HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-0126 PEC.•
,��`NOFYAfI, •
MEMBERS PRESENT
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
January 26, 2009
1:OOpm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits:
1. Ever Vail, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West
45 Minutes
1. 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: Nicole Peterson
ACTION:
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
30 Minutes
2. 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 LoY', 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:
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
60 Minutes
3. 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/George Ruther
ACTION:
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
5 Minutes
4. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish 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 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
ACTION: Table to February 9, 2009
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Page 1
5 Minutes
5. 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: Nicole Peterson
ACTION: Table to February 9, 2009
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
6. Approval of January 12, 2009 minutes
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
7. Information Update
Code Rewrite Process, Rachel Friede
8. Adjournment
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The
public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the
Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional
information.
Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970)
479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published January 23, 2009, in the Vail Daily.
Page 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 26, 2009
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: Nicole Peterson
I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a work session to discuss prescribed
regulation amendments to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to
clarify the parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district. This item was noticed
including amendments to Chapter 12-10 Off Street Parking and Loading however, there
are no amendments proposed for Chapter 12-10 at this time.
The amendment to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, is meant to provide clear and
predictable regulations for the reduction of parking in the Housing (H) district; and off-set
the unintended consequences associated with the reduction of minimum parking
requirements. Proposed text that is to be deleted is in °+r��°� text that is to be
added is in bold.
Section12-61-8, (Housinq District) Parkinq and Loadinq
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
- - ,.:�• - - - -�: = - -
Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of
this title. No parking or loading area shall be located within any required front
setback area in compliance with 12-61-5 Setbacks. Notwithstanding Section 12-10-
20, Special Review Provisions, the following section 12-61-8A, Parking Reduction
applies.
A. Parking Reduction
A twenty-five percent (25%) reduction in the total number of required parking
spaces shall be applied to sites with density of 20 dwelling units or more per acre,
meeting the following criteria:
1. Proximity to Public Transportation: The subject dwelling is located within 880
feet (.16 mile) of a public bus stop or public transit center, as measured along
a pedestrian connection from the primary entrance of the building located
farthest from the public bus stop or public transit center.
2. Proximity to Commercial Job Core: The subject dwelling is located within
2,500 feet (.47 mile) of one of the following Commercial Job Cores, as
measured along the pedestrian connection from the primary entrance of the
building located farthest from the Commercial Job Core. For the purpose of
this section, the Commercial Job Cores shall be defined as:
a. Vail Village, as designated by the Vail Village Master Plan, Action Plan Map
b. Lionshead, as designated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan,
Map A Study Area
c. West Vail, which includes all properties zoned Commercial Core 3(CC3)
District on the Town of Vail Official Zoning Map.
3. Bicycle Parking: Covered bicycle parking shall be provided on site, equal to
ten percent (10%) of the required off-street parking space requirement, prior to
the reduction. After the first 50 bicycle parking spaces are provided, the
required number of additional bicycle parking spaces is five percent (5%) of
the required off-street parking space requirement, priorto the reduction.
II. BACKGROUND
The Town of Vail established the Housing (H) District to facilitate the development of
deed restricted employee housing. The purpose, in part, of the Housing District is as
follows:
"The Housing District is intended to ensure that employee housing
permitted in the zone district is appropriately located and designed to
meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses,
and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities
appropriate to the allowed types of uses. ...because of the nature and
characteristics of employee housing, (it) cannot be adequately regulated
by the development standards prescribed for other residential zone
districts. It is necessary in this zone district to provide development
standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal or
project..."
The Housing District, at the Planning and Environmental Commission's discretion, offers
flexibility for setbacks, site coverage, parking requirements, building height, and density
2
control. While this flexibility creates opportunity, it also creates unpredictability in the
development review process. Most notable in the review of Middle Creek and the
proposed redevelopment of Solar Vail with the "debate" about appropriate parking ratios.
Looking back at these two developments, and forward at future development in the
Housing District, it has become apparent that some predictability around minimum
parking requirements is an appropriate addition to the Housing District.
On November 24, 2008, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a work
session to discuss the prescribed regulation amendments. The application was tabled.
Minutes of the work session are attached.
On December 2, 2008 the Vail Town Council held a work session to discuss the the
prescribed regulation amendments. The application was tabled. Minutes of the work
session are attached.
III. RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
Since the PEC and Town Council work sessions, Staff has conducted research and
analysis to support the proposed amendments. Please find two tables, attached, that
provide information regarding the affected Housing (H) District properties and other
community examples. The results are summarized below.
Affected Properties
There are four (4) properties designated Housing (H) District within the Town of Vail.
The four properties are known as Middle Creek, Solar Vail, Timber Ridge and Chamonix.
Staff conducted an inventory of the 4 properties that will be affected by the proposed
amendments to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading. The results are provided in
Attachment A, Housing (H) District Property Inventory.
Staff found that a 25% reduction in parking is appropriate based on the results of the
management assessment combined with the total number of spaces provided on-site
compared to the current parking requirement for each site. The results include the
following:
1. Middle Creek development includes 247 parking spaces, which is exactly the
amount of current parking required and the management assessment is that they
have "Too much" parking.
2. Solar Vail development includes 28 spaces, which is a 25% reduction in parking,
and the management is that they have "Adequate" parking.
3. Timber Ridge development includes 225 surface spaces, which is a 43%
reduction from the requirement, and the management assessment is that there is
"Not enough" parking.
Staff's recommendation to only allow the 25% parking reduction for sites with density of
20 units or more per acre, in part, is based on the existing density of the four Housing
District properties, and also on research regarding average trip generation. Staff
researched average trip generation for multi-family dwellings and found that as density
increased, the trip generation decreased. The implications of the findings are that in
more dense development, the likelihood of vehicle trips and/or car ownership decreases.
Staff found the proposed density (20 units per acre) from a San Diego study that
revealed density of 20 units or more per acre, averaged 6 trips per dwelling unit, and
density of 20 units or less per acre, averaged 8 trips per dwelling unit, an difference of 2
3
trips per dwelling unit per day. Staff believes the 20 units per acre is a relevant and
appropriate density for the parking reduction.
The proposed distance of 2,500 feet (.47 mile) to a Commercial Job Core is also, in part,
the result of the inventory, in that, the average distance from the four Housing District
properties to the nearest Commercial Job Core is �2,500 feet. Staff researched the
average distance that the average person is willing to walk to services and employment,
and the results vary from 500 feet (.09 mile) to 4,000 feet (.75 mile) largely depending on
the region. The average of 500 feet and 4,000 feet is 2,250 feet. The farthest walking
distance definitions tended to come from communities in California and Canada. Other
studies revealed that the reasonable walking distance varies based on topography,
urban design, traffic calming, sense of safety and security and presence of interesting
activity. Ultimately, Staff chose to recommend the distance that is relevant to the Town
of Vail, based on the existing subject properties.
