Loading...
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 