HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-1222 PEC,•
�'4WN 4F YA1L '
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
December 22, 2008
12:30pm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT
Bill Pierce
Michael Kurz
Susie Tjossem
Sarah Robinson-Paladino
David Viele
Scott Proper
Site Visits:
1. Vail Rowhouses, 303 Gore Creek Drive
MEMBERS ABSENT
Rollie Kjesbo
1:OOpm
45 Minutes
A request for a work session to discuss the establishment of a new special development district,
pursuant to Article 12-9A, Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, located at 303
Gore Creek Drive, Units 7 through14 (Vail Rowhouses)/Lots 7 through 14, Block 5, Vail Village
Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080074)
Applicant: Christopher Galvin, represented by K.H. Webb Architects
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION:
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
45 Minutes
2. A request for final recommendations to the Vail Town Council, for the proposed adoption of the
Chamonix Master Plan, to facilitate the development of Employee Housing and a Fire Station on
the "Chamonix Parcel" and "Wendy's Parcel" and a final recommendation to the Vail Town
Council to amend the Vail Land Use Plan, pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail
Land Use Plan to designate the Chamonix Master Plan area, located at 2399 North Frontage
Road and 2310 Chamonix Road/Parcels A& B, re-subdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing
1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080058)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Nina Timm
ACTION:
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
30 Minutes
3. A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section
12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, and Chapter 12-
10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to amend parking requirements for
employee housing units and to clarify the parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district,
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080067)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
ACTION:
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Page 1
60 M i n utes
4. A request for a work session for a review of a preliminary plan for a major subdivision, pursuant
to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the creation of two lots for the
redevelopment of the properties known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923,
934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right-of-
way/Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail
Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080062)
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION:
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
5 Minutes
5. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior
Alterations or Modifications; and requests for conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-7H-
2, Permitted and Conditional Uses, Basement or Garden Level; Section 12-7H-3, Permitted and
Conditional Uses, First Floor or Street Level; 12-7H-4, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Second
Floor and Above, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the Evergreen Lodge, with
dwelling units, accommodation units, and conference facilities and meeting rooms on the
basement or garden level, multi-family dwelling units, accommodation units and conference
facilities and meetings rooms on the first floor or street level, and a fractional fee club on the
second floor and above, located at 250 South Frontage Road West/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080033, PEC080072)
Applicant: HCT Development, represented by TJ Brink
Planner: Rachel Friede
ACTION: Table to January 12, 2009
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
5 Minutes
6. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed amendments to the
Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Section VIII-B, Adoption, Extensions, and Amendments,
Vail Village Master Plan, to amend Sub-area #4, Transportation Center, to allow for a mixed-use
development on the south side of the Vail Village parking structure, located at 241 East Meadow
Drive/Parts of Tracts B and C, Vail Village Filing 1(a complete description is available at the
Community Development Department upon request), and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC080015)
Applicant: Triumph Development, LLC, represented by Rick Pylman
Planner: George Ruther
ACTION: Table to January 26, 2009
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
5 Minutes
7. A request for final review of conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-71-5, Conditional
Uses: Generally (On All Levels Of A Building Or Outside Of A Building), Vail Town Code, to allow
for the development of a public or private parking lot (parking structure); a vehicle maintenance,
service, repair, storage, and fueling facility; a ski lift and tow (gondola), within "Ever Vail" (West
Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South
Frontage Road West right-of-way/Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for
inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC080063)
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Table to March 9, 2009
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Page 2
5 Minutes
8. A request for a final review of major exterior alterations, pursuant to Section 12-71-7, Exterior
Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the area known
as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), with multiple mixed-use structures including but not limited to,
multiple-family dwelling units, fractional fee units, accommodation units, employee housing units,
office, and commercial/retail uses, located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage
Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right-of-way/Unplatted (a complete legal
description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department),
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080064)
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Table to March 9, 2009
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
5 Minutes
9. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulation
amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-
10-19, Core Areas Identified, Vail Town Code, to amend the core area parking maps to include
"Ever Vail" (West Lionshead) within the "Commercial Core" designation, and setting forth details
in regard thereto. (PEC080065)
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Table to March 9, 2009
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
5 Minutes
10. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary
amendment, pursuant to 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of
properties from Arterial Business District and unzoned South Frontage Road West right-of-way
which is not zoned to Lionshead Mixed Use-2, properties known as "Ever Vail" (West
Lionshead), located at 953 and 1031 South Frontage Road West and South Frontage Road
West right-of-way, (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail
Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080061)
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Table to March 9, 2009
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
11. Approval of December 8, 2008 minutes
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
12. Information Update
13. 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 December 19, 2008, in the Vail Daily.
Page 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 22, 2008
SUBJECT: A request for a work session to discuss the establishment of a new special
development district, pursuant to Article 12-9A, Special Development (SDD) District,
Vail Town Code, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Units 7 through 13 (Vail
Rowhouses)/Lots 7 through 13, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details
in regard thereto. (PEC080074)
Applicant: Christopher Galvin, represented by K.H. Webb Architects
Planner: Bill Gibson
SUMMARY
The applicant, Christopher Galvin, represented by K.H. Webb Architects, is requesting a
work session with the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss an
application to establish Special Development District No. 41, Vail Rowhouses, located at
303 Gore Creek Drive/Lots 7 through 13, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1.
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental
Commission listens to a presentation, provides feedback, and then tables this item to its
January, 12 2009, public hearing for further discussion.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Christopher Galvin, represented by K.H. Webb Architects, is requesting a
work session with the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss an
application to establish Special Development District No. 41, Vail Rowhouses. The purpose
of the proposed special development district is to streamline the review process for future
renovations to the subject sites (i.e. eliminating the need for multiple variances) while
maintaining the row house character of the subject property.
The existing Lots 7 through 13 of the Vail Rowhouses were subdivided as individual lots
under Eagle County jurisdiction, and have historically been treated as individual
development sites by the Town of Vail. Lots 7 through 13 are currently zoned High Density
Multiple-Family (HDMF). However, the HDMF District is not tailored to address the unique
character of these small, individually subdivided row house sites. Instead, the HDMF
District is designed to regulate condominium buildings on lots at least 10,000 sq.ft. in size.
The application of HDMF zoning to the subject properties has rendered each lot legally non-
conforming in regard to numerous standards of the district including lot area and site
dimensions, setbacks (the 20 foot side setbacks overlap each other on these less than 40
foot wide lots), and density.
The applicant is proposing to increase the allowable density from zero units to one dwelling
unit on Lots 7-10 and two dwelling units on Lots 11-13 consistent with existing conditions.
The applicant is proposing to modify the setback requirements of the subject properties to
more accurately address their row house characteristics. The applicant is proposing to
reduce the setbacks between buildings from 20 feet as required by HDMF to the existing
zero feet. In exchange, the applicant is proposing to increase the rear setbacks from 20
feet to the existing building conditions (ranging from 21 feet to 34 feet).
The applicant is proposing to reduce the parking requirement for Lots 10-12 from three
spaces to two spaces to reflect existing conditions.
The applicant is proposing to reduce the allowable building height from 48 feet for sloping
roofs and 45 feet for flat roofs to 45 feet and 42 feet respectively.
The applicant is proposing to eliminate any gross residential floor area (GRFA) limits for the
subject properties. The existing units are already permitted "Interior Conversions" and "250
Additions" in excess of the GRFA allowed by the HDMF District. Rather than controlling the
bulk and mass of the subject sites through the GRFA regulations, as stated above the
applicant is proposing to increase the required rear setback, lower the allowable building
height, and draft specific building fa�ade design guidelines to further control building bulk
and mass.
III. BACKGROUND
Lots 1 through 13, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, were constructed as a row house
development in the early 1960's under Eagle County jurisdiction. Each of the thirteen
elements of the project were subdivided into small, individual lots. In 1965, the first six lots
resubdivided into a single condominium project. Meanwhile, other lots (such as Lot 13)
were resubdivided into there own two or three unit condominiums. In 1966, these properties
were included in the creation of the original Town of Vail.
Numerous variances have been granted to allow the renovation of the individually platted
Lots 7 through 13:
Lot 7: setback variances 2004
Lot 8: setback variances 1984 and 2004
Lot 11: density and setback variances 1984
Lot 12: density and setback variances 1985
Lot 13: setback variances 1981 and 1993
IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS
Order of Review: Generally, special development district applications will be
reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and then by the Town
Council.
Planninq and Environmental Commission:
The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for forwarding a
recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a special
development district application, in accordance with Article 12-9A, Special
Development District, Vail Town Code.
Desiqn Review Board:
The Design Review Board has no review authority over a special development
district 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 is responsible for the final approval, approval with
modifications, or denial of a special development district application, in accordance
with Article 12-9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code.
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 applicant's request:
Article 12-9A: Special Development (SDD) District (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 most appropriate use; to
improve the design character and quality of the new deve/opment with the town; to facilitate
the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natura/ and
scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goa/s of the community as
stated in the Vail comprehensive p/an. An approved deve/opment p/an for a special
deve/opment district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall
establish the requirements for guiding deve/opment and uses of property included in the
specia/ deve/opment district. The specia/ deve/opment district does not apply to and is not
availab/e in the following zone districts: Hillside residential, sing/e-family, duplex,
primary/secondary. The e/ements of the deve/opment plan shall be as outlined in section
12-9A-6 of this artic/e.
12-9A-8: DES/GN CR/TER/A AND NECESSARY F/ND/NGS:
A. Criteria: The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating
the merits of the proposed specia/ deve/opment district. It shall be the burden of the
applicant to demonstrate that submittal materia/ and the proposed deve/opment plan comply
with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not
applicab/e, or that a practica/ solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved:
1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties re/ative to architectura/ design, sca/e, bulk,
building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
2. Re/ationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatib/e, efficient and
workab/e re/ationship with surrounding uses and activity.
3. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and /oading requirements as outlined
in chapter 10 of this tit/e.
4. Comprehensive P/an: Conformity with applicab/e e/ements of the Vail comprehensive
p/an, town policies and urban design plans.
5. Natural And/Or Geo/ogic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natura/ and/or
geo/ogic hazards that affect the property on which the specia/ deve/opment district is
proposed.
6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and /ocation and open space provisions
designed to produce a functiona/ deve/opment responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehic/es and pedestrians addressing
on and off site traffic circulation.
8. Landscaping: Functiona/ and aesthetic /andscaping and open space in order to
optimize and preserve natura/ features, recreation, views and function.
9. Workable P/an: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workab/e,
functiona/ and efficient re/ationship throughout the deve/opment of the special
deve/opment district.
B. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/orgranting an approva/ of an application
fora special deve/opment district, the p/anning and environmenta/ commission and the town
council shall make the following findings with respect to the proposed SDD:
1. That the SDD complies with the standards listed in subsection A of this section,
unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not
applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been
achieved.
2. That the SDD is consistent with the adopted goa/s, objectives and policies outlined in
the Vail comprehensive p/an and compatib/e with the deve/opment objectives of the
town; and
3. That the SDD is compatib/e with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate forthe
surrounding areas; and
4. That the SDD promotes the hea/th, safety, mora/s, and general we/fare of the town
and promotes the coordinated and harmonious deve/opment of the town in a manner
that conserves and enhances its natura/ environment and its established character as a
resort and residentia/ community of the highest quality.
12-9A-9: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
Deve/opment standards including /ot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density
control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the town council as
part of the approved deve/opment plan with consideration of the recommendations of the
p/anning and environmental commission. Before the town council approves deve/opment
standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such
deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such
deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special
deve/opment district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-9A-8 of
this article.
VI. ZONING ANALYSIS
According to the application information provided by the applicant, Staff has performed an
analysis of the proposal in relation to the requirements of the approved SDD. The
deviations to the prescribed development standards adopted in conjunction with SDD No.
41, Vail Rownhouses are shown in bold text in the table below.
Zoning: High Density Multiple-Family
1�I1�
Land Use Plan Designation: Vail Village Master Plan Study Area
Current Land Use: Residential
Development Standard Existinq HDMF Proposed SDD No. 41
Buildable Area (min): 10,000 sq.ft. existing conditions (varies: 2,265 to 5,750)
Setbacks (min):
Front: 20'
Sides (Lots 7-12): 20'
Sides (Lot 13 west side) 20'
Sides (Lot 13 east side) 20'
Rear: 20'
Gore Creek 50'
no change
existing conditions (0')
existing conditions (0')
no change
existing conditions (varies: 21' to 34')
no change
Building Height (max): 48'/45' 45'/42'
Density — DU's (max): 25 units/acre existing conditions
(0 DUs allowed) (1 DU on Lots 7-10 and 2 DU's on Lots 11-13)
Density — Attached AU(max):1 per DU no change
Density — GRFA (max): 76% buildable area n/a
Site Coverage (max): 55% site area no change
Landscape Area (min): 30% site area no change
Parking (min): 1.4 per DU
(Lots 7-9) 2 spaces no change
(Lots 10-12) 3 spaces 2 spaces
(Lots 13) 2 spaces no change
Employee Housing Inclusionary Zoning no change
Mitigation
Design Guidelines none Fa�ade guidelines
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Land Use Zoninq
North: Gore Creek Outdoor Recreation
South: Residential and Parking Commercial Core 1& Parking Districts
East: Public Park Outdoor Recreation
West: Residential High Density Multiple-Family
VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Is the establishment of a special development district conceptually appropriate for
the subject property?
5
Lots 7 through 13 of the Vail Rowhouses were subdivided as individual lots under Eagle
County jurisdiction, and have historically been treated as individual development sites by
the Town of Vail; unlike Lots 1 through 6 which have been condominiumized into a single
development site. Lots 7 through 13 are currently zoned High Density Multiple-Family
(HDMF). The HDMF District is not tailored to address the unique character of these
individually subdivided sites as small as 2,265 sq.ft. in area. Instead, the HDMF District is
designed to regulate condominium buildings on lots at least 10,000 sq.ft. in size.
The application of HDMF zoning to the subject properties has rendered each lot legally non-
conforming in regard to numerous standards of the district including lot area and site
dimensions, setbacks (the 20 foot side setbacks overlap each other on these less than 40
foot wide lots), and density. Due to this legal nonconforming status, there are precedents
of multiple variances being granted to facilitate renovations to multiple units.
The existing legal nonconforming status of these properties also prevents any
"demo/rebuild" redevelopment of these units, since any demo/rebuild project must fully
conform with the zoning standards when constructed. An implication for these lots, is that
the properties would be rendered un-developable. During recent substantial renovations to
Units 7 and 8, a minimum of one-half the existing gross residential floor area (GRFA) in
each unit was maintained to prevent the demo/rebuild scenario. Maintaining these floors in
these row house buildings added significant logistic and economic costs to the construction
projects. Additionally, the construction activities associated with the renovations uncovered
structural deficiencies in many areas of the building initially intended to be preserved. The
Town Staff approved the removal and reconstruction of these unsound existing building
elements to protect the safety of the buildings' future occupants.
Due to the unique nature of subdividing these row house units as small individual lots, and
the application of High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF) District zoning, Staff believes it is
appropriate to apply a special development district to the subject properties to more
effectively regulate their land use and development.
Are the proposed deviations from the underlying zoning district conceptually
appropriate for the subject property?
The purpose of the proposed special development district is to streamline the review
process for future renovations to the subject sites (i.e. eliminating the need for multiple
variances) while maintaining the row house character of the subject property. Staff does not
believe the existing HDMF District zoning applied to the subject properties appropriately
addresses the small individually subdivided lots associated with the subject properties.
Staff believes the applicant's proposal to create zero side setbacks are the only setbacks
appropriate for these rowhouse style buildings since the existing, overlapping 20 foot side
setbacks (total width of 40 feet) cannot be physically accommodated on a lot only 21 feet
wide. Additionally, the HDMF District requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq.ft. of
buildable lot area; however, the subject sites are as small as 2,265 sq. ft. in size.
Do the proposed deviations from the underlying zoning district conceptually provide
benefits to the public that outweigh the adverse affects of such deviations?
Staff believes the owners of the subject properties, the Planning and Environmental
Commission and Staff will all benefit from streamlining the review process for the future
redevelopment of the subject properties. By applying a special development district to the
subject properties the Town can establish clear standards and expectations for the future
use and development of the subject sites, instead of relying upon an ad hoc system of
numerous individual variances to determine the fate of these properties. Staff believes this
concept is simply creates good governance that provides a significant public benefit.
While the applicant is proposing deviations from the existing minimum lot area, density, side
setback, parking standards; Staff believes those deviations more accurately reflect the
existing conditions on the subject sites and more appropriately regulate the desired future
character of the properties than the existing HDMF District standards. Staff believes the
proposed deviations are off-set by the applicant's proposal to reduce the allowable building
height limits, increase the required rear setbacks, and to create fa�ade design guidelines to
further control the bulk/mass and street presence of the properties.
The proposed special development district will in no way alter the Inclusionary Zoning
employee housing mitigation responsibilities of the property owners at such time as any
additions are constructed on these properties.
IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department requests the Planning and Environmental
Commission asks questions about the proposed special development district and provides
the applicant with any initial feedback or direction.
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental
Commission tables this item to its January, 12, 2009, public hearing for further discussion.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose table this request, Staff
recommends the Commission pass the following motion:
"The P/anning and Environmenta/ Commission tab/es the request for a final
recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of a new special
deve/opment district, pursuant to Article 12-9A, Specia/ Deve/opment (SDD) District,
Vail Town Code, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Units 7 through14 (Vail
Rowhouses)/Lots 7 through 14, B/ock 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details
in regard thereto, to its January 12, 2009, public hearing. "
X. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Applicant's Request
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 22, 2008
SUBJECT: A request for final recommendations to the Vail Town Council, for the
proposed adoption of the Chamonix Master Plan, to facilitate the
development of Employee Housing and a Fire Station on the "Chamonix
Parcel" and "Wendy's Parcel" and a final recommendation to the Vail
Town Council to amend the Vail Land Use Plan, pursuant to Section 8-3,
Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan to designate the Chamonix
Master Plan area, located at 2399 North Frontage Road and 2310
Chamonix Road/Parcels A& B, re-subdivision of Tract D, Vail Das
Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080058)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Nina Timm/George Ruther
I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant, Town of Vail, is requesting a final recommendation from the Town
of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission to the Vail Town Council regarding
an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan map that would change the land use
designation for the property commonly known as "Chamonix ParceP' from
Medium Density Residential to the Chamonix Master Plan Area.
The applicant is also requesting a final recommendation from the Town of Vail
Planning & Environmental Commission to the Vail Town Council on the adoption
of the Chamonix Master Plan, a new master plan for the Town of Vail.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting to amend the text and land use
description for Tract 43 — Chamonix Parcel and create a new tract, Tract 44 —
Chamonix Fire Station in Chapter VII — Community Facilities, 1 Inventory and
Assessment of Town Owned Propertv, Coarse Screen of Sites, Vail Land Use
Plan.
(Deletions are shown in e4riLo 4hrni,nh� additions are shown in bold.)