In the Housing District property inventory, Staff included the approximate distance of the
site to a public bus stop. For information purposes only, the average distance of the 4
properties to a public bus stop is approximately 680 feet. For the proposed
amendments, Staff is recommending an 880 foot distance to a public bus stop based on
the Vail 20/20 Transportation Chapter. The Chapter states a pedestrianization goal to,
"Ensure that walking distances from residential areas to transit stops are one-sixth (880
feet] of a mile in high density areas (5 minute walk)." Staff believes the goal is relevant
and appropriate to include in the parking reduction criteria for the Housing District.
Other Communitv Examples
Staff conducted a survey of 22 other Towns and Cities that have similar issues with
affordable or workforce housing and parking requirements. The results are listed in
Attachment B: Other Community Examples.
Staff found that the
number of parking
communities. The
requirements:
Town of Vail parking requirements are on par with the average
spaces required for residential properties in the 22 comparable
research revealed the following averages compared to Vail's
Minimum Required Parking Spaces per Unit for Multi-Family
Dwellings
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR Notes
AVERAGE OF 22 1.13 1.25 1.65 1.83
COMMUNITIES
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Schedule A- Within Commercial
Core Parking Area
See See See See Schedule B- Outside Core
CURRENT VAIL notes notes notes notes Parking Area 500 sq. ft. or less =
PARKING 1.5 spaces, 500-2000 sq. ft. 2
REQUIREMENTS spaces, >2000 sq. ft. 2.5 spaces
1.5 1.5 2 2 Schedule B- Example Middle
Creek
Staff also found that, in the communities that provided parking requirement reductions
for affordable or workforce housing units, the average reduction was 50%. In some
communities the parking reduction was out-right, meaning that the developer did not
need to comply with additional criteria to reduce the number of required parking, instead
4
the reduction was based on meeting a definition of `affordable' housing. Staff believes
that the communities with out-right parking reductions are not good examples to
compare to Vail, because those communities are urban and provide public transportation
options that exceed the frequency and speed of the Vail bus service. Ultimately, Staff's
recommendation of 25% was based on Vail's existing conditions revealed in the Housing
District property inventory.
Staff also researched bicycle parking requirements in other communities, and based the
proposed requirement on the existing requirements in the City of Boulder. The type of
bicycle parking was also researched, including short-term parking which is outdoor racks
that are generally located in highly visible areas for safety and security. The other type
is long-term bicycle parking, which includes lockers and/or lock-ups that are for bike
storage. Staff's recommendation remains general, in addressing bike short-term parking
vs storage, to allow the developer flexibility in design. However, Staff believes it is
important to require bicycle parking spaces, to encourage the use of bicycles as an
alternative form of transportation.
Research Summarv
From the research collected, Staff believes that it is relevant to offer a parking reduction
in the Housing District however certain criteria should exist in order to warrant the
reduction. The proposed criteria warrant a parking reduction in that they provide
measurable and enforceable criteria that are directly linked to alternate modes of
transportation. Furthermore, Staff believes that the density of the project will also
warrant a parking reduction, as reflected in the proposed requirement that the reduction
only applies to sites with density of 20 units per acre or more.
IV. ATTACHMENTS
A. Housing (H) District Property Inventory
B. Other Community Examples
C. PEC work session minutes
D. TC work session minutes
5
�
�
��
�z
�N
a a a - �"
v v v = � ��
o -6 -o 0 0 � � °- �0
� .'
o� a o � u� �
O x o O O Q
a o a a No
o � � � �
?' L a �n x x W d � n
o �� Y3 3°� 3 3^ 0 3 3 3 3 3 ^ o� ' ` 3 3 � o
E � U � � 3 � � s E � � � � � s E a� °o � � � a� �n
A� o Q Q� Y o A A°o o �-°- Y� o
o t ��� � � o t y � �� m o s
U S N �+i � u�-> > Q > > Z °� U > > > > > Z U � � t > > Z S �
0 3 � �
a� N� �m � '.�-. n -o � �
o �
� > -o -o ° ° � °_ _ °_.. a�
° � °a� n ° E � � � °_ o � o
� � � o
d � O A� L LL
� Q�, O Q > t0 a.
�' � d � � � � y � � � y � � N 0 Z Q
N � w o ` O � L O L p 0��� �� y O Q
w � �� w v = w d d Q L m�� d m � � Q Q w 0
rn w `o
v o o� v " 'c v `m > m oYy o� y_ -aa
� LL N N _ O N R' N N Y � � R' O W � � � E Q � LL V O"6 Y� Q�
� Z Q Q � :°• a�i ° '° E `m m � � Q � a� � � � � Y � � u °� � � d u
� � °m o o ro co � � o m � u� � � � � co o � °o � '" °? ? " ? o = °- E O � n � � � �
o N o o rn rn- - co rn o N� rn z o v x o x A� o 0 0 � o� o
H S � � m Q Q � � N � N� � o ii m � i U� t W W(n 3 w a - Q
� m =� o
o � ..�� y � � o � o
� � � � m � m > d
Q�v �A � N -a ° .a ° �
� ro ro �� o 0 0 o Q o
J N E � O� O � N �
� � -Y J �C . a+
� V � 0 w V � "6 � V � � ? � � Q � V i�
p O � � ws�o �� O > ���'0 O E E W°� s o� Y �
} N > N � � � � fl- "6 H Od � a "6 (0 O � L Q
�i � a :°• °� ���.o � a n�� W a o n- A 3a
O v - � � � o � � u� �- > � � o
� Z- ° Q o � °� _ ��.� � � _ > � �� d �Y � -o �
A LL�� o� o ` A a� N�A u� °� W 3 Y s
? > > � . " a-oi fg -° ` � o m �> > m -o in m �0 �� w � w �0 � o �� m � � � o ;° a�i
Vl z A� Z Q Q � s� n c°o s° m'Q N A �n v m o_ a� �n ,o Vl A o ':? ° N 3 n 3 y L �' -o
W in -o � V1 o co V1 0 � . ��� o- -o �y
F O o o°. �(V �- r�O m N r 0 co } O r r in m.. m o a O rn -o N x N N � j m -0 0
H Z Vl S u� � . ro � Q u� �. v Q ro Z � � Vl r o o Q n� Z Vl t Q� t W (n 3 (n Q..
