment worid, time is money. The longer it takes for affordable homes, and tapping employer making today is at the state and local level. to gain the necessary approvals to build a interest in providing homes for their workers. • Many promising strategies exist for municipal home, and the more uncertainty involved in preserve and recycle resources fora(J`ord- leaders-including a number of policies that rely the approval process, the higher the costs of oble homes. Given the limited availability of on the zoning process-to expand the availabil- newly built or renovated homes. By expediting public funds for affordable homes, it is essen- ity of affordable homes for working families. the approval process for affordable homes tial that funding be used in a cost-effective ZONINGPRACTICE 12.06 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 1p09e 3 ~ existing home owners retain their home owner- AND LOCAL HOUSING SOLUTIO ship status in the face of confusing mortgage products, rising interest rates, and rising prop- ~ erty taxes. Expand theAvaitability of Sites for Affordabte Homes • Make publicty owned fartd available for affordable homes. ZONING TOOLS • Facilitate the ?euse ofvacant, abandoned, tax-delinquent properties. The pages that follow focus on three zoning • Expand the supply of homes through rezonings that make more land available for tools for meeting the need for affordable residential use and inctease allowable densities within residentiat zones. homes. The sidebar on the left has a more Reduce Red Tape and Other Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Homes exhaustive list of high-impact local and state • Ensure that zoning policies support a diversity of housing types, including multifamify, strategies. acces5ory dwelling units, and manutactured homes. Rezoning. Communities can expand the • Adopt expedited permitting and review poticies, supply of homes through rezonings that make • Revise impad fee structure to reduce the burden on families occupying smaller, less- more land available for residential use or expeRSive homes. increase allowable densities within residential • Adopt building codes that facilitate rehabilitation of existing structures. zones. As noted above, one of the biggest chal- Harness the Power of SYrong Housing Markets lenges involved in building affordable homes in • Utilize tax increment financing to fund affordable homes. hot housing markets is fnding reasonably • Stimulate rental home construction and rehabilitation through tax abatements. priced sites for development. By determining • Create or expand dedicated housing trust funds. what land is available for residential develop- • Establish indusionary zoning requirements or incentives. ment, and the densiry with which homes may be built in areas zoned for residential use, zon- • Use cross-subsidies to support m+xed income housing. ing polic+es obviously have a direct bearing on Generate Additional Capitatfor Affordable Homes the availability of sites for development. The • Expand utifization of four percen[ tow-income housing iax credits. more sites that are available, the lower the • • Provide pre-development, acquisition, and working capital financing. costs, and thus the greater tikelihood of a well- I • Support housing bond issues. functioning housing market capable of produc- • Ensure that housing finance agency reserves are used for affordable homes, ing homes affordabfe to working families. • Tap and foster emptoyer interest in affordable homes for their workers. By revising zoning policies to make land Preserve and Recycte Resources for Affordable Homes available for residential development that is • Preserve affordable rental homes. not currently zoned for that use, some locali- • Recycle downpayment assistance. ties have successfully increased the supply of • Use shared equiry mechanisms to create and preserve a housing stock affordabte to land for new development. Localities also famiiies with e mix of incomes. have expanded the supply of homes by increasing (in appropriate locat+ons) the Empower Residents to Purcfiase and Retain Private Market Homes aflowable densities within residential areas. • Expand home ownershlp education and counseling, including credit counseling. For example, Fairfax County, Virginia, • Help moderate income home owners avoid foredoser and equity loss. recently approved a plan to rezone an area near the Vienna Metro stop to substantially increase densities. By combining an older manner designed to produce the maximum ben- overwhelmingly on expanding the supply of low-density subdivision that contained efits for the minimum cost. Providing funds to homes. But there is also a"demand" side to the approximately 65 single-family homes with help preserve existing affordable homes that equation. To the extent that families have ade- five acres that had previously been used for might otherwise deteriorate due to neglect or be quate incomes and credit to afford private-mar- surface parking, the MetroWest redevelop- lost from the afFordable inventory through gen- ket homes, the need for government interven- ment plan wili provide approximately 2,250 trification is one particularly cost-effective strat- tion to provide affordable homes is greatly condominiums, apartments, and townhouses egy. Others include recycling down payment reduced. One demand-side strategy within the afong with two acres of structared parking, uf assistance by providing assistance in the form domain of housing policy is to invest in home to 300,000 square feet of office space, and u of loans rather than grants and the use of ownership education and counseling fhat help to 19o,ooo square feet of retail space. During "shared equity" strategies that help preserve families navigate the complicated home buying negotiations over the proposed MetroWest the buying power ofgovernment subsidies for process and improve their credit and debt pro- development with developer Pulte Homes, • homeownership in markets with rapidly appreci• file so they can access more private-market Fairfax County secured a promise that approx ating home prices. mortgage capital at reasonable rates. Given the mately five percent of the homes would be fmpowerresidents to purchase and retain rise of foredosures in certain markets, it is affordable-almost double the number private-markethomes. As a group, the polic+es important to marry this "pre-purchase" strategy required under current Fairfax County require described in the first five roles have focused with a"post-purchase" one designed to help ments for developments of this density. ZONINGPRACTICE 12.06 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I PaS I • New York City took a similar approach in To yield meaningful benefits for home af- neighborhoods, increasing the ridership for the comprehensive rezoning of Greenpoint- fordability, such strategies generally need to be public transit, and providing homes for Williamsburg in May 2oo5. As described by implemented either on a broad enough scale to working families near where they work-cut- the city, the rezoning "sets the stage for the significantly increase the supply of homes or in ting down on traffic congestion and improv- renewal of a vacant and underutilized stretch a manner designed specifically to lead to the ing job retention. Many of the higher-end of the Brooklyn waterfronY.... It reclaims two produciion of additional affordable homes, manufacYured homes can no longer be dis- miles of long-neglected East River waterfront such as through inclusionary zoning require- tinguished from stick-built homes, yet cost to create over 5o acres of open space, includ- ments or incentives. The latter approach is dis- thousands less. Finally, accessory dwellings- ing a continuous public esplanade and a new cussed later in this artide. smaller homes that are built next to or as 28-acre park surrounding the Bushwick Inlet. Zoning fora vnriety o/housing rypes. part of a principal home-can be an excel- The plan creates new opportunities for thou• Many communities have zoning policies that lent way to provide affordable homes for sands of units of much-needed housing, either directly restrict or have the effect of parents or caretakers of the principal resi- including affordable housing, within a restricting (for example, through infeasible park- dents or to provide opportunities to expand detailed urban design plan that addresses the ing requirements) the construction of new multi- the supply of rental homes while generating scale of the existing neighborhoods." family homes, manufactured homes, or acces- income for the owners. The zoning plan includes a voluntary sory dwelling units. Because each ofthese Auburn Court, in Cambridge, inclusionary housing program that provides housingtypes can be used to construct homes Massachusetts, is a good example of an attractive mixed income development that provides 137 homes in a multifamily setting ~ sm spread out along three garden courtyard ~ residential 6locks. Established as part of a 9i's a~ D the larger University Park development on a r'p~ land assembled b y the Massachuset t s Institute ofTechnologY, Aubum Court con- ' sists of a mix of one-, two-, and three-bed- ~ *~a; • f ~ room rental homes distributed among fiats ~ i and duplexes. Most buildinBs in the devel- i ~ opment are three stories, though several rise up to six stories to frame the entrance to University Park. With half the homes affordable to families with incomes below 50 percent of the area median, and other homes either at market rate or affordable to families at 9o percent of the area median income, Auburn Court was featured as part k,~7 of a recent National Building Museum = exhibit on affordable homes. fi. q Many people are familiar with the use of manufactured homes in rural settings, but Oakland Community Housing Inc. [CaliFornia] a density bonus and tax abatements to that are less expensive than detached, single- demonstrates that they also have a place in developers that agree to certain affordability family homes, such policies tend to make the city. As part of their infill homeownership restrictions. Initial reports show a strong homes more expensive for working families. initiative, they have produced both single- take-up of these incentives. According to On the other hand, by adopting zoning family detached homes (the "E" Street proj- Mayor Bloomberg's lune 26, 2oo6, press policies that maximize the availability of ect) and multistory town homes (the Linden release, "The plan will spur io,8oo new these housing types, communities can both Terrace project). units of much-needed housing, and through expand the supply of affordable homes and Both Santa Rosa, California, and Mercer a powerful combination of zoning incen- meet a wider range of their constituents' Island, Washington, use accessory dwelling tives, housing programs, and city-owned needs. units as a strategy for expanding the supply land, 3,500 of those units will be affordable. In recent years, tremendous advances of affordable homes. In Santa Rosa, accessory One year after the rezoning was enacted have been made in the design of both multi- dwelling units are typically incorporated into there are already i,ooo affordable units in family and manufactured homes. When well new developments, such as Courtside Village, ~ the pipeline for near-term construction on designed, both types are of extremely high a pedestrian-friendly mixed use development the waterfront alone. That'S 64 percent of quality and Fit in well into the community. that indudes ioo accessory units. In Mercer the rezoning estimate of 1,563 affordable Multifamily homes can add value to commu- Island, officials have streamlined the permit- units on the waterfront." nities by helping to revitalize distressed ting process and launched a pubiic education ZONINGPRACTICE 12.06 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I Pa9e 5 , • and information program to promote acces- developers received a density bonus a(lowing notably Massachusetts and New )ersey-have sory units. The Transportation and Land Use them to build up to 22 percent more homes enacted statewide laws that achieve similar Coalition reports that Santa Rosa's strategy than otherwise permitted. The affordable effects. produces about 39 to 47 new accessory units homes were required to remain affordable for White a complete analysis of this compli• each year, while Mercer Island produced zo years. While the Montgomery County ordi- cated subject is beyond the scope of this arti- about 173 accessory units between 1995 and nance has been modified many times over the cle, the following are some of the key issues zooy. years, it has endured and produced more than for communities to consider; None of these strategies would be possi- 12,000 moderately priced homes through • Equity. Advocates of inclusionary zoning ble without zoning policies that ailow reason- 2005, including 8,527 for-sale homes and argue that because land is in limited supply able use of a diverse range of housing types 3,52o rental homes. and the price of homes in high-cost markets to expand choices and ensure the availability Since that time, numerous other jurisdic- are so out of reach of working families, inclu- of homes affordable to working families. tions have adopted inclusionary zoning, espe- sionary zoning is the only cost-effective way of Inclusionarymningrequirementsor cially in high-cost markets such as California, ensuring theproduction of homes affordable incentlves. Few housing policies have generated According to a survey conducted by the to working families. Opponents, on the other as much attention (and in many communities, California Coalition for Rural Housing and the hand, argue that it is unfair for the govern- controversy) in recentyears as inclusionary zon- Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern ment to require one class oFindividuals (prop- ing. Inclusionary zoning generally involves a California, as of 2003, 107 cities and counties erty owners) to subsidize the public good of requirement or an incentive for developers to had adopted inclusionary zoning within the affordable homes. indude a modest percentage of affordable state, producing more than 34,00o affordable • Incentives/Offsets. Consensus around the homes within newly created developments. This for-sale and rental homes. An updated survey adoption of inclusionary zoning is generally is one way of harnessing the power ofthe mar- was recently conducted and is presently in the easier to achieve when we(l-crafted incen- ket to produce affordable homes. process of being analyzed; it is expected to tives (also known as offsets) are included to The nation's first inclusionary zoning (aw revea[ numerous additional jurisdictions in compensate property owners and develop- ers for the foregone revenue associated with producing homes at below-market prices or rents. By ensuring that development contin- i. ues to be an attractive financial proposition, weii•crafted incentives are also likely to blunt the critique offered by some critics that inclusionary zoning policies may lead to an increase in the price of market-rate hous- ing or a decrease in the supply of market- rate housing in the area (because deveiop- ers do not want to build there). The most common and effective incentive/offset is a density bonus to allow the production of more homes than would normally be permit- ~ ted under the jurisdidion's zoning rules. Another useful incentive is to provide devel- _ opers proposing projects that meet speci- - fied affordability guidelines with a fast-track approval process or preapproval to buitd "as of right." When inclusionary zoning facili- - tates an increase in density in otherwise low-density areas, greater speed and cer- tainty in the approvals process, and more affordable homes, all stakeholders benefit. • Process Matters. Consensus is more likely to be achieved when the process for develop- was enacted in the 197os in Montgomery California that have adopted inclusionary zon- ing recommendations inciudes both devefop- County, Maryland. The law specified that in ing and more complete totals of affordable ers and advocates. It also helps to "get into any new housing development including 50 or homes produced. the numbers," examining the real-world ~ more homes, at least 12.5 to 15 percent must Inclusionary zoning ordinances also impact of various proposed policies and off- be made affordable to families with incomes have been passed in Washington D.C., fairfax sets and the appiicability of the proposed at or below 65 percent of the area median County, Virginia, and many communities in policies to (ocal market conditions and hous- income. In exchange for this requirement, and around Boston. A number of states- ing needs. ZONINGPRACTICE 12.06 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I poge 6 . ~ • ~ ~ locai housing authority or other public entity to sive approach to solving a community's hous- purchase a portion of the affordable homes, as ing challenges. STRATEGY _ is the case in both Montgomery and Fairfax • Assess housing needs and resources Counties. After purchasing the homes, the STRATEGY DEVEtOPMENT AND SUPPORT • Know your market housing authorities can combine them with The three policies outlined here demonstrate other subsidies to make them affordable to the potential of the zoning process to expand Be comprehensive lawer income families. (or restrict) the availability of affordable homes. • Foster interagenry collaboration • Duration ofAffordability. One of the limita- Each of these individual approaches is likely to ~ Exerciseieadership tions of many inclusionary zoning ordinances yield improvement, but the benefits would be is that they guarantee affordability for only a maximized by adopting all three at once-ide- • Set arrd'tratk progress toward goals (imited time period. While 15 or zo years may ally as part of a comprehensive and strategic ~ Proactively plan €or future groWth seem like a long time, such affordabiliry peri• approach to meeting a communiry's need for • 8uild pubfic support foraftordable ods limit the effectiveness of inclusionary affordable homes. housirig zoning policies in contributing to a lasting While space does not permit a thor- ~ Create open lines of communication increase in affordable housing opportunities ough diswssion of the process of develop- for moderate income fami(ies. They also make ing and supporting a housing strategy for • lnvo[ve the business community ' it harder to preserve mixed income communi- working families, the list at the left provides • trtsrstorl'excellent des+grt t+es over time. As diswssed in greater detail a brief list of many of the key elements. To •.'Promote a mix aEincomes = in the analysis on which this artide is based, the extent that communities can initiative a • ContinualEy evaluate artd refrne yaur a number of solutions exist to extend the broad and comprehensive process for exam- strategies, . affordability period indefnitely, while still ining their needs, and bring the fuU array of ensuring opportunities for individual asset resources and agencies to the table to meet • Think toca!!y and regionatly growth. Such solutrons are generally prefer- those needs, they are more likely to gain able to more limited affordability periods. support for needed changes and more likely • On-site vs. Off-site. Some advocates of to develop effective strategies for increasing . • Voluntary vs. Mandatory. The consensus indusionary zoning insist that each develop- the availability of homes affordable to work- view of practitioners working in this area is ment include a percentage of affordable ing families. that mandatory requirements work better than homes. Others befieve it is sensibfe to aliow voluntary policies that rely entirely on incen- developers to provide an equivalent number o. photo: www.istockimages.com On the other hand, New York City of homes off-site or pay a fee in lieu of provid- ~ ~ appears to have had signiFcant take•up of its ing on-site affordable homes, with funds to be voluntary incfusionary housing incentives for used to develop affordable homes elsewhere Greenpoint-Williamsburg. Chicago has a cross in the community. In general, it appears easier VOL. 23, N0. az between voluntary and mandatory policies, to gain consensus around inclusionary poli- 2oning Pract;ce is a monthly pubtication of the with the policy optional for those develop- cies that permit ofP-site affordability or in-lieu American Planning Association. Subscriptivns are ments that do not seek financial assistance fees. This approach also may increase the avaitable for $75 (U.S.) and Sioo (foreign). W. from the city, but mandatory for those that do. number of affordable homes constructed by Pau[ Farmer, rnicv, Executive Director; Wiitiam R. Klein, a,ca, Diretto~ of Research. It remains to be seen whether the voluntary shifting the production of affordable homes to approach can be extended effectively to other sites with lower land and Production costs. Z°nmg Practice (ISSN 1548-0135) is produced at ~im Schwab, AICP, Editor; Michael Davidson, contexts. • Market variations. IC is important to be sen- APA. Guest Editor; lulie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; • Target Income Levels. In general, inclusion- sitive to market realities. lnclusionary zoning Lisa Barton, Design and Production. ary zoning appears better suited to producing mandates probably do not make a lot of sense Copyrrght 02oo6 byAmeritan Planning homes affordable to families with moderate for declining neighborhoods struggling to at- Association, izz S. Michigan Ave., Suite 16oo, income than families with very low incomes. tract any development whatsoever. While Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning This is due both to the economics-moderate inclusionary zoning is like(y to be more eFfec- Association also has offices at 1776 income families can afford to pay more than tive in hot markets, it will likely be most effec- MassachusetYs Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. very low•income fami(ies, meaning there is tive if enacted while there is still a significant 20036; www.planning.org. less foregone revenue associated with those number of developable parcels. Interested All rights reserved. No part of this pu6lication homes-and the fact that inclusionary zoning communities should try to anticipate areas of may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by Is more feasibte politicdlly when focused on future growth. any means, electronic or mechanical, induding moderate income families. • Re(ation to ofher housing strategies. While Photocopying, recording, or by any information To ensure that very low-income families inclusionarY zoning is a promising tool for har- storage and retrieval system, without Permission • have access to some ofthe for-sale or rental nessing strong markets to produce affordable in writing From the American Planning homes produced through inclusionary zoning homes, it is not a PanaCea. Inclusionary hous- Association. recycied paper, including 50-70% recy- policies, jurisdictions may want to authorize a ing policies will ultimately be most effective if Printed they are part of a larger and more comprehen- cled fiber on and io % ZONING postconsumer PRACTICE waste. 12.06 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOQATION I poge 2, WNINGPRACTICE PROFIT ORG. AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOClATION U.S. POSTAGE PAID ' izz S. Michigan Ave. CHICJ~Q, IL ~ PERMIT#43b2 Suite 16oo Chicago, il 60603 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington D.C. 20036 ~ Z , S oeY+,Wr", ""AUTd""ALL FOR ADC 800 , O 018571 IAI-D Georgs G. Rutlher, AICP Tovm af Vall Cmty Davel Dept. 76 8 Frontsga Rd 1N Vall CQ 81667-6043 , ~ r.- ~ y;. ~ I . , ~ I I . I , n, . . a . a. . . Y~ I F •3, V: y . 4 , M1 Fr,~ Y..9 Vail Valley Medical Center ~ Extraordinary people. Extraordinary mre. - • . _ February 21, 2007 Vail Town Council FEB 23 2007 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Council Members, The Vail Valley Medical Center (WMC) has been a long standing member of the Vail community and prides itself on its historical development and being a provider of progressive healthcare for the region. VVMC has been able to not only meet the needs of its local community, but has been able to attract patients internationally as we11. VVMC's ability to provide the highest quality services to the local community and to stay progressive with technology is at the forefront of our mission. Similar to most local businesses and government, VVMC is acutely aware of the ongoing issues related to staffing and housing. Recent discussions by groups such as the Town of Vail Planning Commission, Blue Ribbon Housing Committees and other community groups such as the Chamber of Commerce have focused on the growing concern of housing and are expioring solutions to this important issue. VVMC has had ~ representation at recent discussions and we will continue our presence at these focused groups. In many of the recent discussions, it seems that the specific definition of the actual need is still being debated and we believe that housing needs for the community cannot be lumped into one category in order to soive this problem. In short, different employers have different needs, expectations, and seasonality considerations. The calculations that the town has accepted will impact service and seasonal positions, but there are other populations within the town that have different housing requirements We understand that the Town of Vail may propose regulations that could require future development to account for employee housing in either the actual production of housing or a"pay in lieu" methodology. Both of these ideas appear to be a contribution to a long term solution, but both have Iimitations in their likely effectiveness. An effective solution as previously mentioned would likely be based upon a more detailed identification of the actual need and appropriate participation by all users of locai services. A blanket program that would cause one group to assume a considerable financial burden for the future while others will benefit from their historical presence appears inequitable. The proposed regulations appear to be the equivalent of an excise tax for real estate that will not only impose a penalty for specific development, but is unlikely to accomplish the goal of providing needed housing. Developers that would choose to proceed will in the . end pass the extra cost along to the consumers in the area and exacerbate the current economic problem. 181 West Meadow Drive I Vail, CO 81657 970.476.2451 1 www.vvmc.com . • It is not clear at this time what the final formula for housing may be, but as proposed, the plan could negatively impact the medical center in its ability to renovate and expand services by creating an undo financial burden. This is not to say that housing would not be addressed in the future by VVMC, but perhaps in a method that directly accommodates our actual needs and within a context that recognizes a large not-for profit hospital. WMC housing needs have been historically addressed by master leasing properties throughout Eagle County and through some ownership. Medical professionals and support staff are in demand throughout the country and housing conditions are highly i scrutinized by applicants and recruited individuals alike. The requirements of our specific staff oftentimes exceed the standard of employee housing projects in the area and come at a considerable premium to our organization. We strongly believe that quality services come from dedicated and tenured individuals. To ensure our mission, it is likely that our direct financial commihnents in the area of housing will increase through a variety of continued master leases, loan guarantees, and the purchase of actual housing. • The solution for this community issue is no doubt complicated and far reaching beyond the adoption of regulation. The continued efforts in "defining the need" is critical and we would like to offer that this process continues with a focus on the ownership by all town developers, residents, and businesses that have been historically rewarded by the work produced by the labar force. VVMC will continue its dedication to the community and workforce and we look forward to a dialogue that addresses our future impact on the community and methods of appropriately meeting housing needs. Sincerely, Stan Anderson Senior Vice President Administrative Services Vail Valley Medical Center cc: Stan Zemler Planning Commission George Ruther Nina Timm Greg Repetti • ~ ~ o~~ 0 < 3 o ^ ~ o p ^ d ~ r p ~ ~ n o m 00 - ^ . D 4 J 0 a V .y~ NI i tl C7 • ll.l < U7 O Qj i!'• ti•.~ ~ cn O~ O~. n < 0)•O c~ I ~ CD 3 3 II ~ O. I Q" ~ ~r~ • ' 7°I~rtt~i : S ~ cC~ ; -+EF~ • a P P C> 3. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION 2 (PA2); . 4. COMMERCIAL CORE 1(CC1); I 5. COMMERCIAL CORE 2 (CC2); ' 6. COMMERCIAL CORE 3 (CC3); 7. COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER (CSC); 8. ARTERIAL BUSINESS (ABD); 9. GENERAL USE (GU); 10. HEAVY SERVICE (HS); I 11. LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 1(LMU1); 12. LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 2(LMU2); ' 13. SKI BASE/RECREATION (SBR); 14. SKI BASE/RECREATION 2 (SBR2); ~ 15. PARKING DISTRICT (P); AND 16. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT (SDD). • The purpose of this worksession is to: 1) present Ordinances No. 7& 8 Series of 2007, to the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission for consideration in anticipation of making a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the proposed ordinances at the March 12, 2007, public hearing; and 2) present several examples of how the, proposed employee housing regulations would be applied to development applications to achieve the stated employee housing policy. III. BACKGROUND To ground the discussion in the purpose of these tools that require employee housing as new demand is generated the following definitions are critical: Inclusionarv Zoninq: requires a minimum percentage of residential development be provided at below-market rates to serve lower income households as part of new residential developments. Inclusionary zoning is a housing production obligation based on the Community's need for affordable housing as related to many factors, including a scarcer supply of land, rising home values, insufficient provision of housing affordable to residents by the market, etc., in addition to any direct employee generation impacts. ~ 2 • Commercial Linkaqe: Requires that a development provide housing for a specified percentage of new employees generated by the development. Linkage programs focus only on the developmenYs impacts as related to employee generation and do not take into account secondary impacts. Residential LinkaQe: Requires that a development provide housing for a specified percentage of new employees generated by the residential I development. Linkage programs focus only on the development's impacts as related to employee generation and do not take into account secondary impacts. IV. CRITERlA FOR CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS Before making a final recommendation on the proposed employee housing regulations to the Vail Town Council, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission considers the following factors for consideration: 1) The policy ensures that there is employee housing available in the Town of Vail for at least 30% of the town's work force? 2) The policy takes a broad approach towards achieving the community's housing goals? • 3) The policy addresses the housing needs of a wide range of Vail's present , and future population (i.e., seasonal, local, families, etc.) 4) The policy can be incorporated into the Town's adopted rules and zoning regulations. 5) The policy furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations. 6) The policy implements and better achieves the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive ptan and is comPatible with the development objectives of the town; and ~ 7) The policy demonstrates how employee housing conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the current employee housing policy and how the existing policy is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable. 8) The policy provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship I among land use regulations consistent with the Town's development objectives. 9) The policy promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the • town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment 3 and its established character as a resort and residentiai community of the highest quality. • 10) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations. 11) The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town. 12) The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantiai(y changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable. ~ 13) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent , with municipal development objectives. I ~ 14) Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem i applicable to the proposed text amendment. ~ B. The Planninq and Environmentai Commission shall make the followinq ' findinqs before forwardinq a recommendation of approval for a text ' amendment: 1. That the amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of . the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatibie with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendments further the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the Development Review Handbook; and 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. V. NEXT STEPS March 12, 2007 (PEC) Planning & Environmental Commission public hearing and final recommendation to Town Council on the proposed employee housing rsgulations March 20, 2007 (Town Council) 1 St Reading of Ordinances No. 7& 8, Series of 2007 • 4 • April 3, 2007 (Town Council) 2"d Reading of Ordinances No. 7& 8, Series of 2007 I ' VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession, staff is not making a formal recommendation at this time. The Community Development Department will make a formal recommendation on the proposed text amendments to the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission at the March 12, 2007, public hearing. • • 5 DRAFT ~ ORDINANCE NO. 7 SERIES 2007 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF NEW DEFINITIONS TO SECTION 12-2-2, AND ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 23, ENTITLED COMMERCIAL LINKAGE, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has experienced a decreased in population during the past ten years due to market conditions that have given homeowners incentive to sell their properties; WHEREAS, during that period of time, housing costs in Vail have increased at a much higher rate than income has increased; WHEREAS, new commercial development and redevelopment in Vail will result in new employees being needed for uses in the new buildings and for the maintenance of the new buildings; WHEREAS, there is a substantial, direct, and rational connection between the • need for housing of employees generated by new commercial development and redevelopment and the requirements for the provision of employee housing, as documented in the report entitled, "Town of Vail Nexus/Proportionalifv Anal si~ s for Employee Housinq _Mitiqation Proqramsprepared for the Town by RRC Associates, Inc., dated September 19, 2006, a copy of which is on file with the Town Clerk and available for public inspection; WHEREAS, on March 12, 2007, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail held a public hearing and reviewed and forwarded a recommendation of of the proposed text amendments to the "Zoning Regulations" to the Vail Town Council in accordance with the procedures and criteria and findings outlined in Chapter 12-3 of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail; WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that the provision of a reasonable and appropriate percentage of new employee housing is the responsibility of new commercial deve(opments and redevelopments which have a nexus to new job generation; , WHEREAS, it is the Town Council's goal to provide housing for at least thirty percent (30%) of the net new employees generated from residential and commercial development in the Town through the conjunctive efforts of this ordinance and the 'I Town's inclusionary zoning ordinance; and ' • 2/23/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINAN&S10710RD 7, SERIES OF 2007 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE.DOC WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the public health, safety, ~ and welfare will be served by adopting regulations which require mitigation of such impacts on employee housing in the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following definitions: CHANGE IN USE: A change in use on a particular site from one land use to another land use. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Any development that includes , uses such as business offices, professional offices, accommodation units, I general retail, grocery, liquor and convenience, recreational amenity, real estate offices, conference facilities, health clubs, eating and drinking establishments, service oriented businesses, or similar uses. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE: An obligation that requires developers to provide housing for a certain number of new employees that are generated by a new commercial development, focusing solely on a development's impact as related to employee generation and not taking into account secondary impacts. • CONFERENCE FACILITY: A facility used for conferences, conventions, seminars, banquets, and entertainment functions, along with accesso functions such as lobbies, pre-convene areas, and exhibition ry space DEVELOPMENT: The construction, improvement, alteration, installation, erection, or expansion of any building, structure or other improvement in the Town. DORMITORY: ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: Any household not headed by a retired resident in which at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the household's income comes from wages and salaries earned within Eagle County or from distribution of profits from business operations within Eagle County. EMPLOYEE: A person who works an average of thirty (30) hours per week or more on a year round basis at a business located in Eagle County. HOUSEHOLD: All individuals who occupy a dwelling unit, regardless of legal or familial status. ~ 2/23/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINAIZESIOTORD 7, SERIES OF 2007 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE.DOC • NEXUS STUDY: A report, adopted by Town Council, updated at least every five (5) years or more often if deemed necessary by the Town Council, analyzing the current and future employee housing needs resulting from new development and redevelopment in the Town. OFF-SITE: A location within the boundaries of the Town other than the site on which the commercial development is located. REAL ESTATE OFFICE: An office for the purpose of conducting real estate transactions on a temporary basis. REDEVELOPMENT: The construction, improvement, alteration, installation, erection, or expansion of any existing building, structure or other improvement in the Town. SPA: A nurturing, safe, clean commercial establishment, which employs professional, licensed therapists whose services include massage and body or facial treatments. Private treatment rooms are provided for each client receiving a personal service. Massage... treatments may include body packs and wraps, exfoliation, cellulite and heat treatments, electrolysis, body toning, waxing, aromatherapy, cleansing facials, medical facials, non-surgical face lifts, electrical toning, and electrolysis. Hydrotherapy and steam and sauna facilities, nutrition • and weight management, spa cuisine, and exercise facilities and instruction may be provided in addition to the massage and therapeutic treatment services. Full service hair salons, make-up consultation and application and manicure and pedicure services may be provided as additional services. Section 2. Title 12 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following new Chapter 23, entitled Commercial Linkage: CHAPTER 23: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE 12-23-1: PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY: A. The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure that new commercial development, redevelopment, and changes in use in the Town provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such commercial development, redevelopment, and changes in use. B. Except as provided in Section 12-23-5, this Chapter shall apply to all new commercial development, redevelopment and change in • use located within the following zone districts: 3 v2~2oo7 F:ICDEVIORDfNAIVCESV07lORD 7, SERIES OF 2007 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE.DOC 1. High Density Multiple Family (HDMF); • 2. Public Accommodation (PA); 3. Public Accommodation 2 (PA2); 4. Commercial Core 1 (CC1); 5. Commercial Core 2 (CC2); 6. Commercial Core 3 (CC3); 7. Commercial Service Center (CSC); 8. Arterial Business (ABD); 9. General Use (GU); 10. Heavy Service (HS); 11. Lionshead Mixed Use 1(LMU1); 12. Lionshead Mixed Use 2(LMU2); 13. Ski Base/Recreation (SBR); • 14. Ski Base/Recreation 2 (SBR2); 15. Parking District (P); and 16. Special Development (SDD). C. The requirements of this Chapter shall be in addition to all other requirements of this Code. D. When any provision of this Chapter conflicts with any other provision of this Code, the provision of this Chapter shall control. • 2/23/2007 F:ICDE00RDINAES10710RD 7, SERIES OF 2007 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE.DOC • 12-23-2: EMPLOYEE GENERATION AND MITIGATION RATES: A. The employee generation rates found in Table 23-1, Employee Generation Rates Per Type of Use, shall be applied to each type of use in a commercial development. For any use not listed, the Administrator shall determine the applicable employee generation rate by consulting the Town's current nexus study. TABLE 23-1 EMPLOYEE GENERATION RATES BY TYPE OF USE Type of Use Employee Generation Rates Retail Store/Personal 3.0 Employees per 1,000 feet Service/Repair Shop of new net floor area Business Office and 3.8 Employees per 1,000 feet Professional Office of new net floor area (excluding Real Estate • Office) Accommodation 0.8 Employees per net new Unit/Limited Service Lodge units Unit Real Estate Office 6.1 Employees per 1,000 feet of new net floor area Eating and Drinking 8.1 Employees per 1,000 feet Establishment of new net floor area . Conference Facility 1 Employee per 1,000 feet of new net floor area Health Club Employees per 1,000 feet of new net floor area Spa Employees per 1,000 feet of new net floor area • B. If any applicant demonstrates through competent evidence that the employee generation rates contained in Table 23-1 or the nexus 2/23/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINAIkES10710RD 7, SERIES OF 2007 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE.DOC • I study do not accurately reflect the number of employees actually • generated by the applicant's particular commercial development, redevelopment, or change in use, the Administrator may allow for a deviation from those employee generation rates. C. Each commercial development, redevelopment, or change in use sha11 mitigate its impact on employee housing by providing EHUs for twenty percent (20%) of the employees generated, pursuant to Table 23- 1, in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. 12-23-3: SIZE AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS: A. Table 23-2, Size of Employee Housing Units, establishes the minimum size of EHUs and the number of employees that can be housed in each. All EHUs shall meet or exceed the minimum size requirements. TABLE 23-2 SIZE OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS Type of Unit Minimum Number of Size (GRFA) Employees Housed Dormitory 200 1 • Studio 550 1.25 One-Bedroom 750 1.75 Two-Bedroom 975 2.25 Three-Bedroom 1350 3.5 B. Every EHU shall contain a kitchen facility or kitchenette and a bathroom. C. All trash facilities shall be enclosed. i D. Parking shall be provided as required by this Title. E. Each EHU shall have its own entrance. There shall be no interior access from any EHU to any dwelling unit to which it may be attached. F. EHUs shall not be included in the Town's calculations for • density control. 2/23/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINAIkES10710RD 7, SERIES OF 2007 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE.DOC , • G. Every EHU shall be allowed three hundred (300) square feet of additional garage area. Any EHU that does not have a garage shall include a minimum of an additional seventy five (75) square feet for storage in addition to normal closet space. 12-23-4: REDEVELOPMENT: For redevelopment, employee housing impacts need only be mitigated for a change in use that results in a greater number of employees or an increase in net floor area, or increase in the number of accommodation units or limited service lodge units of the redevelopment; provided however, that if any existing EHUs are to be removed, an equal amount of EHUs shall be replaced in addition to other requirements of this Chapter. 12-23-5: CHANGE IN USE: For a change in use on a site that does not result in an increase in net floor area or number of accommodation units or limited service lodge units, employee housing impacts need only be mitigated for the net increase in employees generated by the change in use, pursuant to Table 23-1 or the nexus study, as applicable. • 12-23-6: EXEMPTIONS: The following shall be exempt from this Chapter: 1. The redevelopment of existing commercial development, if no additional net floor area or accommodation units or limited service lodge units are created and there is no change in use; and 2. The construction of EHUs. 12-23-7: METHODS OF MITIGATION: A. The mitigation of employee housing required by this Chapter shall be accomplished through one of the following methods: 1. Off-site units. The requisite number of EHUs may be provided off-site if all off-site EHUs are deed restricted in accordance with this Chapter. 2. Payment of fees-in-lieu. The Planning and Environmental Commission may accept payment of fees-in-lieu for each EHU required by this Chapter. • a. The fees-in-lieu for each EHU shall be established annually by resolution of the Town Council, '7 2/23/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RD 7, SERIES OF 2007 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE.DOC provided that, in calculating that fee, the Town Council shall • include the net cost (total cost less the amount covered by rental or sale income) of real property and all related planning, design, site development, legal, construction and construction management costs of the project, in current dollars, which would be incurred by the Town to provide an EHU in that year; b. An administrative fee of fifteen percent (15%) shall be added to the amount set forth in paragraph a hereof. c. Fees-in-lieu shall be due and payable prior to the issuance of a building permit for the development. d. The Town shall only use monies collected from fees-in-lieu to provide new employee housing within the Town. 3. Conveyance of property off-site. The Town Council may, in its sole discretion, accept the conveyance of property off- site in lieu of requiring the provision of EHUs, provided that no covenants, restrictions or issues exist on such property that would limit the construction of EHUs. B. Partial fees-in-lieu shall be paid when the calculation to ~ determine the number of employees to be housed under this Chapter results in a fractional number of employees. 12-23-8: MITIGATION BANK: A. The Town will provide credit for any EHUs constructed or acquired in anticipation of future commercial development, redevelopment or change in use, provided that those EHUs meet all applicable requirements of this Chapter. However, the construction or acquisition of EHUs in anticipation of future development is at the risk of the applicant, because the commercial development shall be subject to all regulations pertaining to EHUs which are in effect at the time the application for commercial development review is submitted to the Town, even if those regulations change after the EHUs are constructed. B. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to provide documentation of any existing EHU credits upon submission of an application for development review. If the applicant cannot adequately document such credits, the Town shall not be obligated to provide such credits. • R 2/23/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCESIOTORD 7, SERIES OF 2007 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE.DOC • 12-23-9: ADMINISTRATION: A. Each application for development review shall include an Employee Housing Plan or Statement of Exemption. B. An Employee Housing Plan shall include the following: 1. Calculation Method. The calculation of and method by which the applicant proposes to provide EHUs; 2. Plans. A site plan and an architectural floor plan that both demonstrate compliance with Section 12-23-3; 3. Lot Size. The average lot size of the proposed EHUs and the average lot size of other dwelling units in the commercial development or redevelopment, if any; 4. Proof of Financing. Documentation demonstrating that that the commercial development, redevelopment or change in use is adequately financed so as to ensure that funds exist for the construction of EHUs; 5. Costs. A computation that clearly delineates how the • cost of the proposed EHUs were derived; 6. Scheduies. For off-site EHUs, a timeline for the construction of the EHUs; 7. Off-Site Conveyance Request. If applicable, a request for an off-site conveyance, including a brief statement exptaining the basis for the request; and 8. Fees-in-lieu. If applicable, a request to pay fees-in- lieu, including a brief statement explaining the basis for the request. C. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny an Employee Housing Plan, unless the plan is located within a Special Development District or includes a request to convey property, and then the Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny the Employee Housing Plan. D. The Employee Housing Plan may be submitted and approved prior to filing an application for or prior to approval of a development plan; provided, however, that an Employee Housing Plan shall expire two (2) years after final approval, unless within that finro (2) year period, the applicant files a complete application for a development • plan for the site covered by the approved Employee Housing Plan. q 2/23/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINAN~ES10710RD 7, SERIES OF 2007 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE.DOC I E. If a modification of a submitted application for development • review changes the obligations of the applicant under this Chapter, the applicant shall submit a modified Employee Housing Plan. The modified Employee Housing Plan shall be reviewed by the body that reviewed the initial Employee Housing Plan. F. An approved Employee Housing Plan shall become part of the approved application for development review for the affected site. 12-23-10: OCCUPANCY AND DEED RESTRICTIONS: A. No EHU shall be subdivided or divided into any form of timeshare, interva{ ownership, or fractional fee. B. EHUs shall not be leased for a period less than thirty (30) consecutive days. C. An EHU may be sold or transferred as a separate unit on the site. D. An EHU shall be continuously rented and shall not remain vacant for a period in excess of three (3) consecutive months unless, despite reasonable and documented efforts to rent, rental efforts are unsuccessful. • E. No later than February 1S' of each year, the owner of each EHU shall submit a sworn affidavit on a form provided by the Town with the following information: 1. Evidence to establish that the EHU has been rented or owner occupied throughout the year; 2. The rental rate; 3. The employer; and 4. Evidence to demonstrate that each tenant residing in the EHU is an employee. 'I 12-23-11: TIMING; All EHUs required by this Chapter shall be ready for occupancy prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for human occupancy of the affected commercial development, redevelopment or change in use. 12-23-12: VARIANCES: • 2/23/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCQESIOTORD 7, SERIES OF 2007 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE.DOC • Variances from the requirements of this Chapter may be granted pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 17 of this Title. 12-23-13: REVIEW: A. Purpose. The Town Council intends that the application of this Chapter not result in an unlawful taking of private property without the payment of just compensation, and therefore, the Town Council adopts the review procedures set forth in this Section. B. Planning and Environmental Commission review. Any applicant for commercial development who feels that the application of this Chapter would effect an unlawful taking may apply to the Planning and Environmental Commission for an adjustment of the requirements imposed by this Chapter. If the Planning and Environmental Commission determines that the application of this Chapter would result in an unlawful taking of private property without just compensation, the Planning and Environmental Commission may alter, lessen, or adjust employee housing requirements as applied to the particular project under consideration to ensure that there is no unlawful uncompensated taking. C. Town Council review. If the Planning and Environmental • Commission denies the relief sought by an applicant, the applicant may request a hearing before the Town Council. Such hearing shall be a quasi-judicial hearing and conducted according to the Town's rules and regulations regarding quasi-judicial hearings. At such hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the applicant to establish that the fulfillment of the requirements of this Chapter would effect an unconstitutional taking without just compensation pursuant to applicable law. If the Town Council determines that the application of this Chapter would effect an illegal taking without just compensation, the Town Council may alter, lessen, or adjust the employee housing requirements as applied to the particular project under consideration to ensure that no illegal uncompensated taking occurs. The decision of the Town Council shall be final, subject only to judicial review. Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this • ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 2/23/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINAMESIOTORD 7, SERIES OF 2007 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE.DOC Section 5. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in • this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 6. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 13th day of March, 2007 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 3rd day of April, 2007, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rodney Slifer, Mayor Attest: • Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk ~ READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 3rd day of April, 2007. Rodney Slifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk • 2/23/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINA&S10710RD 7, SERIES OF 2007 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE.DOC , DRAFT ~ ORDINANCE NO. 8 SERIES 2007 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE BY THE ADDITION OF NEW DEFINITIONS TO SECTION 12-2-2, AND ESTABLISHiNG CHAPTER 24, ENTITLED INCLUSIONARY ZONING, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has experienced a decrease in population during the past ten years due to market conditions that have given homeowners incentive to sell their properties; WHEREAS, during that period of time, housing costs in the Town of Vail have increased at a much higher rate than income has increased; WHEREAS, local residents own only approximately thirty-two percent (32%) of all homes in the Town of Vail, and only twenty-two percent (22%) of those homes that were built in 2005; ~ WHEREAS, it is estimated that forty-seven percent (47%) of households in the Town of Vail earned less than one hundred percent (100%) of the area median income ($67,200 for an average two-person family) in 2006; WHEREAS, there are virtually no homes in the Town`s housing market that are potentially affordable to households earning less than one hundred forty percent (140%) of the area median income ($89,600 for an average two-person fami(y); WHEREAS, there is a scarce supp(y of devetopable land in the Town; WHEREAS, there is a substantial, direct, and rational connection between the need for employee housing generated by new residential development and redevelopment and the requirements for the provision of employee housing, as documented in the report entitled, "Town of Vail Nexus/Proportionality Ana! sis for Emalovee Housing Mitiqation Proqrams"; prepared for the Town by RRC Associates, Inc., dated September 19, 2006, a copy of which is on file with the Town Clerk and available for public inspection; WHEREAS, on March 12, 2007, the Planning and Environmental Comrnission of the Town of Vail held a public hearing and reviewed and forwarded a recommendation of of the proposed text amendments to the "Zoning Regulations" to the Vai! Town Council in accordance with the procedures and criteria and findings outlined in Chapter 12-3 of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail; . 2/23/2007 F:?CDEVIORDINAN ESI0710RD 8, SERIES OF 20071NCLUSIONARYZONING.DOC . WHEREAS, new residential development and redevelopment in the Town will result in new employees being needed for uses in the new buildings and for the maintenance of the new buildings; WHEREAS, the Town Council befieves that the provision of a reasonable and appropriate percentage of new employee housing is the responsibility of new residential developments and redevelopments which have a nexus to new job generation; WHEREAS, it is the Town Council's goal to provide housing for at least thirty percent (30%) of the new employees generated from residential and commercial development in the Town through the conjunctive efforts of this ordinance and the Town's commercial linkage ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the public health, safety, and welfare will be served by adopting regulations which require mitigation of such impacts on employee housing in the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following definitions: • INCLUSIONARY ZONING: A zoning obligation based on the ' community's need for employee housing considering many factors and secondary impacts, including scarcity of developable land; rising home values; inadequate availability of employee housing in the market; and direct employee generation impacts. REMODELING: The alteration or renovation in style of an existing building, structure or other improvement in the Town, without any increase in GRFA. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: A development that includes at least one dwelling unit, including single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, multiple family dwellings, fractional fee club units, lodge dwelling units, attached accommodation units, and timeshare units. I Section 2. Title 12 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following new Chapter 24: • 2/23/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINANFES10710RD 8, SERIES OF 2007 lNCLUSIONARY ZONING.DOC 1 . CHAPTER 24: INCLUSIONARY ZONING 12-24-1: PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY: A. The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure that new residential development and redevelopment in the Town provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such residential development and redevelopment. B. This Chapter shall apply to all new residential development and redevelopment located within the following zone districts, except as provided in Section 12-24-5: 1. High Density Multiple Family (HDMF); 2. Public Accommodation (PA); 3. Public Accommodation 2 (PA2); 4. Commercial Core 1 (CC1); 5. Commercial Core 2 (CC2); • 6. Commercia( Core 3 (CC3); 7. Commercial Service Center (CSC); 8. Arterial Business (ABD); 9. General Use (GU); 10. Heavy Service (HS); 11. Lionshead Mixed Use 1(LMU1); 12. Lionshead Mixed Use 2(LMU2); 13. Ski Base/Recreation (SBR); 14. Ski Base/Recreation 2 (SBR2); 15. Parking District (P); and 16. Special Development (SDD). C. The requirements of this Chapter shall be in addition to all other requirements of this Code. . 2/23/2007 F:ICDEVIORDlNAN ES10710RD 8, SERIES OF 20071NCLUSIONARY ZONING.DOC D. When any provision of this Chapter conflicts with any other • provision of this Code, the provision of this Chapter shall control. 12-24-2: EMPLOYEE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS: A. Every residential development and redevelopment shall be required to mitigate its direct and secondary impacts on the Town by providing employee housing at a mitigation rate of ten percent (10%) of the total new GRFA. To catculate the employee housing mitigation required by this Chapter, the following formula shall be used: Required number of EHUs =((total new GRFA) x 10%)) = (minimum GRFA per employee) B. The minimum GRFA per employee shall be five hundred fifty (550) square feet of GRFA. 12-24-3: BUILDING REQUIREMENTS: A. Every EHU shall contain a kitchen facility or kitchenette and a bathroom. B. All trash facilities shall be enclosed. C. Parking shall be provided as required by this Title. • D. Each EHU shall have its own entrance. There shall be no interior access from any EHU to any dwelling unit it to which it may be attached. E. EHUs shall not be included in the Town's calculations for density control. F. Every EHU shall be allowed three hundred (300) square feet of additional garage area. Any EHU that does not have a garage shall include a minimum of an additional seventy five (75) square feet for storage in addition to normal closet space. 12-24-4: REDEVELOPMENT: For redevelopment, employee housing need only be provided for the increase in the GRFA of the redevelopment; provided however, that if any existing EHUs are to be removed, an equal amount of EHUs shall be replaced in addition to other requirements of thisChapter. 12-24-5: EXEMPTIONS: The following shall be exempt from this Chapter: . 2/23/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINJES10710RD 8, SERIES OF 20071NCLUSIONARY ZONING.DOC t • 1. The remodeling of an existing residentia( development; 2. The replacement of demolished residential development, provided the replacement structure does not exceed the total GRFA of the original structure; and 3 The construction of EHUs. 12-24-6: METHODS OF MITIGATION: The mitigation of employee housing required by this Chapter may be accomplished through one of the following methods: 1. On-site units. The requisite number of EHUs may be constructed on-site, provided that all on-site EHUs are deed restricted in accordance with this Chapter. 'i 2. Conveyance of property on-site. The Town Council may, in its sole discretion, permit a developer to convey on-site real property to the Town on which no covenants, restrictions or issues exist that would limit the construction of EHUs. 3. Off-site units. The Planning and Environmental • Commission may, in its sole discretion, permit EHUs to be constructed off-site, provided that the EHUs are deed restricted in accordance with this Chapter. 4. Conveyance of property off-site. The Town Councif may, in its sole discretion, accept a conveyance of real property off- site in lieu of requiring construction of EHUs, provided that no covenants, restrictions or issues exist on the property that would limit the construction of EHUs. 5. Payment of fees-in-lieu. The Planning and Environmental Commission may, in its sole discretion, accept payment of fees in-lieu for each EHU required by this Chapter. a. The fees-in-lieu for each EHU shall be established annually by resolution of the Town Council, provided that in calculating that fee, the Town Council shall include the net cost (total cost less the amount covered by rental or sale income) of real property and all related planning, design, site development, legal, construction and construction management costs of the project, in current dollars, which would be incurred by the Town to provide an EHU in that year. • 2/23/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINANPESIOTORD 8, SERIES OF 20071NCLUSlONARYZONING.DOC b. An administrative fee of fifteen percent (15%) • shall be added to the amount set forth in paragraph a hereof. c. Fees-in-lieu shall be due and payable prior to the issuance of any building permit for the development. 12-24-7 MITIGATION BANK: A. The Town will provide credit for any EHUs constructed or acquired in anticipation of future residential development or redevelopment, provided that those EHUs meet all applicable requirements of this Chapter. However, the construction or acquisition of EHUs in anticipation of future development is at the risk of the applicant, because the residential development shall be subject to all regulations pertaining to EHUs which are in effect at the time the application for commercial development review is submitted to the Town, even if those regulations change after the EHUs are constructed. B. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to provide documentation of any existing EHU credits upon submission of an ~ application for development review. If the applicant cannot adequately document such credits, the Town shall not be obligated to provide such cred its. 12-24-8: ADMINISTRATION: • A. Each application for development review shall include an Employee Housing Plan or Statement of Exemption. B. An Employee Housing Plan shall include the following: 1. Calculation Method. The calculation of and method by which the applicant proposes to provide EHUs; 2. Plans. A site plan and an architectural floor plan that both demonstrate compliance with Section 12-24-3. 3. Lot Size. The average lot size of the proposed EHUs and the average lot size of any market rate dwelling units in the residential development or redevelopment, if any; 4. Proof of Financing. Documentation demonstrating that that the residential development or redevelopment is adequately financed so as to ensure that funds exist for the construction of EHUs; 5. Costs. A computation that clearly delineates how the • cost of the proposed EHUs were derived; 212312007 F: ICDEVIORDINANPES10710RD 8, SERIES OF 2007 INCLUSIONARY ZONING. DOC • 6. Schedules. For on-site or off-site EHUs, a timeline for the construction of the EHUs; 7. Off-Site Request. If applicable, a request for off-site EHU construction, including a brief statement explaining the basis for the request; 8. Off-Site Conveyance Request. If applicable, a request for an off-site conveyance, including a brief statement explaining the basis for the request; and 9. Fees-in-lieu. If applicable, a request to pay fees-in- lieu, including a brief statement explaining the basis for the request. C. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny an Employee Housing Plan unless the plan is located within a Special Development District or includes a request to convey property, and then the Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny the Employee Housing Plan. D. The Employee Housing Plan may be submitted and approved prior to filing an application for or prior to approval of a development plan; provided, however, that the Employee Housing Plan • shall expire finro (2) years after final approval, unless within that finro (2) year period, the applicant files a complete application for a development plan for the site covered by the approved Employee Housing Plan. E. If modifications to a submitted application for development review changes the obligations of the applicant under this Chapter, the applicant shall submit a modified Employee Housing Plan. Any modification to an Employee Housing Plan shall be reviewed by the body that reviewed the initial Employee Housing Plan. F. An approved Employee Housing Plan shall become part of the approved application for development review for the affected site. 12-24-9: OCCUPANCY AND DEED RESTRICTIONS: A. No EHU shall be subdivided or divided into any form of timeshare, interval ownership, or fractional fee. B. EHUs shall not be leased for a period less than thirty (30) consecutive days. C. An EHU may be sold or transferred as a separate unit on the site. • 2/23/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINANTESIOTORD 8, SERIES OF 2007 INCLUSIONARY ZONING.DOC D. An EHU shall be continuously rented and shall not remain vacant for a period in excess of three (3) consecutive months unless, • despite reasonable and documented efforts to rent, rental efforts are unsuccessful. ~ E. No later than February 1St of each year, the owner of each EHU shall submit a sworn affidavit on a form provided by the Town with the following information: 1. Evidence to establish that the EHU has been rented or owner occupied throughout the year; 2. The rental rate; 3. The employer; and 4. Evidence to demonstrate that each tenant residing in the EHU is an employee. 12-24-10: TIMING: All EHUs required by this Chapter shall be ready for occupancy prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for human occupancy for the affected residential development. • 12-24-11: VARIANCES: Variances from the requirements of this Chapter may be granted pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 17 of this Title. 12-24-12: REVIEW: A. Purpose. The Town Council intends that the application of this Chapter not result in an unlawful taking of private property without the payment of just compensation, and therefore, the Town Council adopts the review procedures set forth in this Section. B. Planning and Environmental Commission review. Any ' applicant for residential development who feels that the application of this Chapter would effect an unlawful taking may apply to the Planning and Environmental Commission for an adjustment of the requirements imposed by this Chapter. If the Planning and Environmental Commission determines that the application of this Chapter would result in an unlawful taking of private property without just compensation, the Planning and Environmental Commission may alter, lessen, or adjust employee housing requirements as applied to the particular project under consideration to • ensure that there is no unlawful uncompensated taking. 2/23/2007 F: ICDEVIORDINAN&SIOTORD 8, SERIES OF 20071NCLUSIONARY ZONING. DOC . ~ C. Town Council review. If the Planning and Environmental Commission denies the relief sought by an applicant, the applicant may request a hearing before the Town Council. Such hearing shall be a quasi-judicial hearing and conducted according to the Town's rules and regulations regarding quasi-judicial hearings. At such hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the applicant to establish that the fulfillment of the requirements of this Chapter would effect an unconstitutional taking without just compensation pursuant to applicable law. If the Town Council determines that the application of this Chapter would effect an illegal taking without just compensation, the Town Council may alter, lessen, or adjust the employee housing requirements as applied to the particular project under consideration to ensure that no illegal uncompensated taking occurs. The decision of the Town Council shall be final, subject only to judicial review. Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. • Section 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 6. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 13th day of March, 2007 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the • 212312007 F:ICDEVIORDINANPESIOTORD 8, SERIES OF 20071NCLUSIONARYZONING.DOC 3rd day of Aprii, 2007, in the Council Chambers of the Vaif Municipal Building, • Vail, Colorado. Rodney Slifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 3`d day of April, 2007. Rodney Slifer, Mayor Attest: • Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk • q(~ 212312007 F:ICDEVIORDINANG'~S10710RD 8, SERIES OF 20071NCLUSIONARY ZONING. DOC , t ' Mauriello Planning Groap February 22. 2007 Planning and Environmental Commission 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 8 I 658 George Ruther, Chief of Planning Nina Timm. 1lousinc~ Coordinator 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 8) 658 Re: Proposed hlousing Policies Dear Planning Commission Members, George, and Nina: On February 15, 2007, we submitted a letter (attached) to the Town of Vail staff, outlining our ideas for a housing policy, including recommendations for commercial linkage and an inclusionary zoning policy. We based our analysis on the idea that recent legal deasions have recluired that there be some nexus between a housing program (inclusionary zoning) and the need generated by development. The town staff asked that we further explore our proposed program's ability to • meet the Town's stated goal of housing 30% of new employees. As a result of their request, we have re-evaluated our proposals, based on the redevelopment scenario outlined in the Town Staff's memorandum to the Town Council, dated February 6, 2007 (attached). Town staff assumptions and math presented in the February 6, 2007 Town Counal memo as meeting the Town Council's goal of hou51ng 30% of all employees in Vail: Net new residential sq. ft. (future development within the Town): 1 3 10,902 Net new commercial sc[. ft. (future development withm the Town): 453,7 17 Assumes 1 500 sq. ft. avg. units Assumes I .5 employees per unit = 79 employees generated by the residential uses = I,096 employees generated by the commercial uses = I, 175 TOTAL EMPLOYEES GENERATED 30% employees to be housed = 353 To keep the math consistent with the Town's assumptions, we are using the same assumptions used in the 2/6/07 Town Counal memo. Summary of the 2/6/07 memo: The Town needs to come up with a program that will house 353 employees. ` • Avoii, • 81620 Office 970.748.0920 970,748.0377 • a • MPG proposal # I (see attached letter): 20% Commeraal Linkage and I I% Inclusionary Recprement based on Unit Count NOT sct. ft. • 20% Commercial Linkage = 20% of I,096 (total commercial employees) = 2 I 9.2 commercial employees to be housed • I I% of the unIt5 required for inclusionary zoning • 1 3 10,902 total residential sct. ft / 1 500 561. ft. per unit = 874 free-market units • 874 unIt5 x I I%(MPG proposed ratio) = 96. 13 employees unIt5 required for inclusionary zoning • 96 employee unIt5 x 1.5 employees per unit = 144 employees housed in the employee unIt5 Adding the Commeraal and Inclusionary Re,~uirements together: 144 employees to be housed by inclusionary + 2 19.2 commercial emFloyees = 363 employees to be housed Summary.• 20% commercial linkage and inclusionary requirement based on units exceeds the 30% goal set out by the TOV by l O employees TOV Goal = 353 employees to be housed Vs. MPG Proposal = 363 employees to be housed • MPG proposal #2: 20% Commeraal Linkage and 2.5% Inclusionary Requirement based on Sq. Ft. • 20% commeraal linkage = 2 19.2 commercial employees to be housed • 2.5% of sq. ft, for inclusionary zoning = 0.025 (MPG proposed ratio) x 1,3 10,902 total residential sc[. ft. = 32,772 scJ, ft. of employee housing • 32,772 sct. ft. required by inclusionary zoning • Assume 750 561. ft. = 1.5 employees • 32,772 511. ft. / 750 = 43 employees to be housed • 43 inclusionary employees + 2 19.2 commercial employees = 262 total employees to be housed Summary.• 20% commercial lmkage and 2.5% mclusionary requirement based on sq. ft does not meet the 30% goal set out by the TOV by a deficit of l O l employees. TOV Goal = 353 employees to be housed Vs. MPG Proposal = 262 employees to be housed 2 • I _ _ ~ So what rs the percentage of sq. ft. required by incluslonary zonrng to house 30% of the emrloyees generated Assume 2 19 employees to be housed based on the 20% commercial linkage program. Leaves 134 employees to be housed for the inclusionary requirement to satisfy. Algebra: n= scI. ft. recluired I 34 employees by inclusionary = n/750 scf. ft. to house 1.5 employees N= I 00,500 sq. ft. 100,500 scI, ft. / I3 10,902 sq. ft. _.076 = 7.66% inclusionary reauirement based on sq. ft. Summary: 20% commercial linkage and 7.66% inclusionary reciuirement based on scl. ft. would meet the town's goal of housing 30% of the employees generated. 1lowever, that is only on projects where the commeraal and residential development is of a similar ratio to the example • provided above. (25% commeraal, 75% residential) Any proposed regulations should provide a procedure whereby an applicant, usmg the Town's employee generation rates (Nexus Study), should be able to provide an employee housing plan mitigating for 30% of their net new employees to account for variations in the percenta9e of commeraal versus and residential programming. Thank you for the opportunity to partiapate in the process. Please forward copies of this letter and attachments to the Planning and Environmental Gomm155ion and the Town Council. Sincerely. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Allison C. Ochs, AICP Prinapal Senior Assoaate 3 i • Mauriello Pianning Graup February 15, 2007 George Ruther, AICP Chief of Planning Nina Timm Housing Coordinator Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Employee Housing Policy Dear George and Nina: Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with some input at the staff level with regard to the policy development for your housing policy which includes inclusionary and commercial linkage. ~ Our clients very much want to participate in the provision of employee housing in a fair and equitable manner. We believe the regulation, however implemented or titled, should bear a reasonable relationship or rational nexus to the impacts of the project before applying the mitigation rate. The currently expressed policy is to require residential projects in mixed use areas to provide employee housing at a rate of 10% of the residential square footage proposed. Since the application of the 10% is applied to sq. ft. instead of employees produced or the number of dwelling units being produced, the regulation in application results upwards of a 35% requirement (depending on minimum unit size per employee). We have approached the regulation in two ways (sq. ft. or number of units) and have tested the results based upon the nexus study prepared by your consultants, RRC. Below are some ideas: Option 1: Dwelling unit basis • Require for the net new residential portion of a project including dwelling units, fractional fee units, and timeshare units (all hereafter referred to as "units") a number of employee housing units (hereafter EHUs) be provided equal to 1 1% of the net new units. P a A . • 81620 • ffice 970.748.0920 970.748.0377 . comcast • The number of EHUs required would also equal the number of employees to be housed at a minimum of 550 sq. ft. per unit/employee. i • Existing units on a site prior to redevelopment shall be credited toward new units proposed. For example, if 10 units were existing, and a total of 15 were proposed, the inclusionary requirement would only apply to the 5 new units. i • The new EHU requirement would be in addition to the permitted density of the site and not count as GRFA on the property. • To encourage the development of larger EHU's the following schedule of EHUs and employees served shall be allowed: o One employee housed = 550 sq. ft. EHU o Two employees housed in one unit = 850 sq. ft. EHU o Three employees housed in one unit = 1,350 sq. ft. EHU o Four employees housed in one unit = 1,500 sq. ft. EHU o Five + employees shall increase at 300 sq. ft. per employee thereafter. • Example: A project with 50 net new units (assuming 2,900 sq. ft. average unit size) would be required to provide 5.5 EHUs to house 5.5 employees in up to 3,025 sq. ft. • • Test Against Nexus Study: o For residential uses based upon the residential linkage formulas provided by RRC, which predict employees generated within the community on a per unit basis, at a sq. ft. per unit of 2,900 sq. ft., the predicted number of employees at 100% mitigation equals 5.5 employees (50 units x 0. ] 1 employee produced per unit = 5.5 employees) o Therefore the proposed policy and methodology accurately reflects the impact of the units proposed based on the Nexus at 100% mitigation Option 2: Square Footap-e Basis • Require for the net new residential GRFA including sq. ft. for dwelling units, fractional fee units, and timeshare units (all hereafter referred to as "units") sq. ft. equal to 2.5% of the net new GRFA for employee housing units (hereafter EHUs). This number is then converted to employees being served by dividing sq. ft. by 550 per employee. • Existing GRFA on a site prior to redevelopment shall be credited toward new GRFA proposed. For example, of 10,000 sq. ft. of GRFA existed previously, and 15,000 sq. ft. was proposed, the inclusionary requirement shall only be applied on 5,000 sq. tt. I • The new EHU requirement would be in addition to the permitted density of the site and . not count as GRFA on the property. 2 . • To encourage the development of larger EHU's the following schedule of EHUs and employees served shall be allowed: o One employee housed = 550 sq. ft. EHU o Two employees housed in one unit = 850 sq. ft. EHU o Three employees housed in one unit = 1,350 sq. ft. EHU o Four employees housed in one unit = 1,500 sq. ft. EHU o Five + employees shall increase at 300 sq. ft. per employee thereafter. • Example: A project with 50 net new units (assuming 2,900 sq. ft. average unit size or 145,000 sq. ft. total) would be required to provide 3,625 sq. ft. in EHUs (or as reduced to encourage larger units per above) to house 6.6 employees • Test Against Nexus Study: o For residential uses based upon the residential linkage developed by RRC, which predicts employees generated within the community on a per unit basis at a sq. ft. per unit of 2,900 sq. ft., the predicted number of employees at 100% mitigation equals 5.5 employees (50 units x 0.1 1 employee produced per unit = 5.5 employees) o Therefore even at a mitigation rate of 2.5% applied to sq. ft. results in more ~ employees being housed than are generated by the use. Commercial Linkaj!e: ¦ Commercial linkage is currently proposed at 2.9 jobs per 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial use regardless of type of use and may grossly over estimate certain commercial uses. For instance, a 50 room hotel with rooms of 500 sq. ft. would be predicted by this formula as having 72.5 employees whereas the Nexus study, which we again believe is overstating the rate, would suggest 40 employees (at 0.8 employees per room). One can argue that higher-end hotels with a great deal of amenities would produce more employees than a limited service lodge facility. I ¦ Since there are many calculations to be performed to get to employees produced we suggest factoring those into one single calculation. For instance, 2.9 jobs/1000 sq. ft. II could be converted to 2.4 employees/1,000 sq. ft. or 0.00024 employee per sq. ft. ¦ Proposal: il o For commercial uses including retail, bar/restaurant, service use, professional office, recreational uses, and governmental uses the number of employees to be served shall be 20% of 2.4 employees per 1,000 net floor area (as defined by code) • 3 • o For accommodation units or hotel rooms (excluding residential lock-off units) the number of employees to be served shall be 20% of 0.5 employees per hotel room o Employees produced by existing net commercial floor area on a site prior to redevelopment shall be credited toward any new employee housing requirement o Employees produced by existing hotel rooms or accommodation units (excluding residential lock-offs) shall be credited toward any new employee housing requirement o The new EHU requirement would be in addition to the permitted density of the site and not count as GRFA on the property o To encourage the development of larger EHU's the following schedule of EHUs and employees served shall be allowed: ¦ One employee housed = 550 sq. ft. EHU ¦ Two employees housed in one unit = 850 sq. ft. EHU ¦ Three employees housed in one unit = 1,350 sq. ft. EHU ¦ Four employees housed in one unit = 1,500 sq. ft. EHU ¦ Five + employees shall increase at 300 sq. ft. per employee thereafter. o Example: A project with 10,000 net new net floor area and 40 hotel rooms • would be required to house 8.8 employees at a 20% mitigation rate (2.4 x ] 0,000/1000 x 20% = 4.8 employees and 40 x 0.5 x 20% = 4 employees) in up to 4,340 sq. ft. of EHUs General Considerations: ¦ Allow all employee requirements and credits to be applied to sum of all uses on a site ¦ Provide an exemption provision that allows an property owner to proposed an alternative mitigation/nexus formula when it is determined that application of the regulations (inclusionary, residential linkage, or commercial linkage) do not provide a nexus to the impacts being produced by the project, to be reviewed and approved by the PEC ~ 4 ~ MEMORANDUM i TO: Town Council FROM: Nina Timm and Russ Forrest DATE: February 6, 2007 SUBJECT: Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning in West Lionshead, West Vail, and Vail Village 1. Introduction The Vail Town Council has set a goal of maintaining housing for at least 30% of the workforce within the Town of Vail. Current focus has been on two tools that will generate employee housing as demand is created - Inclusionary Zoning and Commercial Linkage. At the January 2, 2007, Town Council meeting staff was directed to revise the draft Ordinance to include a Commercial Linkage requirement of 20% applied to commercial development and a 30% Inclusionary Zoning requirement applied to residential development. ~ With specific policy direction from Town Council local community members have become concerned about the burden increase the policy direction puts on residential development. To help facilitate more meaningful dialogue with the Town Council tonight, the Community Development Department held an "open house" on January 10, 2007. The purpose of the open house was to provide a brief overview of the background information and facts that Town Council has had to guide the policy direction. Town staff had a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on January 22, 2007. At that meeting the PEC expressed concern at the lack of information they had received to date regarding the employee housing issues facing the Town of VaiL They also expressed concern regarding the direction of the housing policy placing a disproportionate burden for providing employee housing on a sector of the market that was not directly responsible for generating the need. It is important to remember that the Town Council is considering two specific policy tools at this time to deal with employee housing demand as it is created in the future. Inclusionary Zoning includes focus on not just the primary job generation of development and Commercial Linkage focuses exclusively on the primary job generation of specific commercial uses. To ground the discussion in the purpose of these two tools that provide employee housing as new demand is generated the following definitions are critical: • 1 ~ Inclusionary Zoning: requires a minimum percentage of residential development be provided at below-market rates to serve lower income households as part of new residential developments. Inclusionary Zoning is a housing production obligation based on the Community's need for affordable housing as related to many factors, including a scarcer supply of land, rising home values, insufficient provision of housing affordable to residents by the market, etc., in addition to any direct employee generation impacts. Commercial Linkage: Requires that a development provide housing for a specified percentage of new employees generated by the development. Linkage programs focus only on the development's impacts as related to employee generation and do not take into account other impacts. Residential Linkage: Requires that a development provide housing for a specified percentage of new employees generated by the residential development. Linkage programs focus only on the development's impacts as related to employee generation and do not take into account other impacts. II. West Lionshead, West Vail, and Anticipated Redevelopment in Vail Village (Projected development model) The potential for net new growth exists in West Lionshead, West Vail, and Vail ~ Village. Staff has created a model which estimates potential new commercial and residential development in these three areas. They include West Lionshead, West Vail, and anticipated redevelopment projects in Vail Village. It is anticipated that these areas will all have mixed use redevelopment occur in them. As proposed, the commercial redevelopment would be subject to Commercial Linkage requirements and the residential development would be subject to Inclusionary Zoning. A. The following information is based on this model. B. Assumptions for calculating employee generation Conversion Factors from 2006 Nexus Studv 1.2 jobs per employee 1.5 employees per household 2.9 jobs per 1,000 square feet of commercial development (overall average) l 1 employees per new residential unit (residential linkage) C. Actual Employees Generated By Use In these three areas of proposed redevelopment there will be significant increase in the net new residential floor area. Currently there is • 2 • approximately 639,027 square feet of residential and it is expected to increase to 3,163,029 (an increase of 2,524,002 square feet). Residential Floor Area Existing Today 173,426 Potential Redevelopment 1,484,328 Potential Net New 1,310,902 1,310,902 x.11/ 1,500 / 1.2 = 79 New Employees Generated 79 Commercial Floor Area Existing Today 289,260 Potential Redevelopment 742,977 Potential Net New 453,717 453,717 x 2.9 / 1,000 / 1.2 = 1,096 New Employees Generated 1,096 Of this potential net new floor area the commercial development will generate the need for 1,096 new employees while utilizing only 18% of the total ~ redevelopment floor area. The goal of providing housing for 30% of the community's net new workforce needs as created by anticipated redevelopment in West Lionshead, West Vail, and Vail Village requires 353 new employee beds. D. Actual Employees Housed by Use Through Application of Proposed Tools a. 30% Inclusionary Zoning and 20% Commercial Linkage Actual Emps 30% of Application of Policy By Use Total Residential 79 24 537 (30% Inclusionary Zoning) Commercial 1,096 329 219 (20% Commercial Linkage) 1,175 353 756 or over 60% l. Using the redevelopment model for West Lionshead, West Vail, and Vail Village the proposed policy • 3 ~ including 30% Inclusionary Zoning and 20% Commercial Linkage achieves employee housing for over 60% of the anticipated net new workforce. 2. This proposal meets the Town Council objective of moving a disproportionate share of the employee housing burden to residential development. Residential development will directly generate the need for 79 new employees, but through Inclusionary Zoning provide housing for 537 new employees. IIL Revised Policy to Achieve the Goal of Housing at Least 30% of the Net New Workforce A. 10% Inclusionary Zoning and 20% Commercial Linkage Actual Emps 30% of Application of Policy By Use Total Residential 79 24 179 (10% Inclusionary Zoning) Commercial 1,096 329 219 (20%Commercial Linkage) ~ 1,175 353 398 or 34% l. Using the redevelopment model for West Lionshead, West Vail, and Vail Village a proposed policy including 10% Inclusionary Zoning and 20% Commercial Linkage achieves employee housing for 30% of the anticipated net new workforce. 2. This proposal meets the Town Council objective of moving a disproportionate share of the employee housing burden to residential development. Residential development will directly generate the need for 79 new employees, but through Inclusionary Zoning will provide housing for 179 employees. B. Application of the 10% Inclusionary Zoning and 20% Commercial Linkage policy to specific multi-use zone districts. C. Staff is recommending applying Commercial Linkage mitigation at 20% of net new employees and Inclusionary Zoning of 10% in the following zone districts: High density multiple-family (HDMF) district, Public accommodation (PA) district, Commercial core 1(CC1) district, Commercial • 4 ~ core 2(CC2) district, Commercial core 3(CC3) district, Commercial service center (CSC) district, Arterial business (ABD) district, Heavy service (HS) district, Lionshead mixed use 1(LMU-1) district, Lionshead mixed use 2 (LMU-2) district, Ski base/recreation (SBR) district, Ski base/recreation 2 (SBR2) district, Special development (SDD) district. D. This will achieve Town Council's goal of have new development mitigate for 30% of the net new employees generated by that development. E. This will provide a disproportionate share of responsibility for the 30% to residential development - meeting stated policy objectives. F. By applying these two specific policy tools by zone district staff does not recommend providing an exemption to the requirements. G. An Alternative for Residential Zone Districts - Proposed Residential Linkage Only. a. Staff is recommending excluding the following zone districts from Commercial Linkage mitigation and Inclusionary Zoning: Hillside residential (HR) district, Single-family residentia! (SFR) district, Two- family residential (R) district, Two-family primary/secondary residential (PS) district, Residential cluster (RC) district, Low density . multiple-family (LDMF) district, Medium density multiple-family (MDMF) district, Housing Zone District, Agricultural and open space (A) district. b. Town Council began looking at policy tools specifically to address anticipated major redevelopment in three core areas in Vail. The model that has been talked about to date has not specifically looked at redevelopment in residential only zone districts. H. Acknowledging that all residential development adds to the community's need for additional employee housing, staff is recommending establishment of Residential Linkage based on the information contained in the Rational Nexus Report presented in September, 2006. L As staff acknowledged in the early policy discussions (September, 2006) the number of employees directly attributed to residential development in the Rational Nexus is not significant, but does exist. APPlication of Residential Linkage to all net new residential floor area would create a proportionate employee housing mitigation requirement to the employee housing demand being generated by the specific development. a. Staff is recommending Residential Linkage apply to the following residential zone districts: Hillside residential (HR) district, Single- • 5 ~ family residential (SFR) district, Two-family residential (R) district, Two-family primary/secondary residential (PS) district, Residential cluster (RC) district, Low density multiple-family (LDMF) district, Medium density multiple-family (MDMF) district. i. Example of Demo Rebuild 1. Existing home of 1,800 sq ft =.09 emps 2. Demo Rebuild of 3,800 sq ft =.14 emps 3. Difference of 2,000 sq ft =.05 emps 4. Fee in Lieu of $178,500 x.OS =$8,925 ii. Example of Vacant Lot 1. Existing home of zero sq ft = 00 emps 2. Build home of 5,999 sq ft =.20 emps 3. Difference of 5,999 sq ft =.20 emps 4. Fee in Lieu of $178,5000 x.20 =$35,700 iii..Example of Vacant Lot 1 Existing home of zero sq ft =00 emps 2. Build home of 7,000 plus sq ft =.36 emps 3. Difference of 7,000 plus sq ft =.36 emps 4. Fee in Lieu of $178,500 x.36 =$64,260 • IV. Action Requested of Town Council A. Provide staff with policy direction on Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning. a. The current proposed direction of 30% Inclusionary Zoning and 20% Commercial Linkage exceeds the stated goal of housing 30% of the net new workforce. b. A policy of 10% Inclusionary Zoning and 20% Commercial Linkage achieve the 30% goal. B. Provide staff with policy direction on applying Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning to the following zone districts: High density multiple- family (HDMF) district, Public accommodation (PA) district, Commercial core 1(CC 1) district, Commercial core 2(CC2) district, Commercial core 3 (CC3) district, Commercial service center (CSC) district, Arterial business (ABD) district, Heavy service (HS) district, Lionshead mixed use 1(LMU-1) district, Lionshead mixed use 2(LMU-2) district, Ski base/recreation (SBR) district, Ski base/recreation 2(SBR2) district, Special development (SDD) district. • 6 I _ I ? ~ V. Future Considerations for Town Council A. The proposed housing policies discussed in this memo address future employee housing demand only. B. Staff is proposing to restart the policy discussion on applying Residential Linkage at 100% to the following zone districts: Hillside residential (HR) district, Single-family residential (SFR) district, Two-family residential (R) district, Two-family primary/secondary residential (PS) district, Residential cluster (RC) district, Low density multiple-family (LDMF) district, Medium density multiple-family (MDMF) district. a. This will allow the Town to achieve its stated goal of providing housing for at least 30% of the net new workforce as demand is created. C. The Town of Vail will need to consider funding and development for additional deed restricted employee housing units to maintain housing for 30% of the community's workforce. Estimated non-deed restricted units account for 1,314 current employee beds and a shortfall of 128 beds by approved projects. a. Current market forces are eroding the existing non-deed restricted . employee housing base in the Town of Vail b. This could include a dedication of a portion of the expansion of deed restricted units at Timber Ridge, purchasing deed restrictions on existing units in Town, building on Town owned lands, zoning incentives, etc. D. The Town of Vail will need to consider funding and development of deed restricted employee housing outside of the Town of Vail for at least a portion of the remaining 70% of the community's workforce needs. a. This will require regional planning. . 7 TNlS ITEM MAY APFECT YOUR PROPERTY • PUBLIC NOTICE • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the~g and Environmental Commission of the To ail will 1853 hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code on February 26, 2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration ot: PROOF OF PUBLICATION A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed majoramendment to Spe- cial DevelopmeM Distnct No. 39, Crossroads, pur- I, STATE OF COLORADO } suant to Article 12-9(A), Special Development Dis trict, Vai! Town Code, to albw for an increase in the ~ ; number of dwelling units from 69 units to 75 units; located at 141 and 143 Meadow DrivelLot P, BVOCk 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in COUNTY OF EAGLE } regardthereto. (PEC07-0004) AppticantCrossraads East One, LLC and Cross- roads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same Planner:Warren Campbell Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and A request for conditional use permits, pursuant3c Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Taw<< ' has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and Code, to allow for multiple-family dwellings and lodges and private cluMi (parking club); located at uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next Prior 141 and 143 Meadow Dr'ive/Lot P, Block SD, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard Applicant:Crossroads East One, LLC and Cross- to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has thcreto. (PEC07-0005) roads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. Piannins Group. LLc The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisclictions operating under Planner:Warren Campbell A request for a finai review of a major amendment Colorado's Home Rule provision. to the Apptoved Developmen7 Plan pursuant to $ection 72-8E-.18 (B) Major Amendments, to allow for a revised grading plan at Vail's Front Door Vis- ta Bahn Ski Yard, Iccated at 151 Vail Lane/Lot A; That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-OOOG) Applicant:Vail Resorts Development Corp. number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of Planner:George Ruther A request for a tinal review of an amended final said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 2/9/2007 and that the last publication of said notice plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12. Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 29 was in the issue of said newspaper dated 2/9/2007. ' and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, located at 805 ~ and 807 Potato Patch Drive, and selting torth de- tails in regard thereto. (PEC07-0008) Applicant:Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. In witness whereof has here unto set my hand thisl5th February, 2007 Planner:WarrenCampbell I A request for a final review of a variance from Sac- , r tion 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vai1 Town Code, pur- / suant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of three teet within the frorrt PU y~~8 ~1/~J011 al 111 er/Editor setback, located at 805 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 29, V g Blxk 1, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth defelS in regard thereto. (PEC07-0007) Applicant:Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented Subscribed and sworn to befare me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner.Warren Campbell 15 th February, ZOO,I. The applications and infortnation about the propos- als are available for public inspection during office - hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop-. ' ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The ~p/ public is invited to attend project orientation and the [A~a Ve r1 ' • srte visits that precede the public hearing in the 1900• ` .0 Town of Vail Cnmmunity Development Depariment. Please cali 970-479-2138 for additional informa- ~0•• •0.~0 Pa la Joan Schult2.-- t;o,,. . ~ P~E~ J. o Notary Public Sign language interpretation is available upon re- ~ ~ w quest, with 24-hour notification. Please call o ~ ; QCH6J 11LTZ O 970-479-2356. Telephone for the Hearing Im- • My Commission expires: November l, ~.007 paired, tor information. s o~ l~" . MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 12, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to the approved development plan for the Lionshead Core Site Hotel to construct a public restroom building/storage facility; located at 675 Lionshead Place/Lot 2, Lionshead Sixth Filing Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC), is requesting a final review of a development application intended to facilitate the construction of a public restroom building/storage facility in Lionshead. A more complete description of fhe development application is outlined in Section II of this • memorandum. Upon review of the request, staff is recommending that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the major exterior alteration, subject to the findings listed in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, is requesting a final review of a major exterior alteration application to allow for the construction of a new, freestanding building located east of the Eagle Bahn Gondola to accommodate public restrooms and storage facilities for the children's ski school operation located in Lionshead. The new building is one-story tall in height 18 ft) and will be approximately 2,575 square feet in size. The interior floor plan is designed to accommodate twenty-four (24) restroom users and storage capabilities for the Lionshead Children's Ski School. The exterior of the building is primarily stone and stucco with wooden accents and trim. As illustrated on the proposed site plan, the new building would be constructed in the same location as the existing temporary ticket office/public restroom building. At this time, the applicant is not proposing to construct a basement level to the new building. A reduced copy of the proposed plans is attached for reference (Attachment A). A Vicinity Map illustrating the location of the development site has been attached for reference (Attachment B). ~ 1 a III. BACKGROUND • The Lionshead Core Site Hotel development site is generally located in the center of the Lionshead Commercial Core Area south of the Lifthouse Lodge and Landmark Condominiums, east of Lionshead Center Condominiums and west of the Montaneros and Lions Square North Condominiums. The combined total area of the Lionshead Core Site Hotel development site is approximately 4.67 acres in size. The applicant is proposing to construct the new building on Lot 2 of the Lionshead Sixth Filing Subdivision, located south of Lionshead Center and east of the Eagle Bahn Gondola. On September 27, 2003, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission approved a major exterior alteration to allow for the construction of the Lionshead Core Site Hotel (Arrabelle at Vail Square). As approved, the new mixed-use hotel project was to provide accommodations for public restroom facilities. The new restroom facilities were approved to be located within the existing Lionshead Ski School space on the ground level of the Lionshead Center building. 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 Alteration/Modification in the Lionshead Mixed-Use • 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 and Environmental Commission: 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 ~ approval "shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements including siting, building setbacks, height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping." Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Major or 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 2 . • 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 i Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Chapter 2, Introduction 2.1 Purpose of the Master Plan (in part) "This master plan was initiated by the Town of Vail to encourage redevelopment and new development initiatives in the Lionshead ~ study area. Both public and private interests have recognized that Lionshead today lacks the economic vitality of Vail and fails to offer a world c/ass resort experience. Lionshead's economic potential has been inhibited by a number of recurrent themes: • Lack of growth in accommodation units ("hot beds'); • Poor retail quality; • Deterioration of exrsting buildings; • Uninteresting and disconnected pedestrian environment, • Medrocre architectural character, and the • Absence of incenfrves for redevelopment. This master is a comprehensive guide for property owners proposing to undertake development or redevelopment of their properties and the municipal officials responsible for planning public improvements. The plan outlines the Town's objectives and goals for the enhancement of Lionshead 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 following definition has been used as the basis for this work: i 3 - - . I A master plan is a guide, a flexible framework for future action. It • I 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 'i I public facilities. ~I ~ 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 Lionshead 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 Objectives The Town Council adopted six policy objectives on November 4, • 1996, to outline the important issues to be addressed in the master plan and to provide a policy 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 place, 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 other recreational improvements. 2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal • and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved 4 • occupancy rates and the creation of additional bed base ("live 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 services must be upgraded to support redevelopment and revitalization efforts and to meet the service expectations of our guests and residents. 2.3.5 Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits and Public Revenues Financially creative and fiscally realistic strategies must be identified so that adequate capital may be raised from all possible sources to fund desired private and public improvements. • Chapter 4, Master Plan Recommendations - Overall Study Area (in part) 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 Gore Creek) is a mixed-use urban environment with several discernible land-use sub-areas, or "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 Two primary pedestrian streets form the backbone of Lionshead's physical plan: an east-west corridor connecting Dobson Ice Arena with the west end of Lionshead and a north-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 5 corridors (see Map T) and the entry portals associated with • them. 4.1.3 Resort Retail and Commercial Hub This area, also known as the Lionshead pedestrian core, is the heart of Lionshead and the epicenter of pedestrian and retail activity. A mixed-use environment, this area is comprised of retail shops, skier services, offices, residential units, and restaurants, but it has no coherent identity. More people access the mountain from here than from Vail village, yet the area experiences low retail sales and weak evening activity. Non-retail businesses in what should be a high volume retail environment further erode its retail potential. The priority for this area is to reinforce and enhance the identity of a premier destination resort. This requires higher quality retail activity, an active pedestrian environment, greater diversity of public spaces, and a focus on lodgings that reinforce activity. All planning and design decisions should further this goal. A priority need identified by the master plan is a high quality resort hotel in the Lionshead core to provide the dynamic infusion of people that will support a vibrant retail • district. A corollary need is a more identifiable pedestrian portal into the Lionshead core from the west; the absence of a well designed gateway from this side is a significant obstacle to the capture of the west Lionshead bed base by core area retailers. Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations (in part) 5.11 Ski Yard Improvements recommended for the Lionshead ski yard are as follows: 5.11.1 Relationship to the Lionshead Pedestrian Mall There is a significant grade change between the ski yard and the retail mall. As suggested in figure 5-15, a better grade transition could be designed at the north edge of the ski yard to make it a more usable public space and to articulate a strong linkage between the urban environment of the retail mall and the open environment of the ski yard. 5.11.2 Skier Bridge The existing skier bridge is a landmark but needs to be • replaced. The new bridge should be visually compatible 6 • with the desired character of Lionshead and wide enough to separate skiers and pedestrians. 5.11.3 Connections I As depicted in figure 5-15, pedestrian path connections should be provided from the north end of ski yard and the gondola terminal to the Gore Creek recreation path, the skier bridge, and the southeast corner of the Lion Square ~ Lodge (Ivcation of the KB Ranch Restaurant). ~ 5.11.4 Screening and Landscaping Lion Square Lodge should be involved in planning enhancements in the ski yard. Landscaping is desirable to screen the building at the west edge of the yard, but in the central area woufd conflict with skier operations and the yard's potential to function as a village green for community gathering and summer recreation. Chapter 6, Site Design Guidelines (in part) Chapters four and five identified important public spaces and pedestrian corridors that together define the underlying structure of Lionshead and form essential ~ connections between the district's primary destinations: This chapter on site design guidelines describes the detailed elements that lend 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 6-3) 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 traffic 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. 6.9 Compliance with Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan A goal of the Lionshead master plan is to improve the connections • and relationships between Lionshead and Vail Village. Towards 7 that end, it is recommended that all site design issues not dealt • with in this chapter, including but not limited to site furnishings, site lighting, landscape principles, paving types, and signage conform to the intent of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. An exception is the opportunity to create a distinct character of site furnishings, lighting, and other site design elements for the Lionshead pedestrian and retail core. Consistent with section 6.1.7 above, artwork, the creative use of otherwise standard site elements (benches, trash receptacles, phones, light standards, grate inlets, etc.) is encouraged to help establish a strong, vibrant, and distinct character and sense of place for the Lionshead core area. Zoninq Requlations Lionshead Mixed Use -1 Zone District (in part) 12-7H-1: PURPOSE: The Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district is intended to provide sites for a 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 the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the S 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 the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This Zone District 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 Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to ' redevelopment projects. With any development/redevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be ~ evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. (Ord. 3(1999) § 1) 12-7H-6: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title. • 8 Loading and delivery and parking facilities customarily incidental and accessory I • to permitted and conditional 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 recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential or lodge uses. I~ Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 3(1999) § 1) ~ III i ~ • 9 ~ I . VI. ZONING ANALYSIS • Staff has completed a zoning analysis of the proposal in relation to the land use ~ regulations outlined in Title 12, Zoning Regulations of the Vail Town Code. A summary of the analysis is provided below: Street Address: 675 Lionshead Place Parcel Number: 210107207009 Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use -1 zone district ' Land Use Plan Designation: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Current Land Use: Mixed Use Development Development Standard Allowed Proposed Buildable Lot Area: 10,000 sq.ft. 203,425 sq.ft. Minimum (no change) Setbacks: 10' or unless specified 10'/Varies* otherwise in the LRMP (no change) ~ Building Hei9ht: 71' avera9e 69.75' avera9e , and Bulk 82.5' maximum 82.5 maximum (no change) ' Density: DU's- 35 dwelling units/acre or 14.9 dwelling units/acre or ' 163 dwelling units 70 dwelling units • AU's- Unlimited 85 accommodation units** , (no change) GRFA: 508,562 sq.ft. or (250%) 176,786 sq.ft. or (87%) ' (no change) ~ Site Coverage: 70% maximum or 35.7% or ~ 142,397 sq.ft. 72,676 sq.ft*** (+1.3% or 2,573 sq. ft.) Landscape Area: 20% minimum or 28.5% or 40,685 sq.ft. 57,981 sq.ft. (-1.2% or 2,573 sq. ft.) Parking: 238 spaces 320 spaces**** (50% valet or 119 spaces) (36% or 116 spaces) (no change) Loading: 5 berths minimum 8 berths***** (no change) Notes: Setbacks vary around the development site depending on the location of the "build-to-line" specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 49 of the 85 accommodation units in the hotel are lock-off units attached to dwellings as permitted by Section 12-7H-12 of the Vail Town Code. Ol 10 Site coverage includes above and below ground spaces of the Gondola, Eagle Bahn and • Chair 8 buildings. 31 of the 320 parking spaces have been provided via a payment to the Town of Vail Parking Fund in 1997. Five of the eight loading berths are avai(abie for public use. VI1. SURROUNDING LAND USES Land Use Zonin North: Mixed Use Development Lionshead Mixed Use 1 South: Openspace/Recreation Outdoor Recreation East: High Density Residential Lionshead Mixed Use 1 West: High Density Residential Lionshead Mixed Use 1 VIII. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRITERIA Section 12-71-1-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria for major exterior alteration applications proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1(LMU-1) zone district. According to Section 12-71-1-8, Vail Town Code, a major exterior alteration shall be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria: 1) That the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district; Staff Response: ~ The purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district are stated in Section 12-71-1-1, 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 commercial/retail 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. tn reviewing the proposed public restrooms facility application for 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. 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 above. 2) That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; Staff Response: On August 23, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a ~ public hearing to discuss the implementation policies of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and to review the then proposed Lionshead 11 Core Site Hotel's compliance with goals and objectives stated in the • Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Following discussion 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. However, there were also several issues which required additional study and consideration by the applicant that were identified by a majority of the Commissioners. Those issues included the width of pedestrian access between the proposed Lionshead Core Site Hotel and Garfinkel's (Lionshead Center Building), the size of the ski yard, the scope of work and details of the proposed streetscape improvements, the Iocation of the building relative to the build to lines and the resulting need to amend the Master Plan, and the contents of the draft Developer Improvement Agreement to be executed between Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail. The applicant had responded to each of the issues identified by the Commission. For example, the width of the pedestrian walkway between the hotel project and GarFinkel's has been increased to 15 feet and additional retail area has been added along the walkway. That change, however, resulted in the /oss of the publicly accessib/e restrooms, ln that instance, staff recommended that the applicant identify a new location for publicly accessible restrooms on or near the development site. Pursuant to the development application approval, "the new location shafl be identiried on a revised f/oor set of ~ plans which shafl be submit by the applicant to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to fina/ Design Review Board approval of the development applications." Additionally, Section 12-71-1-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, Vail Town Code, requires that developers mitigate the direct impacts that a proposed development has on the Town. Section 12-71-1-18, Vail Town Code, states, "Property owners/deve%pers shafl also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in a// cases mitigation shall bear a reasonab/e relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenitv improvements shafl be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmenfal commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank improvements, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require ~ 12 ~ • mitigation for large scale redevelopmenbdevelopment projects which produce substantial off site impacts. " Staff believes that the proposed major exterior alteration for the Lionshead Core Site Hotel and the major exterior alteration for the new public restrooms facility remains 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 plan amendment in an attempt to identify any significant negative effects that may be created on the character of the neighborhood as a result of the construction of the public restroom facilities. Because the proposed use and building does not differ significantly from what exists today (i.e., restrooms, ticketing, skier services, ski school operations, bulk and mass, etc.) staff does not believe the new building will cause little, if any, change to the area. 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. Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the Vail Comprehensive Plan to determine which elements of the Plan apply to the review of the major exterior application. Upon review of the Plan, staff has determined that the following elements of the Plan may apply: • Transportation Master Plan (adopted 1993) • Comprehensive Open Lands Plan (adopted 1994) • Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (adopted 1998) • Art in Public Places Strategic Plan (adopted 2001) The applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution to the Town of Vail as well as to construction 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 affirms that the recommended actions outlined in the Plan have already been fully implemented within the Lionshead Core 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 • 13 Redevelopment Master Plan. 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 that the proposed major exterior alteration 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 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. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with condition(s) the request for a major exterior alteration, to allow for an amendment to the approved development plan for the Lionshead Core Site Hotel to construct a public restroom building/storage ' facility, located at 675 Lionshead Place. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the major 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 Commission makes the following finding as part of the motion: "Pursuant to Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, the ~ applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed major exterior alteration 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 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. " Condition(s) of Approval Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the development application as submitted by the applicant, staff recommends that the following condition(s) be placed on the approval: 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 amendment by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to making application for issuance of a building permit. 2) That the Developer submits a revised site plan in the building permit application set of plans to the Town of Vail Community Development Department indicating the approximate location of an easement for the proposed pedestrian/bike path and identifies an "assumed property line". The purpose of the "assumed property • 14 r A line" is to ensure compliance with the Uniform Building Code requirements for • separation between adjoining buildings. X. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A- Reduced set of plans Attachment B - Vicinity Map • • 15 • • • • I, I I ~I O LIONSHEAD RESTROOM BUILDING ~ , Vail, Colorado ~ Vail Resorts Development Company ~ 0 SHEET INDIX COVER CML COYER SHEET DRB / PEC SUBMITTAL SET PROPERTY ANO FASEMENT PIAN E%ISTING CONDITIONS PLAN GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 22 JANUARY 2007 LMM PM EROSION AND SEDIMENT PLAN PAVEMENT SECTIONS PLAN CNIL DETAILS lANDSCAPE PLAN M E L I C K A S S O C I A T E S I N C. IANDSG4f'E PLAN NOTES ARCHITECTURALPL4N ~ ROOF HEIGHT PLAN PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SUN SHADE DIAGRAMS . ~ ~ ~ A~ w,~ SHE£T INO£X ~R~,-~°,~,. ~(D 2007 JP?NUARY ~ ,~.r.w•~"' . „ .!l ~ 4 ay~ ~ ~ q O ^'"'"~"`r r~+`~""..,~r..r~"""`..~..~.•' J~r- ~p o a "~`^-,,.'~'.+"pP~°'~`,.~.`.y; mo...%~~ Cn O w~,,,,i•=-`-~"~ o$ Qa Q g o pao ° pv ~ oD p ~T CONTACTS ~ V t P~ ~rrr ±~.w~s ~""~~"~.r.w~~,,;. u[~ -'°p ,n..w~"•"+e...~+ w~annao"w~"i! ~'.w~w-u" :1 MAP , ..-w-y ""''.o~ ~°`~h„~,~~..,,,, x,~.,,.~.~:. ~~~"""..rr ~,.n.+ -m...as f~~,4rar ~ r ~ • ~~;'~w..~ ~^r n ..w~~~ wmrwr""r'" .w~ ~'~°ua. nxa.-r+ ~ ,,,..~+..~~r ~n+~~~n w V .rr+r'^ r ~~ww:. wrr ~ sr^^~'~~.~+ r+p ~ ~ Y^ M . ~ w~ i •y'y. r~~~~ ~~A~~w+^~M ~~w~S~~~awirr~~~ww~ ~ w~?~~"~~~ y~AFC1~~"w ~`~i1M MM~ n a+w wrrrr' ~r ~~..M~." w"~ ~ wwrMW'.?~ ,~~q~W~iwixr~MM~' .w...^'~~ ~~rrrwr..eNr? ~(/PEGb) ~~.rw~ rrrww ~p~~~.w~. .iv ~ ~'.`~.7..`~." ~w~.....r" Lse~a „n.r~r.1+~n•,~ ~ r. ~w'w.~~~~ ~ ~ .-r"""" ~~~~.,,,,r+^~''". i:.,,,,,":'M~,.~. ~+"w r~..~:G .w.. . .~mr"'...~ :.'°"r'w`:"",~.. `~~~;rL•'^~,,:.' , t;;,,..+~. w"r'^o.+ ~ :"'.."~..::e`~ ,~,..~.,r~,,,,.~. ~ •~;s.°..~. ~r.... ,~.r~„ ,,..ti,,.~y:G. ,°.r •r~,,,T,~'~"'+` ~ •o..,:,':...'' ~,'R':.~+'"~..+ jr"~ rr~„ ~ ~,,,,,,,,r,....... .~r.. ~,t: :..~w." ,.,,,-.=.+r.'^ 3.'-""~::."-~+'~".~..,,,~..""' ~`1 ..+^"....X.'S.'~^"""' r".,~: ....w ~.`-~..r~ y ~~.~„"""'.5... ""~"r..:~-~a" S i~ W~+.w~'w/r"~r."n ""'M..?'^"' ?~"""rw ...~rJw+~'~~+ : j""^ ~.+~5"'~,r..~+"~^~""~` ,r+~'~ - r'~r"~ ~.~~~;Y~~~~~;,.Y~r~..~+ ~ ~M~ ..~ro.;,,..+~~,,, ~+'r,r.+„""' co...i+r" ~..rr~r++"e'+ ~,,,,,.,~r r •.r ~,.,o^"G"5~:~"'+`-„""`.,.+`+':.-+w:.~+~.""".r~...~ ~.:.+~ir r.«r^' a„wa ~`r7 r~ M.. K~7+~~ ,r,,,.,...... ~.^',.•.r •'~„r ~r,~,,,erw ~~„r+~ ..~n„rw~.. r++• ~,r...r~ y..r.."I" ~"~...:r++~r,,..+... M~~,,,.r„~~ ,Y„~~:. ~~~".Z.f .w ~ ~ r""" r~ ~ y..... ~ « Z ~r ~ ~^5..+-„'~,,...~,~......+r. N; '~..~.~~;,3'~..w ~~Y«~''~":..+~„'~.' ,r.~.M•... ~~^.r ~""•.St..?"~ r'L". .-Y~ '4' ...+s .w~."" • R:.:.:~..r~..+-•'~' ` ~ r++• «.+r~ Qp NEC'C) KC01 .1 i+«~ r+ ~ .`.nr+. ~ y::y"C.''~" r. ""~,r o :~r:.. ~r.+~r. ~ ~..,,~...f~'" ~y,.. ~~~„±~rS'~j~%"'~" ~~a,..+~..,*st• ~ ,,,~~r ww ` ..""'..~'w'+,~„",.'S:.rr...~'~^':.~.• ..y ^C.'+'~"~'i ~,,,,,~.re.~s~" rrr~~~i `r 1r ~y~?^~wiw~~M ~ ~r~r .w^~`~•s^^rw~r~n ~O"~ ~ r ~~r.~,.~p ~R~~.~y d F w~+~r ~i}y~~~ ~ lc~~"' ...r ~,r„ ~:...«..:i ~.~r.^~" ,,,,,,,...r.~ „r,.r'. r~:"` ~~5.........+~ W~~;y ~a,.a.w,~,..°'~• r'~+,~r„"~.,.. ~y Y aoo~ Po" o ;r C,........ .r,,,,..r ~..+~"t~,,•~. wrj..,... .,.,,r' ~ r~ r ~r+-~`~ , ••~4r • ~r ww ..~'..i.+' .,..w ..+^?rr%~'r"~ ~+r'~ r+'~;...~+ ....~"~"r .r,..'i. ~pNgT1~K•yTtoM ¢ r~..i`~"'`~.. ~rw" ~ ~ t ~ '.'.-,....+~r'~'.. ~"r~.~„t~r,,: r w~~,~.'.' : ,',,,,~.....N~" ~w~~+'T+.."'S' t.~, K ~ ..w~•"" ..:i? ~ a„~'~. rw~~ ~r,,.,,.....y~....." r~...+ ss.""'~~ «w~+..w+""",~ r.+ ¢ L.-~'~ .w, ""°..~~"~r+ "'"'+"~,.rn~+ " r°r..°".. ~ w"` ^""'w".. ~..~„~~.r ~~"~r- 'w++' ~~o ~q1 9W ,,...~.,,.~~"'r,o..~~.+ y .r,a.r+"v ,,..+~,,,:.~;4"r++'"rwr w%`~~' ,,,r.~+"»+..'" 1f °'"",~...wr•~."..`»~:i ~„~,~,,,.r-' 'S„~.,_"'.,......r'~,,,~,r,~ `~~~......w qvL ~ :'w i;, :S".~.~ ? w~y~" .r ¢ ~-"`'re.., r„r`r~+~;,,,,,u.....~r"' y;,,,:+v=1"" r-• ,,,...r-•~::.. ."..S:,.. Sr r„7,:~..'•:...._Y „~,~•%'~.,f.~,,...... r.+r .....w .wn"....s. ~ ~r~~«,'^"'r ~,,:,~a r... ..r• ~ f : ~w~,,.,...~;.,;' ""`.r ±w..r..+- ~"~`~`..'~"~..~w~~~ ,r....w...s~ -~„~,,,,^•w,`"-..+w-'~^.""'~...~.`-~ ~ ~r-"~.~-,... ~~....~~~~"W 'ti.~...+....'~~....? q ^ ~ ,rr,,.%• • f`p„~. r . r ..w ~ ~ r+~-^"'" ~.~%,Y~.,:iw.. ,~,.,n+-.. r- ~,,,,,q«„~.r,~„',,:3..~++. lj~ 1 q e,,,,,.. Y+y ~ .,,"~%.w~° ;5,;,'......• ......r..~.~~""',,,,,..;r~r".~y.r r.^ w.'~"'.~• ,,.,y:~^ti'-^~„~,,,... ,.,,,.,r~' .._r ~'.+'"~~w ~,,,,,,....~'~r,,,.~, ="C"".3r ..,.,,,,.+...«~C'^..y'•.....+,~r,,....~ ..-ri.~-~ +,,,r r• :'G':..•- - 'o C'~°'- .r .r . r ...~.C.~.~-~.=~""-,~•"' _ ~~~rr+ .l.r ~~rr~ , ww ww~.I~'~~ ~~+~+..^r''~I~~r~~ r~+' ^ ~w C ~~r~+r.in ~..w~r+ w+'fi~r r~r~n~..~r,~""' ~W~~r+..+~^ Y Y ~ ,,,..w ~ ~.r.,,+~~~ """"yy :+^K:L':~°"'n`..,. +"`.~_"'n"'C' M~ ~ = ~ ~r,~~^"'.~•+'Z~ -„~.-.....r ~~i~~MV M/1`~• lMiNyI~Y.Ir'~ rrr~vM~Wr~' _~wrr~rN r~~r•? . ~ "sw~~~'Y ~w5'~„"~:•'«~"~ + ~.r+~^""":^' r•r„ s~~.,,,°'r,P.+-^'"'"...~...rr:; ~'^r.. ~ `i~ ,y`.':...+r~"~'.~. -.'.~.^'.+~°'~~~.a....~" ~,~w"'....~~ ":C"=~ , ~ z OQdT~ ~ gy2i0$~ZPdA Z~~K~S ~S . ~ ~ , ~ _ _ - , , ~ ~ ; ~ ~ , ~~~iCti.___ ~ ~a - i__i!1 ' , , ~ y ~ ~ ~ , : , ~ - j ~ • ~ I ~ --,~`1 ~ ~ i'-~_, • , ~ , , , ~ ~ ~ - - ~ , • _ ~ ~ } - ~ - . `c--_ i~ ~ \-1_~-_ 1 ' ~ !4 • ' ~ T-5 4 ~ ~ ] ~ \ ~ ' : ~ ~4~ 1qt ~ ;~r i ~ ..~,wcy ~l ~ . ~ ~ll ~ i i ~ / ~~1. . • ~1 \ ' ~i 1 ~l . ~~`:~~'\\K``~ri`' \ \\~.\~\~~,ra , . ~ . ~ 1'~.~` . , , • ' . ` ~ • ' ' f • • ~ , aoa~toosonoi~.a ' ' 3:y,`y",tl3dOad'1~ti315~`SWOOU153U•100NJS MS~ , ' ' Ztttilo'&^P"tiaSS~s~ '151 •Wd 2f:fL:E !00 p7NT~i 3:1A:52 PM, TS~. ~M~R~40NO~710NS.dwO~ ~ tNw9~GORE~5K1 ^sGF1~Ot'RE5fR ;i~4c~\,~•~.~ ~~~a~i_\\~.\` e~~ ! y 1 ` E 1 P ~ P 1~~~ ~,r:fryJ`• ~ a 3~k K _'-__J ~ ~O ~ p YC7 f ! , y ~n ? 1 ~;c.-.; ! a9 ~;rt-`~. ~ ri t~ijJ~ L--."~ ~v~ e :r_ a3 ~ ~_M^~1 s ~ _ . , ~ g ~ ~ ~ e.~1 1~ ~ ~„-!-S 1 ---1 '1i i,~ ~°i~i ? ~ /a 'i r :f:~Y i' Da ~ ~^....+.~.C7 ` • 4i'.:'. y I 1 't.fti'~. F,~~ G N.i' ~ 1 '.~r~ ~ZQy mr F•-"-~^"~":`_ ti T'''--'~ y 1 rj; ~~n o0 !~i! '^f j.~CA ? ~ i ; 1."' ~ s1 6- ~5,•'~ri~Y:. ,~~v>; Fi . . . . . . . . . , . ~ . : : _ -`,,~~,tt i F~ ~ ` ~ ik . ~'•-e ~ . f e • = t, ~ { .~b', ~w . b 0' ~ ~ ¦4 ? ' ^ 5• #'1 A C`, ;\ti ' 't~' 1 '~`„t~• ~u~r,i;;.ii. ly • y~ 1 f ~ , c-:; ~ ~i ~ . , . . . ~ F~3y(y ? ` _ _ ~r~'~' 1~ . . • . - ~ . . yA V--- ~ - "'4 • 0.,----- ' r~ ' ~~o t~ t Y ~ l.,`'`` r~ty . ~ ~i _a ( - - ------'----~""~.,`Y`s\',~ ' """__""""`T~/ '-~'"'c-- ~--_~^`"1. ~,.5~. ' ~ .'~i°~~`F,°,~i _ _ - - ~ r{'; : ~ - _ ,"~?v'~"~,; ~ ~ ~ 1RACY'~ _ ~ ~ 1 ~ e 1~ i ,y . ~b.~ia~ ~;`;~i. it ' illlr, y,i0, ~±~1~. °~l:b~~/'i''-~4 ` •i1lV •~~i~~ 1 " t , ~e6C'~ s ~11~ aii ~ , ~E ~ ~ `y v, } ~ 1, , ~ ~ ~ I 11 ~ 6' ~ ~ `;•r.~,'`~. , t ~ ~ ~i i~ e ~~1~ ' i ~ ,111111t`?~1191111 • ~ { ~ 1 ' . s~scKOOL L~ar~sxE~ V nIL V:asoa'rs 1 w~yL•~°'s~~iq° ~ ~ ? - oavao-ToO`1ron q ~ d' U 'IOOH~S I~IS Qd~HSN0IZ ~ 'A . . ~ - ~~~ittil~i~L11116a1~6tllttlti?aadaiitZllZElEtI • ' "t'__~4 / ~ _ ~ i i i ~ i ?i p ~ ~\1 ~ li i ~ 1~ ti " ji~ ~ I I I 'I ~ I~ l 3• i~ I7~ ~ d e ~ e 1 I ~ 4; , • ! , ~'';~1~~ . ~';.1~,i~-.`;~~-' SE ~ , \b ~ ' ii ---------'~d'"---- .1 ~ ~ . 'a T° - _ _ ' ~ _ ` - ` °~t ~•~,y`~ ~ ~ 1: I ~ ~y~ ~S•. - - - - _ - -n r'° z! i . 1 ~ t~ O 3y r ~i ! ~•k ~ t 1 ~ I f ~ ' 1 ? , \ ! i ~4 i ~ i ~ . , ~ ~o•'• ~ , i i ~ i ~•s - .14 i r-~ ~ ~ ~~1~ ~ . ~t 9 ~/I _ ; es ~ . ~ ~ ~4 " • ,1 ~ . , ~ g ~ •~~`i /~r 6 ~C~~~ ~t~ 4 l6l~° t;~ ~ `a~ r • ' ,io. ` ~I - ~V ~ ~ ~~~6'-°-~. y-*"' ~p\~ ~ , I ; ~ \ _ _ '~:1 • ' ~i ; % ~L, ~ .~a _~j,~ • ~.~:y\~~ ,;~~~~r f ~ i . ~ ~i' . i 1 r I ~ ~ ~ , ? ~ • - - - - ~ ~ - - - - . • I- . ~ ~.s~m_~~m ilr f ? ~ { _ : } _ ~ St~U7t11?~1/ ~ . f 111 101 ~Ii v' \ a 11 It11Y1111~ ~ ~ \ U? 11~N1~~1 i _ r~ ' o ~ ~ lSl'Wd 9S:ZZ:6 LOOZ14t/l0'~OHMSS S1LLn-dO14 dql315tl"Sri00N1S3N'IOON~S p'TOV02o01\dwG\CO11E1SKI 5CH004RE5TROOMSV.7ASTERwROP-GRAOE SSRR.dw9, 0111712007 3:3138 PM. TSt- ~ ~ }fx 1 y,~^'".z2`z:.~ »,,,C',~ • ~ . ' ~ !~h~~~ . r ~ r~dtYa~,C't, ~n. ~ i 1 ? .~~"Q~ .(yi~ . -i ~ ~r~';: ~•'r rY~ ' ~ ,-i ~-i E . xw r r ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ' ~ ` : ? ~ _ ' ~ t - - , , , -------------tl . - . ' i°4 • ' ~ °-e ~ ~ ~1,1 ~ ~ i, 4• • y~ ~ ```r / ` •b'tl . •.i~ ` ~~I 5 / ~2 ~4 i~ 1 ~ i~T~J - ej • 'i % 21 ` h ~ - F 3~(t 1 ~ ` ~4 % ~ B1:r. ~ l i 1 l ' 1 ~ I ~ 5 ~ ? . l '~''t > Q it~ 'i`l ;1 ~,~',F3 I l yf _ - ; r ~ I l l l IR 1114 ~ = ~ 1 ~ • ~ s e ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - ' ` t . LIONSHEAD SKI SCHOOL VAR, RESORTS vA14 CoLORA~O ~ cli OpyYI0103"IPdA ' _ i~ V ~ ~ U ~I M 'IOOHDS I?IS QV914SAI01I . o ` . . . 1 ° ~ - . . , . - ~ - - - , ~3 - . ~ 1~ , - - , _ ~ _ ^ \ O~ i I 1 { ~ ` 1 O g ~ r 1~ i 1 ~ \ 4~ ' i 1 ~ ~ j S•,+ ~ ~1 c~ ~ p\ „O~'` ~ i {R~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ` . i 1 { i r . ~ i-•'', " t ~ , . ~ - ~ ol _ ld~ ~ ~ ~N . ~ ~ `T`\ • 1 , yn~~ ~1` \ ~ , ` ~~,1` ~ F f \ . _ _ _ ' ~ ~ u . ,}~Y~. \''i<`~ s` ¢ i -h I ~ ~ ~ 1. / • ~ ~ V,~ 1~ 1 1` 1 I ___--_l_~l. l 11 7 y; Nutm ; . , o m ~,j~:l. a 4~,,-~ • \ ~.7i.~ ~ ',`\~1~`~'____~ - - ,LJ `i-! o \ \ ~ l51'Wd CE'~Br~t L~LC~/~o'6~pbaTS 1OZ12N0~ Q35'N01501f31H31~'~'SWOOH1531!'~OH~S 4%S~tiO3\&,qLUOZ4MU:d P:\TOV02001Wwp1GORE15Kl SCHOOL-RES7ROOMSNAASTERIPROP-PAVEMENT SECTION PLAN SSRR.dwp, 011172007 3:4e.24 PM, TSL I ~ ~y rr" n r ~ O f O ~ Z j o ~ D 1 v ~ O Z ~ ~ ~ \ ` . . ! . i : : : : . i 1 ~ . JII ~ . . 15 ' - - ~:1 ~ . ; , --T~- _ ` a , ? ~ ~ , ~ i ~ ~ .:t:•:::•;:;:;:;:;:::: ~ a ' i ~ ? ~ : ~ ~ ? i ' 1 \ j \ - - p ~ ~ i ~ - - - f~ 5 H' Ai :3 s e„~ - ? i : . : I ? t>:_ .c:~:. ~ ; . ~ • ? \~i?;;::::. - i 1 ? ~ ~ j I ~ - . i ` ? ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ LIONSHEAD SKI SCHOOL VAIL RESORTS VnI4 cotowwo oavxoIoZ)`tron , stxosaxZrvn _.:V: 00 "IOOHDS I?IS Q`d9HSNOI"I e ~ ~ y . h a g cuT i i9 ~ ~ ! i, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r , , 1 . ~ ~ ' i• ~ _j Lq ~Y rl"=~; ~ ~ ! ~ ' ' 1 ~ ?p+ y:C °4 y} Y 6 ~6 y t ~ , I~, ~ p 0 `~pi ~ai: ~ • ~ u $ ` p ~ 1 i 4 1 ' 1 Q ~ } ' I.i j ~ ;g\ ' I h .:.e ~ ~ ~ - gl ' o ~ I' • ~'~1~~ ` / ~ ~ ~ S~ ap~ i ~ ~ ~il~ . \ ~g \ a ~ = U tA~ ] ~6 ~~C ~ ,f' ~ ~ 1 1 1!~ ~!f~ ~t 1 § 1 4c9,oli l,~rg,~n ~ f~~ 1 l~~ i~ 1~ ! i A:Elhrr! i~Sts~RA~ t 0 i I 9!l9i°f; S 99d 9S4! «iiili ~ :~:~::a~ ` ~ tt~~~ } Iil ~1 ~ ~ y' i 1:aa499ii y 1 6yi1:6aav s;~F ~j, 4 ' ; e ~ ~dl~~~fld ~e ~ dil~~ssf~ ' e 641 ~ ~ ~~~f~ ' ~ ~ ~ ` • ~ ~ I•~ P~• ~ i~ 7 ~ • 9 r, o I I9t5 Ig Pq ~D~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a16,1.i• 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~ j lSl'Wd QYlS'E LOOZ/LULO'6-P'SlItl13O\21315VW1SWOONJ.S3tf-IOOHoS MSl3N0a8-R100Z0A01vd ~ _ • : • n , ; - t~ . t~ . ~ i i : E- • ~ ~ fOP" ; : - ~ ~ ~ ~ . f; ..1._ - ~ r oo~ • ? : ~ ~ N, ~ ~ ~ ; , ~ • ' - : a. '1 +T s : ~ ~ ~ ' J '7~? i ~ ' • f . ~ j ~ ;.i. ~ t ~ . ;V., ~ ~ t ; % `f. i: ~ ~ : . . , % 01 g~ f 1',!~ F ~,.~~•:r~y ~ ~ y o I~ ` . . ~i ~Z i~ / ~ t ~ s~~'# ~ k'' . ~l • \ ~ _ ~ ~ • F- LIONSHEAD SHI SCHOOL VAII. RESORTS VAIL, COLORADO il OQtlNO'I0.7 `INA ~ g gz N SL2IOSaI'IItlA 'IOOHDS I?IS Q`daHSNOI"I ~ o C. 1 ! ~y u f ~ ~ ; ~ t - _ - ~-•~~~t: c. F * y - - « ~ * d etiti ~6'a4Rb ~ .r~tiLti=k4M <~r~bk444L ITM i u ~ ~ a9 f ~ T, I~{9E b I g f 5 ~E E~ S~ ~~~e ~~S ~ •~8 < ¦ ! i1 :g. e~~~~ g :,p ~ Ei ~a ° gr~~ ~ y a Y~E~ g3~i ~ a.b S j 8 f s Y ~ ~ i s a s E ~ ~ s ~ T ~ : B ~ ae e e$55z~.o 8oJ M e ? 83~ .s3C ~66 i s ~ , ~g ~~,0000 ~ ~ p p ~ cZA O O ~ f ~ rA f s cn ~ 'f3J0 O p n ~ n x o T ~o Q wo > ~ Im ~ Z ~ ~ ~ i ~ Nox O'l~ i . ~ ' - - s - 'JU117 dy d ~i i . ~W4~a ~ ~ W ~ ? 2Z~ ~ ~pZQp~ ~ WO ~ W~tiFZ Y 70X OZ~< ~ ~NUWq h5 i w~~w xry : Zaa~ . ~ e ^i ? +22.75 +.23.25 I ? ryry. •.O/'.i F ~tf N N ~fl ~ N ~.NntV I } + + + ~ ~c+ N Q g t ~ r---~'~~'--'--+----- + n N 1 K ~ , i , , i = n i ~n ~n ~n ~n ~ I ~ u ~ HI i I~ N 1- tV ~ ry~ ry;. ?I~M`1NN ~ f + + ? 4 < 1 ' 9 u~ +ry i ~ ~ Y ra ~ I ~ I 0 ~ ~ I ^ rTl 1 +H ~ 1 y~y W ~ o , ~ z , Y y i ua ~ , s Y m N c- ~ i M i i ~ . i t , - i . . - \ ry N H K ~ !q O ~ C < ~ o ~n = r O O N + q . ~ Y P- ~ N + e • N P ~ . d ~ a ~ d p I y i ' ~ i .:'la I et o . 4 7 . ~ . I i . . , 1 i ~ •~i - ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 Y 1 ~ I .i ~ ~ ~ J ~ - ,E _ ~ ~ , ~ `•4?'~: .r ~ il ~ a$r ; ; i . . 0 ~ - , . O y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ; ; , ~ . . ~ EI : 4 ~ • C p• • . ~ h A : 'Pt{r '~sc~ ~ r i .n;~;.. ~ ,+rc e w,~;~ . ^ ro ~ ~ ~ ~"xdi'kt~~' ~~a s~k%E. r ~ ~ ° d e~ ~~4~ n F ~ 7 I '.i 1 y~ ~'l.:'~. ~7;r * ' uE. ~ ~~T~ ~5.6 ~F..w .FY.. z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ a ~ H = ~ s u ~ ~ as» , ~ - . d ~ o ~ < ' U ~ ~ J v~ ~ '3 ~ ¢ O _ ~ ~!~i~~ ~ ~ ~ , • p I ~ $ j Lionshead Public Restrooms / Storage Facility Planning and Environmental Commission - March 12. 2007 - . , ~ I - . *i4r" . ~ ;;f s . ~ ~;,r?~E;; . t _ . Subject Site .5 ~ ~ ~ j ' ~ 1 I ~ y .:4 ` _ • 1 0 1 • ` ` ( f . ] ~ ~ A"• . • r • ~ ~ ~ ' ~-r,~ • ~ ' y~,''~' ~ . i j -~j' ~ A~ ~ • - t ~ ~ ~ `~t ~ ~ ~~r 'ik u w ioo ~ ~~M ~ • ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 12, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for text amendments to Title 92, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a prescribed regulations amendment establishing Chapter 12-23, Commercial Linkage and Chapter 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code; amending section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, defining relevant terms of art; repealing and reenacting Chapter 12-13, Employee Housing, Vail Town Code, to allow for revisions to the employee housing regulations; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0084) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther • t. SUMMARY The Vail Town Council has set an empldyee housing policy of ensuring that there is deed-restricted employee housing available in the Town of Vail for at least 30% of the Town's work force. In order to achieve this goal, it has been determined that a number of strategies will need to be implemented. Commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning are two of the tools that the Vail Town Council has chosen to implement the employee housing policy. At their January 2, 2007 meeting, the Vail Town Council directed staff to prepare text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, establishing employee housing regulations utilizing an employee mitigation rate of 20% for commercial linkage and a mitigation rate of 10% for inclusionary zoning, in sixteen (16) of the Town's twenty-seven (27) zone districts. The purpose of this public hearing is to present three amending ordinances to the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission to allow for a prescribed regulations amendment establishing Chapter 12-23, Commercial Linkage and Chapter 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code; amending section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, defining relevant terms of art; repealing and reenacting Chapter 12-13, Employee Housing, Vail Town Code, to allow for revisions to the employee housing regulations; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum, the Community Development Department recommends that the • Planning & Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of the three amending ordinances to the Vail Town Council. 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, the Town of Vail Community Development Department, is • requesting a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to section 92-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a prescribed regulations amendments establishing Chapter 12-23, Commercial Linkage and Chapter 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code; amending section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, defining relevant terms of art; repealing and reenacting Chapter 12- 13, Employee Housing, Vail Town Code, to allow for revisions to the employee housing regulations; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The purpose of these text amendments is to implement the stated policy objective of the Town Council to... "ensure thaf there is deed-restricted employee housing available in the Town of Vail for at least 30% of the Town's work force". In order to achieve this policy objective, the Town Council directed staff to prepare text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, which propose the use of commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning as the implementation tools, for their review and consideration. Pursuant to Sections 12-23-1 and 12-24-1, Purpose and Applicability, of Ordinances No. 7 & 8, Series of 2007, respectively, the commerciat linkage and inclusionary zoning regulafions shall app(y in fhe following zone districts: • 1. HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY (HDMF); 2. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION (PA); 3. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION 2 (PA2); 4. COMMERCIAL CORE 1 (CC1); 5. COMMERCIAL CORE 2 (CC2); 6. COMMERCIAL CORE 3 (CC3); 7. COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER (CSC); 8. ARTERIAL BUSINESS (ABD); 9. GENERAL USE (GU); 10. HEAVY SERVICE (HS); 11. LIONSHEAD MlXED USE 1(LMU1); 12. LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 2(LMU2); ~ 2 • 13. SKI BASE/RECREATION (SBR); 14. SKI BASE/RECREATION 2 (SBR2); 15. PARKING DISTRICT (P); AND 16. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT (SDD) Copies of Ordinance No. 7; 8& 9, Series of 2007 and Resolution No. 6, Series of 2007 have been attached for reference. (Atfachments A, B, C& D) The Planning & Environmental Commission is being asked to forward a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications or denial of the proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, to the Vail Town Council. III. BACKGROUND April, 2006 • Town Council directs staff to develop a series of actions to create and maintain employee housing • Town Council authorizes expenditure for a Rational Nexus Study September, 2006 • The results of the Rational Nexus Study are presented ~ October, 2006 • Staff and Consultants present various tools and policies to create and maintain employee housing in Vail • Town Council directs staff to bring specific recommendations for inclusionary zoning, commercial linkage and residential linkage November, 2006 • Town Council passes an Emergency Ordinance stating their intent to pass Employee Housing Regulations and put property owners on notice that all future development may be subject to these requirements December, 2006 • Town Council directs staff to focus more specifically on inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage to provide employee housing as demand is generated • Town Council directs staff to provide various scenarios that reduce the impact on commercial development , January, 2007 3 • Town Council directs staff to revise the draft ordinance to include a • commercial linkage requirement of 20% and an inclusionary zoning requirement of 30% - maintaining a greater burden on residential development to provide employee housing • Planning and Environmental Commission requests more background ' information prior to moving forward with a recommendation to Town Council February, 2007 • Town Council confirms commitment to the April 15, 2007 deadline • Town Council confirms commitment to maintaining employee housing for 30% of the workforce in the Town of Vail • 20% commercial linkage and 10°/a inclusionary zoning achieve this goal in mixed use zone districts March, 2007 • Staff presents draft ordinances to PEC for review and final recommendation to Town Council IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS The Town of Vail Community Development Department relied upon the information contained in the following planning related documents in the preparation of the proposed text amendments: "Eaqle Countv Housinq Needs Assessment. 1999" by Rees Consulting, Inc. • "Eagle Countv Housing Needs Assessment Update, March 2002" by Rees Consulting, Inc., and RRC Associates,.lnc. "The Social and Economic Effects of Second Homes. 2004" by Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Linda Venturoni "Vail Housinq Research Choices and Pofential Outcomes. March 2005" by McCormick and Associates, Inc. and RRC Associates, Inc. "2005 Eagle Countv Nexus Update - Data Report, 2005" by RRC Associates, Inc. "Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment. 2006" by RRC Associates, Inc. "2006 Town of Vail Nexus/Proportionalitv Analvsis for Emplovee Housinq Mitigation Propramsby RRC Associates, Inc., revised March 12, 2007 "ULI Panel Presentation on Eagle Countv Workforce Housing, December 2006" by Urban Land Institute Advisory Services Panel. • 4 • V. CR(TERIA FOR CQNSIDERATtON AND FINDiNGS Before making a final recommendation on the proposed text amendments to the Vail Town Council, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmenta! Commission evaluates the text amendments base upon the following factors for consideration: 1) The policy ensures that there is employee housing available in the Town of Vail for at least 30% of the Town's work force? Staff Response In preparing the specific regulations proposed in text amendments to the Zoning Regulations the Community Development Department relied upon historical and statistical data compiled by various consultants and agencies and the policy direcfion provided by the Vaii Town Council. In our reliance upon the data and the direction of the Council, it has been determined that the use of commercial linkage and incfusionary zoning were the two most appropriate means of achieving the Council's stated goal. It was further determined that utiGzing a mitigation rate of 20% for commercial linkage and 10% for inclusionary zoning will most likely result in slightly over 30% of the new employees generated as a result of net new commercial and residential development will have deed-restricted employee housing made available to them once the new development • comes on line. While it can be argued that the proposed mitigation rates may result in more than 30% of the workforce having deed-restricted housing avai(able to them, staff believes that it is important to realize that this situation only exists if there remains an equal distribution of both new commercial and residential devefopment with the Town of Vail. Staff believes that this criteria has been addressed by the proposed text amendments. 2) The policy takes a broad approach towards achieving the community's housing goals. Staff Response Pursuant to Sections 12-23-7 and 12-24-6, Methods of Mitigation, of the respective ordinances, four potential options, or combinations thereof, exist for applicants to comply with the requirements of the proposed regulations. For instance, in complying with the provisions of the proposed ordinances, an applicant can provide a portion of the deed- restricted employee housing units on-site, a portion off-site and any remaining portion through the fee-in-lieu option. In contrast, an applicant could instead choose to comply with the provisions of the proposed • ordinance by providing 100% of the requirement on-site or off-site. 5 A second factor which ensures that a broad approach is taken towards • achieving the community's housing goals is the opportunity for an appficant to utiiize the provisions of a mitigation bank as outlined in Sections 12-23-8 and 12-24-7, Mitigation Bank, of the respective ordinances. Through the utilization of the provisions of the mitigation bank, an applicant can realize the full benefits of any EHU constructed or already acquired in anticipation of both future commercial and residential development. Lastly, Section 12-23-3, Size and Building Requirements, of Chapter 12- 23, not only provides an applicant with options for the type(s) of unit that could be provided to comply with the requirements of the regulation, it also has been formulated to be responsive to the varying sizes of dwelling units presently available in the Vail real estate market, thus affording applicants a reasonable expectation that they will be able to find units that meet or exceed the minimum requirements. For the reasons cited above, staff believes that this criteria has been addressed by the proposed text amendments. 3) The policy addresses the housing needs of a wide range of Vail's present and future population (i.e., seasonal, local, families, etc.) Staff Response Through the provisions of Sections 12-23-7 and 12-24-6, Methods of • Mitigation, of the respective ordinances, five potential options, or combinations thereof, exist for applicants to comply with the requirements of the proposed regulations. The Methods of Mitigation provide options from a dormitory unit to various sized dwelling units. This allows developers to provide a range of housing options intended to meet their employee's needs as well as provide the community with a wide of range of seasonal, locals and families living in the Town of Vail. For the reasons cited above, staff believes that this criteria has been addressed by the proposed text amendments. 4) The policy can be incorporated into the Town's adopted rules and zoning regulations. Staff Response Through the creation of the three ordinances (Ordinances 7, 8& 9, Series of 2007), the Community Development Department has clearly demonstrated that the proposed policy can be successfully incorporated into the Town's adopted rules and zoning regulations. As a result of the , proposed text amendments, new Chapters 12-23, Commercial Linkage and 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning will be added to Title 12, Zoning Regulations of the Vail Town Code. By way of example and in response • to the reality that the majority of construction in the Town is in the form of 6 • redevelopment, Sections 12-23-4 and 12-24-4 have been incorporated into the two new Chapters to ensure that the regulations are reflective of fhe development conditions which exist in the community. Secondly, a method for providing "credits" to existing development has been written into the regulations ensuring all proposals for redevelopment and changes in use are fairly considered in the application of the regulations. Thirdly, exemptions provisions, Sections 12-23-6 and 12-24-5 of the respective ordinances, have been created which allows redevelopment and changes in use applications which do not result in the creation of new net floor area, and thus no new demand in employee generation, to be exempt from the prescribed regulations. Not on(y do the exemption provisions ensure equitable treatment under the law, but they demonstrate how through careful consideration the proposed amendments have been successfully incorporated in the Town's adopted rules and zaning regulatrons. Lastly, for those rare, yet potential extraordinary circumstances when the application of the regulations would result in a practical difficulty depriving the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the Town of Vail, Sections 12-23-12 and 12-24-11, Variances, have been incorporated into each of the two new Chapters. ~ • For the reasons cited, staff believes that this criteria has been addressed by the proposed text amendments. 5) The extent to which the text amendments furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations. Staff Response . Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, outlines the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations. Section 12- 1-2 (A) of the Regulations states, "These regulations are enacfed for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promofe the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. " And Section 12-1-2(B) of the Regulations states, "These regulations are intended to achieve the fol/owing more • specific purposes: 7 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and • ' public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off-street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land wifh structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and • other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community." Upon review of both the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations, staff believes that the adoption of commercial linkage and inclusionsary zoning clearly promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that witl conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. Furthermore, staff believes that, amongst other specific purposes, the proposed text amendments conserves and maintains established community qualities and economic values as well as provides for the growth of an orderly and viable community. For the reasons cited, staff believes that this criteria has been addressed by the proposed text amendments. • 8 • 6) The extent to which the text amendments would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town. Staff Response The Vail Town Council has set an objective of ensuring that there is employee housing for at least 30% of Vail's workforce in the Town of Vail. The implementation of commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning ensures that this objective is met as redevelopment and new developments generate new employee housing demand. The Town Council has reviewed numerous studies and reports listed in Section IV of this memo which provides background and rationale for the importance of ensuring an adequate supply of employee housing within the Town of Vail. The studies and reports conclude that without intervention there wifl be a continuing decrease in the amount of housing available to local employees and the negative effects of that outcome. The "ULI Panel Presentatron on Eagle Countv Workforce Housinq December 2006" states that "locating new development (employee housing) close to an ~ existing town/village, preferably adjoining or close to the town center, utilize already disturbed sites or sites with existing inventory identified for re-development and locate near existing or future public transportation hubs" should be the guiding principles for the development of employee housing. Ordinances 7, 8 and 9 ensure that these principles are utilized in the development of new employee housing in the Town of Vail. Additionally, through the Vail 2020 Strategic Planning Process, the community has identified employee housing as one of the highest priority issues for the Town to address along with parking and the environment. Once implemented, commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning will begin to address the ever increasing need for employee housing in the Town of Vail. For the reasons cited above, staff believes that this criteria has been addressed by the proposed text amendments. • 9 7) The extent to which the text amendments demonstrate how • employee housing conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the zoning regulations and how the existing regulations are no longer appropriate or are inapplicable. Staff Response The Town of Vail established its current employee housing policies in 1992. The Town began providing incentives for home owners to develop employee housing units on their property through GRFA and density bonuses. The employee housing created was developed through incentives rather than requirements. Throughout the 1990's three hundred (300) employee housing units were built and deed restricted. This includes developments like Vail Commons and Red Sandstone. Since April of 2000 only twenty-eight deed restricted employee housing units have been built in Town under the existing incentive policy. Of the twenty-eight units built, six of the twenty-eight include the North Trail Townhomes constructed by the Town of Vail. An additional fifteen units have been deed restricted under the Town's existing commercial linkage policies. Currently approved projects will also provide additional employee housing, but not enough to achieve the stated goal of at least 30% of the Town's workforce. As stated in the "Vail Housing Research Choices and Potential Outcomes. March 2005" • "...as the supply of entry-level housing diminishes in Vail and prices increase, year round employees looking to own a home are , moving down valley where there are more opfions. As down , valley jobs increase in number, Vail faces a challenge in recruiting and retaining qualified employees who may choose to live closer to where they work." The report further concludes, "...the challenge of housing for both year round and seasonal workers close to their employment is compounded by the difficulty of providing for parking. Employees who drive to work look for parking that is close to employment. This land can be in prime locations and very expensive. The interplay between housing, transportation and parking should be identified and considered in the evaluation of alternatives." In the Town of Vail (and the larger Eagle County area), residential development contributes to the lack of housing affordable to locals in the fact that new housing development in the Town of Vail is primarily targeted to higher income, out-of-area buyers. The free market and the prices it demands are simply not affordable to the vast majority of persons earning their living in the Town of Vail. As more expensive housing • continues to be constructed, the availability of land and developable area 10 , • on which to provide housing for foca( residents and workers decreases, resulting in increased land costs and housing prices. Demand for homes from second homeowners force residents and employees earning local wages to compete with higher income households for a limited supply of housing. Local homeownership rates verify this trend. According to Eagle County Assessor's records, local residents own approximately thirty-two percent (32%) of all homes in the Town of Vail, and only twenty- two percent (22%) of the homes built in 2005. Finally, local wages are not keeping up with the real estate market. It is estimated that forty-seven percent (47%) of households in the Town of Vail earned less than one hundred percent (100%) of the area median income ($67,200 for an average two-person family) in 2006 and there are no homes in the Town's housing market that are potentially affordable to households earning less than one hundred forty percent (140°/a) of the area median income ($89,600 for an average two-person family). This condition is compounded by a scarce supply of developable land in the Town of Vail. For the reasons cited above, staff believes that this criteria has been addressed by the proposed text amendments. I 8) The extent to which the text amendments provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations I • consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff Response As previously stated in Criteria #4 above, if is clear that the two new chapters have been successfully incorporated into the Town's adopted rules and zoning regulations. Pursuant to Sections 42-23-1 and 12-24-1, Purpose and Applicability, of the proposed ordinances, the employee housing regulations are applicable to all new commercial and residential development and any redevelopment or change in use that results in new net ffoor area or GRFA in sixteen (16) of the Town's finrenty-seven (27) zone districts. According to Title 12 of the Vail Town Code, with the exception of the Heavy Service zone district, each of zone districts to which the regulations shall apply already allows the creation of employee housing units in addition to the many other prescribed land uses. Since employee housing units are already allowed within the various districts, staff believes that the proposed regulations wili have no negative impact on the provision of harmonious, convenient, workable refationships among the land use regulations consistent with the development objectives of the Town. For example, as presently existing and clearly demonstrated in Section 12-13-4 of Chapter 12-13, Employee Housing, (Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2007), Type 111 EHUs are allowed in each of the zone districts affected by the two new ordinances, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, and do not count towards density • control (i.e., du/acre and GRFA) for the purpose of zoning. None of the ordinances contemplates changing these provisions and is but one 11 i example of how the text amendments provide a harmonious, convenient, • workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. 9) Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council , deem applicable to the proposed text amendments. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followinq findinqs before forwarding a recommendation of approval for a text ' amendment: 1. That the amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendments further the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the Development Review Handbook; and 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and I harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of ' the highest quality. • , VI. NEXT STEPS March 13, 2007 (Town Council) 1 S` Reading of Ordinances No. 7, 8& 9, Series of 2007 Resolution No. 6, Series of 2007 April 3, 2007 (Town Council) 2"d Reading of Ordinances No. 7, 8& 9, Series of 2007 VI1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Town of Vail Community Development Department recommends that the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of Ordinances 7, 8 and 9, Series of 2007 to the Vail Town Council. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval of the ordinances to the Vail Town Council, staff • recommends that the foNowing findings be made as part of the motion, 12 ~ . • "That based upon review of the criteria outlined in Section V of fhis memorandum and the studies and reports cited rn Section IV the Commission finds that the proposed text amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the development objectives of the Town. Additionally, based upon the evidence and testimony presented on the proposed text amendmenfs, fhe Commission finds that fhe amendmenfs further the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the Developmenf Review Handbook, as outlined in Section V above. Finally, the Commission finds fhat the amendments promote the healfh, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. " • ~ 13 ORDINANCE NO. 7 ~ SERIES 2007 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF NEW DEFINITIONS TO SECTION 12-2-2, AND THE ADOPTION OF A NEW CHAPTER 23, ENTITLED COMMERCIAL LINKAGE, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has experienced a decrease in population during the past ten years due to market conditions that have given homeowners incentive to sell their properties; WHEREAS, during that period of time, housing costs in Vail have increased at a much higher rate than income has increased; WHEREAS, new commercial development and redevelopment in Vail will result in new employees being needed for uses in the new buildings and for the maintenance of the new buildings; WHEREAS, there is a substantial, direct, and rational connection between the need for housing of employees generated by new commercial development and redevelopment and the requirements for the provision of employee housing, as ~ documented in the report entitled, "Town of Vail Nexus/Proportionality Analvsis for Employee Housinq Mitiqation Proqramsprepared for the Town by RRC Associates, Inc., dated March 12, 2007, a copy of which is on file with the Town Clerk and available for public inspection; WHEREAS, on March 12, 2007, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail held a public hearing and reviewed and forwarded a recommendation of of the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Regulations to the Vail Town Council in accordance with the procedures and criteria and findings outlined in Chapter 12-3 of the Zoning Regulations; WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that the provision of a reasonable and appropriate percentage of new employee housing is the responsibility of new commercial developments and redevelopments which have a nexus to new job generation; WHEREAS, it is the Town Council's goal to provide housing for at least thirty percent (30%) of the net new employees generated from residential and commercial development in the Town through the conjunctive efforts of this ordinance and the Town's inclusionary zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the public health, safety, and welfare will be served by adopting regulations which require mitigation of such • impacts on employee housing in the Town of Vail. 1 31812007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 7, SERIES OF 2007, COMMERCIAL LINKAGE, FIRST READING 0313.DOC NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE ~ TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following definitions: CHANGE IN USE: A change in land use on a particular site from one type of commercial use to another type of commercial use without redevelopment. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Any development that includes uses such as business offices, professional offices, accommodation units, general retail, grocery, liquor and convenience, recreational amenity, real estate offices, conference facilities, health clubs, eating and drinking establishments, service oriented businesses, or similar uses. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE• . An obligation that requires developers to provide housing for a certain number of new employees that are generated by a new commercial development, focusing solely on a development's impact as related to employee generation and not taking into account secondary impacts. CONFERENCE FACILITY: A facility used for conferences, conventions, seminars, banquets, and entertainment functions, along with • accessory functions such as lobbies, pre-convene areas, and exhibition space. DEED RESTRICTION: A permanent restriction on the use, occupancy and transfer of real property that runs with the land and is recorded against the property in the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's ' office. DEVELOPMENT: The construction, improvement, alteration, installatian, erection, or expansion of any building, structure or other improvement in the Town. DORMITORY UNIT: A type of employee housing unit which houses not more than five (5) persons and includes common kitchen facilities, a common bathroom, and a minimum of two hundred (200) square feet of GRFA for each person occupying the unit. EMPLOYEE: A person who works an average of thirty(30) hours per week or more on a year round basis at a business located in Eagle County. ~ 2 31812007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 7, SERIES OF 2007, COMMERCIAL LINKAGE, FIRST READING 0313.DOC • EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT (EHU): A dwelling unit which is deed restricted that shall not be leased or rented for less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be occupied by at least one person who is an employee. NEXUS STUDY: A report, adopted by Town Council, updated at least every five (5) years or more often if deemed necessary by the Town Council, analyzing the current and future employee housing needs resulting from new development and redevelopment in the Town. OFF-SITE: A location within the boundaries of the Town other than the site on which the commercial development is located. REAL ESTATE OFFICE: An office for the purpose of conducting real estate transactions and/or property management. REDEVELOPMENT: The construction, improvement, alteration, installation, erection, or expansion of any existing building, structure or other improvement in the Town that results in an increase in net floor area or GRFA. SPA: A commercial establishment providing services including massage, body or facial treatments, make-up consultation and application, • manicures, pedicures and similar services, excluding beauty and barber shops. Section 2. Title 12 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following new Chapter 23, entitled Commercial Linkage: CHAPTER 23: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE 12-23-1: PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY: A. The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure that new commercial development, redevelopment, and changes in use in the Town provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such commercial development, redevelopment, and changes in use. • 3 31812007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 7, SERIES OF 2007, COMMERCIAL LINKAGE, FIRST READING 0313.DOC B. Except as provided in Section 12-23-5, this Chapter shall apply to all new commercial development, redevelopment and change in • use located within the following zone districts: . 1. High Density Multiple Family (HDMF); 2. Public Accommodation (PA); 3. Public Accommodation 2 (PA2); 4. Commercial Core 1 (CC1); 5. Commercial Core 2 (CC2); 6. Commercial Core 3 (CC3); 7. Commercial Service Center (CSC); 8. Artenal Business (ABD); 9. General Use (GU); ' 10. Heavy Service (HS); 11. Lionshead Mixed Use 1(LMU1); • , 12. Lionshead Mixed Use 2(LMU2); 13. Ski Base/Recreation (SBR); 14. Ski Base/Recreation 2 (SBR2); ' 15. Parking District (P); and 16. Special Development (SDD). C. The requirements of this Chapter shall be in addition to all other requirements of this Code. D. When any provision of this Chapter conflicts with any other provision of this Code, the provision of this Chapter shall control. 12-23-2: EMPLOYEE GENERATION AND MITIGATION RATES: A. The employee generation rates found in Table 23-1, Employee Generation Rates Per Type of Use, shall be applied to each type of use in a commercial development. For any use not listed, the Administrator shall determine the applicable employee generation rate by • consulting the Town's current Nexus Study. 4 31812007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 7, SERIES OF 2007, COMMERCIAL LINKAGE, FIRST READING 0313.DOC • TABLE 23-1 EMPLOYEE GENERATION RATES BY TYPE OF COMMERCIAL USE Type of Use Employee Generation Rates Retail Store/Personal 2.5 Employees per 1,000 feet of Service/Repair Shop new net floor area Business Office and 3.2 Employees per 1,000 feet of Professional Office (excluding new net floor area Real Estate Office) Accommodation Unit/Limited .7 Employees per net new units Service Lodge Unit Real Estate Office 5.1 Employees per 1,000 feet of new net floor area Eating and Drinking 6.75 Employees per 1,000 feet of Establishment new net floor area • Conference Facility .8 Employees per 1,000 feet of new net floor area Health Club .96 Employees per 1,000 feet of new net floor area Spa 2.1 Employees per 1,000 feet of new net floor area B. If an applicant submits competent evidence that the employee generation rates contained in Table 23-1 or the Nexus Study do not accurately reflect the number of employees generated by the proposed commercial development, redevelopment, or change in use, and the Administrator finds that such evidence warrants a deviation from those employee generation rates, the Administrator shall allow for such a deviation as the Administrator deems appropriate. C. Each commercial development, redevelopment, or change in use shall mitigate its impact on employee housing by providing EHUs for twenty percent (20%) of the employees generated, pursuant to Table 23- 1, or the Nexus Study, in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. ~ 5 31812007 I F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 7, SERIES OF 2007, COMMERCIAL LINKAGE, FIRST READlNG 0313.DOC I D. Solely for the purpose of converting the requirements of this • Chapter into the requirements of Chapter 24, Inclusionary Zoning, a conversion factor of one employee equals three hundred fifty (350) square feet of GRFA. (i.e., conversion factor = 350 sq. ft./employee). This conversion factor shall only apply when comparing the existing employee housing requirement to the proposed employee housing requirement for a change in use or redevelopment application. 12-23-3: SIZE AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS: A. Table 23-2, Size of Employee Housing Units, establishes the minimum size of EHUs and the number of employees that can be housed in each. All EHUs shall meet or exceed the minimum size requirements. TABLE 23-2 SIZE OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS Type of Unit Minimum Number of Size (GRFA) Employees Housed Dormitory 200 1 Studio 438 1.25 • One-Bedroom 613 1.75 Two-Bedroom 788 2.25 Three-Bedroom 1225 3.5 . B. Every EHU shall contain a kitchen facility.or kitchenette and , a bathroom. C. All trash facilities shall be enclosed. D. Parking shall be provided as required by this Title, E. Each EHU shall have its own entrance. There shall be no interior access from any EHU to any dwelling unit to which it may be attached. F. EHUs shall not be included in the Town's calculations for density control. G. Every EHU shall be allowed three hundred (300) square feet of additional garage area. Any EHU that does not have a garage shall • 6 3/8/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCESI0710RDINANCE NO. 7, SERIES OF 2007, COMMERClAL LINKAGE, FlRST READlNG 0313.DOC • include a minimum of an additional seventy five (75) square feet for storage in addition to normal closet space. 12-23-4: REDEVELOPMENT: A. For redevelopment of a commercial use which is not a change to residentiat use, empioyee housing impacts need only be mitigated for a change in use that results in a greater number of employees generafed or an increase in net floor area, or increase in the number of accommodation units or limited service lodge units of the redevelopment; provided however, that if any existing EHUs are to be removed, an equal amount of EHUs shall be replaced in addition to other requirements of this Chapter. B. For redevelopment of a commercial use to a residential use, the inclusionary zoning requirements of Chapter 12-24 shall apply to the tota( GRFA of the residential development, but a credit shall be given for the employees already existing for the commercial use pursuant to the conversion ra#e estabtished by Sectton 12-24-2(B). 12-23-5: CHANGE IN USE: For a change in use, employee housing impacts need only be I • mitigated for the net increase in employees generated by the change in use ursuant to Table 23-9 or the Nexus st , p , udy, as applicable. 12-23-6: EXEMPTIONS: The following shall be exempt from this Chapter: 1. The redevelopment of existing commercial development, if no new net floor area, accommodation units, or limited service lodge units are created and there is no change in use; and 2. The construction of EHUs. 12-23-7: METHODS OF MITIGATION: A. The mitigation of employee housing required by this Chapter shall be accomplished through one of the following methods: 1. On-site units. The requisite number of EHUs, or a portion thereof. 2. Conveyance of property on-site. An applicant may convey on-site real property to the Town on which no covenants, • restrictions or issues exist that would limit the construction of EHUs, at the sole discretion of the Town Council. 7 31812007 F.•ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE fYO. 7, SERIES OF 2007, COMMERCIAL LINKAGE, FIRST READING 0313.DOC i ' ' 3. Off-site units. The requisite number of EHUs, or a ' portion thereof, may be provided off-site within the Town of Vail. • 4. Payment of fees-in-lieu. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve payment of fees-in-lieu for each employee to be housed, or portion thereof, required by this ~ Chapter. a. The fees-in-lieu for each employee to be housed shall be established annually by resolution of the Town Council, provided that, in calculating that fee, the Town Council shalt include the net cost (total cost less the amount covered by rental or sale income) of real property and all related planning, design, site development, legal, construction and construction management costs of the project, in current dollars, which would be incurred by the Town to provide housing for the employee to be housed in that year. b. An administrative fee of fifteen percent (15%) shall be added to the amount set forth in paragraph a hereof. c. Fees-in-lieu shall be clue and payable prior to the issuance of a building permit for the development. • d. The Town shall only use monies collected from fees-in-lieu to provide new employee housing. 5. Conveyance of property off-site. The Town Council may, at its sole discretion, accept the conveyance of property off- site in lieu of requiring the provision of EHUs, provided that no covenants, restrictions or issues exist on such property that would limit the construction of EHUs. B. Partial fees-in-lieu shall be paid when the calculation to determine the number of employees generated under this Chapter results in a fractional number of employees. 12-23-8: MITIGATION BANK: A. The Town will provide credit for any EHUs constructed or acquired in anticipation of future commercial development, redevelopment or change in use, provided that those EHUs meet all applicable requirements of this Title. However, the construction or acquisition of EHUs in anticipation of future development is at the sole risk of the applicant, because the commercial development sha11 be subject to all regulations pertaining to EHUs which are in effect at the time the ~ 8 3/8/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDlNANCE NO. 7, SERlES OF 2007, COMMERCIAL LINKAGE, FIRST READING 0313.DOC • application for commercial development review is submitted to the Town, even if those regulations change after the EHUs are constructed. B. The Town will provide credit for any EHUs previously constructed or acquired under Chapter 12-24, pursuant to the conversion factor established by Section 12-24-2(B), provided that those EHUs meet all applicable requirements of this Title. C. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to provide documentation of any existing EHU credit upon submission of an application for development review. If the applicant cannot adequately document such credits, the Town shall not be obligated to provide such credit. 12-23-9: ADMINISTRATION: A. Each application for development review shall include an Employee Housing Plan or Statement of Exemption. B. An Employee Housing Plan shall include the following: 1. Calculation Method. The calculation of employee generation, including credits if applicable, and the mitigation • method by which the applicant proposes to meet the requirements of this Chapter; 2. Plans. A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan that demonstrates compliance with Section 12-23-3, Size and Building Requirements; 3. Lot Size. The average lot size of the proposed EHUs and the average lot size of other dwelling units in the commercial development or redevelopment, if any; 4. Schedules. A timeline for the provision of any off-site EHUs; 5. Off-Site Units. A proposal for the provision of any off- site EHUs shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; 6. Off-Site Conveyance Request. A request for an off- site conveyance shall include a brief statement explaining the basis for the request; and 7. Fees-in-lieu. A proposal to pay fees-in-lieu shall • include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal. 9 3/a/2oo7 F:ICDE00RDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 7, SERlES OF 2007, COMMERCIAL LINKAGE, FIRST READING 0313.DOC C. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall approve, • approve with modifications, or deny an Employee Housing Plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented that the Employee Housing Plan complies with the provisions of this Title. When an Employee Housing Plan is required as part of an application for a special development district or includes a request to convey property as a means of mitigation method, the Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny the Employee Housing Plan based upon the compliance criteria. D. Any amendment or revision to an approved development plan which required employee housing in accordance with this Chapter shall be required to submit an amended Employee Housing Plan demonstrating continued compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. E. An approved Employee Housing Plan shall become part of I the approved application for development review for the affected site. 12-23-10: OCCUPANCY AND DEED RESTRICTIONS: A. No EHU shall be subdivided or divided into any form of timeshare unit or fractional fee club unit. B. EHUs shall not be leased for a period less than thirty (30) • consecutive days. C. An EHU may be sold or transferred as a separate unit on the site. D. An EHU shall be continuously rented and shall not remain vacant for a period in excess of three (3) consecutive months unless, despite reasonable and documented efforts to rent, rental efforts are unsuccessful. E. No later than February 1St of each year, the owner of an EHU shall submit a sworn affidavit on a form provided by the Town to the Town of Vail Community Development Department containing the following information: 1. Evidence to establish that the EHU has been occupied throughout the year by an employee; 2. The rental rate; 3. The employer; and • 10 3/8/2007 F:ICDEVIORD/NANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 7, SERIES OF 2007, COMMERCIAL LINKAGE, FIRST READING 0313.DOC • • 4. Evidence to demonstrate that at least one tenant residing in the EHU is an employee. 12-23-11: TIMING: All EHUs required by this Chapter shall be ready for occupancy prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the affected commercial development, redevelopment or change in use. 12-23-12: VARIANCES: Variances from the requirements of this Chapter may be granted pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 17 of this Title. 12-23-13: REVIEW: A. Purpose. The Town Council intends that the application of this Chapter not result in an unlawful taking of private property without the payment of just compensation, and therefore, the Town Council adopts the review procedures set forth in this Section. B. Planning and Environmental Commission review. Any • applicant for commercial development who feels that the application of this Chapter would effect an unlawful taking may apply to the Planning and Environmental Commission for an adjustment of the requirements imposed by this Chapter. If the Planning and Environmental Commission determines that the application of this Chapter would result in an unlawful taking of private property without just compensation, the Planning and Environmenta! Commission may alter, lessen, or adjust employee housing requirements as applied to the particular project under consideration to ensure that there is no unlawful uncompensated taking. C. Town Council review. If the Planning and Environmental Commission denies the relief sought by an applicant, the applicant may request a hearing before the Town Council. Such hearing shall be a quasi-judicial hearing and conducted according to the Town's rules and regulations regarding quasi-judicial hearings. At such hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the applicant to establish that the fulfillment of the requirements of this Chapter would effect an unconstitutional taking without just compensation pursuant to applicable law. If the Town Council determines that the application of this Chapter would effect an illegal taking without just compensation, the Town Council may alter, lessen, or adjust the employee housing requirements as applied to the particular project under consideration to ensure that no illegal uncompensated taking occurs. The decision of the Town Council shall be final, subject only to • judicial review. 11 31812007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCESIOTORDINANCE NO. 7, SERIES OF 2007, COMMERCIAL LINKAGE, FIRST READING 0313.DOC Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this • ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repea{ed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 6. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. i ~ • 12 31812007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 7, SERIES OF 2007, COMMERCIAL LINKAGE, FIRST READING 0313.DOC • INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 13th day of March, 2007 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 3rd day of April, 2007, in i the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rodney Slifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 3rd day of April, 2007. Rodney Slifer, Mayor Attest: ~ Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk • 13 31812007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 7, SERIES OF 2007, COMMERCIAL LINKAGE, FIRST READING 0313.DOC ~ ORDINANCE NO. 8 SERIES 2007 ~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF NEW DEFINITIONS T4 SECTION 12-2-2, AND THE ADOPTION OF A NEW CHAPTER 24, ENTITLED INCLUSIONARY ZONING, AND SETTtNG FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has experienced a decrease in population during the past ten years due to market conditions that have given homeowners incentive to sell their properties; WHEREAS, during that period of time, housing costs in the Town of Vail have increased at a much higher rate than income has increased; WHEREAS, local residents own only approximately thirty-two percent (32%) of all homes in the Town of Vail, and only twenty-two percent (22%) of those homes that were buift in 2005; WHEREAS, it is estimated that forty-seven percent (47%) of households in the Town of Vail earned less than one hundred percent (100%) of the area median income ($67,200 for an average two-person family) in 2006; ~ WHEREAS, there are virtually no homes in the Town's housing market that are I potentially affordable to households earning less than one hundred forty percent (140%) of the area median income ($89,600 for an average two-person family); WHEREAS, there is a scarce supply of developable land in the Town of Vail; WHEREAS, through the Vail 2020 Strategic Planning Process the community has identified employee housing as one of the highest priority issues for the Town to address; WHEREAS, on March 12, 2007, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail held a public hearing and reviewed and forwarded a recommendation of of the proposed text amendments to the "Zoning Regulations" to the Vail Town Council in accordance with the procedures and criteria and findings outlined in Chapter 12-3 of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail; WHEREAS, new residential development and redevelopment in the Town will result in new employees being needed for uses in the new buildings and for the maintenance of the new buildings; WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that the provision of a reasonable and appropriate percentage of new employee housing is the responsibility of new residential . developments and redevelopments which have a nexus to new job generation and an impact on the availability of housing units affordable to local employees; 1 3/8/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCESl0710RDINANCE NO. 8, SER/ES OF 2007, INCLUSIONARY ZONING, FIRST READING 0313.DOC WHEREAS, it is the Town Council's goal to provide housing for at least thirty ~ - percent (30%) of the new employees generated from residential and commercial development in the Town through the conjunctive efforts of this ordinance and the Town's commercial linkage ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the public health, safety, and welfare will be served by adopting regulations which require mitigation of such impacts on employee housing in the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following definitions: INCLUSIONARY ZONING: A zoning obligation based on the communitY's need for emPloYee housing considering many factors and secondary impacts, including scarcity of developable land; rising home values; inadequate availability of employee housing in the market; and direct employee generation impacts. REMODELING: The alteration or renovation of the interior only of an existing residential dwelling unit in the Town of Vail, without any increase in GRFA or change in use. • RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: A development that includes at least one dwelling unit, including single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, multiple family dwellings, fractional fee club units, lodge dwelling units, attached accommodation units, and timeshare units. Section 2. Title 12 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following new Chapter 24: CHAPTER 24: INCLUSIONARY ZONING 12-24-1: PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY: A. The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure that new residential development and redevelopment in the Town of Vail provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such residential development and redevelopment. ~ 2 31812007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 8, SERIES OF 2007, INCLUSIONARY ZONING, FIRST READING 0313.DOC • B. This Chapter shali apply to all new residential development and redevelopment located within the following zone districts, except as provided in Section 12-24-5: 1. High Density Multiple Family (HDMF); 2. Public Accommodation (PA); 3. Public Accommodation 2 (PA2); 4. Commercial Core 1 (CC1); 5. Commercial Core 2 (CC2); 6. Commercial Core 3 (CC3); 7. Commercial Service Center (CSC); 8. Arterial Business (ABD); 9. General Use (GU); 10. Heavy Service (HS); • 11. Lionshead Mixed Use 1(LMU1); 12. Lionshead Mixed Use 2(LMU2); 13. Ski Base/Recreation (SBR); 14. Ski Base/Recreation 2 (SBR2); 15. Parking District (P); and 16. Special Development (SDD). C. The requirements of this Chapter shall be in addition to all other requirements of this Code. D. - When any provision of this Chapter conflicts with any other provision of this Code, the provision of this Chapter shall control. 12-24-2: EMPLOYEE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS: A. Every residential development and redevelopment shall be required to mitigate its direct and secondary impacts on the Town by providing employee housing at a mitigation rate of ten percent (10%) of • the total new GRFA. 3 31812007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCESIOTORDINANCE NO. 8, SERIES OF 2007, INCLUSIONARY ZONING, FIRST READING 0313.DOC B. Sofely for the purpose of converting the requirements of this • Chapter into the requirements of Chapter 23, Commercial Linkage, a conversion factor of one employee equals five hundred fifty (550) square feet of GRFA. (i.e., conversion factor = 550 sq. ft./employee). This conversion factor shall only apply when comparing the existing employee housing requirement to the proposed employee housing requirement for a change in use or redevelopment application. 12-24-3: BUILDING REQUIREMENTS: A. The minimum size of an EHU shall be five hundred and fifty (550) square feet of GRFA and the maximum size of an EHU shall be three thousand three hundred (3,300) square feet of GRFA. B. Every EHU shall contain a kitchen facility or kitchenette and a bathroom. C. All trash facilities shall be enclosed. D. Parking shall be provided as required by this Title. E. Each EHU shall have its own entrance. There shall be no interior access from any EHU to any dwelling unit it to which it may be attached. F. EHUs shall not be included in the Town's calculations for • density control. G. Every EHU shall be allowed three hundred (300) square feet of additional garage area. Any EHU that does not have a garage shall include a minimum of an additional seventy five (75) square feet for storage in addition to normal closet space. 12-24-4: REDEVELOPMENT: A. For redevelopment from a residential use to a residential use, employee housing need only be provided for the increase in the GRFA of the redevelopment; provided however, that if any existing EHUs are to be removed, an equal amount of EHUs shall be replaced in addition to other requirements of this Chapter. B. For redevelopment from a residential use to a commercial I use, employee housing need only be provided for the net increase in employees generated by the redevelopment, using the conversion rate ~ established by Section 12-23-2(D) in this Title. • 4 31812007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 8, SERIES OF 2007, INCLUSIONARY ZONING, FIRST READING 0313. DOC • 12-24-5: EXEMPTIONS: The following shall be exempt from this Chapter: 1. The remodeling of an existing dwelling unit; 2. The replacement of demolished residential development, provided the replacement structure does not exceed the total GRFA of the original structure; and 3 The construction of EHUs. 12-24-6: METHODS OF MITIGATION: A. The mitigation of employee housing required by this Chapter may be accomplished through one of the following methods: 1. On-site units. The requisite number of EHUs or a portion thereof. 2. Conveyance of property on-site. An applicant may convey on-site real property to the Town of Vail on which no covenants, restrictions or issues exist that would limit the construction of EHUs, at the sole discretion of the Town Council. • 3. Off-site units. The requisite number of EHUs, or a portion thereof, may be provided off-site within the Town of Vail. 4. Payment of fees-in-lieu. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve payment of fees-in-lieu for each square foot, or portion thereof, required by this chapter. a. The fees-in-lieu for each square foot shall be estabiished annually by resolution of the Town Council, provided,that in calculating that fee, the Town Council shall include the net cost (total cost less the amount covered by rental or sale income) of real property and all related planning, design, site development, legal, construction and construction management costs of the project, in current dollars, which would be incurred by the Town to provide the square feet in that year. b. An administrative fee of fifteen percent (15%) shall be added to the amount set forth in paragraph a hereof. c. Fees-in-lieu shall be due and payable prior to the issuance of a building permit for the development. ~ • . i 5 3/a/2oo7 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 8, SERIES OF 2007, INCLUSIONARYZONING, FIRST READING 0313.DOC ~ d. The Town shall only use monies collected from • the fees-in-lieu to provide new employee housing. 5. Conveyance of property off-site. The Town Council may, at its sole discretion, accept a conveyance of real property off- site in lieu of requiring construction of EHUs, provided that no covenants, restrictions or issues exist on the property that would limit the construction of EHUs. B. Partial fees-in-lieu shall be paid when the calculation to determine the square feet generated under this Chapter results in less than the minimum size of an EHU (five hundred and fifty (550) square feet of GRFA). 12-24-7 MITIGATION BANK: A. The Town will provide credit for any EHUs constructed or acquired in anticipation of future residential development or redevefopment, provided that those EHUs meet all applicable requirements of this Chapter. However, the construction or acquisition of EHUs in anticipation of future development is at the risk of the applicant, because the residential development shall be subject to alf regulations pertaining to EHUs which are in effect at the time the application for development review is submitted to the Town, even if those regulations • change after the EHUs are constructed. B. The Town will provide credit for any EHUs constructed or acquired pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 12-23, pursuant to the conversion rate established by Section 12-23-2(D), provided that those EHUs meet all applicable requirements of this Chapter. C. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to provide documentation of any existing EHU credits upon submission of an application for development review. If the applicant cannot adequately document such credits, the Town shall not be obligated to provide such ~I credits. I 12-24-8: ADMINISTRATION: ~ A. Each application for development review shall include an Employee Housing Plan or Statement of Exemption. B. An Employee Housing Plan shall include the following: 1. Calculation Method. The calculation of the inclusionary zoning requirement, including credits if applicable, and the mitigation method by which the applicant proposes to meet the • requirements of this Chapter; 6 3/8/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 8, SER/ES OF 2007, INCLUSIONARY ZONING, FIRST READING 0313.DOC • 2. Plans. A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan that demonstrates compliance with Section 12-24-3, Size and Building Requirements; 3. Lot Size. The average lot size of the proposed EHUs and the average lot size of other dwelling units in the commercial development or redevelopment, if any; 4. Schedules. A timeline for the provision of any off-site ' EHUs; 5. Off-Site Units. A proposal for the provision of any off- site EHUs shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; 6. Off-Site Conveyance Request. A request for an off- site conveyance shall include a brief statement explaining the basis for the request; and 7. Fees-in-lieu. A proposal to pay fees-in-lieu shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal. C. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall approve, • approve with modifications, or deny an Employee Housing Plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented that the Employee Housing Plan complies with the provisions of this Title. When an Employee Housing Plan is required as part of an application for a special development district or includes a request to convey property as a means of mitigation method, the Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny the Employee Housing Plan based upon the compliance criteria. D. Any amendment or revision to an approved development plan which required employee housing in accordance with this Chapter shall be required to submit an amended Employee Housing Plan demonstrating continued compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. E. An approved Employee Housing Plan shall become part of the approved application for development review for the affected site. 12-24-9: OCCUPANCY AND DEED RESTRICTIONS: A. No EHU shall be subdivided or divided into any form of timeshare unit or fractional fee club unit. B. EHUs shall not be leased for a period less than thirty (30) ~ • consecutive days. 7 3/a/2oo7 F:ICDE00RDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 8, SERIES OF 2007, INCLUSIONARY ZONING, FIRST READING 0313.DOC ~ I • i ' C. An EHU may be sold or transferred as a separate unit on the site. • D. An EHU shall be continuously rented and shall not remain vacant for a period in excess of three (3) consecutive months unless, despite reasonable and documented efforts to rent, rental efforts are unsuccessful. E. No later than February 1 St of each year, the owner of each EHU shall submit a sworn affidavit on a form provided by the Town with the following information: 1. Evidence to establish that the EHU has been rented or owner occupied throughout the year; 2. The rental rate; 3. The employer; and 4. Evidence to demonstrate that at least one tenant residing in the EHU is an employee at a business located in Eagle County. 12-24-10: TIMING: • All EHUs required by this Chapter shall be ready for occupancy prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the affected residential development. 12-24-11: VARIANCES: Variances from the requirements of this Chapter may be granted pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 17 of this Title. 12-24-12: REVIEW: A. Purpose. The Town Council intends that the application of this Chapter not result in an unlawful taking of private property without the payment of just compensation, and therefore, the Town Council adopts the review procedures set forth in this Section. B. Planning and Environmental Commission review. Any applicant for residential development who feels that the application of this Chapter would effect an unlawful taking may apply to the Planning and Environmental Commission for an adjustment of the requirements imposed by this Chapter. If the P{anning and Environmental Commission determines that the application of this Chapter would result in an unlawful • $ 3/8/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 8, SERIES OF 2007, lNCLUSIONARYZONING, FIRST READING 0313.DOC • taking of private property without just compensation, the Planning and Environmental Commission may alter, lessen, or adjust employee housing requirements as applied to the particular projsct under considerafion to ensure that there is no unlawful uncompensated taking. C. Town Council review. if the Planning and Environmental Commission denies the relief sought by an applicant, the applicant may request a hearing before the Town Council. Such hearing shatl be a quasi-judicial hearing and conducted according to the Town's rules and regulations regarding quasi-judicial hearings. At such hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the applicant to establish that the fulfillment of the requirements of this Chapter would effect an unconstitutional taking without just compensation pursuant to appiicable law. If the Town Council determines that the application of this Chapter would effect an iilegal taking without just compensation, the Town Council may alter, lessen, or adjust the employee housing requirements as applied to the particular project under consideration to ensure that no illegal uncompensated taking occurs. The decision of the Town Council shall be final, subject only to judicial review. Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it ~ would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 6. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repeafed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. • 9 3/s/2oo7 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RD/NANCE NO. 8, SERIES OF 2007, INCLUSIONARYZONING, F1RST READING 0313.DOC INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED • PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 13th day of March, 2007 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 3rd day of April, 2007, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rodney Slifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 3rd day of April, 2007. Rodney Slifer, Mayor Attest: • Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk • 10 31812007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 8, SERIES OF 2007, INCLUSIONARYZONING, FIRST READING 0313.DOC ~ ORDINANCE NO. 9 SERIES OF 2007 AN ORDINANCE REPEALlNG A ND RE-ENACTING CHAPTER 12-13, EMPLOYEE HOUSING, VAIL TOWN CODE, TO INCORPORATE ADMINSTRATIVE CHANGES TO THE EMPLOYEE HOUSlNG REGULATlONS AND REQUIREMENTS ~I DUE TO THE ADOPTION OF COMMERCIAL LINKAGE AND INCLUSIONARY ZONING; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN I REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 12-13, Employee Housing, Vail Town Code, was originally enacted by the Town of Vail to regulate the provision of employee housing units within the Town of Vail; WHEREAS, it is now the Town Council's goal to provide housing for at least thirty percent (30%) of the net new employees generated from residential and commercial development in the Town through the conjunctive efforts of commercial linkage, inclusionary zoning and Chapter 12-13 of the Vail Town Code; WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council has determined #hat the adoption of • commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning regulations are needed to mitigate the impacts of new commercial and residential development and redevelopment on the availability of employee housing in the Town of Vail; WHEREAS, on March 12, 2007, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail held a public hearing and reviewed and forwarded a recommendation of of the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Regulations to the Vail Town Council in accordance with the procedures and criteria and findings outlined in Chapter 12-3 of the Zoning Regulations; WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the public health, safety, and welfare will be served by adopting regulations which require mitigation of such impacts on employee housing in the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Chapter 12-13, Employee Housing, is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: ~ 3/8/7007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDlNANCE NO. 9, SERIES OF 2007, REPEAL/NG AND RE-ENACT/NG CHAOTER 13, EMPLOYEE HOUSING 0313 FIRST READING.DOC 12-13-1: PURPOSE: ~ The Town's economy is largely tourist based and the health of this economy is premised on exemplary service for Vail's guests. Vai{'s ability to provide such service is dependent upon a strong, high quality and consistently available work force. To achieve such a work force, the community must wark to provide quality living and working conditions. Availability and affordability of housing plays a critical role in creating quality living and working conditions for the community's work force. The Town recognizes a permanent, year-round population plays an important role in sustaining a healthy, viable community. Further, the Town recognizes its role in conjunction with the private sector in ensuring housing is available. 12-13-2: APPLICABILITY: A. The requirements of this Chapter shall be in addition to the requirements set forth in each zone district where employee housing units (EHUs) are permitted or required. B. Where the provisions of this Chapter conflict with the provisions of any other Chapter e, the p rovisions of this Chapter shall control. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the • extent any provision of this Chapter conflicts with any provision of Chapters 23 and 24 of this Title, the provisions of Chapter 23 and Chapter 24 shall always control. 12-13-3: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: This following are general requirements which apply to a{I EHUs. A. Deed Restriction, Occupancy Limitations, and Reporting Requirements - Types I, II, III, and V: 1. No EHU shall be subdivided or divided into any form of timeshare, interval ownerships, or fractional fee. I~I 2. For EHUs which are required to be leased, they shall only be leased to and occupied by tenants who are full-time empfoyees who work in Eagle County. An EHU shaN not be leased for a period less than thirty (30) consecutive days. An EHU shall be continuously rented and shall not remain vacant for a period to , exceed three (3) consecutive months. ~ 3/8/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCE510710RD/NANCE NO. 9, SERIES OF 2007, REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING CHAOTER 13, EMPLOYEE HOUSING 0313 FIRST READING.DOC • 3. Thirty (30) days prior to the transfer of a deed for an EHU, the prospective purchaser shall submit an application to the Administrator documenting that the prospective purchaser meets the criteria set forth herein and shall include an affidavit affirming that he/she meets these criteria. 4. No later than February 1St of each year, the owner of an EHU shall submit a sworn affidavit on a form provided by the Town to the Town of Vail Community Development Department containing the following information: 1. Evidence to establish that the EHU has been occupied throughout the year by an employee; 2. The rental rate; 3. The employer; and 4. Evidence to demonstrate that at least one tenant residing in the EHU is an employee. 5. The deed restriction setting forth the provisions of subsection A shall be provided by the Town of Vail. Said deed restriction shall • run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Vail Town Council. Said restriction shall be recorded by the Town of Vail at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. B. Development Standards: 1. No structure containing an EHU shall exceed the maximum GRFA permitted in this title except as specifically provided herein. 2. All trash facilities shall be enclosed. 3. All surface parking shall comply with Chapter 11 of this Title. 4. Each EHU shall have its own entrance. There shall be no interior access from any EHU to any dwelling unit it may be attached to. 5. An EHU may be located in, or attached to, an existing garage (existing on or before April 18, 2000, and whether located in a required setback or not), provided that no existing parking required by this Code is reduced or eliminated. A Type I EHU which has five hundred (500) square feet or less of GRFA may be considered for . • 3/8/2007 I F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDlNANCE NO. 9, SERIES OF 2007, REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING CHAOTER 13, EMPLOYEE HOUSING 0313 FIRST READING.DOC physical separation from the primary unit, if it is constructed in • conjunction with a finro (2) car garage and is otherwise compatible with the surrounding properties, does not have an adverse impact on vegetation, and does not dominate the street. The design review board shall review such requests for separation. 6. All EHUs must contain a kitchen or kitchenette and a bathroom. 7. Occupancy of an EHU shall be limited to the maximum of two (2) persons per bedroom. C. Application Requirements: 1. Applicants for a conditional use permit for the purpose of constructing EHUs shall not be required to pay a conditional use permit application fee or design review application fee. 2. A development review application for a conditional use permit for the purpose of constructing EHUs is subject to review and approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission as provided for in Chapter 16 of this Title. 3. EHU applications which do not require a conditional use permit • shall be reviewed by the Department of Community Development subject to a design review application. 4. A development review application for a Type II EHU shall include the signatures of all owners of the property (i.e., both sides of a duplex) or there shall be a letter accompanying the application from all owners agreeing to the addition of an EHU. Applications will not be accepted unless this provision is met. ~ ~ 5. Any existing legal nonconforming dwelling unit in the Town may be converted to an EHU administratively by the Town without obtaining a conditional use permit. Dwelling units and lock off units which exist as of the date hereof but which are nonconforming with respect to density and GRFA may be converted to a conforming EHU administratively by the town, as long as they otherwise comply ~ with the development standards and parking requirements found herein and comply with the Town's building code requirements. Upon being converted to an EHU per this section, such dwelling unit shall be considered a legally conforming EHU and -shall be governed by all requirements of this Chapter. 'i • I 3/8/2007 i F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDlNANCE NO. 9, SERIES OF 2007, REPEALING AND RE-ENACT/NG CHAOTER 13, EMPLOYEE HOUSING 0313 FIRST READING.DOC . • D. Enforcement Provisions: All EHUs governed by this Chapter shall be operated and maintained in accordance with this Title. Failure to do so may resuit in enforcement proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction and in accordance with Chapter 3 of this Title. E. Written Management Plan for Type VI EHUs: For the purposes of this Title, a Type VI EHU is an employee housing unit which shall be governed by a written management plan or other written program approved by the ptanning and environmental commission. The management plan is the principal document in guiding the use of a Type VI employee housing unit. The management plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of the conditional use permit application for a Type VI EHU in accordance with Chapter 16 of this Title. 1. Management Plan; Required Contents: a. Parameters Established: The management plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters of the Type VI employee housing ~ unit. i • b. Exclusive Use: The management plan shall demonstrate that the Type VI EHUs are exclusively used for and remain ' available for employee housing, as defined in this Title. c. Notice of Record: The management plan shall provide a mechanism to provide adequate notice of record to prospective owners to ensure that the requirements of the plan shall be met with any future changes in ownership. d. Occupancy: The management plan shall include adequate provisions to ensure that the EHUs shall be occupied, and shall not remain vacant for a period to exceed three (3) consecutive months. e. Affidavit: No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of a Type VI EHU shall submit to the Department of Community Development one (1) copy of a sworn affidavit ~ on a form from the Department of Community Development, to establish that the EHU has been used in compliance with the management plan. ~ 31812007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 9, SERIES OF 2007, REPEAL/NG AND RE-ENACTING CHAOTER 13, EMPLOYEE HOUSING 0313 FIRST READING.DOC f. Other Items: Such other items as the Planning and • II Environmental Commission or the Administrator may deem necessary to the proposed management plan. g. Amendments: Amendments to an approved management plan shall be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission in accordance with this section. 2. Management Plan; Findings: In addition to the findings in I Section 12-16-61B of this Title, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before approving a management plan: a. That the management plan is in accordance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter and Chapter 6, Article I of this Title. b. That the management plan effectively provides employee , housing as defined in Section 12-2-2 of this Title. c. That the management plan effectively provides for adequate notice to prospective owners of the requirements of the management plan and the occupancy requirements for a Type VI EHU. • I • 3/8/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCESI0710RD/NANCE NO. 9, SERIES OF 2007, REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING CHAOTER 13, EMPLOYEE HOUS/NG 0313 FIRST RERDING.DOC • • • ~ . 12-13-4: REQUIREMENTS BY EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT EHU TYPE: EHiJ Zoning districts Ownership/ Additional GRFA/Site Additional Site Garage Par{dng Minimum/ Density permitted by right Transference Coverage Coverage /Reduced CrediUStorage Maximum or by conditional Landscape Area Requirement GRFA of an use EHU Type I Permitted Use: The EHU may be GRFA: Site Coverage: Allowed 300 sq. ft. of Per Chapter 12-10 Per Zone District. Counts as 2nd Primary/Secondary soid or transferred 'I'he EHU is entitled to an The site is entitled to an garage azea per as a dwelling unit. unit on Residential, as separate unit on additional 500 sq. 8. additional5% of site coverage enclosed vehicle space property. Two-Family Residential the property. for EHU. at a maximum of 2 (all with lots less than parking spaces (600 sq. II 14,000 sq. ft.) Landscape Area: ft.). (Previously The site is entitled to a reduction I required deed of landscape azea by 5% All units not restriction on both conshvcted with a i (reduced to 55% of site area) for ~a e shal] be r uired units to allow sale) EHU. g g ~ ~ a muumum 75 sq. ft. of storage azea in addition to normal closet space. This 75 sq. ft. shall be a credit for storage onfy. Type II Conditional Use: The EHU shall not The EHU is entitled to an N/A Allowed 300 sq. ft. of Per Chapter 12-10 Allowed as Dwelling unit Single-Family be sold or additiona1500 sq. ft. GRFA additional gazage area as a dwelling unit. 3rd unit on Residential, Two-Family transferred credit. for the EHU. 300 sq. ft. min. propeRy. Residential, separately from the 1,200 sq. ft.max. Does not Primary/Secondary unit it is associated count as Residential, Agiculture With• density. & Open Space All units not constructed with a garage shal] be required a minimum 75 sq. ft. of storage azea in addition to normal closet space. This 75 sq. ft. shall be a • credit for storage only. 3/8/2007 F:ICDEVIORD/NANCES10710RD/NANCE NO. 9, SERIES OF 2007, REPEAL/NG AND RE-ENACTING CHAOTER 13, EMPLOYEE HOUS/NG 0313 F/RST READING.DOC ~ - - Density N1~Nmumi ,num parking G~A of an Garage Cred~t E~ Coverage Not counted D~ellirig ~ ~ens1tY' p,dditionaiandscape A' ~ ~p~gite ~gedused pet ChapCer 12- unit. al G ~ Additlon ~0. ~y¢ershipl Coverage rIJA 3Qp Sq' ft. cn~n ~ 1,20~ s0.• n'~. Transferen~~ I.11A y~ning districil$ht oY ~ Donn~torY EHV ernv~ted bY t2-15-3 of the bY ~ond't~a~t use per Section e Ty~ IIl ~,nit. ~e EI~t7 may b~ ~1ai1 To`"`ne ° uded from d'e A ty~ ~f housin~ octtansferr ~I3US~T ofCsR.FP'. en~P~Oy~ es 1JSe: sold G pe~itted U$el Sep~ytety. ~alculation un1tWOTe~anfive Type lII ead N1ix~ not m ~ Lionsh ~xed U$e Z (5) P~SOns ~ on Lionsh~d M ~cludes cocnm Use: ~tc~en gacilities, Conditionat a comm°n Ftesidential Cluster ba~oom{ and a Low D~nsity Maltiple- ~m~ of two Fa~i~Y Density hundred t2~f Medium squ~ fe~ Njultiple-Fam~Multiple- GRFp. for ~~h H~~ Density pe~on o~~upY~g Family odytion ~eunit. pUblic Accomm publ~c AGCOCnmodation 2 Comcnetcis~ Care i ~9~ercial C°re 2 Sha11 b by Co~ercial Cflse 3 ~omm~cial Service dete~' Center Shallbe ~by ~on~n~on p,~eria~ ~US1IIeSS pet Chaptec 1 und determu' ~~ku,s Disuict edb`I ~ a dwellmg ~ning on prop~'. ghallbe detern~u' pYOpertY• H~~y S Tvice zoning on pi~per[Y • Ski B~e(R~reation 1.ilA 5ki Bas~ Recreation 2 . Shail be determix'ed by gpecial De~elopment ~e EHU maY on1Y on pT~PertY • ~~p07 District zoninB ppC uriit maY ae Sotd oT 'RST REAp~N~. AnY a`Nelling ~d a~a ~nsferted H~~S~N~ 03~3 F ~ TyPe 1v be designate aTYPe 1~1 sap~tely. YP EMpLOY~~ reStricte.d ~ eady C AND R~ ENA~TIN~ ~NA~TER 13, . ~,HU, untess aan ENU. designated ~ REp~~(N aRQINAN~E N~' 9~ SERIES 0~ 2007, ANCES~07~ ~ F:1CDE~OROW - Type V Permitted Use: The EHU shall not The EHU is not entitled to N/A The EHU is not entitled Per Chapter 12-10 1,200 sq. ft. max. Counts as 2nd Hillside Residentia] be sold or additional GRFA. to additional garage as a dwelling unit. unit on transferred area credit. property. separately from the unit it is associated with. Requirements shall be Allowable GFRA Type VI Conditional Use: As govemed by the Allowable GRFA shall be Allowable site coverage and determined by the PEC. Per Chapter 10 of shall be Allowable Housing management plan. detemuned by the PEC. landscape area shall be this Title or as detertnined density shall I determined by the PEC. required by the by the PEC be determined Shall not be PEC. ~ by the PEC. I subdivided or i divided into any form of time shaze, interval ownership, or fractional fee unit. Note: 1. GRFA credits shall only be utilized in the EHU and not other dwelling units on the property. 3/8/2007 F:ICDEVIORD/NANCES10710RD/NANCE N0. 9, SERIES OF 2007, REPEAL/NG AND RE-ENACTING CHAOTER 13, EMPLOYEE HOUSfNG 0313 FIRST READfNG.DOC • INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 13th day of March, 2007 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 3rd day of April, 2007, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vai{, Colorado. Rodney Slifer, Mayor Attest: . Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 3rd day of April, 2007. Rodney Slifer, Mayor • Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk • 3/8/2007 F:ICDEVIORDINANCES10710RDINANCE NO. 9, SER/ES OF 2007, REPEAL/NG AND RE-ENACTING CHAOTER 13, EMPLOYEE HOUS/NG 0313 FIRST READING.DOC • RESOLUTION NO. 6 Series of 2007 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2007 PAYMENT OF FEES-IN-LIEU FOR EACH EMPLOYEE TO BE HOUSED, AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER12-23, COMMERCIAL LINKAGE, AND FOR EACH SQUARE FOOT, AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 12-24, INCLUSIONARY ZONING, VAIL TOWN CODE; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the Vail Town Council will consider the adoption of Ordinance Nos. 7& 8, Series of 2007, with the intent of establishing Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning requirements in the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 12-23-5 and 12-24-6, Methods of Mitigation, payment of fees-in-lieu is one of five (5) methods by which the mitigation of employee housing required may be accomplished; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 12-23-5 and 12-24-6, the fees-in-lieu for each employee to be housed and for each square foot of employee housing required shall be established annually by resolution of the Vail Town Council; and • WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council has determined that the proposed fee-in-lieu amounts accurately reflect the affordability gap between a two person household earning 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and the 2006 Median Cost per Unit; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that this Resolution furthers the development objectives of the Town and is in the best interest of the Town as it promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that consenres and enhances the availability of employee housing within the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. Establishment of Fees-in-Lieu a. The fees-in-lieu for each employee to be housed or for each square foot of employee housing provided in accordance with Chapters 12-23, Commercial Linkage, and 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, shall be established annually by resolution of the Town Council, provided that, in calculating that fee, the Town Council shall include the net cost (total cost less the amount covered by rental or sale income) of real property and all retated planning, design, site development, legal, construction and construction management costs of the project, in current dollars, which would be incurred by the Town to provide housing for the ~ employee to be housed or for each square foot of employee housing provided in that year; 1 ~ b. An administrative fee of fifteen percent (15%) shall be added to the amount set forth in paragraph a hereof. • c. Fees-in-lieu shall be due and payable prior to the issuance of a building permit for the development. d. The Town shall only use monies collected from fees-in-lieu to provide new employee housing. The calculation formula for fee-in-lieu has been attached for reference (Exhibit A). 2. 2007 Pavment of Fees-in-Lieu Amounts a. Fee-in-lieu per employee (commercial linkage) _$178,695 b. Fee-in-lieu per square foot (inclusionary zoning) =$325 3. Effective Date of the Resolution This resolution shall become effective upon the adoption of Ordinance Nos. 7& 8, Series of 2007, more commonly referred to as the ordinances establishing Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning in the Town of Vail. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of March, 2007. • Rodney Slifer, Mayor, Town of Vail ~ ATTEST: I Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk ~ 2 ~ Exhibit A 2007 Fee-in-Lieu Calculation Formula 100% Area Median Income (2-person household) $64,000 Affordable Monthly Housing Payment $1,600 Property Taxes/Insurance/HOA (20% of Housing Payment) $320 Mortgage Payment $1,280 ~ Maximum Mortgage Amount* $192,393 Affordable Purchase Price $202,519 Average Square Feet of Units 825 2006 Median Price per Square Foot (all units) $528 Cost per Unit $435,600 • Affordability Gap/Payment per Unit in Lieu $233,081 *Assumes 5% down, 7% interest for 30 years. Gap per Employee (1.5 emps/household on average) $155,387 15°/a Administrative Fee per Employee $23,308 Fee per Square Foot per Employee $283 15% Administrative Fee per 5quare Foot per Employee $42 Fee-in-Lieu per Employee $178,695 Fee-in-Lieu per Square Foot $325 (Note - these figures to be established annually by the Vail Town Council) ~ 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING . February 26, 2007 0~" 12:00 Noon ~~O~`vLunch wiN be served TOWN COUNClL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt Anne Gunion Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Bill Jewitt Roliie Kjesbo Bill Pierce Site Visits: None Driver: None 1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed major amendment to ~ Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, pursuant to Article 12-9(A), Special ~ Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in the number of dwelling units from 69 units to 75 units; located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0004) i • Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTtON: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE:6-0-0 CONDlTIONS: The Developer shall address the following conditions of approval prior to appearing before the Vail Town Council for second reading of an adopting ordinance for the establishment of Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads: 1. The Developer shall prepare a written agreement, for Town Council review and approval, outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the rQquired offsite improvements, as indicated on the proposed Approved Development Plan. This agreement shall include, but not be limited to, all streetscape improvements along Village Center Road and East Meadow Drive, public access to the plaza for pedestrians and Town sponsored events, which may include the establishment of an easement on the plaza and language in the covenants and declarations for owners of property in the project regarding the use of the plaza for special events, inclusion of the loading and delivery facility in the overall loading and delivery system, payment of traffic impact fees and credits given to offset fee, and details for funding public art. The Developer shall address the following conditions of approval prior to submitting a building permit application (a grading permit/excavation permit shall constitute a building permit); • 1. The Developer shall submit a final exterior building materials list, typical watl Page 1 ~ i section, architectural specifications, and a complete color rendering for review - i and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to submittat of an application i for a building permit. ~ • i 2. The Developer shatl submit a rooftop mechanical equipment plan for review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to the submittal of a building ~ permit appiication. Atl rooftop mechanical equipment shall be incorporated ~ into the overall design of the structure and enclosed and visually screened I from public view. ~ ~ 3. The Developer shall submit a comprehensive sign program for review and ! approval by the Design Review Board. 4. The Developer shall receive all the required permits from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) prior to submitting for a building permit. Failure to receive the appropriate permits to access the South Frontage Road per the Approved Development Plan wiil require the project to return through the special development district review process. 5. The Deveioper shall comply with the written final comments of the Town of Vail Public Works Department outlined in the memorandum from the Town of Vail Public Works Department, dated January 16, 2006, prior to submitting an application to the Town of Vail Community Department for the issuance of a building permit for this project. 6. The Developer shall submit a written letter agreeing to install a pubtic safety radio communications system within the subterranean parking structure which ~ meets the specifications of the Town of Vail Communications Center. The ~ spec+fications and details of this system shail be submitted to staff for review and approval with the application for a building permit. 7. The Developer shall submit a fire and life safety plan for review and approval by the Town of Vail Fire Department. The Developer shall address the following conditions of approval prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy or a final certificate of occupancy; 1. The Developer shal{ be assessed a traffic impact fee of $6,500 per net trip increase in p.m. traffic. The trip generation report prepared by Fox Higgins Transportation Group states the net peak increase is 81 trips. The Public Works Department has asked that the study be revised to address a concern regarding the trip generation for the night club in the bowling alley. This change may cause the trip generation to increase. The applicant shall be responsible for mitigating the number of net peak trip increases depicted in the revised study. This impact fee shall not be offset by any public improvements. 2. The Developer shall post a bond to provide financial security for 125% of the total cost of the required off-site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. This includes but is not limited to the proposed streetscape improvements. 3. The Developer shall commence initial construction of the Crossroads ~ Page 2 improvements within three years from the time of its final approval at second reading of the ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 39, and • continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the developer does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the special development district or any stage of the special development district within the time timits imposed, the approval of said special development district shall be void. The Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Councit shall review the special development district upon submittal of an application to reestablish the special development district following the procedures outlined in Section 12- 9A-4, Vail Town Code. 4. Employee Housing: Crossroads shall provide the Town deed restricted employee housing sufficient to accommodate 22 occupants by executing appropriate restrictive covenant(s) on form(s) provided by the Town. Any dwelling unit(s) restricted shall conform to the following floor area requirements: a one-bedroom unit shall contain at least 550 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more than 2 occupants; a finro-bedroom unit shall contain at least 850 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more than 3 occupants; a three-bedroom unit shall contain at least 1,350 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more than 4 occupants; and a four-bedroom unit shall -contain at least 1,500 sq. ft. of floor area and accommodate no more that 5 occupants. The Town may approve minor variations in floor area when the overall intent of the ftoor area requirements is being met. Any deed restriction shatl be for property located within the Town. Such deed restriction(s) shall be executed and provided to the Town for recording and restricted unit(s) shall be available for occupancy prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of • occupancy for the Crossroads Project or any phase thereof. Any deed restricted employee housing unit shall comply with the standards and procedures established by the Town Zoning Regutations. 5. The approval of SDD No. 39, Crossroads, shall restrict the uses upon the plaza I level tenant spaces to retail uses solely and shall not be utilized for professional offices, business offices, and studios. The second floor retail space may be utilized for any allowable or conditional use as listed in the I Commercial Service Center Zone District. No space noted as retail space on the Approved Development Ptan shall be converted to a residential dwelling unit. ~ Temporary real estate sales offices may be allowed on the plaza level of retail ~ during the first two years following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy in order to allow effective sales of dwelling units on-site. Warren Campbell presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriello, applicant's representative, further explained that the proposed changes to the number of dwelling units is based upon structural design, building codes, fire codes, etc. He also recommended modifications to the conditional use permit for the private parking club to allow for future flexibility in the number of spaces in the club. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, questioned how this proposed amendment might affect the Solaris TIF District and the plan for a turn-arou nd/round-a bout on the Frontage Road. • Page 3 - i Warren Campbell stated that Staff would further review the issue with the Public Works Department, but he believed that the future turn-around was much farther east on the Frontage Road and not at the intersection of Village Center Road and the Frontage Road. • Dick Cleveland, noted that a reduction in parking within the project and commercial space are a reduction in the "public benefiY". He also expressed concern over the increase in traffic as another negative of the proposal. There are no new or additional public benefits proposed to justify the amendment. He expressed his opposition to the amendment. Bill Jewitt reiterated Cleveland's concerns about the reduction in the commercial floor area. He also noted his concerns about the need for additional emp{oyee housing. He expressed his opposition to the amendment. Dominic Mauriello clarified that the net floor area of the commercial/retail space actually increased. He also clarified how the floor area was reallocated to accommodate the additional units. He also clarified that the number of storefronts did not change, only the floor area calculations. Rollie Kjesbo reiterated the concern that the decrease in parking is a reduction in public benefit. He asked how many EHU would be required if the new regulations would be applied. Warren Campbell indicated that 33 EHUs would be required under the provision of the draft Inclusionary and Commercial Linkage regulation to be discussed latter in the meeting, instead of II the original 12 and the newly proposed 13 units. ~ Rollie Kjesbo stated that additional public benefits are necessary to approve this request. Bill Pierce had no additional comments. • Chas Bernhardt clarified that more EHUs would be required if the new EHU requirements were adopted than are currently proposed. Doug Cahill noted the need to obtain additional employee housing as a benefit to both the devefoper and the Town as a whole. Dominic Maurieflo noted that the only significant part of the application that has changed is the number of dwelling units. He noted that the parking club was not considered a public benefit. Peter Knobel stated that they have shoved as many parking spaces as they can into the building. Doug Cahill noted that this is an opportunity for the developer to step forward to help address the Town's employee housing shortfall and the proposed 13 units is very small for a development of this size. Dominic Mauriello noted that the applicant can walk away and only build 12 EHUs, and he believes it would be bad precedent to reverse the clock. Pete Knobel gestured to Dick Cleveland. Dick Cleveland stated that that was an unacceptable behavior for a public meeting. Mr. Knobel asked Mr. Cleveland how many EHUs he wanted. • Page 4 Chas Bernhardt asked if Mr. Knobel was willing to work with the Staff once the potential EHU regulations were formalized. Chas did not feel a specific EHU number could be given to him at this time as the new regulations have not been adopted and are only in draft form. • Bill Jewitt argued that there is no "formula" since this is a special development district, especially since this is a major amendment. Peter Knobel noted that he is currently the largest employee housing owner in the Town of Vail. George Ruther re-emphasized the review criteria for an SDD amendment. Biil Jewitt proposed that in-lieu of the reduction in parking spaces, increased traffic generation, reduction in retail space, and increase in density that 10 employee beds must be provided. He suggested that a total of 22 employee housing beds be provide in place of the 13 recommended by Staff. 2. A request for conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town I Code, to allow for multiple-family dwellings and lodges and private club (parking club); located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0005) I Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ' ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Pierce VOTE:6-0-0 CONDITIONS: 1. That the developer operates the parking club and rental program for the dwetlings units in accordance with the pages 9-13 of the Application for a Maior Amendment to Special Development District No, 39. Crossroads, and an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Private Parkinq Club document dated February 15, 2007, and the approved Developer Improvement Agreement which will be agreed upon by Town Council and the developer. 2. That the Planning and Environmental Commission approval of the conditional ' use permits become valid upon approval of an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, on second reading by Town Council. Warren Campbell presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriello, applicant's representative, asked for flexibility in future amendments to the number of parking spaces in the parking club. I~ Warren Campbell clarified how the spaces are allocated between uses in the building and the parking club. Pete Knobel further clarified how the parking club will operate. Rollie Kjesbo noted is concern is the total number of spaces, rather than how those spaces are used. • Bill Pierce proposed that future changes within 5% of the existing number of spaces, 84, do not require amendments to this conditional use permit approval. Page 5 Cleveland, Jewitt, and Kjesbo no further comment. Warren Campbell clarified that a 5% change in the 84 parking club spaces meant that as long as • the parking club did not go below 80 or above 88 Staff could approve the change. 3. A request for a final review of a major amendment to the Approved Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-8E-18 (B), Major Amendments, to allow for a revised grading plan at Vail's Front Door Vista Bahn Ski Yard, located at 151 Vail LanelLot A, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-OQ06) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Corp. Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 6-0-0 CONDITION: 1) That the Developer prepares a Vista Bahn Ski Yard Use Agreement outlining the terms and ~ conditions allowing public use of the ski yard for special events. The Agreement shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the review and comment of the Town of Vail Commission on Special Events. The Agreement shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. II George Ruther presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. Tom A{lender, Vail Resorts, expfained how these amendments are being driven by concerns and goals of the ski company's mountain operations rather than Vail Resort's deve{opment company. He further explained the details of the proposed amendment. Brian McCartney, Vail Resorts, further described how the public event space will function. ~ Jim Lamont, Vail Vitlage Homeowner Association, asked questions about the logistics of public events in the ski yard. He noted the proposed circulation was an improvement, and that the association supported the proposal. Bernhardt and Cahill noted this is an improvement. There was no other Commissioner comment. 4. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6; Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1895 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0002) Applicant: Nancy Hassett, represented by Miramonti Architect PC Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 CONDITION: 1) This approval shal{ be contingent upon the applicant obtaining Design Review Board approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. 'I Bill Gibson presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. • Page 6 . i ' ' There were no comments from the applicants, no public comment, and no comments from the i • Commissioners. 5. A request for a worksession to discuss text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regu(ations, Vaif Town Code, to add commercial linkage requirements and inclusionary zoning requirements to ' the Zoning Regulations for the purpose of mitigating employee housing impacts resulting from development in the Town of Vail, and sefting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0084) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Nina Timm ACTION: Worksession, no action MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6-0-0 George Ruther and Nina Timm presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. ' Dick Cleveland asked whether one could determine in the future that more employees were generated for a specific use. Ruther answered that at this time, the rational nexus was being used for employee generation. Bill Pierce asked about the definition of dormitory. Ruther answered that the definition has not been created yet but one will be available in two weeks. , Pierce asked about language related to secondary impacts. Ruther noted that he would discuss the issue with the consulting attorneys. • Pierce asked for a clarification of "eligible household". Pierce said that the definition of spa may be too verbose, and may not include a lot of spa like products. Ruther responded that this ordinance would be subject to PEC review, and that PEC could make that determination. Dick Cleveland commented that the employee requirement is based on averages, and there could not be exceptions to the rule. He felt that negotiations of the requirements would be unwieldy. Cahill asked if you have a ski shop and you add a coffee shop, would you be assessed? Ruther responded that from one permitted use to another permitted use, the resulting change would be analyzed for incremental increases in employees requirements. Cleveland commented that this backwards formula does not provide for checking whether the regulations have met the goal. He said that commercial employers should be required to mitigate for 30% of employees generated versus requiring mitigation based on foreseeable redevelopment. George Ruther said that the policymakers gave direction to staff to utilize commerciai linkage and inclusionary zoning to achieve the Town's employee housing goal. Nina Timm discussed how inclusionary zoning is different than residential linkage. Inclusionary • zoning would mitigate broader impacts, versus just assessing for direct employee generation from residentiaf. Page 7 Dick Cleveland asked about the legality of requiring mitigation of impacts not directly related to the development. George Ruther responded that with residential and commercial linkage, you cannot assess for • anything but nst new generation based solely on a rational nexus. However, inclusionary zoning would allow you to mitigate for secondary impacts resulting from development. Cleveland was concerned that there is no guarantee that this would help achieve the goal of 30% of workers living in Vail. Jewitt said he wanted to make his little speech then he would shuf up for most of the rest of the meeting. What we have here are a couple of ordinances that provide a means for collecting tax dollars. They do nothing for mitigating employee housing problems. We do not know if we collect the money what type of housing the 30% of people want to live in, or how much they want. Talk about getting the cart before the horse. But to say that this effort will provide 30% of i workers with housing is a joke. Again, he thinks iYs a joke! ~ Chas Bernhardt agreed with Jewitt. We need a plan for what types of housing ~ Nina Timm explained that these ordinances will actuaffy help businesses to have housing for ~ their staff. I ~ Cahill said that different employers will want different types of housing for their employees. ' Cleveland asked how the staff plans to implement this regulation. I ' Ruther explained that 12-23-9: Administration helps to explain this issue. However, one may not ~ know what type of uses will be in each space. But, the requirement will be outlined before TCO. This is similar to the parking requirement, which is simifarly linked to type of use. Jewitt asked who would pay, ths owner or the tenant of the space. Ruther explained that there are debits and credits applied to an entire development site, and nof just an individual space. Cleveland asked if staff anticipates a cash rebate or a credit. Ruther answered that no checks would be written to tenants, but rather a system of providing credits would exist. Kjesbo asked about the provision that EHUs not be attached to DUs. Ruther answered that he would look into it, but it is there to prevent people from using the EHU as part of the dwelling. Cahill asked about the parking requirements and parking credit for enclosed parking. Kjesbo said that may be a very tight garage is someone only built the minimum. Kjesbo asked whether assessment would occur each time a commercial use changes. Bernhardt said it seems to be a disincentive to do business here that maybe it would be better to scrap the whole thing and go to a tax. , Jewitt agreed with Bernhardt that a tax would work well. i I Bernhardt said that it would be burdensome on business owners who may go out of business ~ and then have employee housing. I • I Page 8 i ` Pierce said we are missing the big picture here and are concentrating on the language of the regulation. • Jewitt said the major issue is that employers cannot find workers with housing. Timm said that the most successful businesses in town have developed employee housing on their own, regardless of Town regulations Pierce said that many employers do not want their employees to live in their units because they may trash the units. Bernhardt said that the Town of Vail should own all of the units and all would be pay-in-lieu. Ruther said that the purpose of the commercial linkage regulation is to create housing opportunities for 20% of the employees generated by new commercial development. He ~ explained that there are various mitigation methods including on-site, off-site, fee-in-lieu or , conveyance of property. ~ Pierce had questions about conveyance of land. Would it be conveyed to the Town? I Cleveland wanted to ensure that land conveyance need to be in the Town of Vail. Cleveland asked about the administrative fee and whether it would be used to administer the money, or whether it would be used to establish and run a real housing authority. Timm answered that a set pay in lieu fee would be assessed on an annual basis by resolution. • The administrative fee would disappear on the next rendition of the ordinance. Cleveland asked where the fee structure will come from. Nina Timm answered that AMI and Eagle County data would be used. AMI data is updated annually. Cahill asked if someone could transfer the housing credits. Ruther said that at this time, the EHU credits could be transferred as autlined in the ordinance. Cahill asked about a scenario where someone would want to sell their unit. Timm answered that the deed restriction would remain. Jewitt said that the town could pay a homeowner to put a deed restriction on their unit with a fee in lieu. Pierce asked about 12-10E-4, each tenant residing in the EHU must be an employee, did we intend that? Timm answered that was a mistake and unintended. Pierce asked about the issue of variances and allowing the process to occur, as it may be in conflict with other provisions in the ordinance. Ruther answered that this is necessary to provide a clear procedure for an appiicant to demonstrate their arguments. The lawyers were adamant about this section being part of the code. Dick Cleveland said that no one on the PEC is experienced enough to make the determination of an illegal taking. Ruther said that this provision provides for legal administrative remedy and places burden of proof on the applicant. • Cleveland said that the new housing ordinance if goes into effect, should apply to other zone districts if they apply for variances to GRFA< height, etc. Ruther answered that a variance is Page 9 granted due to the hardship or special circumstance that appears on the property. It is not a grant of special privilege and should not be assessed because of it. Kaye Ferry, who did not introduce herself, said that the PEC should recommend denial because • we don't have the answers yet. She said these regulations do not house a variety of people, buf will only house the people like in Middle Creek. People who work in retaii do not need a laundry room down the hall. Ruther stated that the answers to Kaye's questions are in the ordinance, where a developer would build the type of housing that they need. Cahill agreed that the developer should have their choice of type of housing. Jewitt said that his fear is that the developer will build units for their own employees, and not in the best interest of the community. Dominic Mauriello, also did not introduce himself, said that the variance provision would not be redundant and should remain in the ordinance. He said that all three provisions should be in both ordinances. Mauriello said that he was challenged to prove that his proposal met the goal of 30%. He said that his proposal did meet the goal. He said that the inclusionary zoning percentage should be 7.66% in order to achieve the 30% goal. He also pointed out that the nexus is based on peak employment during the year. He said the square footage for each employee was quite low. In commercial core areas, parking requirements should be reduced, because ii you live in a core area, you may not need a car. ~ I Jewitt interrupted and said that if they decide they want housing for seasonal employees and ~ allows bonus points for not having a car. They want to encourage use of the bus system. ~ Mauriello said that the term density control should spell out specific terms within density control (note: the overarching term is density control) He continued that it is not clear about appiying credits from inclusionary to commercial linkage. He said the change in use section should include a tracking mechanism so people are not required to mitigate over and aver. He also said that the PEC shouid understand the pay-in-lieu fee before they make any decisions. He agrees that the proof of financing is not required now and could be stricken. He asked why the rental rate would be required to be provided, The definition of mixed use is not included but should be included. He said that its not staff that is cramming the ordinance down PEC's throat, but it is the Town Council. He said PEC should recommend denial of these regulations and list all the reasons and that would send a clear message to the Town Council. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners, is not comfortabfe with the nexus or comments that he has heard. He has yet ta hear Nina say that the NWCCOG study shows that parf-time homeowners support the same percentage of the economy. He said there is not enough credit to part-time residents. He does not want residential development to be unfairly charged. He is also concerned about Greg Moffett and Mark Gordon's discussion of social engineering. He does not see densities being increased for the purpose of employee housing. The developer will want to provide employee housing on-site versus paying in lieu if its cheaper to build on site. He said that it's wrong to do inclusionary zoning because its slimy. He wants the numbers to be ~ realistic and the nexus to be negotiated. He doesn't think it's fair to ignore the contributions of i the part time residents. i Brian Giflette, owner of an employee housing unit, said that by alfowing an empfoyee to work ' anywhere in Eagle County allows EHUs to be given away to other people, and not Vail residents. • Page 10 r ` Dick Cieveland asked if we can resolve the problem with these regulations, and how much more development can Vail sustain before this problem is solved. • Cahill said that with Ordinance 7, they should look at 30% mitigation for commercial linkage. He also wants a breakdown of what kinds of units are needed within the Town. Also, there should be a parking variance. If a restaurant moves into a retail space, they would not be abte to survive. In Chapter 23-3, more garage credit should be given. With regards to pressure from Town Council, he does not feel any pressure as it has always been his understanding that the Council is seeking the Commission's input. Bernhardt asked for khe highlights of his list of discussion points. Cleveland asked who the applicant is, the leasee or the owner. Ruther said that the EHU is tied to the development site and the ordinance does not stipulate who the applicant is. Mauriello asked about the change to 30% and wondered if that comment applied to residential. Ruther answered that the numbers only work to achieve the goal if you get the correct ration or proportionality to continue through the development review process. Mauriello said the garage credit is not appropriate in this ordinance because it is not applicable to this ordinance. Ruther answered that it was a quality of life issue to add the garage credit. Bernhardt asked for the number of units will be needed, the size, location and quantity in how many years. Cleveland said it should be a five-year window because we don't really know what will occur beyond five years from now. Bernhardt said that is what he has been asking for the past several meetings, but he needs his questions answered. • Pierce said talk of some of the details may be irrelevant. Developers are going to go out and buy existing units and deed restrict them. They are not going to go out and build a lot of extra units. It is desirable to have people who can serve on PEC live in town. Have a Town sponsored buy down program, loan guaranty program, etc. There will not be bag loads of money sent to the Town. Eventually we are buying out homes of our customers. Kjesbo asked if we force developers to have units on site? There is not enough other opportunity. This will become a necessity. Cleveland stated on site housing means that you are housing your employees, which is good. Pierce is concerned that we are creating an equivalency between existing units and new units. Perhaps additional credit for a new unit rather than deed restricting an existing unit. Cleveland pointed out that inclusionary zoning doesn't work as well for us being we are using it in redevelopment rather than new development. George Ruther then made a presentation on Ordinance #8. Ruther noted changes in 12-24-1A and 12-24-1 B to add "changes in use" to why one would be required to mitigate. Also, a minimum GRFA requirement per employee is added to provide for a conversion factor between inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage. Ruther commented that it is necessary to consult with our attorneys on whether you can link the square footage from inclusionary zoning to a square footage per employee. • Page 11 Kjesbo does not feel that remodels (and increases in GRFA) that are not redevelopment are not accounted for in this regulation. Cahill asked about how to calculate fee-in-lieu for square footages. • Timm said that when fee in lieu is established, it will be broken down into a per square foot number for the inclusionary zoning regulation. Kjesbo asked if an HOA deed restricted a unit today, could it be a credit for future additions? Ruther said that the deed restricted unit would give you a credit if the deed restriction was not provided to meet a previous requirement. Cahill asked if there is a use change from restaurant (who paid in lieu) to an office and there is a surplus that has been paid for, who administers the credits? Ruther answered that paragraph 12-24-7 explains this issue. A document gets recorded that shows the deed restrictions (or pay- in-lieu). Cleveland asked about appreciation caps on deed restrictions. Timm answered that it would be a taking to put a price cap on private property. Cleveland asked if the EHU would be a commodity that is tradable. Ruther said yes, that EHUs will be traded as a commodity. Pierce asked about the preamble and it seems like its irrelevant mumbo-jumbo. He asked about AU's and Lodge units in commercial and why the rest (FF, etc) are considered residential and part of inclusionary zoning. Ruther answered that there are certain nuances that required certain ~ types of property (DU, limited lodge, etc) that would be part of inclusionary zoning. I ~ Pierce said that a table shou{d be added to create a rate per unit, so you could do residentia( linkage versus inclusionary zoning. • Ruther said that residential development does not pay its way in public services. Inclusionary zoning allows the town fo assess the residential develapment to pay part of its way through housing. Pierce said that the residential units should be assessed more than just a nexus, so the numbers for assessment would include primary and secondary impacts. Mauriello said that if you use the nexus study, you would prevent yourself from double dipping. There is a residential linkage formula that would be very fair and assess fairly the secondary impacts. He also said that changing the 550 sq ft/ employee versus 350 sq ft / employee hurts his client trying to get a credit. Pierce said thaf if he was a developer, he wouid want the 350 sq ft per employee so that he could build for more employees. Ruther said that if you used residential linkage, you would have to mitigate more than 100% of the residential linkage to meet the goal of 30%. Residential linkage does not allow you too ' assess more than 100°l0. However, inclusionary zoning does. Nina Timm said that residentia{ linkage only covers direct impacts and there are more impacts beyond the residential linkage number. Ruther said that in order to meet the goal of housing at least 30%, if commercial linkage is • increased, the inclusionary zoning mitigation rate could be reduced, because more obligation is Page 12 ~ . put on the commercial side. Ruther stated, however, that this was not the goal sfiated by the Town Council • Kjesbo said that the commerciai should pay more because they generate more jobs. Residential development should not be taxed for a larger proportion. The second homeowners already pay a lot of taxes and should not be punished any more. Ruther said that the commercial is being asked for 20% and Cahill said that the board could recommend more, if they see fit. I Mauriello said the goal is met at a lower number. Ruther answered that he doesn't know if the 30% closes the gap. ~ Pierce asked why we are saying we want 10 times more than we need. He said the numbers seem way off. Ruther answered that we are asking residential development to mitigate all direcf ; and some secondary impacts and that is the policy direction that has been given from the Town Council. Ruther made a great comparison between girl scout cookies and this policy. I love it. Cahill asked the Commission whether they would want residential linkage or inclusionary zoning ~ and then go by dwelling units and not square footage. Ruther said that he agreed the PEC could deny these ordinances, perhaps a more appropriate approach would be to recommend approval with modifications and make these the best , regulations possible. Cahill said that the board supports increasing commercial linkage to 30%, and perhaps do away • with inclusionary zoning. Ruther pointed to criteria #1 in the staff memorandum. If we can answer yes to that question, perhaps we can move on from there. Keep that in mind! Cahill wants to understand how much inclusionary zoning ar residential linkage needs to occur to fill the gap from the commercial linkage. 6. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a request for a final review of variances from Sections 12-7H-10, Setbacks, 12-7H-14, Site Coverage, and 12-7H-15, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an underground parking structure and a staircase within fhe setbacks, and deviations from the maximum site coverage and minimum landscape area requirements, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0074) Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association, lnc., represented by Geoff Wright Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to March 12, 2007 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0-0 7. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of three feet within • the front setback, located at 805 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 29, B(ock 1, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0007) Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P. C. Page 13 ! * Planner: Warren Campbefl ACTION: Tabled to March 12, 2007 MOTtON: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0-0 • 8. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, focated at 805 and 807 Potato Patch Drive, and setting forth defails in regard thereto. (PEC07-0008) Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Warren Campbefl ACTION: Tabled to March 12, 2007 MGITION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0-0 . 9. Approval of February 12, 2007 minutes MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-1 (Jewitt recused) 10. {nformation Update Russ Forrest Farewell Party 11. Adjournment MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 The applications and information about the proposats are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vaif 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 (970) 479-2138 for additional • information. Sign language interpretation is ava+lable upon requesf with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published February 23, 2007, in the Vai! Daily. • Page 14 • • 1889 ~ e9a~ theretailo ~ PROOF OF PUBLICATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL T COMMISSION Town f V PUBLIC MEETING eorge Ruther March 12, 2007 ~:OOpm STATE OF COLORADO SECOND:VOcS. TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBENS st for a final 0 pUBLIC WELCOME 4-6-7, Retaini 1 COUNTY OF EAGLE } MEMBERS PRESENTMEMBERS ABSENT a reta n ng walhen~e~ s~ Site Visits: front setback, locat Drive/Lot 29,. Blcek 1, V 1.Lionshead Ski Yard ting forth details in rega Applicant:Pedro Cerisol I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same i Driver. George by Snowdon and Hopki " Planner:Warren Campb , Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colarado, and ~ ~~A e~quest for a final review of a major exterior ACTION:Tabled to Ma atteration, pursuant to Sedion 12-7H-7, Major Ex- MOTION: SECOND: VO g P p y tenor Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, has a eneral circulation therein; that said news a er has been ublished continuousl and tor the addition of a public restroom facility 4.A request for a final rev uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two conseeutive weeks next priar to ailow adjaceM to Cha'ir 8, located at Lot 2, Vail Lions• plat, pursuant to Chaptei headFding 6,andsettingforthdetails in re gard m~jicatio oodsharedp~rol Pot' to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has thereto. (Peco7-ooos) Published the re uested le al notiee and advertisement as re UeSYeC~. Appticant:Vail Associates, represented by Brian and 807 Plotato Patch Driv q g Q McCartney detyils in regard thereto. I The Vail Dail is an acce ted le al advertisin medium onl for urisdictions o eratin under Planner:George Ruther qpplicant:Pedro Cerisola y p g g , y j p g pCT10N: by Snowdon and Hopkins Colorado's Home Rule provision. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: planner.Warren Campbel' ACTION:Tabled to Marc 60 minutes 2.A request for a tinal recommendation to the Vail MOTION:SECOND: VOT Town Council for text amendments to Title 12, Code That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every 5e~~ q Rz 3u~ tAmendment~Vail Town Code an~t to a~ eratonStpursuantto allow for a Prescribed regulafions amendmenf es• Exterior Alterabons or I number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of tablishin Chapter 12-23, Commercial Linkage and coae, to anoW fo~ add~t~o~ Chapte912-24,Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town of,theLandmarkCondoi amendin section 12-2-2, Defimtions, Vail a final review of variance said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 3/10/2007 and that the last publication of said notice Code; Town Code, defining relevant terms of art; repeal- Setbacks, 12-7H-14• Site ing and reenaccing Chapter 1 2-1 3, E m p I o y e e Landscaurs9 ant oitC a4 Housing, Vail Town Code, to aliow for revisions to Code, p was in the issue of said newspaper dated 3/10/2007. the employee housing regulations; and setting forth allow for an undergroun A ^ In wifiess whereof has here unto set my hand this 27`hday of March, 20~0 F ~ P "s r/General 'zrn-ager/Editor Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this 27th day of March, 2007. ~ a ela Joan Schult Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2007 1871 rrur avamPUUC N071C~ PROOF OF PU$LICATION EREBV GIVEN that the Planning and Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accortlance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on March 12, 2007, at STATE OF COLORADO } 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal8uilding, in i consideration of: I SS • A request for a final review of a major exterior al- COUNTY OF EAGLE } teration, pursuam to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exte- rior Alterations or Modificetions, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of a public restroom facility adjacent to Chair 8, located at Lot 2, Vail Lions- heatl Filiny and setting forth details in regard I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same Appfmant VaC Ass~oci~ates, represented by Brian Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and ~artney Planner.George Ruther has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for text amendments to Title 12, umnterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to to the first publication of the annexed legal notice ar advertisement and that said newspaper has sedion 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Cotle, to allow for a prescribed regulations amendment es- Pubtished the requested tegal notice and advertisement as requested. t~lisnin9cr,~ter ,2-zs,comme«ial unka~ana Chapter 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Code; amending section 12-2-2, oefinitions, veil Town Code, defming relevant tertns of art; repeal- Colorado's Home Rule provision. ing and reenacting Chapter 12•13, Employee Housing, Vail Town Code, to allow for revisions to the employee housirtg r ulations; and setting forth tletails in re ard thereto~PEC06-0084) That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every P~~ 8~'~a me' The applications and infortnation about the propos- num er of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first ublication of alsareavailabletorpublicinspectionduringoffice p hours at the Town of Yail Communiiy Develop- ment, Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The I said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 2/23/2007 and that the last publication of said notice publicisinvitedtoattendprojectorientationandthe site visits that precede the public hearing in the was in the issue of said newspaper dated 2/23/2007. Town of Vail Communiry Development DepartmeM. Please call 970-478-2138 for additionat iniorma- tion. Sign language interpretation is available upon re- quest, w+th 24-hour notif ation. PleeSe Call In wimess whereof has here unto set my hand this 26`hday of February, 2007 970-479-2356, Telephone or the Hearing Im- pairetl, for infortnation. / Published February 23, 20 , in the 4ail Daily. (183676) ~ Publisher/ al Manager/Editor Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this 26th day of February, 2007. ~ ~ , ~ ~ PUe~i ~ ; , . ,C~ ~amela Joan Schultz • Notary Public : PAMELA J. o ; SCHULTZ ; My Commission expires: November 1, 2007 . . "9~j~•••...•••~~ OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ~ ~ March 26, 2007 T"OW,V pFy;+~; ` 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt Anne Gunion Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo Bill Pierce Site Visits: ! 1. Vail Trails East - 433 Gore Creek Drive 2. Cerisola Residence - 805 and 807 Potato Patch Drive 3. Landmark - 610 West Lionshead Circle Driver: Warren 10 minutes 1. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-14- 17, Setback from Watercourse, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the addition of bay windows, located at 433 Gore Creek Drive/Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0010) . Applicant: Vail Trails East Homeowners Association, represented by John G. Martin, Architect, LLC Planner: Bill Gibson i ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0-0 CONDITIONS: 1.) This approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining design review approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. Bill Gibson presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. Jeff Manley, John Martin Architects, further summarized the proposal. There was no public comment. Doug Cahill clarified that the application includes a master plan for bays on all north windows. He clarified that the building is currently legally non-conforming in terms of setbacks. There was no additional Commissioner comment. 45 minutes 2. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the ~ renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a request for a final review of variances from Sections 12-7H-10, Setbacks, 12-7H-14, Site Coverage, and 12-7H-15, Landscaping and Site Page 1 Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an ~ underground parking structure and a staircase within the setbacks, and deviations from the • maximum site coverage and minimum landscape area requirements, located at 610 West I Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0074) . Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Geoff Wright Planner: Bill Gibson MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce recused) CONDITIONS: Prior to Application for Buildina Permits Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Design Review approval of this proposal. 1.) Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of a construction staging plan for this proposal. 2.) Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of civil engineering construction plans and off-site improvement plans for this proposal. Prior to Requestina a Temporarv Certificate of Occupancy • 1.) Prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy for this proposal, the developer shall provide one deed-restricted employee housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13, Vail Town Code), and that said restrictions shall be made available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. 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. 2.)Prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy for this proposal, the developer shall be assessed a transportation impact fee in the amount of $6,500 per increased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated by this proposal. DEVIATION TO LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce recused) VARIANCE SETBACKS ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce recused) VARIANCE SITE COVERAGE . Approved ACTION• • MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce recused) Page 2 Bill Gibson presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. • Geoff Wright, representing the applicant, gave a presentation regarding the acceptance of the owners with the design. He described a design which for the three buildings wouid effectively make the buildings separate masses and designs. He pointed out changes made to the previously approved elevator and lobby entrance. He also pointed out the elimination of a loading dock and the addition of a trash enclosure on the west side of the project. There was no public comment. Dick Cleveland stated that his single concern was the loss of landscaping on the west side of the project. He suggested transplanting the existing trees, rather than cutting the trees. Bill Jewitt noted his support for the proposal. Rollie Kjesbo clarified that the applicant is not subject to the new employee housing regulations. Bill Gibson confirmed that the applicants had submitted their prior to the Town Council's adoption of an emergency housing ordinance. Doug Cahill noted his support for the proposal and asked the applicant to clarify the location of parking for the Billy's Island Grill restaurant. 3. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, located at 805 and 807 Potato Patch Drive, and • setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0008) Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE:6-0-0 CONDITION(S): 1) The applicant and his successors and assigns, shall not be permitted to request any variances subsequent to the approval of this amended final plat for Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, on the basis that the resulting approved plat created a physical hardship for developing these lots. Warren Campbell presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. The applicant had nothing further to add. There was no public comment. Doug Cahill noted that this proposal will not restrict access to the adjacent lot 30. There was no additional Commissioner comment. 10 minutes 4. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of three feet within the front setback, located at 805 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, and • setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0007) Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Page 3 Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved • MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 Warren Campbell presented an overview of the proposai and the staff inemorandum. The applicant had nothing to add. There was no public comment. Dick Cleveland asked about the existing manhole cover at the driveway. Warren Campbell clarified that it was a drain for the driveway and not a part of the sewer system. The Commissioners expressed their support for the variance. 10 minutes 5. A request for a finai review of a variance, from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6C-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a residential addition within the setback and in excess of the maximum allowable site coverage, located at 5119 Black Bear Lane/Lot 8, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0011) Applicant: Lisa Augustine, represented by JMP Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to April 9, 2007 MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 06. Approval of March 12, 2007 minutes MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 7. Information Update 8. Adjournment MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 6-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 Development 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 March 23, 2007, in the Vail Daily. • Page 4 . . ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 26, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-14-17, Setback from Watercourse, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the addition of bay windows, located at 433 Gore Creek Drive/Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0010) Applicant: Vail Trails East Homeowners Association, represented by John G. Martin, Architect, LLC Planner: Bill Gibson 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Trails East Homeowners Association, represented by John G. Martin, Architect, LLC is requesting a variance from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the addition of bay windows, I located at 433 Gore Creek DrivelLot 1, Block 4, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth • details in regard thereto. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, subject to the findings noted in Sections VIII of this memorandum. It has been determined that this proposal does not affect the Gore Creek Setback; therefore, no variance from the stream setback is required for this proposal. 11. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST , The subject property, Vail Trails East, is located at 433 Gore Creek Drive and is located within the High Density Multiple Family Zone District. Vail Trails East lot and building are IegaNy non-conforming in regard to several of the zone districYs development standards, including setbacks. The applicant, Vail Trails East Homeowners Association, represented by John G. Martin, Architect, LLC, is proposing to construct four above grade bay windows and one patio roof on the north side of the Vail Trails East building within #he rear setback. The proposed bay windows are approximately seven feet wide and protrude two feet from the face of the existing building wall and will add 81 sq. ft. of GRFA within the setback. The proposed patio roof is 15 feet wide and protrudes three feet from the existing . building wall. 1 . . A vicinity map (Attachment A), the applicant's request (Attachments B), the proposed • architectural plans (Attachment C), excerpts from the Vail Village Master Plan (Attachment D) and the Public Notice (Attachment E) are attached for reference. i(I. BACKGROUND ~ The Vail Trails East building was constructed in 1965 and was part of the original Town of Vail created in 1966. The existing lot and structure is legally non-conforming in regard ~ to many of the current High Density Multiple Family Residential Zone District development standards, including setbacks. There have been only minor renovations to ~ the structure since its original construction. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 12: ZON/NG REGULATIONS I Secfion 12-6H-1: Purpose The high density multiple-family distrrct is intended to provide sites for multip/e-family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. • The high density multiple-family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium . and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidentia! . i uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreatron and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the zone district. Section 12-6H-6: Setbacks ~ The minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20 Chapter 12-17: Variances (in part) 12-17-1: Purpose: A. Reasons for Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience fo the applicant of strict or literal compliance • with a regulation shall nof be a reason for granting a variance. 2 • Vail Villa4e Master Plan Vail Trails East is located within the "periphery" area of the Vail Village Master Plan area and is located within the East Gore Creek Sub Area. Excerpts from the Vail Village Master Plan relating to the subject site have been attached for reference (see Attachment D). V. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 433 Gore Creek Drive Legal Description: Lots 7-15, Block 4, Vail Village Filing 1 Zoning: High Density Multiple Family District Land Use Plan Designation: Vail Village Master Plan Current Land Use: Multiple Family Residential Lot Size: 19,933 sq. ft. (0.4676 acres) Standard Allowed/Required Existin Proposed Setbacks (min): North: 20 ft. 7 ft. 7 ft.'' West Side: 20 ft. 4 ft. no change East Side: 20 ft. 9 ft. no change South: 20 ft. 5 ft. no change GRFA (max): 15,150 sq. ft. 19,264 sq.ft. 19,345 sq.ft.** Site coverage (max.): 10,963 sq. ft. (55%) 10,880 sq.ft. (55%) 10,961 sq.ft. (55%) • *no change to the point of greatest setback encroachment *`GRFA allowed pursuant to the "250 Ordinance" VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING I Land Use Zonin North: Village Master Plan. Natural Area Preservation South: Village Master Plan High Density Multiple Family East: Village Master Plan High Density Multiple Family ' West: Village Master Plan High Density Multiple Family ' VII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. A. Consideration of Factors Regardinq Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The existing Vail Trails East building currently encroaches in the required 20 foot rear setback. The proposed bay windows and patio roof are located on the north side of the Vail Trail East building. The north side of • the subject building is located adjacent to Gore Creek; therefore, Staff does not believe this proposal will have no impact on adjacent uses, structures, in the vicinity compared to existing conditions. Staff does not , 3 i believe the proposed above grade bay windows and patio roof will impact • Gore Creek compared to existing conditions. The Vail Trails East building is currently located within the required rear setback. Had the Vail Trails East building been originally constructed at ' the current minimum rear setback standard of 20 feet, the provisions of ~ the Town's zoning regulations would allow the proposed bay windows and patio roof to be constructed three feet and four feet respectively into I the setback area. I 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation ' and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The Planning and Environmental Commission has consistently held that ' the construction of buildings prior to the Town's adoption of zoning regulations is a hardship that may justify the granting of a variance from ~ the Town's current zoning regulations. ~ Staff believes,the applicant is requesting relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the rear setback regulations necessary ~ to achieve compatibility and uniform treatment of site in the vicinity. Setback variances have previously been granted for renovations at the • Texas Townhomes and the Vail Rowhouses which have similar site constraints and legal non-conforming status as Vail Trails East. Approval of this variance request will also allow the affected individual condominium units within the Vail Trails East building to construct bay windows in the same manner as the north facing condominium units located in the center of the same building. Staff does not view the approval of this request as 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. Staff does not believe that the requested rear setback variance will have a negative effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic utilities, public facilities and utilities, or public safety in comparison to existing conditions. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Vail Trails East is located within the "periphery" area of the Vail Village Master Plan area and is located within the East Gore Creek Sub Area. The Master Plan emphasizes the following objectives pertaining to this sub area: I • I 4 • Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevefopment of residential and commercial facilities. Staff Response: Staff believes this proposal is consistent with this objective. Objective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available for short-term rental. Staff Response: Staff does not believe this proposal affects this objective. Objective 2.6: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. Staff Response: Staff does not believe this proposal affects this objective. Objective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Staff Response: Staff does not believe this proposal affects this objective. Objective 5.1: Meet parking demands with public and private parking. Staff Response: Staff does not believe this proposal affects this objective. • Objective 6.2: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically pleasing resort setting. Staff Response: Staff does not believe this proposal affects this objective. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findin4s before arantinp a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions • applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 5 c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation • would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of a variance from Section 12-61-1-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the addition of bay windows, located at 433 Gore Creek Drive/Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the addition of bay windows, located at 433 Gore Creek Drive/Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant obtaining Design Review Board approval of the design review application associated • with this variance request." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "The Planning and Environmenta/ Commission finds: 1. The granting of fhis variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the High Density Multiple Family District as the Planning and Environmental Commission has consistently held that the construction of buildings prior to the Town's adoption of zoning regulations is a hardship that may justify the granting of a variance from the Town's current zoning regulations. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code due to the legal non-conforming location of the existing building on the site. • 6 . , ~ • b. There are exceptions or exfraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district due to the legal non-conforming location of the existing building on the site. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprrve the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district due to the legal non-conforming location of the existing building on the site." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. ApplicanYs Request C. Architectural Plans D. Vail Village Master Plan (excerpt) E. Public Hearing Notice ~ • 7 omE c e-A , hment pttac . • s ? ~ d ~ w ?h kik , yF E u~ t L . t ` ~ X~~ . , wk' T' • ~ ~ ~i'' j e ~'q~6" fYr.. x' • / N~ ~ F ~ 1~ . ~ ti: w F- .f , ~z. cr. ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ xµ,:: y ~r.:-... . E ~r k ~ ~r'F t f'&~."3.k"d" ~ .c~~.. i',. ~ ~ ~ „'T . ' ' Q7".^ Ff, - N ° ~ p . ~x ~ 0 N • ~ . _ y jt ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ w+ ` • ~ d ~ 1. ~ s.. o ~ O ~ ~Y U v . ~ ui 1 1 • ~ yr~ ~ - - • ~ ' '11. ti~u ~ 4F U- ~ ~ • ,s~ ~ Li r . ~ + "w,1~ ` . a~~: MAR-6-2007 05:55A FROM: T0:4792452 P.2 Attachment B . ' John G. Martir~, Anchi~ect LLC °.a~4M ~°~2 b^ CO a&U wc 270-33"M ~ wwwjdnigin Memo 71x Bi(f Gibson, Planner, Toum of Vaii Com. Dev. Cc: Jim Guiffre . From Jefiiey P Manley AIA Oate: 315007 Ree Vail Traii East Lot 1-15, Block 4, Vail Village filling 1 Sub* Revised Variance request PEC, We are reques6ng a vatiance for the addition of a shed roof at unit 16B Which protrudes inbo the utllity setback. The existing northeast comer of the buiiding is a(ready within this easemenk The u4lity companies have not bs+en apposed bo this encroachment of the new 160 roof sinoe the unit (16A) above has a bay that already proirudes. Inctuded fbr inionmatbn is the Masber 8uild-out plan. lt has been reQue$ted by the DRB that a master plan be developed that brings sane order and symmetry to the north elpvation, • Thanks, Jeffrey P Manley ' WorCing in callaboratfan with John G Martin Architeat LLC ~ 0 Page 1 Attachment C ~ ~ . ~ . I • z . ~ SF' ~ ~ •St ~/Y~~.,' . = e i . i :r`.,.~ J • - 8 , ; : , • E ~ ~ e k ~~~C/x / s~ C . ~ - ~ • ~ if 1~ ~ . ~ ~,rw/~• ~ ~ r J/ Z " / • ' • _ : % . r~; ~ _ ~ ?Y . i Vl. f.~ • . ~~o\ ?%.1~ ~~s~~ s ~I~~ ~ ~ £Q ~ wk •i`l~ ~6~~I ~J`A v , : ~ • `Y~ . 4~~R i • ~ilgac- ' t~';~. ' {r . ~RO ~ u~ ~ 00 (w \N• i i I ^go b~ S~~e~ ~z i~ a~ ~`~a~.. ~ r/ n ~n ~ 1°a~ x_ s L2 hr~ t p=„~ 'v~ ~ 5-4° • g p k EXHIBIT Gore Range VAIL TRAILS EAST Surveying,uc sc M.,,,,~Aa.. oJ-;d,~~a. TOV1/N OF VAIL o.c:•~.ro e. _ ~ ~p Vail. Trails Exterior Renovah'on ~ 433 Gore Creek Dr, Lots 1-15, Block 4, ''ng 1 Vail Colorado, CO 81657 PLANNING AND ~ ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ~ 02/26/07 ~ A . ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ i y . ~ tt ~ r L Dt ~ i z Y f~ r a ; ° ~ ~ r C7 G L ~ ~ ~ 11 V ~ a rt ~ <tF ° HI~ ~ ~J ? a~ ~ ~ Z v ~ . , . Q ~ . A~p ~ ~ ~ EB i~ ~p N f i I . ~i~ • ~ M: F iurce u~ ~ ~ p s ~ ca N ~ ~ 4~~y f d S ~ p i{ ? 2F~z Ep+ ' ~~p~ Atltl~ r ~ sv D ~ t w ~ A m r r D r ~ m O f++~---F-~ z ao m ~ T-lo ~ Ha iusce EB ua • PRoPOSEn REvAnorrs yr - - a.ese r~ r.enrK cr+ otveLov: oz-zo-w A3P rwt oee: oz-zs-U ~?s.~a~nr,~a~.is.mt4~i > o ~ OP ' O ~ E=U a ~ ER ~ a 5~ s5. ~ ~ • l+' N ~ V rr A y b = Z . 4 ~ r- §A EE -i ~ o; D ~~y i ~ Z ~ P~ It 3enliis PROPO6M 9FVATIOM ~ I&(`yUALAMNLUE Iwe41t • Q humQ ow g~ ESIGN oEVCLoP: oz-zo m ~m ac ~ ORB: 02-26-07 A5P v.ea~,mam ~ . a m . D 4 'a m r m < z ~ v a' Z ~ 4 ~ m D ~ r ~ ~ = d D o1 Z ~ ~ ~ . ~ r ~ ~ Z =3 b ~ rtzj C7 C7 - m ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ 7 r x ~ u cyn ? ~ ;a I. ~ a Z m o p O - reF ~W z - B B 8 ~ ~ TI: ~ ~ m. az 4 ~ m o ~ -Ed m ~ ~ rbK • _ o m _ m m ~ m 1- < < ->i ~ E O - Z I W, g ,S~ • bo1Vw mAsrER BtA.d4oIJi RE30CT10mS aw t~cr+ o[veLoP: 02-20-07 Y~ M1 oAa orzs-m 4UQw6skf4Ift11f.Wd46M[l ~iCrei~COpfD ~ ~ ~ E t ~ 4 t, 4 t ! E ; / nf t t~ t ~ F4 ~t ~ -04 c t i i t s 1 ~ G ( ~ G I V. d g ~ b k a F~ p p~ r t t 0 r 4 ~Y K7~7 . ~ r y IR ~ O ~ r Yg ~.4 ~ rt~fSF , A ~ ~ B . ~ ~ Om ~ i~~~ qo99 ~s ~ p . ~ '.J"',. K E Ky b i y x~ ~ ~~cA~ OE"ELOP: o2q 2~_p7 17~~ 9rR ~ ~ ~A &33~~~~~,ac~ P ; , 1 ' 1~ F f ~ i 1 ~ E ' ` FE i ~ ~ •e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a C~ 4 6 ~ aa 4W G t ~ ~ _°a c 0 K s 3 s7AU M ~ -04 • ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ o r ~g 1 O B a m c , o Da 1 Rm t ~ 1 ~ ° °f yii, F3 s a t ? ~R ~ p(vEiOP: 02-20-0) 02-26'D7 1J~+ . ~~•~~ts~,,~ i mGi ` Attachment D ~ EAST GORE CREEK SUB AREA (46) • ' A number of the earliest projects developed in Vail are located in the East Gore Creek Sub-Area. Development in this area is exclusively multi-family condominium projects with a very limited amount of support commercial. Surface parking is found at each site, ~ which creates a very dominant visual impression of the sub-area. While the level of development in East Gore Creek is generally ' greater than that allowed under existing zoning, this area has the potential to absorb density without compromising the character of the Village. This development could be accommodated by partial infills ' of existing parking areas balanced by greenspace additions or through increasing the height of existing buildings (generally one story over existing heights). In order to maintain the architectural continuity of projects, additional density should be considered only in ~ conjunction with the comprehensive redevelopment of projects. Clearly, one of the main objectives to consider in the redevelopment ~ of any property should be to improve existing parking facilities. This includes satisfying parking demands for existing and additional development, as well as design considerations relative to ~ redevelopment proposals. The opportunity to introduce below grade structured parking will greatly improve pedestrianization and landscape features in this area. This should be considered a goal of any redevelopment proposal in-this sub-area. Development or ~ redevelopment of this sub-area will attract additional traffic and • population into this area and may have significant impacts upon portions of Sub-Areas 7 and 10. ~ _"~r' ~i ' :t`t.KA - ~ • _ _ • ""~.;~:•y T~ ' • ~ E/1ST ~ . DRIVE ` \ . . ' ' 1k~ r - ~ • 3 `+..,ry, ' . s.a! • J-P . ' ~ \ ! 5-1 ~ r r.... . I Co.. \ .X CJ:. : u'~;, ~s,',, FJisv~xla ~ . 4 ~ , ;`\v` ~ . 7-1 7-~'~ ST GORE C EtF.~. ~ ~ ~ _ *u / • r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..ea- " ~ J' r• _ ~ ~ r ° • • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m . . 10-1 ~ ~ • wa i : / i v . . GO PEA= • ~ 52 ~ f • ~ • ~ #6-1 Residential Infill _ \~f.D:•J Additional floor or residential development over what is existing. . Additional density to be considered only in conjunction with a comprehensive redevelopment of each project. A key factor in s )the redevelopment of these properties will be to relocate required Parking in underground - * ~ structures. This will allow for increased landscaping and overall 7=5_ improvements to pedestrian ways in _ this area. In all cases, the mature pines along Gore Creek ~ shall be maintained. Stream impact must be considered. Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.3, 2.6, ~ 3.1, 5.1, 6.2. ~ #6-2 Manor Vail . ~ . ~ Possible residential infill on portions of existing surface parking area and additional floor to the two northern most buildings L' 2 adjacent to Gore Creek. Infill ~ proj ect must include addition of . L- ~ MAMOII ; ~ VA16 greenspace adj acent to East Mill Creek and other adjoining pedestrian areas. Height of s truc ture s h a l l b e l i m i t e d t o prevent impacts on view to the ' MANOR VAiL Gore Range from Village core and Va i l Va l ley Drive. Present and r-- ~ future parking demand to be met on ~ site. Traffic considerations must be addressed. Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1. / ~ oosa M~ riew rwr wtt vxin omra wu r- v~ • - 'i/ . . . . % 53 ~ ~ Attachment: E ~ • • I, Towlva *YAIL IS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY TH PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on March 26, 2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: ~ A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12=6H-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-14-17, Setback from Watercourse, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, M~'~"~o~ Variances, to allow for the addition of bay windows, located at 433 Gore Creek Drive/Lot +y}t n l 1, Block 4, Vail Vitlage Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0010) Applicant: Vail Trails East Homeowners Association, represented by John G. Martin, Architect, LLC Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6C-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a residential addition within the setback and in excess of the maximum allowable site coverage, located at 5119_ Black Bear Lane/Lot 8, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (REC07-) • Applicant: Lisa Augustine, represented by JMP Architects Planner: Bill Gibson I I The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 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. Published March 9, 2007, in the Vail Daily. • Page 1 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Deve{opment Department DATE: March 26, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12- 7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a request for a final review of variances from Sections 12-7H-10, Setbacks, 12-7H-14, Site Coverage, and 12-7H-15, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an underground parking structure and a staircase within the setbacks, and deviations from the maximum site coverage and minimum landscape area requirements, located at 610 West ' Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, B4ock 1, Vai4 Lionshead Fifing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0074) Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson • I. SUMIVIARY The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, the request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the renovation of, the ' Landmark Condominiums, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the request for a final review of a variance from Sections 12-7H- 10, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an underground parking structure and an egress staircase within the setbacks, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth detaifs in regard thereto. The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the request for a final review of a variance from 12-7H-14, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for deviations from the maximum site coverage requirements, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. The Landmark is currently legally non-conforming in regard to the Lionshead Mixed Use • 1 Zone District minimum landscape area requirements. The applicant is proposing a 332 sq. ft. net gain in landscape area; therefore, these praposed renovations to the Landmark do not require a landscape area variance. . 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST • The Landmark building is located at 610 West Lionshead Circle. A vicinity map identifying the location of the development site has been attached for reference (Attachment A). The Landmark is located within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan area and within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District. The applicant is proposing a Major Exterior Alteration plus setback and site coverage variances to allow for the redevelopment af the Landmark including a re-face of the entire residential portions of the building. This proposal includes the construction of 15 new dwelling units, 12 of which will be located above the existing westerly "townhouse" portion of the building. New egress walkways and an egress stair tower are being proposed on the north and northwest sides of the building. The proposal will also include the construction of a previously approved elevator tower connecting the westerly "townhouse" and the easterly "condominium tower" portions of the existing building. Adjacent to this elevator tower addition will be three more dwelling units and one 735 sq. ft. employee housing unit. As recommended by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, the applicant is proposing to convert the existing alley adjacent to the south side of the building into a cul-de-sac and new primary entrance to the Landmark site. At the east end of this cu!- de-sac the applicant is proposing to construct a guest drop-off area and a new lobby entrance for the Landmark building and new ski storage and fitness facilities for the • Landmark owners and guests. A new trash enclosure will be accessed from this cul-de- sac adjacent to the west side of the existin9 "townhouse" building. Below the new cul-de-sac, the applicant is propasing to construct a new below grade parking structure to accommodate 30 new parking spaces. The applicant's project summary and request have been attached for reference (Attachment B). III. BACKGROUND The Landmark site was annexed into the Town of Vail in August of 1969. According to Eagle County records, the existing Landmark was originally constructed in 1973. The property was originally zoned Commercial Core 2 District and was rezoned to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District in 1999. At its February 14, 2005, public hearing, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a ma)'or exterior alteration application to allow for the construction of the ~ proposed elevator tower located between the two existing building elements of the Landmark. The applicant has incorporated that same elevator tower design into this more comprehensive redevelopment proposal. , At its November 13, 2006, public hearing the Planning and Environmental Commission held a work session to allow the applicant to present an initial introduction to this proposal. There was no formal action taken by the Commission at that hearing. The Design Review Board has been conceptually reviewed the applicant's proposal on a , regular basis since November, 2006. The Design Review Board most recently reviewed this proposal on March 21, 2007, and was very supportive of both the overall design direction and the proposed design details for the project. The single issue the Board 2 • asked the applicants to address before their scheduled final review on April 4, 2007, was to adjust the shade of paint for the new window shutters. Under a separate application, the applicants recently obtained design review approval for farade renovations to the commercial portions of the Landmark building adjacent to the Lionshead Mall. The applicants intend to begin construction of those improvements this spring, and hope to construct the proposed residential renovations next year as a second phase to the redevelopment of the entire Landmark building. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS The following checklist was created to provide a means of evaluating the Lion Square Lodge North proposal for compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The checklist is intended for the Planning and Environmental Commission to use in conjunction with their copies of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to locate relevant portions of the Master Plan which pertain to this proposal. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Chapter 2: Introduction ? 2.1PurPoseof th e Master Plan ? 2.2 Definition of a Master Plan • ? 2.3 Policy Objectives Chapter 4: Master Plan Recommendations - Overall study Area ? 4.1 Underlying Physical Framework of Lionshead ? 4.3 Connections to the Natural Environment ? 4.6 Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation ? 4.7 Loading and Delivery 0 4.8 Parking ? 4.9 Housing ? 4.10 Gateway, Landmarks, and Portals ? 4.11 Public Art Chapter 5: Detailed Plan Recommendations , ? 5.10 Montaneros, Concert Hall Plaza, l.andmark Tower and Townhomes Chapter 6: Site Design Guidelines . ? 6.8 Fences and Enclosures ? 6.9 Compliance with the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan Chapter 8: Architectural Design Guidelines ? 8.1 Vision Statement ? 8.2 Organization, Purpose and Scope ? 8.3 New and Existing Structures ? 8.4 Design Guidelines . 3 Zoning Reaulations • Article 12-7H: Lionshead Mixed Use -1 Zone Disfrict 12-7H-1: PURPOSE; The Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district is intended to provide sites for a 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 the permitted types of buildings and uses and to 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 the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This Zone District 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 Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with fhe Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any developmentlredevelopment proposal • taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. 12-7H-7: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MOD/FICATIONS: (in part) A. Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building ihat is not a major exterior alteration as described in subsection B of this section shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. 1. Submittal Items Required: The submittal items required for a project that is not a major exterior alteration shall be provided in accordance with section 12-11-4 of this title. B. Major Exterior Alteration: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, timeshare units, any project which adds more than one thousand (1,000) square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off site impacfs (as determined by the administrator) shall be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance wifh this chapter and section 12-3-6 of this title. Any project which requires a conditional use permit shall also obtain approval of the planning and environmental commission in accordance with chapter 16 of fhis title. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in accordance with administrative schedules developed by the department of community development for planning and environmental commission and design review board review. • 12-7H-8: COMPLIANCE BURDEN: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes 4 1 • 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 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. 