Tract 43 — Chamonix Parcel
The 3.6 acre Chamonix Parcel has been identified for the location of a
future high density, for-sale, deed-restricted employee housing
development consisting of approximately 58 dwelling units. ^{�
���tierra������r��i�icc° °nrl �nihinh m��i innli�n�4�,rhT� Tn���
����a�e�. �eEe^�„�����e���t#�s+�e i�c�„��a��;,,�a�;�p
Ke�e�t�a;—Qev �mep�KesTeat+e^°�eas, °�pe� �p°��er� A
Land Use Plan depicting +"°'^^°+;^^ ^f the #�e uses has been prepared
as the result of a comprehensive public planning process and is included
as Appendix F of this document.
Tract 44 — West Vail Fire Station
The 1.25 acre West Vail Fire Station Parcel has been identified for the
location of a new fire station in West Vail. A Land Use Plan depicting
the location of the new fire station on the parcel has been prepared
and is included as Appendix G of this document.
II. BACKGROUND
On January 8, 2008, the Vail Town Council established the meeting the
Chamonix Site Master Plan Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee
consisted of two representatives from each the Town Council, Planning &
Environmental Commission and the Vail Local Housing Authority in addition to
Town Staff and neighborhood representatives. The Advisory Committee held
numerous public meetings over a nine month period.
On March 4, 2008, the Vail Town Council affirmed the following goals pertinent to
the Chamonix Site Master Plan:
1. The site(s) should accommodate a fire station and employee housing.
2. Optimize the site for employee housing.
3. Traffic onto Chamonix Lane should be limited.
4. Rezone the property to the Housing (H) zone district.
On August 5, 2008, the Vail Town Council reviewed three potential options for
the development of for-sale deed restricted employee housing on the Chamonix
Parcel. The options included:
Option 1: Neighborhood Block
This option has an overall density of 16 dwelling units per acre or total
proposed density of 58 dwelling units. There is a mix of two and three
bedroom units in condominium and townhome type configurations. This
option received four out of ten votes from the Advisory Committee.
Option 2: Neighborhood Cluster
This option has an overall density of 14 dwelling units per acre or total
proposed density of 50 dwelling units. There is a mix of one, two, and
three bedroom units in condominium and townhome type configurations.
This option received no votes from the Advisory Committee.
Option 3: Village Neighborhood
This option has an overall density of 19 dwelling units per acre or total
proposed density of 70 dwelling units. This option also includes a parking
structure under the condominium building. There is a mix of one, two and
three bedroom units in condominium and townhome type configurations.
This option received six out of ten votes from the Advisory Committee.
2
The Advisory Committee recommended the Village Neighborhood option to the
Town Council based on the importance of providing more parking rather than
less, the importance of the additional dwelling units and the variety in unit types.
The Advisory Committee did express concern about the potential cost increase
related to the parking structure, long-term costs of maintaining the parking
structure, and the urban feel the parking structure gave to the proposed
development.
Town Council approved the "Neighborhood Block" option with a 6-1 vote. In
rejecting the higher density option, the Council expressed concerns about a
parking structure component included in the option and associated costs. A third
option, the Village Neighborhood, was also rejected because of the low density
site plan.
III. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS
Vail Land Use Plan Amendments
P/anning and Environmenta/ Commission:
Action: 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 consistency of the
proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and
objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan and other applicable master plan
documents.
Design Review Board:
Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on Land Use Plan
amendments.
Town Council:
Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of a Vail Land
Use Plan amendment. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal
based on the consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review
criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan
and other applicable master plan documents.
IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Vail Land Use Plan (in part)
The Vail Land Use Plan was initiated in 1985 and adopted in 1986 by the Vail
Town Council. The main purpose of the Land Use Plan is two-fold:
To articulate the land use goals of the Town.
2. To serve as a guide for decision making by the Town.
The Vail Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a basis from which future land
use decisions may be made within the Town of Vail. The goals, as articulated
within the Land Use Plan, are meant to be used as adopted policy guidelines in
the review process for new development proposals. In conjunction with these
goals, land use categories are defined to indicate general types of land uses
which are then used to develop the Vail Land Use Map. The Land Use Plan is
not intended to be regulatory in nature, but is intended to provide a general
framework to guide decision making. Where the land use categories and zoning
conflict, existing zoning controls development on a site.
The Vail Land Use Plan contains the following goals:
1.0 Genera/ Growth/Deve/opment
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment,
maintaining a ba/ance between residential, commercia/ and
recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent
resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other
natural resources should be protected as the Town grows.
1.3 The quality of deve/opment should be maintained and upgraded
whenever possib/e.
1.4 The origina/ theme of the o/d Village Core should be carried into
new deve/opment in the Village Core through continued
implementation of the Urban Design Guide P/an.
1.5 Commercia/ strip deve/opment of the Valley should be avoided.
1.6 Deve/opment proposa/s on the hillsides should be evaluated on a
case by case basis. Limited deve/opment may be permitted for
some /ow intensity uses in areas that are not highly visib/e from the
Valley f/oor. New projects should be carefully controlled and
deve/oped with sensitivity to the environment.
1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geo/ogic hazard
areas.
1.8 Recreationa/ and public facility deve/opment on National Forest
lands may be permitted where no high hazards exist if.�
a) Community objectives are met as articulated in the
Comprehensive P/an.
b) The parcel is adjacent to the Town boundaries, with good
access.
c) The affected neighborhood can be involved in the decision-
making process.
4
1.9 Nationa/ Forest /and which is exchanged, so/d or otherwise falls
into private ownership should remain as open space and not be
zoned for private deve/opment.
1.10 Deve/opment of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than
parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards
exist, if such deve/opment is for public use.
1.11 Town owned /ands shall not be so/d to a private entity, long term
leased to a private entity or converted to a private use without a
public hearing process.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additiona/ growth in existing
deve/oped areas (infill areas).
1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirab/e /and feature as
well as its potentia/ for public use.
5.0 Residential
5.1 Additional residentia/ growth should continue to occur primarily in
existing, p/atted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
5.2 Quality time-share units should be accommodated to he/p keep
occupancy rates up.
5.3 Affordab/e employee housing should be made availab/e through
private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town
of Vail with appropriate restrictions.
5.4 Residentia/ growth should keep pace with the marketp/ace
demands for a full range of housing types.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and
upgraded. Additiona/ employee housing needs should be
accommodated at varied sites throughout the community.
Sub-section 8.3.0 of the Vail Land Use Plan outlines the amendments
procedures for proposed changes to the Plan. The amendment process is one
which is intended to assure the Plan's effectiveness with periodic updates to
reflect current thinking and changing market conditions. The process includes
amendments which may be initiated in any of the following three ways:
A. By the Community Deve/opment Department
B. By the P/anning and Environmenta/ Commission or Town Council
C. By the Private Sector
Pursuant to Sub-section 8.3.A, in part, (an application initiated by the Community
Development Department),
5
"The Community Deve/opment Department should update and revise
the P/an every three to five years, whenever possib/e. However, if the
plan is not updated within such time frame, this shall not jeopardize the
validity of the plan. This should include analysis of the goa/s and
policies; update of the forecasting mode/ and review and revision of the
Land Use P/an map. The Community Development Department would
then make recommendation for proposed changes to the P/anning and
Environmenta/ Commission where these changes would then be
considered in a public hearing format. The P/anning and Environmental
Commission would then make recommendations to the Town Council,
which would a/so hold a public hearing on the proposed changes. If
adopted, the changes would then become a part of the P/an. "
An amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan shall be approved by the Vail Town
Council upon passage of a resolution.
V. REVIEW CRITERIA
The applicant is proposing the Land Use Plan amendment, pursuant to Section
8.3.A, Community Development Department Amendments, Vail Land Use Plan,
for the reasons listed below:
Land Use Planning
The current land use designation of the Chamonix Parcel is Medium
Density Residential; it is defined in the Vail Land Use Plan as follows:
The medium density residential category includes housing which would
typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in
this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildab/e acre.
Additiona/ types of uses in this category would include private function
facilities, private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as
parks and open space, churches and fire stations.
The current designation does not provide adequate flexibility to optimize
the employee housing developed on the site. Therefore, Staff believes
that the proposed land use amendment of the Chamonix Parcel to
Chamonix Master Plan is consistent with the goals of the Town Council,
the Advisory Committee and the proposed Chamonix Master Plan.
CMP - Chamonix Master Plan Area
Included in this category are those properties which are
identified as being included in the Chamonix Master Plan
boundaries. Properties located within this land use category
shall be encouraged to develop, per the Master Plan
recommendations, as it has been found necessary in order
for Vail to remain a successful resort community. Uses and
activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe,
convenient and pleasant resident experience. The range of
uses and activities appropriate in the Chamonix Master Plan
(CMP) land use category may include deed restricted
employee housing, private recreation facilities, private
6
parking facilities, and institutional/public uses such as a fire
station and other municipal facilities to serve the needs of
residents.
The current land use designation of the Wendy's Parcel is Community
Commercial; it is defined in the Vail Land Use Plan as follows:
"This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the
overnight and short-term visitor to the area. Primary uses include
hote/s, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with
densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 accommodation units per
buildab/e acre). "
The proposed land use designations do not provide the Town with the
ability to construct the new West Vail Fire Station on the site. Therefore,
Staff believes that the proposed land use plan amendment of the
Wendy's Site to Chamonix Master Plan is consistent with the goals of the
Town Council and the community.
Based on the extensive public process, the recommendation of the
Advisory Committee and the confirmation of the Town Council the
adoption of the amended Chamonix Master Plan will provide the
appropriate framework to develop the optimal employee housing and the
West Vail Fire Station.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning &
Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Town
Council for the proposed land use map amendment and the adoption of the
Chamonix Master Plan, creating Tract 44 and amending the land use description
for Tract 43 Station in Chapter VII — Community Facilities, 1 Inventory and
Assessment of Town Owned Property, Coarse Screen of Sites, Vail Land Use
Plan, based on the reasons stated in Section V of the memorandum.