� W a o
W � Z
ap a ¢ -o -o � o
K O U' d d a -6 -o o °-
J +� H N p a�
H� Y O� O O �� 0 O �
c� w � a "�Y � �
� 0 Q d� N W o o u� o � N � °
a L3 z
N � �' u �' a� � � � a� � ° Q ° � �
� - H m � �� � .. � -o =o =o
Vz � � °o a� � 30 �o w� � L� L o � -
W N N LL� w N p� - E ~ N � � DU '� - Q
Q� B � L 0
Z� W � o m W�� a� , N W d ° n= �0 �� � o Q
Vl ° o � � � � � � _ > � � � � � s � -o �
0 j � ii � � �n Sg a�6i o > � � � � � > > w m W o a� o � � � � - �m 3
A 3 Z Q Q j d N° c° A y o m co � c�i N A o 3� a y� a�i y o Y ° -o �6-
O O p O � v ro- - N rn I� O ro� � 0� co a O rn 'o y> N x N N X A L "O N
V) S u� � u? N v Q Q � � v Vl N� Z tn M Q V) ! Q> ! W W (n � (n Q�
_ �
� � � � O
O � � N A N
- >
Q O �� > B B Q -
� �
�� � 41 � O O E 41 (0
� O A N � � O J
N O� � � d Q
� (0 N V � O � E E � � "6 "6 O
� � Q� w � O � � W W O 0 �
� N N � L L �
FS �� E A Y N E Y ` `O (0 (0 (0 C (0 (0
v o d d �� o N v � d� d � � � l i � d d E s � E
w� LL Q Q y � � w s °o w m N E4 m � w w m� o d� � d
�p �y Z m m � � ° v v N � N v o ':� ° N N 3 y -0 3
D o v�O. "? v u�-� - in °� v rn°o � D v �°? o n v I�- '� m � � �x x � m �
�_ � co v � N Q v� v t N m � N � o N<» N � t Q� + w w � 3 U �
o � �
o �
� d � -'� � � - °' � a�
� � �� pi �n �� o Y
> � �
°� o � s �i :: °- a? °� Z � � `m ° >
Q o � d d �� �� u N � �' �n °_ Y�
m �
w --°_ m � a�i ..�. � °- N � ` � �. rn � o ° N � E .._°�.
� � Q (n � s d d 3 aai w o m � m U d �'° �� u�
E A � � d d � N�� N s °� U o o (n �' ` o-o
dY1 .°�a � � d d � �"a Q h a � �° � U � a� n u� �
d d� N " m m m y y U ��� o m u o � o N o Y E� o
"6 � a� m l�1 .. j d d N� y d.. d m`m ., -o d�m
'o aJ N N - E�c ,G - 3>. N. n V � Q� y aI
� a Q� xk xk F � C� m.� � xk �� xk � xk °� °> > o u.� � d�E "> Q y Y r �� o
� � m -6 m m .. .. m � � m � � m ` m ~ d � � �a x � o ` �x (n � :? Y �n o � o �+
0 0 0� o o� � o�� o o A A o m o A� '0 u� � o o �' o� �� m� �
H N(n F m F F� � F} p H F d d F F> 0 �,o h H d m o m d d [f] F O o (n d..
3 � N m v u� co r m rn o � 3 � N m v u� co 3 � N m v u� co r m rn
O O O
K K K
, o
oa�
�
gLL
d�
O1 �E
c
Nu
,�
�
.I,
:
.I,
� �
O�
� O
� o
o �
Ti a
Y �
Q Q � T
z z a i�
Q Q
z z
a a
z z
Q Q
Z Z
Q Q
Z Z
5 � d �
U c a
� a A o d �
U Q Q Q a0 a�0
j Q Q Q Q
U' Z Z Z Z
� O O �
�. �i yi _
T -
.E � � - � �
LL � ° ° � ° ° N
y� T _ _ �
g� E�� , ,��
,o o �
T .= � VI _
.LL \ V= \
� N p MN
C `p O � p n
� y`� T
c �' E � � -
NO _- ���
0
zlzlzl Iz
Q Q QQQQQ QQ
Z Z ZZZZZ ZZ
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
O - a T
T m 0
� O T �
O � '� O
O -
E ,�
o`o F"+ `o
0 0 0� on
_ _ ?� _
mm
Y Y Y� Q Q Q Q�� Q
a° a a� z z z z a`m z
Q Q Q Q Q
z z z z z
a a a a a
z z z z z
� Q Q Q Q � Q
Z Z Z Z Z
� d
0
o � � _ _
o d
_ v� �� t y� a z
c Q� �
E A c a°� Y c
U U O W 2 2 � � Z
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
� T O
T � a � m
� C - - y� w N
� � � � � �
3 � � � a � �
o�t0�j
o L VU t0N .
0 � � O
- � U���`�
a `o �� U����"
_ � E � m °
� o� �� °���o�
�°' - Q Q oy � n n���
T Z � Z Z - m � � U� �
3
_ �
5 m �
�
m �
�
m �
O
0
zl zl zl zl z
0
Q
Z
Q
Z
� O � _
O �
'o �c�n
0 oa
� o �
omo
� T
- y O.�
y � N
a aao
a c
�_ z
A
f �
`O
Q Q o Q
Z Z � �
�
�
�
�
N D � �
N N _ N � �
TW �
� � u - ¢
Mo o°ii
c�`?
� T� �0=
°o�?v�mi-°o�
� � � m
m ° ���
��^�'o�N
c � � ° ° x
m °'�E
�o
Q � U u°�
Z m�� ¢�n
�
�
�
�
T � T N � � � N
a c � �o ° °' - - a
o A o
�`c � � c c a z
U c 10 .o - d ` U �°,°� c� U � m � E °
i� a A o Y � E A c a°� x a c x c c c 10 �
U Q Q Q m m U U O W 2 2 � � Z a N N N N f
� �
�
Qo
�m=
o�
�da
� � m
��o
oDE
� O p
O � �
— O �
NZ$ �C
� Q Y
o�U �
o�
E �
Q o d
V ° b
N O � dj
E � O N
� `o a d
� E �
U E t �
�= m
;�s°
=��a
j �-
�' `o � �
� T � �
O � �
� � N N
� O � Q
Y TV �
a E.=_ m
� o �
�a`�
rvQn
� d
o � � V
� � E E
�
Q Q Q
Z Z Z
Q
Z
�� ��
II O
N II
v � vi z
O Q O
U � a°�i
_ � in 'n U
U a c�, c a
� p ¢ Q �
� � II � �
-- ,� n
� O� �i w
Q � m ° � m
d� �c°_
in a in „� � in
� �
� �
� o �
� � �
Q
>
�
z
w
�
U
ATTACHMENT C
MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 24, 2008 PEC
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November 24, 2008
12:OOpm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Kurz Scott Proper
Sarah Paladino-Robinson
Susie Tjossem
Bill Pierce
Rollie Kjesbo
David Viele
30 minutes
4. 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 to Table to December 8, 2008
MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0
George Ruther made a presentation per the staff inemorandum.
Commissioner Pierce said he wants to know how other communities deal with this exact
issue. He felt that flexibility was a benefit, and once it is codified, this benefit goes away.
Most developers don't draw employee housing and then ask for relief. He said it would be
helpful to have discussions before things get drawn to discuss how the parking will be dealt
with within a project.
Commissioner Kurz said that there are forces here. Do the parking requirements work?
There are guidelines for each area, where if you are transit oriented development, you have
lower guidelines. Perhaps we could have guidelines that break it down by dormitory, one
bedroom, two bedroom, single family etc and based on location and desired occupant. The
developer will provide a plan for parking, and if they deviate from general guidelines, they
will have to provide additional amenities like sidewalks, bike parking, etc. We need to let the
developer respond with a creative method that works for each project. They should also be
able to provide shuttles or some other mechanism to provide transportation to the people
who live there. If the parking comes first, on top of all other requirements, they may decide
thaYs not what they want.
George Ruther asked if it is possible to come up with a parking requirement for a dorm unit.