12-7H-9: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSlONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area. 12-7H-1 D; SETBACKS: The minimum building setbacks shall be ten feet (10) unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as a build-to line. 12-7H-11: HEIGHTAND BULK: Buildings shall have a maximum average building height of seventy one feet (71) with a maximum height of 82.5 feet, as further defined by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. All development shall comply with the design guidelines and standards found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. F/exibility with the standard, as incorporated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, shall be afforded to redevelopment projects which meet the intent of design guidelines, as reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 12-7H-12: DENSITY (DWELL/NG UNITS PER ACRE): ~ Up to a thirty three percent (33%) increase over the existing number of dwelling units on a property or thirty five (35) dwelling units per acre, whichever is greater shall be allowed. For the purpose of calculating density, employee housing units, accommodation units, time share units, and fractional fee club units shall not be counted as dwelling units. Additionally, a"lodge dwelling unit", as defined herein, shall be counted as twenty five percent (251%) of a dweNing unit for the purpose of calculating density. A dwelling unit in a multiple-family building may include one attached accommodation unrt no larger than one-third (113) of the total floor area of the dwelling. 12-7H-13: GROSS RES/DENTIAL FLODR AREA (GRFA): Up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area shall be allowed for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area, or an increase of thirty three percent (33%) over the existing GRFA found on the property, whichever is greater. Multiple-family dwelling units in this zone district shall not be entitled to additional gross residential floor area under the 250 ordinance, section 12-15-5 of this title. 12-7H-14: SITECOVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed seventy percent (7091o) of the total site area, unless otherwise specrfied in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 12-7H-15: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least twenty percent (20%) of the total site area shall be landscaped, unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. • 12-7H-16: PARKING AND LOAD/NG: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least one-half (112) the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings. 5 12-7H-18: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: • Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrasfructure and in afl cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of rmpacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape rmprovements, stream tract/bank improvements, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopmenbdevelopment projecfs which produce substantial off site impacts. Chapter 12-17: VARIANCES (in part) 12-17-1: Purpose: A. Reasons for Seeking Variance: !n order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this fitle as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of exrsting structures thereon; from topographic or physical condifions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. • V. ZONING ANALYSIS Address: 610 West Lionshead Place Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Lot Area: 1.495 acres (65,122 sq. ft.) Zoning: Lianshead Mixed Use 1(LMU-1) Land Use Designation: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Area Develooment Standard Allowed/Required Existin Proposed Setbacks: ' North: 10 ft. 0 ft. no change South: 10 ft. 60 ft. 6 ft. West: 10 ft. 15 ft. 4 ft. East: 10 ft. 0 ft. no change Building Height: 71 ft. avg. 56 ft. avg. 82.5 ft. max. 87 ft. 87 ft.* Density (dwelling units): 77 DUs (133% of 58) 58 DUs 76 DUs GRFA: 162,812 sq.ft. 67,907 sq. ft. 95,948 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 45,587 sq.ft. (70%) 41,360 sq. ft. (64%) 55,458 sq. ft. (85%~ Landscape Area: 13,024 sq.ft. (20%) 10,972 sq.ft. (17%) 11,304 sq. ft. (17%) 6 , • Parking: 108 spaces 85 spaces 109 spaces Employee Housing: 1 EHU none 1 EHU (735 sq.ft.) `existing roof ridge height exceeds 82.5 ft., a11 new roof ridges are lawer than 82.5 ft. Vt. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zonina North: Parking Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District South: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District East: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District West: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District VII. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRITERIA Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vaii Town Code, outlines the review criteria for major exterior alteration applications proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1(LMU- 1) zone district. According to Section 12-7H-8, Vail Town Code, a major exterior alteration sha11 be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria: I 1. That the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district; • Staff Response- The purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District are stated in Section 12-7H-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code. 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 dweltings, hotels, fractional fee clubs, restaurants, skier services and commercial/retail 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. The applicant is proposing the construction of 15 new dwelling units, one new on- site employee housing unit, a new underground parking structure, a new entry/lobby addition, a new fitness facility, a previously approved new elevator tower, redevelopment of the existing afley adjacent to Concert Hall Plaza, a new trash enclosure, and a significant re-face of the existing residential portions of the building. Each of these proposed uses comply with both the stated purpose of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District and the technical development standards of the district. Therefore, Staff finds that the major exterior alteration application complies with not only the intent of the zone district, but also the development standards of the district. 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead ~ Redevelopment Master Plan; Staff Response: 7 1 Chapter 2: lntroduction . Section 2.3 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan outlines the six policies objectives of the plan: 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 place, a personality, a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character. 2) Vitality and Amenities We musf seize the opportunity to enhance guest experience and community inferaction fhrough expanded and additional activities and amenities such as performing arts venues, conference facilifies, rce rinks, streetscape, parks and other recreational improvements. 3) Stronger Economic Base Through lncreased Live Beds In order to enhance the vitality and viability of 1/arl, renewal and redevelopmenf in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates and fhe creation of addrtional bed base (`7ive beds" or "warm beds') fhrough new lodging products. 4) Improved Access and Circulation ~ The flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle and mass transit traffic must be improved within and through Lionshead. 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 services must be upgraded to support redevelopment and revitalizatron efforts and to meet the service expectations of our guests and residents. 6) Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits and Public Revenues Financially creative and fiscally realistic strategies must be identified so that adequate capital may be raised from all possible sources to fund desired private and public improvements. Staff believes the proposed major exterior alteration conforms to these policy objectives. The proposal wi(( significantly upgrade the architectural and aesthetic quality of the Landmark property in keeping with the identity and character of the adjacent redevefoped properties such as Arrabelle, Marriott, Antlers, Montaneros, Lion Square Lodge, etc. Staff believes these proposed improvements to the residential portions of the Landmark, in conjunction with the approved faCade renovations to the commercial portions of the building, will greatly enhance the aesthetic quality of the Landmark property and help to increase the vitality of the Lionshead area . adjacent to the Landmark property. The existing Landmark is comprised of onfy dwelling units with no existing accommodation or fractional fee units. However, many of these existing dwelling 8 • units are rented to guests and function as "warm beds" (not "hot beds"). The proposed major exterior alteration only includes the construction of additional dwelling units, as allowed by the provisions of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, and no accommodation or fractional fee units are proposed. It is anticipated that both the existing and new dwelling units will continue to function as "warm beds" in the same manner as the existing Landmark. The primary guest entrance to the Landmark building is through Vail Resort's North Day Lot. As described in Section 5.10.1 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, this is not an ideal entry scenario and this entry • option will be discontinued with the eminent future redevelopment of the North Day Lot. As recommended in Section 5.10.1, the applicant is proposing convert the existing alley between the Landmark and Concert Hall Plaza into the Landmark's primary entrance to improve the overall access, circulation, and infrastructure of the Lionshead area. As recommended in the Master Plan, the applicant is proposing to convert the alley into a cul-de-sac, construct a new entry lobby at the east end of the cu(-de-sac, and provide a pedestrian transition into the Lionshead Mall. Chapter 4: Master Plan Recommendations Section 4.3 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses the physical connection of Lionshead to the natural environment. Sub-Section 4.3.1.1 addresses the need for the preservation "public" view corridors (none of • which exist near this site), but not the preservation of "private" view corridors. Sub-Section 4.3.1.2 recommends a north-south axis orientation for buildings to lessen negative impacts to sun access and mountain views for streets and existing buildings. The Landmark site and existing building primarily has an east/west orientation. The applicants are proposing to expand the existing Landmark building by constructing above the existing west "townhome units" and constructing a new entry lobby at the east end of the southern alley, as recommended by Section 5.10.1 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Section 4.6 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Staff believes the applicant's proposai to convert the alley between Landmark and Concert Hall Plaza into a cul-de-sac and primary vehicular entrance, as recommended in Section 5.10.1 of the Master Plan, will improve the vehicular and pedestrian traffic and circulation adjacent to this site. Section 4.7 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses loading and delivery. The Landmark will utilize the public centralized load i ng/delivery facilities at the Arrabelle for future loading/delivery needs. The applicant's proposed cul- de-sac can be accessed by smaller delivery vehicles to address some of the Landmark's needs on site. As noted in Section 4.7.3.5 of the Master Plan, the existing Landmark alley is not a desirable centralized loading/delivery area. Section 4.8 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses parking. The applicant's proposal provides sufficient parking for the new dwelling units • and EHU at the Landmark. The new parking will be inconspicuously located entirely below grade in conformance with the recommendations of Section 4.8.d of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Section 4.9 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses housing. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the Landmark's new employee housing 9 needs by constructing one on-site employee housing unit. The Town of Vai! • Housing Coordinator has determined that the applicant's proposed mitigation meets the Town's existing employee housing requirements and is consistent with the mitigation methods approved for other similar re-development projects. The applicants submitted development review applications to the Town of Vail prior to the Vail Town Council's adoption of an emergency employee housing ordinance in November of 2006, and are therefore not subject to the emptoyee housing mitigation requirements currently being considered by the Council. Section 4.11 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses public art. The applicant is not proposing any pubiic art at this time. Chapter 5: Detailed Plan Recommendations Section 5.10.1 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses the possible redevelopment of the Landmark. The applicant's proposal is consistent with the recommendation of this section of the Master Plan. The applicant is ' proposing to convert the south alley into a cul-de-sac with a new entry (obby and to build an addition in the location of the west "townhome" portion of the building as described in the text of the Master Plan and similar to the visual description shown in Figure 5-13-a of the Master Plan. Chapter 6: Site Design Guidelines The Landmark is construction stairs and associated improvements to coordinate . the southern pedestrian access to the Lionshead Mall with the mall improvements being constructed by the Arrabelle. The applicant is proposing a dumpster enclosure on the west side of the building that conforms to the recommendations of Section 6.8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Chapter 7: Development Standards This major exterior alteration application conforms to the development standards of both the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District with the exception of setbacks and site coverage. The proposed encroachments into the setbacks will accommodate the construction of the proposed underground parking structure and the northwest egress stair tower. The proposed deviations from the site coverage requirements will facifitate the construction of the underground parking structure. Previous to Town Code amendments approved in January of 2006 clarifying that underground structures are defined as site coverage, underground parking structures located below surface parking lots, as in this scenario, were not interpreted by the Town as site coverage. Chapter 8: Architectural Design Guidelines In addition to the Planning and Environmental Commission's rev'iew of a major ~ exterior alteration request, the Town of Vail Design Review Board will also be reviewing this proposal for compliance with both the Town of Vail's general design guidelines and the architectural design guidelines of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The Board has conceptually reviewed this 10 ~ ro osal on numerous occasions and the Board's respon p p se has been very favorable. A final review by the Design Review Board has tentatively been schedule for April 4, 2007. As this proposal involves the renovation of an existing building, rather than the construction of a new buiVding, the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan requires the review of the applicant's request on "a case-by-case basis, with ~ determination of compfiance based upon whether the building meets the general intent of these Guidelines and the tenants described herein" rather than the strict i and literal compliance with the guidelines. i Staff believes the appficant's proposal is consistent with the architectural style encouraged by the master plan and the character of the recently approved developed/re-developed projects such as the Arrabelle, Montenaros, Lion Square Lodge, Marriott, Ritz Carlton, etc. ~ There are severa! "quantitative criteria" outHned in Chapter 8 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan related to building eaves, wall surfaces, wall spans, I ridge heights, building materials and colors, and roof dimensions and pitches. I This major exteriar alteration conforms to the guidelines for wall spans, building materials and colors, building eave heights, roof dimensions, roof forms, and roof ' heights. The proposa[ does not conform to the quantitative building eave step . back or wall surface criteria. An example of these deviations include a wall element on the north side of the eastern "condominium tower" portion of building. This wall segment exceeds the maximum vertical wall face of 35 feet and the horizontal step back requirements. However, this is an existing building element, and these deviations to architectural guidelines are caused by the existing buildings form and design. While not complying with the quantitative criteria, the appticant has redeveloped this building element in keeping with the intent of the guidelines by: adding a stone base, replacing the middle concrete building material with stucco, adding decorative shutters to the existing windows, and topping the element with a new shed roof. Staff believes the applicant's major exterior alteration appfication meets the intent of the architectural guidelines, and is in keeping with the architectural and aesthetic qualities encouraged by the 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 proposal in an aitempt to identify any significant negative impacts that may be created on the character of the neighborhood as a result of • the construction of the project. The proposal conforms to the development standards of the L.ionshead Mixed Use 1 District. Staff believes the proposal is in keeping with the general architectural style encauraged by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the general character of the recently redeveloped nearby properties such as Arrabelle, Montenaros, Lion Square Lodge, Marriott, Ritz Carlton, etc. 11 , As with other redevelopment projects in Lionshead, such as the Arrabelle, this ~ proposal will affect sun/shade and the private mountain views of those adjacent properties located to the north. The proposed major exterior alteration will increase the shadow cast on the adjacent North Day Lot compared to the existing Landmark building. This proposal fs subject to review by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. The Board is charged with ensuring that this proposal complies with both the Town's general design guidelines and the architectural design standards of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The applicant has submitted a traffic study which is being reviewed by the Tawn of Vail Public Works Department. There will be an increase in vehicle trips to the Landmark site at peak times, so the appficant will be assessed a traffic impact fee by the Town of Vail Public Works Department to mitigate this increase in traffic. Staff does not believe this increase +n vehicle trips wip have a significant negative impact in comparison to existing traffic conditions. In summary, Staff does not believe this proposal will have a significant negative impact upon the character of the neighborhood. Instead, this proposed major I exterior alteration will allow the Landmark to align itself with the intent of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Ptan. 4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of ~ the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Staff Resqonse: Staff has reviewed the Vail Comprehensive Plan to determine which elements of the Plan apply to the review of this proposal. Upon review of the Plan, Staff has determined that the following elements of the Plan apply: • Transportation Master Plan (adopted 1993) • Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (adopted 1998) This proposal conforms to the Town of Vaif's transportation and engineering standards. The applicant has also agreed to make a financial contribution to the Town of Vail in the form of traffic impact fees in accordance with the recommendations of the Transportation Master Plan. Therefore, Staff believes this proposal substantially complies with the applicable elements of the Transportation Master Plan. Staff also believes this proposal complies with the applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (refer to criteria #2 above). In summary, Staff believes that the applicant has presented evidence that the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, that the proposal is consistent with applicable • elements of the Lionshead Redeve(opment Master Plan, 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. 12 • VIII. MITIGATlON OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS I E mpIovee Housina As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, providing affordabfe housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed through the planning process for major exterior alteration proposais. ~ !n reviewing the proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied an the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report. This report has been used by the staff in the I past to evaluate employee housing needs. The guidelines coniained within the report were used most recently in the review of the Austria Haus, Marriottt, Four Seasons, Manor Vail Lodge, Vail Village Inn, Solaris, Ritz Carlton, Arrabelle, Lion Square Lodge, etc. development projects. Emplovee Generation Calculations ~ a) Multi-Family (Dweiling Units) 15 new units proposed @(0.4/unit) = 6 employees ' 15% of employees = 0.9 EHUs According to the calculations above, the applicant must establish one new deed- restricted employee bed ("pillows"). The applicant is proposing to provide the • required deed-restricted employee housing unit on-site. The Town of Vail Housing Coordinator has reviewed the applicant's employee housing mitigation proposal and has determined that proposa( meets the Town of Vail's employee housing requirements and is consistent with other mitigation proposal approved for similar development projects. Parkina The Landmark has 85 existing parking spaces (69 enclosed and 16 surface spaces). As part of this major exterior alteration, the applicant is proposing to construct a total of 109 parking spaces with 97 constructed within the existing and new parking structures and 12 constructed above on a surface lot. Traffic The proposed new dwelling units wiil likely increase the traffic flow to and from the Landmark site. To mitigate the effeets of this inereased traffic, the applicant wi!l be making a financial contribution to the Town of Vail in the form of a traffic impact fee. This fee is based upon an assessment of $6,500 per increased traffic trip at peak hour. The preliminary traffic study prepared by Fox Higgins indicates an increase of 7 peak hour trips. Based upon this preliminary report the traffic impact fee will be $45,500. Landscapina/Streetscape • The existing Landmark has minimal existing landscaping, and is fegally nan- conforming in regard to the minimum landscape area requirements of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District. As part of this major exterior alteration request, the appticant is proposing a 332 sq. ft. net gain in iandscape area. The applicant is proposing to construct street and sidewalk improvements on the west 13 side of the Landmark building along West Lionshead Circle and will construct • stairs and other improvements to transition pedestrians into the Lionshead Mall. Coordination with Other Redevelopment Proiects The applicant is coordinating the pedestrian access on the south side of the Landmark building with the grading and streetscape improvement being made to the Lionshead Malf by the Arrabelle project. Art in Public Places and Ofi-Site Road/Streetscape Improvements At this time the applicant is not proposing specific contributions to art in public places. The applicant is proposing to construct street and sidewafk improvements on the west side of the Landmark building along West Lionshead Circie as recommended by the Town of Vail Public Works Department. IX. SETBACK VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FtND(NGS The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The existing Landmark building was originally constructed in 1973 and ~ the existing parking structure encroaches into the required 10 foot north setback. Other portions of the building currently conform to the setback requirements; however, as noted in Section 5.10.1 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, the location and configuration of the existing building does p(ace constraints on the redevelopment oppartunities of the Landmark. To accommodate egress required by the adopted building and fire codes, the applicant is proposing to construct an enclosed egress stair tower at the northwest corner of the building that encroaches four feet into the west ten foot setback area. The provisions of Section 14-10-4, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, would allow the applicant to construct a"fire escape or exterior emergency exit stairway" four feet into the required setback. The applicant prepared design alternatives with openings in the proposed stair tower in compliance with this provision. The Design Review Board conceptually reviewed these alternatives and determined these alternatives did not meet the Town's adopted design standards. The Board strongly suggested the applicants redesign the stair tower to be an enclosed building eJement to address the Board's practical concerns about protection from rain/snow and the Board's concerns about aesthetics and the proposal's compliance with the Town's design standards. The Design Review Board supports the applicant's request for a setback variance to accommodate the proposed egress stair tower ~ design. 14 • Since the provisions of the Town's zonin re ulations a(low n e 9 J a xterior stair tower of similar bulk and mass, and of lesser aesthetic quality, to encroach into the west setback area; Staff does not beiieve this proposal will have a negative impact on adjacent uses, structures, in the vicinity compared to other allowed conditions. To accommodate the construction of a new underground parking structure, and its associated egress, the applicant is reguesting deviations , to the required ten foot west and south setback requirements. Section I 12-7H-16, Parking and Loading, Vaii Tawn Code, requires that "at least , one-half the required parking shall be located with the main building" for sites such as the Landmark in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District. Additionally, Section 4.8.d of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan recommends that "Parking should be visually inconspicuous. Parking should be struetured below ground whenever possible" : To meet the ~ parking requirements of the Town's zoning regulations and the goals of the Town's master plans; the applicant is proposing to reduce the amount of existing surtace parking at the Landmark and construct the majority of the new parking below grade. The applicant proposes to construct this new below grade parking structure immediately adjacent to the existing ~ Landmark building. To conform with the Town's dimensional standards for parking spaces, drive lanes, turning radii, etc. the applicant is ~ proposing that the parking structure encroaches four feet into the • southern ten foot setback and six feet into the western ten foot setback. Staff does not believe the proposed below grade encroachment will negatively affect other potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which retief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity ot treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The Planning and Environmental Commission has consistently held that existing lot and building configurations may be a hardship to justify the granting of a variance from the Town's current zoning regulations. Approval of the proposed setback variance will al{ow the applicant to construct a below grade parking structure in conformance with the intent and goals of both the Town's zoning regulatians and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Approval of the proposed setback variance will also ailow the applicant to construct an egress stair tower, required by the Town's adopted building and fire codes, that conforms to the design guidelines of the Town's zoning regulations and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Staff believes the applicant is requesting relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulations necessary to ~ achieve compatibility and uniform treatment of site in the vicinity, and does not view the approval of this request as grant of special privi(ege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on (ight and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 15 Staff does not believe that the requested rear setback variance will have • a negative effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic utilities, public facilities and utilities, or public safety in comparison to existing conditions. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The Town of Vait Design Review Board strongly encouraged the applicant to pursuant a setback variance for the proposed enclosed egress stair tower, rather than continue to pursue a stair tower design, of lesser aesthetic quality, meeting the strict setback standards for emergency stairs. X. SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS ~ The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The existing Landmark building was originally constructed in 1973 and as ~ noted in Section 5.10.1 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, the location and configuration of the existing building does place constraints on the redevelopment opportunities of the Landmark. The existing Landmark building conforms to the site coverage requirements of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District. The applicanYs proposal to construct a new entry lob6y, elevator tower, and egress stair also complies with the site coverage limits prescribed by the Town's zoning regulations. However, the applicant's proposal to construct a new below grade parking structure will cause the Landmark to exceed the maximum site coverage limit of 45,587 sq. ft. (70% of lot area) by 9,870 sq. ft. (85% of lot area). Until the January 2006 adoption of Town code amendments clarifying the definition of site coverage, below grade parking structures were not interpreted by the Town as site coverage. Staff does not befieve this proposal will have a significant negative impact on adjacent uses or structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and li#eral interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The Planning and Environmental Commission has in the past heid that existing lot and building configurations may be a hardship to justify the • granting of a variance from the Town's current zoning regulations. Approval of the proposed site coverage variance will allow the applicant to construct a below grade parking structure in conformance with the 16 • intent and goals of both the Town's zoning regulations and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Staff believes the applicant is requesting relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulations necessary to achieve compatibility and uniform treatment of site in the vicinity, and does not view the approval of this request as 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. Staff does not believe that the requested rear setback variance will have a negative effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic utilities, public facilities and utilities, or public safety in comparison to existing conditions. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. XI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION ~ Statf recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission evaluate if a contribution to art in public places is necessary as mitigation of this proposal's development impacts. The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the major 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 this major exterior alteration request with conditions, Staff recommends the Commission make the following findings part of the motion: "Pursuant to Section 12-714-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elemenfs of the Lionshead Redevelopmenf • 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. 17 Add'+tionally, should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this ~ major exterior alteration request with conditions, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves deviations from the Lionshead Redeve(opment Master Plan Architectural Design Guidelines, pursuant to Section 8.3.3A, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow for additions to, and the renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the major 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 deviations from the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Architectural Design Guidefines, Staff recommends the Commission make the following findings part of the motion: 1. "The request for design deviations are in compliance with the purposes of the zone district; and 2. The proposal which includes the design deviations is consisfent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and 3. The proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a srgnificant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and ' 4. The proposal substantia!!y complies with other applicable elements of fhe ~ Vail comprehensive plan; and 5. The design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific design standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and, 6 A public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation; and, 7. 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." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this major exterior alteration request, Staff recommends the following conditions: Prior to Aa,olication for Buildinq Permits 1) Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obfain Town of Vail Design Review approval of this proposal. 2) Prior to application for building permifs, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of a construction staging plan for this proposal. 3) Priar to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of civil engineering construction plans ana• off-site improvement plans for this proposal. 18 ! Prior to ReauestinQ a Temporarv Certificate of OccuQancv 4) Prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy for this proposal, the developer shall provide one deed-restricted employee housing that complies wifh the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13, Vail Town Code), and that said restrictions sha!l be made available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. In addition, the ~ deed-restrictions shall be IegaRy executed by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County C/erk & Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a ! temporary certificate of occupancy. 5) Prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy for this proposal, the developer shall be assessed a transportation impact fee in the amount of $6,500 per increased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated by this proposal. ~ SETBACK VARIANCE The Community Development Department recommends approval of a request for a finai review of a variance from Sections 12-7H-10, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an underground parking structure and an egress ~ staircase within the setbacks, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is • based upon the review of the criteria in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmenta! Gommission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass ihe following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for a variance from Sections 12-7H-1 D, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an underground parking structure and an egress staircase within the setbacks, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission malces the following findings: "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The granting of fhis variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on ofher properties classified in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District as the Planning and Environmental Commission has consistently held that fhe configuration of existing sites and buildings are hardship that may jusfify the granting of a variance from the Town's current zoning regulafions. • 2. The granting of thrs variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinify. 19 i 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: • a. The strict Iiteral interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vai! Town Code due io the configuration of existing site and building. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other propertres in the same district due to the configuration of existing site and building. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district due to the configuration of existing site and building. " SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE The Community Devefopment Department recommends approval of a variance from 12- 7H-14, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for deviations from the maximum site coverage requirements, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. • Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for a variance from 12-7H-14, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapfer 12-17, t/ariances, to allow for devrations from the maximum site coverage requirements, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto, and setting forth details rn regard thereto. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The granfing of this variance will not constrtute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District as the Planning and Environmental Commission has consistently held that the configuration of existing sites and buildings are a hardship that may justify the granting of a variance from the Town's current zoning regulations. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental io the pub/ic health, safety, • or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 20 3. This variance is warranted for the fallowing reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, 2oning Regulations, Vail Town Code due to the configuration of existing site and building. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of fhe variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district due to fhe configuration of existing site and building. ~ c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same disfrict due to the configuration of existing site and building. " XII. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Request C. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (excerpts) D. Proposed Architectural Plans • E. James Vanderhout letter dated March 15, 2007 . 21 F S ~~.e ~ ow. 'FP ~n . ~ • ~ ? 9. 4~, 3.-.~ . > t S ~ ~ • ~ ~ E ~ oAl 3 • ~ . ~ ~ k. ' N • . . 'r _ ; E ~f~ ~1 ~~n- ~ . . .`t- ~ . ~ . ~S p~ z • _ ~ r r ~ ~0 3 ~ ~ x y • ~ . ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ . " ~ `~4 D j • ~ ~ c . t ~c., cm.tl • ~ 3± ~ a .J i ~+4. ,,.,o-~ 40, ~ kw 4 , U • 5, ~ . , . ,.,-r^ . . ~ qs°~'~.. ~ ~ ~~Z`g..;;, ~r~r ~ f ~ , ~W iLIONSHEAD CIR 4 NEAp~PLs J ~ ~ ~ 0NSs FA `d ` ;e i 4 1t y~ S ~r g. ~ k ~ ~ F ~ z l I tl ~ M l.yein C-7itzlen, AIA, rarc:Fiite Attachment B ~ W.ll,,m r. P,ercQ,ArChitec FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS t`ysarf t}eardulf, Uirec:[or of Archifec:fure VAIL, COLORADO i<athy Neslincr<z, Office Niarager )anuary 28, 2007 Bill Gibson Town Of Vail Department of Community Development 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Landmark Condominium Lot 1, Biock 1, Vail Lionshead 3,d Filing 610 West Lionshead Circle PROJECT OVERVIEW ~ Bili, On behaff of the Landmark Condominium Association I am happy to provide the following summary of the improvements proposed for the property. Existing Conditions As you know the Property was constructed in the early 1970's. The existing Property is relatively easy to perceive as having three components: 1. Retail along the Lionshead Mall with offices and restaurants on the floor above the Mall. There are 20,160 square feet of Commercial uses on the site. 2. A seven story, plus loft, concrete structure containing 30 Dwetling Units and 42,607 square feet of GRFA. For Purposes of review of this Project, this portion of the Building will be referred to as the "EAST TOWER". 3. A two story, plus loft, frame structure containing 28 Dwelling Units and 25,300 square feet of GRFA. For Purposes of review of this Project, this portion of the Building will be referred to as the "TOWNHOUSES". A one story concrete parking structure lies below the lowest occupied floor of the East Tower and the Townhouses, along the narth property line, and contains 69 full size parking spaces. Access is from West Lionshead Circle. There are 16 full size parking spaces in the lot south of the Townhomes. ~ FRI7zLEN 16 10 Ea>t Vail Vailey Drive, Fatlridge C i, P I E R C E Vail, o(c5rztdo 8 i 6> i P: 970.476.6342 fi: 9110.476.4901 WvUW,VaI laf'ChIC( CtS.CGrT1 . . FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLORADO • ~ I Proposed Commercial Improvements For purposes of review, the Commercial Owner has chosen to file an appiication separate from the other improvements to the property. The Commercial is not increasing the net square footage of any current use nor are any current uses being altered. This decision is based on the intent not to increase any parkinq need or to aenerate any requirement for Emplovee Housinq. There is an increase in the footprint of the Lower Level but the amount of area increased is balanced by an increase in the common exit hall at the north side of the Commercial space. Substantial improvements are proposed for the retail frontages along the pedestrian street that meet the intent of the Architectural DeSign Guidelines (ADG). Proposed tmprovements to the Residential Uses (Overall Vision) A key design concept of the proposed improvements is making the Project appear to be a series of buildinas, constructed over time, rather than a large uniform single Project. Toward this purpose of reducing the apparent scale of the Project, the components described above (East Tower, Townhouses, and Commerciaf), each have a different material palate and building form. • In addition to theses three components, Landmark is proposing to add an Elevator Tower and Lobby to the property as well as installing underground parking beneath the existing parking lot south of the Townhouses. The roof of this parking garage will be the driveway access to the property. Proposed Improvements to the East Tower Exterior finish improvements, roofline alterations, and addition of exterior detailing are proposed for the East Tower. The goal is to make improvements that will make the existing structure more compatible with the intention of the ADG for Lionshead. There is no proposed increase in floor area on this portion o€ the Suilding. Proposed Improvements to the Townhouses The Townhouses will be substantially altered. Eighteen new dwelling units will be added above the existing Townhouses and north of the new Elevator Tower (described below). The addition will be above the current volume of the existing Townhouses and the south fa4ade of the existing Townhouses will be altered to benefit from the volume added below the new Dwelling Units. Although there are some limitations caused by the configuration of the existing Townhouses, the proposed improvements meet the intent fRITZLEN I E,O East Val! Valley L7rive, fallridge C--t, • PIERCE Vai}, f:olnraclo 81657 910.4 ~6.6342 F: 970.47G.490i E": infoC~-va!I~:rc:hitecYs.t:orr 4Vt":'4Y.V~~7~ Z'C~^:I I PCI S. CQI11 ~ FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS i VAit, COLORADO I I (and in most regards the quantitative requirements) of the ADG. The improvements are ' within the Density and Floor Area limitations of the LHMUI Zone district. Proposed Elevator Tower Landmark intends to instali a new Elevator Tower that will provide access to all levels of the Building. Although the current elevator will remain, it does not provide access to the Lionshead Mall, parking garage, or the second level retail. The Efevator Tower will provide a visual icon for the property. Parking displaced by the new Elevator is replaced in the new parking garage below the new Entry Drive (described below). Proposed Lobby Landmark is substantia!!y improving the arrival sequence to their property. Currently a guest arrives through the adjacent North day Skier Lot, returns to West Lionshead Circle and re-enters the property and parking garage. Access will now be directty from West Lionshead Circle. A new heated drive will be constructed with direct visual access to the proposed Lobby. The Lobby will be two stories with the Lower Level containing offices for operation of the Property and ski . lockers for the occupants of the Building. The Upper Level will have a front desk and waiting area to serve residents and guests. The Lobby will be readily accessible form the parking garage. Proposed Underground Parking Beneath the new driveway, an underground parking garage is proposed. Access will be via a car elevator that is entered from the current parking garage. Parking spaces lost to installation of the car elevator will be replaced in the garage below. The design allows for access withaut the need to back in or out of the car elevator. Pedestrian access will be through the Lower Leve{ of the Lobby. The new garage adds XXX new spaces which meet the demands of the new Dwelling Units proposed for the site as well as providing some parking space for future additions or change of use for the Commercial Space. The proposed p.arking aaraae although underground adds to the Site Coveraae and causes the e,ropertv to exceed the limitations of LHMU1 zoning therefore Landmark is requesting a Variance to this zoning requirement. Landmark would like to maximize the underground parking by encroaching into the south setback adjacent to the existing Concert Hall Plaza, This encroachment wili provide XXXX additional parking spaces. Due to the fact that the Concert Hall Plaza building is constructed adjacent to the common property line between the Concert Hall Plaza and Landmark and extends far • FRITZLEN 1650 Ear,t Vai{ Vai(ey Drive, fallridge C-l , P I E R C E Vail. Calor<iclo 81657 f': 97CJ.4 76.6 342 F: 970.476.4901 4VW4V.Vdl1d'Ch(tE'f.tS.CQi71 FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLORADO • below the proposed underground parking the proposal is technical(y feasible but will require a Variance from the setback requirements of LHMU1 zonina. Other Site Improvements Landmark is adding a loading facility at the west portion of the site. Currently there is no dedicated loading location. Landmark is replacing the Landscape Area lost to the new loading facility with additional landscaping north of the East Tower thereby not increasing the current non-conformity with the Landscape Area required by LHMU1 zoning. The quality of the landscaping, particularly south of the Townhouses, will be greatly enhanced. A heated sidewalk will be installed along the west property line, adjacent to West Lionshead Circle. A heated exterior stair will be installed to connect the vehicle driveway and Upper Level of the Lobby to the Lionshead Mall. Site Lighting wil! be improved and a comprehensive sign program is being created for the entire site. ~ FRITZLEN 3 f 50 East Vail tia;lcy Drive, Fallridge C-1 , . PIERCE V<111, Colbr;;t.Clo 81657 P: 970.476.6342 f' 970.476A901 f::: itecls.c.orn ~v~.v.vai!~arcrttects.can~ ilharn l~ u r~ r, t liit _j FRtTZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS !~lan,i~~aVAIL, COLORADO March 9, 2007 APPLICATIION FOR VARIANCE LANDMARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VAIL LIONSHEAD 3RD FILING VARIANCES FOR PARTIAL SOUTH SETBACK AND SITE COVERAGE NATURE OF THE VARIANCES: SOUTH SETBACK The Applicant proposes to encroach into the south setback, to the minimum extent necessary to provide required on-site parking, as indicated on the plans. The encroachment is entirely below grade. The extent of the encroachment varies from 2'2" at the east end of the underground parking garage to 37" at the west end of the underground parking garage. The area proposed for encroachment is adjacent to the existing building to the south (Concert Hall Plaza (CHP)), This is an area that the existing CHP foundation exists at the common Property Line permitting construction on the Landmark ; properly without soil reinforcement. The existing foundation of CHP is deeper than the proposed ~ Landmark parking structure allowing excavation of the parking structure without affecting the CHP. This request conf(icts with Section 12-7H-10. w WEST SETBACK At the request of the Design Review Board (DRB), the Applicant proposes to encroach into the west setback with the construction of a required exit stairway. The Applicant's previous proposal was to leave the west side of this stair open as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The DRB felt that the esthetic improvement provided by continuing the stone veneer on the west fa~ade justified the request for the variance. The Applicant has withdrawn its request to construct a loading facility west of the westernmost Townhouses. The Applicant is seeking permission to install a much smaller, enclosed and covered trash facility in this area. These requests conflict with Section 12-7H-10. SITE COVERAGE The Applicant is proposing to install a fully underground parking garage beneath the proposed access drive south of the existing Townhouses. There are no other locations on the site for the Applicant to provide required parking. This 1.5 acre (65,124 sq.ft.) site permits 45,587 sq.ft. of site coverage. The current site has 41,360 sqft. of site coverage. The new Lobby and Underground Parking Garage add 14,098 sqft. of site coverage, resulting in 9,870 sqft. of site coverage that exceeds the Zoning Standard. The Conflicts with Section 121-7-14. The Applicant believes that the construction of additional underground parking meets the intention of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the Lionshead Master Plan. ~ FRITZLEN lt„A! kas1 V'.xil \:ad- !':hJti" l.~llriff,;~, { I P I E R C E \-.311 (;.1 (,!i- C -ft4`('~6 f+}~ 6 :.V:i01 I iz~i~u~: ,-:iil:iri hil~ rt• ;,i~i •;t°,vit.'.;Ii:~Itllil~.t:.i1,I FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLORADO • RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING OR PROPOSED USES OR STRUCTURES IN THE VICINITY, COMPATIBILITY WITH AD)ACENT SITES, EFFECT ON LIGHT AND AIR, DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION, TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC FACILITIES, UTILITIES, AND PUBLIC SAFETY: The Applicant believes that a large number of Buildings, in the immediate area vary from setback and site coverage standards, and, as stated above the adjacent property to the south has a zero setback. The setback encroachment is proposed is the minimum required to provide additional parking on the site for "warm bed" uses. The Applicant has removed its previous request to install a loading facility at the west end of the property and proposes to install a substantially smaller trash storage facility to serve the needs of the property. The enclosure of the exit stairway will provide improved safety as well as esthetic enhancements to the stair. The Applicant believes that the proposal has no negative impacts of light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, or public safety. The Variances requested are needed to allow reasonable redevelopment of the existing properly. The improvements proposed by The Applicant are consistent with the goals of the Master Plan. ~ FRITZLEN 1~~Su [,r~r V.Iil \&l, UriviI.dirid"c P I E R C E ~':{il. (I•.~,3rir: 1;16r-: •"<^•,iO,* lq:•';NiV31iB4~lllr-[.I~t~;lll ~ PROPOSED MATERIALS The Landmark Buildin Materials Residential Tower Elevator Tower Townhouse buildin Roof 11A - Tamko Rustic Slate 12 - Standing Seam Co er 11A - Tamko Rustic Slate Siding l0A - 7/16"x12" wide select cedar None lOB - Sierra Premium Shake with mill Harditrim with HLD rustic Mahogany Black 3/2 stain by grain (3/4"x4") Harditrim - vertical Duckback Products. Use shingle installation with Maple stain 4/1 by corner (no corner board) Duckback Products *on 03 (center) units: lOB - Sierra Premium Shake with Mahogany Black 3/2 stain by Duckback Products. Use shingle corner (no corner board) Stucco 6A/EB-1- Trowel texture with None 6B/WB-1- Light texture with Benjamin Moore 1096 (Bridgewater Benjamin Moore 221 (Golden Tan) elastomeric aint Garden) elastomeric aint Stone 2A - Telluride Stone Co. Rico Stack 2B - Robinson Rock Seabed Thin 2C - Telluride Stone Co. Loch ' Thin Veneer Veneer Lamond Thin Veneer Fascia 8/T-2 - 2 x RS Cedar - width varies, 8/T-2 - 2 x RS Cedar - width 8/T-2 - 2 x RS Cedar - width see plans. Use fire-retardant lumber varies, see plans. Use fire- varies, see plans. Use fire- above 40 feet. Benjamin Moore retardant lumber above 40 feet. retardant lumber above 40 feet. 1519 (Smoke Bush). Benjamin Moore 1519 (Smoke Benjamin Moore 1519 (Smoke Bush). Bush). Soffits T-1- Existing concrete, Benjamin T-1- 5/16" Harditrim, Benjamin T-1- 5/16" Harditrim, Benjamin Moore HC 39 (Putnam Ivory). Moore HC 39 (Putnam Ivor Moore HC 39 (Putnam Ivo Windows Sierra Pacific Moss Aluminum-clad Sierra Pacific Moss Aluminum- Sierra Pacific Moss Aluminum- wood clad wood clad wood Window Trim T-1- 2 x and 3 x RS Cedar. See T-1- 2 x and 3 x RS Cedar. See T-1- 2 x and 3 x RS Cedar. See plans for width. Use fire-retardant plans for width. Use fire-retardant plans for width. Use fire- lumber above 40 feet. Benjamin lumber above 40 feet. Benjamin retardant lumber above 40 feet. Moore HC 39 (Putnam Ivory). Moore HC 39 (Putnam Ivory). Benjamin Moore HC 39 (Putnam Ivor Doors CP-2 - Existing. Benjamin Moore CP-2 - Wood. Benjamin Moore CP-2 - Wood. Benjamin Moore HC 51 (Audubon Russet). HC 51 (Audubon Russet). HC 51 (Audubon Russet). Hand or Deck Rails 7/P-1- Steel. Benjamin Moore None 7/P-1- Steel. Benjamin Moore 3189 Industrial Maintenance 3189 Industrial Maintenance Coatin . Coatin . Flues None exposed None exposed None ex osed Chimneys Stone: Telluride Stone Co. Rico None exposed Stone: Telluride Stone Co. Loch Stack Thin Veneer/Copper shrouds. Lamond Thin Veneer/Copper shrouds. ' Trash Enclosures None None WB-1- Stucco: Light texture with Benjamin Moore 221 (Golden Garden) elastomeric paint. Wood veneer on garage door. Greenhouses None None None Retaining Walls None None Telluride Stone Co. Loch Lamond Thin Veneer Exterior Li ting See attachment See attachment See attachment Other: Shutter EP-2 - 1 x 6 RS Cedar. Beveled CP-2 - 1 x 6 RS Cedar. Beveled WP-2 -1 x 6 RS Cedar. Beveled edge, T and G. Use fire-retardant edge, T and G. Use fire-retardant edge, T and G. Use fire-retardant lumber over 40 feet. Benjamin lumber over 40 feet. Benjamin lumber over 40 feet. Benjamin Moore 532 (Winding Vines). Moore HC 51 (Audubon Russet). Moore 496 (Cho ped Dill). Note: Bold type corresponds with material key notes. • a • ~ Attachment C ~ CHAPTER 5 DETAILED PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS A criticai consideration in the planning and design of this facility will be its impact on the adjacent Landmark Tower and Townhomes and the Westwind. Depicted in figure 5-13a, j a linear building is recommended at the southern edge of the site to screen the lower ~ levels of the Landmark Tower from the transit center. This facility could house a bus ~ shelter and waiting area, an information center, public restrooms, a small food and beverage operation, and an elevator core to the pedestrian malt level for ADA access needs. To the east, earthwork, landscaging, and/ or other screening measures should be ~ considered to buffer the Westwind. A more comprehensive solution is to cover the facility with another levei or two af development - perhaps for offices or employee housing - or with a roof. (Memorable European antecedents exist for grand. covered ~ transportation centers.) Specifically, the design of the transportation center shauld address all impacts: visua[, security, sound, and smell that may effect adjacent properties. Both the Westwind and the Landmark ~hould be closely involved in the transit center planning and design process. ~ The Vail Planning and Environmentai Commission has stated that the creation of office ~ space in Lionshead should be pursued and that any development on the North Day Lot should study the potential opportunity to buiid office space vertically above the transportation center. Such a structure would have the benefit of providing additional ~ screening of the South Frontage Road and Interstate from the Landmark Tawer, but atso would present significant parking issues. It is ?1ot recammended that office space on the ~ North Day Lot be pursued at the expense of the transportation center program elements ~ described above. A patential development scenario with affice space is shown in figure 5-13b. ~ 5.10 Montaneros, Concert Hall Plaza, Landmark Tower and Townhomes These three properties form the wall that separates the pedestrian retail mall from west ~ Lionshead lodges and residential properties. Aithough each property has particular issues and redevelopment potential, they are discussed together because of their proximity and common relationship to the pedestrian mall. The potential that these three properties ~ could work together in a joint redevelopment effort is iimited because the Landmark Townhomes and Montaneros are eondominium associations. The conceptual master plan for this area (see figure 5-14) assumes that each property redevelops independently. ~ However, the best planning scenarios for these properties (and for the west gedestrian/ retail mali) invoive joint efforts and the possihle realignment of existing property lines. If redevelopment pressures build for these properties, the Town of Vail should take all ~ reasonable measures to encourage and facilitate cooperation amonb the owners. ~ ~ LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMEIVT MASTER PLAN PAGE 5-27 r Attachment C I ' CHAPTER 5 DETAILED PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS A critical consideration in the planning and design of this faci3ity wi[1 be its impact on tne adjacent Landmark Tower and Townhomes and the Westwind. Depicted in figure 5-13a, ~ a linear building is recommended at the southern edge of the site to screen the lower I levels of the Landmark Tower from the transit center. This facility could house a bus ~ shelcer and waiting area, an information center, public restrooms, a small food and ~ beverage operation, and an elevator core to the pedestrian mall level for ADA access ~ needs. To the east, earthwork, landscaping, and/ or other screening rneasures should be ~ considered to buffer the Westwirid. A more comprehensive solution is to cover the faciiity with another level ar two of development - perhaps for affices or employee housing - or with a roof. (Memorable European antecedents exist for grand. covered ~ transportation centers.) Specifically, the design of the transportation center should address all impacts: visual, security, sound, and sme1J that may effect adjacent properties. Both the Westwind and the Landmark Ahould be closely involved in the transit center ~ planning and design process. The Vail Planning and Environmental Commission has stated that the creation of office ~ space in Lionshead shou(d be pursued and that any development on the North Day Lat should study the potential opportunity to build office space vertically above the transportation center. Such a structure wouid have the benefit of providing additionat ~ screening of the South Frontage Road and Interscate €rom the Landmark Tower, but also wotald present significant parking issues. It is izot recommended that office space on the North Day Lot be pursued at the expense of the transparcatiort center program elements described above. A potential development scenario with office space is shown in figure 5-13b. ~ 5.10 Montaneros, Concert Hall Plaza, Landmark Tower and Townhomes These three properiies form the wall that separates the pedestrian retail mall from west ~ Lionshead lodges and residential properties. Although each property has particular issues and redevelopment potential, they are discussed together because of their proximity and common retationship to the pedestrian mall. The potential that these three properties ~ could work together in a joint redevelopment effort is limited because the Landmark Townhomes and Montaneros are condominium associations. The conceptual master plan for this area (see figure 5- t4) assumes that each property redevelops independently. ~ However, the best planning scenarios for these properties (and for the west pedestrian/ retail maIl) invotve joint efforts and the possible realignment of existing property lines. If redevelopment pressures build for these properties, the Town of Vail should take all ~ reasonable measures to encourage and facilitate cooperation among the owners. ~ ~ LIONSHLAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN PAGE 5-27 NO ~ POTEI~L U O L MMERCIAL SPACE HUII.T ABOVE 7jR,W9ffA5Tft~Rff]6 P N RECOMMENDATIONS NORTH DAY LOT TRANSPORTATION CENTER POTENTIAL NORTH-SOUTI-I COMPO NETPI' ~ OF REDEVELOPED LANDMARK TOWNHOMES POTENTIAL COMMON LOBBY SPACE/ ~ RECREATION AMENTTY COMPONENT OF REDEVELOPED LANDMARK , TOWNHOMES ~ POTEN'TIAL EAST-WEST COMPONENT OF REDBVELOPED ~ - _ I.ANDMARK TOWNHOMES ~ ~ ~ ' , I., I ~ ~ • 9 66 LANDMAR.K TOWER ~ LANDMARK RETAII, I J ~ MONTANEROS I NEW PEDESTRLAN AND EMER(3ENCY VEHICLE CORRIDOR POTENTIAL CtJLrDE-SAC DROPOFF AND GRAL7E TRANSTTION INTO RETAIL CORE REDEVELOPED CONCERT HALL PI,AZA WEST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE • Figure 5-13a- Alternative Redeveloprrient Opportuniry On Nvrth Day Lot Transportation Center Site Note: The potential commercial component described in this graphic will require either below grade sttuctured parking or off-site parking. PAGES-26 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN _ • . . STANpARD AB5REVIATI0115 ADMINISTFthTIVE INFO. - ow~r ~ao~ r.oe =r...s m.+.~ owwws s Lar i. e~occ i- v.~ yuoir,~e..o ew F~uw ~ wnws BUIIDIN6 GOPE SUMMARP _ 01'-L~a aooa i0c {~~qy. oro~ . mvE i B T o~1wW~! - n'E iii ELNi.roR - ttR i 0' OEB~ - TYR III s (y~. LHU 1 ~ _ @Clm2yy¢ ib PRO,EGT DIREGTORY - pfM twwwrx cwaw+wa~ss searrvaiwr 6.I M.` iQbE.~~ GrsLLE v l, CLdlnDO DI65B aN~m E6~Wri~vESiiNnnputl~SCAN ~ ~l.tll]KiL !LL ~~9~GS'RMGMAL M OMI~lE IL, ivsae 103~ E~V/.iL~VLeALL£! ORIV!'. G ~ LOLOwMO 0i65i ~ E~ &W WKwTELTS.Gd+ :D - _ L ZAZ:l Q M,~,rm ~ u ~ NcH LL/J1K`° HpWO 0.58~ ~ o -5.. o a ie. niunis eoo-n O ~ oo G r uc~ m. ~.o ~~w. .>+s «w ao.~•w a~sew N'o - ~ H., r~a.ser.~*rnsna+~um U > iznx.ia+tnan c~.~ucsoro ~ OBREVIATIaNS e, xcn~~e~.ncww.i.*eRdawcon Y o 3 ~ i ~ ~iMrtrzn ~rara nsrtm.a mc. Q o %si¢es eoe~ rve ~!o'Eqx U~E oGOLP~MO dbl0 • 1 .BI~itR UrC F Ta'IbA~]3 Q V ~ 16 GOMVEHTIONS E. d~EVwNE~~~wtC-6qIHEFRS ,p~ ~ `4 1 ~ ~ era~etl~re~me¢~ oniw eu~o Q ~ 0-=--- MATERIK SYFBoLS FRITZLEN ~PIERCE ~ WO/r ~ : I ~I., ....`.~..n. .«e.e..ro. W j ..~w~,~~.s `l}~ I ~~1 ~~N~~MINI41M~ GOVERPA6E A000 CHAATER 5 DETAII,ED PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS 5.10.1 Landmark Tower and Townhomes Two important issues face this property: access and redevelopment of the ~ Townhomes. The Landmark Tower currently has an informal agreement with Vail Associates that allows it to utilize the narth day lot for guest arrivals and drop-offs. It rs unlikely that this use can continue in the same way after development of a transit center on the site. Planning for development of the north day lot should explore all possibilities to integrate a new front door for the Landmark inta the new facility. There is also an opportunity for the Landmark ; Tower to expand its lower ]evel lobby over its existing parking deck, possibly tying in with the shelter building proposeti at the transit center. I Perhaps the best scenario far improving the Landrnark's access is in conjunction with redevelopment of the Townhomes. This would make possible the creation of I a drop-off Ioop integrated into the west end of the Landmark or an access drive and drop-off laop on the existing fire lane southpf the stntcture. The latter wvuld only be possible if a new pedestrian corridor/fire lane is created into the pedestrian ~ core area. A joint redeveloprnent effort by the Townhomes, Concert Hall Plaza and Montaneros would present the greatest range of opportunities to resolve the access issue. ~ There is little oPPortunitY for exPansion of the Townhomes because it is hemmed ' in by progerty lines to the north and by the fire lane and property lines to the south. One possibility is a structure oriented north-south aver the west end of the ~ North Day Lot. However, lhere wouid be potential cvnflicts with the volume of ~ traffic entering the north day lot from this end. With cooperation from Concert Hall Plaza and Montaneros, the property might be able to expand to the sauth. ~ 5.10.2 Concert Hall Plaza/ Montaneras Concert Hal[ Plaza was intended t4 be the western portal into the Lionshead pedestrian core, but pedestrians can't see where it leads and don't use it. VJhen ~ this property is redeveloped, a priority will be to create a connection as direct as possible between the western terminus of the pedestrian core and the intersection of West Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place. The concept illustrated in figure ~ 5-1 1 would require cooperation with the Town of Vail to remove the existing bus drop-off, as we11 as Montaneros and the Landmark Townhomes. (The scenario in ~ figure 5-1 1 would require a smaii property acquisition from the Landmark in the northeast corner of the redeveloped structure.) The redeveloped structure could accommodate a vertical residential component as well. This is the most feasible ~ solution for a strong pedestrian connec[ion. but the best solution would entai] a cooperative redevelopment effort with the Montaneros. The Town of Vail should make a11 reasonable efforts ta encourage and faciiitate this redevelopment. ~ ~ ~ ~ LIOIVSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN PAGE 5-29 ~ Z ---------i'"~ • Q u I / i - ~ _ w ~ - _ ~ ~ - N ~ ~ : o; N1i f b~ j a y(~ O N~ ~ ( A ~ ~ ~ ' y 4 p ~ ~ ~ 1 m rn ~ < g ~ D ~ i • ~ rn b< I rn ? ~ I i~ ~ (1 rn I d ~ ~ I , u~ 6 I i a 0 rn ~ rn C7 I 6 D D r ' rn a x p ~ ! ~ ~n D ! a~ _ ~ ~ Z ~ j A r~ 3 j ~ l'$~ a ~ lP ? i ~ j ' ! ~ l N j rn ~ j e g ; k ~ 0 ,Zrni 3~-re ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --J ; I ~ I . ~ , - . ~ • r' I ~ I I I I I I I I I ' ~ - - - - - - , ~ L----------- ---------------•---•--------r i LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS 101 „o« '.VAI<<IoIIHIAo,ao ll~~~ a a ~ A N co~°o"v."~`"~; iaCic ~ F F~ lI.Vl 1 N ;i~ f~ m Pxoir~,.w„ _ : mZ < U G ~ u ~ N ~ rn =n ~ ° - ° --i ~ z - - - ~ ~ A ~ O ~ D N z 0 . „ o w- 0 QN FFf F~F - _ F~F~FFFr r ' c- 3 i - 8 p ~ FFFFFFFF~FFF~F~~F ~ N N T F F,~z~~~F~~~r b = O O I rn T4~ I F! " rn F~ N N ~ y ~FFF O O I ~r :i O-iFI~ ~ rn :F~PrF D D ~ F~F~~ FFF l~] FFrF~ e c T=~a 3= 7 A 7 ~ - a'p = s" e: ~ . rn rn ~ ~ ~F a r ~ r"r ,rr -rF O fl I i fFr~rFFFrrr FF~~ r~FFf~ rn ~ s: ~ T s r 3 € N F s s ~ g - a FF~ 'Irl PFrFFF~r~~~ rrr,rrr rFF~FFrF F~ ~FrF ~ r ~FF~~~FF~,~~ F _"z• ~s a = s - r------------------------~ ' ~ ; ~ . . . . °s $ s g'.' . ~ i ~ , . _ . _a...,. ~ "a Y 3 rn „i== ~ • , ~ - - - - , , L------------ ---------~----------------J LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS 11 ii ~i atg ax O ~ p~ r^ -i ioi. ~ niocx i.v,.u uoHSruu,no r~nvc j4 ~o r AN 1- wesro~a.~eao oxne F t; mZ rzoiECr~w.~i.~ - • ..~.._...._,.a-- - - . . ' ' .S -i: 1 g- . ~ ~•'i ~ . ~ _ , . 7r i j c,- ~ ,~~,F ~sS. x~~f¢F ~i i ~ i~• ~ ~ ~ i ~ - '.i" 1 . 1 ~ I l.f_I' II {~MriL 1 1 I l ~~Y~F'6t ~ I I P A ';Y~ ~1 1 l1 ~ t . I , , m:-',j:l ` > r'.J I. _ ~ '1_ ( i . i,•• i ~ lor. 'r y , ' } ' r ; ~ ; ~.~r i x i i i ~ ? T - . c I , fsfc' . f i `Z 4 f N' tiy ~ p•.;~: . , ~ ~ 6 .e.:i~ ~C .~j ~ ~ ~ a~~M . ~ » ? ~ ..~~».oa~.~.~~.sr`,"eS~.~.J, ~ ~ a ~1osePY1' 1. lo<r,.. • _ . . ~ I I ~ I ~ I ~ i j I I~ I ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ I I j I I I i • ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ; ~ ~ D ' ' - - ' z ~ ~ . . . ~ ~rn < ~ i rn i j 1 1 r ~ I X ~ I _ , , . i - - - - , ~ . - - D z d d rn 3 O ~ r z • u~~~i~i~i~iaqak LANDMARKCONDOMINIUMS 9 ~ v~srooIsHE,oaxae . ~ • a g - I_ 3 I ^i~-----, I I~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ fi ~ ° - ,i I II RA I I, ~ ~ ~ ~ I °g - ~ I ~ • • I ~ I _ • ' ~ i A4 ~ - ~ i ' _ _ e D i ¦ e . - ~ ' rn ~ ~ ~ e ~ - rn P -Ui k N , ~ - - ~ - Z v v rn 3 O ~ r D i Z ~1 H II H H 11 A°9 a° rn >x i,> > ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS N a A r o~ uwes:uansH~oCuac mi c F F~ Q r° a~' ll m ~o~o~ ~ • ~ - r - ~ I I F~ I a,~ ~ a~'ff I , r J .mm D ' i - - - i ' - -J g o ~ - - i ~ : z ~ la p ' t~ X : ~ ; • . - - Z . , ; I , I ~ ~ ~ - ~ - - ~ - J z p~---------------------- p ~ rn 3 O -0 r D z • ii il ii il li li dy d~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS 4° g9 = m a f A N +~o'aR~ic ...ER .t. o m ~ n -m. • - : - - ~ r + ' IR§R ih-° Ist ' I I Ab ~ Fr i i i ~I • i ' ~ ~ ~ ~ , , , ? ~ - Z ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ i i rTl d r ~ i ~ i i : ~ D ' z C7 rn 3 O -o r ? i Z ii it If (I i( dq d~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS 9 = LI11so`o° fiI"~;" O y~ m, z~ y h rn p o~ow~ ' xaFrr . ~u„ r • - ~ ~ - - - ~ a I ~ g I I ~ I I ~ ~ n I I ~ ~ d I ~ I I y ~ i D J ~ ' Z ' r---- ~ ~ ~ j a y ~ I c r ~ I ~ rn - < r A ~ I rn rn rn x , i I ' R€ i ~ ~ , , i ~ - - - - - - ~ D L------------------------------------~---------------------~ ~ rn 3 O -o r D z • rn H H H H H ii aq R LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS mD fc,; m-i ixiocKi.venuoHS~neomonuNC F F ioi, _ ~ -rid s S 7CN ~~:ipoo~ia«c mZ • ~ - - i i ~ i ~ i i i ~ i ~ i i ~ i i ~ i i i i i ~ i i i ~ i ~ • ~ ~a~ ~ i I _ 1 L a rrn- i' ' a i ~ x ~ ~ I - - D i ' - , ~ ~--------------------------------------~--------------------J rn 3 O ~ r D z • LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS 4 g= ~oo° CaW°~~~~~N~ :a`t ; ~ ( - - ~ 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 I I ~ I I I I I I I I 1 ~ I ~ I I ~ • Z ,_J I ~ ~ rn j i rn tP ~ ~ I ~ I . , ~ ~ _ _J ~ I , i ~ Q L------------------------------------~----------------------~ CJ 3 O ~ r D z i LANDMARK CONDOMlNIUMS ; A N vNi awq ~iu~c .z`S ~ 7RX Fm wisa1OO~w~soonreio E C~ T ~ F F eRa~ . ~ua. . - - - ~ - I I ~ j I j I j I j I I ~ I ~ I ~ ! ~ I j I j I T . j I j I j I j I I ~ j I • I I ~ I ----------J I ~ r ~ r'--'--- , I Z ' A ~ ~ i ~ kr ~ rn = rn a t- I ~ k ~ ? ~ I ; z , - - - - - - p ----------------------------------,~---------------..__.J rn 3 O r ? Z i ~ FTTrl ~ m- ~A li I( i( if fi il d~ dp " LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS x a m N ~oi en uouaieeo mo i~+e Fg F a ~p aane F 4 • , ~ - - ~ r I ~ I ~ V ~ I ~ I I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I • ~ ~ ~ ~ D r--- ~ ~ - - - - z ' - - - - - - - - € ( A I i ~ II ~rn b M r- rn < fTl j ' ~ 1 X ~ N I ! I ~ - ' ~ i _ _ ' " ~ z , i = y ----------------------------------w~ C7 U rn 3 O ~ r z • CONDOMINIUMS LANDMARK Am ~ % ~ I ~ j I j I j I j I I j I j I j I I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ j I j I I ~ I ~ I ~ j I • I ~ I ~ j I A~ i I ~ E I 4 rn i § br ~ i i ? ~ x ~ i ~ a _j . ~ . - - . ~ D ~-------------------------------------------------------------J z C7 a rn 3 O -o r ~ Z 1iH H HPP X LANDMARK CONDOMWIUMS §9 }g ? r° ' I 7oN ~ ~wPro~o~oao~a~u~~~NC F F€ nm • e B El i i B 3 3 i i E3 3 3 i i e 3 3 i ii ii.. ii i ii ~ ii- ~ mx °N ~ °U? II b z ~ a z II II rn rn r r- rn rn A ~ ~ A O p ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS x m 9 9 I (~1 ?o~ ~_i ~ I AN ~o,, ~.~~~<<~o.rsHUO,«orx,.+~c 3 f O ~y4~~i `5' n I C~T uwEniroa:~oo~i;zaF F~~ - `1~ : ~ m Z r:aen.~u„ ~ • - ~ X ' x ` P U~ p ~ e ~ °z z ~ - - rn ~ N -i ~ rn rn r rn rn < O ~ z z . rn ~ T ii (i fi fi il ii d~ d° X ~x }<< ° -A LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS U) o-Ni t- AN o. ~~<<oHSNE~umovc ~ O ~ i 3~ Cl r^ `p aoW:no° a~it F F~ „ m Z cr.iu,„: ~ .4 igat ily',• 1 L1 p; _ ~ 1~ ~ _ Ef•~ : Y ts _ .S ~~E "1''',~ . ~ -r?' ~ ' ~ ~l+~ S ~ , s~ ~ i~ i~ . t wY A 1'~ 3~..: t.,b ~ y ~ f. esr. t r. Jil. ~uN~.j `S g ~ i X` 1{1= i~ eF.A j ~ ' l~ . y q r r. ' _ ~~JSS~ ~ i 3• ' ~ ~F~ u ~ ,i & . • , ~}i~ ~Xa. oa f h g'~xsz , ~i;, ~~d~'~~ ~ ~ *'•.i; °,;~~ii` ~ 51 .w- L . _ ~ ~ ' I I I . i . . ~ _ . ~ ._.._.._.,.._.._:.~..r....r~ iiaeB WLIOHBMEADCPCLE ~ 1 . . : = N P.. , ~ ~..._..~9~~ _ i, . . , e a i , . , , * . . ~ - ~ , ` : .pr , w, i ~ E. ~ \ \ ~ ~ ~ _ I ~ ! i I ~ ..e. •.,+_4t ; /"~f' F~/ .yj ~ ~ n I ~ I I. z. i \ ~s~ t - ` •e/ . t 0,~~ If~ I r ~ I s i i 1 I yy~` ~ ~ `c ~.r.._.. • ' ~ °~J ~ 1 - j ~;I~ ~ ~ . ~ - •~a~~•~~ " I ~ i I I' I I ~ ; ~ I ; ~ ~ ; I ~ I ~-t$ ~p~ a g' ~e~gc ~v c g 9~998 cpaagc ~ F ~~~{~e ea ~~~~~::-•~x ~~~v' ~ f ^#~;9 / N Ea¦ ~~@4 ~ 6 i}, ~•(p~'z`~~~~'e+~~~E.9q~~p[{ ~~~e~a ~~Sk'w~N 88~.. ~ 0 FJ 6 F. Y~ t x I ~ ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS A= VAIL, CO EXISTING CONDITIONS PIAN ENCiNEERiNC wc ~g..~ "'.~'"~s•ra,- ~o ...a..,_~_..~...~,.,~...~,.a..,_..,.~_.. _k, E $ ~ . y~s , y~ ~ ~ , I • , - , _ _ x; 4 ~ • ~ ~f . . q ~ , ~ \ i r( =',*SM, I1 3~~ I o " ' . , ' f. , . , . . 'w I i . ~ ' f i i p o ~ III ~I ppp _p"'___~"__.i ~ ! I _i m I . ~ , . . , ~ I L ~ • • _ - T.-_ o ~ I~...-1 ~ . . n u~: I ~ ~6• ~`L C O Y, • . .x ~ II , . F ~ . 8~' i 8~~ i i n'• y ~7 i p o ~ , _ , . , ~,F Y e' i ~ • ; il - 879 1L I i'~. i -J... Y~ Mu I i ~ •'t~~ ' ~ ~ ' i ~6F. ~ i 1. i ; o e€ I a i I I i. I ~ ~ ~I ~I t i' II ~ I 4 i t . . r C! I I ~ _ s 71 i Y$ g ` . LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS ~ vAIL. co N{a GRADING PLAN ENGMEERING WC ~-I ~,c.u "°a:ar'L'~•t8~ . - ; - . ! e • ~ I ,i.. I . S;, iiEO ,~8g RR iRa~~~~ Yy.s•r : I .t ..,.~~s....• sC.uP J a~..Yr.Y.¢Q . • . j~ : IIt~flf.tY.t . .......LY~~ • ~ !l..9Y.,y1MYl.l..YY.. y „ ~ . . . ,y ~ _ - ~ .s g $ , . _ ~ ~ a ~ . R t ~ . ,I { \ ' ' . ; }k } ~ o f _ I : . . . ~ I I x s _ ~ I ~ : ' r y, i 1 ~ , , ~ ~ , , ~ , ~ . ~ u I ~ cr~ I . ~ - ~ „ ~ . • ,R_ , i--._ , ~ ~ - 1` I..... o r- i ' ; s ~ j• ~ ~ 4, ,~`--T-- R - ~ 4~. W14 , . • ,a _i- , . , ~ A c c P~~6~g~~ ° ;¦E~ ~~a;~ ~ {r J 4)~o ~ F II _1'~~~~ o o T. r ~ i ? .d ~ ~ = LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS VAIL. CO ;STORM DRAIN AND ELECTRIC PLAN ENGINEERING iNc ~,u,i m-a~il4.R~•:mw _ • ~ • i `i i ~ sone ac - - - . . . ; x . ~ ~a - . o . - i . ~ j Ar, , I a~ o I ~ • d • =.o.MA, 7 I PLANT SGHEDULE - - z Q = Z 0 -110 a > Q wx ~ .o.,,~ La m Q .nam.~ou.e~~e Q ~ J OJ~ w- - c~ ~ • ~ GENERAL NOTES s,e~.... a~ - n ~ ~ w. ~ n ro..~-. ,~.''w.u'~:R.,,~a.. .~~KO".. LANDSGAPE I ..~K ~....a,.. A.w...~,..~..o PLAN ,-~PEUDUOUS TREE PLAN7IN6 EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING r~~SHRUB PLANTING I "nr ,o scAl w, ,o sc.~e L~2 L-I _ I .w, . ~ - ' ~ 4m 0 s Q;_oc ~ _ nef ~ 'a aye ~ wv~ ~ . ~ ~ w'9e O af~~ Q s~~ I Q ORIGINAL GRADING BASED ON J SAME REFERENGE [?ATLM AS SURVEY DATED 10/28/98 (SEE - FRITZLEN PIERCE ~ ~ ~L ORGINAL GRADE 6RADIN( AIW A~E iAb' . ~~q~ _ • PLAN NORTH AIOO ~ ~ • I-- ~ i i ` I i i i i • _ -------1- ~ - o , i ? i ~ ~ I I a rn i i; ~ I , , I , I ~ ~ j ~ , ~ ol . I - - - ----T ~ - , • - - ~ - ~ • .,i~~ s a . " LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS ~ 171 ' ~ g _ T -I io~. ~~aN~ [noEC af mwc ~o ~9 O ~ - A N Y o~ow~ a,. a i F~ ~ ("1 m ~SR~iFR.ooR i • ~ ~ ~ + oS ; I A ~ F; • ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ r ~ - - ~ - , ~ f ' ' - - E p i . . • I ~ _ ~ 3 - G _D _ r ' r rn = il < ! rn i" r w o 0 ' ! - - - - - , r I - ~ ~ J D Z ~ • D 4_. uuiiiinH 04ax LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS AL•uo~v.~~ooni°~ior~~..c F F e O p~ Jd~ y (~T vxafrr~a,. . m Z • - - , ~ 'o, - I ~ I I u I RFF , ? I ~ I r ~ Q z ~ I p ~ I ~ • ' d ~ i ~I • - • rn rn j ; r~ r j , - - - - - - - - - ~ - , . _-----------------------J Z , - i il li d° d-, LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS 49 ~9 e • ~ - , - ~ ; ; , ? i ~ i ' ; ~ . i i I ' i ~ ~ I ~ ~ I z~ I g ~ ~ rn p I d r ~ I , ~ ~ , ~ - , - - J r ~ z ~ iiiiH 11 una9a~ LANDMARKCONDOMINIUMS g 9 ~ y z I ~lz N ~ m 3~? 70 vao~en.w,. z . • ~ ~ r: i ~ I I I ~ ~ I I g ~ ~ c I ~ ' y I 1 , 1 Y I ~ I I , I ~ I y ~ ~ ~ I - z ~ ~ I Z ~ I ~ I Z ~ I f R- I I g I ~rn _ < rn ! s r ~ ~ I z " , i - , , • ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS a m ~ m ~ ~ > > O Ar { T i AN ~o~. wYS<oow~M„ R'~E F F ~ ~ ~ i # : t") m corn:~ - ~ . ~ I 42 ~ I ~ ~ §g I I ~ I ~ j ~e I • I ~Y ~ ~ ~ I . ~ I I I ~ yr ~ , I I ~ I A A 4 rn ! i rn i - - - ~ - - - - ~ y ~ J z • ~i n H H ii ii a9 a-8 _ D T~ ; LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS 99 ~g € A N `wie,oo SHEnoclxnE •~u~c F F € 0 y~ =z~ l1 m mZ • I Y fi i / ~ I . ~ I I ~ ~ I I ~ { ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I i ~ ` I F J ' r--------------------- ~ d I I - , D ~ I z A ~ E I R ~ I I ~ ~ rn Z1 ~ ~ I I ? ' ' - ~ Z , I - - - - L- ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS ii : • H~~o~~a~a . O p ~ ` ~ N Esio oYw Fn lf E g r W m Roircr. mZ ip ~k A f t . i' ' ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I i ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ , ~ ~ I ; ' I • ~ , j , I I j Z I o I ~e I j rn ~ ~ I d r ~ ~ , ~ - - , - - - - ~ ~ J L----------------------------------------------------------- rn ~a r z • y T ~ ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS m~ ~oc~ °~aocvlvor c F f N Q v,~ :p y I C1 m ~ Dm i7F 7 T<Wn N ~ I x ~ ~ I , 70 r- ~ - ~ - - - ~ - - D ~ J z • LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS N A~ F T-1 10' , STLIDISIILA ni xn[ m~vc F F ~ Q TN ;1 nm vxoiEC*.a„o . ~ % - r~ . ~ I ~ I ~ I I ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ § I ~ j ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I I ~ , r" I ~ - - , I ~ 6 I I I Z I , o I A I ~ I ~ i f I a r I ~ I N I j . rn , ~ ~ ~ - - , ~ - - - - - = - - rn ---------------------------------------------------------J z ~a r z • Fm LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS z"Sz ~ I mZ • - . r ~ I ~ I d I I ~ i ~ i i i ~ r---- - - - - J - J I ~ I I ~ ' I ~ § I E I ? ~ A ~ I ~ rn b r ' ' - ~ - - - - - - . - ~ m -------------------------J GN r -i ~ r ? z • - it ii il ii II 0-3 4-9 LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS 9 qS9 t J A~ r m~ ior. ~ uocx i, vN<<iousi,uo,uo 7o N °o" oo: i;xCiE O ~ m ~ k f + !1 m a`.iFR >i ia: ~ ~ mZ . ~ i ~ , . - i % ~ - i 0; i i ~ j ¦i ~ r----------- ~ - - ---J - - I I j _ ~ I p~ ~ I = I j I j , ~ - - ~ - - - z ~ ~ !i H ii ii ~i u a9 ak LANDMARKCONDOMINIUMS g ~ ~ Q i; m~ o, v i o~snE.o ~no ~ iNC i F~ 3._ •91_0" 74 ' O" Ib•_O' AREA FOR STF4IGT ABOVE ~~i__ ' • m , I d I ~i I I O ~ ~ ~ li 1 ~ S ~ li I I • j I ~i ( m 1 ~ li I I Q m I ~ ~ O d a ~ li O ~ I ~ ~ 1 I p I I1i I ~ i ~ I + ' I I I ~ I~ I ~ I II. i I ~ I n A 1 I 9 ~ I ,i i~ I ~ I Il I I ~ I I' ~ I ' I I + I I I II~ i Z y I a o ~ I ; o I I~' ~ u ~ I I li I g ~~fi$ 11 ~ - - i co < rn i ' _I__ I I 4~ j f g a li a ~ • ` ~ I~ ~ I ~ - ~ ~ D ' ~ ~ ' " • I I ? LANDMARKCONDOMINIUMS ~a ~9 a ~ ~ n ' 4 3 y A N ~or. ~ e~ocwesi ~o.,s ia~no nu~c F~ 4 zr . TZ ~ c I I I Y I I~ I I 1 I I $ ~ a ~ , ; ~-a-- - ; ' ! ° ~ ' ( ~ II f- ° ~ \ ' I ~ - - - - _ \ \ ? \ \ b ~ ] ~ \ ~ ; b ' _ , 0 I 1 i , + - _ _ ` _ i , ~ - ~ -o ~ + ~ ` - --I- i i - - d I d ~ ~ I ~ , ~I , ~ ~1 ~ ° ' o G, ~ o ~ , m N S~R j'` - m ~o x N LANDMARKCONDOMINIUMS flm owesi ~~pns~,~~o 1 I I! 1~9 a~ ~ m Z , aoxnoonii~zi" #4 ~9 , ~rcoiea . aa~ ' f ~ / I - - - - - _________1 ' r- : . i ~i i i ~ • - _ _ _ _i_ - _ r" _ _ _ - _ i _ _ - ~ i ~ ~ _ - _ _ _ _ _ T _ _ _ _ _ ' _ _ _ ~ 9 I ~ ~ ~ I I ~ .J I' II i I I s a ~ 1 I ~ ~ . I ~ i i d a I i aq - d , g a ~ I~ I ~ 4_ ~ --z I . t ` g i I I ~ I ((~~TT~~~ ~ f . ~ ~ a y ~ ~ 4 ~ I ~ i ~ I b 1 1~ I ~ 3 I a I 1 r - ? Z ~ E ~ 1 I~II ' A ~ 4- ~ ~ ~ 14i) ~ O 4 rn ~ rn O - ~ rn c ~ rn ~ g 9 ~ 4 ' z _ - , ~ o0 4 INIUMS M LANDMARK CONDO ~ ~g F.i' ~ ~ C1m =..F - i mZ - ~ - ~ ~ , . _ _ f _ ' _ _ ` _ _ ` - ~ 1 i I ~ 6 6 ~ 1 ~ h I t i I I ~ 1 L_ e g ~ I i { i ~ a I I ' -1' ---f~0 Y II I I 4 It ~ 5 - - ~ E- ~ s I i - ~g I~ ` ` •aq ~ 4- ~ g , G 1 _ - S 8 4 C _ 8 ~I ~ g e ~e I~ ~ 1 8 Ii 4y y ~ ~ g _ i a ~t ~ ~ I 15 D 8 - ~ ~g 1 ~I I S I ~ ~ A I I a ~ F- ~ A ' O rn 4 A 4- ~ 6 l ~ z I o - ~ ~ - ° , I ' -----1 ~ , e i s ~I ~ 4 , ~l ~ no • - ~ ' n~ ~ il il li il il il dydx~ ~g 39 _ - - - ~ LANDMARK CONDOM4N4UM5 ~ x ` ~ ~ ~ ' wiStoprvSpF~^+[~FCIF ~ O i 7o N c,.i v oiicrU• w t~ll ted ~ mZ _ , ~ ~ - - - r 4 ~ I ~ 1I~ 'II tl ~ -o-~-- , , ; , ; b I _ ' I ~ 4 4 ~--0 b ~ Y ` ~ I I 1 _ S- ~ i ' ¢ I l ~ II I ~ - i L i - - ~1 4 - - i g I ~ b, ~ 1 1 1 ~ l , ^ 11 II ~ ' b ~ S 1 I il 1 Z - ~ _ { ~ n I J / U N d ~ - - y-0 r 1 N I rn i ~ 1 o < z ~ ~ _ ~ rn f' ~ ~ 1 -n ~ I ~ _ t I ~ O ~ II c " ' @ , N 3 ~ ,I~, ~I 1 0 ~ , rn ~ , F F : _ ~ANDMARK CONDOMiN?UMS ~Al<U r - :a a ~~~A.,,~Rf m ml;9 ..'i ()rn • • ~ ~ ~ • ~Ig 4t 4~£ i ~ • I 81g g ~ • ~ 9~9 I , I ; Z~ § I _ ~PT y i I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i , J z V` rn -o r • z . LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS q9 < m ~wE,r11E,o~~a«E m P f1 m .wa m Z Pao~ER • • i i i i i i i ~ ~ . , i ~ • i', ~ ~ i i i ~ r---------------- i , i kf r ~ ~ gS ~ F rn c \ ' rn rTi r~tl z I ~ ? j I , j , I , - ~ , , y~ nY V' rn ~o r ~ • z ~ iLANDMARKCONDOMINIUMS ~ a'~" T mr ioi, i~iomNFno~aornwc ~9 N : 70N oo~s~~E+oc~aac _ ~ ~ rn Z • • - - ~ F I ~ I I , I ~ I I , , , I ' 3 =~a s ~ ~3f I ~ F~y ; - i • i ! • i i _ i . , J i - i ~ rn o ~ ~ F , N j ~ad ~ X A ! s i ? ~ ' , - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - -F - - ~ a '1 rn L----------------- ~o r z • • T ~ : = i LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS ~g 49 ~ /v I m-i ioc i. wu uonsiE.o ina niwc F F° N ' ~pN uwESroor+~nuoaRC~c ~ mN xnooni~,i~ Cl m voirn.w~+ Q y" i3~ : II mZ ~ • ~ ~a - - - - ~ I I d I I ' I ' € I I i I S I I I ` ~ f ~ I I s i i i i • i , r i i ~ i • r-----------------------~ ~ I - Y ~ r-- ~ rn ' rn c r -n I ~s I < rn ~ . ,i p I - - - , a , A L~------------------------- D z D rn ! -u r D , ~ Z • ii ii ii {d~ d4 LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS C4 g9, > m Z <nFa. ~ - s ~ ~ a§~ / I'_-_ I I I i I I I I I I ' I I ~ I I I • I I I I I ~ I , ~ r---••-------~--------~ I D ~ z ~ ~ ~ ' z : ~ A ~ ~ TTM O I ! ; . ~ - - ~ ~ - ~ , - a - , rn ~----------------------------=--------------------------_.__._J ~ r A • z • LANDMARKCONDOMINIUMS Q aP ~ nT uwES,o~~srW~ocRCao,n~~c F F~ A %i€ • • ~e - - - - ~ ~ I ~6 I ' i i ;u ~ F'P I • , ! ; ~n I I I r------------•----------~ ~ ~g ~ ~ I i - - g f i i B 4 rn _ rn Xl I 1 rn ~ y - I - - - ~ ~ rn -o r z i ~ • li li ii ii d~ d° LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS ~9 ~9 = N y 7o N IoT, i <<oHSHrno~ iwc F F_ '"m 'rS~ : I mZ ~ ~ i ~ , ~ . I ~ I ~ g- - I tl- I ~ q/y • I ' tl- = I I y- - I ~ I I ~ ' r I r------°----------- a ~ I ; ~ $g I A~ i a5~ F ' 4~ ~ I ~rn a r<ii i T3 ~ i ? . q z & D i . I ------------------f ~ - , , a ~ fit L--------------------------~--~-----------------------------~ ~ r ? z ~ . LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS S Pm 3'i _ m~ ~or ~ ~ v~ni~ r.srrc~o,rsornrvc }9 ~g " > t m Z >;ra~F~ : - ~ • ( ~ i ~ 4 I t ~ y S ~ 4 , ~ , r----• ~ : ~ 4 - - . , P 1'" } 6 7 ~ ~ r ! ~3 , I a rTi , ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ 13 ' X1 , y L- z D ~ rn ~ r D z ~ i li il ii il dq a~ _ 11 CONDOMINIUMS Io.. i w,o~. i. VAn u o~~HEAo,ao1ni,~~ I'Z LANDMARK u WE5<oOHSnEwO; IRCLF iO • . a _ -f - - - ~ • - . ~ ~ - ' i; - ~ , ~ . ; ~ ~ - ; , ; ~ 9... ~ ; i ~ ~ ~ ~e-•~ ; q ~ I rn ~ , ~ - --4---, ~ rn , t rn r ~ A D z ~ rn ~ o • Z ^ ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS ym f~~ ~ mZ • • O iS ~jl k (Jl N Z rn ~ ff ~ a C rn 'F < A --t O z r ~ z o 0 o z y D D 0 i rn O < ~ a ~ ~ ~ • z LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS rn N - A ~ao c g• - x ia~ m Z b O Z ~ ~ ~ ~ cu ~ d ~ta • ~ rn z °o z ~ ~ A C7 F ~ i ~ ~ Ea . a ~ D f: i - O LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS i( f~ fl ii II ii dq d~ z~ A~ ~ w:ru~snWAUCUa~~c 9 s, Pw, , . m Z ~tR. F F € rn ~ z ~ ~ " - d - ~ a ~ F i ba ~ • i ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS o .IoCua"~~-1-1-0 IRD III IIC a ~ O z a = 70 N v F F _ n m . mFOn.o ~ NP pq riu~~~ T Z • ~ - ~ ~ ~ mrn l o 0 . ~ a O z A CJ ~ f O ~ J I - ~a • ~ T?p F ~ ~ ul b O z ~ ~ Cl O L-V • . LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS g: t3~r ~T uncr. mZ , ~ u ~ ~ ~d~ p'~ • . 1 ta ~ ~ I aa a a O z ~ - ~ ~ i i i Fa ~ • • • D m~ = ! m ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS ~ ~ a : I A N o. vE:roa.~r~i~s~oaaaE myc F F e O ~ P Y I (1 T rcoiFCr. w . (,U " mZ • a ~ ~ ~a~~ ~ 6 O Z -i A A ~ c N ~ 0 ~ - ~ ~I ~I U ' O - ~ ~ • ~ • ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS a ~ m ~ ~or .nuw+si~e.oiaorni.~c - s'o- .1on~Oio ` F F i O o 7o N v,~n,c,.a,~ N ~ " m Z • . a_ lvn U ° r rn 9 ~ - <y l > R~ -A o a ~ ° § d l 3 `d 3 A Qooooo E$cilEl Cl ~ i'3 ~ p ~ a sp 8 oi ~4 ~ S o^2E N ~ ` ~ A tANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS ~g ~g ~ y 't ' 7~ fV ~wES~o~°~o«a~E ~yb i:~ ' TZ I ~ A rn t z rrn- rn rn ~ ~ rn O 4 A o • : g rn F ~ ~ z ~ O ~ N ~ ~7 + e 4 • ~ Z - ~ fll sr mz ur aA rn C7 ~ z ~ Q d~ < D ~ < F O - [s p ~o z ' ~ rn ~ o ~ e rn ~ ? r OQ O QOO C7 OOOO OO~ rn & ~ ~ ~ . • LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS ~4 Ym y I r' uwcsrao.,sncnnnanE m 2 raaE Lu L_ F Z Z r 91 b A 8 ~ ~ C7 l7 s ~ s; rn ; rn ~ ~ € a ~a ~ rn ~ rrs? ~ ~ ~ D D ~ ~ fU ~ - -t ~ ~ r < rn rn r z ~ n ~ r ~ O N y a' ° a a = C~ A ~ rn D rn d O ~ z z = • O ~ rn • ~u bA rn a rn A rn,( ~ ~ ~ o0 0 000 o aoQO oo~ n ~ • ~ ~ . ? ~m ' I LANDMARKCONDOMINIUMS N I A~ ioi. w~oc~~vnnuoHSwuo~rtonu~c 4' 49 . 1W`5(olO-EApCiRnLF ~ a- U r- " y b C p d ~ ~ - A ? -o ~ rn ^ c~ A } z 0 ~ z o' ~ - mr rn 1 ~ Q = 1 ~ - - rn = ~ t4 ~ = = ~ r ~ zG _ a . rn s-- ~ O Z 4 rn 'Tq11 Z oa o oaa a o~ao ~ i V X ~ ea}$~g s~ 4U~ ~ ~~4~ A ~ D F f * CONDO M1NIU NrS LAND?~'1ARK~, ~ ~~y Uo~,R~,F ' ~ ~"V 'T co~oRnW ~~~•xt~ . 70 Nt.xNea ~iu , m m „ rn N 1 t\\ ll u~kl~'.c. I ny ~ • a- E- _ ; d• i i iW ~ E- ~ ; ; - L - -l o - ; ~ i ~ i i rTl ~ Z 6 ° ' _ r- rn a ~ N ' 0 c ~ I ~ - rn r rn < - , ~ O ' ~ D r r O c N • • LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS - ` m~ ioi.inioai.venuoNSHEw~ROnunc > > ° oC I wC - ~ n ~ f - 7p IV 1 wesT o:o"`~ F F ~ ° x U o u ~z- ~ V• j rn r rn - I ~ O z z wffpv rn ~ --i ~ ~z I ~z • - ~ - b ~ I b ~ rn o E o ~ rn ol ' s C7 ~ ? " d ~ ° ~ ~ rn rn ~ < ~ < d o D Y E O ~ o O ? ~ Q~ rn rn ~ ~ ~ N tl) D D A ~ O O rn rn A ~ oo a o00 o aooo oo~ 0° a~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS ~ . 7e ~ Hcm ~~a«e F ~ ~ o~ox: '~p iB~ T ~r rauifRr w~ ~rn~ µ?1 ~z = b~?I ; r - rn I - ~ 'C ' * : D ~as $3 (p7 ~a a . q rn O = r ~~rt = CU Z 70 _ m ~ O rn - L u - ~ m - - ~ ~ _ - -o ~ o= z-- p ~ r o 000 o aana ° 5 € tp B ~ rn ~ 70 -t tt tit 7, ;ti F F OMINIUMS LANDMA,RK C~,N~ M~ J~ T ~iu nrtn[o~auPa e~F~ui[ mm d5; ' m~ ntl S ~~a ~ - g m cnU' ~ t Q t~ ~ , IM, rn ~ 7d 7~ ~ ; ~e Q _ ` m 7~0 ~ ~ r ~ ~ M ~ ~ ?~-y1 ~ ` y t~a ~rn < a - ~ -v - 1 G ~ , } ~ 'E ~ o v ~ ~ rn ~ ~ A 'I I ~01 ~ ~ ~ ~ 70 OM~NyUh'~S A caN ~,RO~a,~~ m ~PND~,o R~awEPao o~p"~~E .Q T caoa~ i ~ i i• i O ~ i ~ 1 ' ~ • VJ L _ o ~ E° ~ rn ~ m~ - ~ ~ ~ rn a z O rn - r E~ rn D ~ z ' ?D~D~~~---~t ~ D ~ r I ~ O c N • , ~ li li li il tl il dy ? ~ ' ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS ~ m j : I F F nm o oio~w~oaini~°o`FmNc O p P uleR + ia m Z • • ~ ~ ? i ~ ~i ~i ~i i i i a ~ ~ : a ~ ~ ~ s t : ~ I I I I I I ~ g~ i I I~~ I ~ I i I I ~ i I I I I I III rri a (fl . ~ d rn r rn < D -i O z ao a oao a aooo oa ~ ' F &ag ~ ~'gg ~ • j ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS 1 w~o<x~.vnn~xon~~wc ln-,HN ~ ~ 1 I o- ~ - { s I I~ ~ I a ~ ' i I I p ) a'~ 1 ~ El a ooon o0 EGI? H&y s& g~~ ~ F~~+ • ~ 11 11 11 11 11 41 ~g ~g ' MINJUMS - MARK CONDO,ao - LAND ~ L,rIX;o.. W ° i i i ~ - - _ e o-_ - 4 i o-- I o-- - : o ~z O E O- 6 ~ • 6 ~ I ~ ~ I I a ~ I ~ I . a D ` I ~ I~ s Ill o-__ ~ ' r o-- V - rn I ao a aoa o ooCLIa o0 • A ~1~ ~le ~1~ ~A ~1~ ~1; ~1: ~a ~1; _ • m 7~~ : 'OT 4 N p Z -p LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS I xwa I,u uoHS- Iuo r- ~ f = O ~ AN 'coioxn~o,R~z~.E € o m f'1 m Ppaea.~ Uj No 't~{ L_ mZ ' I~~ ~l ~I I I ~I I I I I. I I I I • I (~L Ll ' ~ b ~ ~ ` II 4 o- - - 1-- - - I OO- - - - 4 - - - $ f f~ j . ~ ~ i i ~ a • o-- - s - 4 x 5 F b D _ ~ ~ ~ f 6 ~ A O- + ~ LJ) rn o- - - _ r rn ~ - a c F ~ G Z a_ o0 0 000 0 0000 00 rn ~T ~HHHHii a9 a4 LANDMARKCONDOMINIUMS g° c; I f'1 rtrt o~oR:aFO~°i i°n iE F F y rx~ivn.iu„ . • ~ ~I I ~I I ~I i ~I o-- I_ - S i Y I 5 I- - i k -31 Y Q s 3' 4 r ~ C a'- S i I ~ ~ z ~ I rn z z rn ~ r rn ~ ~ OO ~ OOO O 0000 OO • ~1 , ~ , ~ ; ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS 9s ~9 r m-1 ~oi. i xiocx i.vnn iiov~ocan[ ~~~~~c F F s Q F`. F ~ oioanou ~ e om ?r Clm ~`oirn.M~.a, - mZ ~ e i • • io-- ~ s ~ . ! ! e i ; io-J - - n ~ I _ S a ~ic-=---- I I e ? - s I I r I~ I~I K I ~ ~I 4 i i i - § ~ i~ • i g ~ # II - ~ • 8 ii i ~ d 1 ~ ~ z § - D ! ~ b b A ; ~ rn O - ~ I 6 rn ii rn G I ~ I I I ` o0 o aaa o aoao 00 I-I t {I § ~ F6 R ° ~I ~ ~I ~i ~I ~I I I I = • rn p mm = I -A LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS ~ ? D } m 1 ioi, ~ ~~w e~ u~c F F _ N sa ~i~ ~ mZ • • ~ i i ",y~.'.~ ~Ex~. r i i i 1 i • i • I' ~ u S ~ N li ~ O ~ 6 = e = - - .rn rn r r ~ D ~ ~ O ~ z z • • LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS 9g i9 = r D~ _i} m-i io~ ouonxneriwc F F e ~ o~~~' n m P~~~FR • • ~ ' ~l~ ~~r i i s6 ~ . F e 4 ~i 7 S YC Fo dA i S v ~ 3 ~ i ~ 5 r D z O ~ i Ydd F5 ~s ~ - s ~ -rn oA 0 O -n ~D r D z • • LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS qg ¢g : A I f ~ ~n ;c i` AN ~ ruo~spEnoaane F F ~ No i3i ~ I mZ ~ROUCrMrwu n . • i - i g A T TT T i .J ~ ~ Dm~~ F m (1 D ~ b I I § ~ ' z0 , ~ _ I aoooo i _ I I - - ° - ---o hI;~I ~ ~ 1 I - ---o - - -----o 0 II ! . ~ ~ • q a § s y € y a ~ y a ~ ! ! - I -I - I - ---d 4 I a ~ y - -i i - - -i i ~i u ~ rn - ~ rn - - -o m < ------~---~-r-------~----~-~-------- m < . - , ~ rn rn , , ~ b bb b bb rn b bb b bb ~ z O ~ ~ O rn ~ ~ rn ~ ~ -u • z Z ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS q g; SM~~D M1iln lt ~ NO ~T YNOIER~wai A T Z • • ~ i i ~ Tli T Tlf-.i.-. T x 6 q 4 i~~i ` ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ 1 I I ~ I I - - - - ----Q I I I~ I ~q IN ~ - I - - ---o - I - - - -o ~ _ -----0 - - ---o ya ~ 6 y ~ ~ d I a A ~ ~ I I I I ~ - - ----0 - - ----0 p 4 ~ f 1177 I § I y I i I ~ K r - -~---t-~ § - - ~ r- ~-----~--~-I ~rn ~rn ' , a rn rn a N O 00 O 00 d~I O 00 C O 00 O X < -4 rn O ~ rn ~ A rn ~ A r -0 z ? - z • • p _ ~ -p LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS gg ~9 ~ iol.I i.vni.u o mc U1 N 5 ; k!` n m ""','~o~o - ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~~rvonn • i I I I I I I f I J ~ T T T - I ~ I 4 i I iiiii a l j I I -Q r~ ~ I a 2 ~ I I F Y ~ I I • _ _ - I - -O ~ - - -O E?u II ~ ~ ~ q a q I I I - ---0 - - Z E I~ ~ d I~ ~ O I I I ~ u - -I o I ------o ~ _ - -I l ----o F~ y . , ~ ~ . ~ rn e!" I I ; I a f s I -,n - -O ~ - ~ ----~----~-I ~ -----I--~ ~ ---~---~-I § ----I--~ 70 ~ rn ~ ~ rn A rn Z D • z . ? ~o ~ R~-,~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS N 1 - N ~o~. ~ ~ uoHS~Feo ~ao ni.i~c 9 9;. w ~ I~ nm unF F j g U1 i~~ : m2 onaircr.w., • • ~ ----r ~ T T a I ~ ~ 4 a ~ s ;I I C~ I I I I~ . 6 I p§ I~ b ~6 I ~ I I ~ - o ; - ----o I ( I • z A~ I - ---o - - ---o &u 8 I~~ IF ~ f y I¢ I 4 ~ rTi rn • rn - - , - br I I ~r ~ t ~ rn S g ~ ~ - - ~ - ~ - - ~ ---~-I~------I-- ~ _ ~ -I- -----1-- ~ ~ ----~-~_r1---------- ~ r~ ~ ~t D - - r z z ~ • li ii li II 0-1 dk LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS ' zr = AN uwesroo~sie~acianE F F U1 N o : i:= ~ n m eo~Ea ~:,.,n N A : I mZ ' i • ~ o a r _ ~ - ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ , - , ~ . , ~ _ A 1 I mm - - • o ~ ~ -IF ~ - , ~ ~ • ~ ~ r I , < ~ r I ~ ~ rn - - ~ D ~ . . . . r , . . ~ . . . . L ? ~ I i _D , . . , ? ? i r. ~ ~ ~ . ~ z - o ~ o g~ A - - - A rn -n rn A rn z n rn O z • r ~ i i i i i i I I i i i i aE d4 p m s: m~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS ~g ~g x nm • ~ ~ - L - ~ ~ ~ I 4 ~ - ~ i ~ I I i i I ~ I 1 1 ~ I I I ~ 1 ~ 1 I a I ~r D , ~I ~ ~ r ~ r~ • • _ I -,j I a ~ rn ~ < rn , r ( i ~ ~ rn D I ~ ' r- _o I ~ o ~ o 0 y ~ L Z ~ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 1 O A A o rn n rn A ~ rn z n rn • O • -C LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS N i n L 4'- II ~ ~o,. ~ n~ocK v.ii uanz~E.o,ao n~i~c ~ r_~ 7~ N wEV~oio~z."a,. xac F F ~ D 2:~ z n m wo~E~ . z~ _ mZ - / . J'~ 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 I ~ I I I I ~ I I ~ I I + I I i ' • I o I I I I I i I ' • I ~ I i Z I I ~ = I I I I ~g M~€ ~u I I ~ "1 c 6 = I I ~g ~ ' I ~ I I I O 1 I ro ose Y ~5j t. I ~ D Z ~ ~ I i ' ~ i ~ S F I i ~ ? ;_t li li ii il li 11014 ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS }9 ~s ; ~ ~ D~ 5 i f ^ I n T ioi. o~ok:oon i°~~o ~i~c F F g ~ P'~ m Z `v oirn _ - , ' ~ r{ _ - - - - - - - -,`-o ~ I ~I I 1 b I 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 d 1 I 1' 8 ~',11 1' tt 1 i 1' ' ~ 1I 1'I1 1~ ' 6 - ~ I 1 ~ 1 I ' ~ ~ ~ § l ,i $ F ' a• - ` ~ _ t a. ~ • ~ i ~ ~ ~ 'i d . , I r + - ~ 1 - I~ _ z ~ ~ 16 m rn a ~ Z I I " ~ ~ q II z ~ , , I z 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ , i ppMIN~UMS ~ LANpMp,RK CON Y A m 1 8a si''-~I ~ T ~ s~ i . . . '12-7H-7 12-7f-i-7 • c. A sufvey stF.'T?f;_ . ,v.. ~:~~~;~•a --cring,'FaN surveyor indicatinC exisiing ccnciiions Ecjirox Eun Anqle i on the property including ihe location at improvements, topoc.raphy, and 'o:oo A.M. 10° east of scuth, 50° dec!ination . natural features. 2:00 P.M. 42' west oi south, 50° dec!ination d. A current title re' port to verify Winter SolsTice Sun Anqle ` ownership, easements, and other encumbrances. including :Schedules A 10:00 A.M. 30° east ot souif,, 20° dec',ination and B3. li 2:00 P.M. 30° west of south, 201 decJination ' e. Ezisting and proposed site plan at a minimum scafe of one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20'), a vic:inity plan at g. E;cisting and proposed fioor pians an apprqpriate to adequately a. t a minimum scale of ene-fourth inch equ:~ls nr~ foot ('/4" ~ 1') and a shovr the project location ,e~Gi~6,; Gquare footage analysis of alf existing ship to thQ surroundinq area, a iancl- scape plan at a minimum scale of one and proposed uses. inch equals twenty feet (V" = 20'), a roof height plan and existing and pro- h. A,n architectural or massing mod- posed building e!evations at a mini- el of the proposed development. Said mum scale of one-eighth inch equals model shall include buildings and one foot = 1'). The material listed major site improvements on adjacent above sha(f inc(ude adjacent buifdings properties as deemed necessary by I •_,and improvernents as nscessary to the Administrator. The scale of the demonstrate the project's camalrance model shall be as determined by the • , with the Lionshead Redevelopment Administrator. Master Plan. i. Phofo overtays and/or other ~ f. Sun/shaiJe analysis of the exist-, graphic material to demonstrate #he ing an praposed building for the special relationsnip of the proposed ~ spring fall equinox (March 21/ development to adjacent properties, September ,?3) and winter solstice public saaces, and advpted views per (December 21) at ten o'cfock (10:00) Chapter 22 of this Title. A.M. and two o'cfock (2:00) P.M. un- less the Department of Communiiy 1. Parking needs assessment and Development determines that the vehicular circulation analysis, Fra- proposed addition has no impact on pared by a qualified professionaf. the existing sun/shade pattern. ThQ following sun angle shall be used k. An~~ additionai infarmation or when preparing this anafysis: material as deemed necessary by the Administrator or the Town Flanning and Environmental Commission (PEC). The Administrator or the Plan- ning and Environmental Commission may, at his/her or their discretion, waive certain submittal requirements if • . • 799 Town o f Vail J A 12-7H-6 12- ; H- • (")lutdoor dinino areas operatad in conjunc- and Fnvimnmental Commission and • `ion with permitted eat;r.q rincl dr,nkinc es- DPGiyn Review P_oard revie•.v. t:ablishments. B. 5ubmittal Items Required: Z he follow- I Swimming pools, tennis courts, patics or inc:vu~mi~t~ items are requir~d: c;ther recrealion facilities customarily inci- caental to perrnitted residentiai or lodg° 1. A,ppIICation: An a pplir.ation shall be uses. mac±e by the OW(lf:r of the building or the hijildinq otivner's authonzed agert Other uses E tomarily incidental aria ac- ur ~CplHIsP-ntative or a forrn providecj r.essory to permitted or r,~;nr;itfonnl uses, t,v the Administratr,r P.ny applic;atirn and necessary for the operaticn lhereoi. for cordorniniumized buildings siiali (Crd. 3(1999) S 11 be authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all perti- nent requiremerts of the condominium S (~R association's deciarations. 12-7H-7f E;YT~ RIOR ^ 1L'I'ER.'''ION . NIODIk'ICATIONS: .M_- _ 2. Apptication; Contents: An applica A. Review Required: The construction of tion for an exterior alteraiion shall ' a new building or the alteration of ar, include the followinq: existing bui(ding shail be reviewed by the Desiqn Review Board in accor- a. Completed application form, filing dance with Chapter 11 of this Title. fee, and a list oi all owners of property However, any project which adds located adjacent to the subject parcel. I . additional dwelling units, accommoda- The owners list shall irclude the tiQn units, frac:ianal fes club units, names (;i ail owners. their rnaiiirg • iirne-share uniis, any projert which address, a legal description of the adds more than one thousand (1,000) property owned by each, and a gener- square feet of commercial floor area al desrription of the property (incfud- or common space, or any project ing the name of the property, if appli- which has substantial off-site impacfs cabfe), and the name and mailing (as determined by the Administrator) address of the condominium shall be reviewed by the Pfanning and associatiQn's repi-esentative (if apnli- Environmentai Commission as a major r,abie). Saici ncmes and addresses extenor alteration in accordance witFti shail be abtained from the ci;rrert tax this Chapter and Section 12-3-6 of records of Eagle County as they ap- this Title. Any project which requires a peared not more than thirty (30) days conditional use permit shali also ob- prior to the application submittal date. tain approval of the Planning and Environmental Commission in accor- b. Awritten siatement describing dance witn Chapter 16 of this Title. the proposa( and how the proposal Complete applications for major exte- compiies with the Lionshead Redevel- rior atterations shall be submitted in opment Master Plan and any other ar,cordance with administrative sched- relevant sections of the Vail Compre- ules devefoped by the Department af hensive Plan. Community Development for Planning i ~ 799 Town n/' 4'azl r' 12-; H-1 12-7N-1 i • GHA.PTERi CCMN1ERCiAi_ APJD BUSlMESS DiSTRICTS ARTICLE H. LlUN-SHEAD MtXED USE 1(LMU-1) QIS7'RICT ' SECT(ON: restaurznts. offices, skier services, and commercial establishmerts in a cfustered, 12-7H- 1: Purpose unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 12-7H- 2: Permitied And Conditional Uses; 1 District, in accordance with the Lionshead Basement Or Garden l_evel Redevelapment Master Plan, is intended to 12-7H- 3: Permitted And Conditiorial Uses; ensure adequate light, air, open space and First Floor Or Street Level other amenities appropriate to the permitted 12-7E-i- 4: Permitted And Conditicnal Uses; types of buildings and uses and to maintain Second Floor And Above the desirable qualities of the District by 12-7H- 5: Conditional Uses; Generaiiy (On establishing appropriate site development All Levels Of A Building Or standards. 7his District is meant to encour- Outside <:f A Buitding) age and provide incentives for redevelop- 12-7H- 6; AccQssory Uses ment in accordance with the Lionshead 127 7N- 7; Exterior terations Or Redevelopment Master Plan. f 2-7H- 8: Compliance ru den This Zone Distrir.t was specifically devei- • 12-7H- 9: Lot Area And Site Dimensions oped to prcvide incentives for properties ta 12-7H-10: Setbacks , redevelop. 