Should the Planning & Environmental choose to forward a recommendation of
approval of this request to the Vail Town Council, Staff recommends that the
Commission makes the following motion:
"The Town of Vail P/anning & Environmenta/ Commission recommends
approva/ to the Vail Town Council for the proposed adoption of the
Chamonix Master P/an, to facilitate the deve/opment of Employee Housing
and a Fire Station on the "Chamonix ParceP' and "Wendy's ParceP' and to
amend the Vail Land Use P/an map, pursuant to Section 8-3, Vail Land
Use P/an to allow for a change in the /and use designation for the property
commonly known as the "Chamonix Parcel" from Medium Density
Residentia/ to the Chamonix Master P/an Area and to amend the text and
land use description for Tract 43 — Chamonix Parce/ and create a new
tract, Tract 44 — Chamonix Fire Station, located at 2399 North Frontage
7
Road and 2310 Chamonix Road/Parce/s A& 8, re-subdivision of Tract D,
Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto."
Should the Planning & Environmental choose to forward a recommendation of
approval of the request to the Vail Town Council, Staff recommends that the
Commission makes the following findings:
(1) That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goa/s, objectives
and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatib/e with
the deve/opment objectives of the town; and
(2) That the amendment is compatib/e with and suitab/e to adjacent uses
and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and
(3) That the amendment promotes the hea/th, safety, mora/s, and general
we/fare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious
deve/opment of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its
natura/ environment and its established character as a resort and
residentia/ community of the highest quality (Section 12-3-7 Vail Town
Code -in part).
VII. ATTACHMENTS
1. Chamonix Master Plan Area Map
2. Proposed Chamonix Master Plan
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 22, 2008
SUBJECT: A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulation amendments,
pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-8,
Parking and Loading, and Chapter 12-10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town
Code, to amend parking requirements for employee housing units and to clarify the
parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC080067)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
There is not a complete memo on this item as staff is requesting that this item be tabled to
January 12, 2009.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 22, 2008
SUBJECT: A request for a work session for a review of a preliminary plan for a major
subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to
allow for the creation of two lots for the redevelopment of the properties known
as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South
Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right-of-way/Unplatted
(a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail
Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC080062)
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
Planner: Warren Campbell
I. SUMMARY
The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by the Mauriello
Planning Group, LLC, is requesting a work session with the Planning and Environmental
Commission to discuss several question and comments raised at the December 8, 2008,
Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. Furthermore, the applicant
and Staff will begin a discussion focusing on several aspects of the South Frontage
Road realignment in conjunction with the proposed Ever Vail. This work session is the
continuance in what is anticipated to be a series of work sessions regarding various
aspects and topics with regard to the Ever Vail project. The Ever Vail project is the
proposed creation of a new portal to Vail Mountain on approximately 12 acres.
Developments of this extent warrant a complete understanding of many interconnect
aspects. Staff and the applicant hope that through a series of work sessions that a
greater understanding of the project and its impacts, both positive and negative will be
ascertained, thus aiding in the review of the various applications and their associated
criteria and findings. As this is a work session and the Planning and Environmental
Commission is not being asked to reach any conclusions, Staff has not provided any
recommendations at this time. Staff and the applicant request that the Planning and
Environmental Commission participates in the presentation and tables this application to
the January 12, 2008.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by the Mauriello
Planning Group, LLC, has submitted five development review applications which will be
reviewed and acted upon by the Planning and Environmental Commission prior to the
conclusion of the review process.
For this work session Staff and the applicant have concluded that the presentation will
begin to answer questions raised at the December 8, 2008, hearing and then begin to
focus of the South Frontage Road realignment design and function. The design and
function of the South Frontage Road is a key element in setting the course for future
review of the various Ever Vail applications. Determination of these requirements,
needs, and desires will drive the layout, design, and function of a project such as Ever
Vail. The work session will include:
• A presentation by the Ever Vail Team addressing several of the questions and
comments from the previous hearing and providing greater detail on the South
Frontage Road realignment.
• A presentation by Greg Hall, Public Works Director, and George Ruther,
Community Development Director, regarding topics, questions, and concerns of
the Staff regarding the South Frontage Road realignment. Staff has created a list
of topics, questions, and concerns to aid in the review of the South Frontage
Road realignment and include the following:
• Snow storage area provisions adjacent to lanes.
• Landscape buffer and the retaining wall.
• Landscaping in the median.
• Roundabout R.O.W. provisions for future possible expansion.
• Retaining wall design including height, finish, batter.
• R.O.W. width - 77 feet R.O.W. plus 16 feet easement (93 feet).
• R.O.W. verse Easements.
• Landscape buffer adjacent to building between south side of Frontage
Road.
• Bike Lane and Bike Paths.
• Bridge verse culvert over Red Sandstone Creek.
• Impact to trees south of the Frontage Road realignment in Red
Sandstone Creek.
• Compliance with Council adopted minimal Level of Service (L.O.S.)
C/D.
• Simba Run extent of construction during the realignment.
• Scope of work.
• Relationship to Cascade and Lionshead connection.
• Landscaping at roundabout.
• Sidewalk width 6'-10' and its impacts to softscape.
• Access points including location, spacing, traffic generation operation
• Future I-70 widening and impacts to the proposed retaining wall on
the north side of the relocated Frontage Road
A compilation of written comments from outside agencies which were asked to
review the submitted plans for the proposed Ever Vail.
III. BACKGROUND
On February 6, 2007, the Vail Town Council adopted Resolution No. 4, Series of 2007,
which implemented the changes to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
regarding West Lionshead and the area now called Ever Vail.
On October 27, 2008, Staff presented and over view of the roles and responsibilities to
the Planning and Environmental Commission with regard to the Ever Vail development.
On November 24, 2008, Staff presented an overview of the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan to the Planning and Environmental Commission and its applicability to the
Ever Vail project.
On December 8, 2008, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public
hearing at which a presentation and discussion occurred on the topics of vehicular, mass
transit, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation occurred. A list of question and comments
was generated as a part of this discussion.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department requests that the Planning and Environmental
Commission listen to the presentation, ask questions, provide and pertinent feedback.
The Commission is not being requested to take and final action or make any conclusions
at this work session. The applicant and Staff request that the Commission tables this
application to its January12, 2008, public hearing.
�
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
December 8, 2008
1:OOpm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Bill Pierce Scott Proper
Rollie Kjesbo
David Viele (departed at 5:15PM)
Michael Kurz
Sara Robinson-Paladino
Susie Tjossem
Site Visits:
1. Ever Vail, 862, 923, 934, 953 and 1031 South Frontage Road West
2. Vail Village parking structure, 241 East Meadow Drive
3. Evergreen Lodge 250 South Frontage Road
5 Minutes
1. A request for final review for an amendment to an approved development plan, pursuant to 12-
9C-5, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for temporary skier parking at the Vail
Mountain School, located at 3000 Booth Falls Road/Lot12, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 12, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080070)
Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Robert Fitz
Planner: Nicole Peterson
ACTION: Withdrawn
Nicole Peterson stated that she had received a request to withdraw the application from the
applicant. The reason stated was concern expressed by neighboring properties with regard to
controlling parking at the Vail Mountain School in the future which the school shared.
30 M i n utes
2. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 2.8, Adoption and
Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, for amendments to the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to incorporate the property known as Glen Lyon Office
Building into the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Study Area and create site specific
recommendations, located at 1000 S Frontage Rd/ Lot 54, Cascade Subdivision, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080069)
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building
Planner: Nicole Peterson
ACTION: Recommendation of approval
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 5-0-1 (Viele recused)
Commissioner Viele recused himself from the review of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Nicole Peterson gave a presentation per the staff inemorandum.
Jay Petersen, attorney representing the applicant, stated that the relocation of the Frontage
Road changes the situation of the Glen Lyon Office Building. The stage has been set for the
inclusion of the GLOB within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan in order to allow for the
comprehensive planning of this area. He went on to add that he understands that Lionshead
Page 1
Mixed Use-2 zoning would allow a great deal of development potential which would not be
appropriate. The applicant stated that this is why they were specifically listing maximums on
density, Gross Residential Floor Area, and height that are more appropriate. He added that if
this request were to be approved it could allow for the reconfiguration of property lines in the
area which could result in better planned developments.
The Commissioners expressed their support and benefits for having the entire area under the
same Master Plan. Commission Paladino asked what Vail Resorts thought of the proposal.
Jay Petersen stated that Vail Resorts had expressed support at the Land Use Plan amendment
stage and in recent conversations were supportive of this request.
45 Minutes
3. A request for a work session for a review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-
7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications; and requests for conditional use permits, pursuant to
Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses, Basement or Garden Level; Section 12-7H-3,
Permitted and Conditional Uses, First Floor or Street Level; 12-7H-4, Permitted and Conditional
Uses; Second Floor and Above, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the
Evergreen Lodge, with dwelling units, accommodation units, and conference facilities and
meeting rooms on the basement or garden level, multi-family dwelling units, accommodation
units and conference facilities and meetings rooms on the first floor or street level, and a
fractional fee club on the second floor and above, located at 250 South Frontage Road West/Lot
2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080033,
PEC080072)
Applicant: HCT Development, represented by TJ Brink
Planner: Rachel Friede
ACTION: Tabled to December 22, 2008
MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0
Rachel Friede made a presentation per the Staff inemorandum.