0
Commissioner Kurz responded that per dormitory unit, you cannot have a single
requirement because they have a wide variety of number of beds. Kurz said general
guidelines are good, but then need to take into account the other factors like transit oriented
development.
Commissioner Tjossem asked if this came out of the Town Council discussion on
redevelopment of Timber Ridge. She said a requirement might allow more measurable
development. Isn't this helping make the housing affordable?
George Ruther said that the Timber Ridge Advisory Committee is the impetus behind this
request. As a developer, there needs to be clear and predicable expectations, and not just
open-ended interpretation.
Commissioner Viele said he looks at what makes sense and what is required/legal. He
agrees that there needs to be flexibility in approval, but there has to be a
minimum/maximum guideline that shows a threshold that needs to be met or that the Town
considers to be adequate.
Commissioner Kurz said that putting a requirement puts a limit on what can be built, and he
said that developers need the ability to be creative. If we require it at all, it will not bring new
solutions.
George Ruther asked if zero parking is an option if alternate means of transportation are
provided.
Commissioner Palladino said that no, it is not ok because the Town takes responsibility for
the cars being somewhere else, like on the Frontage Road, at trailhead parking or displaced
elsewhere in town. She said as much as no parking is great, it is not practical. The town is
still rural and not dense enough, and there are no rental car places in the vicinity to serve as
an alternative means of transportation.
Commissioner Tjossem said that the seasonal workers are changing and are again
switching from international back to domestic. There are many domestic laborers out of
work and they are coming here, and like it or not they have cars. We cannot base this
amendment on who we are attracting at a single point in time or who we would like to attract
because it keeps changing. However, proximity to public transportation and alternate
means of transportation to a building would be better to control the issue.
Commissioner Pierce said guidelines need to be provided as a starting point. Chapter 10 of
the Code provides closely defined requirements, but If its in a different location, the parking
requirement is less. He said the Code needs to take into consideration some units that are
a-typical. Perhaps need to add requirements for dormitory rooms or number of spaces "per
pillow". He believes we need to have requirements so that people understand what is
required from the start. Alternate housing opportunities should have their own section.
George Ruther sought to clarify the comments he heard from the PEC. He said transit
oriented development helps to reduce requirements from other places, such as
transportation, etc. He said he was wondering if there are times when the transportation
system goes underutilized. He said there may be opportunities to greater utilize
infrastructure, including buses, sidewalks, bike paths, etc.
0
Commissioner Kurz said that if the town had 24 hour bus service and you could live in the
village, there could be a reduced need for cars. People however want cars to go other
places. We can not ignore that. He said it would be good to take cars off the road with
environmental sustainability in mind.
George Ruther asked about parking for visitors. He asked if it's ok if visitors to the project
do not have parking. He said this is included in the calculation for parking.
The Commissioners said you need to provide visitor parking.
Commisioner Viele said there needs to be an element of trust within the market. There
needs to be parking provided that the developer will provide on their own.
Commissioner Kjesbo said that each project is different, and with for-sale units, you need
more parking.
Commissioner Tjossem said that when a business owner has a building we don't want them
to have the ability to say no parking. With Timber Ridge, she says the developer needs to
understand what is required.
Commissioner Kjesbo said there needs to be flexibility.
George Ruther said that developers tell the Town that they would like predictability. He said
that is it clear at to distance from services, buses, etc.
Commissioner Kjesbo said that in Solar Vail there was a parking plan that allowed flexibility.
He said there is not enough parking in any building in Town was his perception.
Commissioner Viele said that the Code is the worst case scenario, and that should be put
into the pro-forma and anything allowed in less is a bonus. He said the question is whether
that requirement should be different in the Housing District.
George Ruther asked if the criteria are good for this type of development (ie Housing zone
district), can they be expanded to other districts?
Commissioner Viele said there is a provision in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
that allows for flexibility from the Town Code. He said there should be flexibility written in.
George Ruther asked if we want all the cars and parking that comes with development, but
perhaps take another method, like transportation, etc. Do we want the outcome when we
assess that parking? Should we be looking at other ways to address problem?
Commissioner Kurz asked if a transportation plan is required.
George Ruther said that there are aspects of a transportation plan in each project, but not in
detail. If we rely solely on parking spaces as addressing transportation needs, perhaps we
are not getting results we want.
Commissioner Kurz said that if the units require parking, the developer will put that in the
economic model. He said that location should help determine what your parking
requirements are.
10
George Ruther said there has been a paradigm shift where parking is very valuable but if
you give people walkability, they may not need parking.
Commissioner Kurz said it needs to be in conjunction with traffic flow considerations.
Dominic Mauriello said that parking requirements could be established but then allow for
diversions from that.
Commissioner Kjesbo said that at Middle Creek, they charge for parking. On Timber Ridge
there is a model with how many parking spaces. There is history to use to understand what
parking requirements are.
Commissioner Pierce asked about parking at Timber Ridge
Nina Timm said there are 308 spaces for 198 units, and all are utilized. (It was later
determined on December 2, 2008 that there are only 225 spaces on-site). She said you
cant regulate the occupant but you have more people per units at Timber Ridge. Because
of financing, you can limit occupancy but you don't have more than 2 people per unit at
Middle Creek, driving it more than anything.
11
ATTACHMENT D
MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
MEDIA ADVISORY
December 2, 2008
Contact: Corey Swisher, 479-2106
Town Manager's Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR DECEMBER 2, 2008
Work Session Briefs
Council members present: Foley, Daly, Cleveland, Hitt, Gordon, Rogers
Newbury entered the Council Chambers at 1:54 p.m.
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
Community Development Director George Ruther asked Council to provide staff with
policy direction on the town's expectations related to the transportation needs and
parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district. Based on numerous discussions
on the transportation needs and parking requirements for the Housing zone district, it is
often identified that the flexibility provided in the parking requirements also creates a
certain amount of unintended confusion and ambiguity. The current stated policy for
parking in the Housing (H) zone district is, "there is a transportation need generated by
residents living within the Housing zone district that shall be addressed."
Rogers emphasized, "We want to house people, not cars...She then spoke in support of
parking space rentals...You need to burden the people who want cars by making them
pay for them... I'm very much in favor of reducing parking spaces in the housing
district... It seems to me flexibility is the better way to go and it needs to be more
predictable."
Hitt asked for a study to "determine what our reality is here in town." He
then expressed concern that reduced parking requirements would lead to more
abandoned vehicles being parked in residential neighborhoods. "I don't think it has
been clearly proven that just because it's a dorm it means less cars."
Daly clarified fewer foreign workers in town would lead to increased parking demand. He then
encouraged providing enhanced predictability for developers.
Cleveland stated, "It's unreasonable to expect our seasonal workers to exist without an
automobile...Any project is going to require parking."
Foley spoke in support of providing additional public transportation.
Zemler encouraged "thinking through" some sort of payment-in-lieu component.
Rogers encouraged staff to speak with the City of Boulder in regard to their existing parking
requirements.