7fie uttimate gval of these incen- • '12-7H-11: Height And Bulk tives is to create an economica!!y vibrant '12-7H-12: Density (Dwelling Units Per iodaina, housing, and commercial core Acre) area. TFte iRCent+ves in this Zone District 12-7H-13: Gross Residential Floor Area include increases in allowable gross resi- (GRFA) dential flcor area, building height, and den- 12-7N-14: Site Coverage sity over the previously established zoning 12-7H-15: Landscaping And Site in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Development F1an siudy area. The primary goal of the 12-7H-16: Parking And Loading incentives is to create economic conditions ' 12-7H-17: Location Of Business Activity favorable to inducing private redevelopment 12-7H-18: Mitigation Of Development consistent with the Lionshead Redevelop- Impacts ment Master Plan. Additionally, the incen- tives are created to help finance public off- site improvements adjacent to redevelop- ment projects. With any develop- '12-7H-1: PL'RPOSL: The Lionshead Nlixed ment/redevelopment proposal taking advan- Use 1 District is intended to tage of the incentives created herein, the provide sites for a mixture of muitiple-family following amenities wi11 be evaluated: dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee streetscape improvements, peciestri- c:lubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units. an/bicycle access, public plaza redevelop- . • June 2000 T'own of V¢il .,~--w-- u- trt- s~-_~ ~ SOC~ ~CL Z QQb ~~s Z ((~`11 O Q ~ ? Z i?l ~ w Qa s, 0a 0 z US s ~ u. ~ Z yA Z~, ? 4L t} ~ 1 l- ' • iii iiit~~ ~ ~ ~f'1 M `C1 Ot ~ ~s . K > ~ ~ •~s ~ z x Q ~ ~ W 1.` ~ q ~ q~ '4 t~- ~ ~ Z °i?i ~ ~ ~ t"' ~ a' ~ 4 r iii (Z'~ a 'h' ~ i , . ~ v y ,n o~` oc Q? ~n a r ~ ~ Q ^ ~ O Z ~ ~ ytij : tQ ~ _ ~ ,N ~ x I T ~ ~ 4 ~ O Z~ a •yj4- IIV u Qr-`' ,'1 OP 7 ~'a• ~ O ~ ~ i ~ t \.l Q l V ~ ~ 0- ` . Z W ~ N iy ti ~ IA- ~ ll . , Attachment: E ~ James Vanderhout 9450 N. Regent Ct. ~ Milwaukee, WI 53217 P.E. Commissianers Community Development Dept. T.O.V. March 15, 2007 75 S. Frontage IZoad Vail, CO $1657 i To P.E. Commissioners: I am an owner of a two-bedroom loft townhouse at the Landmark. I recently received drawings on proposed changes to the townhouses resulting from the proposed addition of dwelling units above the existing structure. I understarid that your commission receives and approves this. I have included a copy of the Town of Vail Chapter 7 Article H Section 12-71-1-7 Exterior Alterations or Modifications of Lianshead. Under paragraph B.1.F it states that the application for an exterior alteration should include a sun/shade analysis for the existing and pXOposed building. I am concerned about this because it appears from the drawings provided by the Landmark, • most or all of the sunlight, provided by the three tall thermopane windows, would be cut off from the loft and upstairs of the townhouse. See drawings • provided by Landmark that I marked up. I believe the change is contrary to the Town of Vail guidelines for Lionshead development and should not be allawed. I invite the committee to tour my townhouse unit 18 to gain a better understanding of the situation. The lack of sunlight and mountain views in the upstairs of the townhouse would negatively impact the unit. Also, the skylight at the top of the stairs would be covered and no longer provide any light in this dark area at the top of the staircase. Since the town approves the new overbuild structure, the sun%shade analysi.s would be required. The town rules were written to protect neighboring buildings. In this case the townhouse building below. The condo association can not override the rules that the town put in place. If there are any questions my daytime phone number is 414-445-8180. E-mail is alfa@execpc.com. Sin erely • James V~nderhout ~ jw IL W SWfIINIWOdNOD)121bWaNt/l :Rf II li II Ii II II II -.s [Ell ' t W. _ - ~ - ~ ~ ,ar ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 i_L 1- ,t~'^ r lr" ' LU ~ Mo ~ ! !1r W I h F~ j Q +1 x ti, , 3; z ~ W :t fF 4 - ` ~~I i!I ,J•k 4 1 i ~i 1=1 ~ • t ~jl~ p '!r ~R ' • ~ H i I'ylti ~li l~ ~ h 4 Y ii ' ~i ~ t 4 ~ ;fl 1 4 1 ~ " 1} ~ T n a~ ~ it J M ~~r? a A r4°~ - , . al~ t ~ U 4 ~y cn ia o 0 M t17 O + + - . a~i_:,. • ~ . , ZW ~ 's~ • • wv ~nO~lllbYd ~e O j .v~1 OOVY010]'tnn u 4~ ~ t n>romawsuonuvno~, N ~ < ~ j ev nwwuu~n ar I~ 'I II li SWf11NIWOaNOJ x21dWaNb'l cea ~y~ ww Q ~ ~I ~t* a ~ OI Wi ~ ~ hk j~(N~l y4Y5 yj,, i J~ h~'~uw'~X • 1~hr W~ i I z ~ W ( n Q M ~ I 4 - - - w • :~f[,tYl f . ' h ~ . I~ le5~~ • I , ~~1.• ~j' ~ `fi~' , r •4.~ 'r.t~t:.~:. F ~ } ,f 3 4.Sh.~ ! ~ ' } l+,t r;' i . P f: . T I ~ r - . 7-7 7 C ~ ' , - - ~ I f__ ct ~ M O C' 11ri 0) .:r ~ r + 'F _ ~ ; ~ I s ~ ` NKI. M g . ~ r. M • ~ ~ ~1 . t F ! r ~ a ~d ti : `~x ~i5~ ~~;.sa4 ~ F + ft _ +1W t ~ ~ 1ry ,s s~->> ~ 4~ ~ ~ . ,J ~R~ - • ~ _T.Vh'.'i ~ ~ . t ~ 5 n{ Yy^~^V t i . f. • ~ • djM.pa~ ; r ~ ~ . fwo ~ ~:l P F"A y *x~',' X i " ~ ' . . . . . . . . ~ t yx ~ Co ~'~S~ ~ : S r~ ~ 1 _ ' \ V co ~ N.~dJ P ~ 3' i2t Z W 4 W µ ~M"11X~ 'N U . ~ • 3 f f l. F'~y~, ~ 4 r t p"ti.;f'•J"'; ~ R.,< wz•- ni rv ~ ~ ` ~ . . 'i r {F . . ~ x ~1} r , 911 n.~4K. t- i ~ ...f ' ~ " . , , - .c-+ - ~t,'.. • ~Y ~ . 4 w s r~,~ a Gn R ys -p ~ •'ia ~~k ~ ~ ' ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ 4,~~ ~ ~ , • ~ ~ 'N, iw 'It CD I , . . zW ~ . . ~ - . ~ . . , J U N~ LLa • ~W ` i ~ 5 ~ • T *Y¢ r fiqe 4 S n = 1.~' • li rJ. ¢ 7 y ,'ti xk"fi _ '~,H ~:j. 'C {R J.1 H 3; ~ 3 ~ 4~ ~ J N A c~'T M~+ 1 ~ p F'~ x re n~ ws?2 i t*q~ +~'r"~t~ ~at~.se Y~i"~," P~~t~~~.,.~~` 3 ~ ~i ' 4 r• ,x i . t 1 ~.~ia't~ .~'e~i~'~" ~ ~,'~v~' ~~sg~+ ~ ~ .I~~_. fv: _ 5.~. ~ i ~ . 3.' . . 7'. lf .~^N~. ~ \W i ^r ' ~-Mll. , • ~ C "is ~Y, ~ S 1 n~*~ ~ 8~ ~y~iir. P 4 ' ~ } Y ~ II } ~ 4 ~ ~ ~y3. ~ ~ S ,~'?V 6tfnp~ t. ,~r ~ I LO ~ = . _v_. ~ ~ Zw wu J N~ F- w I n. - • LL a I I ~ I 1 ~ • ~ FN • Y113 Y~ r i" ~ xi ' 1 in~„L~ t~~~~ ' /:•i~ , . r t J 2 M . ~l~ . , r . . ~.,i„ • t ,,.~.1 ; rA t :k ry . C ~e ~ r . £y". . . 1.~.+..a P t , ' . . ~ x • _ - ~r .1• . . . ~ n.~. ,,,y`• , _ ~ _ N a }•N, ~ ..a,. ~ - . ii i ; ss.~..'~~~ ~ fi~. ~ ~t - ' t ~ ~ ~ A 4 y"T F 4 O q ~ y t i . r ~ " V I "r3s ~ hv t ~ . " ' CL3 ~ Z W W U _ „ ~ N a. - 1- w a- LLa ; • • l ~ . . . . , _ • ^ ' ~~'~T~~~y~~~ ' , • . ~ ..4 ~ ;~A§tY s.:+ ti ~f~p 1 1'~ ~1 ~f"Ln„y 0.1 d-~} ' I ~ 1 !il2 J. ~ti ~ t F V s , . . , ~.$r.. P . ,.Ir+ Kr ~ ~ ;Wf m ~-,+•+nt' )....r.'< rPa -.:"a. i ~Y.W ,.,f ~ t '7 c 3t • 4 N;k px~ a ~ .~7 n J `~'S ~ ~ r ~ ~~f rh ia 1 xG4~~ ' N 4:. 4 • ~ O ~ 'Wili;:•:~'- O . 12. ~ ~ ~5 g+r i ~k l ~ I Z w J U N~ F W ~ • • ~i ~ ~ a ;hil @1 5 f ' ~h~--Aw` - k. C+" i T f yr ~ x'*w s q «t? Ymgq rt;- ~i•: ~ , t "~vl;~~'-~~•' '.~,y-. • Y ~ s ~ ..s+.~`'~' ~ 4 i ar..~. . w M&A; E , , . k~ IE ~ ' v' , ~ k ' • ~ . Nt ~ ! co 63- n ~ . _ . . ~ • y: C" ~L4"~ " n W ~u ~ ~ W w ~ _ r~ J U N o-' I- w L. a ; E " . j~ P ! , . . • sj... . t. ~ I ! ? . i ' 5 ~ t ~ Wgrx7. . 6t u , , ~ . ~ f j 3,`..; ~ ~~''•tk K ~~`'r~:ti'~ ~ • ~ • . ~ My,~~yJ'y~g~~~f . _ .T~ C 4 1 t fK f i r f C: : W1 ~ :.l1.~ " . ~ ~ ~ ~y ~ ~ • ~ . ~v . , . ~i- 1 tt ~ ~ ~ t~.f.~. .r. ~ ~ `-6. ~ e L J E ~W ~ . ~ • _ _ JU N~ ~ W LL C ~ ~ 'o T \ I ' - ~ 1 v N I~ ~ n m . mZ i • ~ ` ~ \ i 1 (y~p• ~ i r~ S1i r _ ~ ~ • ty ' i 1 S\ \ \ I 1 , 1 -0 X O O N• ' ~ CL . k ~ ~ • ~ 0 z ~ I \ m ~ 'I II1~'' cp - ~ • ~ ~ ~I ~ i I, I m m ~ I ` ~ ea% ' ~ e a ~ , ~ , ~ ---z= ~ ~ • ~ r-------~ ~ i i i ~ ~ m (l; t!~ ~ - - - - - - - - `,1` I .,.,e ~ J rn ~ ` ~ ~ ; ~ ~ , I ~ ~ I QS 1 1° ~ 1 't7 -o 0 ~ \ • i~ ! ~ 1 A ~ ~ t ` ~ ~ ~ 11 1, i \ \ ' ` ~ ~ • i ~ ~ ~ ; ~t~, ~ ~ Q. ~ ~ \ v t I l ` \ a~ ; 1 + cr CD I~ \e ~ l,~ c,i ' ~ ~ ~ cr-3 ~ , - 1 ~ , , C6 1 A , _ ~ , ~ ~ ~ C~ ~l I , ~ 4 1\ N m--j ,v N nm \ • mZ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ vi r) m ~ - - ' ° ~ o; ~ ~ X .:zn"- \ r* ~ • ~ ~ . ~ t` , sIx~\ • - w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~a~ ; \ ~ ~ I------ :~i~~\~~~~~ ;t1 ~ - ~ I I~I~II ~,I'll' ~Il31iii VI:II', , ~ ~ ~ •~\`w1• ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ' SGo~ ~ ti,\. ` 1 ~ ` - - aa , p , ~ ~ ------------~---1 • ~ ~ - - - - - ~ i i, - - - - \ - Clrrst ~ \~1 m Z ~ ~ , ~ + _ \ ~ \C= ~ a~ % ~ ~ -z ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ' ~ \a` ~ ` 1 . > ~J ~ i ~ \ •fi ~ U-1 - ; 11~111'll'I t `~e~ ~ - - - ` z _ \ , , - ---~-----~i, - ~ , , , ~ I • • ~ % - - : , ~ I ~ j I j I j I I ~ I ~ I I ~ j I j I I ~ I ~ I , ; I I I I ~ ' I I ~ • ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ a - I - ~ I -rn I rn ~ i b r ~ -9T z , i El rn i a ;i -A MV x A ~ I O ~ ~I A ~ ' I rn i j a I I , ~ - - , - - - , ~ ~ r -0 • Z I~ ~ ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS f9 ~g a m ~iHc y~ iLi _ AN ~or. wESCO ~x:"ouocRCiE~ F F~ Tm " n'~, i~ E ~ (1 reri vxoiFn. w,. r ' • ! • ~ ~ r / I ~ I ~ I j I I ~ j I I ~ I ~ I ~ j I ~ I ~ • Z i ~ I p~ ~ j • i I = I , , r----------- , , ~ i arn ~ i i z X m rTi rn -4 i~ o;o 0§ o aEo m o ao ooo~ ~ I - D r -ro d F • Z A LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS wpsr,~onsoE~u~~ac~ = F ~ • • . r. - - I ~ I , ~ I ~ , , ~ ~ ~ I ~ p I ' ~ ~ i ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ - I ~ I I S ~ ~ P i • ~ t i I I ~ ~ A , j ; - - - ~ N ~ I x ~ I rn ~ i x A ~ i rn A ! i A ~ I I 4 ~ rn r j • , rn ~ ~ i - - - - , i L A ooaoa~ao m ooaoao D ~ ~ € ~ D a d~ s • z ~ ~i r H ii LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS j;~ A N ~oi. 'sco~o~a'.'oEa~w Rn~c rn F F+ 5 ~ 3z: Clm vwiFR.a„ • , s ~ , e N ~ R p ~ A R P A F e a R ~ R R i ~ R • z~ ~ ~ ~ ~rn rn b r ~ rn m x ~ rn k A 0 A § rn r rn n A oo a o 0 00o m o 0o a~o D D ~ Z ~ m~ ~ 70 LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS O A T ; r ^ II 70 N 101. VE~SiII[ISH[n'uCACLF rl"~C R f - • • ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ i ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I I ~ • ~ ~ ~ I o I ~ • A~ I , = J ' ~ , r I ~ , ~ i i Frn ~ i .rn ! ~ e r ~ I ~ fjrn --I I ~ A ~ i i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ rn - - - rn ~--------------------------------------------------------------J ~ oo a o 0 000 ~~m ~o oa oao 0 ? ~ ~2~2~ ~~~~~;c §€Fi i ~ Z F rn P~ = A LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS • • ~ % - - ( - - - I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I ~ • • ~ ' ~ z ' ~ O I A I 114 i I ~ ' _ _ 1 - _ ~ rn i i rn rn ~ i rn i x i~ rn i ~ A ~ I rn - - - - i - - - - - - ~ , t F i F~ e~ s o - ~ 0 4° Z F D ~ . Z LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS i uoMm~.o ~ao nu~c p F € rnN uwESrouvsrE.ocixae io"oo o Cl m AoiFR.~u„ lIl I 7 • • ETE, ~ ~ ~ r N N N P X C s t P ~ • p • z D~ O r A Z A I Y ~rn >G ~ a r N . . -i ~ ~ rn x ~ rn A O { A rn rn n ~ a~ o 0 0 000 0 0 0o ano _U D • Z ~ il ii li li ii fi dy d~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS g $9 = 7oN 'o~on,°in`~rF F n'" m Z • • f-- ~ I A d ~I c RQI .Rp r ~ ~ R r, d i i' ; n • r > z o ' p 1._ r r r x ~ ~ F rrn • rn b r e O z ~ rn : rn X ~ rn ~ A 8 ~ 0 ~ t rn r rn ~ - - ~ A o~ o 0 0 000 ~40 ~o 00 000 ji D a `F F • Z i rn mm = ~ LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS IAIL N~ - II AN ~or. $Ns~~E.oc O V O~~k.~W n ~.lnLF ~u Dm :i9 f " I nT au6«~nua r m Z ~ • - - - ' ' ~ ¢ AI al , , q i • • ; N f I ~ . "I . . ~I I . . • ~ P A , 4 ~ • i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ? , in D ~ • bD I ~ rn i~ k ' A i r rn ~ - . rn ~ - - - - - - . ~ , , -------------------------J ~ oo~ooooo 0 000000 A 54 iQ sfssf6t EC a ~~~d 0 r • z ~ rn~D N LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS A N Fcia«e r~ F F _ N rD ~ i 3~ ~ lil m Z P ou.~.~w„ • ~ I ~ //-i-_--------- ~ 1 I ~ I i i I I ~ I g~~ i I ~ ~ j i • • li I ~ j ~ ~ I , . ~ ~ I i r 9a~ ~ ~ I Z a I Z 8~~g I A ~ ~•y I x I I G - ~ ( ~ O 9a 9 ~ ~ , ? , s~ _ j ~ - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - _ z " rn - ~o r D z li II ii il il il d9 a~ Q > = ~A LANDMARK CONDOMINIUMS §g 49 _ a~ ~ Z p T ~ol. i,vniltiONSME~o lcori~inc F F _ u W' ST 110~'sll~n(1 CIRCIE c g ~ A N o~ w, N ~ j n m ~ROiER , a„ = y ~ I mZ . ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 26, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of three feet within the front setback, located at 805 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0007) Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Warren Campbell 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Pedro Cerisola, represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, are • requesting approval of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of three feet within the front setback, located at 805 Pofato Patch Drive/Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. The purpose of the requested variance is to allow for the extension of an existing retaining wall measur'tng 4 4 feet in height at its tallest point, to facilitate a garage and residential addition to the west side of the existing residence on Lot 29. Staff is recommending approval of this application subject to the findings and criteria outlined in Section Vlll of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Pedro Cerisola, represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, are requesting a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of three feet within the front setback. The purpose of the requested variance is to allow for the extension of an existing retaining wall to facilitate a garage and residential addition to the west side of the existing residence on Lot 29. The existing retaining wall is 11 feet in height at its tallest some point and was approved by the granting of a variance by the Planning and Environmental Commission on July 23, 1990. This proposal would remove approximately 40 feet of existing wall and add approximately 70 feet of retaining wall, which at its tallest point would be 11 feet in height. If this application is approved, the applicant will be submitting a design review application for an addition to the existing residence on Lot 29. ~ A vicinity map is attached depicting the subject property (Attachment A), as is a reduced copy of the proposed site plan (Attachment B). ~ IIl. BACKGROUND ~ Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, were annexed into the Town by Ordinance 8, Series of 1969, which became effective on August 23, 1969. The existing structure on Lot 29 was approved by the Design Review Board on June 6, 1990. On July 23, 1990, the Planning and Enviranmental Commission approved a variance to allow for the retaining wall on site to range in height from 3 to 11 feet at a length of 134 feet. The retaining wall was located entirely upon the-applicant's property. There have been no applications to pertorm any work on this lot since construction of the home. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Order of Review: Generally, variance applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and then any accompanying design review application will be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Pianning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmer?tal Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a variance application, in accordance with Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. ~ Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a variance application. However, the Design Review Board is responsible for the final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of any accompanying design review application. Town Council: The Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or 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 appfication; an evaluation of the appiication in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendatton of approval, approvai with modifications, or denial. V. APPI.ICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Chapter 12-17: Variances (in part) ~ 2 • 12-17-1: Purpose: A. Reasons for Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this tit/e as wou/d result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physica/ hardship may resu/t from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the /ocation of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physrcal conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in fhe immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoninq North: Residential Primary/Secondary District East: Open Space Outdoor Recreation District West: Residential Primary/Secondary District South: Open Space Outdoor Recreation District VII. SITE ANALYSIS Legal Description: Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch • Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Single-Family Dwelling Lot Size: 23,422 sq. ft. (0.537 acres) Standard Allowed/Reguired Existinq Proposed Setbacks (min): Front: 20 ft. 23 ft. no change. Sides 15 ft. 18 ft./41 ft. 18 ft./ 15 ft. Rear: 15 ft. 91 ft. 85 ft. Height (max.): 30 ft./33 ft. 33 ft. no change Density (max): 2 dwellings 1 dwelling no change GRFA (max): 7,596 sq. ft. 5,459 sq. ft. 6,577 sq.ft. Site coverage (max.): 4,684 sq. ft. 2,476 sq. ft. 3,124 sq.ft. VIII. APPLICATtON CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. A. Consideration of Factors Reqardinq Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • This proposed extension of an existing retaining wall which exceeds the maximum allowable height of three feet within the front setback is 3 associated with a proposed addition to the west side of the existing • structure. As stated previously in this memorandum, the existing structure was approved on June 6, 1990 and the variance to a(low for the retaining wall associated with this construction was approved on July 23, 1990. If this variance were to be appraved, staff does not believe that other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity would be negatively affected. The elevation of the Potato Patch Drive at 8,625 feet, the elevation of the structure and proposed addition 8,610 feet, and the location of the structure on the lot combine to screen the impact of the appearance of the retaining wall from neighboring lots and from other locations in the vicinity. The prospoed extension to the retaining wall will be finished wifh a stone veneer facing (keystone block), which wiil match the existing wall. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The topographic conditions on Lot 29 are such that the buildable • area/location of the site is very well defined. Because the average slope on the site is approximately 50%, access onto the site is extremely difficult and the designed approved in 1990 was deemed to be a reasonable solution. At the time of approving the current variance the Planning Commission and Staff believed that the retaining wall as constructed currently was necessary to ensure stabilization of the slopes and Potato Patch Road. Prior to granting the variance for the current ' retaining wall options such as using three foot tiered combination retaining walls were explored. It was determined through soil engineering reports and analysis that the types of soils present and the pressures which would be exerted on the retaining wall by Potato Patch Drive would be more than a three foot tiered retaining wall could withstand. It was determined that the currently constructed design which has portions of the retaining wall at 11 feet was the best solution. The current proposal proposes to continue the current retaining wall design an additional 70 feet along the front of the property bringing the total length to approximately 160 feet. The current wall is approximately 134 feet. The conditions of the topography and soil have not changed since approval of the variance in 1990 and staff believes that the proposal • allows for the minimum relief necessary from the strict and literal ~ 4 I • interpretation of the Code to allow for the applicant to reasonably utilize their property. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facitities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe this proposal will have a significant impact on the public health, safety or welfare, public facilities, utilities, or light and air in comparison to existing conditions of the site as there is currently a retaining wall on site which does not negatively impact this elements and the proposed extension would not create a situation in which there would be a negative impact.. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the followinq findinqs before qrantin4 a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other praperties classified in the same district. . 2. That the granting of the variance wilt not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply genera((y to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regutation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the request for a fina( review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code,,pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of three feet within the front setback, . located at 805 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato, and setting forth details in regards thereto. 5 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this . variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the foilowing motion: The Planning and Environmenfa/ Commission approves the applicant's request for a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Cade, to allow for a retaining wa!l in excess of three feet within the front setback, located at 805 Potaro Parch Drive/Lot 29, Slock 1, Vail Potato, and setting for details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: The Planning and Environmenfal Cammission finds: 1. The granfing of this variance will not constitute a granfing of special privilege inconsisfent with the limitativns on other properties classified in the Two-Family Residential District. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public healfh, safety, or we/fare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: • a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physica/ hardship inconsistent with the objecfives of Tit/e 12, Zoning Regu/ations, Vail Town Code. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regu/ation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Copy of the proposed site plan C. Public Notice • 6 , • c~~ yl _ e6; 12, , 4s t 1S s ~ G.: o a tl?:' t~ LL 'C) C' n: M". E • t+ rr.r~ H++ Q 4-0: ' Q v N ~ a w l'~4 yry' tll • a: ~ Attachment A ~ ~ . rawxoF yArL THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code on February 26, 2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: . A request. for a recommendation to the Vaif Town Council on a proposed major amendment to Special Deveiopment District No. 39, Crossroads, pursuant to Article 12- 9(A), Speciaf Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in the number of dwelling units from 69 units to 75 units; located at 141 and 143 Meadaw Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0004) Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell A request for conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for multiple-family dwellings and lodges and private club • (parking club); located at 141 and 143 Meadow DrivelLot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0005) Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Maurieilo Planning Group, LLC Ptanner: Warren Campbell A request #or a final review of a major amendment to the Approved Development Plan pursuant to Section 12-8E-18 (B) Major Amendments, to allow for a revised grading plan at Vail's Front Door Vista Bahn Ski Yard, located at 151 Vail Lane/Lot A, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-.0006) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Corp. Planner. George Ruther _ A request for a final review of an amended finai piat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, located at 805 and 807 Potato Patch Drive, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0008) Applicant: Pedro Cerisala/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a finat review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of three feet within the front setback, located at 805 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 29, Block 1, ~ Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard therefo. (PEC07-0007) ~ Page 1 Attachment C • Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Warren Campbell The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please cal! 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published February 9, 2007, in the Vaii Daily. • . I • Page 2 oaVNo-1oO`-11en ' ~ H~ldd Ol`dlOd ~1~018 `6Z 10~ ~NIMVtiQ3OM11i1tlA43SIn3N 164L-9L6XNd H59lBoPwoIop'~ieA _ ~ I Z61£0 a;~d IOZZ-9L6•OL6 OD££ x.8'O'd LO/ 'O•d `sloa~~yaiy. sui~doH pue uopnnoug 3~JN30IS3N VIOSIN33 29Z jaqwnNqor- ~ o G~ i i I I y i yU f ~ Z~+(~c~~.~~p0 ~ ' ! I ~y •62 ~ ~ 3 I ~ W ~~``11 CS K~`~-~ Nm ~I Q 4 ~ ° ~ t- ~¢u> i ~ ' ~ . ~j `}~Nw. . ~.I~ ~ ` ..I ..I ^I I i-- / ' I \ ? aS r :h~ `I6 o;~. ~:rll!~~;.~~~~~ o \ i,•~ ~ 1 ~ ; - ' , \ `~\N _ , ~ .~V \ i±~ § z a~ V~ I ' •(~2: ~ i~"\ \ \ ~ n..~,. I~ \ Ru , . t,;~~' { ~.--'C ^~~S'•;: ~f~: \ \ ~ ~ ~ \l~-. 1\ ~ ~ , o ' ((~n --t'' \ \ . !S \ ,F~RO_ ~ • ~ E\ ~ ~ w1 \ I ~ap'^\~\4 a~~~ ~ ~ i ~ \ fi k _ ~ \ a.~.~•~ \ .i~,~G- ~ v~~ -t.ro` i; ~ ~\t\ _:;.i u~ ~ 44 ~ ~4rll \ ! \ 1 \ i ~ u ~ ' "1i ~ ' ~ . l \ ~"1 \ _ ~y \ \\I ~ ` A ! ~ " \ 7 ~ ^ / ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ - \ \ ' \ I J,y~i A~` ~ T ~e t"^F~ \ i`.'~, ~A"j, , P~~'' ~ ~ . iz ~ H ~ _ , i ~ ~ \ a. ~ ~ ( ~ / ~ ~ Q . "o ~ i ; \ i ~ ~ ~ ',~9 ~~ta~„~y /Xii~~•. 'Fr 1 ~ .~c~u` \_`~``\v'' 1 \~X't i 1 l: ~ \t I Il~ ~+~'t~_ `)a a ' 1 \1 \II t~\ ~\\Ix~\`~ ~ ~~~1 '1 i, \ \ ` \ ~y6~= y X,. 1 ~ .J i ~ 1' ~ \ ~ ~ ~ / , ~l\i° ~ i-' - ~PR Ic 11 ~~F ~ ;i•- 4 /i , 1` 1 ~ ~i v~', \ IL' W ~ ~ '~1 , ~f . ~ ~ i / ~ ~N5 .C ` ' I ` I - 1 LI A n0V45'40"f d 10~ . \..i 4~il v.~' l, ~ ~ ~ y~m I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~I~ i ~ ' ~ 1 ` I 2 N ts~ 'L~, ~ 3 i~'w fl.~ ~ ~ v u~:~ ~ ~1 I `\r•` ~'~;4% ~ ` ~I I 1 ~ I ~~~.i ~1,~ I ' I i 1 ~ ~ ~ I i 1 ~ ~~y ^'Y d ~ / AA i~ If r • • ~ tt5 qa~Kmad~aas~nsa 'C"~ G ~Y ~7 ~ S'JNIM`~ ~ .y ~ ~~r~•j}~o)o ' ~Q1 LOtZLI£OY ~ fe~en v i~ ry~ 6 V ~ ~/~?0,9 yZ9Z H O~dd Q,1`d1v ~las 3O e~~eo~Ex 9`~Qd : i ' daH pu~, uQpN,ouS al_ ~ g,f »d • su?1 5,; ~ti = ~ ~ ~t 1 ` d~ J~ `X~ i l s . ~1 cYT~ ~ ~ _ - ',r ~`l t?~ ' U.! 1 N 1 ~ l Q I ~ 0 Z 1~ ol-o t s~ ~ ' ~ ~ 1 ' i ~ Ah 4 a • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 26, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12- 12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, located at 805 and 807 Potato Patch Drive, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0008) Applicant: Pedro CerisolalLarch S.A., represented by Snowdon and I Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Warren Campbell 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Pedro Cerisola, represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, are requesting approval of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to a!!ow for a modification to shared • property boundaries, Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vai! Potato Patch, located at 805 and 807 Potato Patch Drive. The purpose of the proposed ptat is to reconfigure the shared property line between Lots 29 and 30 to facilitate a garage and residential addition to the west side of the existing residence on Lot 29. The proposed final plat results in the exchange of equal sized portions from each lot to the other lot resulting in no change in overall size to either lot. The area to be exchanged measures approximately 1,086 square feet. Staff is recommending approval, with a condition, of this application subject to the findings and criteria outlined in Section . VIII of this memorandum. I1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Pedro Cerisola, represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, are requesting to modify the shared property line between Lots 29 and 30. The purpose of the proposed plat is to reconfigure the shared property line between Lots 29 and 30 to facilitate a garage and residential addition to the west side of the existing residence on Lot 29. The proposed reconfiguration of the shared lot line results in Lot 29 maintaining its size of 23,422 square feet and Lot 30 maintaining its size of 17,730 square feet. If this application is approved, the appiicant will be submitting a design review application for an addition to the existing residence on Lot 29. A vicinity map is attached depicting the subject property (Attachment A), as is a reduced copy of the proposed plat (Attachment B). ~ 1 IlI. BACKGROUND • Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, were annexed into the Town by Ordinance 8, Series of 1969, which became effective on August 23, 1969. The existing structure on Lot 29 was approved by the Design Review Board on June 6, 1990. There have been no applications to perform any work on this lot since construction of the home. Lot 30 is currently vacant. tV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Planninq and Environmental Commission: Action: Pursuant to Section 13-12-3C, Review and Action on Plat, Vail Town Cod, the Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the finaf plat. Desipn Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on an exemption plat, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: The Town Council is the appeals authority for an exemption plat review procedure in accordance with Sub-section 13-3-5C, Council May Appeal, Vail Town Code. Staff: The staff is res onsible for ensurin that all submittal re uirements are rovi ed p g q p d and i plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TITLE 13, VAIL TOWN CODE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (partial) 13-2-2 DEFINITIONS EXEMPTION PLAT: The platting of a portion of land or property that does not fall within fhe definition of a"subdivision'; as contained in this section. i 13-12 EXEMPTION PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES ~ 13-12-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and an appropriate review process whereby the planning and environmental commission may grant exemptions from the definition of the term "subdivision" for properties that are determined to fall outside ~ 2 - i . . I i • the purpose, purview and intent of chapters 3 and 4 of this title. This process is infended to allow for the platfing of property where no additional parcels are creafed and conformance with applicable provisions of this code has been demonstrated. 13-12-2: EXEMPTIONS IN PROCEDURE AND SUBMITTALS: NExempfion Plats", as defined in section 13-2-2 of this title, shall be exempf from requirements related to preliminary plan procedures and submittals. Exemption plaf applicants may be required to submit an environmenfal impact report if required by title 12, chapfer 12 of this code. 13-12-3: PLAT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: C. Review And Action On Plat: The planning and environmenfal commission shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modificafions or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the frrst public hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmental commission and the applicanf. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in section 13-3-4 of this title. VI. SURROUNDiNG LAND USES AND ZONING • Land Use Zonin North: Residential Primary/Secondary District East: Open Space Outdoor Recreation District West: Residential Primary/Secondary District South: Open Space Outdoor Recreation District VII. SITE ANALYSIS The following is a zoning analysis of Lots 29 and 30, which are proposed to be amended by the proposed application. The purpose of this analysis is to provide a comparison of the existing lots to the proposed lots. Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Zoning: Primary/Secondary District Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Single Family Residence Development Standard Allowed Existina Proposed Lot Area: 15,000 s.f. 23,422 s.f. 23,422 s.f. (no change) Dimension: 80'X80' min. 100'X100' 130'X130' Frontage: 30 ft. min. 147.22 ft. 195.73 ft. (+4$.51 ft.) • GRFA: 7,596 s.f. 7,596 s.f. (no change) 3 Access: The access is taken off of Potato Patch Drive. • Lot 30, Biock 1, Vail Potato Patch Zoning: Primary/Secondary Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Vacant Development Standard Allowed Existinq Proposed Lot Area: 15,000 s.f. 17,730 s.f. 17,730 s.f. (no change) Dimension: 80'X80' min. 90'X90' 90'X90' Frontage: 30ft. min. 118.24 ft. 69.73 ft. (48.51 ft.) GRFA: 6,853 s.f. 6,853 s.f. (no change) Access: The access is taken off of Vail Potato Patch. Comparison of Proposed Lots 29 and 30 to a selection of other lots in the immediate vicinitv within the Vail Potato Patch Subdivision Lot Zoninq Lot Size GRFA Lot 24 Primary/Secondary 21,213 s.f. 7,307 s.f. i Lot 25 Primary/Secondary 17,598 s.f. 6,837 s.f. Lot 26 Primary/Secondary 19,210 s.f. 7,047 s.f. ~ Lot 27 Primary/Secondary 21,649 s.f. 7,364 s.f Lot 28 Primary/Secondary 22,477 s.f. 7,472 s.f. Lot 31 Primary/Secondary 20,473 s.f. 7,211 s.f. Lot 32 Primary/Secondary 31,581 s.f. 8,544 s.f. VIII. APPLICATiON CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The purpose section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to ensure that the proposed subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. The criteria for reviewing an exemption plat shall be as contained in section 13-3-4 of this title which are as follows: (1) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable e/emenfs of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatib/e with the deve/opment objectives of the town; and Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat and found it to be in compliance with all applicable elements of Vail Comprehensive Plan. The exchange of equal sized parcels of land, which maintains the size of each lot does not have any impact to the goals, objectives, or policies of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. (2) The exfent to which the proposed subdivision complies wrth all of the • standards of this Title, as we1l as, but not limited to, Title 12, Zoning 4 . • Regu/ations and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicab/e; and Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat and found that all submittal documents were received and the resulting lots will comply with all applicable portions of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. (3) The extent to which the proposed subdivision presenfs a harmonious, convenient, workab/e re/ationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and Staff Response: The proposed final plat modifying the shared property line between Lots 29 and 30 will not negatively affect the workable relationship among land uses as the proposal will maintain the current• land uses, low density residential. (4) The extent of fhe effects on the future development of the surrounding area; and Staff Response: The proposed final plat modifying the shared property line between Lots 29 and 30 will not negatively affect the future development of the surrounding area as the development potential remains consistent such as lot size and gross residential floor area. • (5) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial pafterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature exfension of public facilities, or resulf in a"leapfrog" paifern of development; and Staff Response: The proposed final plat modifying the shared property line between Lots 29 and 30 will not negatively affect the elements identified in the above criterion. (6) The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve fhe planned u/timate popu/ation of the service area fo avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines; and Staff Response: The proposed final p(at modifying the shared property line befinreen Lots 29 and 30 wi(I not affect the currently level of utility service required in the vicinity. (7) The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viab/e community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed fina( plat to modify the shared property line between Lots 29 and 30 will confinue to allow for the orderly growth of the community and serves the interests of the community as the . owner of the lots wi(I be able to modify the existing driveway to allow for an expanded garage and residential additional without the need for variances to encroach into a side setback. I 5 (8) The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or • beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, wafer quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the proposed finai plat to modify the shared property line between Lots 29 and 30 will result in any adverse impacts to any of the items listed in the above criterion. (9) Such ather factors and criteria as the Commission andlor Council deem applicab/e to the proposed subdivision. B. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a major subdivision, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings with respect to the proposed major subdivision: (9) That fhe subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Subsection 13-3-4A, Vail Town Code; and (2) That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive P/an and compatib/e wifh the development objectives of the Town; and (3) That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and • appropriate for the surrounding areas; and (4) That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environmenf and its established character as a resort and residenfia/ community of the highest quality. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with a condition, an amended final plat pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, located at 805 and 807 Potato Patch Drive, subject to the following condition: Should the Planning and Environmental Commission chaose to approve the amended final plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with a condition, the applicant's request for a final p/at, pursuant fo Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification fo shared • i 6 ~ property boundaries, Lots 29 and 30, B/ock 1, Vail Potato Patch, located at 805 and 807 Potato Patch Drive, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the ~ amended final piat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following condition: 1) The applicant and his successors and assigns, shall not be permitted to request any variances subsequent to the approval of this amended final plat for Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vai! Potato Patch, on the basis that the resulting approved plat created a physical hardship for developing these , lots. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the ~ amended final plat, the Community Development Department recommends the ~ Commission makes the following findings: I "The P/anning and Environmenta/ Commission finds: I (1) Thaf the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Sub-section 13-3-4A, Vai! Town Code; and (2) Thaf the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in fhe Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the • development objectives of the Town; and (3) That the subdivision is compatib/e wifh and suitab/e to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and (4) That the subdivision promotes the hea/th, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Copy of the proposed final plat C. Public Notice • 7 4 €c A • 8 s e s q ~ 4i e~ . 3`~^ ~o w ni a p a 4 N ~ tl! r~ . k ~ +o !Ei I i LT `L I . ~ 0 cx ~ G. 41 ~ > x Tr W ; . ~ m.~ oZf . O" ~ N ~ N i•! . J ~ x: ~ Attachment A m o~ rz w W m ~ N co •°9`$ a 6~5~'~'~ E ~ SR .h yoASF~ s ~ 0. ~ b g o y~ ~ ^ 1~1.7 g•~,v 8 p {f a~ ~ ~ ~ ~N 8•~a I T ~ a o ~5 "a g rg.~ c~ ~ Q F FrSNA6 3~~ S s6 ~sp ~ F~~ 4 rr T't _oa o O N N~3d'O Nt ~ O F'~ ~ w h - ~~o l p~o,~5~ 4 ~ rl ' nin ' o T a 5 qy ; no~ t+ ~5 b~ 1~ ' H g~ e~ f3ygSS°~mg ~ o~ d . E ~°aS p~ N 41 S. v E~o LWS R~y3rjY.~.atiea s ' 4$~~1 EoE ;~$~~'~P~s~ ~ C\2 a d~~ g'mEa~-~s~a B a ~ u~a m~ m E~M$ ~;o ~1 ~ o~ ~ E">,8 E o r g5g ~$33$0<~ N "s°j pg-j;oso~a O ~ r~3 A E O $ ~Sz >°a~ S~,g~o3'S!y ~555aCCC s ° m ~ ~ ~s ~ ° < u _ o ~ ~ X e} _ 7S ~ ~/y~' ~ F~V~t33g ~~0~ a~ QS~Fdr65o W 3~ ~ m~i N~€ U S~d Z~ U46 H ~ f-5~ .Bp•tL, 1ag 99 r.S 84 42 ~g 1 ~z~ ~ ~ $t- L°s r ra 8° ~ ~ ~ p~ ~W3 $€i~S n; _ Eo ~~~.5 " h s ° ~in'ty l ~ ' ~ ogv~ ~g°Pes g x'v~oS9~~o6€ 3 aFg~65$im~ga ~o.. u1 'n ,a~a dY ~ oN~=;~~~~~SN ~ ~ g ~ 'u~in~N~v . 51 , 5'• ~ m QD i ^^.ri^rn°3~ ^v~.i ~ q~~f,Um u1vr ~ ~ m a 'y U NOi•,45~qp'4Y 50.6]~ ` ~ z ig Q NQ ~N 1 1 py~5 a M~1'• y:~~( I~p~ ~ a~ ' ¢ Lpal~"' p In jo- W z am O Nnpju)y~ll II A N 11~~ o ZN ~D F QCJ1-Utl1 rp ¢ Ma7s ~m O^S= I o g o ~Foa I r~ ; w ,i8Z51 W oa a ~ ' < v~ ~~-e~~ f l a~ x ~ ~NO a ~ Z w>~ ~ W~~ >ome M 3nQi°~ r~ ~ O ~oGa ~~3 J mmq°i ~i~-a ~ mOOn ~ i ~ . . . . • *VAIL row~roTH1S ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code on February 26, 2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a recommendatian to the Vail Town Council on a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, pursuant to Article 12- 9(A), Special Development District, Vai! Town Code, to allow for an increase in the number of dwelling units trom 69 units to 75 units; located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0004) Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner; Warren Campbell • A request for conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 42-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for multiple-family dwellings and lodges and private club (parking club); located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing I 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0005) Appficant: Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a major amendment to the Approved Development Plan pursuant to Section 12-8E-18 (B) Major Amendments, to allow for a revised grading pian at Vail's Front Door Vista Bahn Ski Yard, located at 151 Vail Lane/Lot A, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0006) Applicant: Vail Resorts Deve(opment Corp. Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review of an amended finaJ plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to ~ shared property boundaries, Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, located at 805 and 807 Potato Patch Drive, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0008) Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail ~ Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of three feet within the front setback, located at 805 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 29, Block 1, Vaif Potato Patch, and settmg forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0007) Page 1 . Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins . Architects, P.C. Planner: Warren Campbell The applications and information about the proposafs are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town ofi Vail Community Developrnent 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 cali 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notificatian. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published February 9, 2007, in the Vail Daily. • , , ~ Attachment C Page 2 ? PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING • March 12, 2007 Tp~ppy~, • 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Doug Cahill Chas Bernhardt Bill Pierce Ann Gunion Dick Cleveland Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo Site Visits: 1. Lionshead Ski Yard Driver: George 15 minutes 1. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of a public restroom facility adjacent to Chair 8, located at Lot 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0009) • Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Brian McCartney Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 6-1-0 (Pierce opposed) CONDITION(S) 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 amendment by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to making application for issuance of a building permit. 2) That the Developer submits a revised site plan in the building permit application set of plans to the Town of Vail Community Development Department indicating the a roximate tocation of an easement for the proPosed Pedestrian/bike path and Pp I identifies an "assumed property line". The purpose of the "assumed property line" is to ensure compliance with the Uniform Building Code requirements for separation between adjoining buildings. George Ruther made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Dick Cleveland said he was concerned about these facilities because they did not seem to solve i the issue at hand. Bill Jewitt hopes that this location is more readily accepted by the public because he gets a lot of bathroom requests at his restaurant. ~ Page 1 : Bill Pierce said that the current building is somewhat of a lost child and the restroom is a poor location. , Anne Gunion will support the application because it meets the criteria for review. This is an • attractive way of dealing with the need for pubic restrooms. Doug Cahill will support the application and is happy to hear that the restrooms are moving out of an enclosed building. He agrees with staff that a basement should be added to add storage space. 60 minutes 2. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a prescribed regulations amendment establishing Chapter 12-23, Commercial Linkage and Chapter 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code; amending section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, defining relevant terms of art; repealing and reenacting Chapter 12- 13, Employee Housing, Vail Town Code, to allow for revisions to the employee housing regulations; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0084) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2007 ACTION: Recommendation of denial MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 7-0-0 Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2007 ACTION: Recommendation of denial MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 . Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2007 ACTION: Recommendation of denial MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 7-0-0 George Ruther made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Ruther also reviewed comments from the PEC worksession and how staff has responded to each of those comments. Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator, reviewed specific questions from the PEC that remained unanswered at the last PEC meeting. She responded to those questions and provided a handout with written answers. Doug Cahill asked whether Town Council would like policy input or just recommendations on the text amendment. Ruther responded that modifications to the ordinances should be attached to any motion that the Commission may make. Steve Lindstrom, Vail Local Housing Authority, commended the Town Staff for pulling this policy package together. He feels as though this is a middle of the road legislation solution. He is in support of the text amendments. Dominic Mauriello, on behalf of Lionshead Inn property owners, agrees that the ordinances have come a long way. He provided a few scenarios of redevelopment and showed how the employee housing regulations would affect these scenarios. I Nina Timm responded with clarifications and additional explanations to Mauriello's examples. • Page 2 : Dominic Mauriello continued that he was hard pressed to find other municipalities that had inclusionary zoning based on square footage versus number of dwelling units. He was also • concerned about the lack of incentives to provide employee housing on-site. He also thought parking requirements in the core areas could be reduced for employee housing. He said that the change in use impact assessment and subsequent requirements for employee housing will have significant impact on the economy of the Town. This is because a landlord may not be able to find a use that does not require additional employee housing and will allow a commercial space to remain vacant or would place the burden of employee housing on the tenant. He recommends that the Town conducts an economic study on the potential impacts on the economy. Stan Anderson, Vail Valley Medical Center, said that it will be very difficult to assess the impact of the hospital with regards to employees. He said that there is little need for front line employees to live in the Town and that the hospital employs pharmacists, doctors, nurses and other higher level employees. He said this policy may adversely impact the hospital's plans to expand their campus in the Town. He said the ordinances are well intentioned but that the process will filter the money to those who need it, employees. Peter Knobel apologized for his poor behavior at the last PEC meeting. He said that he was sorry. He said that the higher end residences on Forest Road should be tapped for some employee housing options. He also said that the money collected from pay-in-lieu should be used to buydown employee units throughout Town. He explained that the employee housing units on Forest Road and throughout the Town should be bought by the Town and used for employees. Jim Lamont was concerned about how there were perceived discrepancies with the formulas and wants the public to understand how to calculate their mitigation requirements. He said it is • patently unfair to apply the regulations to only certain zone districts at this time. Being a political move, it is very unfair and he suggests that this apply to all zone districts so that the public has a comprehensive employee housing strategy. He wants us to know the full scope of the solutions being proposed. He continued that he is concerned about inverse condemnation of locals' housing that is not currently deed restricted. He would also like to understand what kind of employees would be accommodated by employee housing. He said that if the government became a buyer of housing through the pay-in-lieu program, it could potentially bring up the price of housing. He said that he is concerned about the government using the money to purchase employee housing for an entire family versus only the employee themselves. He also wanted to know who is in the nexus calculations because he knows the construction industry is not included in this formula. He brought up the NWCCOG study that shows that second homeowners provide almost half of the Town's collected sales tax revenue. He wanted this study to be included in the nexus and to understand how it affects job generation. He also said that the inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage mix favors one part of the economy over another. The other issue at hand is where the housing is provided. What is the economic impact of trying to build and compete with other builders? Galen Aaslan supports employee housing. He thinks the RRC Associates nexus study numbers are "gamed". He said that he thinks the numbers don't add up. He said that he lives in a house in West Vail. He said the town should control the land underneath the employee units. He said that he has a secondary unit and dealing with the Town has been very difficult in the past. Dominic Mauriello said that he wanted to go over the examples provided by staff. • Bill Jewitt responded that this might be more appropriate for the Town Council because they would overrule the PEC anyways. Page 3 - < Dominic Mauriello was concerned that you don't get credit for all employees generated versus just 20% of the existing employees. • Ruther responded that this is why the Town's paid consultants and legal counsel were vehemently recommending to staff that credits between inclusionary zoning, commercial linkage and changes in use should not be given to property owners without actual heads in beds. Bill Pierce said that because of the credit system some major developments may end up with major credits versus required employee housing. He said that the regulations need to generate employee housing and meet the goal of 30% of employees living within the Town. He said it is unfair to tap the new guy walking in the door. He thinks the credit system is a bad idea because it allows existing buildings to get credit for something they may have never provided. He is also concerned about leaving out certain zone districts because it seems that all housing generates employees, not just high density zone districts. He is confused about the Town Council wanting to use one section of the Nexus study but not another. He thinks there should be more incentives and increased development standards. He thinks the reason employee housing units are not on-site in the Village is because of the shear cost of construction. He doesn't want to explain to people someday why all the numbers in the different ordinances are inconsistent with each other. Anne Gunion said she is on the fence for multiple reasons. She said thank you to staff for all the effort put forth in this process. She said that while it is difficult to put all scenarios into a formula, this is a great effort from staff. She said that this is a huge issue right now. She doesn't believe in inclusionary zoning based on square feet. It should be based on employees. She said she doesn't care how the formula is written as long as it achieves our goals. She is confused by the whereas statements because there is mention of affordable housin9 and emploYee housin9, I being that they are very different. She asked staff why they think that inclusionary zoning would • , be better calculated through square footage versus number of units. She asked where does the pay-in-lieu money go? What is the definition of pay-in-lieu? She said there needs to be some testing from the use standpoint. If a commercial space goes from retail to restaurant, who is responsible to mitigate: the landlord or the tenant? She asked what is the criteria for determining what is lawful in the unlawful takings claim process?? She said there should be incentives to comply with these regulations, such as density bonuses. She thinks that an economic study should be conducted in order to determine the effects of these regulations on the town. She said the ordinances are not there yet. Chas Bernhardt said that Jim Lamont's comments were great. He said the formulas should be easy to understand and we need to include all zone districts. Condemnations should not occur. The NWCCOG study on second hameowners shows that the second homeowners generate the most need out of anyone in the area. He said Galen was correct in that he who controls the land, controls the interests that are on the land. He said a mill levy would help spread the ' mitigation requirement to all versus those who are building at the moment. Dick Cleveland said this is giving everyone a headache and for good reason. Dick Cleveland said that the minutes from the last meeting show that staff said that they would remove the administrative fee from the pay-in-lieu fee. However, it still appears that the administrative fee exists within the pay-in-lieu concept. Ruther responded that administrative costs exist and its important to assess that cost within the fee-in-lieu method of mitigation. • Page 4 ~ Dick Cleveland said these regulations do not mention employee parking programs, increased transit usage, etc. He also said that he is concerned that all the employees in deed restricted • units could work elsewhere in the County. He is concerned about disincentivizing commercial development because all of our sales tax comes from commercial uses. He said that all zone districts should be required to mitigate because all uses in all zone districts generate employees. He said employers should get credit even if their units are in other Towns. He said it's going to be difficult to keep track of housing credits. There must be distinction between employee housing versus affordable housing. Bill Jewitt said his mother used to say "she was so mad she could spit"! Bill said this is how he feels. He said this board has been grossly disrespected because they have been ignored in this process. He said he was told by a Town Council member that they are going to pass this ordinance regardless of the PEC vote. He said a decision has already been made and it is insulting. He is concerned about the lack of information related to how many people they will need to house and what type of housing they would require. He said in both short-term and long-term, the PEC has been insulted and disrespected and he thinks it's atrocious. As far as the actual ordinances, he is concerned about the criteria for review. The ordinances will not create housing, but will be more of a mechanism to collect lots of money. The ordinances do not address the issues that they seek to fix. Rollie Kjesbo also thanked staff for all their hard work, but said it doesn't matter what the PEC thinks because it appears the Town Council has made up their mind. He thinks a valley wide mill levy increase would be a great solution to this issue. Doug Cahill agreed with the other Commissioners and said it hurts. That with all the hard work staff has done and all the input from the public, he too believes that the Town Council has already made up their minds. • Jim Lamont , Vail Village Homeowners Association asked two technical questions. He asked about residential linkage and whether the Nexus study attempted to solve the 30%. He then asked about whether the Nexus study considered all of Vail or just the zone districts that were pointed out. He asked about a procedural issue with how the Town Council should word their motion and whether they need to specify why they would recommend denial for a request. Ruther urged the PEC members to remain positive and to outline their specific concerns so that the Town Council could take them into consideration. Anne Gunion said that she doesn't care what was implied but that the PEC has a responsibility to address issues and give specific comments related to the ordinances. Ruther asked that there be a break where staff could work with the PEC on comments to the Town Council. Kjesbo said that there have been many comments from the PEC that have not been taken into consideration and have not affected the written ordinance. Doug Cahill said that he is disillusioned by this issue because the comments have not been taken into consideration. He feels that there should be a higher goal. Commercial linkage should go to 30%, inclusionary zoning should be thrown out and replaced with residential linkage. A mill levy or other forms of funding should be sought, versus a pay-in-lieu method of mitigation. He felt there should be incentives for development. The math should be simpler for . ease of use. GRFA should be thrown out the door and only employee generation should be utilized. The credit should not be utilized at all. Page 5 l Rollie Kjesbo asked what would happen if the PEC tabled the item. Matt Mire, Town Attorney, said that a tabling would be similar to a denial, but he would prefer the PEC to make a motion . and state the reasons for their motion. George Ruther asked the board to comment on Ordinance 7, the Commercial Linkage piece. Ruther asked if the PEC would prefer to have 30% mitigation. Jewitt disagreed because we rely on sales tax. Pierce also disagreed because commercial property has difficulty competing with others. Jewitt said that a county-wide mill levy increase would be the best option and he would like a motion that includes this as an option. Bill Pierce said the concepts are well intended but does not hit the mark. Dick Cleveland said that someone mentioned an economic study and he agrees that this is the best approach. Ordinance Nos. 7, 8, & 9, Series of 2007 Based upon the review of the criteria and findings in Section V of the staff memorandum, dated March 12, 2007, the Planning and Environmental Commission has forwarded a recommendation of denial based upon the following findings: 1. That there is nothing in the ordinances which guarantees that housing will be available for at least 30% of Vail's workforce and will likely result in inequities between the various commercial uses (i.e., retail vs. eating and drinking establishment). 2. That residential linkage is a more appropriate means of assessing an employee housing • generation for residential development than inclusionary zoning. 3. That commercial linkage does not provide equitable mitigation (i.e., <30%) and is inconsistently applied when compared to inclusionary zoning. , 4. That the ordinances do not ensure a balanced community and may promote certain uses over others (i.e., unintended consequences). A linkage requirement instead of inclusionary zoning based on actual employees generated should be used. 5. That the goal, as articulated, creates confusion because it does not make a distinction between affordable housing and employee housing. These two words are used interchangeably in the discussion and need to be separated, or at least identified as two different goals. 6. That there is a lack of understanding and certainty as to what will happen with the pay-in-lieu fees received. A plan for the money should be created before any funds are received. 7. That an inequity will be created between the square footage equivalencies of the ordinances (i.e., 350 sq. ft. & 550 sq. ft.) and the median size of a unit in the formula outfined in Resolution No. 6. 8. That the proposed regulations do not further the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations and are not in the best interest of the welfare of the town. 9. The provisions for credits are great for property owners that have not provided any employee housing (i.e., done nothing) and will not do much for anyone else as credits do nothing for obtaining the Town's goal. 10. That the Town should completed an economic impact study that identifies how the regulations will actually benefit the Town or negatively impact the Town. 11. That the ordinances take a broad approach to addressing the issues (i.e., options for method of mitigation) but does not take a broad approach in how its applied (i.e., the regulations fail to address employee generation requirements for all of the Town's twenty-seven (27) zone districts). • Page 6 i 12. That the Town should consider a mill levy tax and /or sales tax increase to create a dedicated funding source instead of enacting commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning as • proposed. 13. That, in this particular instance, doing nothing is better than doing something. 3. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of three feet within the front setback, located at 805 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0007) Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to March 26, 2007 MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Jewitt VOTE:6-0-0 4. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, located at 805 and 807 Potato Patch Drive, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0008) Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to March 26, 2007 ' MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 i 5. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the ~ renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a request for a final review of variances from Sections 12-71-1-10, Setbacks, 12-71-1-14, Site Coverage, and 12-71-1-15, Landscaping and Site , • Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an , underground parking structure and a staircase within the setbacks, and deviations from the ~ maximum site coverage and minimum landscape area requirements, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0074) Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Geoff Wright Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to March 26, 2007 ' MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 6. Approval of February 26, 2007 minutes MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 6-0-0 7. Information Update 8. Adjournment MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 Development 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 (mpaired, for information. Page 7 ~II L Community Development Department Published March 9, 2007, in the Vail Daily. • II I ~ • Page 8 • • 1890 • PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } - - - THIS fTEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY } SS. PUBUC NOTICE ~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and COUNTY OF EAGLE Environmental Commission oi the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on March 26, 2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same consideration of: Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and A request for a final review of a variance, from Sec[ion 12-61-1-6, Setbecks, and Section 72-14-17, has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and Setback from Watercourse, Vail Town Code, Pur- suant to Chapter 12-77, Variances, to allow for the uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior addition of 1Ky windows, located at 433 Gore breek DrMe/Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village Filing 1, to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0010) Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. Ava~icant:vail Treils Eagt HomeoWne.s Agsocia- tion, represented by John G. Martin. Architect, LLC The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Planner: Bill Gibson Colorado's Home Rule rovision. A request for a final review of a variance, from p Section 12-6C•6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6C-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-77, Variances, to aliow for a residential That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every addition within the setback and in excess of the maximum allowable site coverage, located at 5119 Black Bear Lane/Lot 8, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdi- number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of (Pvision, EC07-) d setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant:Lisa Augusiine, represented by JMP Ar- said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 3/10/2007 and that the last publication of said notice PlanneS:Bill Gibson The applications and information about the propos- was in the issue of said newspaper dated 3/10/2007. als are available for public inspection during oflice hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the In witness whereof has here unto set my hand this 27`h day of March, 2007 Tsite ownioitVail Comf mun ~ DevelopmentDepartment ql Please call 970-479-2138 for additional informa- tion. Sign language interpretation is available upon re- P r/Gen al a er/Editor i quest, with 24-hour notification. Please call g 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Im- ' paired, for information. , I Subscribed and sworn to befare me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this Pub'iShed ^^ar°h s, 2007, in me vail oailY.(212271) 27th day of March, 2007. ~ , Pa a Joan chultz Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2007 PLANNING AND ENVIRONIAENTAt • • COMMISSION I PUBLIC March 26, 2 1911 ' c0°P"' rowN couraL cr+aMeeRS I / PUBLIC WELCOINE ' PROOF OF PUBLICATION MEMBERS PRESENTMEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits; ~ STATE OF COLORADO } 1.Vail Trails East - 433 Gore Creek Drive 2.Censola Residence n 805 and 807 Potato Patch i ~ SS. Drire COUNTY OF EAGLE } °,'o~~~'~ 7.A request for a final review of a variance, trom Section 12-61-1-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-14-17, Seffiack from Watercourse, Vail Town Code, pur- I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same suant to Qhapter 12-17, veiiances, to allow for the addition of bay windows, located at 433 Gore Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and a d setti g forth~details~' 'eg d~thereto' has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and (PEC07-0010) Applicant:Vail Trails East Homeowners Associa- uninterru tedl in said Coun of Ea le for a eriod of more than fif -two consecutive weeks next rior tion, represented by John G. Martin, Archi[ect, ~c p g P p Planner.Bill Gibson to the first ublication of the annexed le al notice or advertisement and that said news a er has "~1ON: p g P P MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. 45m;,,utes The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under afteration2.A requePt for a finai review of a major exterior , ursuant to Section 12-71-1-7, Major Ex- Colorado's Home Rule TOV1S1011. terior Atterations or Modifcations, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a request for a final review of variances from Sections 12-71-1-10, Set- That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was ublished in the re ular and entire issue of eve ~ds, 12-7H-14, Site Coverage, and 12-7H-15, P g ry scaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, pursuaM ro Chapier 12-77, Variances, to number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions• and that the first publication of stallowforan underground parking structure and a ~ aircase within the setbacks, and deviations from the maximum site coverage and minimum land- scape area requirements, located at 610 West Li- said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 3/23/2007 and that the last publication of said notice onshead Circle/Lot 7, Block 1, (PE Vail Lionshead Fil- I ing 3, CO6-and0074) ` setting'forth detaiis in regard thereto. ' was in the issue of said newspaper dated 3/23/2007. Applicant:Landmark Condominium Association I Inc.. ~ ey Georr wdgn, Plarner.8il1 G~LSai AC710N: In wifiess whereof has here unto set my hand this 27`" day of March, 2007 j 1i1OTON-~~~VOTE: 10 minu[eg f~ 3.A request for a tinal review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant ro Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for Pub er General a e2'~(IItOT a retaining wall in excess of three feet within the front sethack, located at 805 Potato Patch Drive/LOt 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this c,?ECm-0oo~~ ~ 27th day of March, 2007. Pamela Joan ch z , Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2007 ~ I , t ' ~ • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING . j Aprii 9, 2007 ~~pp~r, • 1:00pm i TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT , Dick Cleveland Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo ' Michael Kurz Bill Pierce David Viele Site Visits: None Driver: None 1. Swearing in of new PEC members by Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk, and appointment of Chair and Vice-Chair ACTION: Chair Jewitt MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 7-0-0 • ACTION: Vice-Chair Cleveland MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 7-0-0 30 minutes 2. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of an entry feature, located at 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus), part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0012) ' Applicant: Vail Estates, represented by Paul Smith Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 6-0-1 (Gunion recused) 1. The applicant must obtain and execute an encroachment agreement, or similar agreement as deemed appropriate by the Town Attorney, for the entry feature prior to appfication for a building permit. 2. The applicant shall not install or construct any landscape plantings, pavers, benches, or other similar improvements within the Slifer Plaza landscape planters. Instead, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall pay a fee up to $5,000 to the Town of Vail for the cost of landscape planter improvements to be designed and installed by the Town of Vail. Bill Gibson gave a presentation of the proposal and the staff memorandum. Paul Smith, representing the applicant, detailed several situations where ice and snow have ~ fallen from the roof above their entry. Page 1 Dick Cleveland suggested that the $3,000 fee being assessed for landscaping improvements may not be adequate to cover the costs of the landscaping. He suggested the fee offset the Town's costs up to $5,000. • There was no public comment. The Commissioners expressed support for the application with the changes to the landscaping fee requirement. 30 minutes 3. A recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to a Special Development District (SDD), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to allow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0017) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planners: Bill Gibson ACTION: Recommendation of approval with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 7-0-0 CONDITIONS: 1. The following uses shall be permitted in Development Area E(i.e. Tract K) of Special Development District #4, Cascade Village: 1. Bicycle and pedestrian paths. 2. Interpretive nature walks. 3. Nature preserves. 4. Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces. . 2. The following conditional uses shall be allowed in Development Area E(i.e. Tract K) of Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: 1. Public parks. 2. Public utility and public service uses. 3. Access roads. 4. Ski lifts and tows. 5. Ski trails. 6. Snowmaking facilities. 7. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted and conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. Bill Gibson presented and overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. Bill Jewitt asked several questions concerning the use of ski ways and trails on Tract K. Bill Gibson clarified that these issue should be addressed as part of a conditional use permit application request instead of this proposed amendment to the SDD. Dick Cleveland asked what the definition of an access road was in the Code. Bill Gibson clarified that there is currently no definition for access road. Tom Miller, representing the applicant, made himself available for questions. • Page 2 ~ No public comment. • The Commissioners were generally happy that the issues with the neighbors have been resolved and that snowcat traffic will be removed from West Forest Road. 20 minutes 4. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0015) Applicant: Doug Weltner, represented by Scott Turnipseed Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 4-3-0 (Pierce, Jewitt, and Cleveland opposed) CONDITION(S) 1. The applicant shall replace all trees removed by the construction of the structure and the associated driveway on Lot 1 as depicted on the tree survey attached to the memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, dated April 9, 2007, labeled Attachment C, identifying all aspens on the lot that are at least 3 inches in caliper. The trees shall be replaced one- for-one with the same caliper of tree as those removed. The landscaping plan provided in conjunction with the design review application shall depict this replacement requirement. Warren Campbell presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. • The applicant's representative, Brennen Fitzgerald with Scott Turnipseed, Architects, presented an overview of the request. Art Alblennalp, representing adjacent property owner located at Lot 3, Lia Zniemer, summarized the concerns and objections found in the letter he submitted which was attached to the staff memorandum (tree removal, retaining wall design, movement of the home toward the Town's open space, etc.) There was no further public comment. Anne Gunion stated that she was not sure enough information had been submitted by the applicant to determine the impact to the existing vegetation on the site. She reviewed the applicant's compliance with the criteria outlined in the staff memorandum. She was concerned about the applicanYs compliance with criteria numbers 7 and 8(character of the neighborhood & impacts to the natural environment). She believes that while the proposal impacts the trees and the environment, an adequate landscape plan could off-set that impact. Bill Pierce noted his concern about the removal of additional trees from the site. He noted that the previous envelope was intentionally designed to preserve the existing trees. He also noted his concern about the house being located even further up the hillside, thus increasing the impact on the site. David Viele has no problem supporting this request, with a condition that the final landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. • Page 3 Rollie Kjesbo echoed Viele's comments. He suggested that all removed trees be replaced with I the same number of trees. Dick Cleveland had a fundamental problem in that the original development plan did not allow • envelopes to be moved more than 15 feet and he believed it was an error to approve the previous envelope change. He was more concerned about the design of the retaining walls than the tree removal, and he would have liked more information. Michael Kurz believed the submitted plans were adequate and prudent. Rollie Kjesbo asked Warren Campbell to clarify that the adjacent owners do not have to give their approval of this request. Warren Campbell explained that there is no Home Owners Association and thus no sign-off required by the neighboring properties in the subdivision. Dick Cleveland suggested that this application should be for a change to the development plan to allow for deviations greater than 15 feet from the original building envelope, rather than the review of a subdivision application. Bill Jewitt generally agreed with Viele and Kjesbo, but he agreed with Cleveland that this envelope should not move more than 15 as stated in the original development plans. Rollie Kjesbo asked Warren Campbell to clarify how other lots had modified their building envelopes. Warren explained that no other lot in the subdivision had requested to shift their envelope more • than 15 feet. Both Lots 5 and 6 have shifted their envelopes in compliance with the adopted development plan. 20 minutes 5. A request for a work session to review the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code (Hillside Residential District), to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0013) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to May 14, 2007 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 Warren Campbell presented an overview of items number 5 and 6 and the staff memorandums. The applicant's representatives Dave Kaselak, Zehren and Associates, and Patrick Fortner, of Fritzlen Pierce Architects, presented an overview of the proposal. Bill Jewitt, asked why this was being proposed, other than just for additional square footage. Dave Kaselak noted that originally there was great concern about how the subdivision would visually appear, in terms of bulk and mass associated with GRAF, when it was first approved. Now that the neighborhood has matured those fears have been addressed. • Page 4 Rollie Kjesbo asked Warren Campbell to clarify that site coverage maximum allowable is now 20% in many of the residential zone districts regardless of the percent slope on residential lots. ~ He also asked Warren Campbell to clarify whether or not the construction of EHUs could further increase the amount of allowable site coverage. Warren Campbell explained that the Hazard Regulations had been amended to allow a maximum of 20% site coverage on lots with a limitation of 60% site disturbance. The types of EHUs that could be applied for and constructed within Spraddle Creek Estates did not include site coverage increases. Dave Kaselak noted that the Spraddle Creek Homeowners are concerned about site disturbance and are therefore not requesting the full amount of site coverage allowed by the underlying zoning. For this reason they are not proposing to increase the building envelope sizes. Warren Campbell noted that the original site coverage allowance prevented single-story houses. Those concerns are now addressed by the current home designs and both the HOA's and Town's design review standards. Bill Jewitt questioned what disturbance ratio would be appropriate for these large lots as 60% of the existing lots would be quite large. Anne Gunion asked Warren Campbell to clarify that no disturbance is allowed outside the building envelopes (with the exception of driveways and landscaping). She also clarified that no changes to the building envelopes are being proposed at this time. Warren Campbell clarified that disturbance outside the building envelopes was permitted, but • that all improvements except for landscaping, retaining walls, sidewalks, and driveways had to occur within the platted building envelope. Bill Pierce clarified that the newer definitions of GRFA will apply to these lots, even though the current platted allowable GRFA is based upon the old calculation methods. Bill Jewitt noted his support for an increase of site coverage from 15% to 20%, but only if site disturbance is somehow limited. Bill Pierce summarized that the applicants need to propose a site disturbance limit ratio or formula. Bill Pierce suggested adding an employee housing requirement to this request. Bill Jewitt questioned the Commission's authority to do so. Warren Campbell noted that the HOA is still requesting less development potential than is allowed by zoning and that the new ordinances require employee housing mitigation did not apply to the Hillside Residential zone district. Bill Jewitt summarized that there was a general consensus among the commissioners that the proposed changes in site coverage were supportable with the condition that site disturbance somehow be limited. It was suggested that some sort of plat not be added to the plat. Rollie Kjesbo suggested that GRFA increases be granted to offset changes in the GRFA definitions, similar to other plat restricted properties in Town. • Page 5 , Dick Cleveland voiced the need for equity in applying the GRFA regulations and agreed with Rollie's suggestion. He noted that Spraddle Creek is a critical hillside that still needs to be more restrictive than the zoning. • Dave Kaselak noted that the original allowances were an act of prudence, which are no longer necessary. Bill Pierce questioned the proposed unequal distribution by the HOA of the additional requested GRFA. Dick Cleveland suggested a plat note stating that the amendments to the building envelopes require PEC approval. Anne Gunion suggested a site visit to see if the subdivision can handle additional GRFA. Bill Pierce suggested further description of the proposed site coverage and GRFA. David Viele agreed with Dick that it was an equity issue, but they are not necessarily entitled to the GRFA they negotiated away in 1991. Rollie Kjesbo and Michael Kurz agreed. There was no public comment. 20 minutes 6. A request for a work session to review an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted gross • residential floor area and site coverage limitations, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0014) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to May 14, 2007 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 This item was reviewed concurrently with item #5. 7. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6C-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a residential addition within the setback and in excess of the maximum allowable site coverage, located at 5119 Black Bear Lane/Lot 8, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0011) Applicant: Lisa Augustine, represented by JMP Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Withdrawn 8. Approval of March 26, 2007 minutes MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Pierce VOTE: 5-0-2 (Viele and Gunion abstained) . Page 6 . 9. Information Update • Bill Pierce suggested the PEC expand its "Environmental" role. 10. Adjournment MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 Development 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 • • Page 7 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 9, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of an entry feature, located at 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus), part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0012) Applicant: Vail Estates, represented by Paul Smith Planner: Bill Gibson I. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Estates, represented by Paul Smith, is requesting a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of an entry feature, located at 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus), part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard • thereto. The applicant is requesting variations to the setback and site coverage standards of the Public Accommodation District, pursuant to Sections 12-7A6 and 12-7A-9, Vail Town Code as part of this major exterior alteration request. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, subject to the findings noted in Sections VIII of this memorandum. 11. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST , The applicant, Vail Estates, represented by Paul Smith is requesting a final review of an "exterior alteration or modification" in accordance with Section 12-7A-12 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive. As part of this review, the applicant is requesting a variation from the setback standards of the Public Accommodation District in accordance with Section 12-7A-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code. The proposed new entry feature will be located on the west side of the Mountain Haus building adjacent to Slifer Plaza. The proposed entry feature will cover an existing entrance to the Vail Estate's tenant space which is located north of the existing west common entrance to the Mountain Haus. The proposed new entry feature will be timber framed with a gable roof, copper shingles, and timber and stone support columns to match the existing north and west common entrances to the building. The proposed roof form will extend 5'h feet from the face of the existing building and will be 13 feet wide to cover the existing • 1 i stairway to the Vail Estate's tenant space. The applicant is proposing to construct this entry ~ feature, in part, to protect the existing entrance from snow and ice shedding from the top roof of the building. The applicant has communicated to Staff that there have been multiple "near misses" where individuals using their existing entrance have only closely avoided being hit by large amounts of falling snow and ice. The proposed entry feature will also enhance the aesthetic quality of the existing entrance to the Vail Estate's tenant space to the same standard as the other existing building entrances. The Mountain Haus was originalfy constructed prior to the Town of Vail's adoption of zoning regulations and has since been zoned Public Accommodation (PA) District. The Mountain Haus is therefore legally non-conforming in regard to many of today's development standards prescribed by the Public Accommodation District including minimum lot size, setbacks, site coverage, landscape area, etc. The Mounfain Haus was originally constructed at, or beyond, its property boundaries. The existing Vail Estate's tenant space presently extends one-foot across the property boundary and the entire existing entry stairway is located on Town of Vail owned property. The proposed entry feature roof creates an addition 20 sq. ft. of site coverage, all of which is located off-site on Town of Vai( owned property. Ifl. BACKGROUND The Mountain Haus property was a part of the original Town of Vail established in 1966. The Mountain Haus building was originally constructed in 1970, prior to the Town's adoption of comprehensive zoning in 1973. • There have been only two exterior renovations of significance since the original construction of the Mountain Haus. In 1998, the Town of Vail approved the construction of the existing west entry feature for the building. A significant portion of this entrance is located on Town of Vail owned property (i.e. Slifer Plaza). In 2002, the Town of Vail approved the existing north entry feature which is also lacated primarily on Town of Vail owned property (i.e. East Meadow Drive right-of-way). On September 20, 2005, the Town Council, as the property owner of Slifer Plaza, granted the applicant permission. to praceed through the Town's development review process with applications to construct this proposed new entry feature. However, the Town Council did not grant the applicant permission to construct improvements to the existing landscape planters. Several Council members expressed their dissatisfaction when it was discovered on the site visit that each of the large coniferous trees located in the Slifer Plaza landscape planter adjacent to the Vai1 Estates tenant space had been limbed without Town of Vail permission. Pursuant to Section 12-7A-14, Mitigation of Development Impacts, Vail Town Code, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for mitigation direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure". Staff believes the Slifer Plaza landscape planters are in need of improvement due to the unauthorized limbing of the existing trees and the applicanYs proposal to construct a new entry feature. The Town of Vail assesses a fee of $10 per sq. ft. of landscape area to private developers for the design and insta!lation of ' landscape improvements associated with the mitigation of development impacts. Based • 2 • upon a portion of the area of the Slifer Plaza adjacent to the Vail Estates' tenant space, Staff is recommending the applicant be charged an assessment of $3,000 to off-set the impacts of their development on the public infrastructure. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zonina Requlations (Title 12 Vail Town Code) Since the Mountain Haus was lawfully constructed prior to the Town of Vail's adoption of comprehensive zoning, the existing structure is nonconforming in regard to many of the Town's current development standards. The regulations of Chapter 12-18, Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements, Vai! Town Code, address the use, expansion, and continuance of nonconforming structures such as the Mountain Haus. The purpose of these regulations is stated in Section 12-18-1 (Purpose), Vail Town Code: ~ "This Chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses and structures by prohibiting or limiting their enlargement, their reestablishment after abandonment, and their restoration after substantial destruction. While permitting nonconforming uses, structures, and improvements to continue, this Chapter is intended to limit enlargemenr, alteration, restoration, or replacement which wou/d increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the development standards prescribed by this Title. " Section 12-18-5, Structures and Site Improvements, Vail Town Code, states the following: • "Structures and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof which do not conform to the deve/opment standards prescribed by this Tif/e for the district in which they are situated may be continued. Such structures or site improvements may be enlarged only in accordance with the following Irmitations: A. LotAnd Structure Requirements: Structures orsife improvements which do not conform to requirements for setbacks, distances between buildings, height, building bulk control, or site coverage, may be enlarged; provided, that the enlargement does not further increase the discrepancy between the total structure and applicable building bulk control or site coverage standards; and provided that the addition fully conforms with setbacks, distances between buildings, and height standards applicable fo the addition.... D. Off-Street Parking And Loading: Structures orsite improvements which do not conform to the off-street parking and loading requirements of this Title may be enlarged; provided, that the parking and loading requirements for such addition shall be fully satisfied and that the discrepancy between the existing off-street parking and loading facilities and the standards prescribed by this Title shall not be increased." • 3 Staff believes that this proposal conforms to the intent and requirements of these regulations • and is an allowable alteration to an existing legally nonconforming structure. This proposal does not increase the amount of site coverage on the Mountain Haus property and if approved, this proposal will conform to the setback requirements of the Public Accommodation District. After review of this proposal and the regulations of the Town Code, Staff has made a determination that this proposal meets the definition of a"major exterior alteration or modification" due to the proposal's "substantial off-site impacts". Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, states the following: , "Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 11 of this Title. However, any project which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, any project which adds more than one thousand (1, 000) square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off-site impacts (as determined by the Administrator) shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance with this Chapter and Section 12-3-6 of this Title. " Due to the nature of the work involved and the substantial off-site impacts associated with this proposal, Staff has determined that this proposal requires Planning and Environmental Commission approval as a"major exterior alteration or modification." Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, defines a substantial off-site impact as follows: "SUBSTANTIAL OFF-SITE IMPACT: An, impact resulting from development or • redeve/opment on the surrounding neighborhood and public facilities in the vicinity of a development or redeve/opment site having a considerab/e amount of effect upon the area. For example, substantial off-site impacts may include, but are noi limited to, the following: deed restricted emp/oyee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements." The regulations of the Public Accommodation District are unique in that they grant the Planning and Environmental Commission the discretion to approve variations to the setback standards during the review of an "exterior alteration or modification" without a variance. Section 12-7A-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, states the following: `7n the PA District, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20'), and the minimum rearsetback shall be twenty feet (20). At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or the Design Review Board, variations to the setback standards outlined above may be approved during the review of exterior alternafions or modifications (Section 12- 7A-12 of this Article) subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria: A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. • 4 . B. Proposed building setbacks comply with applicable e/ements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. C. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. D. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. E. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. " The regulations of the Public Accommodation District are also unique in that they grant the Planning and Environmenta! Commission the discretion to approve variations to the site coverage standards during the review of an "exterior alteration or modification" without a variance. Section 12-7A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, states the following: "Site coverage shall not exceed sixty five percent (659,o) of the total site area. Final determination of allowable site coverage shall be made by the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board in accordance with section 12-7A-12 of this article. Specifically, in deferminrng allowable site coverage the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board shafl make a finding that proposed site coverage rs in conformance with applicab/e elements of the Vai! Village urban design guide plan and design considerations." V. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING • Land Use Zoninq North: Parking Structure General Use South: Gore Creek Outdoor Recreation East: Mixed Use Pub(ic Accommodation West: Public Plaza Outdoor Recreation VI. SITE ANALYSIS Legal Description: Part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1 Zoning: Public Accommodation (PA) District Land Use Plan Designation: Village Master Plan Current Land Use: Mixed Use Lot Size: 21,610 sq. ft. (0.496 acres) Development Standard Allowed/Required Existinq Proaosed Setbacks: Front: 20 ft.* 0 ft. No Change West Side: 20 ft.* 0 ft. No Change East Side: 20 ft.* 0 ft. No Change Rear: 20 ft." 0 ft. No Change Site Coverage: 14,047 sq.ft. (65%) 18,436 sq.ft. (85%)** 18,456 sq.ft. (85%)'*` *(Refer to Section 12-7A-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, for exceptions.) *`(Includes 527 sq. ft. off-site for the north entry roof) ***(Includes the proposed 20 sq.ft. off-site for new west entry roof) ~ 5 VII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS • A. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before approving an exterior alteration or modification, which includes a request for variations to the setback standards: 1. That the proposal is in compliance with the purpose of the Public Accommodation District. Staff response: Section 12-7A-1, Vail Town Code, identifies the purpose of the Public Accommodation District as follows: This Chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses and structures by prohibiting or limiting their enlargement, their reestablishment after abandonment, and their restoration after substantial destruction. While permitting nonconforming uses, structures, and improvements to continue, this Chapter is intended to limit enlargement, alteration, restoration, or replacement which would increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the development standards prescribed by ihis Title. The proposed entry feature will improve the desired resort quality of the Mountain Haus. The remodel improves the quality and aesthetic appearance at this location without interfering with the light, air and open space enjoyed by surrounding buildings and uses. 2. That the proposal is consistent with the applicable elements of the Vail Village • Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines and the Vail Streetscape Master Plan. Staff response: Vail Village Master Plan: The goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. Each major goal focuses on a particular aspect of the Village community. "Goal 1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain a sense of community and identity. " This proposal involves design details similar in architectural scale and identity as those existing on the north and west sides of the Mountain Haus building. "Goa12 To foster a tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole." The proposed new entry feature may enhance the economic vitality of the Mountain Haus, and will improve the aesthetics, functionality, and safety of the existing building entrance. 6 . "Goa13 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. " As discussed in Goal 2 above, this proposal will improve the aesthetics, functionality, and safety for pedestrians. "Goal 4 To preserve exisiing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. " This proposal will not affect any open space or green space areas. "Goal 5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village." This proposal will not affect the transportation and circulation system of the Village. "Goal6 To ensure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village." This proposal will not affect the vital operational elements of the Village. Vail Villaqe Urban Desian Guidelines: Staff believes the design of the proposed front entry feature does conform to the intent and recommendations of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The proposed entry feature is consistent with the • design guide plan's recommendation for the following: • gabled roof forms are recommended • roofs should have a pitch between 3/12 and 6/12 • roofs should be constructed to address snowslides onto pedestrian ways • roof overhangs should be from 3 to 6 feet from the edge of building . for a single building, a composition of roof forms is preferred to a single roof Streetscape Master Plan: The Streetscape Master Plan does not include specific recommendations for this portion of Slifer Plaza. Vail Land Use Plan: Goal 1. i Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environmeni, maintaining a balancQ between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent residence. Goal 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. Goal4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarrly in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. • 7 Goal 4.3 The ambience of the Village is rmportant to the identity of Vail ~ and should be preserved (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality). The applicant's proposal for the remodel of its entry reflects a high quality redevelopment proposal that should enhance the viability and aesthetics of the Mountain Haus without adversely impacting other commercial and residential uses in the vicinity of the project. This proposal is in harmony with Goals 1.1 and 1.3. This proposal is a(so in harmony with Goals 4.1 and 4.3. Goal 4.1 states in part, that "future commercial development in the core needs to be carefully confrolled to facilitate access and delivery." This proposal is intended to improve pedestrian access to the Mountain Haus. 3. That the proposal substantially complies with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Staff response: Staff believes this proposal substantially complies with the elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Refer to item 2 above. 