Bruce Wright, principal of SB Architects, a representative of the applicant, made a presentation
to provide an overview of the project and respond to the five discussion points outlined in the
staff inemorandum. He discussed how the flat roof area is not perceived as flat from the
pedestrian view. He also noted that there are completed roof forms that are more visible than
the flat roof area. He introduced a 3D model of the project and explained that the model is set at
a distance from the podium that illustrates the view from the mountain. Mr. Wright continued by
addressing the loading and delivery access and types of trucks that are expected to deliver to
the hotel. He explained that if the project was not required to accommodate WB-50 trucks, the
service drive could be eliminated. He stated that the applicant wishes to work with future re-
development plans of the Vail Valley Medical Center, ensuring that redevelopment would not be
impeded by the project. He then addressed the options for the pedestrian path, explaining that
the path is meant to create a bike and pedestrian connection from the South Frontage Road to
Meadow Drive. He described that the existing grades on the site create a challenge in designing
the path, and believes the best location is on the west side of Middle Creek.
Commissioner Pierce asked for public comment and referenced the letters included in the Staff
memorandum.
Rachel Friede added that she received another email that will be included in the public record.
Sue Froeshle, owner at Vail International, spoke about the pedestrian path, noting that retaining
walls will be 2-6 feet high, with railings on top of the walls. She expressed concern about the
Page 2
safety of pedestrians and cyclists due to grade changes. She stated that the existing path is
dangerous in winter conditions and could not fathom a 10% grade on the proposed path. She
was also concerned with run-off to middle creek if the path is heated. She said she is not in
favor of a path on either side of Middle Creek.
Greg Hall commented that the plan calls for a bicycle connection from S. Frontage Rd. to
Meadow Dr. He noted that there is not a clear connection today, and it would be best located in
this development because of the close proximity to a number of amenities.
Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, disagreed with Greg Hall and noted that the
path would be best located in the Lionshead parking structure redevelopment. He expressed
concern for the wildlife habitat of Middle Creek. He suggested that the applicant conduct an
environmental impact statement for the proposed path. He suggested another location for the
path could be between the US Bank Building and the Skaal Haus.
The Commissioners then provided comment on the flat roof area. Commissioner Viele stated he
had no problems with the flat roof area. Commissioner Kjesbo agreed. Commissioner Peirce
opposed the flat roof area, calling it a"landing strip" on the roof. He stated concern about the
amount of deviation from the master plan. Commissioner Tjossem asked what materials and
colors would be used for the roof. Wright responded that it would be a batten-seam material of
silver/gray color. The Commissioners requested that at the next meeting, the roof reflect
proposed architectural projections, and include broken up portions of flat roof.
On the subject of loading and delivery, Commissioner Pierce asked Greg Hall if the docks need
to accommodate a WB-50 truck. Greg Hall responded that many sites in the area can
accommodate WB-50 trucks and that a typical beverage truck in Lionshead is a WB-50. The
Commissioners agreed that WB-50 should be accommodated outside of the building, as
proposed, so that trucks do not park on the Frontage Road. Commissioner Pierce noted that the
location of the service road is not appropriate given its proximity to the Frontage Road.
The Commissioners then agreed that employee housing could be provided off-site since the
applicant had submitted the applications prior to new requirements for on-site housing.
The Commissioners generally noted that the west side of Middle Creek was not a good location
for the pedestrian path, but requested that the applicant explore a pedestrian path on the south
side of the property. Wright clarified that a path of the south side of the property would
potentially conflict with a new entrance for the Vail Valley Medical Center.
Regarding the relationship to the Vail Valley Medical Center, the Commissioners agreed to
respect a potential access point from the Frontage Road, and noted that the project will not
impede redevelopment of the hospital.
Greg Hall recommended that the access points move further west to accommodate a potential
access for VVMC off the Frontage Road. He also noted that major intersections could be
formed, and does not want the Fairmont proposal to impede such intersections. TJ Brink, the
applicant's representative, stated that he will not allow the VMC to access on his site.
45 Minutes
Page 3
4. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed amendments to the
Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Section VIII-B, Adoption, Extensions, and Amendments,
Vail Village Master Plan, to amend Sub-area #4, Transportation Center, to allow for a mixed-use
development on the south side of the Vail Village parking structure, located at 241 East Meadow
Drive/Parts of Tracts B and C, Vail Village Filing 1(a complete description is available at the
Community Development Department upon request), and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC080015)
Applicant: Triumph Development, LLC, represented by Rick Pylman
Planner: George Ruther
ACTION: Tabled to December 22, 2008
MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0
George Ruther made a presentation per the staff inemorandum. Ruther noted that the item is
actually a work session rather than a final recommendation.
Steve Virostek of Triumph Development, then made a presentation as the applicant. He said he
has been working on the �Ilows redevelopment over the past few years, and has gotten to
know the issues that are currently facing the town. Housing is clearly an issue, but also vitality
and quality of life in the Village are major issues for the Town. They are concerned about the
long term viability of Vail Village for workers, residents and guests. Until he became a resident,
he was not exposed to the shoulder seasons. Now, during shoulder seasons, he sees that the
Village is quiet. In hearing all of these discussions on housing, it became obvious that not only
housing was an issue, but employment for businesses in the Village. Having families in the
Village will improve vitality, providing people to walk around, shop and eat, especially during
shoulder seasons. Front rangers would be more likely to visit during shoulder seasons if there is
more vitality in Vail Village. The project being proposed today is a step in the right direction.
Triumph is proposing the Vail Village master Plan amendments because there is merit to the
idea, even though they don't own the land. He said the uses, and the corresponding
amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan, should go through, regardless of whether the Town
chooses Triumph Development for the project. He said other developers may be chosen for
development, but in the end, the changes will make the Town a better place. The idea is to take
the landscape berm, as shown in the corresponding maps and attachments, and replace the
buffer with a building buffer. The building buffer would house: 100% deed restricted housing
from Bridge Street to the east, first floor retail, second floor quasi retail, and office on second and
third floor, and parking for those uses below the new building.
Virostek went on to show the existing site as well as a proposal for development of the
landscape berm. He noted that the building would look similar to the design intent shown in the
rendering. He mentioned that it would not be exactly the same because through the process, the
design of the building changes. He said that all of this can be done without affecting the day to
day operations of the garage. The next rendering he showed was Bridge Street to the east.
While the housing is deed restricted, because of its prominence to the Village, it would be of
similar quality to the existing village. He said that there are people who are already interested in
buying the units. The EHUs would be approximately 2,400 sq. ft. townhomes, and in some
cases, an owner could occupy upper levels and rent the lower level to key employees.
Virostek continued the discussion focusing on access to parking for the project. He said that
employee housing would access their parking through the existing parking structure and would
exclusively be occupied by EHU owners/renters. For office space, the employees could park in
the office parking during office hours, but during non-office hours, the parking could be open to
the public for public parking. This would alleviate the burden on the town for parking. He said
that the retail would complement the employee housing, and not be another t-shirt or fur shop.
He stated employee housing, office space and complementary retail, as well as parking, are
Page 4
great amenities for the Town of Vail. He said in other cases, it might be developed as market
rate condos, and in his opinion this is a mistake. He then gave a break down of the potential
square footage of the differing uses.20-30,000 sq feet retail and 20-30,000 sq ft office, as well as
20-30 units for employees (56,000 sq ft of residential space). It is not a big project, but could
have a big impact. The Vail Town Council voted to approve goals including housing and parking,
and this project meets those requirements. He said opponents would say this is taking away
open space, and he thinks there is plenty of open space in other locations. He said that this
wasn't envisioned in the master plan, but a master plan is a living document. If we did not
amend master plans, we would not have an Ever Vail, a Front Door, or similar projects.
He said you may hear we have enough development. He said everyone is tired of this, but there
are ways of mitigating construction. He said if Triumph was selected, he would be able to
mitigate development, as he did in the Willows. He said Triumph is motivated to do the right
thing for the community, to solve issues that are not unique to Vail. This will help show that
Triumph can solve community issues.
Rick Pylman, Pylman and Associates, representing the applicant discussed the "technical"
aspects of the project. He noted that the goals in the master plan do not need to change, as the
project would meet all of the goals in the master plan today. He said adding paragraph 4.2
would allow for details on this project. He said in the land use plan map on page 50 of the
Master Plan would detail section 4.2, showing retail/office and residential. The changes are to
the transportation center sub-area. The review criteria are really important, and there are three,
required to meet two. How have conditions changed since the plan was adopted? He said
conditions have changed quite a bit. He said there was a perception that Vail Village was across
the covered bridge. He said this is no longer true with improvements that have occurred on the
north side of the covered bridge. The landscape buffer was in place when the master plan was
created, and it identified existing conditions. He said it was there because it was the most
economically viable way of structurally supporting that side of the parking garage. Is there a
better way for the community to screen that side of the parking garage? He said since the
Sonnenalp redevelopment and One Willow Bridge redevelopment, it is a vastly better place to
walk. People come to Vail for the shopping and strolling activity. From the Slifer Plaza west to
Solaris, we have improvements on one side of the road, but this project would make a better
pedestrian connection. The changes to the master plan would allow more exploration of the
concept. The next criteria: is the master plan in error? No, but conditions have changed. Is the
project in concert with the master plan in general? Yes. There are no changes except changes
to the sub area, and all of the goals support that. To be brief, they can meet two of the review
criteria. There are covenants in place on the Vail Village Parking Structure, and he believes they
will not impede the project. He said they are comfortable with discussion.
Virostek said that this project will allow for a new structural system, creating independence for
the Vail Village Parking structure. This will allow for redevelopment of the parking structure, with
a rail solution, more density, etc. He said some issues can be solved right now, while other
issues like rail will be solved later.