12
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 26, 2009
SUBJECT: 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 LoY',
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 Development Company, represented by
Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
Planner: Warren Campbell
I. SUMMARY
The applicant, Vail Resort Development Company, represented by Mauriello
Planning Group LLC, is requesting final review of a major exterior alteration,
pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail
Town Code, and a reduction if the required off street parking pursuant to Section
12-10-20, Special Review Provisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for the
redevelopment of the North Day Lot, currently parking, to include a 32 unit
employee housing project, 9 public skier drop off spaces, and 40 parking spaces,
located at 600 West Lionshead Circle.
Upon review of the applicable elements of the Town's planning documents and
adopted criteria for review, the Community Development Department is
recommending the Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with
conditions, the applicant's request for a major exterior alteration and reduction
in the off-street parking requirements. A complete summary of Staff's review is
provided in Section VII I of this memorandum.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Vail Resort Development Company, represented by Mauriello
Planning Group LLC, is requesting final review of a major exterior alteration,
pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail
Town Code, and a reduction in the required off street parking pursuant to Section
12-10-20, Special Review Provisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for the
redevelopment of the North Day Lot which is current a 105 space parking lot for
Vail Resorts employees.
The key elements of the North Day Lot redevelopment include:
A major exterior alteration to construct 32, Type III employee housing
units, consisting of 28-four bedroom units and 4-three bedroom units for a
total of 124 beds;
A request for a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from
45 to 40 parking spaces. The provision of 40 parking spaces 27 of which
are enclosed, within the lowest level of the proposed structure.
The inclusion of 9 public skier drop-off spaces on the west end of the site;
A vicinity map identifying the location of the development site has been attached
for reference (Attachment A). A copy of the document entitled North Dav Lot
Employee Housinp dated revised January 19, 2009 (Attachment B), and a
reduced set of plans dated , are attached for reference
(Attachment C).
III. BACKGROUND
• The subject property was annexed into the Town of Vail by Ordinance No.
_, Series of , which became effective on
• The site has been used as a surface private parking lot since
• On December 15, 1998, the Town of Vail adopted the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, which contained site specific
recommendations for the North Day Lot.
• On the Lionshead Core Site (Arrabelle) was approved
which removed the Sunbird Lodge which contained employee housing. A
requirement of the Arrabelle approval was that 124 employee beds
needed to be constructed.
• Over the past several months the Town and Vail Resorts Development
Company have been exploring how to joint locate employee housing and
a transit center on the site. The conclusion was that while these uses
could be jointly located on the site that there was that the Town was not
prepared to invest the resources at this time into a transit facility on this
site.
IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS
The purpose of this section of the memorandum is to clarify the responsibilities of
the Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission, Town
Council, and Staff on the various applications submitted on behalf of Vail Resorts
Development Company.
Exterior Alteration/Modification in the Lionshead Mixed-Use I zone
district
Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the
Planning and Environmental Commission for impacts of use/development
and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed
buildings and site planning.
Planning and Environmental Commission:
Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for
final approval/denial of a Major/Minor Exterior Alteration. The Planning
and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal for compliance
2
with the adopted criteria. The Planning and Environmental Commission's
approval "shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of
improvements including siting, building setbacks, height, building bulk and
mass, site improvements and landscaping."
Design Review Board:
Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Major or
Minor Exterior Alteration, but must review any accompanying Design
Review Board application.
Staff.�
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are
provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning
Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with
the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff inemo containing
background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project
with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation
on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the
review process.
Town Council:
Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental
Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town
Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and
Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals
or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the
board's decision.
V. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS
Staff has provided portions of the Vail Town Code and several master plans
which are relevant to the proposed topics for the review of the proposed
redevelopment proposal.
Zoninq Requlations
Lionshead Mixed Use — 1 Zone District (in part)
12-7H-1: PURPOSE:
The Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district is intended to provide sites for a
mixture of multiple-family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time
shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial
establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone
district, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is
intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities
appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the
desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development
standards. This District is meant to encourage and provide incentives for
redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
This Zone District was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties
to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically
vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this Zone
District include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height,
and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to
create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment
consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the
incentives are created to help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to
redevelopment projects. With any development/redevelopment proposal taking
advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be
evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza
redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements.
12-7H-8: COMPLIANCE BURDEN:
It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design
Review Board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in
compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that
the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a
significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the
proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail
comprehensive plan.
12-7H-18: M/TIGAT/ON OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS:
Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct
impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation
shall bear a reasonab/e relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be
determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of
mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of
redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental
commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits.
Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: roadway
improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements,
stream tract/bank improvements, public art improvements, and similar
improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large
scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site
impacts.
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (in part)
Chapter 2, Introduction
2.1 Purpose of the Master Plan (in parfl
"This master plan was initiated by the Town of Vail to encourage
redevelopment and new development initiatives in the Lionshead
study area. Both public and private interests have recognized that
Lionshead today lacks the economic vitality of Vail and fails to
offer a world class resort experience. Lionshead's economic
potential has been inhibited by a number of recurrent themes:
4
• Lack of growth in accommodation units ("hot beds');
• Poor retail quality;
• Deterioration of existing buildings;
• Uninteresting and disconnected pedestrian environment;
• Mediocre architectural character,� and the
• Absence of incentives for redevelopment.
This master is a comprehensive guide for property owners
proposing to undertake development or redevelopment of their
properties and the municipal officials responsible for planning
public improvements. The plan outlines the Town's objectives and
goals for the enhancement of Lionshead and proposes
recommendation, incentives, and requirements for redevelopment
and new development."
2.2 Definition of a Master Plan
In the development of the Lionshead Master Plan, the following
definition has been used as the basis for this work:
A master plan is a guide, a flexible framework for future action. It
articulates a community's fundamental land use policies,
principles, and goals in a broad and general way. It plans for the
future physical development or redevelopment of an area of the
community, including its functional and circulation systems and its
public facilities.
The land use policies in a master plan are generally implemented
through zoning ordinances. Existing zoning and land use codes
may be modified and new provisions enacted in order to conform
to the master plan and carry out the plan's objectives.
A master plan does not convey approval for particular
development proposals or concepts, nor can it be implemented in
a short time frame. After adoption of the Lionshead Master Plan,
every development proposal will have to go through the applicable
development review and approval process, with its attendant
public notices and public hearings. A proposal's adherence to the
policies contained in the adopted master plan will be one of the
factors analyzed by staff, the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC), the Design Review Board (DRB), and the
Town Council (as applicable) in determining whether to approve or
disapprove the specific proposal.
2.3 Policy Objectives
The Town Council adopted six policy objectives on November 4,
1996 to outline the important issues to be addressed in the master
plan and to provide a policy framework for the master planning
process.
2.3.1 Renewal and Redevelopment
Lionshead can and should be renewed and redeveloped to
become a warmer, more vibrant environment for guests
and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing and
coherent identity, a sense of place, a personality, a
purpose, and an improved aesthetic character.
2.3.2 Vitality and Amenities
We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest
experience and community interaction through expanded
and additional activities and amenities such as performing
arts venues, conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape,
parks and other recreational improvements.
2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds
In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal
and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved
occupancy rates and the creation of additional bed base
(`7ive beds" or "warm beds') through new lodging products.