4. That the proposal does not otherwise have significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. Staff response: Staff recommends ihe Planning and Environmental Commission approve a condition requiring the applicant to pay a fee of $3,000 to the Town of Vail ~ for the design and installation of improvements to the Slifer Plaza landscape planters to off-set the impacts of this proposed development to adjacent properties and the character of the public plaza. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the foliowing findings before granting a variation to the setback standards as part an exterior aiteration or modification: 1. That the proposal provides necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. Staff response: The proposed entry feature is located adjacent to a public plaza and provides adequate separation between buildings. The proposed entry feature does not affect any geologically or environmentally sensitive areas. 2. That the proposal complies with applicable elements of the Vaii Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. Staff response: Staff believes the proposal meets the applicable elements of plan as described further in this Section of this memorandum. 3. That the proposal will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. ~ 8 i Staff response: The proposed entry feature is located adjacent to a public plaza and provides adequate light, air, and open space. 4. That the proposal will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. Staff response: The proposed entry feature is located adjacent to a public plaza and will not adversely affect other buildings in the vicinity. Staff believes that similar to the other existing west Mountain Haus entry located in Slifer Plaza, this proposal will not have a significant negative affect on the adjacent public plaza. 5. That the proposal will result in creative design sotutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. Staff response: Due to the location of the existing building, there is no alternative to I consiruci a covering over the entrance to the Vail Estates tenant space without an I encroachment into the setbacks or adjacent properties. C. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the foliowing findings before granting a variation to the site coverage standards as part an exterior alteration or modification: • 1. That the proposed site coverage is in contormance with the applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. Staff response: The Mountain Haus is not subject to the requirements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations; however, Staff believes the proposal meets the applicable elements of plan as described further in this Section of this memorandum. VII(. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, the request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of an entry feature, located at 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus), part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicanYs request for a major exterior alteration, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of the requested exterior alteration or modification subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposal is in compliance with the purpose of the Public Accommodation District, based upon Section Vll of the Staff's Apri19, 2007, memorandum to the ~ Planning and Environmental Commission. 9 2. Thaf the proposal is consisteni with the applicable elements of the Vail Village ~ Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines and the Vail Streetscape Master Plan, based upon Section V/l of the Staff's Apri19, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission. 3. That the proposal substantially complies with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, based upon Section Vll of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission. 4. That the proposal does not otherwise have significant negative effeet on the character of the neighborhood, based upon Section V/l of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to rhe Planning and Environmental Commission. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's request for a major exterior alteration, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed variations to the setback standards of the Public Accommodation District as part of an exterior alteration or modification subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposal provides necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geo/ogically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas, based upon Section Vll of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission. 2. That the proposal complies with applicab/e elements of the Vail Village Urban Design . Guide Plan and Design Considerations, based upon Section Vll of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission. 3. That the proposal will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space, based upon Section Vll of the Statf's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission. 4. That the proposal will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties, based upon Section V/l of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission. 5. That the proposa/ will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards, based upon Section VII of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's request for a major exterior alteration, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed variations ta the site coverage standards of the Public Accommodation District as part of an exterior alteration or modification subject to the following findings: i 10 i "That the proposed site coverage is in conformance with the applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations, based upon Section Vll of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmenta/ Commission." Should the PEC choose to approve this request for an exterior alteration or modification, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain and execute an encroachment agreement, or similar agreement as deemed appropriate by the Town Attorney, for the entry feature prror to application for a building permit. 2. Theapplicantshallnotinstallorconstructanylandscapeplantings,pavers,benches, or other similar improvements within the Slifer Plaza landscape planters. Instead, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall be a fee of $3,000 to the Town of Vail for landscape planter improvements to be designed and installed by the Town of Vail. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Requesf C. Existing Architectural Plans and Photos D. Architectural Plans • E. Public Hearing Notice • 11 Attachment A • F r,' I „ ` ' ~ E~ e. • 1 • ~ .r . V 1f I ~ r e ~ ~ ~ ~r H~.~ . , ~ r~ I , a~ ~ ~ :o a~ + '~a: Y + ~ ~ ; ~ ~ r , ~ ~t ~y ~ ~ ¦ 0 CL ~..w ~ - rn . . ~p_ . , ~ < to ~ o m Y i ~ ~ Y 0 y. 11 ~i ~ ~ ~`1 1 =y ! r S i v O Y` YJS ~ ~ K Ay ~ . • ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,r a ! iy tr ~~a ~ _ , . S^? ~~';!1 . y~~r~ • .,I! 5•~ r~ ~ y ' II~ `4 1 Attachme nt B ~ ¦ 0/a 1L 6talted Luxury Real Estate & Rentals Joseph Shannon, LLC P.O. Box 3462 Vail, Co. 81658 March 13, 2007 To: TQV Comrnunity Development From: Paul Smith Re: Sign, Awning, and Landscape Application @ Mtn. Haus Gentlemen, Please see attached pictures. , Our request to construct a wooden awning to match the existing west entrance to the Mountain Haus is as follows. First and foremost there is a public safety issue. In 1998 Mr. Bradway, owner at the time, never finished the approved entrance project. What remains is a landing where as ice chanks fall directly from above six stories. There is no . protection from above. There is no real soffit near the roof to prevent ice and water from falling on the steps and lauding. Landscaping is unfinished. Signage is distant from the entrance and less than what code provides for. The Mtn Haus HOA approved an awning that matches existing construction to mitigate potential liability and for building esthetics. A cloth awning was voted down as it would not support falling snow and not match the "Tyrolean Village motif' of beams and stone work that already exists. Secondly, as an owner I wish to irnprove our properties curb appeal, safety, and value. As per my discussion with Bill Gibsott, signage has been a real issue. The Mtn. Haus HOA has approved our sign request. We are eager to work with the TOV on the landscaping aspect of this proposal, design, cost, installation. In short we believe, to the benefit of all, that this northeast corner of Slifer Plaza can be finished to be as attractive as its near by surroundings. Sincerely, CaA4,t Paul Smith Owner - CEO • ~~a.f~W, bz, ffiP di?- a~~ ~',~~.CCa~e www.VailEstates.com 292 East Meadow Dr., Suite 101 • Vail, Colorado 81657 • 970-845-1117 • 970-845-0850 fax Attachment C ~ i'~ ~~zY''ct~7~ } u ~7 p g [ ~ 3~ ~4{ 5 ' i ~ ~l-•'`"Y'i- - ~ ~n i~-, • O~. ; ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 'r•6V~ i~'dp~ ~y ~ ` Il~ " tn ~ n'' ~;~j l c3aR ~ 9 °~/l!; / ~ L,': / i " 'y'ryil J . c N ~ • m t. ~ ~ ~ °'m• ; ~1 /?i°~~ ~ ' ~t°':F I , ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ! ~ / , I j'` _ ~ i~~ I . R 8 a: ~n r \ ~ L_ IV , •s ~ a F~' % , ~ 'i ~ ~ ` R' • ~"i i ~A ~ r { ~l't+' - - _ _ ' \~e f ~ C~ D ~ D D A CD o ~ Y O ,~~~.lg YYl~ ' ~ + e S e~i f ~'oDio 0-~vm~ mZ~sc°~ "o om oo~~ , zn~D7, g ~ 3k ~r?Z~ jgx~ ie e@eQeeek i o ro mN ~ C D DD =S ~ 4[sc~ sz~nFF ~ ' ° 0 Fo h So i3'~e r~~s:e ~ Am ~ Ft mz W S3 A ~r.J .5 F5I L I .iz' 'a~_• 3eSF~ q R Fk5~~ G m Z ~ .~~3'ys~e~• f£F~' ir~a ~ • I z3G5 w ~.'!d;~~` Z 5~~~~ ~ ! ~ nrrnwEOernie ¢ £ ~ rowrioFVat r P. PLANNMDAND ENVIHONMENfAL COMlAIWX1 _ i PIAN~fi: b.?. m~. D ni I m KC ~ C _ pm ; . 0 _ z ~ ~ ' ~ 'vu, i F. ( ~I _ 4 . 8-1 U ~ (Y~1 \ ~~r• ~ ._Z.., pi~l . I 1=~ , ~ ~ -nt yE-! y_ 1~ y z. - = ~ ; _ ~i•_ ~ , ~ ~ : ~ •-i'~ ° , a~~ / , ~ 1. -----J~- ~ • ,b~~~~` =ii F IE u v• . • ~ ts i ~ ml ~ ~ {i ~ d U ~ 1r ~ U ` : i.. ~ ~ d ? ~ ± ' , { i -~j+ ? ~ j , : - - , L7 CI i d ~ , • _ . ~ C~ ~7~'..,-----T--~.._~___._ ? L . j ~ . . ' ~ • ~ - - - - - - • f r ; I - ' _ r--. S°a<`£ lji 2 aao'~• ~.C'a " ^or E . , • i m~ 54 a 3 I ~~~g ~ m~~ ~'~<y`3~ sK • 4~ ~2t ~u^os~ ~3a ' APPROVEO A~'HE ~ s • ~ ^ ~ ~ TOWN OF Vp~. APPqOVED BY THE PtANNINQ AND " Tq~NN OF VAIL EPNlROtJMF~+lTAL COA9MISSION DESIEN REV1~1N BOARD DATE: FiI/Oa . g:F ~!'tt a f~--'1 v.4' 6- a~ ~ gp e e~ .s Q+ DATE pLqWNER: C-y~R. PLANNER C FS ~ ~ ~ BRADWAY TENANCY -e ~ = F" ' ~ THE MOUNTAIN HAUS, VAIL. 4•yY„!t l . . ~~9A~ ~i Y~ r~t...J,•r J , • . J' y~ ~.~~51MF j . ~ i ~ ~ ~ . . . ~•a.,,, . ~ - r - . 1 . ^ . . . , r.. -'r'+' , y i ~2` ~"`J . : . % ~ ! ~j., ,yy ~ d (e . ~i~~}~ tl(~ i° R~ ~T'1 a ~ .1 ~ dk11 a , e'~~ .K V Y . 4 w. a~ F• v,, , i~ " .rr i , ~ i. tfi ..y^ W"". 1 H ? ~ ~ . . . k ? , ~ ~ ~ ~ ' S ( ~',~K~'[~.~ r+~~ ~/r ii,\ K ~~.~..~y~~~•~ i~( S +w'c:~~+~-~~`.d~?,~,~~~'/'"~`~S~ 7. ~ ' ~ ' ~a" 4, ? •r; _ ~ N.~ f ~ i ~r r~ii ~ • ` ~ * ~ 1 * `if'.. ~ t! > ~ yF ~ p '~'1~' ' W I ~ ~ , • . ~ Attachment D .9 . j r~ ~/~f~ ~ . f~ .~p_ ~ /a b .1 ~ - rn V r r 7a S Z ~ ~ ~ . .........'~.~r"'y~"S"1~w+"t~wr~~"~r,3~'.ir~.r.sh.r:Yrl q+ ~ t ~ 4 { e . ~ ~ .J ~LF ~ . s AU N j f Y ,T~ . c G+ ti- . ,d ~ ~ , ` ,;4 . , . . , . ; . • P . . ~ • ~ ~k ~ l P•a ,y . ~.:i r , y:a~ ~ ~ : z . ...s. ~r '4 P~ ' 7 G ~ `ER ? tJ kry- /^T1.~~~f fR~L~. ~ . ~ ~ ~ i ~ M l :+ri ~ i i .T t i u 'TI~ .a ~ 4 M i . g + tp r . y : F i ~tl# ~ a a & -e y; i v 4 t t~~+ "G e ¢ r z t n r ~ ~*f~ ,.t ~OS:I.~ r. '`w`i~ r'3` y' 'itr dF~~',9~ i. 5 ~ 'fJ~~r .}y ~ kyy~f'S r7 ~ :..R^ti ,~,~tf i;.•t 3t .a v ,r i.;, h , o . t ~.^y'~t ~e s x ~ c ~..'^y 4 ~L• w ~t ~s ~ ~ c k z, ~v . W_ F r,x, p R z C . t t,~,tm rt xk i A"F ~l~ x .rNk^l ~'k5~r „c'~-.'k~~' * y~ . . rz l' R R d) I m n' E . a ~°t 1 fi'~ r r~ '^f thf r ~ ~4i t r. Y `y I 5 Y 1. ? ^n . < ~ 'e ~ ' ~ 1 4 t .h ~ 1} ~ ~ ~ L 4 • . A • { 4 s ~ t'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B ~ ` e ~ ~ • + i L ~ r ~~•.g~~ , . . + E f l t , . . _ .~e . :~•r ~~tkl. r.'`~`~`~ ~ . , ' . • PRM6CENAYIA PRQ79CE NO: M311 Joseph Shannon, LLC Mouatain Haua naAwwamra ~ Pefilel Slte PIBII LSSUBDAR m.u.as SCALM I , . ~ ~ ~ A ~ • -D r ~ 0 ~ - O ~ - ~ r ~ j- ) ViIA., ~ ' N • ` ? ? ? ? ? ? ~L~-(\ ? ~ K I T.1 ~ I I ~ ~ D ? ? ° ? ? ? ? g A~ 3 ' < " A s - - m i 7~ g C ~ 3 ~ pRWBCI'NO: td3/1 rmShannon, IYC Havs Floor Plan usuanAtc oa.~.~ 1 , rAM5t i- ` t~ ~ L ~ < ---1--~ ' --i ; E , z, u:c:si5, C~ ' ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ • ~ , ~.1/i~ a ds k , ; r ~ 1 ~ ] ~ • ~a ~ - i A. _j-~L _ _ . - , _-,-~11 ! _l_~_ r CP ~ U, - - - m ' - I - - - - tt ~ - - ~f ~ - ~ F 1'ROIeCI'NAM@ PRO/NCTNR M511 Flil, 7oscph Shmmon, LLC Mounlein Haus Imnwura rmA: FrontElevnlion r Attachment: E • TOWN OF YAIL ~ THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY G1VEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on, April 9, 2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant fo Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, fo allow for the addition of an entry feature, located at 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus), part of Tract B, Vail Village ~j'y~t Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0012) Appficant: Vail Estates, represented by Pau! Smith Pfanner: Biil Gibson A request for final review of the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3- 7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0013) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave 01 Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vai! Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted gross residential floor area and site coverage limitations, located at 914 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0014) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell - A request for a final review of an amended firial plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0015) Applicant: Doug Weltner Planner: Warren Campbell . • Page 1 • A recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to a Special Development District (SDD), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, ' Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to allow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0017) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planners: Bill Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 970-479-2138 for additional information. a Y I~,` Sign language inferpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. a. t Published March 23, 2007, in the Vail Daily. ' • • Page 2 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 9, 2007 SUBJECT: A recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to a Special Development District (SDD), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Special Development District No.4, Cascade Village, to allow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Bill Gibson 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson, is requesting a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village (SDD #4), to allow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria in Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the • Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Vail Town Council of the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. ' II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson, is requesting a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village (SDD #4), to designate Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, as a new "development area" (i.e. Development Area E) within SDD #4. The primary purpose for this application is to designate Tract K as a separate development area to facilitate the construction of a new snowcat access road generally located south of the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) and former gas station sites (846 West Forest Road and 934 South Frontage Road) to the Cascade Way trail (formerly known as the Westin Ho trail). ' Tract K is currently designated as part of the "Dedicated Open Space" area of SDD #4. The provisions of SDD #4 have not, and do not, include any approved development plan nor any established development parameters for the Dedicated Open Space areas (including Tract K). SDD #4 does not designate any permitted uses, conditional uses, or accessory uses for the Dedicated Open Space. While the primary purpose for this application is to designate Tract K as a separate development area to facilitate the construction of a new snowcat access road, another purpose for this proposed major amendment is to establish a list of allowable land uses for Tract K. • 1 The applicanYs proposed permitted uses for Tract K are similar to those within the Open Space • and Recreation Districts established by Chapter 12-8, Vail Town Code (e.g. Agriculture and Open Space, Outdoor Recreation, Natural Area Preservation, Ski Base Recreation, and Ski Base Recreation 2 Districts). The applicant has proposed that the following land uses be permitted within Development Area E(i.e. Tract K): 1. Utility corridors and improvements 2. Mountain accessways, roads, bridges, retaining walls and related improvements 3. Skiways, catwalks, trails and related improvements 4. Snowmaking facilities and related improvements For consistency with the terminology of Chapter 12-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, and for consistency with the provisions of Chapter 12-8, Open Space and Recreation Districts, Vail Town Code, Staff recommends the following uses be permitted on Tract K: ~ 1. BicYcle and pedestrian paths. 2. InterPretive nature walks. 3. Nature preserves. ~ 4. Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces. Also for consistency with the terminology of Chapter 12-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, and for consistency with the provisions of Chapter 12-8, Open Space and Recreation Districts, Vail Town Code, Staff also recommends the following conditional uses be allowed on Tract K, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: 1. Public parks. • 2. Public utility and public service uses. 3. Access roads. 4. Ski lifts and tows. 5. Ski trails. 6. Snowmaking facilities. 7. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted and conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. A more complete description of the applicant's request (Attachment B) has been attached for reference. . III. BACKGROUND The following is a brief summary of Tract K and SDD #4 history which is relevant to the proposed major amendment: • March 1976: Ordinance 4 of 1976 - Town of Vail annexes "Lionsridge" area • March 1976: Ordinance 5 of 1976 - SDD #4 established, Tract K is part of development "Area C". "Ski lifts and Tows" are allowed as conditional uses in areas A, B, & C. • 2 • • November 1977: Ordinance 28 of 1977 - SDD #4 "Dedicated Open Space" development area designation created; however, the properties in this area are not identified. • April 1978: Glen Lyon covenant restrictions are adopted for Tracts B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K & "stream tract". • July 1978: Tract K is deeded from Gore Creek Associates to the Town of Vail. • August 1983: conditional use permit approved "to construct the Westin-Ho ski trail in Special Development District #4". • June 1986: conditional use permit approved "in order to construct a ski lift at Cascade Village" • June and September 1987: Glen Lyon covenants amended to allow bridges, lifts, rnazes, trails, equipment, etc, for Tracts J, H, &"stream tract". • December 1988: Ordinance 40 of 1988 - SDD #4 repealed & re-enacted with "ski IifY" conditional use allowed in areas A, B, & C. • July 12, 2004: Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for this major amendment • to a Special Development District (SDD) to allow for a new devetopment area located at Tract K. • August 3, 2004: the Town Councif adopted Ordinance 17, Series of 2004, on first readinq for this major amendment to a Special Development District (SDD) to allow for a new development area located at Tract K. • Fall 2004 through Spring 2005: the Town Council tabled the second readinq of Ordinance 17, Series of 2004, on multiple occasions while Vail Resorts negotiated with the other SDD property owners to resolve the related private covenant issues. • Spring 2005: Vait Resorts withdrew the application due to unresolved private covenant negotiations. The Design Review Board had previously reviewed and approved the proposed snowcat access road. The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council have previously approved a retaining wall height variance to facilitate the construction of the access road. • 3 IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS • TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Article 12-9A: Special Development Districts (in part) 12-9A-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its mosi appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town; to facilitate fhe adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements forguiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. The special development district does not apply to and is not available in the following zone districts: Hillside residential, sing/e-family, duplex, primary/secondary. The elements of the development plan shall be as outlined in section 12-9A-6 of this article. TOWN OF VAIL LANDUSE PLAN Chapter VI-2: Key Goals D. Parks and Open Space: 2) The preservation of open space was determined to be a high priority. • The improvement of existing parks and open space areas, in concert with continued purchase of open space by the Town of Vail were both identified as priorities. Chapter VI-4: Proposed Land Use Categories (in part) OS Open Space: Passive recreation areas such as greenbelts, stream corridors, and drainageways are the types of areas in this category. Hillsides which were classified as undeve/opable due to high hazards and slopes over 40 % are also included within this area. These hillside areas would stiH be allowed types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres, for areas in agricultural zoning. Also, permitted in this area would be institutional/public uses. TOWN OF VAIL COMPREHENSIVE OPEN LANDS PLAN Tract K is not addressed by the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. V. . SITE ANALYSIS Legal Description: Lot K, Glen Lyon Subdivision Zoning: Special Development District #4 Land Use Plan Designation: Open Space Current Land Use: Open Space and the Cascade Way trail Lot Size: 362,518 sq. ft. (8.3223 acres) • I 4 • VI. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The proposed major amendment allows for uses within Development Area E(i.e. Tract K) which are consistent with uses allowed in the Town's Open Space and Recreation zone districts (e.g. Agriculture and Open Space, Outdoor Recreation, Natural Area Preservation, Ski Base Recreation, and Ski Base Recreation 2 districts); therefore, Staff believes these proposed uses are consistent with Tract K's current SDD #4 designation as "Dedicated Open Space". Additionally, Staff believes the proposed snowcat access road is a similar land use as the existing Cascade Way trail which was approved in 1983. Furthermore, the proposed land uses for Development Area E(i.e. Tract K) do not allow for the construction of buildings. The proposed snowcat access road was reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board; therefore, Staff believes the proposed major amendment is compatible and sensitive to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. • The proposed major amendment allows for uses within Development Area E(i.e. Tract K) which are consistent with uses allowed in the Town's Open Space and Recreation zone districts (e.g. Agriculture and Open Space, Outdoor Recreation, Natural Area Preservation, Ski Base Recreation, and Ski Base Recreation 2 districts); therefore, Staff believes these proposed uses are consistent with Tract K's current SDD #4 designation as "Dedicated Open Space". Additionally, Staff believes the proposed snowcat access road is a similar land use as the existing Cascade Way trail which was approved in 1983; therefore, Staff believes the proposed major amendment is compatible, efficient and workable with the surrounding uses and activities. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12-10 of the Vail Town Code. Staff does not believe that this major amendment is affected by the parking or loading requirements of Chapter 12-10, Vail Town Code. Therefore, Staff does not believe this criterion is relevant to this application. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for the establishment of a special development district. Tract K is designated as "Open Space" by the Vail Land Use Plan. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the • review of this proposal: 5 I Chapter VI-2: Key Goals • D. Parks and Open Space: 2) The preservation of open space was determined to be a high priority. The improvement of existing parks and open space areas, in concert wifh continued purchase of open space by the Town of Vail were both idenfified as priorities. Chapter VI-4: Proposed Land Use Categories (in part) OS Open Space: Passive recreation areas such as greenbelts, stream corridors, and drainageways are the types of areas in this category. Hillsides which were classified as undevelopable due to high hazards and slopes over 40 % are also included within this area. These hillside areas would still be allowed types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres, for areas in agricul#ural zoning. Also, permitted in this area would be institutional/public uses. The proposed major amendment allows for uses witfiin Development Area E(i.e. Tract K) which are consistent with uses allowed in the Town's Open Space and Recreation zone districts (e.g. Agriculture and Open Space, Outdoor Recreation, Natural Area Preservation, Ski Base Recreation, and Ski Base Recreation 2 districts); therefore, Staff believes these proposed uses are consistent with Tract K's current SDD #4 designation as "Dedicated Open Space" and the policies, goals, and objectives identified in the Vail Land Use Plan. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the • property on which the special development district is proposed. According to the Official Town of Vail Geologic Hazard Maps, Developmeni Area E(i.e. Tract K) is not located in any geologically sensitive areas or within the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, Staff does not believe this criterion is relevant to this application. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The proposed major amendment allows for uses within Development Area E(i.e. Tract K) which are consistent with uses allowed in the Town's Open Space and Recreation zone districts (e.g. Agriculture and Open Space, Outdoor Recreation, Natural Area Preservation, Ski Base Recreation, and Ski Base Recreation 2 districts); therefore, Staff believes these proposed uses are consistent with Tract K's current SDD #4 designation , as "Dedicated Open Space". Therefore, staff believes the major amendment complies with this criterion. Additionally, Staff believes the proposed snowcat access road is a similar land use as the existing Cascade Way trail which was approved in 1983. The proposed snowcat access road was reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board; therefore, Staff believes the proposed major amendment is functional, responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. • 6 • G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The proposed major amendment will facilitate the construction of a new snowcat access road. This proposal will remove Vail Resorts' winter mountain maintenance traffic from public streets (i.e. West Forest Road). Staff believes this will have a positive affect on traffic flows and traffic safety. Additionally, the proposed major amendment will not negatively impact use of the existing Cascade Way trail or the existing bike trail along Gore Creek; therefore, Staff believes the proposed major amendment complies with this criterion. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The proposed major amendment allows for uses within Development Area E(i.e. Tract K) which are consistent with uses allowed in the Town's Open Space and Recreation zone districts (e.g. Agriculture and Open Space, Outdoor Recreation, Natural Area Preservation, Ski Base Recreation, and Ski Base Recreation 2 districts); therefore, Staff believes these proposed uses are consistent with Tract K's current SDD #4 designation as "Dedicated Open Space". Therefore, staff believes the major amendment complies with this criterion. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development • district. As there is no phasing or subdivision plan associated with the major amendment, Staff does not believe this criterion is relevant to this application. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Vail Town Council of the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. The Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence presented on this application subject to the following finding: "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission, based upon the evidence and testimony presented: 1. That the proposed major amendment complies with the standards outlined in the nine design criieria of Section 12-9A-8, Vail Town Code, based upon the revrew outlined in Section VI of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission; and, • 7 2. That the proposed major amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives • and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town, based upon the review outlined in Section VI of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission; and,; and, 3. That the proposed major amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas based upon the review outlined in Section VI of the Staff's Aprii 9, 2007, memorandum to ihe Pianning and Environmentai Commission; and,; and, 4. That the proposed major amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality based upon the review outlined in Section VI of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this major amendment request, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: 1. The following uses sha11 be permitted in Development Area E(i.e. Tract K) of Special Development District #4, Cascade Village: 1. Bicycle and pedestrian paths. • 2. Interpretive nature wa/ks. 3. Nature preserves. 4. Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces. 2. The followin9 conditional uses shall be allowed in DevelopmentArea E(i.e. TractK) of Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: 1. Public parks. 2. Public utility and public service uses. 3. Access roads. ' 4. Ski lifts and tows. 5. Ski trails. 6. Snowmaking facilities. 7. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted and conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. I VIII. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Vicinity Map Attachment B: Applicant's request Attachment C: Draft Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2007 Attachment D: Public Hearing Notice ; • 8 ~ ,~i.l^{ F t +3c' 1, ~ : ~ t~ - iy 1 t } Nb1~t t 1 M ifp}`~ ~ 2 1Yta f J+ y~] { y . i,~ }'.1~~' R ~~'A~ ~:p ~ Oy `i~ '4~. ~Ny~~pQ..w~,? v~. G~~'. G~t .?'y w~ pl'~' ~ Y~ M. . ~{t~.~u:~ • ~ ~ ` w 'l~ ~ l~ ro- ~ ~ ,'Y + F ~i. w~Y ' ~ ~ { ~ • ° ,,,,.r,mw a ~T~~~~~ ~ i~'t " x` ' ~+~+~t ' 1 ti~r~~~ L~.~,~~t y ~ F'~'t_ _ ~ ~ +,lu`s ?yyK`~~ y'~ S~~ Y ~r: ' ~n~' ~ ~~,<~~"l. a f ~ l~ MR so ~FS a A 4i k . ~ S rtil4~^t 6 n M'~.41 t1.. \.A R{~,',y., • e ~ A ~ w }r#t~~ y.t h'a yXy7y ~1~~ ai ~Z~'~od ,v, t a{)r Vr h ? ~ IC.a. i , hiy ~(.~.F Y~ . ~i~ v ~E,~~5y~ «c kr l ,Y ~~~1 ~~l p}1 5 3 t. t f+ ~ y~'•~~~,1 0) Y ? ~J d '~a., v i s~- ~ ytl~ ~`f r ~YY, ~ ` ~ ~ r ~y~,~C;~q~~ t~ / lli~t 4 ~ r~' ~ ~ t : t ti a ~ , r.r?""' ~ ~ R ~ "~,~,4.~ ~e~i 1~ ?bp~tt, L f~ t ~ ~i. ~ ~ ~ St tl ~~,1 ~j r t ~ " \Q ~:•t ~~a,r V~, t~ ~~'~M#~it e S'<4F~~~K''~.:-1~,,.~,.~ ' ~ ~ ` h'F~ 1 ~ t lA ticj~y ~ t n }~,~•Y+d pv~r~~ ~i ~ S Y 4 4Mv ~ ~wt,_~ ~ . Attachment B • Amendment to SDD #4 The purpose of this Amendment to SDD #4 is to allow for the construction of a snow cat access route to Cascade Way. This application is the same as the previous application which was passed by the Town Council on first reading and then tabled until the Covenant Amendment was approved by 75% of the Owners in the Glen Lyon Subdivision. (Such percentage based upon land ownership). The Amendment was later withdrawn due to the time lapse between readings. The previous submittal documentation and memos are still appropriate and relevant as this submittal is the same except for a slight re-alignment of the access way as it joins Cascade Way. The re- alignment was at the request of various owners in Glen Lyon and results in less retaining walls and a safer entrance onto Cascade Way. A new drawing is attached showing the adjustment. • • Attachment: B PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO GLEN LYON SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DTSTRICT #4 June 1, 2004 ~ PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT , i This proposed amendment to SDD #4 has evolved out of Vail Resort's proposal to ~ develop a new snowcat accessway from the VR Maintenance Yard to Vail Mountain. A ~ ~ portion of this accessway is located on Tract K which is a part of SDD #4. The purpose I of this SDD amendment is to correct and clarify existing and allowable uses within Tract K. BACKGROUND ON SDD #4 SDD #4 was originally approved in 1976. This SDD is unique from most other SDD's in . two respects. Ordinance S of 1976 makes no mention of the SDD's underlying zone district. Typically a SDD references an underlying zone district and this zone district then establishes land uses permissible within the SDD. Secondly, SDD #4 includes • reference to specific permitted, conditional and accessory uses that are allowed in the ~ SDD. SDD #4 has been amended a number of times over the years. Amendments have addressed a range of topics, primarily allowable uses, development level and changes to . development areas. When originally approved in 1976, SDD #4 was divided into four distinct "development areas". Development Areas A-D consisted of approximately 97 acres and allowed for a wide variety of uses which in hindsight are quite consistent with Glen Lyon's existing mixed-use character. In 1977 SDD #4 was amended to include the same four Development Areas (Areas A-D) with the addition of a 40.4 acres "Dedicated Open Space" category. There is no indication in the SDD what, if any, uses are permissible in the 40.4 acres of "Dedicated Open Space". As indicated in the 1977 amendment, the total land area of the SDD was approximately 92 acres, . SDD #4 was amended a number of times following the 1977 amendment, most recently in 1998. There is no indication in any of these amendments as to what land uses are permissible within the "Dedicated Open Space" category. • ~ Tract K is a part of the "Dedicated Open Space" category. Tract K was deeded to the Town of Vail in 1978. i BACKGROUND ON PROPOSED SNOWCAT ACCESSWAY ~ Vail Resort's submitted plans to the Town this past fall in order to construct a new snowcat accessway. This new accessway is intended to provide a new snowcat route to Vail Mountain and in doing so eliminate the need to run snowcats on West Forest Road. A portion of the snowcat accessway is located on Tract K. As such, VR requested and was granted permission by the Town Council to proceed through the review process in order to obtain approvals for the snowcat accessway (and related improvements including a new snowmaking intake/vault, water lines, bridge, retaining walls and landscaping). VR has all but completed this review process. The PEC has approved a variance to maximum retaining wall heights and the DRB has approved the design of the project. The Town Council has approved two of the four easements necessary for the project and a building permit application has been submitted for the snowmaking intake/vault portion of the project. In April of 2004 a 19961etter was provided to the Town from a property owner in the Glen Lyon subdivision. This letter was a joint letter from the Town and Vail Resorts to the Glen Lyon neighborhood. The letter outlined a process for the review of a new mountain access road that would be located in rart over Tract K. The accesswaY location. and design contemplated in 1996 was very similar to the plans currently being proposed by VR. This letter indicated that the accessway would require amendments to SDD #4. • In deference to this 19961etter, it has been determined that in order for the new snowcat accessway to proceed SDD #4 will need to be amended in order to allow for snowcat accessways on Tract K. In addition, it has been determined that the existing Westin Ho i skiway was likely approved in error. While a conditional use permit for this skiway was approved in 1983, there appears to be no basis for this request as neither "skiway" or "catwalk" appear to be a permitted or conditional use within Tract K. This condition will also be remedied by the proposed amendment to SDD #4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The following amendments and development approvals are proposed to SDD #4: ~ ¦ Create a new development area - Development Area E, this area will consist of "Tract K". i ¦ Establish allowable uses within Development Area E to include: Permitted Uses 1. Utility corridors and improvements ' 2. Mountain accessways, roads, bridges, retaining walls and related improvements r 3. Skiways, catwalks, trails and related improvements ~ 4. Snowmaking facilities and related improvements ~ ~ ¦ Approve a development plan for Tract K-Development Area E. This plan includes all or portions of the existing Westin Ho skiway, snowmaking/utility impravements, the i bridge and the snowcat accessway. I An existing conditions map and a development plan are provided herein. In order to more clearly define the approved development plan for Tract K, it is anticipated that the ordinance approving this SDD amendment can also reference the previously approved plans for the bridge, snow-making facilities, accessway and retaining walls located within Tract K. I REVIEW CRITERIA i The following design criteria shaI1 be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the i merits of the proposed special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal materiaI and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonsirate that one or more of them is not ~ applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the pubtic interest has been ! achieved: I A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environ.ment, • neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, sca2e, bulk, I building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. ~ Response Numerous snowcat access alignments have been studied over the years. The proposed route minimizes impacts on the site and impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. When compared to the existing snowcat route up West Forest Road, the proposed route presents a much more sensitive solution far the immediately surrounding neighborhoods and the community as a whole. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and I workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. , ~ Response The limited uses proposed for Development Area E are consistent with Tract E "open space dedication" designation, with existing uses of Tract E and with surrounding uses and activities. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. , Response ~ Not applicable. ~ i i D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive ~ Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. Response The removal of snowcats from West Forest Road is a stated goal of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, an element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. E. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Response A geotechnical analysis has been completed in conjunction with the design of the snowcat access road. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic qualrty of the community. Response The snowcat accessway has been designed in order to minimize both cut/fill slopes and site disturbance. An extensive landscape restoration plan has been proposed as a part of the bridge/snowcat accessway. • G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Response ~ The new snowcat access is proposed in order to remove snow cats from West Forest Road. This change will result in a much safer roadway condition and a ! reduction of traffic on this road. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic la,ndscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Response A landscape plan has been provided as an element of the development plan for the bridge and snowcat accessway. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. (Ord. 21(1988) § 1) Response Initially proposed to be developed in one phase, the project is now likely to be ~ developed in two phases. Phase I is expected to consist of the new snowmaking ~ intake/vault, new snowmaking lines up Vail Mountain and a new bridge over Gore Creek. Phase I would be done the summer/fall of 2004. Phase TI would consist of the snowcat accessway up Vail Mountain. The timing for completion of Phase II is to be determined. If the SDD amendment process is resolved in a timely manner the accessway could be constructed in 2004. As an alternative, it is anticipated that the accessway would be constructed in 2005. i I ~ • 'ON B01' WZl/LO 3LV0 .~.'e4Pt:~ :'Yo...m ~N~.7U1 • H '7NI 'JNI833NI`JN3 W ~ 1F1~Y'I4N3W1/ ~I J.~VHl wan Kxvao = N N 1 -1 Y# OOS NOI.71 N3l0 AB SNOISN3tl 31V0 'ON wm M7n m14063Q ra ~ ~ ~ ° ~~~^1n •~I,~ n n . \~t ~ ~t~fi `I J `r~ 11''y~l` LU h'r~ 0 , ~ ~ ~~li~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ Il Il ll l~f (~r~ ~ia~~i+~ `l i ~i r . ~ ~'/i t7 O ~ ~ l~~t \ . ` ~ ~ ~~..'iill~~~P~~~.Ia+~W;yln !~~~~i~l~ ( ~I~~~~ ~ lwqy~ l`~ +ti ~ ~ I~ i ~ i ~ i l~ l~ • ~1 ,4~ w~~ ~tl i~ 4~ ~ I ~~I ~u I i~~~ilil . 1~"~~4y1dR' ~ v ,i 1~' ~ ~ ~'I^ui~(`~~~~'ill~~¢!~~•~I~'~nq ~ l ~ . J'. . ~''i~ ~ ~ ry t . . - ,fy~ .y.~'~ - kk ,~i t t ~ ~ I r 'r ~ ~CYI~I~i I'il~~~1 ?~IJ~~ I 4~yJ y, ~i l Y . f S ~ ' 1 ~'~S• ~ ~~~~~K`~~~I# `1~~'4 A ~II ~'~s~ ~ t'. • ~,L' ~ ~ 5 1 Ili~.a.:a R t~~•°~ ~~"p x~"~~~~ l~~~rS~~~\\ ~ 5~ ~ i i f S f ~ ,qo u ~ I 1 - 2 L~~ i I, ~1 1`"` 4+aii ~'~`•~~11~,4 ~~~~1+' Q . W 12 ? . \ k~ ~.µy~~ ~~,Y 1`~ ~I.'' Illl`~! ~1 ) ~ \ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~'f4 $~'~u°3i,,.~TF ~ ~ ~ ~ ` x I- ~ # ~k N CtJ 1 Z z W A~b~r O ~ g ~ < ~..7 Y \ ~ • 1 ~ ~ ~ P ~~I~II ~ ' ~ { \ ~ . ,K I~ { • 'a : ~w P rt:~ l~ ~ ~1~' V ~ 'oN eor ro/ik/ca 31vo SNOWON00 01,11ILS03 f- 'ONI J~ NI`JN3 . 3 V3HV 1N3Wd0'13/M - A 1.OV1iL 910 a3x73N3 = N Mory NNVtlO N N vf aas woAl rEIA ~e, •M,~ mr~~a •e swosvaa ~vo 'ou ~ . .i i l ~ \ i 1 i1-t ~N`I + J~ ~ 1 1~, ~ ~ • l~ W it' ~ ~ ~1 'I i~,ii, I-I ~ ~ ~.N` \ " iI I.~Ai ~ 1 ,N ~1~ ~ ~ o 0 v ~ V\~• I i~i,.T. ~ .1'. \ ii' ~ I~ ~ << , , u ~i 1~ ~ i~~ ~ 1,~ ~ 1 ~ O ~N~~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ !L. 1 \ 1\~~ ~ ~ ~~ill~ ' ~ '\':N~:\,~~~ il~~~l,~,•~ ',~i~t~,.~~,~~ i1 IIlir1'~\',.~,'.'.~~,,~1~ ~~~~'`~~~d •.,,~~`,~'~~~i. ~ . .J ~...y ~ \ ~ ~ ~ `~`1'; y1 IlI'~~~ .;i 11 'l, i'• t 1'+~ l~~ Itl ~ r iil} 1' s.,.1; ~il i I I I i 1~,~~ ` 1\ r 1. ~ i" ~ ",1'V~~''•'~'1 'i'~~: ~'~1;1111~ ~ } f ~ ~ i~l~, i~, I~ •1~ . I~~ . ~ ~'t l>>u-Ii,,~ ~~l~~~'~V, ~.~~~~'ili~ i~ r'1 III '~~~n 't, vu:~`'i1`'~~ tid~~,,~isi~l;~~i~il~i~j I~ •~''~~t,'•.1, ~~~s~:.~ r~ .4 t`'~l'~~.~",It i,~,.~ 11ttii'k',W1;,i'~i~i~~'~~i~•~~~`i1i~;~i~ I i~ti, ~~Oi,t`iI'~~1'~~~~~',~ +li~ ' tl• '-~-J"1~u ~','•~~,~',~`•:~~;',~4t•+ , ~.c t tl ~,;1~'.,itf~ ~1',~~ill ,~r1' ,~i~~r)~ i ~!'c~..'~' p~`~ ~ t~,l ~ 111~ \t1l'.;111 1\tt\Iltt ~ 1 F^i ~1 ~ 1i''` ( 1~. l'. I 1 l1`.~t' i~~:\~. i,~'~'l.i i,,~.~~.1~`,'~„`~`,;~`~.,,,:~',` 1•'.''''~N~''!~ ~V~~ I1~.~1~.11`~~11~~11~1 ~h,ai,1111~i1~1,1't~ll~.,,~n•iin~nni,?,ol,`..,,~~:~l~,'~IN,~;',~.\\`,,•:~" i~,C~'~~ 1.`,.~~ l`, P Wll:i11 ilillll!111Pif.~~d!t1111i11111111~C.'F,~;~~,~:",~,~~~~`1\: '.`~,.~`,i~~~~i~~ T l '~1~~,,,~\`',~`~~'~:_~`•~"r'~''' 'i~ ~1 l Ilu u ~11{'~tu~u•ni i~inii~~~uu•.r~~i~'~ ~~l \ r \ ~ ~ . v ~ Il~ 1 I1 l II,~INRItI I,t , . ~ + \ • \ ..,•~v , ~i l' iu~~~~l,i~~ ~~~5~1~~~~ rl„~ lailt~x,l>>~~i1i11,~~„1~„~.~,\,, •.\~i',o? q,i i I I ~11~ ~ ti 1~4+1 li ~i ~ h~~ ~ • w ~ 1 ~ cP a'-j~' ~'~s~:~~'1 ,g1 ~ ~lk,t ~ ~~',S~l ~ • .r.~~ ~ • ~ 1M ~ Vlii~11~,'. ~ ~ .•\..~\'::;t' N, ~ . t ~ ' . I'\\ It. y . • d ~ \ ~ ~ .tii,,~i;1~'~~~~~`,`, •.~``•\~C,°~. 1~~+:• ~ ~-'1;1~t1,~:,r,f~ o i I ~ ~ + II ~~:llitlr j ~l~l ~~i~~~n~~l~l)IIII ~ ` ,',~`.~i'•.`.,\`.,1', ' • ~ ~ . \ . ~r ;,';~I+~;;,~?i,~~~ifi!u f'll;t~~i I ~;i~~~~~~~ll~~~~~~;~~;,,;~;,;~:~ ~~•`~~,'~~~~ti~~ ~ .~r; ;;;~3~;:'?;.~ ~~l;n I iuiiiiil ~ 1 , 1` I i~:~,;~•. ~'i(/(,y;/•~'. ' ~ i'Iliii IIII i~ i ~ i ~ T I'~I !i~~ iii IIIIIII• ' ~ ,.1 ' t ~ 1 ~~E•,1:;%; '~li~lllllffl ~~~~r~l)Ijil~i ~lii~i~~~~ il~~~~~~~I!1~~1,' ~~V i~ I ~ ~~.~'~`'`~\'i;.c:'_:~ 11 ~ I'illlt~r; IIIII~ ~ ~ ~Ifll~~~li~l ~'~~~ui ~ ~1 ~~Il.i~'~}li, il~i~ I 1' r.\+C.'`,•\:"?,' I ~ ~liillll111ui,llli Ill IIIIIIII ~l? 110 1;~II ~I~I~lillilll-.kni i +VO I''il 1 ~:1}~~~ i~1~~' ~I~~~i~~~i ~~t ~I~ili ~ 1~ ;SI~1 I'. `'~':~',•::e';•~~`` i~ ~illil,'_ ,~.ti: ~~'•'`t~','`,'~. ~•~,~':1?~~'' ~.t~'t;'',, \ 11l\It111H~ ~ I I I II 1~1ill ~I I ~III i I!I ilI I I !If, ~ j. ~ d~ ~ • s~i ,`'~~i~~~'.~l i1111?l~~ I~~~~~~~I niiilu i~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ tiI~\~ . `WoN~ W ti~\o,\in~ : - 1V•~~:'11i~,,,~,~tti,l`,~~,`'.,.1~11 l''~ ~I•.~111~1:i<<Illl<<~~ l i~ I~ ~ I ~'1 ~ S'I ~'',1'I~',11 ~',5 I ~ i,i~~ u \ ~,U ~ t , ` 1i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , I ;li~ \ \ t ~ H .'i,i1 , 1 ~ i I 0'~i~ 1;,.~i1~'~`•~t ~ `~\,\,'~~,~1:',1~~1~~`~~ ~ i .a~~~.., •;.a.:.:.,\\~~~ ` ~`1t.i ~,,~;ft,~ . ,l~ : i_ ~ . ``.'.\;~i.'~., z 11 ~1~~~ ` k \ :\','y.~~ 1\ ~~t~i ,~~11 i~1 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~;d ~ ~'t 4~l 1 ii~ N, ~ti.~ ~ .1~•.l ~ ~11 y ~11~, ~ ii ~ ~ ~ ~.rl.. i!~ \1~i~~~~~~.•.\,'~.~\~.~~~, r iV % `~M 1.'' 1.~ ~ .`.YJ.~...i,...~ Q.. ~~~ii't,--~'~ `.,~~~.'1~.~;1.",~;~~~\1a\`J+,1',\~\~'•.~~`;\\'~~~'';\\C\\,~~\~~~~ \ ~ i i A IN '"ol,• 1~~~A1 ~~y 1•,~~.~~ . , , ; ~ ~ ~ ~ .~.u~~t~1: ~ 111.\,,,,,. 1 ~ _ . IN L1.1 i'• ni ni~. 0 q • i I. n 73 •11'~: ,,d ~u,.,~...~ N:`, . ~ , . (f~ i n , 1l c*~ ~ • ~ ,C;`.,:•\'•{`". . , \ 'W11~;~ 1t ~:i\'.``~':, ~ F f I_.. W v, y~ 1}1} V •~'ii:•~v. ~ ~h, ' , \C•'~ ~r 1n L, „\',~~~lV~ll~l~lf N~ ~ . - ~ I 1,_~iN.,, , ~~\1\\' \`'~d1Yrr•',:\;?:~'i:~1~.'~.;.~\,..,.~~..'~•, ~a1 ~ ;i~`.~~0'~;., v.•.•,:~•';,~.~- t ;x ' 1', ,n~~1 ~ _ ~ , ~ • ~ ~`l1~ ~ ,~dt. v~~i`~. ~ ~ • •\~~„~A::,. , ~ a' ~ " ~ . , l . Z,~- 1,,_ . . d~ , ~ • \ U'.,.. ~ . u.t+~' ~ ~ i, C., , ~ ti -F .1;5~~ , Ni t ~ v\ j \ • ::.~::\i:`.,:, v..,•.~•'+ , U ' , . ,Cr L ~J ~ \i:~;, ~ " • ~ ..~\N y~ ~`yi ~•\~~~::.~\c'.'•~•~-~~: •r';r::,v:: W1 a~, : a ( `.S' J i~ j . . ~.::,':a.~,. , "r. ~ ~ •1 ~ ~ \ 1 ) ~ c\, ~ , y C ~ ~ : \~:~%c.~ ~ C ~ I ! ~ 'i . ~ ` . \'\.2. C J t .\`,.d' i i i ~ ~ - _ t t~. , z } y . ~..~;_;~C.\ ~ .~C•` ~ .`s\'::~ ~ • . \ l n i~ - i ~v~. ' ~~~.~'<a:.\<'.,,•~~' .~•.r: 'd' O I ~(1 ~i a• 7 ~ \ :\•'~:.ex:~,Y-~ • ~ . , l~ ~n u,. ~ \ r\.` . 7 ! ~ ~i;}~ ti:`~ , - . . ,.~)'c'.•~.~~ r~>•:.:.: ~ j ~ h. ~ ~ii,i~ • , \~:::\..,~,;?'.\s°,~::` \ `r., ` ` Q ~ ~ IN ,1 ~W\•- N~,`~~~ ~ ~ , i ~~~1 ` ~ , ~ 7~ ~ v` ~ ~ ~ ~ t . . . , \ . ~ . ~ .1 ~ ~ • N. fir".~ • _ ~ , t , ' v ~ N. ' ~ ' ~ . . ` ~ ~\l ~ \ ~ 'l'• \ \ ~ ~ . N...C.~ V ~ \ ~ ~ N` ~ z ~ A \ W CID 't ~ 1~~ 11. •1' ~ ~ i~ R 4:~, \ \ ' J X , ~ ; ~ . , r ' ' + ~ , ~.'e ~ ~ / rS ~ : f \ ' i ' . , , ,'.l ~ ~ ; IN Z ~ 1,~'\~~ • L CP ~ 'oN BOf r0/Zl/90 31Y4 ~ Nb'1d1N3Wd0-3A3a 'ONI `J' NIa33NiJN3 F- • 3 V3FlV l1~WdOT:iti34 - >I .I.0tlklJ. ero wnD3~u W M iiim Mon NMVtlO = tr# ~S NOAI N310 N ~ N Id1 Ae si+oisv311 uva J. BID •^un 03N91S34 ) 1 \ it 11~,t,, ~1,, , ` ~ . „ ~ , ;1;. ~ , . ~ 1..c~-1 i~A~, ~,~i 1~ i t`~ ir. ~t~•. ~ ~ . ~ 1• ~ 1 ` ~ / Io t ` ~ ~i ~ i i~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~~t~ 1 < < 1 ~ j 1, 1 1 (I1. 1 \ X ~1 ~~i1 i ~ ~1 1•. ~1'i i~ 11 1 i 1~ h I I \ ~,1'; 1+.~~~1 W ~ i1 Q } i!, ii i'i+~~ ' i~'1' ~•~~1~ 1~~~ ~ I'~~~1~~ i~.l~ll i~l~llii~ i ~ 1~ ~ i i ~ \ ~ 4 ~ 1•,~ ~ ~ \ \ 'r ~ O ?.li 'a}r~Tn~~l~~tl~ti~,. ` WN 1w~ii~~~115~1~ti~i~'~`t`fUl~ ~ ~ i i ~ k4.nhl~i.~ ~,r'~?'^^"" ~ ~ :l~ t • ic.fi ~ ~ \ ~~'~~~~~I C ~I~IJ~11~I ~~a_~\.~ ~ ,`I'~,•l q T~ ~ ~\~Y~ ~'AS~ ,'ilr`?, `~~j~iL~~'``+.~.'i,~4'~`y~l\ f, ~ y'~~~ . Yr,\~ i+1 ~ d~ .@'~ 1 i~ ~li i it~ t•~~I~{ l~f' ~ i~\'~, ~ i < I)~ii l i , , ~ N 1I ; / ~ 1~.~ ; ~.~1~ `1 ~ ~ t• ~ ~I I~ li l l i!i i ~li i'~ ti ~ i ~ ~ , i l ta 0 A 1 ~',t~t .U l Ihe'i:~ ~!i~~l~ U` 0.~~~1~ lit~~~~~~il l~ i~IJ.J P~•4 t~~ i t ~ ~ lt~,~t.' 7.. ~i ui~.~~ ~ i ~ ~i,'~'•11111~ + ~ ; I~, ~+'~t~r'„~~`<<`;.,,\`~'~'''~~`.`,1';i'.`. Jh lU11:1\Ill111l1.'~iO~~l',~;1~~~~"`1 `\~._•;~,~'.,~.i1~~'l i ~ 1' ~ ~1 ~ ( ` - . ~ iiilqll~uii~ r¢`'fie~,r~, IIIIUIIII~II'~ t~~?ii ~P~ ~,tli1 ~ . • 'K~ i fiil~~t1 Illlill~lllv~f~lill~lll~~llti 1 II~~ .t Il~llltn~~~iui i` x tlillllx ~ n~ 1~ ~ t•,.•.~. . rn~ i i\ d ~ ~ i~ i iu+• ~4{~i ' ~l~~~l uM ~i~ti~~~~i'`111~ \ V i~ l~ k...,.,.\'•~~.'• ~ ' i ' ~ ~ / il!+i~i~,' ~~~~i~ ~~ilil~t S r (ilt.-'~n~~u~~~l~~~~\` ~'~`a,~ ~ +c~;' ~ ~ ~ \11 i iy' ;i~ a ~iiill,~llliiilf'~1~is'i• 2~~G ~\'~~11`~11's~.',\`~'•.:~,`~•`~~','•~~ ''~'~C~.:~~ii~'~::~'::;g \ : W"Aw";',,~`\`•~~~:`~."•=.'~•.\..,;,~~,{•..r,¢~ ; i., ~ \ r(, ni~ <,''unlf,rr. I Srla;1,'l,•'; I i~ II . 1 ~ 1 ~l~~!lil!i I~ii~ ~~i~ll iiuii i uin; } t \ i ~ ~ . ; I i i i m~ ~ ~ , . ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ . . i.\•;i,` ' r :,l;l' i iu II I~~ III 1';;~~ II II a ~ ~ ~ • i ~ ~1''•.ti.~i , illllll~~ ~III fI11IIIJiIliI ~ ~ Ii i ti 11 It ."•?Z~. iul1li ~ . !r: ~ 1 i }11 i F. ~ jild'fl;~ii ~ ~il~~j~i),~~ ~~II. ~iuu~~uin IVlll.iiii:illlll~i~i IIIIIL ~ I l l i 11 ! I ~ ~ I I`dX- \ I IIVIt'~I.liillll~~i11111!111' I' ti ' I~J. ~ i nnu~ui~inu ~ it 11 v~-C,, ~ ~/il«iiii~ 5 ~ ~ i~i i~111'~li~ t~~~~lli~:~+ ~ I. ~ I ~ i ~ I II ~ ~ i ' i i ~4S 1`•: ~~,i~~~;1 ~~1~Y~;~yli 1~;113~~'jlllll~lit'~,~.;~Ililil~~~ji~ij{\ I i, ~~}~i i: i\ ~ k, W F'~ ~ a r \5 l 7lvrlllll~l P.~ ~ I ~ I I i' ~ Q ~'tii11~~~`~~P~ a~`'• }~~1 i~-~.~~~u illllll~~~~~ ii ,G ~iil ~i ~l ~~.1\~ ~i ~ i ~ ~ ~ {SJ ~ _ j~ ~n ~J ~;t i II ~ f 4 i ~ ; ~ \ ~ ~ ~ i•`ti W,>:\ ~ i i ~ri r \ .~i~\~'. ~ i~ \ NlY Z ~1 ~ ~ ; \ ~A ~ 1 \ ~ >>+n,.~~~~~.~da~~.1~~,~1~ ~ ~,a + '1`'~._'\'•' n.;~l.;, g t ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~~~' \ ~ 11 11 1 1 1 L\ ~ . ~~ii k~~ . ~.I'. ~ 1:, + 1 ` ~ J d a~ ` ~ c \ d lVW ` ~ \ ~``7~~1 ~ i ~ ~ i • . ~ , • ~ \ . ~ 'li 1~~iltl p t ~ l.~r 1~~~~~~.y~ ~ d \\1 q~ °~,r ~~5~ • ' ' 4 ' 1 " ` ` ` \ . , t'vy~ ` ~ i ` \ ~ ~ ~ ~;!~ci'T l - . . k~.~~C;?r.:;\:. ~ '<.~~;~~X ~ ~.•i~.'.•~.\'•'~.\ ~ J~~Ii~,~~ ,~5 ~~t\ ~t~` 1"".: ~ .C i:~~.•; w~;,,\::~.`\~?,~~ ~1` ~ A~ ~~r,;:.\'"\ \ ~ +~li a . • 0 ~ 1 1 ~t~' r'` ~ ~ ~~t d ~ \ \ ~ ; ~ ` t l_ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i ` :`j ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; j\.: . i i ~ , \ V - --1- ~ f r I~ ~+y~M .1 ~ i v• ~ ~.,•.\:'.':'1~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~1 ~ ,~~1~ \ .1':,\~~~\ ~ 1, I ~Y,~' • U : _ '.1`,-:\ , 1,..~~ ~ . ,r.,;,v,;,•,~_ t '1 ' .\',Q j ' f~ ~N -1 ~ t. ~ ' 11 ~,a;~'':\ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,y. 1 \ \ C'.:~'~`•,~.;;~ ~l~•. ~ ~ .l . Q i ~:~F~. ~ ~ . ~ • ~ ~•'~.;~ti: ~ ;+''d1:~.~, ~,c,,.,\~..\'\ S'. 'I.. ~ ' : ~ ~\i;{;v~ I ' • . ~ \':~'::~~"r:\;:~,:~::•, Y , . , ~ ~ , L f • y ~ \ ` ~ \~:v I..~ ~ ~ :;c.:'r.,1`:i~,y~, ` : O ~ , .~):.;i:;:: ~:J.'~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~\`:u~;,, ~ ~ ~ . i,~._.~ . , i \~.:\~:•'r~,2:~ ~N i 'i \ ~ . •e•: ~ ~ ~ `~^A . ~ . ~ I~ • ~ \ ? \-Z \ ' . \ \ ~ 1 ~ i ~ ~ ' \ • \ i ? \ . ~ ~ \ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ . L ~ \ \ : . W ~ • 1 i •~~~:~~.i~\'' Q Z i i ~~r.~.~`:::\"~~ ~ C ~ Z G ` O O ~ ~ ~ t 1 11 ~ ~ • ._J J j ~ ~ ~ ' 7 t 'i i ~ ~ I ~ t \ , . ~ ~ ~ ~ y ' ~ I Z W ~ 1 ~ i , 1 i i ) ~ j ~--~f- , i l i ' ~ ~ ~ ~ w W J ~ ~ ~ „ • : ~ . ~ , , , ~ r~r~. . • , _ i„ • Attachment C • ORDtNANCE NO. 11 ' Series of 2007 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11, SERIES OF 1999, SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4, CASCADE VILLAGE, TO ALLOW FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT AREA LOCATED AT TRACT K, GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Section 12-9A-2 of the Vaif Town Code permits major amendments to existing specia( devefopment disfricts; and WHEREAS, Vail Resorts has submitted an application for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of this major amendment at its April 9, 2007 public hearing, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to amend Special Development District No. 4. • I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNGL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1999, is hereby amended as follows: (deletions are shown in 6#Fike-thFoug#/additions are shown in bold italics) Established A. Speciai Development District No. 4 is established for the development on a parcel of land comprising 97.955 acres as more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A. Special Development District No. 4 and the 97.955 acres may be referred to as "SDD No. 4". B. The district shall consist of four separate development areas, as identified • in this ordinance consisting of the follawing approximate sizes: ~ Area Known As Development Area Acrea e ~ Cascade Village A 17.955 Coldstream Condominiums B 4.000 Glen Lyon Primary/Secondary and Single Family Lots C 9.100 Glen Lyon Commercial Site D 1.800 Tract K E 8.322 Dedicated Open Space 40.489 32.078 Roads 4.700 TOTAL 97.955 Section 2. Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1998, is hereby amended as follows: (deletions are shown in s#Fikethrsug#/additions are shown in bold italics) Development Plan - Required -Approval Procedure Each development area with the exception of Development Areas A and D shall be subject to a single development plan. Development Area A shafl be allowed to have two development plans for the Cascade Club site as approved by the Town Council. The Waterford and Cornerstone sites shall be allowed one • development plan each. Development Area D shall be allowed to develop per the approved phasing plans as approved by the Town Council. A deve/opment plan for Development Area E shall be established through the review and approval of a design review application and/or conditional use permit application. The developer shall have the right to proceed with the development plans or scenarios as defined in the development statistics section of this ordinance. Amendments to SDD No. 4 shall comply with Section 12-9A of the Municipal Code. Section 3. Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1998, is hereby amended as follows: (deletions are shown in stFiket#Fough/additions are shown in bold italics) I Permitted Uses A. Area A. Cascade Village 1. First floor commercial uses shall be limited to uses listed in Section 12- • 7B-3, (Commercial Core 1), of the Municipal Code. The "first floor" or 2 • "street level" shall be defined as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level; 2. All other floor levels besides first floor street level may include retail, theater, restaurant, and office except that no professional or business office shall be located on street level or first floor (as defined above) unless it is clearly accessory to a lodge or educational institution except for an office space having a maximum square footage of 925 square feet located on the first floor on the northwest corner of the Plaza Conference Center building; 3. Lodge; 4. Multi-family dwelling; 5. Single Family dweUing; 6. Primary/Secondary dwelling; ~ 7. Transient residential dwelling unit; 8. Employee dwelling as defined in Section 12-13 of the Municipal Code; 9. Cascade Club addition of a lap pool or gymnasium. B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums 1. Two-family dwelling; 2. Multi-family dwelling. C. Area C, Glen Lyon Primary/Secondary and Single-Family Lots 1. Single family dwelling; 2. Two-family dwelling. 3. Type II Employee Housing Unit (EHU) per Chapter 12-13, of the Municipal Code. D. Area D. Glen Lyon Commercial Site 1. Business and professional offices; ~ 2. Employee dwelling as defined in Section 12-13 of the Municipal Code. 3 E. Area E, Tract K ~ 1. Bicycle and pedestrian paths. 2. Interpretive nature walks. 3. Nature preserves. 4. Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces. Section 4. Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1998, is hereby amended as follows: deletions are shown in rtFike /additions are shown in bold italics ( ) Condibonal Uses Conditional uses shall be reviewed per the procedures as autlined in Chapter 12- 16 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. A. Area A, Cascade Village ~ j 1. Cascade Club addition of a wellness center not to exceed 4,500 square feet. 2. Fractional fee ownership as defined in the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Section 12-2 shall be a conditional use for dwelling units in the Westhaven multi-family dwellings. Fractional fee ownership shall not be applied to restricted employee dwelling units or transient residential dwelling units. Ownership intervals shall not be less than five weeks. 3. Special attraction; 4. Ski lifts; 5. Public park and recreational facilities; 6. Major arcades with no frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. . 4 ~ B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums 1. Public park and recreational facilities; 2. Ski lifts. C. Area C, Glen Lyon Primary/Secondary and Single-Family Lots ~ 1. Public park and recreational facilities; 2. Ski lifts; D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site 1. Micro-brewery as defined in Town of Vail Municipal code, Chapter 12-2. E. Area E, Tract K 1. Public parks. ' 2. Public utility and public service uses. 3. Access roads. . 4. Ski lifts and tows. 5. Ski trails. 6. Snowmaking facilities. 7. Ofher uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted and conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings Section 5. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, ~ subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 5 Section 6. The Town Councii hereby finds, determines and declares that this ~ ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 7. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any viofation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 8. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This ~ repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE !N FULL ON FIRST READlNG this 1St day of May, 2007, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 15th day of May, 2007, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rod Siifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk ~ 6 i ~ • READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 2007 Rod Slifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk I ~ • ~ Attachment D , . • ii • : ~ ~WNOF YAIL ~ % THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLlC NOTICE ~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on, April 9, 2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: I A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of an entry feature, located at 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus), part of Tract B, Vai1 Viflage Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0012) Applicant: Vail Estates, represented by Pau1 Smith Planner: Bi(I Gibson A request for final review of the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3- , 7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0013) Applicant: Spraddfe Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave ~ Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted grass residential floor area and site coverage limitations, located at 914 Spraddle Creek Road, Lats 1-15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0014) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0015) Applicant: Doug Weltner , Planner: Warren Campbell Is Page 1 I - / • A recommendation to the Vaii Town Council of a major amendment to a Special ~ek Deve(opment Disfrict (SDD), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, ~ Vail Town Code, to allow far an amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to allow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0017) Applicant: Vai! Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planners: Bill Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours af 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 Gommunity Deve(opment Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for additiona( information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published March 23, 2007; in the Vail Daily. ~ • Page 2 ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: Aprii 9, 2007 ! SUBJECT: A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope on Lot 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth detaiis in regard thereto. (PEC07-0015) Applicant: Doug Weltner, represented by Scott Turnipseed Planner: Warren Campbell 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Doug Weltner, represented by Scott Turnipseed, is requesting final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope on Lot 1, within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road. If approved, this • request would result in the recording of Amended Fina( Plat. Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, Lot 1, Town Of Vail, Countv Of Eaale, State Of Colorado, depicting the change to the platted building enve(ope on Lot 1. Staff is recommending approval of this application subject to the findings and criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Doug Weltner, represented by Scott Turnipseed, is requesting final review of an amended final plat, Amended Final Plat. Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, Lot 1, Town Of Vail. Countv Of Eaale, State Of Colorado, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope on Lot 1, within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road. The proposal does not change the overall square footage of the currently platted building envelope (5,462 square feet); however, it does change the configuration of the envelope to accommodate the home design preferred by the current owner. The applicant wishes to amend the platted building envelope in order to provide an increased separation between the structure to be developed on Lot 1 and the structures to be developed to the west on the remaining lots within the Eleni Zniemer subdivision. A description of the request from the applicant is attached for reference (Attachment A). A vicinity map of Lot 1 is attached for reference (Attachment B). A reduced copy of the site plan and proposed amended p(at is attached for reference (Attachment C). i ~ III. BACKGROUND The Eleni Zneimer Subdivision was annexed into the Town Of Vail from Eagle County by ~ Ordinance 9, Series of 1987 which became effective on Aprii 29, 1987. It was previously identified as Phase VI of The Valley Subdivision. The Valley Phase VI was approved as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Eagle County jurisdiction in the fall of 1980. That plan included 42 townhouses with a total GRFA of 77,150 square feet. When the plan was annexed into the Town of Vail, a provision of the annexation ordinance required that any major modification to the County approved plan would require PEC approval. In that same ordinance Residential Cluster ~ Zoning was applied to the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. On October 22, 1990, the P(anning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved an amendment to the approved PUD from Eagle County. The amended ~ development plan inc(uded the ability to construct 13 single-family dwelling units with the ability to canstruct a caretakeNemployee housing unit in conjunction with each single- family dwelling unit. A total of 55,500 square feet of GRFA was approved for the 13 I sin le-famil dwelli n' g y ng u~ts and an additional 10,400 square feet was approved for the I 13 potential caretakerlemployee housing units. On August 30, 1990, March 31, 1994, and June 6, 1996, the plats establishing Lots 1-7 of the Lia Zneimer Subdivision were recorded. The Lia Zneimer Subdivision is located on the south side of Buffehr Creek Road. On February 19, 2003, the plat establishing Lots 1-6 of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision • was recorded. The seven lots created in the Lia Zneimer Subdivision and the six lots created by the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision completed the platting of the 13 single-family lots appraved under the October 22, 1990, approved development plan. On October 19, 2005, the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed new building envelope and curb-cut access proposal for Lot 1 on a conceptual basis and unanimously agreed that the proposed relocation of access was a better site design solution than taking access on the existing driveway through the retaining walls. They believed the proposed design would have less impact on the site. On November 14, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed and approved a proposal for amending several elements of the Eleni Zneimer subdivision. The proposal was comprised two applications to accompiish several goals. The appiications and accompanying goals included the following: • An application to amend an approved development plan in order to increase the allowable GRFA on the Lots 1-6, obtain a new building envelope on Lot 1, and new vehicular access to Lot 1; and • An exemption plat to adjust the platted building envelope on Lot 1 and amend the plat restrictions on GRFA for the Lots 1-6. 2 ~ r ~ IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Exemption Plat ' Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Pianning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approve with modifications, or disapprove the plat. Specifically the code states in Section 13-12-3C, Review and Action on Plat: I The p/anning and environmental commission shall review the plaf and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plaf within twenty one (21) days of fhe first public hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granfed subject to mutua/ agreement between the planning and environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing fhe p/af sha/l be as contained in section 13-3-4 of this title. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority on an exemption plat, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: The Town Council is the appeals authority for an exsmption plat review procedure in accordance with Section 9 3-3-5C, Vail Town Code, which reads as follows: • Within ten (10) days the decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission on the final plat shall be transmifted to the Council by the sfaff. The Council may appeal the decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission within seventeen (17) days of the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. If Council appea/s the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision, the Council shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing(s). The Council shall have thirty (30) days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the Planning and Environmental Commission decision, and the Council shall conduct the appea/ at a regu/arly scheduled Council meeting. 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. • 3 V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS • TOWN OF VAIL ZONING CODE TITLE 13: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (in part) 13-2-2 DEFINITIONS EXEMPTION PLAT: The platfing of a portion of land or properfy that does not fall within the definition of a"subdivision" as contained in this section. 13-12 EXEMPTION PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES 13-12-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and an appropriate review process whereb the lannin and environmental commission may grant exemptions from the definition of he term "subdivision" for properties that are determined to fall outside , the purpose, purview and intent of chapters 3 and 4 of this title. This process is intended to allow for the platting of property where no additional parcels are created and conformance with applicable provisions of this code has been demonstrated. (Ord. 2(2001) § 1) 13-12-2: EXEMPTIONS IN PROCEDURE AND SUBMITTALS: "Exemption Plats", as defined in section 13-2-2 of this title, shall be exempt from • requirements related to preliminary plan procedures and submittals. Exemption plat applicants may be required to submit an environmental impact report if required by title 12, chapter 12 of this code. 13-12-3: PLAT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: The procedure for an exemption p(at review shall be as follows: A. Submission Of Proposal; Waiver Of Requirements: The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of the proposal following the requirements for a final plat in subsection 13- 3-613 of this title, with the provision that certain of these requirements may be waived by the administrator and/or the planning and environmental commission if determined not applicable to the project. B. Public Hearing: The administrator will schedule a public hearing before the planning and environmental commission and follow notification requirements for adjacent property owners and public notice for the hearing as found in subsection 13-3-6131 of this title. C. Review And Action On Plat: The planning and environmental commission shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within finrenty one (21) days of the first public hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to mutual agreement • 4 ~ befinreen the planning and environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in section 13-3-4 of this title. Vl. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoninq North: Forest Service NA East: Residential Residential Cluster West: Residentiaf Residential Cluster South: Residential Residential Cluster VII. SITE ANALYSIS Development Standard Allowed/ReQUired Existinq Proqosed Lot Area Lot 1 15,000 sq. ft. 218,235 sq. ft. No Change Lot 2 15,000 sq. ft. 92,957 sq. ft. No Change Lot 3 15,000 sq. ft. 95,788 sq. ft. No Change Lot 4 15,000 sq. ft. 83,286 sq. ft. No Change Lot 5 15,000 sq. ft. 28,357 sq. ft. No Change l.ot 6 15,000 sq. ft. 22,476 sq. ft. No Change Tract A 15,000 sq. ft. 393,303 sq. ft. No Change • Frontage Per the approved development plan, Lots 2-6 within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision were to gain access off the extended driveway which has been constructed per the approved plans. Lot 1 was approved to gain access directly from Buffehr Creek Road. This proposal does not change the access to any of the lots. Site Dimensions Per the approved development plan, each lot was platted with a building envelope. Pursuant to the approved development plan the platted building envelopes are permitted to take on new dimensions; however, the new proposed envelope cannot shift more that 15 feet from is platted location and it must contain the same amount of square footage of buildable area as the platted envelope. The applicant is proposing to shift the building envelope on Lot 1 in one area approximately 45 feet to the east and 25 feet to the north. The existing building envelope on Lot 1 measures 5,462 square feet and the proposed revised (shifted) building envelope would measure 5,462 square feet. Side Setbacks Per the approved development plan the platted building envelopes were located as to maintain desired spacing befinreen the structures. All physical improvements to the sites other than grading and landscaping must occur within the building envelope. In addition, there is a 15-foot setback off of the perimeter of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. . 5 GRFA Allowed . Lot Exfstinq Proposed Lot 1 5,267.4 sq. ft. No Change Lot 2 5,267.4 sq. ft. No Change Lot 3 5,267.4 sq. ft. No Change Lot 4 5,267.4 sq. ft. No Change Lot 5 5,500 sq. ft. No Change Lot 6 4,180 sq. ft. No Change Tract A No development Potential No Change VI{I. APPLICATION CR{TERIA AND FINDINGS The purpose section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, is intended to ensure that the proposed subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. The criteria for reviewing an exemption plat shal{ be as contained in section 13-3-4 of this title which are as follows: (9) The extent fo which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable elemenfs of the adopted goa/s, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the developmenf objecfives of the fown; and Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the proposed amended final plat and found it to be in compliance with ail applicable elements of Vail Comprehensive Plan. As stated previously, when the Eagle County approved development plan was ~ annexed into the Town of Vail in 1987, a provision of the annexation ordinance required that any major modification to the County approved plan would require PEC approval. On October 22, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved an amendment to the approved PUD from Eagle County. The amended development plan included the ability to construct 13 single-family dwelling units with the ability to construct a caretaker/employee housing unit in conjunction with each single-fami(y dwelling unit. A total of 55,500 square feet of GRFA was approved for the 13 single-family dwelling units and an additional 10,400 square feet was approved for the 13 potential caretaker/employee housing units. As Planning and Environmental Commission review of this application to amend the building envelope is required by annexation agreement and not Code, the only evaluation criteria to be used is to compare the existing, approved plan, to the proposed plan and determine that the intent and goals of the currently approved plan are being maintained. The approved development plan from October 22, 1990, included provisions for platted building envelopes on each of the six lots lacated within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. The following is the text from that approved development plan - discussing the platted building envelopes: • 6 I « ~ Building envelopes indicated upon the approved site plan may be modified with approval of the DRB based upon detailed review of an j individual dwelling unit. The DRB shall find that the modification fo any building envelope does not substantially result in any negative impacts upon the site, adjoining properfy, or have any adverse impact upon required geologic hazard considerations. If an association of homeowners within the project is formed, any modification of a building envelope shafl a/so conform to the ru/es and regulations adopted by the association. Any modification shall not exceed 15 feet and in no case sha/l any structure be built in the 20 foot setbacks shown on the approved development plan. " Staff has made the interpretation that the modification of an envelope of 15 feet or less can be made if the DRB makes the findings stated in the above paragraph. However, the resulting modified building envelope must be no more square footage than that of the platted building envelope. The structures currently constructed and under construction on Lots 5 and 6 of the Eleni I Zneimer Subdivision went through the process described in the paragraph above. i I This proposal includes a request to shift a portion of the platted building envelope j on Lot 1 on the northeast corner of the platted envelope approximately 45 feet to i the east and 25 feet to the north. The existing building envelope on Lot 1 ~ measures 5,462 square feet and the proposed revised (shifted) building envelope would measure 5,462 square feet. The proposed building envelope change is attached for reference (Attachment C). Staff believes the intent of the approved development plan and the platted building envelopes is being met. The existing and proposed building envelopes are identical in total square footage. Staff agrees with the DRB that the proposed envelope will allow for adequate protection of the existing aspen grove on the lot. (2) The extent to which the proposed su6division complies wifh all of fhe standards of this Title, as well as, but not limited to, Tifle 1 Z, Zoning Regulations and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmenta/ Commission deems applicable; and StafF Response: Staff has reviewed the proposed amended final plat and found that all submittal documents were received and the resulting lots wi(I compiy with all applicable portions of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. (3) The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent wrth municipal development objectives; and Staff Response: The proposed amended final plat modifying the platted building envelope on Lot 1 will not negatively affect the workable relationship • among land uses as the proposal will maintain the current land uses, low density residential. 7 ~ . (4) The extenf of the effects on the future development of the surrounding • area; and Staff Response: The proposed amended final plat modifying the platted buifding enve(ope on Lot 1 will not negatively affect the future development of the I surrounding area as the development potential remains consistent. I (5) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed I to avoid creating spatiai patterns thaf cause inefficiencies in the delivery of pubiic services, or require duplication or premature extension of public ~ facilities, or result in a"leapfrog" pattern of development; and I ~ Staff Response: The proposed amended finai plat modifying the platted building envelope on Lot 1 will not negatively affect the elements identified in the above criterion. (6) The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate populafion of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines; and Staff Ftesponse: The proposed amended final plat modifying the platted building envelope on Lot 1 wiH not affect the currently level of utility service required in the vicinity. i (7) The exfent to which the proposed subdivision provides for fhe growth • of an orderly viab/e community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed amended final plat to modify the platted building envelope for Lot 1 wiU continue to allow for the orderly growth of the community and serves the interests of the community as the owner of the {ot will be able to construct a structure which wi11 have less impact on the site and neighborhood than the previously platted envelope and driveway configuration. (8) The extenf to which the proposed subdivision resu/ts in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environmenf, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegefation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable nafura? features; and Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the proposed amended final plat to modify the platted building envelope on Lot 1 will result in any adverse impacts to any of the items listed in the above criterion. Staff asked the applicant to perform an analysis of how the trees on the site would be impacted. Through a study comparing the approved building envelope to the proposed buifding enve{ope it was determined that the new design removed approximately five (5) more trees than the approved design (Attachment C). If the proposed bui(ding envelope is approved and a subsequent Design Review application is submitted Staff will encourage the Design Review Board to review the accompanying landscape plan to verify that that any proposed plantings mitigate the trees to be removed. • 8 • (9) Such other facfors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed suhdivision. B. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a major subdivision, the Pianning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings with respect to the proposed major subdivision: (1) That the subdivision is in compliance wifh the criteria listed in Subsection 13- 3-4A, Vail Town Code; and (2) That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive P/an and compatib/e with the development objectives of the Town; and i (3) That fhe subdivisian is compatible with, and suitable to, adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and (4) That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinafed and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. • IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, of the request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vai( Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope on Lot 1, within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this exemption plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the Amended Final Plat. Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, Lot 1, Tawn Of Vail, Countv Of Ea41e. State Of Colorado, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vai! Town Code, to amend the buildrng envelope on Lot 1 within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road/Lof 1, E/eni Zniemer Subdivision and sefting forth defails in regard fhereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this final plat amendment request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: . 9 1. That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the ~ Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations fhat the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. That the application is appropriafe in regard fo Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulafions, ardinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. 3. That the application to amend the building enve/ope on Lot 1 of the E/eni Zneimer subdivision has been determined to meet the intent and goals of the approved development p/an. X. ATTACHMENTS A. ApplicanYs Request B. Vicinity Map C. Reduced Copies of Site Plan and Amended Final Plat D. Notice to neighboring properties E. Letter from concerned neighbor dated April 4, 2007 . • 10 • • Mr. Warren Campbell II Town of Vail Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road , Vail, CO 81657 ~ April 4, 2007 ~ Re: Building Envelope Amendment Request i 1701 Buffehr Creek Road; Lot 1, Filing 1, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Dear Warren, Thank you for considering our request of an amendment of a building envelope at the referenced address. The applicant, Doug Weltner, represented by Scott S. Turnipseed, AIA, is requesting an • amendment to the building envelope located at 1701 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot 1, Filing 1, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. The request involves a reconfiguration and shift to the East of the 5,462 square foot building envelope, which was onginally platted in the early 1990's as part of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. The relocation of the building envelope is being requested in order to provide increased ' distance between the envelope on Lot 1 and the envelopes of the neighboring properties to the West. At over five acres in size, the neighboring properties to the East will not be ~ affected negatively and an increased amount of land, landscaping, and therefore screening will be provided between Buffehr Creek Road and the new building envelope location. The proposed building envelope is located uphill of the existing aspen grove to the South. ' It should be noted that the location of the proposed envelope will likely result in a similar amount of site disturbance, because the site is unifortnly steep across its entire width. The centerline of the originally platted driveway will remain. The proposed reconfiguration would result in the same size building envelope which remains at 5,462 square feet. Thank you in advance for consideration of our client's request. Best Regards, ED Scott S. Turnipseed, AIA Attachment: A r=v ~ r~"4~ ri. Y i Iy'~ r ~S T. ~i ~ . ~ty~ ~ ~ a~Ai i ~ .p~. ~ ti i € , ~ s ' 4 1~~~'~'~ jd4 k•~ o~i ty~, f CTr 4 ~1s e i_ ~ . ~y ' ~ . ~ nn' f,1'~'"t k~~ 1U t A k'. ~ ~ ti4 A ~~Y,~y~ } NP) ~'~p N~'j+• ~ 1~,/~ ~ . ~ ti~ C~~,~! +~d.y~, fa ~ Y~ i i w~ ~ . ' u IF' tYCGe't'rN ~ ~'~~~`~+~~~i~f ~~~y,?~ a~~~i~~t~ ~"y~~~ C~~"4~~ti , p i~~`~i 4A*"~~' ~y 0 ~.i 'Q y~ rr• ~ ~t +~tt~t~f a ' ~ ' 2, r ~ ~ t~na,~''~~, y t. ,t N~..yn ~ ~O/ .7~f ,&~Yi ~ ~ `i' ..•1.+ ~v ~ ~v~•"bJXV. ~4,~~~~~~ ;4^ ~ # lt ~ t~~i'i~j N,~«~~,~~ -G .:a~y9 a 1 ~ ~ F~a ~ , 0 ..h~ ~~A. Y 1;~, '~,',~t ~C~~~ • ~u. ~A~~"~~ e T~ ¦+r ~ 1% V* h'r' ~'~i ~4yt p~ c2 ~ Iny'~ ~ i ~~'"~Tyf~% j~{C~~ J-~3~~# xCi 14 c Ci ~d ~ o Kl t 1 ~ ~ ~ w K~'"~~ ~'~i~ k! {A;, i~¦,~,~~~',~~ s F~~ d' L" O •"~^`Y `~3J~t • ~,ry~~~M tu ~ eY ' ~ < ~ '~4< ~ O ~,1'` ~.w ~1:~tf 4~••~ ~ U} { TiY~ : t~ ~ °p Lq . 0:5 O 0 ( 4~~ ~,ii4 a 1- dai~~~; 2 1 > ~~r~y~~'''" , ¦ ~ ~ y~,•`~., K,~~~'} '15'~'y~~~~~'~~~} ~~^~~~a:1F'~~~ ~f'`Far~ti:t~~r*{~" 1`7_ v W r Wj a~yR i Xw` G sv,,p,,F.+~ ~ o /M~ ns S~; E ~ ~ w yrSFroaf~ ~ a Y ~e 'tt y~'~~• tr r~ ; 'Aa ° o.:~+ ~r! k , a~ ~ ~ue~' ~ ~ 4n , ~66'~~ ~v"^ ~~•t'~ ; t~i ~d+'+} ~ + ~k,~+ ',~i~ W ~ ~ ~ ~i. ~ ~i i ~ rr~ %~ti;~~3~i ~ r~~C9~ y#~~~`"9i,1~~ 4~ tih'~'°~`,~~~., ~ ' , ti 1 ~yq'~'~r r6x.~C ''sTl E Q A-'m~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ y, e~ YSA !X~ ~~,y"S AG~+~ Y w~t ? ~ . J~ 0.5 ~.i ~ ~'1h .Nr+. i~ ~ ~ N ~ 'k ''~;J• ~ ~ e , , . . . n i . . ` ~ I. I ° ~ t 4 t! 'r i+ . , ' " w,~,' ~ ~~t• y. , ~~µe, ~1 ~ ~ ~~~,k",• ~ i. •J j' ~kY!' r~~ ~ ~,~'~!~'i~ 'W M1 k4~ men« ~ Attach~„ : V w C dJ ~ t v t0 ~ ~ 'Q W a e ^ o ~ ~ 4. aIR ~ u e~ 8 S~g~ E ~d u5 g~a~ ~ y o 979 ~aa 's mMQ m o = >~Z m H a o o.Zg wW F~3 p6` ~ ~~.e ? a a ~~°v < in _n~m~s _ ~ci V 5$0 c4i ~B m 9 31 3 c>.~ cl Eg$a"s~~ _e o~ vg 4`c~ mF 5 ~ ~~~~5$,£' E viz O ~~~aa,~~~ ~ u . ~ ffi~mo g 9m s~~q~a~~ ~ i $$5 d - d U s` ~1 a~s1;~~ a a O ~ g ~g a~ 'aIn5`$~a~ r 3 ~S t'~~v°~mo a o € > w tn„ °~y~a.5. ~Q 11v°~~£-u`~ o N'S 1 5 r Q A~ O ~ U ~ ~ 2 ~ W U F ~ Z tL ~ W o i 0~0~ o o = o ~ W Q w ~NGSI O~ ~ . N W N 0~ 6\~• R ~ z ~ ~ ~ Q ~ leASpp s~ ' ? ° Ir l N O ~ ~ g 5y6 i~ ` Q w Z U E o~ ENgmNil o I W o W Q ._..1 > ~a soacrm , \ J O j3 150Q ~e ~ \ s g~~~N a h N n ~ n OSp \ /~a6cSSm`` d 94V ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ F ' Z .ON M I ( ~ ' ( ,Z5'8£S - 3,69,5£.tON ~ / ~ n q n N z ~ I ~ 1 jallon $ N ~ . 9~~ .ra0 V i > ~ - • M t fP; M.~ ; n% ,raxcnr ~ z ~ 'S7 ~ ~ j o^ N,-.~ o C~ - _ • 1P . a ~ g~"~_°° _ Fl°_ m mo~~ ~ o• o ~ a y n°•a~ • ~ ' O a.. ~ . V ~ U ~ c ~ U' y Q . - - ~ a~ 1`r M ~ t;; r r : w ~ . r. . `r l ~ " r . ` 7L ~ ~ a 2 V" `~~[CM~ 3 1 Ao ~ !u ~ :I ~ ~ 1 A C' ~S •r sy N a 4 ~ ~ : Y5 . O„ ~y . . . . ~ • \7' ~ ~.?b r I ID6CBiCOLdl9006CHLC0L6a LSVIY DOVU0107'IItlA [PLIS Z~-~U3. • I[91B oPOW-J'eCo3 NOISIAIOHfISY3W13KLIN3l3'I JNI'llf "IlOI [PZ!-I Od'llZall^S'4ao4 SIo1MooCYII 9fMl"LI ~.W ~~~y~yyp OtlOY]I33MJNH33if1010L9(FLLbI IJOJ ~~I~I3QIS3~i 3I~I.L7g M ~ `dlb'Paasdjuinl'S 1100S ?I • N LO-Zi-£ iEil?-qns a8uzqo adolanug 8uip~mg w } ~ ~ 1 rl- qj i rw_- p Z ; 0 ~ ~ W ? N N I Q ~ H N Ln O ~ d. d- ~ w i ~ ~ O~ ~ O w/ _ ~ C5 N C) ~ Q II ~ II m C) JUOCD Q W Of S (Y- ` ~ ~c QUm ~ ~ Lr) 00 00 v ~ °NrnLo ;n << N N ^p s`b m u„` u cn ~ v s~> > Q II ~ II \ ~JUOCD~ W 0-- U 0 < M i ~ ~ i o~ y O LLJ I d Q 8) O v 1 ~y ~ ~ a s~ y i 0 > tn w = a r- CD r 0 00 m Q o- w ~ co I F- U V a oo Z r") I ~ O LC) O Q) tn _ O p~ i ~ ioj t0 r4-) f~ tf) i ~ ~ II ~ II Z ~Q II ~ II 00 i~ z < o O Qm N i 00 _ w~ o "t i I d- 10 m ~ • Zr ~ co I ~ in O ~ W Z m Q N U Q Q > Q Z ~ 0 LU Attachment C o W Z ,sA rn ~ z - J zLA • tv 3 ot - s ~ Q r O _ . a• ~ ^ ~ ?v ° '~.J y v `Z ~ ~ • - ~ ~ I~ C~... o:Qo ~ de ~ Q "~o . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ cl~ ~ 0 v~ Z c~. ~ N 40 ~ ~ ~ eti 41 b )ry A L ~ ~p ~D 5 ) 1 ) • + ~ i ~ 01 ~ OD ~ . Q ~ a • Q ia" r r ~ M ~ it • TOWN OF VAIL THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on, April 9, 2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of an entry feature, located at 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus), part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0012) I Applicant: Vail Estates, represented by Paul Smith Planner: Bill Gibson I A request for final review of the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3- 7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site I Coverage, Vail Town Code, to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, , Lots 1-15, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0013) ~ Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted gross residential floor area and site coverage limitations, located at 914 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0014) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0015) Applicant: Doug Weltner Planner: Warren Campbell i • Page 1 Attachment D j I _ I • A recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to a Special Development District (SDD), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to aNow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0017) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planners: Bill Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 heacing in the Town of Vail Community Development 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. Published March 23, 2007, in the Vail Daily. • • i Page 2 Law Office of Arthur A. Abplanalp, Jr. L.L.C. Telephone: POSt OffiCC BOX ZHOO Physical Address: • 970.476.0300 Vail, Colorado Suite 301 970.476.6500 Vail 21 Building Telecopier: 81658-2800 472 East Lionshead Circle 970.476.4765 Vail, Colorado E-mail: Art.Abplanalp 4 Apri12007 81657 @earthlink.net Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Vail, Colorado Re: Proposed Amended Subdivision Plat and Relocation of Building Envelope Lot 1, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Members of the Commission: This Office has been engaged by James Andretta, the owner of Lot 3, Lia Zneimer Subdivision, to communicate to this Commission his concerns regarding, if not his objections to, the application for approval of an amended subdivision plat (changing the building envelope) for Lot 1, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision ("Lot 1"), which is directly across Buffehr Creek Road from his residence. The history of the location of the building envelope assigned to Lot 1 has • relevance to the proposal now under consideration by the Commission. Part of that history is as follows: ~ 1. The original building envelope on Lot 1 was located at the southwest corner of the properry and relied for access on the road which serves the other lots in that subdivision. The configuration of that original building envelope (as well as the location of Mr. Andretta's property) is found on the original plat of Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, part of which follows this letter as Item 1. That original building envelope is also identified as the broken line identified as such on the plats identified as Item 2 and Item 3 following this letter. 2. In 2005, a proposed amendment to the building envelope of Lot 1 came before this Commission, by which that building envelope was to be reconfigured a bit up the hill and to the east, in order to facilitate service from a new driveway coming in from the east. That proposed change is identified on Item 2 following this letter. At that time, Mr. Andretta had concerns regarding (a) incursion into the undeveloped area (protected by the original subdivision plat's location of the building envelope) north 1 • I Attachment: E • of the Andretta residence and (b) the possibility of a significant retaining wall directly north of the Andretta residence. At that time, Mr. Andretta did not feel that the effect on the undeveloped area and his view warranted objection to the amendment, although the question was a close one. The new proposal does not seem to be available at the Town office in the form of an actual amended plat. We understand that what is available is a topographic map locaring only the original building envelope and not the 2005 proposal. We are uncertain whether the 2005 proposal was actually approved and recorded, but the information on the topographical map now available indicates that may not be the case. The part of the map idenrifying the new proposal (in a scale comparable to the 2005 map mentioned above) is identified as Item 3 following this letter. Warren Campbell, the planner assigned to this proposal, has indicated that the staff intends to recommend approval, based at least in part upon the fact that the new proposal would have less impact on the grove of trees on the north side of Buffehr Creek Road. When the impact of the relocation of the building envelope is analyzed based upon the information available, it is unclear whether the relocation of the ~ building envelope will lessen the impact on these trees or effectively eliminate an even larger part of that grove than did the earlier proposed locations. The reason for this observation is the fact that, unlike the 2005 proposal, the current proposal does not identify the location of the relocated driveway and parking area. The east wing of the new proposal will clearly push the driveway farther south and into the grove than the driveway location on the 2005 proposal, because that east wing would be located across more than half of the width of the 2005 driveway location. If the parking area is to be located south of the center of the new building envelope, then, based upon the size of the parking area in the 2005 proposal, the retaining walls for the driveway, if not the driveway itself, will cut farther into the grove. The first concern of Mr. Andretta is, therefore, the fact that, without a depiction of the location of the driveway, parking area, and related retaining walls, the effect on the grove of trees cannot be deternuned, and action on the application should be deferred until that information is available. The second concern of Mr. Andretta is the fact that the current application indicates a continuing migration of the building improvements to the east of what was originally the consolidated location of all building envelopes in the southwest section of Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, protecting the upper and eastern parts of the subdivision from development. Item 4 is a second copy of Item 2 with the latest boundary overlaid on it. Item 4 roughly or specifically contains all three building envelope configurations • 2 • - ~ . and best illustrates the migration of the building envelope easterly and up the mountain. The currently proposed revision of the building envelope extends a significant distance to the east of the 2005 proposal, twice the distance to the east as the movement of the 2005 proposal in comparison to the original. The impact of the change in the building envelope now proposed clearly would be significant, although, , as noted above, it is difficult to accurately evaluate that impact without information regarding the location of the Lot 1 driveway, parking area and related retaining walls required by the proposed relocation of the Lot 1 building envelope. In any event, even if it is deternuned, after further information is provided regarding associated structures, that the location of those features is no more aggressive than the 2005 proposal, Mr. Andretta wishes to emphasize that, if those impacts under the current proposal are marginally tolerable, any further movement to the east beyond the current proposal would be unacceptable. For the reasons noted in association with the first concern of Mr. Andretta, i.e., the lack of information related to the impact of the change in building envelope on the Lot 1 driveway, parking area and related retaining walls, the application before the Town of Vail should be tabled until that information is available, and, if that information is not provided, then the application should be denied based upon the fact that the impact on the terrain and the vegetation on the property, as well as adjoining ~ property owners, cannot be determined. If the Commission or the staff has any questions regarding the foregoing, please contact me. Thank you for your consideration of Mr. Andretta's concerns related to this matter. spectfull , Arthur A. Abplanal , Jr. xc: Mr. James Andretta 3 • , 11 9•Zs : ! . ~ ~ ` ~ ~ti ~ go.~.~•.~°N OD a co1 ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ` • r •'~r ~ N°G°a ^ my~ ~ ~m"fl~v Ln ~z ~ r ~i ~~+1 C V ~ 4 t ri~ ~r ~ o ? m \ f ° To y ~ lk V ~ I ~ ~ / : ~ 1 ~1? ~ , ~ ~ ~ ti • N 1 ` ~ j~ t _ ~ r~~• ~ ~ ~ ~ , o i~ . r i ~ o xy r~ 6! N O ~ ,0 -t~ n,• 1 j VI ~ 'j ~e ~ . - ~ , 1 ~2• 6• , ' j \l~, ' ~,~5 4 rn ~ 1 o 'O 1 co 1 1 ~ ~ -d ~ , ~ ` 1 ~ ~ ~~1~ -~pZ 1 ~1 ~ 1 N I~ \ ` 4 ` \ \ ~ ~ ' ° "m c ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 1 ~ o I y ~ ~ \ ` \ \ \ 4 \ ` ~ ZmU un\ \ rn (S ~ ~ OC) Cp ~ t,,a ~ \ • ~ / ~ . \ \ r- \ i , - - ;a ? ~ • ,,,r'~. ~w s A , . J' ~ 1 2. r. cn I co M / O ~ a ~ f~ M ~ N A ~ D~', 1 t~r N , o u~m r~ rn cs m 90 > 5 0 OM , 1 w ~ ~ / N Z \ ~ ~ ~ ~ lAbb 00 71 C~ ~ ~ ~ N O O cD O n \ N \ I , ~ . ~ r io , Z OO w ~ ~ •~o ~ } , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x , / ' , 1 ~ ~ I ' 12, 6• \ ~ 1 vt } ` ~ 1 1 ~ a+ ~ ti' p r ~ C' ` t 10 u ~ ; ~ rn CP 1 1 ` 5` ~ ° .a rn /511 (n Oc) OC) OI o ~ \ \ 1 ~ ~ , ! ~ ? ' . r- , MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 9, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a work session to review the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code (Hillside Residential District)„ to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0013) Applicant: Spraddie Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates, is requesting a work session to review the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow ~ for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, located at 914 fhrough 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15. The Hillside Residential district is sofely applied to the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision. The rationale behind the applicanYs request is to allow for greater flexibiiity in the design and construction of new residences and additions within the subdivision and to bring the zone district into greater alignment with the changes made to Section 12-21-14.E.1, Restrictions In Specific Zones On Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2006, which eliminated the site coverage reduction on steep slopes from 20% to 15%, but limited the disturbed area of the site to 60%. As this is a work session staff has not made a recommendation on this text amendment and the Planning and Environmental Commission is not being asked to take any action at this time other than to table this application to the May 14, 2007, hearing. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates, is requesting a work session to review the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. This request does not propose to change the configuration of area of the currently platted building envelopes which restrict the development of structures on the lots within the subdivision to certain locations and sizes. ~ 1 The proposed text amendment is as follows: ~ (deletions are shown in /additions are shown bold) Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage: Site Coverage shall not exceed #'~een twenty percent (43 20%) of the total site area. III. BACKGROUND On January 15, 1985, the property comprising Spraddle Creek Estates, approximately 39.55 acres was annexed into the Town of Vail. On November 18, 1986, the Town of Vail adopted the Land Use Plan which identified Spraddle Creek Estates as being within the Hillside Residential land use designation. The plan identified Spraddle Creek Estates as the single property within this land use designation within Town boundaries. On October 26, 1987, through fhe adoption of Ordinance 38, Series of 1987, the Town of Vail created and imposed the Hillside Residentiai District on Spraddle Creek Estates. Town Staff developed the Hillside Residential District in response to the the adoption of the Land Use Plan. On April 17, 1991, the Design Review Board granted final approval to the development of Spraddle Creek Estates. This approval was for roadway design, retaining walls ~ design, landscaping of entry and common parcels, and a design standards handbook for the subdivision. On February 24, 1992, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved several variances for retaining wall height and roadway grades in excess of those permitted. On July 12, 1993, a minor subdivision was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission to adjust the shared lot line between Lots 14 and 15 to increase the size of Lot 15 to allow for a primary unit and a care taker unit on the lot. On September 7, 1993, the Town of Vail adopted Ordinance 11, Series 1993, which rezoned Tract C of Spraddle Creek Estates from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District to Single Family District in order to permanently restrict the lot as an employee housing unit (gate keeper house). On April 5, 1995, the Design Review Board approved a change to the Residential Design regulations for Spraddle Creek to allow for glass expanses in excess of 36 feet. On June 22, 1998, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an amendment to the Spraddle Creek Estates plat fo allow for interior conversions to residences which complied with the regulations. On August 1, 2006, the Town Council, through the adoption of Ordinance No. 17, series of 2006, approved the following changes to the Section 12-21-14E, Restrictions In ~ Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code. 2 The proposed text amendments were as follows: • (Deletions are shown in 6tFffik° +"r^u^"/additions are shown bold) Section 12-21-14E: RESTRICTIONS IN SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE SLOPES: 0 , , 0 bufIdIHg&;-and 2~.- 1. Not more than ten percent (90%) of the total srte area may be covered by driveways and surface parking. 2. In order to protect the nafural land form and vegefation on steep s/opes, not more than sixty percent (60%) of the tofa/ sife area may be disturbed from present condifions by construction activities. The Design Review Board (DRB) may approve site disturbance in excess of the sixty percent (6091o) maximum if specific design criteria warrant the extent of the requested deviation. IV. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS Vail Land use Plan (in part) HR - Hillside Residential • This category would allow for single family dwelling units at densities no more than two dwelling units per buildable acre. Also permitted would be typical single family accessory uses such as private recreational amenities, attached caretaker units, or employee units and garages. Institutional/public uses would also be permitted. These areas would require sensitive development due to slopes, access, visibility, tree coverage and geologic hazards. Minimum buildable area of 20,000 square feet would be required per dwelling unit. Spraddle Creek Residential Desiqn Requlations Dated July 30, 1993 (in part) BUILDING ENVELOPE The buifding envelope is the portion of each lot within which all improvements must be built including buildings, accessory buildings, site walfs, fences, screens, recreational improvements, etc. Landscaping may occur outside the building envefope. A building envelope has been established for each lot based on the natural topography and features on the lot, views, and relationship to adjacent building envelopes. The purpose of the envelope is to reduce uncertainty of neighbors as to which view corridors might be impacted by future construction, and to help insure that structures blend in with the surrounding landscape, rather than dominate it. Owners should refer to Spraddle Creek Estates final plat in order to clarify lot property boundaries, building envelope, allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA), etc. With the prior written approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board (TOVDRB), • encroachments outside the building envelope may be permitted for driveways, drainage structures, utility installations, sidewaiks, and garages that meet the requirements of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. 3 V. SITE ANALYSIS Lot Summary Chart (As found on the Spraddle Creek Estates Plats in part) i Parcel Area Max. GRFA Max. Site Coveraqe Lot 1 87,499 s.f. (2.00 ac.) 7,333 s.f 6,483 s.f. Lot 2 48,146 s.f. (1.11 ac.) 6,524 s.f. 5,674 s.f. Lot 3 88,619 s.f. (2.03 ac.) 8,548 s.f. 7,698 s.f. Lot 4 85,250 s.f. (1.96 ac.) 7,016 s.f. 6,166 s.f. Lot 5 61,082 s.f. (1.40 ac.) 6,827 s.f. 5,977 s.f. Lot 6 82,050 s.f. (1.88 ac.) 8,220 s.f. 7,370 s.f. Lot 7 43,833 s.f. (1.01 ac.) 6,309 s.f. 5,459 s.f. Lot 8 31,873 s.f. (0.73 ac.) 5,711 s.f. 4,781 s.f. Lot 9 63,044 s.f. (1.45 ac.) 7,269 s.f. 6,419 s.f. Lot 10 32,296 s.f. (0.74 ac.) 5,732 s.f. 4,844 s.f. Lot 11 71,419 s.f. (1.64 ac.) 7,688 s.f. 6,838 s.f. Lot 12 96,213 s.f. (2.21 ac.) 8,928 s.f. 8,078 s.f. Lot 14 286,022 s.f. (6.57 ac.) 14,330 s.f. 10,000 s.f. Lot 15 25,596 s.f. (0.59 ac.) 5,397 s.f. 3,839 s.f. Tract A 337,222 s.f. (7.74 ac.) NA NA Tract B 5,151 s.f. (0.12 ac. ) NA NA Tract C 47,279 s.f. (1.09 ac.) NA NA Tract D 152,918 s.f. (3.51 ac.) NA NA Tract E 6,231 s.f. (0.14 ac.) NA NA Tract F 68,762 s.f. (1.58 ac.) NA NA Tract G 2,394 s.f. (0.05 ac.) NA NA • VI. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that it is appropriate to increase the site coverage from 15% to 20% and allow Section 12-21-14E, Restrictions In Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vait Town Code, regulate the development on the steep lots in Spraddte Creek Estates to a maximum of 60% site disturbance? Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that the changes made to Section 12-21-14E, Restrictions In Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, warrant a change to site coverage in the Hillside Residential district? Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that the changes made to Chapter 12-15, Gross Residential Floor Area, Vail Town Code increasing the allowable GRFA on properties zoned Hillside Residential district warrant an increase in the site coverage? Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that the original intent of the adopted regulations for the Hillside Residential District and the Spraddle Creek Estates approvals are upheld if site coverage is increased from 15% to 20%? Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that relying on a maximum of 60% site disturbance is adequate to protect the slopes and sites? ~ Staff included an analysis of the lot sizes in Section V of this memorandum to depict the large sizes of many of the lots. 4 • Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that the platted building envelopes offer adequate additional protection to the development of structures and additions on the steep slopes found in the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision? Does the Planning and Environmental Commission identify the need for any additional information to be provided at a future hearing? VII. CRITERIA The revie~, established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-3, Vail Town Code. As thi: is a work session staff has not addressed the following criteria. The following criteria will be fully addressed at the hearing in which the Planning and Environmental Commission will be asked to forward a recommendation on to the Town Council. 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and, 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and, • 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and, 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and, 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deems applicable to the proposed text amendment. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission tables this application to the May 14, 2007, hearing. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Reduced copy of recorded plat C. Notice • 5 i~ y , ;t ~ t~t ` ~ ~ 1,~',~ ~ ~a ~ ~ # . ~~rr, ~r~ ~ xtG - - qr.l~~q. 9.w.• ' ~ < , f' Y F ~ ; ~At~ s ry Vi ~r? ? } ~ s~ » ~ y o ~ d v ~ ~I ~ 1 ~ ~j~ ~7~ i ~ •,'~v';~ ~r ,~a ti~s.`~ i~J 7A ..r ( 1 ~ # ~ ~~ykp t - L`.ra{.WNVSYGPM~~l1.!.iT l~ Ar7 t.~ 1 i 1 ~ ) ~ p I~ ~ 7,~ ~ ~1~ " . , ~ ~ t, . ~ • 1 ~~''a CL 0 T c O E 0 ~ r 1 x.1t"'; ~ i ~ { t ~ ~ ~ ' "U a~,x ` ti ; ~ ` ' ~ W W L ma ~ ~ I `yt ~ 1 J E 7 ~r r Attachment A M m ~y m O w ~j N 1~'1 D a N W I . ' ~ U c ~ ~o . 1 I W N~~Oi+NU9 i a¢ E µcT9 ~Ob y~S ~ atlc "~tl q ~ ~ m p , yy L `1~ ~ i ~ u-t~~ N r tl i i ~ - ~ 481~ d ~ Y D~ ryV i M O LU ~ ~ a I II NNOSNO 1 ~ ~ 1 ~OCNOLb OgOitCay p3a ~1 ~ 1 C TO c~ NNUO ~Ji 1 - I I C a Ti`N N ~os~d~b0 4ryi~tl I ~ ~o ~ I W C a ~a~NY ~ ~ ONII*N4 'd ~ ~S I I ~ N ~ri.i 9I tlo Otiai+ >YY L ~~~i 1 CDN 6 V 'O Q tl o L Q O 1 a I I "~6 ii _E ~su oo-3~- c CYUYt{,OQ> 1tOP~ ~A.~~i~ H~ cE rqO CU~4~N~JGP-r~ T,I ~ y Itl A U d~- i d y JL a ii~ a tl 3JUC N ~S~'J bP~~~~ ~ ~ Cu ~6U~tl'OLUyNzV6~.yC~~ iIDO ~ d•~eCdtl~~ .GI''.~~ ' C~~~ w ~ ~1 tl e O 3Q~'t~tyOry~tl tlJNO'O3 ; V~ aQi ! 0 N>. 'OY C O N~6 4. O: V } T N IC l_ p'l £ IN ~J 2I E U dO W}yNJO).~`c TII- O 1~J ~Y rn o"H~-` ~d';F;~•.. rs ~ ~i°~~ ~ ~H-c i 5~ I1~ ~ ~ a w i~ u- m a. * e a i u a~o c,> ~ n ~ ~ a ~ ' y L~ y~ N-' L>OC L *i ON~xj i o] ~0µ}S+OU1~LOOCL~VO ~TC~c ~,.'~lI0 b ~TG ~~W 10 F•~ e~ Vy.no a~sCi °w` "u`oy~-°u+~v cy~ ieoo w'YV~ c. o E4~9G3 Yp _ 1 4.. C ,N EW ZI-1-UVb • 1 F- I t l I UW W , tl~ t C N~~ 6 ~ . o N ~O N tl d~ T c- QO > 4 i9 U d~ 1 d> y ~ tlIIC ~O1 - ~ d~Of a r aa n cn-~ a'Q-oi EV . moN t~T U,s va~~_ .°c" W c ~ ;.C Q-~o--- _ a c ny ~ ~ 4 Z N ~ 4 st i+ OCh ~a"ao~ EdV k I 1 m b - `Q L o o, ` F-Q$$~ `o2'ta oc y,o' c4 ~ o'i°ri..=~uo'"~ jti V UY U~eEa<Oe ?I W ~u MlP ~ aNLy N? Jtlr'~Oa~ ~1' ~'V~i1~ n- `•1 O ~Ooitl 0-1 N drdVSrdOU j ¢ 60 4 ~ Q~j N tlt~']ONG~U~Mr~F~'A ' 1{`f~CS W bCL N K EK I 1 t~G CNn ]~~1y l'1 CE*~b ~d~~ ~ tlONCN Ow3iO+dCYE.~~ N Z. ~Q CW~ 'QD 1 ~ ~ V * a> d ~q, o~ r c o U; c0i a a U~ N N yt ~ j U 3y~ N 2 . 6 O U O Y w i nyIv.c 2 N~fl W'~. 2 NO.G>N~-• 4<Y N~d6. •LLi Ll~b •'Y W N~ ' ~ 9JUS62 Ni ¢ LcT 100 n F(Di'G~'yrtC'EtTI~'.afC3 6LaW N % L W ~ 2 F W.•~ 6 f- Y- 3~.L ii1 3 V tl m ~i- F- J L 00 U...Y~¢4 Ci U 1-UPC ~ F O h ~ O E--41 ~I W~./ ~o s ai o u ~ o, rwa~ ' O L h d C' m o N U O 4 C TY 'O P I hl i I 1 ~y+ I dti SNYtlNp`~ d%n~t ~iy eNE96~iN C~ 3 d nuNOav4N~ ;ol yi - O c N ~n E ~d a~ 0 11 La _J~;'~ i y ~ v _ q "au~ ~ u ~ nv° ~ Im ~ _ r~eayN oa^a, mamaoNIa~w a~ri~~ a.v =y Nl°c , u a m_ a` >~cn'o~iiGOC. i-uuaY.°~~ a ¢ 'ii rcp i o~ i . - 3o`r n ` - c -o ia oe i o~a~~o e aoa-nom ~c ~ 1 U L i ~ I ` y ,g n `ornaoin i io coa i« ' ~4w° ~e a~-zi•`• c~a~°crnedm yaa~p Ua e~i c°~.~~ 1~ = y_ga{sa,e$ _a~...~vezdrw~~~e _ `i'<recnoam`oo >aa.r > a c(n a-~ > t m~ ` i 9b i ~ sOi E i" W M ~ ~jio J UFN~nN cV^?WYWONU~~I CU~.G~ ~ O C4Ly O dptl c Ed~ <~ms Cca ~a'N U L~ SO ti"10 T~ `o`e'-'&a W~ U s ~'o a~a~ .~so°:~. c~~°n Yu~cn'v«°ncai~ ea o ~o ~ 19~2 Il valu~ y;L..rzd w O w ° yo~' \-o~ia`,-aaaa°. .~m-Y`o~a~°i_. a~-~~'a i o-$~ y~f i i'~m i i i °m°° , a n sg _ n r - c J C y LNO~S O•c~ Y1tlQN6~~ N;L. 3^ ~ 6~_~~ 1 IC4 ' 1 i i 1 i Q. ~WUUo~ n i ~34'O~UWi+ *~u~i aNW` ON ~LTNY00 ~ ~ ~ NOflJCy N Y O V'OY 6C .CU4. ~Ll ; ~ E ?Q~, I I i ' 1 ~ a aa `o w °ue sa v~~N~n \ i~ ~ ~ a.~- Nt~~>naou _JC~rc*i ea . i ; ~c~~~~t_ Y.+ `o o wxa~a N-a u~.a us n.. " ° v°,u°a° -O{ ' e i 1 i : w g; -a~it_u-6 v`oan~`oP~;'~'..N~~ =ao.'nu.ivE •••~v~' ~`d~~~°uc°.oo°~awa c~ 1 ~ ' +i nPi ~ od~nvc ~ oe c o~wuo Nµ Yy ~ T C S O NN~ Ltll NE-O ad'6u 'O E ~nv~ W^ t~ ~Oa b~aoiT daAi~Yyc~O~%w~~~,a'RNSLCNaDdI~ OTN-N~nL~N ~~W i ~~y 'Y ~~Oli I IWb 1 I I 1~ tA ~~d bNNYW--~ WLY- ~ ~ S i V 1 I IY N ~ x~ W~ O L"6 Y4U OIn.?[]O w~ ~Li TECC J_ a°~5 _L o d yc@ ~OOF ~p 4 dv°~s u oow°-m~.~o,oi~ 0-4 wa c V 1 W w~ o- d' ' a) i i a >am~ e KW C~ Na~+6l~ o~ UaND~N mN cca ~O~GLa Vo p~ y L OC Z F S U Ul% rL-T~~pi~. cP0 N,pY. ONxSN ~c cNddOYtl2 6 Ja> t ~e~ ~ ~ i i i Pl ~ OONtn~P'I~N t4.06?eai~E6W O ~U FO £3 C A~ ~°o zo . ° E' aE F-4 ~ U~o~ ~uu °YIEc d~ °°y rE$v PUmE~ e~ 1I~~~ g~l~~ ~i~ (I i/('~l!j ° eoae ooaoeueeeee 4-0o m° ~ u`.~ o o~ v - -°xc~`o c°~Fp c~- ~ _ va~a-.~a.a;a.« ~ cccc vcccciz°I rnSrna luY 9m wa - N - a myt .v o`Q~;u aaaeN$aaaaaaa m a4 ndo -a -e u v'~v.-°~.. e~s-°o ec ~ "wiaww"wimm`e5`aovad • a ~ °~'o o - ~RN a ' ~ : «rzSc o'° o ao~,o- n°oa~i`>~ ~ ~ - -0io-g%aac_`a~Y°v'~vvo""a-~~ ~~s° ma ~ r_tix~ ra_E. c -l °a ~y1 ~~\'~t,~,'~~ \ :..~~I~ 1` -----~g-O 22 ~ A `>i~o Ja` «=~nbrs-«>e v J \I~' Q ~..~~~~NNNNyN JN - N c0- tl~> wt Woou ~ ~tl0 OVdLY- T.a Cd>-~6oWE-[ ~w~hoY U~ ~o j~~• l %~~"'.'...h lu~ ~ r~~i xxxxxxxxxzxxxxu3un~.a'a'b' ` " ~1 ~~1. a} y w i~3vE04- E9AO~N+ -l.>U bYD Z~~voa J,~' :\`i~~\.~~i %!rl~,:.':'. ~ ~ „ aLm -uLUV O .4~NOA-Cr?~M~M .4m TN N~~_~ N.... O n 4 N c Om W , ~ ~I:~. - • i i ' I t L - N N i~eJ~a a wa-aon- 'u~ ~ T.~"~~~:s. mA vy~ 3 EN p~bin~.~NUI.N.O~noFl ~dN o03}-.C4.C>E>~+ ~i~-H ~NL dyE_ L/.( L'`... "~`~\.\.1~__.~'~, ~ \ e tl0 ~UnbV~inlnaNONmotW~11 I I I . I 1 ~ 6N-N YDY°~m`s°Wa°atla~H«~ VT~i x cOJYV•-.LS10-~vJ~dtlCVN~,GYUCUdJ~ P N~ O O 1~ L c Nl O . O N-~ C ~'1 ty E¢ nv00Nnoo.dN Gtroo i ~ ~ N~-~Ot• Y _ 3 . 9 tyry C)m~y C10~ a'ONtl-~ L#YY L1o4Y1~+0o-...E}Y~~N~e U v'.~ • ':~y~ ~ SU ~Nm~.~pNC]I~NhNP~II'1i i I I N~ >'fs ~O 3 v cOi~i•i~ C IS i~' r Z O~NNf~VlhmvUl Ob ai ~n '>N#W~YIJ O tl - ~ - : z W ~eo~aa v~ il . .~.na` u'~iNm~Jci .~OS ~n=-oo tl a-y'~~ d. o~ =>a Qe ua e eE~=w o ~ ~g ~s!y\~ - l ~'•t I7 ~ U 1 O l9 VP.-.-.NNNN LF- E_ > . OL EW- \ g~%. Iai• ) ..m~.o~~mON^N~pOVIN.-.NPN~CI 044~N . s~Tb-OmN- 'OOYJm ~~~1 1~~. .I', S~r/7 ~,Jj d~J 6 mV00NmY.17~DMhPmN^~YVNI~O~n"' m nvE4t~NmYOCY1~a~N oa.°c~cYY~N4 v'a~a°~ D~ T~~ W YO- tat~V E OyN~ .L CC O~NO-~+N O : ~ ' ' ~ 5 ~ 1. ~ ~ ~ ' ~ I i ~ ~ O Y ~ X t ~ U'O i O~ ~ J ~ - W ~ N U m m ~ N ~ E EO ~ I ,'I!/~J VI ...N[~YY1~Oh0N~.~....~...UYUi+Y S.. 2 -UDb>~~0~ 1t-~O ~NEN- ~ U tlUU ~ rdYJ6dOrsN t N ~E'O'6N~Od0 dN£ ~ O a O O O O O O O O O O ~ *J O O L L LUL U J JJJJJ_IJJJJJJJI-F-1-F-~I~F- Z N h N~0 ~ n ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ry N N u m so °i am • " i • • M ~ m ` N N 4J oj~co22 ~~t~m~m~~~~e~sax°~°d:,9~ ;a.m~.~:s~,s;9:~;asxp~ V29 a~~.a N ~ Z & ~~~~m~N~<;~~~.mm~N~_:P:~:_maem.,._:m...~~aPs:N~:g~~a~^~m_..:.a -:r~m~. A o Y ° ~ N fiaY::~h7m ~ . MNa ~ N ~ . (C) ..No. a...~a~oa..P~.a ~,.;.:N :~~ePax~P......e.~ w W ° ~ . $ ¢ I ~i a o_....:.__:m...oN..oe......oo~~oti_~.ggo._.o..o.. r~ (sONiav38 Jo sisve) „8„ 3NIl HO1VW .til'Ot£l 3 Z4ll OU 5 ~ .04'094 ~94'LL ~ q Zg.S9~ OL'Z8 .6Z'S ~ ~9f_LL M.Ft.lLDO N~~ ~ r^ ~ ~ 6 .96'LL o,~~m 1 s_°ry \ ' ~ .-«•c- zi.«uo~-7 eAi \ oeeez m ~ „~ro _ - - - - - - - - - 4'9G W ° ti ~ y_. W Ih/~\\ ~ . / '\\m'W.r / i ,~i• ~ ~ . O NQ .ao~e . .a.nao ~ n \ y ~ o ~ J~ \ \ \4 W ~ s ~65.3•. ^ a m ~ 1 ~so..c..o HL-' .i : r\ \ / 6 . ~a ' ~ ' 3n~ urwn .or g'cc~ o E 3 ~ ~ L~ e61/z 1 3 ~~SS N ~n .9 ' 9d SZ z vi _8L_9Bl _ 3~50.IC.10 N N N°y~M/ ~y 'ltN1, _ ` O .~o'cSi y M A4.YLA0 N M LL.I lLO0 N r', ~ .Z[.eiSO h W ~ 30.ICi0 ; ~o y~ ~h d3 ~ ¢ ~ m / ~L'oe n Ar.~ uo \ I~ Q. ry / p. ta .BL.fl.t0 N A ~ in ~ ~ / ~ O M1\\\\'y~~g 0 N i 9~yrN W ~ ~ ~ 1'~\\ .rX ~rv Iu~O ` ~ ~ 3 A~.OOAO 5 ~ I ~°n i I J^ ` N~ ~ W L) ~ ~ ~ACO_sc~~ ~ ~ \\\I= ~ ~ I~~\O Y' '~zm'13~ r ~y /y~ ^ U 1 I k t ~ ~ ~ O i~/'^°o~ ~ ~ c• ~ 4 " /L~-"-tes'e'w 3.z~°' p ~ zl i i b_ } ` r ~ .re'tC ~ - ~ m~ ~g O i'a V~ U M scs~~ hAe i / icr ry~yS~~~Q- / / o 5~~ x ~ b= I # '0 bi Q M ~ O g ry,~~ < llr ~ ` \ U ~ i.t9'S< 3 . s.[0.~0 ( c~ c o ? T/'~ V 1 I ~a ` '4 ~ \ r ~ 3 .LY.LO.lO N ~RyA'I• 'a L w~ SJ / t E 1 7 0 _ ~'I ;4~? C94 \ ~ , ~.oo'ou i oio ~ 5 ora5'x~ / N = E-4 ~ y i ni ^ ~ ~ ~ . v\ / ry~ ~~vo ` Ra °~A Y / u g o 0 0-4 E-4 b I 'I ' \ \ \ ~ /°`o e~°i oo / ~ / E $ ~ U 2 ~UI 3 ~\\\\r.~ o~6o AC.81Z0 N ~ ;°o wI W I r~~r O a ~ FcE$n ~ i „ N~~~ \zns` a vr.am~~w e~ ""e -8 u z' \b ~ J ~ ` r; gE° ~ ' y'~ ~ ~SR1\\LL~ \\~M="\ N Sn''~'i''" ~ N 7A'~ hs N oLy ' CI82 \ I tR~e,~ m\\ON\ \.~YU ~ T ~\\\3'°ch\ 3~e, r~2 / s~$~~ ~ ~ ' \ \ \ , i{~F ~ ~ n ~ ~ [ \ 9t M\y jrSL 3 ~ (i u ~ I ^ ~r~ Eo°~.~ b ~ W M < < ~ R<°aeS •rro~; \ k / /Z~ \\o o AL OL V__4 m vj ~ ~~W\o ~~I ~n tl``ffi N ~ ~ -3\er°{ M1,~ 3 SL.SS.CO H '{I i ~ N ~ ~ \ IK ~ / C + I S i~susa tinun 1y5 C ~ ' ~ZO'OBZ .Bt'BSf ~ ~ .SO'c~t .f9'ril ~ .OB't9lL M .BL.tLDO N Y. 3NIl HO1tlW a - ; ~ W V) ~e m~ w w ;ass U) ~o w am ' wc~o • ~ ~ • i ~ ~ i / M 8 $ ~ l.. a a0 W ta ~ \ pp~r ~ M N ~ ~ ~ \ . . . ~ \ J i . ~ ~ le ~WW~»>~~rW~wHIwW~~W~~W&WWWg~s~WWwwWWW~~sWW ...".z.....Hti.myHy»yhtiti"ti.y. H ~ I i y y~ 0 ....me._°..... ...:S:.,SSCFwYN:CSR8.NgrN&. . . . . • . ~ Vt'OZ£l 3 .Zl.tt.OD S ~"~~'~~F, i .oo-oez ...C:.,....mm ~~«~~~~::°mmM~~mN^m~ .etm z~•oe rcn.rt• .ao•as~ Z .e. 3NI71 HD1VW ....'c..a.... ~o m ~ 40 ~ - ~ E-+ ~ E--4 ~I = N #1 Y. 3Nf1 HO1dN1 o . w ~n J „L~ .l6ZB .46' LZ'S6 N _33 7/1 W / O ~ 4( ~ 00 W 1 \ ~ / r^ . 1 ( ( E.1 z a --4 r <vi U~ ?r-~Y,~ R ~ c~i „ 3 ~ ~ ~'s S R16~r , 2 ~ ax = ~ t m ~ ~ i~ r ~I E--4 8- a Z Z o ~ ; o~.o c08v ! ° . O I / ~^a 3 Z^ EL°Ec E W ~ EV h 1 p (A E a r ry ~ 1 Mi i ~5o ; =a U I h/ ~ n "3- a`-~g~~ .°°a~ g ~ / i H~~ `£°o S %~7 ti~ ~ ~a~aao / ov 1 ! 4 7/ W~ y k~ V1 II ~ + l/~r~ j VIM~ b~N m LB'fY .Of'8t .ii'BOl / .BC'LZLSJ OS'£9 ~ .LL'S1 .i8'ff .LZ'SY f. yl / r W .08'19ll M AL.lLAO N ~ Y. 3Nn HD1VW ~a ~5 by~p ry,~~. ~ v p~ E.y o ~ ~ ~y cU/l > m w ; N µ 0401'11W ~ 894.27' x u g~ a $ To~ g3 s~$g • . ~ • • f ~ *1L TOWN THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on, April 9, 2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vaif Municipa( Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of an entry feature, located at 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus), part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0012) Applicant: Vail Estates, represented by Paul Smith Planner: Bill Gibson A request for final review of the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3- 7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, • Lots 1-15, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0013) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted gross residential floor area and site coverage limitations, located at 914 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0014) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Assaciates Planner: Warren CampbeH A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0015) Applicant: Doug Weltner Planner: Warren Campbell ~ Attachment C Page 1 , A recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to a Special i Development District (SDD), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to allow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0017) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planners: Bill Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 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. Published March 23, 2007, in the Vail Daily. . ~ Page 2 . . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 9, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a work session to review an amended fina( plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to aliow for modifications to platted gross residentiaf floor area and site coverage limitations, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, Spradd(e Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0014) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates ' Planner: Warren Campbell i I. SUMMARY The applicant, Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates, is requesting a work session to review an ~ amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Piat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted gross residential floor area and site coverage (imitations, tocated at 914 through 4326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1- 15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. The purpose of the proposed plat is to amend the Lot Summary Chart irtcluded on the plat which identifies the maximum gross residential ffoor area (GRFA) and maximum site coverage on each lot within the subdivision. The applicant is proposing to amend the Lot Summary Chart to increase the maximum GRFA and site coverage allowed on each lot. As this is a work session staff has not made a recommendation on this text amendment and the Planning and Environmental Commission is not being asked to take any action at this time other than to tabfe this application to the May 14, 2007, hearing. II, DESCRIPTtON OF REQUEST The applicant, Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates, is requesting a work session to review an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted gross residential floor area and site coverage limitations. The proposed amendments would allow for a greater maximum GRFA and site coverage being atlowed upon each lot within the subdivision. A vicinity map is attached depicting the subject properties (Attachment A). • When Spraddie Creek Estates was platted the Lot Summary Chart was included upon the plat depicting the configurations of the lots and building envelopes, as it 1 was a goal of the developer and the Town to maintain greater control over the sizes • of the homes which could be constructed upon the lots. This greater need for control over the sizes of the structures which could be constructed resulted from the fact that several of the lots were platted quite large and with allowable GRFA being directly proportional to lot size the sizes of the structures would have been of a size, bulk, and mass, which was deemed undesirable in the Town. Another reason for the restriction to both maximum GRFA and site coverage was the fact the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision is located on some very steep grades. The Combination of restricting maximum GRFA, site coverage, and platting building envelopes, resulted in a situation where steep grades could be protect and development would be more predictable in terms of location on the lots and bulk and mass. Staff has attached for the reference the memorandum to the Commission dated February, 11, 1991, and the Minutes from that hearing where the Commission approved the final plat for Spraddle Creek Estates (Attachment D). i The applicant befieves the proposed amendments to the Lot Summary Chart are warranted as there were changes made to GRFA within the Hillside Residential district with the adoption of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004, that they are unable to utilize and there were changes made to the Hazard Regulations chapter of the Code through the adoption of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2006, which eliminated the restriction on site coverage from 20% to 15% on steep slopes within the residential zone districts. It should be noted that the maximum allowable site coverage within the Hillside Residential district has been a maximum of 15% since the adoption of the district; however, the maximum allowable site coverage on each lot was restricted to square footages below what the size of the lots would allow for the • reasons stated above. The applicant has included a letter and several exhibits fully explaining how each lot is proposed to be adjusted in terms of maximum allowable GRFA and maximum allowable site coverage. This documentation is attached (Attachment B). In all cases the applicant is proposing to restrict the maximum allowable GRFA at or below what would be permitted on each lot based on the size of each lot. The maximum allowable GRFA is proposed to be capped at 10,000 square feet, with the exception of Lot 14 which would have no change in GRFA, but would be capped at 13,904 square feet. Please reference Exhibit A of the applicant's submitted documents. The applicant has proposed site coverage maximums which in most case below what the 15% allowable would provide for each lot; however, the accompanying application to this proposal is to increase the allowable site coverage to increase from 15% to 20% within the Hillside Residential district. If the request to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20% were to occur that proposed maximum allowable site coverage as depicted in the Lot Summary Chart would at or well below what 20% of each lots size would permit, with the exception of two lots. The applicant proposes on Exhibit B that Lots 8 and 10 would have platted maximum site ' coverage's in excess of what 20% of the lot size would allow. This is not permitted to occur under the zoning regulations. A plat cannot be less restrictive than zoning. If this application where to continue forward Staff would require that the proposal be amended to propose that the maximum allowable site coverage on Lots 8 and 10 be no more than 20% of the lot size. The applicant has been informed of this and will be addressing this concern. • 2 \ d • M T ~ III. BACKGROUND On January 15, 1985, the property comprising Spraddle Creek Estates, approximateiy 39.55 acres was annexed into the Town of Vail. On November 18, 1986, the Town of Vail adopted the Land Use Plan which identified Spraddle Creek Estates as being within the Hillside Residential land use designation. The plan identified Spraddle Creek Estates as the single property within this land use designation within Town boundaries. On October 26, 1987, through the adoption of Ordinance 38, Series of 1987, the Town of Vail created and imposed the Hillside Residential Districf on Spraddfe Creek Estates. Town Staff developed the Hillside Residential District in response to the the adoption of the Land Use Plan. On April 47, 4994, the Design Review Board granted final approval to the development of Spraddle Creek Estates. This approval was for roadway design, retaining walls design, landscaping of entry and common parcels, and a design standards handbook for the subdivision. On February 24, 1992, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved several variances for retaining wall height and roadway grades in excess of those permitted. • On July 12, 1993, a minor subdivision was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission to adjust the shared lot line between Lots 14 and 15 to increase the size of Lot 45 to allow for a primary unit and a care taker unit on the lot. I On September 7, 1993, the Town of Vail adopted Ordinance 11, Series 1993, which rezoned Tract C of Spraddle Creek Estates from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space ' District to Single Family District in order to permanently restrict the lot as an employee housing unit (gate keeper house). , On April 5, 1995, the Design Review Board approved a change to the Residential i Design regulations for Spraddle Creek to a(low for glass expanses in excess of 36 feet. I On June 22, 1998, the Pfanning and Environmental Commission approved an amendment to the Spraddle Creek Estates plat to allow for interior conversions to residences which complied with the regulations. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Planninq and Environmental Commission: Action: Pursuant to Section 13-12-3C, Review and Action on Ptat, Vaif Town Cod, the Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the final plat. • DesiQn Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on an exemption plat, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. 3 I ` Town Council: • The Town Councii is the appeals authority for an exemption plat review procedure in accordance with Sub-section 13-3-5C, Council May Appeal, Vail Town Code. Staff: , The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PIANNING DOCUMENTS TITLE 13, VAIL TOWN CODE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (partial) 13-2-2 DEFINITIONS EXEMPTION PLAT.• The platting of a po?tion of land or property that does not fall within the definition of a"subdivisron", as contained in this section. I 13-12 EXEMPTION PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES • 13-12-1: PURPOSE AND (NTENT: The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and an appropriate review process whereby fhe p/anning and environmental commission may grant exemptions from the definition of the term "subdivision" for properties thaf are determined to fa/l outside the purpose, purview and intent of chapters 3 and 4 of this title. This process is intended to allow for the platting of property where no additional parcels are created and conformance with applicab/e provisions of this code has been demonstrated. 13-12-2: EXEMPTIONS IN PROCEDURE AND SUBMITTALS: "Exemption Plats" as defined in section 13-2-2 of this title, shall be exempt from requirements related to preliminary plan procedures and submittals. Exemption plat applicants may be required to submit an erivironmental impact report if required by title 12, chapter 12 of this code. 13-12-3: PLAT PROCEDURE AND GRITERlA FOR REVIEW: C. Review And Action On P/at: The p/anning and environmental commission sha/l review the p/at and associated materia/s and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat wifhin finrenty one (21) days of the first public hearing on the exempfion p/at application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted • subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmental commrssion 4 ~ t • and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in section 13-3-4 of this tit/e. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zonina North: Open Space Forest Service Property East: Open Space Forest Service Property West: Open Space Natural Area Preservation District South: Open Space Natural Area Preservation District. VII. SITE ANALYSIS Lot Summary Chart (As found on the Spraddle Creek Estates Plats in part) Parcel Area Max. GRFA Max. Site Coveraqe Lot 1 87,499 s.f. (2.00 ac.) 7,333 s.f 6,483 s.f. Lot 2 48,146 s.f. (1.11 ac.) 6,524 s.f. 5,674 s.f. Lot 3 88,619 s.f. (2.03 ac.) 8,548 s.f. 7,698 s.f. Lot 4 85,250 s.f. (1.96 ac.) 7,016 s.f. 6,166 s.f. Lot 5 61,082 s.f. (1.40 ac.) 6,827 s.f. 5,977 s.f. Lot 6 82,050 s.f. (1.88 ac.) 8,220 s.f. 7,370 s.f. Lot 7 43,833 s.f. (1.01 ac.) 6,309 s.f. 5,459 s.f. Lot 8 31,873 s.f. (0.73 ac.) 5,711 s.f. 4,781 s.f. • Lot 9 63,044 s.f. (1.45 ac.) 7,269 s.f. 6,419 s.f. Lot 10 32,296 s.f. (0.74 ac.) 5,732 s.f. 4,844 s.f. Lot 11 71,419 s.f. (1.64 ac.) 7,688 s.f. 6,838 s.f. Lot 12 96,213 s.f. (2.21 ac.) 8,928 s.f. 8,078 s.f. Lot 14 286,022 s.f. (6.57 ac.) 14,330 s.f. 10,000 s.f. Lot 15 25,596 s.f. (0.59 ac.) 5,397 s.f. 3,839 s.f. Tract A 337,222 s.f. (7.74 ac.) NA NA Tract B 5,151 s.f. (0.12 ac.) NA NA Tract C 47,279 s.f. (1.09 ac.) NA NA Tract D 152,918 s.f. (3.51 ac. ) NA NA Tract E 6,231 s.f. (0.14 ac.) NA NA Tract F 68,762 s.f. (1.58 ac.) NA NA Tract G 2,394 s.f. (0.05 ac. ) NA NA * There is no Lot 13 V. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that it is appropriate to increase the maximum GRFA due to the adoption of Ordinance 10, Series of 2004, which amended how and the amount of GRAF allowed on each lot within the Hillside Residential District? Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that it is • appropriate to increase the maximum site coverage due to the adoption of Ordinance 17, Series of 2006, which amended how site coverage is address on 5 , . steep slopes such as those found on lots within the Hiliside Residential • District? Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that the original , intent of the platted Lot Summary Chart for Spraddle Creek Estates is upheld if maximum allowable GRFA and maximum allowable site coverage are increased as proposed? Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that the platted building envelopes offer adequate additional protection to the development of structures and additions on the steep slopes found in the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision? Does the Planning and Environmental Commission identify the need for any additional information to be provided at a future hearing? VIII. APPLICATION CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The purpose section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to ensure that the proposed subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. As this is a work session staff has not addressed the following criteria. The following criteria will be fully addressed at the hearing in which the Planning and Environmental Commission will be asked to make a final determination on the exemption plat application. The criteria for reviewing an exemption plat shall be as contained in section 13-3-4 of this title which are as • follows: (1) The extenf to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all fhe applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive P/an and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and (2) The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Title, as well as, but not limited to, Tit/e 12, Zoning Regu/ations and other pertinent regulations that the P/anning and Environmental Commission deems applicab/e; and (3) The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistenf with municipal development objectives and i (4) The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area; and (5) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a"leapfrog" pattern of development; and • 6 • (6) The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service nrea tn avnid fiiture I<~nd di.sr?rntinn tn upgrade under-sized lines; an( (7) The extent to which the E) , an orderiy viable community and serves the best interests of the communit; as a whole; and (8) The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetafion, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natura/ feafures; and (9) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicab/e to the proposed subdivision. B. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a major subdivision, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings with respect to the proposed major subdivision: (1) That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Subsection 13-3-4A, Vail Town Code; and (2) That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and • policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and (3) That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and (4) That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its nafura/ environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission tables this application to the May 14, 2007, hearing. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Copy of the proposed amendments to the Lot Summary Chart C. Reduced copy of recorded plat for Spraddle Creek Estates D. Copy of February 11, 1991 Memorandum to the PEC and Minutes E. Public Notice • 7 g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y i x y~ # r A i~ ~ . } , ~1~~;b~• iy~~.~F 1~~ i ~ ~1~~~ t t ~ ny . W M ~ ~ ~ Y ` t~l~,~ + ? ~r~"!„~ j~~~~`~`~" - ~ J7 a4rn„ W a 144i~ ~ N O) 0~1 ;1i N` ` sr'S~ Clii. ~ u ~ ~ . ~+i'Y a •3Ltl). ~ LJ i f' ~ C} C CL lpppp ~ ~ Vi .f.,~ j, ; M~~ ~/'.~~C~•~ W i co . ~ At~~ LM ~ ~ c,:• „ ~ 1~~ 1 ~ js • t cn 1 ~ ~ , y / ~1 ~ ~ 1~ { I: Attachment A , 1 • ~ [ ~ Z E H R E N AND ASSOCIATES,INC. March 12, 2007 Town of Vai! Planning and Environmental Commission Vail, GO 81657 Re: Spraddle Creek Estates - GRFA/Site Coverage Amendments Dear Commissioners: This package is presented by Zehren and Associates on behalf of the residents of Spra,ddle Creek Estates, in an attempt to modify the existing plat for Spraddle Creek and capture addition Gross Residential Floor Area (GRF'A) as permitted by the TowiY of Vail (TOV) Code within the Hillside Residentiai (HR) District, anct moclify Site Coverage. The strategy to do this will be discussed in an upcoming Work Session with Tawn Stafi ' and is outlined below. I ~ We are applying for an Exemption Plat, to provide the vehicle for tnoclifying the cunent Spraddle Creelc Estates Plat, which outiines the allowable GRFA, Site Coverage, aiid other restrictions, and supersedes the Town Codec ¦ The cuirent TOV Code defines how GRFA is to be measured within the HR Zoning District. ¦ However, since the existing Plat calls far GRFA amounts less than what is permitted by the Town Code, the residents of Spraddle Creelc woulct liice to update the Plat to allow them to use the additional GRFA allowed by Cade if they chose. • Any future use of additionat GRFA would still need to comply with the mass, bulk, and height restrictions as outlined in the Spraddle Creek Estates Design Guidelines and the TOV Design Guidelines. We are also applying for a Code Amendment, to provide the vehicle for modifying the Site Coverage permitted within the HR District, since the additional GRFA will be of limited value unless additional Site Coverage is added as weli: ¦ The link from GRF'A to Site Coverage -as a proportionai ratio - was recommended by Town Staff during numerous on-going discussions regarding the modifications to the Spraddle Creek Plat. • ¦ The current TOV Code restricts the HR District to 15% Site Coverage. Furthermore, the existing Plat calls for Site Coverage amounts less than what is ARCHITECTURE • PLANNiNG • INTERIORS Attachment B •Z E H R E N • AND ASSOCIAIES, INC. i permitted by the Town Code. However, since Spraddle Creek already fal)s ' within a very restrictive development with very defined lot sizes, building I envelopes, and other site restrictions, we feel additional Site Coverage is ~ warranted. I ¦ We feei the Site Coverage numbers identified on the current Plat were created ~ due to the Hazard Regulations for Excessive Slopes (12-21-14) at the time. ~ However, since recent Code amendments now attempt to mitigate hazards an ~ excessive slopes usiilg a 60% maxiinum site disturbance number rather than a site coverage number, we feel the increase in Site Coverage for Spraddle Creek is appropriate. ¦ Rather than increase all the Site Coverage nurnbers to 15% or 20% of tlie lot size, we propose to "cap" the proposed Site Coverage (sicni(ar to how GRFA was "capped") and increase them as a ratio af the additiona! GRFA we are requesting, using a calculation similar to how Site Coverage was originaJly derived for Spraddle Creek. Originally Site Coverage was calculated by taking the GRFA and subtraeting 850 SF fi•om that number. For Proposed Site ~ Coverage we are taking the Proposed GRFA, and then subtracting 850 SP times ~ the ration of proposed to existing GRFA: 10,000 (proposed GRFA) divided by 7,333 SF (current GIZFA) 1,363698; therefore proposed site coverage = 10,000 SF - 850 SF X 1.363698 = 8,841 SF For most lots the Proposed Site Coverage falls we11 below the 15% of tot size permitted by the TOV Code. 5 lots, however, exceed this amount but fall beiow 20% lot size. ¦ Any future use of additional Site Coverage would still need to compiy witli mass, bulk, and height restrictions--along with adjacent homeowner approval-- as outlined in the Spraddle Creek Estates Design Guidelines and the TOV Design Guidalines. T11e following Exhibits are provided fnr discussion: ¦ Exhibit "A" provides a summary of the CRFA for all the lots within Spraddle Creek, including existing GRFA (per Plat), GRFA according to the HR District guidelines, and Proposed GRFA (shown as outlined). Please note that tlie residents of Sptaddle Creek are proposing to "cap" GRFA at 10,000 SI', even though the Code would allow more area in many cases. The exception is Lot 14, which stays with its current allowable GRFA per the Plat, since it is aiready very significant in size. ¦ Exhibit "B" provides a summary af Site Coverage for all the lots within Spraddle Creek, including existing Site Coverage (per Plat), Site Coverage ~ ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING •lNTER1QRS ~ . Z E H R E N AND ASSOCIATES, lNC. according to HR District guidelines, and Prouosed Site Coverage (shown as outlined . Proposed Site Coverage is based upon the 20°lo Allowable within the Single-Family Residential District, and most other residential districts within TOV. Methodology for determining Proposed Site Coverage is descriUed below. ¦ Exhiluit "C" provides an overall summary of GRFA and Site Coverage, to illustrate the link between the two. ¦ Exhibit "D" provides a summary of differences between the Hillside Residential Zone District and the Single-Family Residential Zone District. At one time Staff felt it might be better to simply delete the HR Zone District from the TO'V Code, since it only applies to Spraddle Creek-this comparison is provided in the event this is still a viable strategy for moving forward. The salient differences between the two zone districts are shaded in gray. ¦ The large sheet drawings showing the current plat and the site plan for Spraddle Creek are included for reference. We appreciate the opportunity to present this material to you. If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to contact Patrick Fortner or me. • Sincerely, P'GL;~(~ 044C.__ Dave Kaselak, A.I.A. Principal Zehren and Associates, lnc. Atch: Exhibit "A" - 1 lY 17 Spraddle Creek Estates GRIiA Aiialysis Exhibit "B" - 11 x 17 Spraddle Creek Estates Site Coverage Analysis Exhibit "C" - 11 x 17 Spraddle Creek Cstates GRFA/Site Coverage Analysis Exhibit "D" - 11 x 17 Spraddle Creek Estates HR / SF 7one District Comparison (2) Sheet Drawings for Reference • ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • iNTERIORS ~ Zehi-en and Associates, Inc. S P R A D D L E C R E E K E S T A T E S March 12, 2007 GRFA and Site Coverage Analysis EXHIBIT - "A" HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL* - (GRFA) A B C D E F Parcel Lot Area Allowable Current Plat Prooosed Pro osed (SF) G~F) GRF-A LF1 GRFA sF) Additional HR Zonine GRFA fSFI 499 ~Ap 0 ***Lot 2 48,146 9,130 . a . 524 ~ ~ ~ 6 9,130 06 . . ~ 2~6 . ~$>6 ~9'~ **Lot 4 85,250 11,728 7,016 10,000 2f984 , , ~ ~`M , .?K~ Y ~ ' i- '.r.., : ~+1• s, °"„'s ~ . , , , . . . ~ 73 ~8 7 f . • ,';i.T"' " ' , , ,)F., , . , , . , . *fo **Lot 6 82,050 11,504 7 8)" ,000 1,780 i,k,. ~ ~',r :%i~* ` y.t~'( :~:..,i,P;;~;.~,{•. ,v~a~ ..Y,~ 4, t '.>..v 9b~} l.;1, .r$' p Q ~ ~'~i„ ~ 10 z+ ~ b 0~020 , . , . „ „ , , . • , , . , , „ . , . . 6~~~,~ ***I,ot 8 31,873 7,991 5,711 7,991 2,280 ~~ti d,,,'"~'~"~.W ~ y i.,:~T'°p y~ a •,I~j ~„~a, i~~ .7.°' ***Lot 10 32,296 8,021 5,732 8,021 . ~ 2289 . „ ~ .<G, ' ~ ~'r` . ,7 : ;n ` xh, c > ~ U ,TM~,"~ s~~;. 'iS ~ s " r 'p' *t`r' 7 y i 1 F~ r a,' . ~ ~ ..a,~~,. . . T 10 ,8$ ~ ~ . . ~ ..r' , . . **I.ot 12 96,213 12,49 5 8,928 10,000 1,072 ~ ~ , . ~ . ~ , . . . . , ~ ; . . . W . . . . , ~ , ~f t ~ , 2g5,~22: . . , ~ , ~ . , . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ : ~ . • , . ~ ***Lot 15 25,596 7,552 5,397 „ 7,552 2 ' 155 ~ , . , 'p ' ,••<iy. ~i ,.~.C~ ~•f~ ~"'ts,' „~f. ^'.;'I 9, ' , . ..S 3S A~°1'~ !4. . , „ ~ . . * New Allowable GRFA Dependent upon Lot Area, and based upon 43% of the first 10,000 SF of Lot Area; 25°/a of the next 12,000 SF of Lot Area; and 7% of the remaining Lot Area (balance) Artificial limit of 10,000 SF inaximum within Spraddle Creek, except for Lot 14 Because the Hillside Residential Site Coverage calculation (15% of Lot Area) is restricting 1/3 of the lots (Lots 2, 7, 8,10 and 15), we are requesting that the TOV take into account an option for allowing the restricted lots to be able to utilize the new GRFA by granting them additiona] Site Coverage. We propose to use the more restrictive of either the 20% Site Coverage calculation or the Proposed Site Coverage to allow a proportional use of the Proposed GRFA to the Proposed Site Coverage that the other sites are allocated. The Current Site Coverage calculation was calculated by the GRFA (shown above as Current Plat GRFA) minus 850 SF. ' example: 7,333 - 850 = 6,483 The Proposed 5ite Coverage calculation used the same formula, but used a ratio of the new GRFA increase to proportionally increase the 850 SF. example: 10,00017,333 =1.363698 Lots 8,10 and 15 are based on the 20% Site Coverage numbers we are requesting from the TOV, rather than the currently permitted 15% Site Coverage allocated to Hillside Residential. ~ Attachment B Zehren and Associates, Inc. S P R A D D L E C R E E K E S T A T E S March 12, 2007 ! GRFA and Site Coverage Analysis EXHIBIT - "B" HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL* - (SITE COVERAGB) A B E_2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 G Parcel Lot Area Current Plat CurrenU Proaosed 15% HR 20% HR Pro osed SF Site Cov. SF New Ratio Site CoveraEe (SF) Site Covera= Site Coverage Additianal GRFA minus (850 X Ratio) HR Zonin SF Zonin Site Cov. (SF) . -.„6483: , ~ 36 .13, 125 I7,500`.. . 2 ~~9~. ***Lot 2 48,146 5,674 1399482 7,941 ti 7,222 9,629 2,267 h , 19,29"3 b . ~,qt3. , . . . ~ . : , . , . . x Lot 4 85,250 6,166 1425314Y 8,788 12,788 17,050 2,622 . . , < , . : 16 ,q7`7~~ :8;'~5~ K ~ ~ , . ~ . . . ;5 2 . . . . , **Lot 6 82,050 7,370 16545 21 8,966 12,308 16,410 1,596 ~ 75' ~ . . . . , . a~ 7 ~ , ***Lot 8 31,873 4,781 1.399249 6,802 4,781 6,375 1,544 ~ . ° p Z . . G .,F... . „ . 9,~ ~ . . ; ~ 1399 6,831 4 1,615 I,ot 10 32,296 . , 4,844 288 844,, , ~S ~ l~}25~~~ ._...A~~ ,~~~1 „ . .~r., ~ . . . . . . „ ~ ~ ~ , ~ . ~ . . . 4 ~ . . , **Lot 12 96,213 8,078 1120072 9,04g 14,432 19,243 70 } , . . . .;n , , , , i ~ ,M:. • ,;.y . , ' . . ~ ~ t'?~ Q~"°' , : • J 9 3,83 / ***Lot 15 25,596 3,839 1.3992441 ~ , < ' il 6,36 , . . . _ P~ ~ , ~ . , . , . ,v . ,28 . . . ~ ~ . w . . . ; ~ . ~ ~ < . . , . . . . . , ~ . . . ~ . . ,..e . „ ° T'~tals~ , ~ * New A1lowable GRFA Dependent upon Lot Area, and based upon 43% of the first 10,400 SP of Lot Area; 25% of the next 12,000 SF of Lot Area; and 7°/a of the remaining Lot Area (balance) Artificial limit of 10,000 SF inaximum within Spraddle Creek, except for Lot 14 Because the Hillside Residential Site Coverage cafculation (15% of Lot Area) is restricting 1/3 of the lots (Lots 2, 7, 8,10 and 15), we are requesting that the TOV take into account an option for aliowing the restricted lots to be able to utilize the new GRFA by granting them additional Site Coverage. We prapose to use the more restrictive of either the 20°!o Site Coverage calculation or the Froposed Site Coverage to allow a proportional use of the Proposed GRFA to the Proposed Site Coverage that the other sites are allocated. The Current Site Coverage calculation was calculated by t6e GRFA (shown above as Cunent Plat GRFA) minus 850 SF. example: 7,333 - 850 = 6,483 The Proposed Site Coverage calculation used the same formula, but used a ratio of the new GRFA increase to proportionally increase the 850 SF, example: 10,00017,333 =1.363698 Lots 8,10 and 15 are based on the 20% Site Coverage numbers we are requesting from the TOV, rather than the currently permitted 15% 3ite Coverage allocated to Hillside Residential. • • Zeluen and Associates, Inc. S P R A D D L E C R E E K E S T A T E S March 12, 2007 GRFA and Site Coverage Analysis EXHIBIT - "C" HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL* A B C D E E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 F G Parcel I.otArea Allowable CurrentPlat Prooosed CurrentBlde CunentPlat Currentl Proaosed 15%HR 20%HR Prooosed Pro osed (SF) GRFA (SF) GRFA lSFI GRFA (SF) Envelo e SF Site Cov. SF New Ra6o Site Coveraee (SF) Site Coveraee Site Coveraee Additional Additional HR Zonin¢ CRFA minus (850 X Ratio) HR Zonin SF Zonin GRFA fSFI Site Cov. (SF) , Lat 1 87 4~9 Q041 ` . . 15 5295. . 64b . : .3b36 , ~ .,n . ~ . . . ,146 9,130 6,524 9,130 1, ***Lot 2 : W „ 48 . , . , , 2 509 y 5,674.., , 1399482 . 7,941 ~7,222 19 629 ?';6G7 ;-,2x35$ ; ,60 2,267 0 8$ , bi9; .:8548 :::•~U~~O <.L4824 769 . ~ ~ 1'~$~4:~ 17;~24 ~ . . . , . , Lot 4 85 250 11728 > , 7,016 10,000 15,202 6,166 1425314 8,788 12 788 17>O50 2>984 2>622 , , . Lot , , b108~ ~ ~ . ; ~ : - lfl Q36 , : : 6 8~7 ; . ~ ~ ,10 00 - 8` 17 . 3,,173 2 **Lot 6 82,050 11,504 8,220 10,000 22,398 7,370 1.216545 . 8,966 12,308 16,410 1,780 1,596 ~ ~ Lo ' 882$ ~ ~ 12 9~5 ~ 5 4.~ ~ ~ . . . ,k ,r. r,, , , 2i519 ? Lot 8 31,873 7,991 5,711 7, 991 , y 12,570 4,781 139 9249 6,802 4,781 6,37 2,280 1,594 „ ~ ~ ~ 044 . 5 ~s831 , ; . 7~ ***Lot 10 , 32,296 8 021 - 5,732 . „ 8,021 p . 12,263 . 4,844 1.399288 ~6,831 4,844 ~~6,4~9 2~~~~' , ~ ~28 _.x 1,615 9 1,247 **Lot 12 , 96,213 12,495 8,928 10,000 13,150~ . $8,078 1.120072 " " - - . , , , . , . . 990 48 4 . . 1,432 19,243 72 970 1,0 13,904 13 9~4 22 948 . . . . ~ . . . k : , ~ 09 3 ~1 2,b903 7 2a4 ~ . . ; . , , , s, . . t . . ~ , . , m ***Lot 15 25,596 7,552 5,397 7,552 7,279 3,839 1.399244 6,362 3,839 5,119~ . ; . . . 2,155 1,280 . . . , 1k S46 1.05 466a . 1354 . ~ . . ~ 7 ~ ~ . ~ ~ 9 ~ . -~m . .2,,,, . ~ .a.~ , , . . . . . ~ New Allowable GRFA Dependent upon Lot Area, and based upon 43°/a of the first 10,000 SF of Lot Area; 25% of the next 12,000 SF of Lot Area; and 7% of the remaining Lot Area (balance) Artificial limit of 10,000 3F inaximum within Spraddle Creek, except for Lot 14 Because the Hillside Residential Site Coverage calculation (15% of Lot Area) is restricting 1/3 of the lots (Lots 2, 7, 8,10 and 15), we are requesting that the TOV take into account an option for allowing the restricted lots to be able to utilize the new GRFA by granting them additional Site Coverage. We propose to use the more restrictive of either the 20% Site Coverage calculation or the Proposed Site Coverage to aliow a proportional use of the Proposed GRFA to the Proposed Site Coverage that the other sites are allocated. The Current Site Coverage calculation was calculated by the GRFA (shown above as Current Plat GRFA) minus 850 SF. example: 7,333 - 850 = 6,483 The Proposed Site Coverage calculation used the same formula, but used a rabo of the new GRFA increase to proportionally increase the 850 SF. example: 10,000 / 7,333 =1.363698 Lots 8,10 and 15 are based on the 20% Site Coverage numbers we are requesting from the TOV, rather than the cunently pemvtted 15% Site Coverage allocated to Hillside Residential. ~ . • • SPRADDLE CREEK ESTATES EXHIBIT - "n" • RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS MARCH 12, 2007 12-6A 12-6B HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (Current District for Spraddle Creek) EMPLOYEE TYPE IV PERMITTED TYPE IV PERMITTED HOUSING TYPE V PERMITTED BED & BREAKFASTS BED & BREAKFASTS EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES DOG KENNELS FUNICULARS HOME CHILD DAYCARE CONDITIONAL HOME CHILD DAYCARE FUNICULARS USES PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & FACILITIES PUBLIC & PRIVATE SCHOOLS PUBLIC PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & FACILITIES PUBLIC PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES PUBLIC UTILITY & PUBLIC SERVICE USES SKC LIFTS & TOWS HOME OCCUPATIONS PRIVATE GREENHOUSES, TOOLSHEDS, PLAYHOUSES, GARAGES OR CARPORTS, ACCESSORY SWIMMING POOLS, PATIOS, OR RECREATIONAL SAME USES FACILITIES OTHER USES CUSTOMARILY INCIDENTAL AND ACCESSORY TO PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL USES LOT AREA = 21,780 SQUARE FEET OF CONTIGUOUS LOT AREA =12,500 `SQUARE FEET OF CONTIGUOUS` BUILDABLE AREA BUILDABLE AREA LOT AREA & SITE MINIMUM FRONTAGE OF 50 FEET MINIMUM' FRONTAG:E OF 30 FEET DIMENSIONS SITE SHALL BE OF A SIZE AND SHAPE CAPABLE OF ENCLOSING A SQUARE AREA 80 FEET ON EACH SAME SIDE WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES MINIMUM FRONT SETBACKS = 20 FEET SETBACKS MINIMUM SIDE SETBACKS = 15 FEET SAME MINIMUM REAR SETBACKS = 15 FEET FLAT ROOF/MANSARD ROOF THE HEIGHT OF THE SAME BUILDING SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 FEET HEIGHT SLOPING ROOF THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING SAME SHALL NOT EXCEED 33 FEET. 1. DWELLING UNITS: NOT MORE THAN 2 PER SITE 1. DWELLING UNITS: NOT MORE THAN 1 PER SITE A. GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA(GRFA): NOT A. GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA): NOT MORE THAN 43 SF OF GRFA FOR EACH 100 SF OF MORE THAN 40 SF OF GRFA FOR EACH 100 SF OF THE FIRST 10,000 SF OF SITE AREA THE FIRST 10,000 SF OF SITE AREA B. 25 SF OF GRFA FOR EACH 100 SF OF SITE AREA B, 13'SF OF GRFAFOR EACH 100 SF OF SITEAREA OVER 10,000 SF, NOT EXCEEDING 22,00 SF OF SITE ;IN EXCESS 0F 1"0.1-000 SF.. AREA. C. 7 SF OF GRFA FOR EACH 100 SF OF STIE AREA IN EXCESS OF 22,000 SF. DENSITY 2. NO`SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT EXCEPT CONTROL 2• ANY SITE CONTAINING 2 DWELLING UNITS, ONE THOSE LQCATED ENTIRELYIN THE RED HAZARD OF THE UNITS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,200 SF OF AVALANCHE ZONE OR THE FLOODPLAIN SHALL BE GRFA. SO RESTRICTED'THAT IS CANNO7 BE OCCUPIED BY ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DINELLWG. UNIT SHALL NOT BE SUBDIVIDED OR SOLD SEPARATELY FROM THE MAIN DWELLING UNIT UNIT MAY BE INTEGRATED INTO THE MAIN DWELLlNG UNIT OR MAYBE ItVTEGRATED WITHIN A GARAGE SERVING THE MAIN UNIT, BUT SHALL NOT BE A SEPARATE FREESTANDING STRUCTURE. SITE COVERAGE SITE COVERAGE SHALL NOT EXCEED 15% OF SITE COVERAGE SHALL NOT EXCEED 20% OF THE TOTAL SITE AREA. TOTAL SITE AREA. AT LEAST 70% OF EACH SITE SHALL BE AT LEAST 60% OF EACH SITE SHALL BE LANDSCAPE & LANDSCAPED LANDSCAPED SITE MINIMUM WIDTH AND LENGTH OF ANY AREA DEVELOPMENT QUALIFYING AS LANDSCAPING SHALL BE 10 FEET SAME WITH A MINIMUM AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 300 SF. PARKING OFF STREET PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED IN SAME ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 10 OF THIS TITLE 07.03.13 Res District Analysis - Final-Updated.xls 3/1212007 • • i - SPRADDLE CREEK ESTATES PART OF THE SE 1/4 SW 1/4, SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO miv~a¢ v an~ui ia ...e wcux,r .~w.cnns axnnuic ~~h' p.e ~e M ~ t 1 r r~9~~~rn[NLSw~i.~w~ i cm~N pW~n' mle SIC M e19~^le~ oi.. ~~f M W ~n ~rYw S44 eI~ Iseb. ~.~^W. ~/,..,j,r~~i• .~~~.~J r.~.~°e'9.e:..eiia..~ryrc,io..'~~r.~ii»~.ce.~.~~co~ m `1i~.a s-J,PuWr v o~vi ~aen.sN mn e."i..a I. pr~peru M~+ nY nK~ an mm~ tle ~~f ~ . M<Prtl tw S—II . 4ct~on ]fon`nY' S w' R~P setliriil e~ ~W une ve s~4Fe/ ~Oe+ W T cvOliv.ce 0.~tl~~^IWI M sL<n trlv<.an. or u., .q~n ac~~aei. na~.tims oo+v. no me x I a ~uw p w...~ a~ qww~ 4w• ~ ww... sW .?tL.. rr : ~))I II i".:,..1: ~n n e i~a~v w`R'oe w•~o~h.s4'4°""'~'' ~ ..0 . ; ;y.,+i"'j ~,,~'p 1~~ ' c. . i~. < u ien wi~78$Q37lJ__'_'__ NYUe~r ' • ~ - ! : v M u~ SL 1/~~ altmn S~l'K']l'V I 10ER M _ S•'\~ ~ - 1682)1 fivu~n~ tr~ in V 1ILS ~ N~~ ~ t~~'~~ ~aa~u ~~ri4n-•, NIl1]a'~u~'v ii].u u. 1 o u~ . uD r. z' ur~ w<o~~r µce omn, s . cw _ ~ .~~.,~,Sbr..>~.~ . . Y;.°':."~°.a a i:~~u.~:e:.~:i::i o~: ~ asi srs •e~...~i.~.`i:..~ or ~.,a auirc xm oniawon,~ mn~a:ia mrtinurz . w.. o-vi cW ~rYrnp u~ i• w orvw~s r~~i<r-wr . PIpn y Cr Iinsl 11.1 x1 ~pp~M y[Y^ b~ Tw 1 U u ~ON 1~ 0 ~1T ~a ~ m oi ~p[lL_Na~ -z~_' d•/~.. ~rt~~00`21•b~Y~toiBYlxt~tl~nr.~idt,Ql12:'a 1991. .0.. ~ . V W~1 • ~ 1/1' 0+lr Mmu ei L~ / iwr.~~ tetr~ss 6:; ~ .~~~0 h+ fY 1/~6 cwnw M w~f~ [ o~ Si ^y`•• ~ t. ~ nxtlwlY n~ 01 ~C R~1/~ iv 1/1. ~0'2f'C I]el li ~4e~ %Y. wL-~ f i~,, a~ ~.~a< nY t ii w~ rs Oe~t .~<n ~ l I~~' r I ~Rtlf~_ SAGO!~:_ o l ~~n a p m n Yc u u~ t srl/~Iatlcs es' lew W aram t F- `hCNRY AIAP • . S9~SA 12'[ IY0~I1s1~e4 m~ww+l,oi~Ye9~nn~n0~ cenY~nV Y/~•u J GviroTnla,[aw :~i wd ur Dtim•m ~rv XYl• 1. LNO w uvnl wM p nrlniy ~e e! r f~.Y 111 SY 1/~ np S00'1l'12'Ci ~~o leb x~ vn~mu I~ia wl. 01~~4` ~n i m.i1eC tM wv 1II1 SIFMMII O~P~ It4iws ~b~~ v~ ~n ~ ~eet) • 01aYt a Aew m N • p'~~ ~+br' tti nw ~r.f VNI ~ Ca ~Cwi. w~ L,Wi~i.tl. a ~ m• ~Iwn h.cri w~~ .i xs.~ren e Zme Oia<.~ctiiM! ~ne el, 'v~ e WS n.n on !su,~r ~:o: u. uenw~~Pi> iv_~ n x~~i.iee x. ~ei •v et J B96~f -Y M99 ~~0?~~m„ ef s+~ ml ~h .I~~d~ ~n~in1 nt 4cs4r M[Yp~~ [w~tY. GI v~IM ~ f33~ Ol 61N 9r~is~in~~~i I~^0 ul~~s nrrre~~ ~ Ip:mn N tlr e.n •il e pWlic 40~ut~as ~ec.n le~ ~ 610~ 6e2> >9~) P~~tlntia~ ~Mw lpevi< ux .i0~t b ~n~ i ~iWl~ct bTmr ~~a~m ttit wPe•al in Lot f BtO3o B„: ~/u > Pe~iemt~ei ~ m~~ ~~°^~~eV f° •il r e ~ncr W rmb YC~nutl b~ti pp~4a ~Mi~ lJII 11~~ [nMM tn~a ) q-~____~_-~_. 19Y1. f:~tins ~tlw~ R~1~ 1rn On~n! W ~ M~is.n~i.~ oI•` c~ ci~•`a'~ Tu..~^v~ii lat 1 1u N'. w~~a+^a~nseiut~ ee Lt le isic s~R iw x~11~1 L N~IIfi ~P ] If )6N NlB 4 Peer0.n1i~1 Pn(i~ C Rnimrnt CrO.. v~nlwtl~trVrt ~e ~ cwlit~an~i. w4wrl~[ell~~~ ~Gaa+~ • t Iz 4621] IR~ N~Ilsi • Co~a+~o caryx~tlr <]Y M~~It1M b[1Nna~~1 wtsr rn~i Im~. s. fl ~l~Y~ lWVZ I~i)0 Io~~1 M~I~~i4 q~~Mnti~i wea~.__ Pr~ ~.c~ wt ~ W~i °p~np w0itima d~nY sM~ Mr~w 235% S]91 ]W9 x~~~n~Y e~~ t~~i eWna' i 0qerr 0•Iu,. w0 P^~~u W~ ir.xt e4n ~K •i11 RI - - Veenblt e~d I~Y1v~1 qm Spaw rn ne ~Z.,- II, i. r ~Rn - Wmait .~e iser.~ men San _ _ i ~'e - - e°x~ d yrv-ar-ve~' S~nff Or_1d1~Ot4dC""_~ ~m!~~ bB~Y - ' I~tl~c Na~ Riy~t-af..ay fon'o{ Kal,~fcl.anb To.n - ..,~.~~..d S.ozp•N r..ia~ww°a`°'~ z~ i'~.,~ ..'.m i~izia .a.•• F... er wiie..a ..iifr _~~31 aar~r~urt a~~a r•u il1ll CDilill[~l( A~w'n~~ rY ei ~ rct~~~~np w~l~. I~u nM1i~p u~~ vc~i.~D! • ~a ~s ia~ W ~~~q/yI~y~_. .1.. IA). . M pM;rle~ IMM nW"a..l 1~ Re~y~pp p~~ h{yqw~ rle ' 11~n cvtWnr u, n~n~. •I~ ~u [V~e Gan ~epp.piy r~Pi tleW ~n 3_~,Y.s1oP1N~.ssyylt1M%1i11 ~IlCf4L0fi~ ~ • ~wri.p ~ w~~M of 1200 ~pu~ Ire~ r~~W ~ M 11 Secl~m IB.II. W0 (10~ t~ YI N W taw ai v~ii ~c pl [We. ~.1 W~ ti~l~ b wc~ I~n • u0 cl~v M~il liwi m! tlrn lon ~~li Oe ~e+~p+ser! in M' Prv4clir~ Ca.M~~4 fs ~ 6 /rr 1F~s xm~.~sie m M.~~nc~n~hn u~blI ouvr Mm tl~erc leti a10~~~~1Y M~Iq~tl~ pwlb rn4Y~r' Tr p Y u~. w.Fr~IWm _ _ _ _ CLLAR M0 Cm1YG'S 49i1fIGiC ~n 11 r~v~~~ H vw is w.N to u~etlw let. I~ m! X~csMr m a~~__ sY air_asim Ib~~• A.0.• s e~r 31 Yeh a/ Suvy'~ 0.cwlm 19V L Ibw~ IfR :.~.iv ~E•t ~u v~i . [W • ~Y. 4~wm wi~0 Wr~nan [ww•~ _ -P~ - b.~Al ~r )1 ~lw~wn4t w u~en M.tn. v~~~. CO !1[9 0• Y. ~ d~:~=~-"-`----- _~ca3.wfk~m_sc~Ti~ 4-~. Attachment C "EE` , SPRADDLE CREEK ESTATES PART OF THE SE 1/4 SW 1/4, SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 5 SQUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO `:N' M !CM']6 E 1JJ1.11' ~ eMU ; v • ~ nuiv i~•u n• ie~~ tar iz Lor... ~e ~ ~ \J~ Ma~J V. ~ . . ~ ~ • ~f r"__'___`___ '_"p _ _'_____y.__ • . .~,A, :?i • T / •~4~ ~ m; j j~l ir~/~~~;~ s. ` gy--- ALS ~u« ~~~Sti`` na. j : / ~~/hyp,MNai"~~ g~ I ~ ~ •i%"""~ f ~ ~ `~'°'S~..° s'°Rq~.r'ro`,y'b:~: M°:oa ~ / r n- ~VS 7 1 / ~ T \\l ~~;,7+g I, o, ~'F~ity inT;il~~ , y~i • %i / 3' 7- ~ R . ~ » t: S~-4 ~ ' / ~ t ~ ~ /i 7.~ °.a ~`~a .°~p•~ ,~G j ~ A ( i `•u i . f A~~'/~/ ` ` , ~ 1•,n../ ~a9 =s ~m s p/ \ 0~~'+ /F ~ ~I I• , ,~4 \ ~ ••;g,. , 8 r a n.n H.« . n n~~ c...« n.n $ ~ ~,n,. ~~~r,~~, r\~~~~~ ~ , ~~w. : •1 ~ = ~ r`~ ~ ` ~ ! k•~~ ~M~~r-~ :/~w ~ :l 4» "J~fi ' j~ aun.. R a,,,,.+w.;`y1,..n..--- ' ~ f~~ • aY.' ~ ~ / / _ ~ ~ ^_'.i'___ LDT 6\ iC.a. T I i/~ ~ Ca ~ ~ ~ . • '~Yn j' _F ~ . /r y aa~c ; ~ < / /~~,/~,.`"y'"vpe n• ~'•y~~~`°''. ,n~~•-=`~ ~'r. ~j ~u~r.c'~~~; ' ? ~ i ~ +i€/~~~~ ``~s ` \ c°n.` "".d ~j~ ` ~ ~ ~+~r //t°T a SEE SMEET J j • ~ ~ //r I° ~ k %-(I i '-G ;Vi ; ~ 4 w ~ ~ S ~ ~I y E ' 'r , `L~ ~ ~•~n ~Y. .e« r ~ i eSCALE: Y ~ 60'm LOT s ..'TRAIT" *r " ~ ~ - "'i' -w.~ ~ i i `'T Ai4iCq (!NE - •B' . ~ R SEE SHEET 3 ~ tfr~o • Cy Z ~ 114Cf C AML tR1Cry. SFE SHEET 3 r.el w ~.n ~w.. F g g n S • «y A ( =~CiYCOFC~l~.C:~L9.nCF1:tli.iCt_GG.Y'A.i='J,~C,'.Y ~ ~ ~ t . . 4y s -,G\+ ~ iY~:Y`IItt:C~i.:_AL:.wFRFR'::R'ypE4iC,`."LGFlF:C~.: ` ~ ~ ~ zaaRxxcaxxaaR~~craeeeuxqqzecxcaxo:q:siae:x ~ ~ ' ~ ~ yS~10F.Of~:_099~G'JZi11it:Y:v^Ri11l9__ii]YIlZ£:C ~ ~ ~ I ~ a f[61~R,L'~I~S:._EER'JV'_`N({il::i¢iFlt(1{iFCay(If171,LL,[s A ~ 1 ~I~ S ~C-,^u9GPL~^.[iiiC,RflNRFCIIR-__ltiiiCiMRf=:EM::t WRFFICRlF...7C:SR.COii~il: .:........~~~.....~~..~.....aa:................. W ~ n ~ ~ ~ yj I~ ~ 'ppSY2=~d2ipSx.'.6RER_RF_'S:91YyfpA~RC'.~XRG=9 F ~ i~ 1 ~ y ~ ~ Y_F:~731t1^wI~P_CqC3107RR.CZG£Lf_pY-fYyS3RF0:C / / ~ 8 ~ i~Ciitif[lCLf=CSil~iCiS4~SSfiiiiilf342IIS~i ~ `I 6 $ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ :IVp9.SYtltiLY~9qiF8~~piE£Eg:aaa_eg:dua9^8,.",?9 ~ AI'Oitl f Ft.tld0 [ ~Y~ r`% ,m_~ 1 ~ t :tpYll:.t,tfCliC.::- ~•::YIAEtft:::•_t.WECL^'. ~ A. 3Nn HOlVW ~ ~a~ n I ;.aoscscncc~"c2c'~~~c~e@Bd98'a8fid"cg@dp56=C6tE I ~ 1 f I y ! O W d ~ i Y. aNn Haivw i E'-4 CD ` E..' • O ~I S I I Y ~ ~ J W ko W k,•! ~ I~ a~ n W ~ f /A , F J N I / ~ i , F W I I ~ El 9 CO `F' • I~ i ~i k' 3~Ej~ ~ p k" o i i y S ul ~ ~ y{•[ ~ i • / ~ S hk 03 ' p'Nll • R~Lao M 1 3 VX4 Q ffi~ V. 3N77 HJ1YYf gs y,p +k-A v : V / II • ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~y W n3 ~ i ~ 1k1 x a.~~.~f V ~9g3 i~ A TO: Pianning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department • DATE: February 11, 1991 RE: A request to approve the final plat for a major subdivision on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail/I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. I. PROJECT SIJNIlKARY A. Preliminary Plan Apnroval Summarv Spraddle Creek is a forty acre parcel located northeast of the Main Vail interchange. Mr. George Gillett, Jr. is the owner of the property. The property is surrounded by White River National Forest land on the north, east, west and south. I-70 right-of-way is located adjacent to Spraddle Creek's southwestern boundary. The applicant is requesting final approval I for a major subdivision plat. The property was annexed into the Town of Vail in January of 1985 and Hillside Residential Zoning was applied in November of 1987 by Ordinance No. 38, Series of 1987. • On September 24, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) unanimously approved the subdivision preliminary plan, retaining wall height variance, and road grade variance by a vote of 5-0. The preliminary plan was approved with twenty-four conditions. The Planning and Environmental Commission recommended that the applicant work on reducing the road grade to the new livery site and also refine the architectural guidelines. The PEC also recommended that the applicant be responsible for maintenance of the landscaping along the public road for a two to three year period after the landscaping has been established, rather than two to three years after planting. On October 2, 1990, the Town Council reviewed the project. A vote was taken and the motion to approve passed unanimously. 1 • Attachment D • TI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FROM PRELIMINARY PLAN BeZow is a sumntary of the final conditions of approval for the project. The original conditions are highlighted in bold print. A. The proposed road qrades and retaininq wall heights are maximums for the subdivfsion. If it is determined by staff through the final plat review and/or buildinq permi.t, or construction phase that road grades and retaininq wall heiqhts may be further reduced, the applicant will aqree to do so. The final plat submittal will provide a thorouqh analysis of the soil nailinq and tie rod system for cut walls in order to minimize site disturbance. Staff Summarv: Since preliminary plan approval, there have been several changes to the retaining wall design. At this time, a"keystone" wall is proposed, and this wall has been reviewed conceptually by the Design Review Board. The color of the walls will be tan, unless otherwise agreed to by the Design Review Board. Cut walls will continue to have a ten foot pZanting terrace between each retaining wa21. Fill wall planting terraces have been reduced to six feet between each retaining wall. This creates a four foot • reduction from the planting terrace for fill walls from preliminary plan approval. The reason for this reduction is to further minimize disturbance of the site. The same quantity of plant materials will still be able to be Zocated within the six foot terrace of the fill walls. The height of retaining walls does not exceed the eight feet eight inches approved at preliminary plan. The maximum number of wall terraces proposed is three. These three terraced wall areas have a maximum combined height of 32 feet. (3 x 81-8" + 2 x 3' [for planting terrace].) This height results in the height of the tiered wall being two feet higher than what was approved at preliminary plan. Below is a comparison of walls between preliminary plan and final plat. Preliminary Plan Final Plat Difference 0-6 ft. 3,225 l.f. 2,978 l.f. (247 l.f.) 6-8 ft. 2,663 l.f. 2,085 l.f. + 578 l.f. 8'1"-8'8" 291 1.f. 2,254 l.f. +1.963 l.f. Total Length 6,179 l.f. 7,317•l.f. 1,138 l.f. • 2 The applicant has provided additional information on the rationale for using the "keystone" wall system. • Soil nailing or a tie rod system is not proposed. The Town Engineer has reviewed the studies submitted by Retention Engineering consultants and agrees that the "keystone" wall is appropriate given the soils. Below is the Town Engineer's analysis of the appropriateness of the keystone wall. Town Engineer's Comments: Although a thorough analysis of soil nailing and a tie rod system was not completed, it appears that the wall system is adequate for the site. Tie rod systems are only appropriate once wall heights exceed 10 feet in height. The use of terraces to mitigate the impact of the walls makes the tie rod system less effective in reducing disturbed areas above the top wall. The amount of disturbance was. reduced with use of a 1.5:1 slope above the wall. The "keystone" wall system also has great flexibility in reducing the amount of wall used based on varying site conditions in the field. Blocks come in square foot pieces and can be removed to accommodate minor changes in site topography. Tie rod systems are normally available in 8'x 8' panels and are more rigid in dealing with varying site conditions. All triple cut walls, except M walls, could be reduced • by more extensive grading. If this occurs, a tie rod is not appropriate. A tie rod system would only be appropriate for the M wall. The use of a tie rod system on the double tiered M wall does not seem appropriate because;of the amount of disturbance taking place on Lot 14 and the possible disturbance resulting from the elimination of a portion of the lower M wall the O wall located to the east of this area. The applicant has also agreed to provide planting notches in walls that are greater than 400 feet in length. The concept is that in areas where the length of the wall is extreme, planting notches would be built into the walls to break up the linear appearance of the wall. It is staff's opinion that the applicant has met the first condition of approval concerning road grades and retaining wall heights. The grades and retaining wall heights (81-811) do not exceed those approved by the PEC at the Preliminary Plan review. There is a net increase in wall length of 1,138 l.f. Some of this increase is because of concerns for creek protection and the walls that provide for the livery stable 3 • : roadway. Staff is concerned about this increase in wall length. The staff has identified to the applicant walls that may be removed with additional grading and landscaping. These walls include portions of the I walls and K walls, and C1, C2, 01, M1, Y1, Z1, and walls below the gatehouse. The applicant does not want to remove these walls from the plans as unforeseen site specific conditions may make it necessary to keep the walls. The staff felt this was an acceptable approach to avoid another review by the PEC and DRB during construction. This approach allows the PEC to review the worst case scenario. Before final review by Council, worksheets showing grading and proposed landscaping to mitigate grading shall be submitted to the Town engineer, landscape architect and Community Development Director for review and approval. 2. Construction quidelines will be used durinq the actual buildinq phase for the wall and road improvements. See Section on EIR Wall Analysis of this memo. Staff Summarv: The applicant will submit construction guidelines, along with landscape, architectural and irrigation guidelines for DRB and PEC approval if the PEC desires to review the documents. • 3. A qradinq easement on the southwest corner of the property will allow the Town of Vail the riqht to grade onto this portion of the property if and when the North Frontaqe Road is extended to the east below the subdivision to create a new underpass connectinq to Vail Valley Drive/Blue Cow Chute. Staff Summarv: The applicant has provided an adequate grading easement for the Town of Vail. The easement is indicated on the final plat. 4. An aqreemeat finalizing the livery stable relocation and reclamation of the existinq livery site will be submitted with the final plat information. Staff Summarv: The applicant has agreed to relocate I the livery to Forest Service land to the east of the SPraddle Creek site`and also to revegetate the existing livery site. . ' ~ 4 I ~ i 5. The conditions for lots havinq slopes over 30% wi1Z be applied to the subdivision. This section of the code • is 18.69.050 A-D, F-I, R an8 L. Staff Summarv: The applicant has agreed to this condition, and will indicate this stipulation on the final plat and covenants. 6. Site coveraqe shall be limited to 80 to 100% of the allowable GRFA for each lot. This conditicn will be finaliaed at final plat. 5taff Summarv: The staff and applicant have agreed to limit site coverage to 100% of the allowable GRFA minus 850 sq. ft. for each lot, excluding Lot 14. The site coverage for Lot 14 shall be 10,000 sq. ft. Lot 8, Lot 10 and Lot 15 shall be limited per the standard Hillside Residential zoning which is applicable on smaller lots.* Please see the chart comparing the proposed site coverage, to site coverage allowed under the standard Hillside Residential Zoning. Proposed Site HR Site Lot Coveraqe Coverage (.15) ~ 1 6,483 13,125 ' 2 5,674 7,222 • 3 7,698 13,293 4 6,166 8,698 5 5,977 8,130 6 7,370 12,308 7 5,459 6,575 8* 4,781 4,781 9 6,419 9,457 10* 4,844 4,844 11 6,838 10,713 12 8,078 14,432 13 N/A N/A 14 10,000 32,329 I 15* 3,839 3,839 ~ Staff tried to achieve a balance among the following ' factors when determining an appropriate site coverage percentage: * The need for flexibility in site planning because of the sensitivity of the lots. * The fact that the existing Hillside Residential zoning would provide no control on site coverage, because of the large lot size. Essentially, all square footage (GRFA + Garage 1200 sq. ft.) could be built on one level. 5 • * The probability that most lot owners will want to • construct 3 or 4 car garages which are not incorporated into GRFA. * The applicant's willingness to provide building envelopes and architectural guidelines. * The fact that the new site coverage ordinance has become more restrictive. * In Primary/Secondary zoning, site coverage does not exceed GRFA until lots exceed 30,000 sq. ft. It appears that with large lots, the site coverage would exceed GRFA. Usinq PrimaryfSecondary Zonina Standards (With New GRFA Definition) Lot Size GRFA* Site Coveraqe (.20 of total site) 15,000 4,600 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. 20,000 5,100 sq. ft. 41000 sq. ft. 30,000 6,100 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 401,000 6,600 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. * Figure does not include 1,200 sq. ft. for a garage When this condition of approval was originally • discussed at preliminary plan, the GRFA and site coverage ordinances had not been amended. The new GRFA ordinance takes into account all GRFA, excluding garages, which are equivalent to a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft. By allowing for 100$ of the allowable GRFA minus 850 sq. ft. for site coverage, we believe that good site planning will result. The limit on site coverage, in combination with the building envelopes and architectural guidelines, should insure that houses are sited in a reasonable manner on the sensitive sites, while still allowing flexibility for individual site planning. 7. If a fireplace is desired by the owner for the caretaker unit, qas appliances or gas loqs shall be used in all caretaker units. Only one wood burninq fireplace will be allowed in the main unit. Staff Summarv: The Town Council recently adopted Ordinance No. 42 of 1990 which restricts all new construction to gas logs and gas appliances. This subdivision will be governed by this ordinance. The only lot that will potentially be able to have one wood burning unit is Lot 14. At this time, the owner of the entire Spraddle Creek site may submit design plans for one Hillside Residential development. If the final • 6 I ~ submittal occurs before February 15, 1991, this deveZopment will be allowed to have one wood burning • fireplace for the main unit. The caretaker unit for Lot 14 shall be required to meet Ordinance No. 42, as at preliminary plan approval, the caretaker was already restricted to gas. This solution is acceptable to staff. 8. The chain link fence around the culvert at the subdivision entry will be removed and a more aesthetic barrier provided witb appropriate landscaping if allowed by the Colorado Division of Hiqhways. Staff Summarv: The applicant has agreed to remove the chain link fence and replace it with a wooden fence and Iandscaping. This meets the staff concern. 9. The six spruce trees by the subdivision entrance on the south side of Gillett Road shall be relocated and must survive for two years after they have been relocated. If they die within the two year period, the trees will be replaced by similar type and sized trees, at the owner's expense. Staff Summarv: The condition is met. 10. All Fire Department standards and requirements per the • letter from Mike MoGee dated Auqust 2, 1990 shall be complied with by the awner or as otherwise modified. Staff Summarv: All fire department concerns have been addressed by the applicant, to the Town's satisfaction. 11. Before any buildinq permits are released for the subdivision and once the subdivision receives final plat approval, the appropriate easements allowinq for public access shall be recorded per the Forest Service requirements. Staff Summarv: The applicant agrees to this condition. 12. six foot paved shoulders on either side of the Frontaqe Road for a distance of approximately 520 feet (from the Spraddle Creek intersection west) for a public bike path shall be provided by the developer. Staff Summarv: The applicant has agreed to construct the 6 ft. bike lanes. 7 i • 13. AiI construction on each Zot shall occur within the platted buildinq envelopes. The buildinq envelopes shall be adjusted per the revised staff plan dated Beptember 7, 1990 before final plat. Staff and the applicant will determiae what improvements, if any, will be allowed outside the envelope at final plat. ' Staff Summarv: The applicant has revised the building envelopes per planning staff recommendations drawn on ' the September 7, 1990 preliminary plan. The staff also reviewed the building envelopes on site. The final plat reflects the recommendations made at preliminary plan and the site specific analysis. Al1 improvements shall occur within building envelopes except driveways, sidewalks, retaining wa31s, grading, surface parking, and garages that meet Section 18.69.050 A-D, F-J, K& L of the Town of Vail zonin9 code. These site improvements, may be proposed outside of the building envelopes as long as Design Review Board approval is received and any impacts on topography and vegetation are minimal and the end result is a building that is well integrated into the site. Retaining walls are discouraged, but if necessary, shall be integrated into the site as much as possible. Garages will be allowed to be located aut of the building envelope if they meet . the slope standards for lots that have the main • building and garage in areas of the site that exceed 30% slope. In respect to Lot 14, the building envelope shall be tied to the site plan dated October 4, 1990, with signatures dated February 7, 1991, prepared by Pierce, Segerburg, Spaeh Architects. The envelope is tied to a specific site plan because of the size of the house, the staff's concern that all major improvements be located within the building enveZope, and that the house not move closer to the south if the envelope is expanded to incZude two south facing patios. Because the preliminary design for Lot 14 is completed, staff had the opportunity to analyze this particular envelope in relation to the proposed residence. Overall, the building envelopes have been lacated in a manner that is sensitive to areas of slope over 40% and existing tree lines. Staff has also tried to consider building envelope configurations that allow for a reasonable area to locate a house within. We believe the applicant has responded to our concerns and we support the building envelopes as proposed on the final plat. • 8 14. All construction for the subdivision shall comply with the requirements found within the Environmental Impact • Report for the project. Staff Summarv: The applicant agrees with this condition. 15. The owner shall use tbe least pollutinq sandinq material for sandinq the private road within the subdivision per the approval of the Town of Vail Environmental Health Department. Staff Summarv: The applicant agrees with this condition. 16. The open space t=acts within the subdivision shall be rezoned to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space at the same time the final plat is reviewed. Additional greenbelt, open space areas will be added adjacent to the Forest Service switchback, the Lot 5/6 switchback, and the secondary road per the staff amendments to the september 7, 1990 preliminary plan. Staff Summarv: The applicant has submitted an application to rezone the open space tracts within the subdivision to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zoning. Once the plat is recorded, the staff will schedule the rezoning application for the three greenbelt and • natural open space tracts. No building permits for site work or individual residences will be released until the rezoning has been approved. This . understanding will also be in the subdivision improvement agreement. The reason for approaching the rezoning in this manner is to insure that the legal descriptions absolutely match the tract legal descriptions on the final plat. Below is a summary of the square footage allocated to each of the greenbelt oPen sPace tracts. Tract A- 337,222 sq. ft. Tract B- 5,151 sq. ft. Tract C- 47,279 sq. ft. This solution is acceptable to staff. 17. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the road throuqh the subdivisioa from the entry gate up to the top of the subdivision. This maintenance also includes all tract areas, retaininq walls, and landscapinq. The owner also aqrees to be responsible for establishinq the landscapinq alonq the public road extendinq from the North Frontaqe Road up to the subdivision entry 9 • i ~ gate for a period of two years once the landscape • materials have been established. Once the landscapinq is established and two years has transpired, and the Town of Vail Landscape Architect has approved the landsaapinq, the Town will take over the responsibility of the retaininq walls and landscapinq maintenance. Staff Summarv: The applicant does not agree with this condition relating to landscaping, and would propose to transfer maintenance responsibilities to the Town 1 to 1 1/2 years after the landscaping is planted. Council asked that instead of 112 to 3" years after landscaping is established, a specific time period should be referenced in the condition. Staff used 2 years. Staff supports the original Council condition. 18. Pedestrian and public access shall be allowed on the lower portion of Gillett Road extendinq from the Frontage Road up to the subdivision qate. Staff Summarv: The applicant has agreed to this condition of approval and will dedicate an easement along Spraddle Creek for public access as well as a public access easement from the North Frontage Road up Gillett Road to the Spraddle Creek entry gate. Staff would ask that the public access easement along the • creek be expanded from 20 feet to 60 feet. 19. Three caretaker units each havinq a maximum square footage of 1200 sq. ft. and a minimum square footaqe of 700 sq. ft. shall be provided within the subdivision. The three caretaker units must be provided within three of the first seven lots that are developed. The units will be permanently restricted per section 18.13.080 (10) (A-D) of the Town of Vail Zoninq Code. At this time, the qatehouse caretaker unit is not approved. Staff Summarv: The applicant agrees to provide the three caretaker units however, they would prefer to not have to guarantee that the three caretaker units will be provided within three of the first seven lots that are developed. Staff believes that it is important that the three units occur within three of the first seven lots that are developed and would make this part of the condition of approval. A minimum square footage of 700 sq. ft. is acceptable for the caretaker unit. 20. The architectural quidelines shall be amended as follows: a. Retaininq walls shall be minimized as well as extremely steep slopes. • 10 b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of • residences but large lawn areas are not encouraqed. C. Driveways shall have a maximum qrade of 8% unless approved by the Town of Vail Enqineer. d. irriqation by retaininq walls for the subdivision shall be prohibited. e. No cbain link feacinq is allowed within the subdivision, even for doq runs. If dog runs are proposed, another type of open fencinq should be used. Staff Response: The applicant intends to amend the architectural guidelines to reflect staff, PEC, and DRB recommendations. Slopes shall not exceed 2:1 on individual lots. In respect to D, the applicant has submitted information allowing irrigation by the retaining walls. The recommendations found in the condition of approval have been incZuded in the architecturaZ guidelines. Staff will require that the guidelines be reviewed one more time by the DRB and PEC before final Council approval. The guidelines must be given final approval by the PEC before the final plat • is allowed to proceed to Council. 21. All constructian withia the subdivision shall comply with the Town cf Vail hazard ordinances found in Section 18.69. Staff Summarv: The applicant has indicated on the plat the hazard areas within the subdivision. These hazard areas have not contributed to any site area for the purposes of calculating GRFA or site coverage. In addition, a letter dated January 28, 1991 has been submitted by Ed Church, hazard consultant, which states that site specific hazard studies for individual lots will not be necessary because of the building envelope requirements for each lot. This solution is acceptable to staff. 22. No on-site livery shall be allowed within the subdivision. Staff Summarv: The applicant has agreed to not allow any on site liveries within the Spraddle Creek subdivision. 11 . ~ 23. Aspens, vines, and larqe shrubs shall be used on all retaininq walls. Staff Summarv: The applicant has agreed to meet this condition. 24. All hazard areas shall be excluded from contributinq site area to Lots 14, 5, and 4 for GRFA or site coveraqe. Staff Summarv: The applicant has met this condition of approval. Please see the discussion on GRFA in the following section of the memo. III. ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN THE COUNCIL/PEC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Lot Size: ~ All lots meet the buildable area requirements per the Hillside Residential Zone District. The buildable areas have been certified by Mr. Dan Corcoran of Eagle ValZey Engineering and Surveying in his letter dated February 6, 1991. • B. GRFA: Attached to the memo is a chart comparing lot size, building area, GRFA, and site coverage. The GRFA for each lot (except Lot 14) has been determined by using the standard Hillside Residential Zoning. Al1 hazard areas and floodplain areas have been excluded from site area which is used to calculate GRFA and site coverage. The GRFA numbers on the chart are arrived at by using the following formula: 18.09.080 Density Control "Not more than a total of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each site. Not more than twenty square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) sha11 be permitted for each one hundred square feet for the first twenty-one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780) square feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of site area over twenty-one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780) square feet. On any site containing two dwelling units, one of the units shall not exceed twelve hundred (1,200) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA). This unit shall not be subdivided or sold • 12 separately from the main dwelling. This unit may be integrated into the main dwelling or may be integrated ~ within a garage structure serving the mairi unit, but shall not be a separate freestanding structure." Please note that the new GRFA definition and method of calculating GRFA found in Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1990 will be used for this subdivision. Per this new definition, the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA: 1. "Garage spaces of up to three hundred (300) square feet per garage space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by the zoning code. 2. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. Attic area created by construction of a roof with truss-type members will be excluded from calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches apart. 3. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve square feet in area, with five • feet or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. ' 4. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar feature/space with no more than three exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than 25% of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature/space provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet in height." GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in Section 18.04.130 above. Excluded areas as set forth in paragraph A shall then be deducted from total square footage. As an example, Lot 1 has a GRFA listed of 7,333 sq. ft. Assuming that the owner of Lot 1 builds the primary unit plus the caretaker unit, the owner has the option of 13 • , I ~ building up to 1,200 sq. ft. of additional space for a four car garage. The garage space is not included in the total GRFA figure. The only lot that is not allocated GRFA based on the Hillside Residential Zone District is Lot 14. Because of ~ the large size of this lot, staff believes that a reduction in the allowable GRFA per Hillside Residential Zoning was appropriate. Under standard Hillside Residential Zoning, the lot would be allowed to have 14,843 sq. ft. of GRFA. (Please remember a 1,200 sq. ft., four-car garage could be added if two units are built on the site.) At preliminary plan, the applicant agreed to a GRFA restriction of 14,330 sq. ft. This GRFA amount was based on the old formula for calculating GRFA. In addition to the 14,330 sq. ft., the owner would have been allowed to have 550 sq. ft. of credits excluding any type of garage credit. This would result in a total floor area of 14,880 sq. ft. Under the new ordinance, if the total lot size (286,022 sq. ft.), is reduced by 70,496 sq. ft. for hazard areas on the lot, the GRFA that is allowed is equivalent to 14, 843 sq. ft. per Hillside Residential Zoning. In order to balance the concerns of the staff about the size of the development on this lot, we have arrived at an agreed upon GRFA of 14,330 sq. ft. • Lots 4 and 5 use total site area minus hazard areas to arrive at their GRFA figure. Lot 1 GRFA does not exceed the GRFA originally allowed when the project incorporated the entire subdivision road on private land. The staff's intent is to ensure that additional GRFA was not allowed for Lot 1 now that the road extends onto Forest Service land. The total lot areas and GRFAs for the entire resubdivision are actually below those figures proposed when the road was entirely on Gillett property as indicated below. These restrictions on GRFA is acceptable to the applicant and to the staff. Please see Dannie Corcoran's letter dated February 6, 1991 for GRFA statistics. C. Road Grades The road grades have not changed substantially since preliminary plan. The road grade does not exceed 8.89% as approved. The average road grade is 7.8%. At preliminary plan both the Council and Planning and Environmental Commission mentioned their concern about the grade of the gravel livery road to the east of the subdivision. At this time, the grade for the road is 15.4% at its steepest point. • 14 The turnaround has also been relocated to a location directly in front of the subdivision gate. It is no • longer approximately 180 lineal feet east of the gate. Staff believes this is an improvement over the previous location. It does result in two additional retaining walls below the turnaround area. The height of these ' walls ranges from 1 to 81-811. The length is 135 l.f. for the upper wall and 66 l.f. for the lower wall. No caretaker unit is proposed. A gatehouse will be constructed at the entry. Staff is still comfortable with the road grades. It is unfortunate that the road grade for the livery cannot be reduced substantially. Staff would recommend that grading be completed to reduce road grade to the best extent possible without significant disturbance to the surrounding vegetation. It would appear that livery operators would widen the road to their operation, so the overall road grade may be able to be improved slightly. Forest Service road grades have different standards from Town roads and assuming the Forest Service approves the road, staff can support the 15.4% grade. D. Landscape and Irriqation At preliminary plan, it was felt that it would be a • problem to provide irrigation above the retaining walls along the road. The applicant has submitted a letter from Retention Engineers, John Tryba, dated January 30, 1991, stating that it is acceptable to allow irrigation above the walls. Specific plans for the subdivision entry by the gate and entrance by the North Frontage Road have been submitted. These plans will be reviewed by the Design Review Board and, at this time, have the general approval of the Town of Vail landscape architect. The applicant has submitted a project landscape plan which has incorporated the Planning Commission's suggestion of providing "grove-type" planting arrangements around the disturbed areas and open space tracts. The following changes shall be made to the landscape plan as a condition of final plat approval before Council review: * 2" caliper aspen shall be the minimum size allowed instead of 1 1/2" caliper. * The existing'and proposed tree line shall be indicated on the landscape plan. 15 • i . I * The irrigation point of connection shall be , • changed to a water tap instead of the fire hydrant connection. * A letter from RBD engineers describing how grading ' and landscaping will occur if walls K, I, C1, C2, 01, M1, Y1 and Z1 are removed after a site inspection is made by the owners' consultant team, Town engineer, landscape architect, and community development director. * Additional aspens and shrubs may be required by the landscape architect for walls E-l, G-1 and N- l. This issue shall be resolved after an on-site ~ inspection is made by the Town of Vail landscape architect. Additional landscaping may include up to 30 aspens and 20 shrubs. * The landscape plan shall be revised to show the driveway and wall break adjacent to Lot 8. Additional planting may be required by the Town of Vail Iandscape architect in this area. E. Frontaqe Road Desiqn The applicant has received Colorado Department of Highways' approval for the frontage road lane design. All retaining walls have been removed along the North Frontage Road and entry into the subdivision. Forest . Service approval will be necessary, as grading may occur on their property at the frontage road entrance. F. Drainaqe A large sedimentation basin on Lot 4 has been removed from the proposal. This is acceptable to the Town of Vail Engineer. Numerous erosion control methods will be utilized during the construction period for the subdivision. An erosion control plan has been submitted and conceptually approved by the Town of Vail landscape architect and engineer. G. Livery Desiqn and Trail Access Adjacent to the relocated Zivery, the applicant proposes to provide 17 parking spaces. Twelve spaces will be provided for users of the livery. Five spaces will be available to hikers. H. Coastructian Phasinq The applicant would like to submit a construction phasing plan at a later date to the Community Development and Public Works departments for approval. The applicant is attempting to relocate the livery to • 16 i ~ the new east livery site on Forest Service property ~ before Memorial Day. In order to accompZish this, • ~ their phasing plan is being revised. Construction ~ staging areas at this time are proposed to be located at the old livery site and at the top of the subdivision at the two cul de sacs. Possible spring debris flow mitigation on the lower portion of Gillett Road shall be addressed in the phasing plan. I. Forest service Considerations The applicant will be required to receive approval from the United States Forest Service to locate the east switchback on Forest Service property. This will be a condition of final plat approval. The plat will not be recorded until final approval is received from the Forest Service for the switchback. The applicant will also be required to dedicate and realign easements per the Forest Service requirements for their approval. J. Driveway Locations for Individual Lots The applicant has submitted a plan showing the general location for access to each of the lots. Each owner will be required to submit a design for a house that minimizes retaining walls and disturbance to the site. It was felt that it was appropriate to indicate the • general location for access, but that specific driveway cuts ancl grades would not be defined at final plat. The Town Engineer has reviewed the general driveway , locations, and believes that they can provide safe access to the sites. One comment is that the portion of Lot 3 that extends in front of Lot 2 on the plat may need to be revised in order to provide better access to Lot 2. IV. CONCLUSION Staff recommends appraval of the major subdivision final plat for Spraddle Creek Subdivision. All of the conditions of approval which were stipulated in the preliminary plan approval have been agreed to by the applicant, except.for the condition relating to the timing of the provision for the 3 caretaker units and maintenance condition. Staff approval is contingent upon these two conditions being met per our recommendations. It is felt that the project meets the review criteria for a major subdivision which is listed below in Section 17.16.110 of the Town•of Vail Subdivision Regulations: 17 • • "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC i deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to I the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies, and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity, and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the town, environmental integrity, and compatibility with the surrounding land uses." Staff believes that the applicant has made a very strong effort to address all of the public boards' concerns as well as staff concerns. The result is a project which meets the above criteria, and will result in a new subdivision for the Town of Vail that is sensitive to the community's goals for development, aesthetics, natural environment, and surrounding Zand uses, given the steep topography of the site. We recommend final approval of the plat with the following conditions. Staff has listed the points, during • the review process, at which conditions must be finalized. A. Before the Proiect is Reviewed by the Town Council for Dedication l. The architectural, construction and landscape guidelines shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and finalized by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The guidelines must be given final approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission before the final plat is allowed to proceed to Council. A color board shall also be submitted with the final architectural guidelines 2. The following changes shall be made by the applicant to the landscape plan as a condition of final plat approval before the project is reviewed by the Town Council: * 2 inch caliper aspen shall be the minimum size allowed instead of 1 1/2 inch aspen * The existing and proposed tree line shall be indicated on the landscape plan ~ 18 * The irrigation point of connection shall be changed to a water tap instead of the fire . hydrant connection. * A letter from RBD Engineers describing how ' grading and landscaping will occur if walls i I, K, C1, C2, 01, M1, Y1 and Z1 are removed. * Additional aspens and shrubs may be required by the landscape architect for walls E-1, G-1 and N-1. This issue shall be resolved after an on site inspection is made by the Town of Vail landscape architect. Up to 30 aspens and 20 shrubs may be required by the landscape architect. * The irrigation guidelines shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail landscape architect. * The landscape plan shall be revised to show the driveway and wall break adjacent to Lot 8. Additional planting may be required by the Town of Vail landscape architect in this area. * The A1 wall shall be indicated on the landscape plan. 3. The Town Attorney shall review and approve the wording on the subdivision plat concerning 30% slope, building envelopes and certificates. • 4. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted to the Community Development and Public Works departments for final approval before the project proceeds to Council. The debris flow mitigation during construction shall be addressed in the phasing plan. 5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 300 shall be indicated on the subdivision plat. This section of the code is 18.69.050 A-D, F-I, K and L. This wording shall also be included in the covenants for the subdivision. 6. The conditions of the building envelope shall be added to the plat, and also incorporated in the subdivision covenants. 7. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the road through the subdivision from the entry gate up to the top of the subdivision. This maintenance also includes all tract areas, retaining walls, and landscaping. The owner also agrees to be responsible for establishing the landscaping along the public road extending from 19 • the North Frontage Road up to the subdivision ~ entry gate for two years once the landscape materials have been established. Once the landscaping is established and two years has transpired, and the Town of Vail Landscape Architect has approved the landscaping, the Town will take over the responsibility of the retaining walls and landscaping maintenance. 8. The applicant shall submit worksheets showing grading and proposed landscaping to mitigate grading for portions of the I walls, K walls, C walls, 01, M1, Y1, Zl, and walls below the gatehouse to the Town engineer, landscape architect, and Community Development Director. These walls shall also be listed on the final street construction plans as having potential for removal. 9. The Town engineer's comments to Kristan Pritz, dated January 24, 1991, shall be met or resolved. 10. Based on the second set of plans dated January 31, 1991, the following issues in the memo dated February 11, 1991 shall be met or resolved. • 11. Town engineer's approval is required for the final street construction plans, construction specifications and final Drainage Report. B. Council Review 1. Easements will be dedicated to the Town at this time. C. Before the Final Plat is Recorded, the Followinq Conditions Shall Be Met 1. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department for approval the final agreement relocating the existing livery to the Forest Service land east of Spraddle Creek Subdivision. This agreement shall also include revegetation of the existing livery site. 2. Before the final plat is recorded, the appropriate easements allowing for public access shall be recorded per the Forest Service requirements. Forest Service approval for the switchback on their property to the east of Spraddle Creek Subdivision shall also be received before final plat recording. • 20 , 3. The subdivision improvement agreement and • covenants shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and approved before the final plat is recorded. 4. The applicant shall agree to provide the three caretaker units within three of the first seven lots that are developed within the subdivision. This agreement shall be incorporated into the covenants and/or subdivision improvement agreement. 