Bob Sinclair, owner at the Mountain Haus since 1970, coming to Vail since 1968. He comes
from an area near Seattle. He said the image or dream he has all year, is the wonderful open
space that makes Vail the unique place that it is. He said that this project is not compatible with
Vail's work to be stewards of the environment. He said this location is really the front door to Vail,
and this is the impression people take home with them when they leave. Any urbanization of this
area will give the wrong impression to visitors. He said Vail creates memories that turn into
dreams that people have, pushing them to come back.
Page 5
Axel Wilhelmsen, property owner and merchant in Vail, said that this is a great use of the space.
It's a space that while considered open space, it is not used as an open space. Many people
can't even fathom what is there today because it is not used as open space. We have a lot of
open space around us. In Zermatt, Switzerland, there is a tremendous amount of open space.
But in the core of the village, it has been built out for centuries. It does not detract from the
experience of coming to Zermatt. For the proposed development, he gives his support.
Tim Hargrave, general manager of The Wilows, said he would like to lend support to the project.
He said the Sonnenalp has improved Meadow Drive a lot, and before redevelopment, Meadow
Drive was a busway. He said this project will further the improvements to Meadow Drive, and
the employee housing would be a great way to bring back families to town.
Ted Wininger, started coming to Vail in 1982, came to Vail and rented until they could find a
place in Vail. They could never find a place that was affordable to them, and ended up moving
to Eagle. He would love the opportunity to live in the Village in an affordable housing
development.
Steve Hawkins, general manager of the Mountain Haus, said he would make several brief points.
In Vail, there are 92 properties available for less than $1Million. He went into detail about what is
available in that range of price points. He said there is already a great deal of properties
available for sale. If we would have put this type of development on the property, it would now
not be available for use today. The objective of Goal 4 is to improve existing open space and
provide new plazas. This is part of the fabric of the community. The open space and the history
of the Village provides a better product than other communities. He said this project may
preclude the parking structure from expansion for monorail. He also said this is a critical public
policy issue of using public land for private development. He said this provides a buffer between
the Mountain Haus and the parking structure. The open space in front of the building is a great
use until the development occurs for the entire property. If this had been built in Lionshead, you
would not have the options you have now to redevelop the site. Lets make sure the Village is
ready for new development, and that the site is ready and intact before any partial development
occurs. Congestion in that area is of major concern, especially because of skier drop off.
Blocking views, more congestion are both issues. Future needs need to be addressed, and this
project only addressed existing needs. But where does it end? There is a beautiful park nearby,
and will that be used for development? Each park is important to the fabric of the village. It
scares him that pretty pictures can take the discussion out of land use and Vail's needs. The
discussion should be able the long term future of Vail. Reject any attempts to amend the master
plan.
Kaye Ferry, resident, said she opposes the sale of public land and further opposes giving it
away.
Stan Cope, managing director for Vail Mountain Lodge and Spa, represents the ownership of the
property, said he disagrees with Rick Pylman. He said the Vail Mountain Lodge and Spa is not
unattractive. The key to this is the berm. The berm is a buffer that is important. He said if the
whole property was redeveloped, he would hope that there would be a setback. The Vail
Mountain Lodge and Spa is 30 feet from this proposal, with 18 rooms facing this proposal. He
said the Town of Vail runs buses up and down Meadow Drive. And there are major noise issues.
He noted that the Town needs to prioritize redevelopment of outdated properties in the Village,
rather than focusing on new development. He also stated that the only buffer parking and the
Village should not be eliminated.
Rich Selph, long time visitor and new resident highlighted the Master Plan's recommendation to
preserve open space and noted that it sets Vail apart from other ski resorts who could not resist
Page 6
developing every inch. He is also concerned about what public property will be developed next.
He believes that despite how tasteful the architectural drawings the affect will be a movie lot
appearance rather than a mountain village. Deviating from the master plan would be a breach of
faith with the community and the adjacent owners.
Robby Moore, Mountain Haus owner, remembered being able to see the ski mountain from the
parking lot in the 1960's, and he believes the buffer was intentional when the parking structure
was built to preserve such views. The landscaped area is a closing image for guests leaving
Vail.
Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowner's Association, who remembers being part of this project since the
1970's. He agrees with the representatives of the Mountain Haus that the parking area was the
origins of Vail. He noted that this project is similar to other projects in Vail's history. He did
admit that times have changed, but the community does not appear to know where it is going.
He cautioned that any project on Town property must be thoroughly vetted and timed properly.
He believes there are other priorities in the communities, and we can not be permitted to be
distracted by anyone proposing to amend the Town's master plans. He expressed concerns that
the Lionshead Parking project has gone no where at a high cost of time and money. He is
concerned that the Town doesn't have a long range plan and now will grasp for any development
with the threat of a down economy. He noted that Vail's new economic model from recent
development is not tested. Numerous other projects in Lionshead still need to be redeveloped
prior to shifting priorities to a new development in the Village. He stated that a large portion of
the county's workforce may leave the county with the downturn in construction and real estate.
He believes the Village is already functional and competitive with other resorts, and we need to
stay focused. Timber Ridge needs to the focus of employee housing, Simba Run underpass in a
priority of transportation, Ever Vail/West Lionshead is a critical project that may give confidence
to other developers and investors, the government should not be competing with the private
sector developers with private projects on public lands. He also noted that the designer of the
landscaping was a world class designer and was done very intentionally. The community must
recognize there are unintended consequences to such a project and this use of public land is
unprecedented.
Andrew Purdy, East Vail resident, noted that the applicant's claim of off-season benefits and
employee housing. He believes the Vail voters should have the ability to decide how to use their
land.
John Thoreau, local skier and commercial builder in Denver, described the visual quality of the
area. He stated a desire to preserve and even enhance the natural look of the parking structure
berm. He noted that he is bidding jobs at 7% profit, not 10% being proposed by the applicant.
He also has concerns about developing this parcel, rather than preserving it for a future use. He
is concerned developing this parcel now is buying high, rather than buying low.
George Ruther clarified the intent of the work session, and reiterated that no final decision is
requested at this time.
Commissioner Viele noted that he does not believe the applicant has standing to file the
application.
Commissioner Kjesbo agreed with Jim Lamont. He has concerns about the affordability of the
EHU's, he would like to see the results of the ongoing construction projects prior to moving
forward with a proposal to amend the Vail Village Master Plan.
Page 7
Commissioner Tjossem agree with Commissioner Viele and is concerned about the timeliness of
selling/leasing public land at this time. She is concerned about the affordability of the EHUs.
Commissioner Pierce stated his concern about preserving the intent of using this land for
parking. He would like to see a consistent policy in accepting applications where deed
restrictions affect properties.
Commissioner Paladino agreed with Commissioner Pierce and Commissioner Viele.
George Ruther clarified that the Town Council did grant the applicant the authority to proceed
forward through the process.
Commissioner Kurz believes the proposed density is egregious. He is not in favor of revising the
Master Plan until the "dust has settled" on current development projects, and believes the
proposal is contrary to the goals of the community.
60 M i n utes
5. A request for a work session for a review of a preliminary plan for a major subdivision, pursuant
to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the creation of two lots for the
redevelopment of the properties known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923,
934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right-of-
way/Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail
Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080062)
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Tabled to December 22, 2008
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5-0-0
Commissioner Viele departed prior to the start of this item due to a commitment.
Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff inemorandum and outlined the discussion
points for today's work session.
Greg Hall, Public Works Director, gave a presentation summarizing the transit and transportation
topics associated with this proposal.
Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, noted that there a key issues of contention that must
be resolved in a timely manner such as circulation and parking. He asked if the Town should
build the long term road improvement solutions or can those be constructed in phases. He noted
that the Simba Run underpass will be a critical element to Vail's future success and the issue
must be thoroughly researched and studied. He does not believe a simple pedestrian bridge is a
viable solution for the future of Vail. In speaking with other development projects, there are
methods available to optimize the existing developments. He recommended a compromise in
the number of required parking spaces based upon public access to properly managed parking.
The community can not afford to consider increasing the skier numbers until the community's
infrastructure needs have been addressed.
Tom Miller, Vail Resorts, along with other members of the development team gave a
presentation about the circulation and transportation internal to the Ever Vail project.
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Homeowners Association, spoke to the fact that circulation
and parking are issues currently and only become more so as time passes. He spoke to the
need to address the comments discussed in Greg Hall's presentation and not repeat past
Page 8
mistakes. He added that Simba Run is needed without question even if it means large retaining
walls adjacent to Gore Creek.
Diane Johnson, representing Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD), stated that the
District had provided comments to the Community Development Department per the referral
request that was sent out to 12 other agencies. She added that ERWSD was in conversations
with Vail Resorts regarding the feasibility of relocating the facility to another location on the site.
That study was to be done at the end of January. She concluded that currently Vail Resorts and
ERWSD were actively in conversations and it was a positive exchange.
The Commissioners followed the public input by asking the questions that had been generated
by hearing the presentation. It was restated that the intent was not to answer all the questions
today but to begin to create a list of questions that would be addressed at the start of the next
work session hearing.
Commissioner Paladino asked where the Frontage road Realignment was in the CDOT process.
Greg Hall stated that several conversations with CDOT have occurred regarding the Frontage
Road realignment and they appear to be open to the realignment so long as there is no cost to
them and the Town sponsors the application. He added that the Simba Run underpass has
been on their project list since 1993 and if funding became available the project could move
forward.
Commissioner Pierce stated the road looks wide with a 10-foot shoulder, two lanes in each
direction a median and a bike path/sidewalk on the south side. Was all this a given and was
there more opportunity for landscaping?
Greg Hall stated it was necessary to guarantee traffic flow per the projected traffic increases.
Commissioner Paladino asked who pays for the road relocation?
Greg Hall stated that the cost of the relocation would be the responsibility of Vail Reosrts
Development Company.
Commissioner Tjossem asked if this triggered the TOV taking over the Frontage Roads?