2.3.4 Improved Access and Circulation
The flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle and mass transit
traffic must be improved within and through Lionshead.
2.3.5 Improved Infrastructure
The infrastructure of Lionshead (streets, walkways,
transportation systems, parking, utilities, loading and
delivery systems, snow removal and storage capacity) and
its public and private services must be upgraded to support
redevelopment and revitalization efforts and to meet the
service expectations of our guests and residents.
2.3. 6 Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits and Public
Revenues
Financially creative and fiscally realistic strategies must be
identified so that adequate capital may be raised from all
possible sources to fund desired private and public
improvements.
Chapter 4, Master Plan Recommendations — Overall Study Area
This section of the master plan addresses issues that affect Lionshead as a
whole. These issues, and recommendations to address them, should be
considered in all planning and policy decisions as Lionshead develops.
6
4.8 Parking
Parking is a critical component in a mixed-use resort environment
such as Lionshead, and any efforts to enhance this component
should adhere to the following goals and guidelines:
a. Parking must be sufficient to meet demand. Correctly
assessing parking demand in an environment such as
Lionshead is difficult but extremely important.
Overestimating parking demand can be as damaging as
underestimating demand due to the extreme expense of
parking space (especially if structured) in a real estate
environment such as the Vail Valley. Likewise, parking is a
large consumer of ground and should be designed to occupy
as little real estate as possible. In tight margin developments
such as mid-range hotels and locals/employee housing, the
expense of parking can be the deciding factor as to the
economic viability of the project. Due to these aftributes of
parking, it is important that true demand, or desired demand,
be distinguished from actual usage. For example, the "free
after three" program currently in place for the Town of Vail
parking structures has undoubtedly increased the usage of
these structures during the evening hours (the Lionshead
structure filled in the evening for the first time in 1998).
However, there has not been a corresponding increase in
sales tax revenue, which was the original intent of "free after
three". (Note- concrete studies regarding the utilization of the
"free after three" program have not been conducted and it is
strongly recommended that this occur if the program is to
continue). It is hypothesized that a significant portion of
people utilizing the free parking program are in fact employees
or people that would have used transit or other means of
access if the parking were not as readily available. In other
words, parking usage often will rise to fill the available space,
but the profile of the user may not be who the parking was
intended for. To be concise, the parking supply in Lionshead
and the Town of Vail needs to not only meet the demand, it
needs to meet the desired demand and should be structured
or programmed in such as way to do so. Parking is important,
but too expensive and land consuming to be provided without
solid reasoning.
a. Parking should be visually inconspicuous. Parking should be
structured below ground whenever possible. Surface parking
areas should be heavily screened with landscaping, berms,
and walls. Expanses of asphalt should be interrupted with
islands of landscaping or replaced with pedestrian quality
paving materials. Surface parking areas should be avoided in
or near the retail pedestrian core area. Although structured
parking may be more desirable visually, it must be properly
designed so as not to detract from the guesYs arrival
experience.
4.9 Housing
Recent community surveys and grass-roots planning efforts such
as Vail Tomorrow have identified the lack of locals housing as the
most critical issue facing the Vail community. Early in the
Lionshead master planning process, west Lionshead was
identified as an opportunity area to implement some of the
community's housing goals, particularly relating to employee
housing. These opportunities and associated issues are outlined
below.
4.9.1 No Net Loss of Employee Housing
Ground rule number five of the master plan states that
there shall be no net loss of employee housing in
Lionshead as redevelopment occurs.
4.9.3 Policy Based Housing Opportunities
The first means of implementing housing goals in
Lionshead is through policy based requirements such as
the employee generation ordinance currently being
pursued by the Vail Town Council. As required by a future
ordinance, all development and redevelopment projects,
as a prerequisite to project approval, should provide
housing for emp/oyees generated and to the extent
possible this housing should be located in the Lionshead
area.
Insert site specific recommendations here.
Vail Land Use Plan
The Vail Land Use Plan was adopted by the Vail Town Council on November 18,
1986. The plan is intended to serve as a basis from which future decisions may
be made regarding land use within the valley. The primary focus of the Vail Land
Use Plan is to address the long-term needs and desires of the Town as it
matures. The Town of Vail has evolved from a small ski resort founded in 1962
with approximately 190,000 annual skier visits and virtually no permanent
residents to a community with 4,500 permanent residents. The Town is faced
with the challenge of creatively accommodating the increase in permanent
residency as well as the increase in skier visits, while preserving the important
qualities that have made Vail successful. This is a considerable challenge, given
the fact that land within the Valley is a well-defined finite resource, with much of
the land already developed at this juncture. The Vail Land Use Plan was
undertaken with the goal of addressing this challenge in mind.
A secondary purpose of the Vail Land Use Plan was to analyze a series of
properties owned by the Town of Vail, to determine their suitability for various
types of community facilities.
The goals articulated in the plan reflect the desires of the citizenry. The goal
statements that were developed reflect a general consensus of the comments
shared at public meetings. The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to
be used as the Town's adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new
development proposals.
According to the Official Town of Vail Land Use Plan map, the applicant's
proposed redevelopment site is located with the "Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan" land use category. Pursuant to the Plan, the "Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan" land use category description,
"Included in this category are those properties which are identified as
being included in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan boundaries.
Properties located within this land use category shall be encouraged to
redevelop, per the Master Plan recommendations, as it has been found
that it is necessary in order for Vail to remain a competitive four-season
resort. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a
safe, convenient and an aesthetically-pleasing guest experience. The
range of uses and activities appropriate in the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan (LRMP) land use category may include skier and resort
services, ski lifts, ski trails, base facilities, public restrooms, ticket sales,
clubs, public plazas, open spaces, parking and loading/delivery
facilities/structures, public utilities, residential, lodges, accommodation
units, deed restricted employee housing, retail businesses, professional
and business offices, personal services, and restaurant uses."
VI. ZONING ANALYSIS
Address/Legal Description: 600 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead Filing 3
Parcel Size: 1.09 acre (47,480.4 sq. ft.)
Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1
Land Use Designation: Linshead Redevelopment Master Plan
Development Standard Allowed Existin Proposed
Lot Area:
Setbacks All Sides
Building Height:
Density:
GRFA:
Site Coverage:
10,000 sq. ft. 47,480.4 sq. ft.
10 ft. NA
71 ft. avg. NA
82.5 ft. max
DUs (35/ac.) — 38 NA
EHUs (unlimited) NA
118,701 sq. ft. NA
33,236 sq. ft.
(70%)
9
NA
47,480.4 sq. ft.
North - 30 ft.
East- 10 ft.
West- 11 ft.
South- 12 ft.
70.8 ft. avg.
70.8 ft. max
NA
34 units
NA
12,919 sq. ft.
(27.0%)
Landscape Area
Parking:
9,496 sq. ft. (20%)
1.4 (1.4/EHU)
NA
105 spaces
17,435 sq. ft. (37%)
45 EHUs
(27 enclosed 60%)
9 skier drop-off
34 excess*
Loading 1 berth NA 1 berths
* The 34 excess parking spaces will serve as private parking for Vail Resorts.
VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Land Use
North: Interstate
South: Residential
East: Residential
West: Residential
VIII. CRITERIA
Zonina
NA
Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, outlines the review
criteria for major exterior alteration applications proposed within the Lionshead
Mixed Use 1(LMU-1) zone district. According to Section 12-7H-8, Vail Town
Code, a major exterior alteration shall be reviewed for compliance with the
following criteria:
That the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the
purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district;
Staff Response:
The purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district are stated in
Section 12-7H-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code. As stated, the Lionshead
Mixed Use 1 zone district is intended to provide sites within the area of
Lionshead for a mixture of multiple-family dwellings, hotels, fractional fee
clubs, restaurants, skier services and commercial/retail establishments.
The development standards prescribed for the district were established to
provide incentives for development in accordance with the goals and
objectives of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. In reviewing
the proposed Strata amendments to the approved development plan for
compliance with the expressed purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use-1
zone district, staff finds that the amended major exterior alteration
application complies with the intent of the zone district. The applicant is
proposing to develop 51 dwelling units, 16 time share units, 12 lodge
dwelling units, 8 lock-offs, one (1) employee housing unit, and 7,117
gross square feet of commercial. In conjunction with this combination of
uses the applicant is proposing several amenities such as lobby and front
desk, pool and hot tub, meeting room, and laundry service to encourage
the incorporation of as many units into a rental pool as possible.
10
Staff has reviewed the Strata proposal and found it to be in compliance
with the requirements of Resolution No. 4, Series of 2007. Section V of
this memorandum contains, in full, the portions of Resolution No. 4,
Series of 2007, which pertain to the redevelopment of the Lionshead Inn
and Lionshead Inn Annex.
Staff believes this proposed Strata development complies with this
criterion.
That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan;
Staff response:
Staff has performed a review of the proposed amendments to the
approved major exterior alteration for compliance with the development
requirements of the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 district. In Section VI of this
memorandum staff performed a zoning analysis of the project with
regards to the development parameters of the Lionshead Mixed Use-1
district. Within this analysis staff determined that the project is in
compliance with the development parameters for setbacks, height,
density, GRFA, site coverage, and landscape area.
That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative
effect on the character of the neighborhood; and,
Staff Response:
Staff has reviewed the proposed Strata amended major exterior alteration
application and found that the proposed changes to not affect the bulk,
mass, and height of the structure as approved, therefore Staff believes
that for the same reasons presented at the initial approval the project is in
compliance with this criterion.
Those reasons were that Staff believed that the proposed major exterior
alteration will result in some effects on the character of the neighborhood
as the Strata project will be larger in terms of bulk, mass, and height than
the two structures which exist currently. However, the project is in
conformance with the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district and the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the impacts that this project
were anticipated in the adoption of the zoning and the Master Plan.
Furthermore the grades/contours beneath the existing Lionshead Inn,
which is constructed upon an elevated portion of the site, will be greatly
reduced from what exists and the proposed structure in this area of the
site will be less in overall height than the existing structure. Staff does not
believe there are any significant negative effects on the character of the
neighborhood.
11
4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable
elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Response:
Staff has reviewed the proposed Strata amended major exterior alteration
application and found that the proposed changes to impact the applicable
elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, therefore Staff believes that for
the same reasons presented at the initial approval the project is in
compliance with this criterion.
Those reasons were that Staff had reviewed the Vail Comprehensive
Plan to determine which elements of the Plan apply to the review of the
proposed Strata project. Upon review of the Plan, staff has determined
that the following elements of the Plan apply:
• Transportation Master Plan (adopted 1993)
• Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (adopted 1998)
• Art in Public Places Strategic Plan (adopted 2001)
With regard to the Transportation Master Plan the applicant provided the
Public Works Department with traffic studies and roadway designs which
have been reviewed and addressed. Staff has attached a memorandum
from Tom Kassmel, the Town engineer dated October 1, 2007, for review
by the Commission (Attachment E). In this memorandum several
comments and conditions of approval are identified by the Town Engineer.
The comments and conditions identified by the Town Engineer require
addressing at later stages of the development review process. Most
specifically, the project will be assessed a fee of $273,000 to mitigate
traffic impacts associated by the increase in peak hour trips that this
development will create. These funds will go towards traffic improvements
in the vicinity of the project.
To address the Art in Public Places Strategic Plan the applicant proposed
to provide a minimum of $70,000 of public art in conjunction with
development of Strata. Staff reviewed the proposal and found it to be
comparable to the public art contributions of other redevelopment projects
in Lionshead. The proposed art will be reviewed by the Art In Public
Places Board.
Overall, staff believes that the applicant has proven by a preponderance of
the evidence that the proposed amended major exterior alteration is in
compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district,
that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise
have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood,
and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements
of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the
major exterior alteration application, the Commission makes the following finding
as part of the motion:
12
"Pursuant to Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, the
applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence before the
Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board
that the proposed amended major exterior alteration is in compliance with
the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that the proposal
is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant
negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal
substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan."
IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, the request for final
review of an amended major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7,
Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the
redevelopment of the Lionshead Inn and Lionshead Inn Annex (Strata), located
at 701 and 705 West Lionshead Circle/parts of Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead
Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is
based upon the review of the major exterior alteration review criteria outlined in
Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented at
the public hearing.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the
amended major exterior alteration and conditional use permit as recommended;
Staff recommends that the Commission makes the following finding as part of the
motion and findings:
"Pursuant to Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, the
applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence before the
Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed major exterior
alteration and conditional use permit is in compliance with the purposes of
the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district, that the proposal is consistent
with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect
on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially
complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. "
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the
amended major exterior alteration as submitted by the applicant, staff
recommends that the following conditions be placed on the approval:
For Desiqn Review
1) That the Developer receives final review and approval of the proposed
development plan by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to
making an application for the issuance of a building permit.
13
2) That the Developer work with the Staff and Design Review Board to
satisfactorily address the items identified in Jeff Winston's letter date
October 6, 2007.
Prior to Submittinq for Buildinq Permits
3) That the Developer submits a complete set of civil engineered drawings of
the Approved Development Plans including the required off site
improvements, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department
for review and approval of the drawings, prior to making application for the
issuance of a building permit for the Strata improvements.
4) That the Developer shall address all the comments and conditions
identified in the memorandum from the Town Engineer dated October 1,
2007, (Attachment E) on the plans submitted in conjunction with building
permits.
Prior to Requestinq a Temporarv Certificate of Occupancv
5) That the Developer prepares a Strata Art in Public Places Plan for input
and comment by the Town of Vail Art in Public Places Board, prior to the
request for a temporary certificate of occupancy. Subject to the above
input and comment by the Art in Public Places Board, the Applicant will
determine the type and location of the art to be provided. Said Plan shall
include the funding for a minimum of $70,000.00 in public art
improvements to be developed in conjunction with the Strata project.
6) That the Developer provides the legally executed and duly recorded Type
IV deed restriction with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office for
the on-site employee housing unit, and that said unit shall be made
available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of
occupancy for the Strata project.