5. The applicant shall incorporate into the covenants the condition that no on-site livery shall be - allowed within the subdivision D. After final plat recording and before anv buildinct permits are released for site improvements or individual residences: 1. The rezoning of all open space tracts within the subdivision shall be approved by the Vail Town Council. The requested zone designations shall be greenbelt open space. This condition shall also be listed in the subdivision agreement before the ~ final plat is recorded. • 2. All final plat conditions of approval shall be met by the applicant. i E. During construction of the prolect: I l. The Community Development Director, Town Engineer i and Town landscape architect shall periodically do on-site inspections of the construction. On any walls that are greater than 400 feet in length, planting notches shall be required unless it is , determined that it is impossible to locate the notches in a sensitive manner in the walls. C:\pec\spradd1e\fina1.211 21 • i ' • February 6, 1991 Mr. Joe Macy Vail Associates, Inc. Box 7 Vail, CO 81658 Re: Spraddle Creek Subdivision lot areas and GRFA Dear Joe, Per your request I have prepared the following two tables for the above project. Table #1 is a summary of the square foatages in lot areas, hazard areas, GRFA, site coverage, building envelope areas and contiguous buildable square footage for the lot configuration shown on the final plat. TABLE #1 Site Building Contiguous Lot Area Hazard GRFA Coverage Envelope Buildable 1 87499 7333 6483 15295 24848 • 2 48146 6524 5674 12509 39600 3 88619 8548 7698 14824 63643 4 85250 27264 7016 6166 15202 45184 5 61082 6880 6827 5977 18178 29760 6 82050 8220 7370 22398 26480 7 43833 6309 5459 12935 29552 8 31873 5711 4861 12570 25776 9 63044 7269 6419 12137 39216 10 32296 5732 4882 12263 32080 11 71419 7688 6838 11247 34880 12 96213 8928 8078 13150 48448 14 286022 70496 14330 10000 22948 47920 15 25596 5397 4547 7279 23120 A 337222 B 5151 C 47279 D 152918 E 6231 F 68762 G 2394 ~ 41199 Highway 6& 24, Eagle-Vail Post Office Box 1230 Edwards, CU 81632 303-949-1406 Februarv 6, 1991 . Spraddle Creek Page 2 Table #2 is a comparison of the residential lot areas and GRFA square footages for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision without the roadwav extended to the east onto Forest Property and with the roadway extended onto Forest Service property. I have used the following assumptions in this comparison: 1) Lot areas of last configuration of plat without roadway extended to the east on Forest Service property. (May 25, 1990) 2) Lot areas per final plat with roadway extended to the east on Forest Service property. (February 6, 1991) 3) I have calculated the GRFA square footages for both lists using the current Town of Vail GRFA calculations for the Hillside Residential zone,district. (Including the 425 square foot credit for each of the allowable units on each lot - 850 square feet total) 4) The portions af Lots 4,5, and 14 designated as hazard areas have been subtracted from the total lot area prior to the GRFA calculations. 5) The GRFA shown for Lat 14 in both lists is the 14330 square feet • agreed to per preliminary plat submittal. (Calculations per current regulations would a11ow an additional 563 square feet) 6) The GRFA shown for Lot 1 in both lists is the 7333 square feet calculated per the lot size prior to the revision to the roadwav. (Calculations per current lot size and regulations would allow an additional 1159 square feet) TABLE #2 May 25, 1990 February 6, 1991 Road not on USFS Road on USFS Lot Lot Area GRFA Lot Area GRFA 1 64310 7333 87499 7333 2 59610 7098 48146 6524 3 85038 8369 88619 8548 4 94804 7494 85250 7016 5 66082 7077 61082 6827 6 51019 6668 82050 8220 7 48961 6565 43833 6309 8 58141 7024 31873 5711 9 75170 7876 63044 7269 10 29150 5575 32296 5732 11 71402 7687 71419 7688 12 96213 8928 96213 8928 14 285337 14330 286022 14330 • 15 24510 5343 25596 5397 1109747 107367 1102942 105832 • Februarv 6, 1991 Spraddle Creek Page 3, From the numbers in Table #2 above you can see there was not any increase in the total lot area or GRFA with the road shifted east onto Forest Service property. The total lot area was reduced 6806 square feet and the GRFA was reduced by 1535 square feet. The purpose of shifting the road to the east was to improve overall road grades and actually results in higher overall construction costs for the project without any monetary gain from additional density or developable GRFA. Please call if you have questions on any of the figures. Sincerelyri %c i Eagleying, Inc. . ~ ~ Dan ~r taR ~r0 siv ~ . Pres~ p ~•......••'~Q~,~° ~~~~i~ OF CO~.~ ~~lII1ItL[~1~4 • liotAfts ko n% ~ nie Knight asked Irene what impact, if any, there would b f the ish were placed on the ground. Irene responded that ' the • dish e enclosed, it would be acceptable. She stated 'n conclusi that the Talisman Condo Association found e roof proposal un tisfactory. Diana Donovan as the applicant if, since e general consensus of the Commission s ed opposed to a roo lacement, he would like to withdraw his p osal, or tabl t for further research. Kristan Pritz clarified t the Co ssion could ask that the proposal be withdrawn, tabl it, take a vote on it as it stood. Applicant asked what w d be the procedure for approval if the application were tab . elly Mello informed him that if no variances were bei requeste DRB approval would be all he would need for a gr nd placement. f the DRB denied his request, he could b' g the application b k to the Commission for further revi . Jim Hariot then formal requested that his application be abled for further review of al rnative placements r the dish. Jim S rer moved that the proposal be tabled, and Con 'e Knight sec ded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor of tablin the plication. 3. A request to approve the final plat for a major subdivision on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an a,puroximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the • Main Vail/I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek I Livery. Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr. The Commission took this request out of order from the formal agenda in order to accommodate the individuals wishing to speak on this proposal. Kristan Pritz explained the application as follows: 1. The conditions given in the previous approval by staff, PEC and Town Council were reviewed. There were variances given for road grades and retaining wall height. Along with this, there were 24 conditions of approval for the final plat approval. The Planning Commission also requested at preliminary plat approval that the applicant work on reducing the road grade and refining the architectural guidelines. Below are the comments associated with each condition of approval. Regarding the reduction of proposed road grades and retaining wall height, the original conditions for final approval requested that the applicant further reduce the road grades and retaining wall height. Applicant has changed the design of the retaining walls to a"keystone" wall, similar to those used in Potato Patch. The color of these walls will be tan, which has been conceptually agreed 3 • to by the DRB. To reduce the amount of fill required and ~ wall height, the fill walls will be reduced from 10 feet of planting area to 6 feet. The retaining walls will not exceed the 811-8" originally approved, and there will be no more than three terraces of these walls. There would still be sufficient planting area to accommodate landscaping requirements. The rationale behind the changes was explained by stating that there have been alterations to the road design at the livery road switchback. Some other walls have been ].engthened, resulting in some change from two tiers to one. The Town Engineer reviewed the "keystone" wall proposal and had several comments. The first was that although the analysis of soil nailing and tie rod system was not complete, the use of a"keystone" wall is appropriate in this case. A tie rod system would create more wall area, where the "keystone" wall is more flexible and can be adjusted more easily to circumstances. Furthermore, the terracing is more appropriate than single, tall walls. Staff requested that applicant break up the longest walls, those of mare than 400 Z.f., with planting notches, as well as attempt to remove some of the walls by performing extensive gradinq on the land behind the wall. There would • be more initial disturbance, but would result in long term benefits. Staff believes that some of the walls may be reduced. There was a net increase in wall Zength of 1,138 l.f. from preliminary plan approval. Staff wanted to see the following walls reduced or eliminated: some of the K and I walls, C1 and C2 at the existing livery site, the O wall below Lots 15 and 10, M1 and M2, and Y1 and Z1 could be removed for better access to driveways for Lots 1 and 2. In addition, the wall around the gatehouse may be able to be reduced. Kathy Langenwalter asked what would be the maximum grading for the slopes, and Kristan responded by saying that it could be a maximum of 2:1 or 1.5:1 if vegetation and topagraphy impacts could be minimized by using 1.5:1 slopes around the walls. 2. Applicant will submit construction guidelines. Staff is looking for direction from the Commission on whether the members would like to see those plans one more time, or would a final DRB approval be sufficient? 3. The grading easement requested for future extension of the . North Frontage Road has been provided. 4 4. The agreement for moving the livery from its present location has been completed. The applicant will relocate ~ the livery to Forest Service Land and revegetate the existing site. 5. Conditions for lots having slopes over 30% will be applied to this subdivision. Applicant has agreed to this and will indicate the stipulation on the final plat and in the covenants. 6. Limitation of site coverage has been agreed to by applicant and staff. There was concern that the zoning for Hillside Residential would allow for too much site coverage. The Hillside Residential zoning would have allowed for the entire GRFA to be on one floor, including, perhaps, a 3 or 4 car garage. There is a need for flexibility because of sensitive lots, and this has been taken into consideration when determining the site coverage for each lot. The builders have approved the use of building envelopes. In addition, the new site coverage ordinance has become more restrictive since the preliminary approval was given. Staff and applicant have agreed to limit site coverage to GRFA minus 850 sq. ft., except for Lots 8, 10, and 15 which will use site coverage per the Hillside Residential zone ' ~ district. Lot 14 will be limited to 10,000 sq. ft. i 7. Since the preliminary approval, the fireplace ordinance has • changed. There appears to be one complete DRB application ' submitted, so one house will be receiving a wood burning fireplace. The caretaker unit for this lot, Lot 14, will be restricted to a gas appliance. With the exception of Lot 14, the subdivision will be required to comply with the revised Ordinance 42, indicating that there will only be gas logs or gas appliances. 8. The chain link fence around the culvert at the subdivision entry will be replaced with a wooden fence and landscaping. Staff believes this is an acceptable solution. 9. The six large spruce trees at the subdivision entry will be moved and maintained for at least 2 years. If, for any reason, any of these trees dies, applicant agrees to replace them with similar type and sized trees. 10. The Fire Department standards and concerns have been addressed by the applicant to the Town's satisfaction. 11. Applicant has agreed to the provision of recording the appropriate easements per Forest Service requirements. 5 • 12. A six foot paved shoulder on either side of the Frontage I ~ Road to be used as a public bike path shall be provided by the developer. The exact length of the path will be determined by the plan approved by the Colorado Division of Highways. 13. The construction for each lot will occur within the platted building envelopes. The staff has recommended some cut backs in these envelopes, and the applicant made the requested changes to the boundaries of the envelopes. Lot 14's building envelope is site specific to the house design. The Lot 14 envelope was also adjusted to ensure that the house did not move down the hillside. Driveways, sidewalks, garages that meet Section 18.69.050 A-D, F-J, K&L, retaining walls, surface parking and grading may be outside the building envelopes, as long as DRB approval is received and impacts on topography and vegetation are minimal. I Connie Knight questioned if, because garages could be built I outside the envelopes, that would also mean that caretaker units constructed above garages would also be able to be outside the envelope. Caretaker units would not be allowed to be built on top of garages outside of the envelope. Caretaker units may be built above garages within the envelope. Connie further inquired if the Deszgn Review Board had examined the plans for Lot 14. Kristan Pritz • indicated that they had conceptually reviewed that plan at this time. 14. Applicant agrees that all construction will comply with the Environmental Impact Report requirements. 15. The least polluting sanding material will be used to sand the private road. The Town Environmental Health Department will determine the definition of "least polluting sanding material." The applicant agrees to this conditzon. 16. The apen space tracts within the subdivision will be rezoned to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space after the final plat is approved. The final plat will include the exact legal description of each of the three tracts. After recording the final plat, applicant will present the plat to the Commission for rezoning. There will be no building permits issued until the rezoning is accomplished. 17. The road through the subdivision from the entry gate to the top of the subdivision will be maintained by the owner. Two years after the landscaping is established, the maintenance of the landscaping along the public road from the Frontage Road to the gate will be turned over to the Town for maintenance. The two year provision was a request by the Town Council. The applicant requests that this be changed ~ 6 to 1 to 1 1/2 years after the landscaping is established. Staff supports the Council recommendation. ~ 18. Pedestrian and public access easements will be dedicated along Spraddle Creek and along road from North Frontage Road up Gillett Road to the entry gate. Preliminary plat indicated that the easement along the creek would be 20 ft. Staff requests that this be increased to 60 ft. 19. There will be three caretaker units having a minimum square footage of 700 sq. ft. and a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft. provided in the subdivision. The three caretaker units are to be provided within the first seven lots developed, and will be permanently restricted to employee housing units. Staff feels that the timing of the building of these three units is critical, and should be provided during the development of the first seven lots. Applicant requests the flexibility to simply require that there be three units out of the 14 developed. 20. There were amendments requested to the architectural guidelines. These were as follows: a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as extremely I steep slopes. ' b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of the residences, but large lawn areas are not encouraged. • c. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8% unless approved by the Town Engineer. d. Irrigation by retaining walls for the subdivision shall be prohibited. e. No chain link fencing is allowed within the subdivision, even for dog runs. Dog runs should have another type of open fencing. Staff and applicant request that these guidelines be amended to reflect PEC and DRB recommendations. These amendments include the stipulation that slopes shall not exceed 2:1 on individual lots. In addition, applicant requests that drip irrigation be allowed by the retaining walls. Staff finds these alterations acceptable. 21. Al1 construction within the subdivision will comply with Town of Vail hazard ordinances. Applicant has indicated on the plat the hazard areas within the subdivision. The hazard areas on specific lots have been subtracted from GRFA calculations. Ed Church, a hazard consultant, has concluded that individual lot hazard studies will not be necessary due to the implementation of building envelopes. Staff supports this finding. 7 • • 22. No on-site livery will be allowed within the subdivision. Applicant agrees with this provision. I 23. Aspens, vines and large shrubs shall be used on all retaining walls. Applicant agrees to meet this condition. 24. All hazard areas will be excluded from contributing to site area on Lots 4, 5 and 14 for GRFA or site coverage. The applicant has met this condition. III. Elements of the project which are not addressed in the Council/PEC conditions of approval: A. All lots meet minimum lot size requirements. B. The GRFA for each lot (excluding Lot 14) has been determined by using standard Hillside Residential Zoning, excluding those areas designated as hazard and floodplain areas. Lot 14's GRFA is the same as agreed to at preliminary plan, 14,330 sq. ft. A request by staff is that Lot 1 not receive additional GRFA with the change of location of the subdivision road. The staff's intent is to ensure that additional GRFA was not allowed for Lot 1 now that the road extends onto Forest Service land. The applicant has ~ complied with this condition. C. Road grades have not changed substantiaZZy from preliminary plan. The approved maximum was 8.89%, and I no portion of the road exceeds this grade. The overall average grade is 7.8%. The livery road grade has been ' reduced from 16.9% to 15.4% at its steepest point. The staff will agree to this grade as long as Forest Service approval is obtained, but requests that, if possible, the grade be reduced further. The livery road turnaround has been relocated to the area in front of the subdivision gate. Staff believes this is a significant improvement over the previous location. The relocation does result in an additional two retaining walls. D. Landscape and irrigation. Applicant has incorporated the Commission's recommendation of planting in "grove- type" arrangements around the disturbed areas and open space tracts. There will be significant planting in front of the fill walls to offset visual impacts. Since preliminary plan, applicant has provided an acceptable plan for drip irrigation along the retaining walls. Applicant has submitted a landscaping plan which will require changes before Council review. ~ 8 These changes are using a minimum size of 2" caliper aspen, indicating the existing and proposed tree line • ' on the landscape plan, install a water tap instead of a ~ hydrant, and the plan needs to be revised to show the driveway and wall break adjacent to Lot 8. The Town of Vail landscape architect may require additional planting in this area as well. Grading and landscape plans for K, I, Cl, C2, 01, M1, Y1 and Z1 are also necessary. E. Frontage Road design is acceptable at this time, with the retaining walls along the road removed. However, additional grading may be necessary on the Forest Service land. F. Drainage. The sedimentation basin on Lot 4 has been removed. G. Livery Design and Trail Access. There are 17 proposed parking spaces, 12 of which are dedicated for users of the livery, and 5 which will be available to hikers. H. Construction Phasing. Applicant would like to submit this at a later date to the Community Development and Public Works departments for approval. Applicant is trying to move the livery to the new location by Memorial Day, necessitating a change in their phasing • plan. At this time, staging areas are proposed to be located at the old livery site and in the two cul de sacs of the proposed subdivision. I. Forest Service Considerations. At this point, applicant has not received final approval to locate the east switchback on Forest Service property from the Forest Service. This approval will be required before final plat. J. Driveway locations for individual lots have been generally indicated on a plan submitted by applicant. Applicant wishes to allow the architects to design the specific locations within the general parameters indicated. The Town Engineer has reviewed these general locations, and believes they can provide safe access to the sites. He did comment, however, that perhaps Lots 2 and 3 need to have their access revised. IV. Conclusion Staff recommends approval of the Spraddle Creek major subdivision final plat, though there are reservations regarding two provisions. The first provision where staff and applicant disagree concerns the timing of the construction of the caretaker units. The second area of 9 • disagreement concerns the Iength of time maintenance will be ! provided on landscaped areas and retaining walls to be turned over to the Town. At this juncture, applicant presented their concerns and issues. Kent Rose, the engineer of this project, indicated that he did not realize until just before the meeting that the retaining walls had increased by 1,138 l.f. He explained that the increases were due to more protection of Spraddle Creek, the realignment of the Forest Service switchback, the turnaround alteration, and other plan refinements. Mr. Rose postulated that 45 l.f. (Z wall) of the retaining wall along Rose Lane may be eliminated by additional grading. Mr. Rose also commented on the planting notches, especially along the K wall. He explained that if there were no grading alterations above these planting notches, the actual height of the wall behind the notches would be approximately ten feet, rather than 81-811. The reason for this increase is that if they pushed back four feet for the notch, the wall would be increased as a function of that notch. Kent expressed concern regarding the requirement for grading and Iandscaping. He would prefer wording of "do whatever possible to reduce height and length of walls," but further indicated that this was a minor difference. Mr. Rose requested that the • developers be given leeway to alter the grading and walls based upon what conditions were actually found on site. The applicant related that they were working with the requirements placed by staff concerning breaking up the walls, but could not, at this time, give categorical approval to all the conditions. Aqain, he reiterated that they would like flexibility for site determinations. Applicant is working with the 2:1 slope requirements, but said that there are two areas which exceed that slope at this time. However, they wi11 make every effort to reduce the walls through grading. There was a discussion concerning the length of the bike path whieh applicant would be required to construct. The original 525 feet is no longer applicable with the new length of the road. Mr. Rose believed that 350 feet is more accurate. Kristan Pritz expressed her agreement that as long as the path was constructed as per the plan for the Frontage Road, it would be acceptable. Kent further explained that applicant is in the process of examining a change of lot line between Lots 2 and 3 for improved access. Kathy Langenwalter queried if this change would be needed since there was no longer designated specific access for each lot. Jay Peterson stated that the specific access ~ 10 designation was eliminated to allow for more flexibility, but that every lot does have an area for access. Kent stated that • there had been changes in the access on several lots. Lot 12's access area had been moved, Lot 9 was changed to better accommodate the building envelope, Lot 8 may be moved to eliminate a hole in the retaining wall, and there has been a change in the lot line on Lot 3. Kathy asked if Greg Hall, Town Engineer, had approved the new plans. Greg related that the only issue remaining in his mind was Lots 2 and 3. Kent illustrated further the reduction in retaining walls which had occurred due to some replanning. The gatehouse will be situated in a cut area, but no retaining walls were expected to be needed in this location. Instead, the foundation of the gatehouse would be extended down to grade. Jay Peterson indicated that he was concerned with the staff request of a 60' easement along the creek. He believed that the original easement of 20' would be more than adequate for access. He expressed reluctance to increase that easement to 60' due to the way it would look to a purchaser on the plans, and because he felt that there would be full access without a 60' easement. Jay further stated that there was no argument on the part of the applicant regarding the requirement of 3 caretaker units in the subdivision. They would be designating lots for these units, but would like the Commission to allow flexibility to change the designation if a purchaser did not want that unit on his • property. He explained that, while they may designate three lots out of the first seven sold be caretaker lots, there was no control aver when construction on those lots might take place. If there were a restriction placed on the development of the subdivision that the three units must be built as a part of the first seven lots developed, it could patentially mean that they would have to tell every purchaser that they may be reguired to build a caretaker unit, based on their development timing. Jay said they could not guarantee when the three units would be built, simply that they would be before completion of the subdivision. Kathy Langenwalter asked Mr. Peterson if they were presently designating Lots 2, 4 and 6. Jay said yes, but they would like the flexibility to move those designations to better suit the purchasers. However, the first lot being built upon, George Gillett's, is also going to have a caretaker unit on it. Jay clarified that the Dauphanais development was different from Spraddle Creek in the fact that Mr. Dauphanais was actually building the units. Spraddle Creek was not set up to be handled in that manner. Kristan Pritz voiced her concern that if there were no firm designation when the caretaker units must be built, they would 11 0 most likely be on the last lots developed. Jay answered that • they would actively market these caretaker units as a positive amenity, and he believed that most of the purchasers would probably want them. However, he did not want to be in the position to mandate which owners would be required to construct a caretaker unit. Mr. Peterson also requested clarification of what the minimum size of the caretaker units would be. He wanted a minimum of 500 sq. ft. instead of 700, as he felt a 700 sq. ft. minimum might discourage additional units. Kristan indicated that either requirement was acceptable, but there needed to be a determination from the Commission what they wanted as a minimum. Connie Knight questioned Mr. Peterson if these would be like Beaver Creek. Jay responded that the units could be built up to a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft., but that a 500 sq. ft. unit was easily placed above a garage. He further clarified that these units will not be "just a bedroom with a hot plate," but a liveable unit. Jay Peterson then proceeded to request that a 1 1/2 year landscaping and retaining wall maintenance period be established, rather than the 2 year requirement placed by the Town Council. Joe Macy indicated a preference of the standard landscaping establishment period of one year. He explained that a standard contract with a landscaping contractor includes a one year • establishment period. If there were losses during that first year, the contractor would be required to replace the plants and give an additional year warranty on the plants being replaced. Joe expressed his belief that the Town of Vail landscaping contracts include the one year warranty period, and he requested the same conditions for the Spraddle Creek development. Kristan I Pritz asked if the Town of Vail landscape architect would approve of the one year requirement. Todd Oppenheimer affirmed that the I one year warranty is standard, but the Town could extend that period with contractors in special circumstances. Kristan requested the Commission decide what standard they would like to ' see. i Kathy Langenwalter queried Todd if the plants proposed to be placed would be likely to die within the one year period if they were not going to establish. Todd indicated that most plants actually die in the transportation process, i.e., the root ball of a tree could become cracked. Sometimes it does take more than ' a year for a tree to become established, or die, and they are more susceptible to disease in that period, but most plants die ~ within a year of transplant. Todd also stated that the worst planting time in Vail is August. Even if there were an 18 month , warranty, it would be February when it expired and there was no way to determine if the plants had survived the winter. Alternatively, you could tell in April, May or June if the plant had survived and was thriving. ~ 12 ~ i Kathy Langenwalter proposed a requirement of 2 growing seasons for the warranty period. Richard Matthews stipulated that he had ~ never seen more than a one year guarantee. Even if the planting were done in August, you would be able to tell the next August if the plants had been established. Kathy was concerned that this was a different situation than most, with the retaining walls being a reflective surface. Joe Macy stated that with the drip irrigation system, the plants would be automatically watered every day and thus the effect of the retaining walls would be negated. Kathy asked if this system was going to be pulled out when the area was turned over to the Town. Joe answered that it would be, unless the Town wanted it to remain. Jay Peterson interjected that the planting materials being used were chosen so no irrigation would be needed after the original establishment period. Joe Macy stated that the Hillside area was good for growing without water. The quality of the landscaping would be carefully supervised. Diana Donovan asked what happens when the irrigation system was turned off. Richard Matthews answered that the Town could hook up to the tubing if it desired. He also stated that he felt comfortable with planting any time except December through April. Jim Shearer suggested that a year plus whatever number of months necessary to bring the inspection to August might be appropriate. ' Jay Peterson stated that he believed you would be able to . determine if the tree had been established by the following spring. Todd Oppenheimer indicated that the warranty could be written that the plant be not only alive at the end of the warranty period, but that it must meet the same specifications as when it was planted. This would require that the entire plant be thriving, not just one branch with leaves on it. If it would not have met the specifications at planting, then it would be determined to be unacceptable at the conclusion of the warranty period. Todd further stated that with the irrigation system and inspections at the time of planting, a one year warranty period should be adequate. Diana Donovan asked Todd if a plant was replaced, was a new warranty issued for that plant? Todd answered that yes, the warranty is one year from planting. Diana requested that I language be placed in the contract and Kristan said it would. ' Joe Macy indicated that the specific language would be worked on. Kristan asked the Commission what standard they wanted. Diana Donovan indicated she would defer to Todd's opinion, but that she had concerns the plant material would die without irrigation. Jay Peterson related that the developers were also concerned ' about the appearance of the drive. This is the road coming into the subdivision, and if the plants die, they want it replaced, too, in order to protect the image they want to project. Kristan 13 ~ again asked for specific direction from the Commission. Jim I i Shearer requested clarification from Todd if he wanted one year plus an additional summer. Todd believed he would be able to evaluate the landscaping without a second summer. Applicant stated they wanted the industry standard of one year to be the warranty period. Todd clarified that the date of planting is not when a specific plant goes into the ground, but the date oE final acceptance of , the entire project by the Town. In practice, there are additional months on the warranty because the planting takes place over a period of time. Usually the trees are planted first, then shrubs and vines. He was comfortable with one year, but requested that the irrigation be maintained for a period of three years. Diana Donovan asked if the Commission could stipulate a one year warranty on the plant materials, but have the developers maintain the irrigation for three years. Jay Peterson said that they would find a two year irrigation period satisfactory, and then the Town could take over the system if it desired. The developers would ensure that t.here was a simple method of turning over just that portion of the irrigation to the Town, perhaps by the use of two valves. Diana stated she felt comfortable with a one year guarantee on the plant materials, a two year watering period by Vail Associates, with the water for just the lower portion turned over to the Town at that point. This appeared to be the consensus of the Commission. • Joe Macy then turned the Commission's attention to the questi.on of architectural guidelines. He stated he did not feel they would need to come back to the Commission an additional time for approval. Instead, applicant would work with staff on any changes. If there developed a conflict, then the issue could be presented to the Commission for their review. Kristan Pritz relayed that if the Commission felt comfortable with that requirement, it would be acceptable. However, she did want Commission comments on this issue to ensure that there were no discrepancies in opinion. DRB approval would also still be needed on any changes. Joe Macy stated that they would re-write the architectural guidelines to conform with the staff recommendations. Connie Knight expressed concern that the landscape plan was simply a list of building materials, and not a true plan. Joe explained that a complete landscape plan had been submitted and approved. Kristan indicated that this was correct and she felt comfortable with no further Commission review if they found the landscape conditions acceptable as outlined in the staff inemo, pages 15 and 16. However, if further review was requested, there would be no need-to go through the public notice process as the changes were very minor. ~ 14 Connie Knight stated that she wanted to see the architectural guidelines again, with a more specific landscape plan. Jim ~ Shearer said he was comfortable with them not coming back again. Kathy Langenwalter mentioned that she had some comments, but was okay with no further review by the Commission. At this point, Ludwig Kurz indicated he had to disqualify himself from the discussion of Spraddle Creek. When this process began, he was independently employed, but now works solely with Vail Associates. Diana Donovan felt that no further review of the landscape and architectural guidelines would be necessary. Joe Macy stated that most of the guidelines were for the buyers of the lots, and that DRB approval would still be necessary before construction. Since the consensus of the Commission was to proceed with approval today, Kathy Langenwalter related her questions and j comments regarding the project. Her first comment was that there i needed to be more specific delineation between review by the Spraddle Creek Design Review Board and Town of Vail Design Review Board, and when each board would need to be consulted during construction. She also wanted the definition of building envelope expanded upon, especially what could not go outside that envelope. There was a prior written approval by Design Review Board clause in the envelope language, but it was not clear which DRB would apply. Joe Macy clarified that it was the Town of Vail • DRB which would need to give approval. Kathy also questioned who would check the drainage requirements on the property. Joe indicated that language would be made clearer to reflect that the lot owner will have to meet the drainage requirements. Kristan expanded on the fact that there would be two levels of review, first by the Spraddle Creek DRB, and then by the Town of Vail DRB. Joe stipulated that buildings would be designed to meet both requirements. Kathy mentioned that she would like to see the grading and slopes change to a maximum of 2:1 grading within the building envelope and outside improvements. Joe Macy indicated that there would have to be grading for the sidewalks, which could be outside the envelope. Kathy suggested that perhaps the language be changed to "other allowed improvements" rather than outside the building envelope. Kathy requested that there be changes in wording from "should" to shall, and illustrated that point on page 4. Another change in wording was in the retaining wall materials verbiage, where she would request a change from stone to stone-faced concrete and add boulder retaining walls. She also requested a clarification on what exactly fencing for privacy walls means. Jay Peterson said he would change that wording to fencing or privacy walls. 15 • Kathy expressed her concern that, on page 5, the language reflect • the Town of Vail sign ordinance on the structures. Kristan Pritz clarified that residential nameplates are allowed. On the issue of landscape lighting, Kathy asked that the language stating that extensive landscape lighting was strongly discouraged be changed to prohibited. In the alternative, she requested that the sentence be stricken. Further on the topic of landscaping, Kathy asked that the swimming pools be submitted to Town of Vail DRB approval. She also wanted clarification of the provision of pre-application conference with the Spraddle Creek Design Review Board and the lot owner. An addition Kathy suggested was a change on page 2 from plaster or stucco to read "or other synthetic stucco." Another issue she wanted clarified was the fact that "window casings shall be wood, but clad is acceptable." She felt this statement was contradictory. Regarding flashings, she would like an addition to the current language reflecting they must be copper or painted to "match adjacent materials." Kathy asked for a definition of what individual lot or site waZls are. Joe Macy said they were, for example, gardens or walkways outside the envelope. When Kathy requested further clarification, Kristan Pritz stated that retaining walls could be outside the envelope, but they were discouraged in order to • minimize site disturbance. Kathy wanted to know why, in the landscape plan, only blue spruce were specified. Joe Macy replied that there was no reason, except other trees, such as pinon, do not grow well. However, lodgepole and fir would also be acceptable. Kathy expressed her opinion that she would like to see variety in the subdivision. Diana Donovan turned the topic of conversation to the easements along the creek. A compromise of 40' was suggested by Kathy. Joe Macy responded by stating he felt that even 20' was ridiculous to begin with, due to the fact that no one really walks up there. Connie Knight expressed her opinion that 20' would be acceptable, as long as there were no barricades preventing pedestrian access beyond the 20' easement. Diana asked why staff was requesting a 60' easement. Kristan Pritz said that due to the terrain, sometimes a pedestrian would need to go around fallen logs or other obstructions. Staff was only requestinct this change, it was not a major requirement. Joe Macy stated that 20' works, and that there would be no policing of the easement. • 16 Kristan queried if a 30' compromise would be acceptable. Joe related that from a marketing standpoint, 20' was optimum. • Diana stated she didn't feel it made much of a difference, but asked if the area would be marked. Jay Peterson responded that there would be no barricade to mark the easement. Dannie Corcoran made the point that for the most part, 20' is adequate. In the areas where it was not, a pedestrian would have to either walk in the river or through the subdivision anyway. At this point, the Commission indicated that a 20' easement would be adequate. Diana Donovan requested information on how the retaining walls fit into the landscaping guarantee. Kristan Pritz stated they were on the same agreement as the landscaping plantings. Joe Macy explained that they would be turned over to the Town for maintenance one year after acceptance. Town Engineer Greg Hall accepted this provision. Kathy Langenwalter directed a question to Kent Rose regarding how ` drainage paths would be revegetated and how disturbed they would I be. Kristan Pritz indicated that the landscaping map showed what j effect there would be. Kathy clarified that she wanted to ensure that the "scars" would be the same color as the surrounding area. Todd Oppenheimer stated this would be a difficult project, due to the terrain of the subdivision. Joe Macy granted that it would I be possible to re-plant the sagebrush to the disturbed areas, but • , that he was not sure how well it would work. Todd Oppenheimer asked if the applicant was considering using a seed mix or container sagebrush to revegetate. Joe responded that, at this point, seed mix was the alternative being explored. Connie Knight asked how long it would take for the seed mix to grow. Todd answered that it could take up to three years, at which point Connie expressed her opinion that the area should be re- vegetated. Kathy agreed, but also stipulated that she did not want to see "stripes." Diana requested that the applicant give a better guarantee on the sagebrush than one year, and that they would keep trying until "they get it right." She felt this would help minimize citizen concern over the project. Staff explained that research indicated the Town of Aspen had put a mixture of the dead sage they had removed and a seed mix back over a construction site to better conceal the area while the seed mix was growing. Diana asked if applicant would find acceptable an agreement that if the sagebrush was not re- established in a period of three years, another alternative would be explored and implemented at that time. Joe Macy said that would be fine. Todd Oppenheimer added that he felt the dead sagebrush and seed mix approach was worth a try. 17 • Diana stated that the Commission consensus was that a mixture of ~ dead sage and seed mix would be attempted on the disturbed areas for a period of two to three years (depending on the plant material), then the Town landscape architect would re-examine the success and alternative options. In addition, Diana asked if trees would be placed in the cut. Joe stated that there could be no trees on the utility easement, but they would scallop the tree line. Turning the attention of the Commission to another topic for discussion, Diana polled the members on what they felt was an adequate minimum size for the caretaker units. Connie, Jim, Kathy and Diana each indicated that 500 sq. ft. should be the minimum, with Diana clarifying the range would be 500-1,200 sq. ft., and that this space would come out of the GRFA for the lot. Diana Donovan then asked applicant if there were any question that the Forest Service would approve the plan on their land. Joe Macy stated that the environmental impact and a finding of no significant impact had been submitted. The district office is discussing the issue presently, then it will go to the regional office in Denver for final approval. The Forest Service had not indicated any problems to date. However, if a problem surfaces, the entire plan is dependant upon Forest Service approval of the changes. ~ Kathy Langenwalter and Connie Knight both requested to see the construction guidelines. Joe Macy said there was no secret of what these were, as they were a part of the bid document. As such, he agreed to provide them. Kathy further pondered if perhaps reducing height and length of the walls was not the answer if reducing the impacts on the site is a desired result. Kent Rose clarified that the construction specifications will minimize height and length when possible. There will be a project manager and survey crew on site during the construction to ensure that this occurs. Kristan added that the staff would have a site design team, consisting of Greg Hall, Todd Oppenheimer and herself, to review the progress to check that this was, indeed, happening. Kathy reiterated that she just wanted to make sure it was all being taken care of. Joe Macy elaborated that since the retaining walls are very expensive, they would be happy to eliminate them where ever possible. They want to eliminate every wall they can. Kathy Langenwalter then turned her attention to the planting pockets, wondering how much actual planting area there would be, and if it were actually significant. Kent stated there would be approximately 5 feet of plantable area per pocket. Joe Macy continued that this amount was significant, especially when the trees grow above the wall. Kathy then queried applicants about what impact snow and snow removal would have on these pockets. ~ 18 Kent stated that these pockets were somewhat protected by the curbing along the road. ~ Kristan Pritz reminded applicants that they needed to make sure they did not go above the 8,1- 8" maximum height for the walls in the area of the planting pockets. She elaborated that she wanted to clarify the variance previously given so there would not be problems later during construction. Jay indicated that they may attempt to place the pockets in areas where they could grade back above the pocket to minimize the wall. Jim Shearer asked applicants if, in the keystone wall, it would be possible to place these pockets every 400 feet. Joe stated that it would be at least every 400 ft. Kristan indicated that, from a distance, the effect of these pockets would be greater than while driving along the road itself. In addition, the 400 feet was merely a guideline for contractors when bidding on the construction. Jim requested clarification of whether this 400 foot minimum is to be applied to the entire wall length or consecutive linear feet. Kristan answered that it would apply to walls that exceed 400 feet. She further explained that the clearer the expectations of everyone at the outset, the better. Then, if there were turnover in any aspect of the development, there would be no confusion as to what was agreed upon. Jim questioned the importance of a small planting notch in a large wall, and also stated his agreement with Kathy over her • concern of the impact of the snowplows. Joe Macy said that there I will be vines to disguise the walls. Jim asked about the effect of straightening some of the roads, and if that was increasing ~ the amount of walls, as compared to the previous undulation. Kent answered that the roads now move better with the contours of the site, and that the effect on the length of walls was negligible. Jim requested clarification on each lot's GRFA, and whether the figure presented would be increased by 850 sq. ft. to compensate ' for the loss of the credit system, and also if the garage space needed to be added to the GRFA figure. This was confirmed by staff per the specifics in the memo. Garages are not in the GRFA numbers. Connie Knight asked if applicant had brought a sample of the keystone wall to view. The Commission examined it and Connie asked if the color could be changed. Joe Macy affirmed that the color could be changed. Connie stated that she felt planting notches are a positive addition to the plan. Regarding the stipulation that Spraddle Creek use the "least polluting sand" for winter sanding, Connie asked if that could be more specific. Joe Macy stated that he wanted to research that issue further, with Jay Peterson indicating that he wanted 19 ~ . flexibility for new technology in the future. Connie asked iP an appropriate standard would be whatever the Town and Highway Department agreed upon? It was determined that applicant would be given flexibility through the "least polluting" language. Connie also asked about the sufficiency of the livery parking provisions, and whether 5 parking spaces would be enough for hikers. Kristan said she believed it would be sufficient, as there was other parking available to hikers above the subdivision in a flat area on USFS land. In reviewing the slope requirements, Connie questioned if there were enough controls to ensure adequate protection. Kent Rose explained that applicants wanted to see what conditions they found in the field, and act accordingly within the guidelines provided. Connie also questioned how large the garages could be. Kristan explained that there would be a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft. for a garage if 4 spaces were provided, unless the owner used GRFA for garage space. 1 A question was then asked by Diana Donovan af when George GilZett would be building his home, and how that time table related to the construction of the roads. Joe Macy stated that a phasing plan will be submitted. The roads, walls and deep utilities will . be started in April. By August or September, an owner could begin foundation work. The second spring, the asphalting of the , roads and shallow utilities will be completed. Diana questioned if anyone would be able to move in before the landscaping was completed. Kristan answered that the plat would be recorded with the subdivision improvements indicated. There would then be a bond issued to ensure the completion of the improvements. At that point, the developers would be free to sell lots and the Town could issue building permits. For a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to be issued, the water, sewer and electricity would have to be completed. When Diana further questioned what guarantee the Town had that the landscaping and other improvements would be completed, Kristan replied that the completion bond was the guarantee, with the Town retaining 10% until all was completed and accepted. Joe Macy further elaborated that the conditzons of the performance bond would apply to all portions of the development. Jay Peterson indicated that if the plan was not completed on time, the Town would be able to draw on the completion bond. Connie raised the question of who determines the dollar amount of that completion bond. Jay answered that it is determined by the applicant, but reviewed by the Town for accuracy. • 20 i Once again, the issue of GRFA and square footage was raised, and ~ Diana Donovan wanted further clarification that the GRFA includes • i the 850 sq. ft. allowance. Jay pledged that the GRFA for each I lot would be placed an the plat and yes, the GRFA numbers ~ included the 850 sq. ft. Discussion then moved to concerns over the greenbelts provided. Diana asked for a clarification of Tract A, B and C and it was provided by Kristan Pritz. After the clarification, Diana expressed concern about the visual impact of this subdivision from the bottom of the International ski run, and not just from within the subdivision. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the gatehouse would be a caretaker unit. The answer from Jay was that there would be no utilities into the unit, and it was nat visualized that the gatehouse would become living accommodations due to the impacts. With the discussion moving once again to em,p~pyee housing, Diana requested definite confirmation that Mr. Gillett is building a caretaker unit with his home. Joe Macy replied that he was. Diana postulated that she could not see how the Town could require when or on what lots the caretaker units would be built, due to practical and legal difficulties. It would be impractical to have the requirement at the time the building permit is issued, which would be the only way to control when the units would be built. Joe reiterated that applicants did not want plat restrictions regarding the caretakers. Connie issued her opinion ~ that she didn't believe it would be good for the developers to keep shifting the units from lot to lot. Jay interjected that if ' restrictions were placed, that in marketing, the developers would have to indicate that any buyer might be required to build a caretaker unit. Kristan stated that the issue of timing was one of concern to the Town Council, and asked if applicant could pin down two lots in addition to Mr. Gillett's which they would put the caretaker condition upon. Jay again stated that he wanted flexibility. The developers would select three lots for caretaker units, but did not want to have to go through another major subdivision revision in order to change those lots around. He also asked if there were another mechanism, rather than using a major subdivision review, whereby the designation could be changed by the PEC. After much discussion, no conclusion was reached. Diana attempted to summarize the Commission's feelings by stating that the requirement that 3 of the lots, when developed, have caretaker units, but with no stipulation as to the timing. She did state, however, that the Town Council may • not approve the final plat without some type of timing agreement. At this point, the specific conditions of approval were reviewed in order to formulate a proper motion for the Commission. The resulting conditions were: (Please note changes from PEC are in bold type). 21 • • A. Before the Prolect is Reviewed by the Town Council for Dedication, the Following Must Occur: l. The architectural, construction, landscape guidelines in the covenants shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and Staff before the final plat is allowed to proceed to Council. Further PEC approval shall no lonqer be required for the documents listed above. The covenants will be submitted to staff before Town Ceuncil review. A color board shaZl also be submitted with the final architectural guidelines. 2. The following changes shall be made by the applicant to the landscape plan as a condition af final plat approval before the project is reviewed by the Town Council: I * 2 inch caliper aspen shall be the minimum size allowed instead of 1 1/2 inch aspen * The existing and proposed tree line shall be indicated on the landscape plan * The irrigation point of connection shall be changed to a water tap instead of the fire hydrant connection. * The irrigation guidelines sha11 be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail landscape • architect. * The landscape plan shall be revised to show the driveway and wa11 break adjacent to Lot 8. Additional planting may be required by the Town of Vail landscape architect in this area. * The Al wall shall be indicated on the landscape plan. (The Fourth and Fifth conditions moved to section E, during construction numbers two and three). 3. The Town Attorney shall review and approve the wording on the subdivision plat concerning 30% slope, building envelopes and certificates. 4. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted to the Community Development and Public Works departments for final approvaZ before the project proceeds to Council. The debris flow mitigation during construction shall be addressed in the phasing plan. 5. The conditions for lats having sZopes over 30% shall be indicated on the subdivision plat. This section of the code is 18.69.050 A-D, F-I, K and • 22 L. This wording shall also be included in the covenants for the subdivision. • 6. The conditions of the building envelope shall be added to the plat, and also incorporated in the subdivision covenants. 7. The owner of the subdivision, or homeowners, association, shall maintain the road thrcuqh the subdivision from the entry qate up to the top of the subdivision. This maintenance also includes all tract areas, retaining walls, and landscaping. The owner, or homeowners, association, also aqrees to be responsible for establishinq the landscaping alonq the public road extending from the North Frontaqe Road up to the subdivision entry qate for one year, from the date of Town of Vail landscape and wall acceptance. Once the landscapinq is acaepted and one year from the date of acceptance by the Town of Vail has transpired, the Tawn will take over the responsibility of the retaining walls and landscapinq maintenaace. Any plant material not meetinq the oriqinal planting specifications at the end of the one year warranty period shall be replaced by the owner or homeowners, association. Replacement plants shall be covered by an additional one year war=anty. The owner or homeowners, association will continue • to water the landscapinq for an additional year after expiration of the oriqinal one year warranty. The drip irriqation will be zoned to separate public and private use and will remain in place and be turned over to the Town of Vail at the completion of the waterinq provision. 8. Owner agrees to re-plant usinq a mixture of the removed saqebrush and seed mix for a period of 2 growing seasons per Colorado State University recommendations on all cuts for utilities. If this attempt is not successful in reveqetatinq impacted areas of sage, owner will investiqate and instigate other methods of reveqetation to the Town of VaiZ landscape architect's requirements after the second qrowinq season. Cuts must be reveqetated in such a manner that no noticeable scar exists. 9. The Town engineer's comments to Kristan Pritz, dated January 24, 1991, shall be met or resolved. 23 • A 1 10. Based on the second set of plans dated January 31, • 1991, the following issues in the memo dated February 11, 1991 from Greg Hall shall be met or resolved. il. Town engineer's approval is required for the final street construction plans, construction specifications and final drainage report. 12. The applicant shall incorporate into the covenants the condition that no on-site livery shall be allowed within the subdivision 13. Applicant agrees to construct six foot paved shoulders on either side of the Frontage Road according to the plan submitted and approved by the Colorado Division of Highways for a public bike path. 14. Three caretaker units, each having a maximum square footage of 1200 sq. ft. and a minimum square footage of 500 sq. ft., shall be provided within the subdivision. The units will be permanently restricted per section 18.13.080 (10) (A-D) of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. The applicant shall aqree that three lots will be • designated in the covenants or plat on which caretaker units will be built. If lots other than those lcts oriqinally designated provide caretaker units, the covenant restriction will be lifted. Developer may chanqe designated lots as lonq as there are three lots desiqnated at all times. Further Town of Vail review of the designations will not be required if caretaker requirement is moved to another lot. 15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding material for sanding the private road within the subdivision per the approval of the Town of Vail Environmental Health Department. 16. On any walls that are greater than 400 feet in length, planting notches shall be required unless it is determined that it is impossible to locate the notches in a sensitive manner in the walls. Staff and applicant will determine a number of notches to be built prior to Town Council review. During construction, notches may be increased, changed or removed with the approval of the Town of Vail design team, consisting of the Town Engineer, Landscape Artist and Community Development Director. • 24 I i . ~ B. Durinq Town Council Review the Followina Must Occur: 1. Easements will be dedicated to the Town at this • time. C. Before the Final Plat is Recorded, the Followina Conditions Shall Be Met: 1. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department for approval the final agreement relocating the existing livery to the Forest Service land east of Spraddle Creek Subdivision. This agreement shall also include revegetation of the existing livery site. 2. Before the final plat is recorded, the appropriate easements allowing for public access shall be recorded per the Forest Service requirements. Forest Service approval for the switchback on their property to the east of Spraddle Creek Subdivision shall also be received before final plat recording. 3. The subdivision improvement agreement and covenants shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and approved before the final plat is recorded. . D. After Final Plat Recording and Before anv Buildina Permits are Released for Site Improvements or Individual Residences the Followinci Conditions Must be Met: 1. The rezoning of all open space tracts within the subdivision shall be approved by the Vail Town Council. The requested zone designations shall be greenbelt open space. This condition shall also be listed in the subdivision agreement before the final plat is recorded. 2. All final plat conditions of approval shall be met by the applicant. E. During Construction of the Proiect, the Followina Conditions Will be Met: 1. The Community Development Director, Town Engineer and Town landscape architect shall periodically do on-site inspections of the construction. 25 • 2. A letter from RBD Engineers describing how grading • and landscaping will occur if walls I, K, C1, C2, 01, M1, Y1 are removed, and when wall Z1 is removed. i 3. Additional aspens and shrubs may be required by the landscape architect for walls E-l, G-1 and N- 1. This issue shall be resolved after an on site inspection is made by the Town of Vail landscape ' architect. Up to 30 aspens and 20 shrubs may be required by the landscape architect. 4. The applicant shall submit worksheets showing grading and proposed landscaping to mitigate grading for portions of the I walls, K walls, C waZls, 01, Ml, Y1, Rose Lane, and walls below the qatehouse to the Town engineer, landscape architect, and Community Development Director. These walls shall also be listed on the final street construction plans as having potential for removal. Kathy Langenwalter moved that the above requirements be accepted by the Commission. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. A review of the requirements will take place at the next Commission meeting. i The meeting was recessed at 7:05, and reconvened by Diana Donovan, chairperson, at 7:12PM. was noted by Diana Donovan that Ludwig Kurz had left t mee 'ng Por a personal emergency. 4. A r est for a review and recommendation to wn CounciZ re ar ' ado tion of the Ste hens Park Ma er Plan• site is located _ftthe southeast corner of South ronta e Road West and Kinnick ick Road. A licant: To'wn of Vail Andy Knudtsen gave the s ff presen ion. He opened by addressing what the Commiss' n ha asked staff to review at the previous work session. The first area of concern s the i ue of parking spaces. By widening the access roa o the park, rking has been increased to 18 spaces. Other tions were examin including frontage road parking, but ' ening the driveway app red to make more sense. Diana asked out Vail Recreatzon Department schedu 'ng of practices nd games. Todd Oppenheimer replied that at his time, Stephe Park was not included in the agreement between VRD • 26 • TOWN OF YAIL THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Pianning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on, April 9, 2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of an entry feature, located at 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus), part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0012) Applicant: Vail Estates, represented by Paul Smith Planner: Bill Gibson A request for final review of the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3- 7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0013) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave ~ Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted gross residential floor area and site coverage limitations, located at 914 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0014) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0015) Applicant: Doug Weltner Planner: Warren Campbell • Attachment: E Page 1 4 • A recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to a Special Development District (SDD), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to allow for a new development area located at Tr.act K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0017) Appficant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planners: Bill Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vai! 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 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. Published March 23, 2007, in the Vail Daily. • ~ • . ~ ~ Page 2 ~ I PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING • _ March 26, 2007 ~ 1:OOpm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt Anne Gunion ~ Doug Cahi(I Dick Cleveland Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo Bill Pierce Site Visits: 1. Vail Trails East - 433 Gore Creek Drive 2. Cerisola Residence - 805 and 807 Potato Patch Drive 3. Landmark - 610 West Lionshead Circle Driver: Warren 10 minutes 1. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-61-1-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-14- 17, Setback from Watercourse, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the addition of bay windows, located at 433 Gore Creek Drive/Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0010) • Applicant: Vail Trails East Homeowners Association, represented by John G. Martin, Architect, LLC I Planner. Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with condition(s) ~ MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0-0 CONDITIONS: 1.) This approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining design review approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. Bill Gibson presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. Jeff Manley, John Martin Architects, further summarized the proposal. There was no public comment. Doug Cahill clarified that the application includes a master plan for bays on all north windows. He clarified that the building is currentiy legally non-conforming in terms of setbacks. There was no additional Commissioner comment. ~ 45 minutes 2. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the • renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a request for a final review of variances from Sections 12-7H-10, Setbacks, 12-7H-14, Site Coverage, and 12-7H-15, Landscaping and Site Page 1 i . Development, Vail Town Code, Nursuant to Charter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an ~ underground parking structure and a staircase within the setbacks, and deviations from the I maximum site coverage and minimum landscape area requirements, located at 610 West • Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0074) Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Geoff Wright Planner: Bill Gibson MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce recused) CONDITIONS: Prior to Application for Buildinq Permits Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Design Review approval of this proposal. 1.) Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of a construction staging plan for this proposal. 2.) Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of civil engineering construction plans and off-site improvement plans for this proposal. Prior to Requestinq a Temporarv Certificate of Occupancv II 1.)Prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy for this proposal, the I developer shall provide one deed-restricted employee housing that complies with the • Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13, Vail Town Code), and that said restrictions shall be made available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. 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. 2.)Prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy for this proposal, the developer shall be assessed a transportation impact fee in the amount of $6,500 per increased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated by this proposal. . DEVIATION TO LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce recused) VARIANCE SETBACKS ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce recused) VARIANCE SITE COVERAGE ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce • recused) Page 2 ~ - r Bill Gibson presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. • Geoff Wright, representing the applicant, gave a presentation regarding the acceptance of the owners with the design. He described a design which for the three buildings would effectively make the buildings separate masses and designs. He pointed out changes made to the previously approved elevator and lobby entrance. He also pointed out the elimination of a loading dock and the addition of a trash enclosure on the west side of the project. There was no public comment. Dick Cleveland stated that his single concern was the loss of landscaping on the west side of the project. He suggested transplanting the existing trees, rather than cutting the trees. Bill Jewitt noted his support for the proposal. Rollie Kjesbo clarified that the applicant is not subject to the new employee housing regulations. Bill Gibson confirmed that the applicants had submitted their prior to the Town Council's adoption of an emergency housing ordinance. Doug Cahill noted his support for the proposal and asked the applicant to clarify the location of parking for the Billy's Island Grill restaurant. 3. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, located at 805 and 807 Potato Patch Drive, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0008) • Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Warren Campbell , ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE:6-0-0 CONDITION(S): 1) The applicant and his successors and assigns, shall not be permitted to request any variances subsequent to the approval of this amended final plat for Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, on the basis that the resulting approved plat created a physical hardship for developing these lots. Warren Campbell presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. The applicant had nothing further to add. There was no public comment. Doug Cahill noted that this proposal will not restrict access to the adjacent lot 30. There was no additional Commissioner comment. 10 minutes 4. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of three feet within the front setback, located at 805 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, and • setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0007) Applicant: Pedro Cerisola/Larch S.A., represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, P.C. Page 3 1 Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 • Warren Campbell presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. The applicant had nothing to add. There was no public comment. Dick Cleveland asked about the existing manhole cover at the driveway. Warren Campbell clarified that it was a drain for the driveway and not a part of the sewer system. The Commissioners expressed their support for the vatiance. 10 minutes 5. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6C-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a residential addition within the setback and in excess of the maximum allowable site coverage, located at 5119 Black Bear Lane/Lot 8, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0011) Applicant: Lisa Augustine, represented by JMP Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to April 9, 2007 MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 6. Approval of March 12, 2007 minutes • MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 7. Information Update 8. Adjournment MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 6-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 Development 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 March 23, 2007, in the Vail Daily. • Page 4 • • THIS iTEM p~pY pFFECT YOUR pROPERTY pUgLIC NOTICE 1906 NOTICE IS NEREBY GIV the Planning and EnvirortmeMal CommiSSio Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in a danCe with section PROOF OF PUBLICATION +Z-~, "e'' T°""' °°°e, ,"P'" 9, 2°°', e":°° pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, m con- sKL-ration of: A request for a final review of a major exterior al- STATE OF COLORADO } Seration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Mod'rf'ications, Vail Town Code, to ~ allow fw the aWiGon ot an eMry teature, located at SS• 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus); part of COUNTY OF EAGLE } Tract B,~Vaf~l V~a~ge~F(Pg1o~ ond072)tting forth de- tails in r ECApplicaM;Vail Estates, represented by Paul Smitfi Planner:8i11 Gibson I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same A request for final review of the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amend- ment, Vail Town Code, to allow tor mod'rfications to Section 12-6A•9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to Dauni1y interruptedly newspaper in said printed, in County of whole or Eagle in for part a and period of published more in the than fifty-County two of Eagle, consecutive State of weeks next Colorado, rior and at 914 through 7326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 20%, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, located p 7-15, and setting forth details in.regard thereto. to the first publication of the annexed ]egal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has (PEC07-0013) Applicanl:Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested, associatio^, rePre~nled by oave Kase+ak of ze- hren and Associates The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Planner:Warren Campbell ~ Colorado's Home Rule provision. A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plal Review , Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifica- tions to pfatted gross residential floor area and site coverage limitati That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every ons, located at 914 Spratldle Creek Road, Lots 1-75, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0014) num er of said daily newspaper far the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of Ass'ocatonPrep esented by Dave Kase ak o"zes hren and said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 3/23/2007 and that the last publication of said notice Associates Planner: Warren Campbell was in the issue of said newspaper dated 3/23/2007. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapier 13-12. Exemption Piat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amentl the platted building envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni ~ Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and seh In witness whereof has here unto set my hand this 27`~' day of March~ 2 ting forth tletaiis in regard therero. (PEC07-0015) ' Applicant:Doug WeRner Planner. Warren Campbell A recommendation to the Vail Town Council ot a major amendment to a Special Development Dis- ishe ~JC ral Manager/Editor trict (SDD), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amend- ment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendmeni to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to aNow for a new development area located u scribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details i~ regard thereto. 27th day of March~ 1GOO7. (PE007-0017) Applicant:Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peter- son Planners:Bill Gibson n The appliCations antl information about the propos- ' als are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The P1 ela Joan Schultz public is irnited to attend project onentation and the sde visits that precede the public hearing in the Notary Public Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for adtlitional informa- tion. I My Commission expires• November 1~ 2~0~] Sign language interpretation is available upon re- I : quest, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Im- paired, for information. I Published March 23, 2007, in the Uail i Daily.(236703) , I I • P4ANMING AND ENV ENTAL 191io PUBLIC ME ~u s, zoo~ i:ooPm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WEL- PROOF OF PUBLICATION COME MEMBERS PpEgEW MEMBERS ABSENT STATE OF COLORADO } SM untai~o Haus-292 East Meadow Dnve 1 SS. 2.WeRner Residerxe - 7677 Buffehr Creek Road f COUNTY OF EAGLE } Driver: Bill 1.Swearing in of new PEC members by Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk, and appointment of Chair I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a yualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same and Vice-Chair 30 minutes Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and 2.A request ior a Final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 72-7A-12, Exterior has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of an entry feature, located at said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus), part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing t, and setting forth de- the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and tails in re9am mereto. (Pec07-0012) Applicanl:Vai1 Estates, represented by Paul Smith aCiVeI'tISelTlellt 7S T'eC]UeSte . Planner:Bili Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND- vnTC• The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's 33A ecom~m$endation to the Vail Town Council of a Home Rule I'OV1S10II. major amerxlmentto aSpecial Development Dis- p trict (SDD), pursuant to Secfion 72-9A-10, Amend- ment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow f o r a n amendment to Special Development District No. 4, That the annexed le al notice or advertisement was ublished in the re lar and entire issue of eve number of v~ua~, to allow for a new developrnerrt g p ~ ~ area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, , and setting torth details in regarcJ thereto. said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in AppC~~a I Resorts, represented by Jay Peter- so~ the issue of said newspaper dated 4/6/2007 and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said p I I IyA js3m II newspaper dated 4/6/2007. a;EM IEaa dleuauung 00£S-LLb(OL6) JOIAElILIM iuof 43e;uoo ~ i In witness whereof has here unto set my hand this 13" day of April, 2007 ' •14sIwI4 l i o; Aof e awoU s!y; saNEw iazuayy ja;aio I paunnouaJ Aq;noy6nay; liompoonn ~ woisnD •AaIPA ay; ui smain 86uEa I aioi isaq ay4 lo awos sAotua;alep :i ubl(lsher/General Manager/Editor , auidlE y85'S/U8S siy; •auEi eulpoo s,l!EA 4s o daql 3~e payz)~Iad Subscribed and sworn to b e me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this 13th ~ day of April, 2007 Pus ` SZOLZI# :UI qaM . ~ / 39u• wo qNd O do 3~se~ajQ a~ae Pamela Joan Schultz } 4 ~~Uj T- +Q6f1£ 8 ~d v . ° ~ Notary Public ' o0~p•6t?t'~s ; „ ,•6u~d2~5 uE Ii ~.3nEaqI a}Enild •a6e~e6 JeO z paz!sJanp •a;ing la;seW snoln4p4 •s•e• -{~~"=r_°. s, . 18 s6u{~ia~~~~payle3/m ueidloog uado ` ..a.%r~•',: : snoiaedS '3 2 a12j2das /n~ ~iol `V8£/481~ f My Commission expttes~,Wevibbr 1, 2007 •~es-ap-~n~ iainb uo HjS -am Yoi Em ~ I ~ ~ • MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Board FROM: Lynne Campbell, Office Manager Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk DATE: April 16, 2007 SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions basics Attached you will find a registration form to attend the above mentioned course. This course is optional though recommended. The registration deadline is April 21St with the class on April 27. • • • • • CML leadership credits Registration Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . SOa1~~S an~ Three Elected Officials' Leadership comm~.ss. ~ons basics Training Program credits are approved Boards and commissions basics for the workshop. Enrollment ~ 8:30 a.m. infortnation will be in the workshop Submit a separate farm for each ~Registration and coffee packet. participant. The form may be copied. Registration Return it by Friday, April 21. Add a ~ Rofes.and res nsibilities - an Return the registration form to CML $10 late fee if received after that date. Po Registratioa is limited. Please ! overvieW by Friday, April Z 1. A$10 late charge Getald Dahl, Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister applies to any registration received register early. ~ & Renaud attomey after that date. The fee includes ' coffee, lunch and workshop materials. Friday, April 27 - Denver ~ 10:15 a.m. Cancef{afion policy Name ~ Break The registration fee is nonrefundable. ~ , You will be billed if you register and Title 10:30 a.m. do not attend the workshop; however, Representing ! How to avoid chaos at meetings - substitutions may be made at any time. I Meeting procedure in a nutshefi Address ~ Tonya Haas, Broomfield assistant city 5pecial Needs manager If you have special needs, please call the GML office at 303-831-6411 to CityiState jZip ~ 11:30 a.m. make arrangements. Phone ~ Lunch Location e-mail Colorado Municipa] League 12 noon 1144 Sherman St. • Denver ConHict of interest and open meetings 303-831-6411 Nonrefundable registration fees ~ Geoff Wilson, Colorado Municipal League rnunsel Lodging O$50 (CML member/associate general The Burnsley All-Suite Hotel at 1000 members, if received by early 1•30 pm. Grant St. has suites available at the registration deadline) Adjourn government per-diem rate of $119. ?$60 (CML members J associate The hotel provides free breakfast, free members, if received after -x-~-, earl re istration deadline parking and a shuttle sexvice to y g ~ downtown Denver. For reservations, ~$70 (all nonmembers) call 800-231-3915. Other lodging in Mail or fax this foran aad send the area include the Denver Marriott paymeat to: CML, 1144 Sherman St., y~ City Center, 303-297-1300, and the Denver, CO 80203-2207; fax 303-860- Adams Mark, 800-444-ADAM. 8175. Make checks payable to Colorado Municipal League. Thank you. ~ ~ A O q N (n m CML 3 o Boards and commissions 0 0 3c ~ presents... basics m 0) mr- w cn ~ Boa rds a nd ~ As an appointed official for your o ~ municipality, how well do you commissions . .a o'1~~ ~ ~ ~ - -undarstand the policy process and your ' ;10*d~~ ~ role in itT Are there times when you wish you had a better understanding of ` meeting pt+ucesses and procedures? !0 W to Have yau faund' yourself in a sticky 3 p situation. and wondered what ethics ~ laws applied to you7 If you've ever wondered about these questions, then this=workshop is for you! - CNiL _is pleased: to present this special training opporiunity designed for appointed membets of municipal boards and cominissions. We will help define your mle in the policy process and give yuu tips on how to work : more effectively with the elected -council or boazd and with municipat . staff. We will helg you keep meetings on track and productive, and we'll explain ethics laws that may pertain to ' you, including Amendment 41. frMaY, Ap1'i127 - DMYeC You'll have an opportunity to share ' experiences with other appointed C010Cati9MunfCiQal AU"%W : offcials and gain valusble insights 1144 Slt@1'f~litl5t. ~ 1~t11/E!1' into effective board and commission ` governance. ~ a, idwt We look forward to seeing you Cheret C M` ; . WIBKsNBFS for you • • ~ • I - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING OViAO' April 23, 2007 ~'~12:00pm LUNCH WILL BE SERVED TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Aqenda 1. Matt Mire, Board Training 2. Appointment of PEC Member to AIPP Board 3. Approval of April 9, 2007 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: • 4. Information Update 5. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) I 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. i Community Development Department ~ Published April 20, 2007, in the Vail Daily. Page 1 ! PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING • April 9, 2007 ~qr~r~py~;' • 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Dick Cleveland Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo Michael Kurz Bill Pierce David Viele Site Visits: None Driver: None 1. Swearing in of new PEC members by Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk, and appointment of Chair and Vice-Chair ACTION: Chair Jewitt MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 7-0-0 • ACTION: Vice-Chair Cleveland MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 7-0-0 30 minutes 2. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of an entry feature, located at 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus), part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting ' forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0012) ' Applicant: Vail Estates, represented by Paul Smith Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 6-0-1 (Gunion recused) 1. The applicant must obtain and execute an encroachment agreement, or similar agreement as deemed appropriate by the Town Attorney, for the entry feature prior to , application for a building permit. 2. The applicant shall not install or construct any landscape plantings, pavers, benches, or other similar improvements within the Slifer Plaza landscape planters. Instead, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall pay a fee up to $5,000 to the Town of Vail for the cost of landscape planter improvements to be designed and installed by the Town of Vail. Bill Gibson gave a presentation of the proposal and the staff memorandum. Paul Smith, representing the applicant, detailed several situations where ice and snow have • fallen from the roof above their entry. Page 1 I 1 Dick Cleveland suggested that the $3,000 fee being assessed for landscaping improvements may not be adequate to cover the costs of the landscaping. He suggested the fee offset the Town's costs up to $5,000. • There was no public comment. The Commissioners expressed support for the application with the changes to the landscaping fee requirement. 30 minutes 3. A recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to a Special Development District (SDD), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to aflow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth detaifs in regard thereto. (PEC07-0017) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planners: Bill Gibson ACTION: Recommendation of approval with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 7-0-0 CONDITIONS: 1. The following uses shall be permitted in Development Area E(i.e. Tract K) of Special Development District #4, Cascade Village: 1. Bicycle and pedestrian paths. 2. Interpretive nature walks. 3. Nature preserves. 4. Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces. • 2. The following conditional uses shall be allowed in Development Area E(i.e. Tract K) of Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, subject to the issuance of a ' conditional use permit: ~ 1. Rublic parks. ~ 2. Public utility and public service uses. 3. Access roads. 4. Ski lifts and tows. 5. Ski trails. 6. Snowmaking facilities. 7. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted and conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. Bill Gibson presented and overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. i Bill Jewitt asked several questions concerning the use of ski ways and trails on Tract K. Bill Gibson clarified that these issue should be addressed as part of a conditional use permit app{ication request instead of this proposed amendment to the SDD. ~ Dick Cleveland asked what the definition of an access road was in the Code. Bill Gibson ~ clarified that there is currently no definition for access road. Tom Miller, representing the applicant, made himself available for questions. • Page 2 No public comment. • The Commissioners were generally happy that the issues with the neighbors have been resolved and that snowcat traffic will be removed from West Forest Road. 20 minutes 4. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0015) Applicant: Doug Weltner, represented by Scott Turnipseed Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 4-3-0 (Pierce, Jewitt, and Cleveland opposed) CONDITION(S) 1. The applicant shall replace all trees removed by the construction of the structure and the associated driveway on Lot 1 as depicted on the tree survey attached to the memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, dated April 9, 2007, labeled Attachment C, identifying all aspens on the lot that are at least 3 inches in caliper. The trees shall be replaced one- for-one with the same caliper of tree as those removed. The landscaping plan provided in conjunction with the design review application shall depict this replacement requirement. Warren Campbell presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. • The applicanYs representative, Brennen Fitzgerald with Scott Turnipseed, Architects, presented an overview of the request. Art Alblennalp, representing adjacent property owner located at Lot 3, Lia Zniemer, summarized the concerns and objections found in the letter he submitted which was attached to the staff memorandum (tree removal, retaining wall design, movement of the home toward the Town's open space, etc.) There was no further public comment. Anne Gunion stated that she was not sure enough information had been submitted by the applicant to determine the impact to the existing vegetation on the site. She reviewed the applicant's compliance with the criteria outlined in the staff memorandum. She was concerned about the applicant's compliance with criteria numbers 7 and 8(character of the neighborhood & impacts to the natural environment). She believes that while the proposal impacts the trees and the environment, an adequate landscape plan could off-set that impact. Bill Pierce noted his concern about the removal of additional trees from the site. He noted that the previous envelope was intentionally designed to preserve the existing trees. He also noted his concern about the house being located even further up the hillside, thus increasing the impact on the site. David Viele has no problem supporting this request, with a condition that the final landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. • Page 3 : Rollie Kjesbo echoed Viele's comments. He suggested that all removed trees be replaced with the same number of trees. Dick Cleveland had a fundamental problem in that the original development plan did not allow • envelopes to be moved more than 15 feet and he believed it was an error to approve the previous envelope change. He was more concerned about the design of the retaining walls than the tree removal, and he would have liked more information. Michael Kurz believed the submitted plans were adequate and prudent. Rollie Kjesbo asked Warren Campbell to clarify that the adjacent owners do not have to give their approval of this request. Warren Campbell explained that there is no Home Owners Association and thus no sign-off required by the neighboring properties in the subdivision. Dick Cleveland suggested that this application should be for a change to the development plan to allow for deviations greater than 15 feet from the original building envelope, rather than the review of a subdivision application. Bill Jewitt generally agreed with Viele and Kjesbo, but he agreed with Cleveland that this envelope should not move more than 15 as stated in the original development plans. Rollie Kjesbo asked Warren Campbell to clarify how other lots had modified their building envelopes. Warren explained that no ofher lot in the subdivision had requested to shift their envelope more • than 15 feet. Both Lots 5 and 6 have shifted their envelopes in compliance with the adopted development plan. 20 minutes 5. A request for a work session to review the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code (Hillside Residential District), to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0013) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to May 14, 2007 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 Warren Campbell presented an overview of items number 5 and 6 and the staff memorandums. The applicant's representatives Dave Kaselak, Zehren and Associates, and Patrick Fortner, of Fritzlen Pierce Architects, presented an overview of the proposal. Bill Jewitt, asked why this was being proposed, other than just for additional square footage. Dave Kaselak noted that originally there was great concern about how the subdivision would visually appear, in terms of bulk and mass associated with GRAF, when it was first approved. Now that the neighborhood has matured those fears have been addressed. • Page 4 % Rollie Kjesbo asked Warren Campbeli to clarify that site coverage maximum allowable is now 20% in many of the residential zone districts regardless of the percent slope on residential lots. • He also asked Warren Campbell to clarify whether or not the construction of EHUs could further increase the amount of allowable site coverage. Warren Campbell explained that the Hazard Regulations had been amended to allow a maximum of 20% site coverage on lots with a limitation of 60% site disturbance. The types of EHUs that could be applied for and constructed within Spraddle Creek Estates did not include site coverage increases. Dave Kaselak noted that the Spraddle Creek Homeowners are concerned about site disturbance and are therefore not requesting the full amount of site coverage allowed by the underlying zoning. For this reason they are not proposing to increase the building envelope sizes. Warren Campbell noted that the original site coverage allowance prevented single-story houses. Those concerns are now addressed by the current home designs and both the HOA's and Town's design review standards. Bill Jewitt questioned what disturbance ratio would be appropriate for these large lots as 60% of the existing lots would be quite large. Anne Gunion asked Warren Campbell to clarify that no disturbance is allowed outside the building envelopes (with the exception of driveways and landscaping). She also clarified that no changes to the building envelopes are being proposed at this time. Warren Campbell clarified that disturbance outside the building envelopes was permitted, but that all improvements except for landscaping, retaining walls, sidewalks, and driveways had to • occur within the platted building envelope. Bill Pierce clarified that the newer definitions of GRFA will apply to these lots, even though the current platted allowable GRFA is based upon the old calculation methods. Bill Jewitt noted his support for an increase of site coverage from 15% to 20%, but only if site disturbance is somehow limited. Bill Pierce summarized that the applicants need to propose a site disturbance limit ratio or formula. Bill Pierce suggested adding an employee housing requirement to this request. Bill Jewitt questioned the Commission's authority to do so. Warren Campbell noted that the HOA is still requesting less development potential than is allowed by zoning and tha# the new ordinances require employee housing mitigation did not apply to the Hillside Residential zone district. Bill Jewitt summarized that there was a general consensus among the commissioners that the proposed changes in site coverage were supportable with the condition that site disturbance somehow be limited. It was suggested that some sort of plat not be added to the plat. Rollie Kjesbo suggested that GRFA increases be granted to offset changes in the GRFA definitions, similar to other plat restricted properties in Town. • Page 5 ,v Dick Cleveland voiced the need for equity in applying the GRFA regulations and agreed with Rollie's suggestion. He noted that Spraddle Creek is a critical hillside that still needs to be more ~ restrictive than the zoning. • I Dave Kaselak noted that the original allowances were an act of prudence, which are no longer necessary. Bill Pierce questioned the proposed unequal distribution by the HOA of the additional requested GRFA. Dick Cleveland suggested a plat note stating that the amendments to the building envelopes II require PEC approval. I Anne Gunion suggested a site visit to see if the subdivision can handle additional GRFA. ~ Bill Pierce suggested further description of the proposed site coverage and GRFA. David Viele agreed with Dick that it was an equity issue, but they are not necessarily entitled to the GRFA they negotiated away in 1991. Rollie Kjesbo and Michael Kurz agreed. There was no public comment. 20 minutes 6. A request for a work session to review an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted gross • residential floor area and site coverage limitations, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0014) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to May 14, 2007 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 This item was reviewed concurrently with item #5. 7. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6C-9, ' Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a residential addition within the setback and in excess of the maximum allowable site coverage, located at 5119 Black Bear Lane/Lot 8, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0011) Applicant: Lisa Augustine, represented by JMP Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Withdrawn 8. Approval of March 26, 2007 minutes MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Pierce VOTE: 5-0-2 (Viele and Gunion abstained) • Page 6 'r 9. Information Update • Bill Pierce suggested the PEC expand its "Environmental" role. 10. Adjournment MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for 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 Development 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 I • • Page 7 1947 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } } SS. ~ COUNTY OF EAGLE } PLANNING AND ENYIRONMENTAL COMMiSSION PUBIJC MEETING ' Apri123, 2007 I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same 12:00pm Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and LUNCH WILL BE SERVED TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in / PUBLIC WELCOME ' said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT ' the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested ]egal notice and ^ggndo , adVertlSeTlleIIt 2S T8C1UeSted. 1.Matt Mire, Board Training I 2.Appointment of PEC Member to AIPP Board The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's MOTiral of SECOND:7 miVOTE: II HOI11C Rllle PiOVIS1011. 4.Information Update I S.Adjournment ~ That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of M0710N: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about ihe propos- said daily newspaper far the period of 1 consecutive insertions• and that the first publication of said notice was in als are available for public inspection during regular ~ office hours at the Town of Vail Community Devel- opment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. the issue of said news a er dated 4/20/2007 and that the last ublication of said notice was in the issue of said The public is invited to attend the project orienta- P P p tion and the site visits that precetle the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Develop- ~ newspaper dated 4/20/2007. ment Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for ~ additional information. Sign language interpretation is availabie upon re- ~ quest with 24-hour notification. Please vall (970) In witness whereof has here unto set my hand this 24th day of April, 2007 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. f Communiry Devetopment Department j! Publishetl April 20. 2007, in the Vail Daily. (292451) ( Publisher/General Manager/Editor Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this 24"' day of April, 2007. ~ixY P(~e ~O.•`'''....,0~~.0 ~ ~ PAMELAJ' ~ amela Joan Schultz ; $CHULTZ ; Notary Public . . My Commission expires: , 2007 ~ • • 1910 • • PROOF OF PUBLICATION ~rrEM MAY ApFECT YOUR PROPERTY , PUBLiC ryp'nCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN tliat the Plannin STATE OF COLORADO } hold a publhea ,r ng m~8ccorda ce with e g and ~o ct o• } s17. 12'~~ 81~ TONRI C.pdC~ Ofl /~j~ ~7~ 1 COUNTY OF EAGLE ~ Pm in the Town of Vail Municipal 8uiiding, in con- sideration of: THERE ARE NO NEW f1'EYS TO NOTICE I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the V ail Daily. That the same ~ aPP~~ations and infortnation about the propos- als are available tor public inspection during oftice Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and ment DepartmeTon nt, 75f ou~th Fro age R aDevlo d e e Th has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in Public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next priar to the first publication of Town ot Vai! Communiry pevelopmem pepaMnern. Please call 970-479-2136 tor additional intorma- the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and Sign language interpretation is available upon re-Ple advertisement as requested. sio 4is 2sss Telephoneicat fori~he Heaang Iml! paired, for intormation. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Pubiished Apnl 6, 2007, in the Vail Daify. (267768) I Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 4/6/2007 and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 4/6/2007. i ~ In wifiess whereof has here unto set my hand this 13`" day of April, 2007 ` Pu ish General Manager/Editor , Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this 13th day of April, 2007.,- Pamela Joan Schultz Notary Public " My Commission expii-es: ,Navember 1, 2007