Greg Hall responded that it would not.
Commissioner Pierce asked where can we get breaks in the proposed road for landscaping? He
continued by stating that walking next to the Frontage Road is not a good experience. There
needs to be a break in the chain of pavement. Are there opportunities for more islands in the
center of the proposed road?
Commissioner Tjossem asked why have a redundant bike path along the Frontage Road?
Greg Hall responded that the bike path along the Creek was not open year round and this path
would be available year round.
Commissioner Tjossem asked about the turning movements in and out of the proposed parking
structure? How does this work without a roundabout?
Commissioner Pierce asked how many parking spaces are there on the east versus west?
Page 9
Commissioner Tjossem asked if switching the percentages on the turning movements impacted
the LOS? She further stated that she would like to have residential, office, and commercial stats
for the Village and Lionshead to use as a comparison when evaluating Ever Vail. She requested
data on the number of skier days out of each portal and what is anticipated in Ever Vail. She
then asked about the provision of greater parking in order to address parking and days on the
Frontage Road.
Commissioner Kjesbo asked about the parking that would replace the West Day Lot, North Day
Lot, and Holy Cross Lot and how they would be accessible to Vail Resorts employees?
Commissioner Pierce asked if there was parking under the proposed Frontage Road? He further
asked that plans be provided that show pedestrian and transit connectivity to the Lionshead
Core?
Commissioner Tjossem asked for the skier drop off locations?
Greg Hall added that transit needs and circulation need further study as the needs go beyond in
Town buses. It includes Eagle County and charter buses.
Commissioner Tjossem asked where does the in-town bus go? Is the bus being at the east end
of the project too far from the parking structure?
All the commissioners generally wondered what would energize the easternmost portion of the
site with people.
Commissioner Tjossem asked how the grade of the proposed Frontage Rroad relocation down
to the Simba Run round-about compared to the grade of the Frontage Road in front of Donovan
Park
Commissioner Kurz requested additional information regarding the ERWSD facility with regard to
odor and accessibility for emergencies.
Commissioner Kjesbo stated that he has been on PEC the longest and has some issues that
need to be addressed. He was concerned that the employee housing obligation on other
projects has not been met. Like everyone, he believed that the offices were going to go back
into Arrabelle and they will not and have been remaining in temporary locations. Parking and
public parking are still an issue. He is concerned with moving forward on another large
development with obligations still lingering. He concluded by stating that there should be away
to ski back to Ever Vail as it would simplify some of the transit circulation concerns.
30 M i n utes
6. A request for a final recommendation for prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to section
12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Chapter 12-13, Employee Housing, Vail Town
Code, to establish regulations for an Employee Housing Unit Exchange Program, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080071)
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by the Vail Local Housing Authority
Planner: Nina Timm/Bill Gibson
ACTION: Recommendation of approval
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0
Nina Timm gave a presentation per the staff inemorandum.
Commissioner Kurz asked about the perceived benefits of the proposed program.
Page 10
Nina Timm stated that she has already been contact by several people who want to provide
housing just not in their home.
There was no public comment.
The Commissioners expressed their support of the application.
30 Minutes
7. A request for a final recommendation for prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section
11-3-3, Prescribed Regulation Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 11-7-10, Open
House Signs, Vail Town Code, to allow for changes to the allowable quantity and location of
open house signs, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080073)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Recommendation of approval with modifications
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 4-0-1 (Kurz recused)
CONDITION(S):
1. The allowable area of an open house sign should be increased from 1'/2 sq. ft. to 3
sq. ft.
2. The number of allowable open house signs should not be increased from the
current one on-site and one off-site sign (total of two signs).
Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum.
Michael Kurz recused himself as the group he represents has numerous real estate agents
within in it and he did not feel he could act without bias.
Cynthia Kruse, Vail Board of Realtors, stated that the Board of Realtors is very concerned about
having Vail appear as if it was "on sale". She noted that home sellers are Vail taxpayers, buyers
are soon to be taxpayers, and realtors all obligated to help sellers advertise their properties in
the manner they prefer. She recommended increasing the number of directional signs to at least
three. However, she believed five signs would more appropriate for the far reaches of East Vail.
She noted her concern about the prohibition of directional signs on the Frontage Road and
Bighorn Road, but recognized that signs are currently not permitted on CDOT's right-of-way
property. She recommended increasing the size limits for open house signs from 1'/2 sq. ft. to 3
or 5 sq. ft., since those are the sizes of most realtors' standard signs. She stated concerns
about limiting the display of open house signs to only three days in one week. While unusual,
some sellers have requested longer open house time frames in order to move their property.
She recommended eliminating any maximum number of days signs could be displayed, since
the signs will be limited to only certain hours in a day and will not be left out over night.
Commissioner Paladino was opposed to increasing the 1'/2 sq. ft. sign size limit. She liked the
proposal to limit the display of signs to only one hour before and after an open house.
Commissioner Pierce supported the proposed clean-ups to the code, but did not support
increasing the number of allowable signs. With GPS, computer mapping programs, information
from the realtors, etc. people should be able to find an open house location without directional
signs. He was concerned about the affect of more signs on the aesthetics of the community. He
added he would be amenable to an increasing the allowable sign size to 3 sq.ft..
Page 11
Commissioner Tjossem was skeptical that home buyers simply drive around looking for open
house sign instead of contacting a realtor or other sources. She was concerned about the affect
on the Town's aesthetics and image with regard to the request for more directional signage.
Commissioner Kjesbo supported increasing the allowable sign size to 3 sq. ft, but did not support
an increase to 5 sq.ft. He did not support increasing the number of allowable open house signs.
He noted that signs are already be posted along the East Vail exit ramps with negative impacts.
5 Minutes
8. A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section
12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, and Chapter 12-
10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to amend parking requirements for
employee housing units and to clarify the parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district,
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080067)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
ACTION: Table to December 22, 2008
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0
5 Minutes
9. A request for final recommendations to the Vail Town Council, for the proposed adoption of the
Chamonix Master Plan, to facilitate the development of Employee Housing and a Fire Station on
the "Chamonix Parcel" and "Wendy's Parcel" and a final recommendation to the Vail Town
Council to amend the Vail Land Use Plan, pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail
Land Use Plan to designate the Chamonix Master Plan area, located at 2399 North Frontage
Road and 2310 Chamonix Road/Parcels A& B, re-subdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing
1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080058)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Table to December 22, 2008
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0
5 Minutes
10. A request for final review of conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-71-5, Conditional
Uses: Generally (On All Levels Of A Building Or Outside Of A Building), Vail Town Code, to allow
for the development of a public or private parking lot (parking structure); a vehicle maintenance,
service, repair, storage, and fueling facility; a ski lift and tow (gondola), within "Ever Vail" (West
Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South
Frontage Road West right-of-way/Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for
inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC080063)
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Table to December 22, 2008
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0
5 Minutes
11. A request for a final review of major exterior alterations, pursuant to Section 12-71-7, Exterior
Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the area known
as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), with multiple mixed-use structures including but not limited to,
multiple-family dwelling units, fractional fee units, accommodation units, employee housing units,
office, and commercial/retail uses, located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage
Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right-of-way/Unplatted (a complete legal
Page 12
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Table to December 22, 2008
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0
5 Minutes
12. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulation
amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-
10-19, Core Areas Identified, Vail Town Code, to amend the core area parking maps to include
"Ever Vail" (West Lionshead) within the "Commercial Core" designation, and setting forth details
in regard thereto. (PEC080065)
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Table to December 22, 2008
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0
5 Minutes
13. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary
amendment, pursuant to 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of
properties from Arterial Business District and unzoned South Frontage Road West right-of-way
which is not zoned to Lionshead Mixed Use-2, properties known as "Ever Vail" (West
Lionshead), located at 953 and 1031 South Frontage Road West and South Frontage Road
West right-of-way, (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail
Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080061)
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Table to December 22, 2008
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0
5 Minutes
14. A request for a final review of major exterior alterations, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior
Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the property
known as the "North Day Lot", with a multiple unit employee housing project, located at 600 West
Lionshead Circle/Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC080009)
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Table to January 12, 2009
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0
15. Approval of November 24, 2008, minutes
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 5-0-0
16. Information Update
17. Adjournment
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz 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
Page 13
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 5, 2008, in the Vail Daily.
Page 14
�
� Z ''d p- � � �' �', � p �H" .Q ° � �' cu
�C o� �c a� � CD a w � ec � �. u� �. ��
C� p' � � � �s � a. ,-+ � � �, cu �, 'rs c
o ��, ~' �. w � �'. �' a� u o o�.,� cu
t7 a' � cc � CD ��; p,. •, ti o�,.d
O" W � p, "'� � � �'�'�, � d Q. �� b O
�• � � �� � � � � CD � b �' @ CD N �. �C�D
�O' � n p„ C�D �• C� t�D C�E "� "i' � e�-t.
� � �; �, c�.' a � a. �. � �' a. �' �. �
� ��—' N � N � � N �. p� "'�' � �-r �... �
� �7 O �p � "� UQ 0 C� �p 7 � .-�
' i o�o � N'G O `�' p A� ���� tD
� � A� �-t A �
:�: � 'd �-+ � A W ""t � �
Z � ,o°o :; � °. .d p, �- Q; � �c
°C o w .� � � �' � � ° v�
�° c'�o c'�o �. � a p;. «=h � �' �
� w �� �
a o c� �
c�e �c�o '-' �" a' � �'. , � � �-
�t �. N ,��,,� � � a � � � �
�
n� � ��„ ° � �n � c' cu ° �., � '-� A � `'d
o ° � o o � r� � o�„� s� o �3 7�
~ �' o � � �: '� � � � � o
~ � c�v � c�i � �. '� � � ° s" � � O
� � � � � � � � �' � y
�.. �
° F�-y � � �, � � C �'� � m„ � O �
� � � � � N � � ...
"��' � ��-�i- � o' a; � � v ��-r � O i`� ro
'� �"1.'' CD r-' .i. N
� '-d � � �. �' � � x' � � a � O
a a, u � o� � �� �°' (� b � t�
� � o � O ,�
� ��'' o '� w � � a' �- ,°�� � � C' C'�
G r'' �d � � � rb
c�o ��� � A• Gs' o c�o �. �� a H
� �.\ �-,� �. �, c� �t ,.,� o p ,-�.y �. O H
y � �.. � � < 0
p � V � O ,-r � �• � � �C U4 O `'^'' �..,-+ r.r '-�'
�O� �� � � �O � � p" � � � N � L�/�
���� �diS P��p�, °, a '� � w �. a� a v� �
� 7%r '`/� � !y �' w• `-r- �„ � cu �' p r�'' C,
.>�• Q tv �q �n p., "c7 p Oq ��„ N�y
� � � � � �-t � `,� �a'' �- p � p, � ��-y �
' � � � � � � � O f� c�D f�D O n '� � �
� � � � � � O p� cD �" v� A� C� �-�Y' `� p �C
c� O � � cu �s �c � o �' � � o cn �s
Nr ��Q '� ��� �' �' � �°-n o � � o �C o �
/�r�`a�r O � o � � m rn G a, �. � � ;w `"�
- /� -
ti�o`�°my� pn��w'�a�c�w�y�' 'pC�i�<o�a000,oDa�' ��OfAiw.omm�w�YO �.00�'1�m�dwoo�Dbr'i .00w-ao�N�mdDO .00�i�w�'.o°�a.���Da°'i .<� m �' �1
C���o����S -��Om°um,:�'�c�r°�� �=�Om�°°-''°�o�°.�Qmm� ��Om°o�2'.��m� �=�pmoofD3;rx'.X'�.m� :����o�.�^�m� �=��mo'a-�.om� :77N m
�n�m.�om.oc �O �m... �, �D�❑ �OZ-;�Cw�oo.°�°c OZa�m�.`°°cS ��Z����c�ov-y^��o ZZ����O^•���c° .:ZZ��.mCD�o .o�
ow• c... 2Z �=-'wav �.. .�:Z . -^ � 'Z.. »omwB�� �Z.. , oQ o.wy�c ..;* o:os-�mc �w��m� �
�d�,�mm ^ . .w�.mw�mm . .....��am.�.ma�my �� ...rnvom�� -:� •�ax ����� � a�.o�m�,m ��tn :N^''2�."" �`.^. fn
�o��r:K� �� -{ofD�oom�.ti .Ni�Sw�w�-�.o'o^ -i -a° Z-i �Cm y <�-;.' y, md m m
ma...p-. In�L��a.`r�.,,.....�, ��mmwc���m_,�om�a-^ �m �o��'r='o� .m �.oWSwm .m.o n �ww.wv„�vcno �:n ���tD° c°- �
a.a�ooQ :Op�ocN.��o�°o :.QV�.-iwn���:°.�m .o ..�0 0� soG� .0 w= mm.ow'o.-. , 0 �-�n�mo�� :A L�m'•m�Srow m� m
��m,wD_ '.Zm�,3o2fc.t°wvw. 'Z;»`-°U.o.�o.c�or,cwp;, 'z co� �.o.w,w � Z � `om_�.w�"` Z :�mSm,�mw,w Z vo��� ' N . .�m
oW�c�r°-'� ��o��'� �w�.m» "�:O`��'-n=°°.�,�:mo'� �O �� m�oo �0"B� .�w�°�s'?..w �.:�omQa�°o ��.� ��a�:�'o _o; .,m
��w°-.<m. �m.��ow.�<o.vw �'.�mao���....�'��-`"m°-' < cd c ��- "< 3m ��-1�c.mom �� .��F�.wm mU��- �.� �^s�N� w.
�ag;�.m< :��=m�t�o��mSm �:�c�DatSm�v,�:°,�mw� � �_ .�.w°� ..p _ ..ww'in�wo �...�°�ao�.�o��n .�.� �m:�mm G�
_ ' � . . , �. �.`, . . . ��.
,m
� ac�z n,o.�o
cl �m �m
<�P '�''mz
°_''cris 9'�''0�
:.� opn. ���;�,N°ozz
� � mm ao. m ,
o � D
m r
` o,
N
V
iy
TawN o� vArL �'
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 December 22, 2008, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in
consideration of:
A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of a
new special development district, pursuant to Article 12-9A, Special Development (SDD)
District, Vail Town Code, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Units 7 through14 (Vail
Rowhouses)/Lots 7 through 14, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC080074)
Applicant: Christopher Galvin, represented by K.H. Webb Architects
Planner: 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 December 5, 2008, in the Vail Daily.
I 1
/ ti\ l .
+:r �,i; '
��3°_oc.: �1tlo,m�:3u~ivv Z, o.�o,t�,��m . �mro�E,. �.
. ?' :ro ._o:..:. >�„ .o«� Y,. �oF_«mE _o- M . .
U
LLm
a=
¢ °.
•s
W, 7
F �
N u
� C
<
V�
Z^"`^ ",.., „""�
O o
� � a
a o �
a oW
�
O
O � �'+
�
o �
a � o
���� �
�����
�
Q w ab �
��o��
� v U �.�
°�� � � >
.� �d � a� .b
� � � � �
� •
Hv°>'° �
i� � o �
�o� �
� � a'� �
0
�����
� � ..�
� o � � �
c� � bn
� � � N �
�� �� �
O~bA ,'� +'�-' �
a� W � � a"
N
N
.� t�..� p � t�
Cd � � • �-+ y
� �.� ¢,,�
�
r.�a o ° � �
� N � V� :=
� � ;� � �
a
�b���
�s �, a, , � ,�
� � � � a
� � � � �
f�, � �" �,
� "C� ^q � '�
� � � � �
� � � � �
t� !�, Q" ,�' �
N. � 'tiS 4= ''''
� p � � �
��^d ,�^C
.-� (�"
�,� � H �
3���
O . '�.:�' +'�-' O �-'
O 'd . � �C �
'C �? � •O -G
� � � �
aa p, � o. b
o�, ��
a a° o o �
N � '++ t�„� y�
a�i � � a� � `�i
� � N � �� a"
� � �v W � N
'd �� o �.��:n= , .o;m-� . 'co
, , « � T� O _�. N, � N � d � . �
`y>'O = �.10.p�j�.0. ' � ftl4-2 N
�°.°�ma�i��a�i= 'roc'.°�c � .
m�Ec'o-E� roo.- c f,
�;cm E o,,,n:am .
�.o aoLL o:o�o .in�ia o oi
y NO..�p :.:U O
Ip.CUL p^.�'�..- :•pM. N
' 7�:�?�t0p�..=..0� .;�p p N
�.L] �! �'O N y�.�- �, CL N
_ � C���... C�p,_N' N. .p,
'c :o;?on� m'��m �e.�� � c a�
a m�O:3 m�Ev °::°ci°-�m E'
wmo�°aE��o ��,. € .m
C7 0 � �� �=U.m �N.u�°i o � .
[!� .��.�L ro j«..�= ...=«N C 0'
��o.> o„c u�>,cmi : rn.3 m o'.°�c n'.
ro �
a�i .am.y� �,'�`o"�.m m,,,Sy�.,o r�m �:
c ,�a�i�1tl � °.n � ��ttl c �� aNio �'. .arna :,.
n%...�m.°cEaw.�a° .in..o�rno. aN.�� �
�
0
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
1.7
�
nn
�
�
�,
�
a
0
�
b
�
u
'O
y
.�
�
..'
ir
W
�
b
O
�
"d
�
�
a
y
�
"CS
�
�
bA
tl�
'ti
�
�
v
u
eK p
C'�1 y
y •�.�
� a
G� �
A�
�a
a� �
H isi
4--i
0
�
�
�
�
N
�
0
�
�
�
.�
�
.�
�
�
c�
N
�
�-,
.S=
�
'U
�
�
a
�
3
�
�
�
.�
"7
c�i
0
�
.�
�+"
bD
.4;
'�
x
�
�
�
�
H
'� �
3 `'"
0
a� �
� �
.y
� .�
� �
�
o ��
�
,� 3
� �
.� ..�
� �
�
� b
N �
� �
� O
� O
� '�
+�-� U
'Ci �
`� a
ir�
O �
N �
'� N
> �
'� b
� �
N
tn ap
� O
O p
v N
N �
O N
�
O "d
a�
� �
!�. ^c7
'a�-' Q., O
�O � N
�., �
�
� G H
Ra :'d �
� � b
�" O �
�
� � cd'
.b � a
� � �
� � �
�
0
0
N
a�i
�
a�
U
�
Q
0
�
b
�
�
�
�
,�
�
ccs
.r;
N
0
�
H
�
�
�
�
0
�;
�
�
�
�
�
..�i
�
�
�
�
-d
�
0
O
U
�
0
�
�
�
a�
�
W
�
0
�
0
U
�
0
�
G'
cc1
.�
.�
�
a
�
�
cd
�
N
�
�
�
0
O
�
�
c0
b
�
'�
0
�
�
����O `�'�
�b� �
V ��t� ..�
� �
� � U
G � �' G.:
� � �`�" �° , � s
r„''(� .;
� �`;c
�'//�y�; �:;�F �,�,
�
O
O
N
�
b
U
�
P-�
�
z
e��1
�
O
N
r-1
�
�
�
>
0
N
.�
�
N
0
.�
�
�
.�
U