7) That the developer records the appropriate deed restrictions and provides
them to the Town of Vail Housing Coordinator for the off-site employee
housing units per the submitted Strata Vail Housinp Plan dated revised
May 12, 2008. Furthermore, any excess square footage shall go into a
"bank" for future expansions or land use changes that occur within the
Strata development.
8) That the Developer shall be assessed a transportation impact fee in the
amount of $6,500 per increased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated
(42 trips), or $273,000, created by the Strata project. The total fee of
$273,000 shall be paid in full by the Developer prior to the issuance of a
temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy for the
Strata project. At the sole discretion of the Town of Vail Public Works
Director, said fee may be waived in full, or part, based upon the
completion of certain off-site improvements.
X. ATTACHMENTS
14
A. Vicinity Map
B. Document describing the project entitled North Day Lot Employee Housinp
dated revised November 10, 2008
C. Copy of proposed plans dated , 2008
D. Memorandum from the Public Works Department dated ,
2008
E. Public Notice
1�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 26, 2009
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 previous Planning and
Environmental Commission public hearings. Furthermore, the applicant and Staff will
continue the 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. 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 February 9, 2009.
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
continue to explore the proposed Frontage Road relocation and the changes made in
response to comments made by the Planning and Environmental Commission at its
December 22, 2008 and January 12, 2009, public hearings with regard to the questions
and concerns regarding the relocation of the South Frontage Road. 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:
An extensive site visit to the future Ever Vail development to revisit the location of
the proposed South Frontage Road and its impacts. A tour of retaining walls
within the community and a drive of the Frontage Road to see the multiple
conditions which exist currently between the Interstate and the Frontage road.
A presentation by the Ever Vail Team depicting a revised design for the South
Frontage Road relocation which takes into account many of the comments made
by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council.
A presentation by Staff regarding the input provided by the Town Council at their
January 20, 2009, public hearing regarding a presentation on several topics
regarding the South Frontage Road relocation.
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.
On December 22, 2008, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public
hearing at which the presentation and discussion focused on the proposed design for the
Frontage Road realignment. Discussion included the Simba Run underpass, retaining
walls, median planter design, etc.
On January 7, 2009, the Design Review Board held a public hearing at which the
presentation and discussion focused on the proposed design for the Frontage Road
realignment. Discussion focused on the retaining walls, bridge verse culvert crossing of
the creek, and roadway design. The comments resulted in the majority of the Board
agreeing that the retaining walls should be as low as possible, however, through the use
of a textured stone and a detail like pilasters that the walls could likely be mitigated. The
Board agreed that unless there was a large greenspace between the road and the walls
that the effects of snow plowing would negatively affect any landscaping beyond grass in
these areas. The Board thought the use of a culvert bridge to cross the creek was a
good proposal so long as a stone with texture and a detail like pilasters was
incorporated. The Board was split on the need for a 10-foot bike lane on the north side
of the proposed road and whether or not some portion should be incorporated into a
greenspace between the roads and the walls. A concern about the long term costs of
incorporating a raised planter as the median was raised with regard to plow damage.
On January 12, 2009, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public
hearing at which a model was shown depicting the proposed South Frontage Road
relocation. The presentation also included several exhibits created by the Town
Engineer to illustrate several options which were possible to incorporate into the design
to decrease the impact of the proposed retaining walls and prepare for a future Simba
Run underpass. The outcome of this meeting was that there was concern expressed
about the retaining wall impacts, some debate over the need and impacts of the Simba
Run underpass, and a request for Staff to speak with the ownership of the Glen Lyon
Office Building.
On January 20, 2009, the Town Council heard a presentation by Staff regarding the
South Frontage Road relocation. In that presentation Staff requested Council's input on
Staff's recommendation on four specific topics related to the South Frontage Road
relocation. Those recommendations were as follows:
• The final design of the proposed South Frontage Road must address the
present traffic needs of the community (ie, LOS, design, access points,
aesthetics, etc) while at the same time not precluding potential long-term
needs of the community
• The proposed South Frontage Road must be designed to minimize the
negative impacts of the retaining walls (height & length) and to ensure
adequate areas for snow storage and removal.
• The proposed South Frontage Road alignment must accommodate and
include the construction of the south roundabout of the Simba Run
underpass.
• The applicant is proposing a combination of right of way and easements to
accommodate the proposed South Frontage Road improvements (ie, curb
and gutter, road lanes, medians, sidewalks, bicycle paths, snow storage, road
maintenance, etc.) This approach differs from all other portions of the
frontage road throughout Town. With that in mind, the proposed South
Frontage Road shall accommodate adequate setbacks for the proposed
future buildings and land uses consistent with the Town's development
objectives, adequate areas for landscaping and buffering of the adjacent
buildings and uses, adequate pedestrian/bicycle circulation improvements
consistent with existing Town standards and established systems, and
adequate areas set aside for public transit improvements (ie, bus stops, bus
shelters etc).
The Town Council expressed their support of Staff's recommendation for the first three
recommendations and requested a future presentation regarding the pros and cons of
rights-of-way and easements for the Frontage Road relocation.
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 at this work session.
The applicant and Staff request that the Commission tables this application to its
February 9, 2009, public hearing.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
January 12, 2009
�. 1:OOpm
�w�r�FU� �
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT
Bill Pierce
Rollie Kjesbo
David Viele
Susie Tjossem
Sarah Paladino arrived at 1:08
Michael Kurz
Scott Proper
MEMBERS ABSENT
15 Minutes
Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a
request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 39, Crossroads, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10,
Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved building
plans for Solaris increasing commercial floor area, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P,
Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080075)
Applicant: Solaris Property Owner, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
Planner: Warren Campbell
Staff gave a presentation per the letter discussing Staff's approval.
There was no presentation from the applicant.
There was no public comment.
The Commissioners expressed their support for Staff's approval of the minor amendment. They
did not find it necessary to call up the action.
60 Minutes
2. 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/George Ruther
ACTION: Tabled to January 26, 2009
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 7-0-0
Staff gave a presentation per the staff inemorandum.
Tom Miller, representing Vail Resorts, provided a presentation including a digital model of the
Frontage Road relocation as it is proposed. The model exhibited the proposed extent and height
of the retaining walls, median design, and roundabout design.
Page 1
Gary Wordley, Landscape Architect, with Landworks Design, representing the applicant,
discussed then presented four options that were created in response to comments and concerns
provided by the Commission at the December 22nd hearing. He stated that the options were not
trying to solve a single issue, but were attempting to balance several elements. Within the four
options Option 1 is the wall as presented previously, but formatted differently to more clearly
identify wall height and the extent of the differing wall heights.
Commissioner Paladino stated that she believed the information regarding the retaining walls
was incorrect.
Mr. Wordley explained how the table was exhibiting the information.
Commissioner Paladino stated that the portions of the distance of the relocated Frontage road
without walls should be eliminated from wall calculations as it is skewing the data.
Mr. Wordley said it would be eliminated. He then went on to elaborate on Option 2 which
showed a raised median per a comment made by the Commission at the December 22, hearing.
He stated that raising the median will protect the plantings. There are some types of trees that
won't work because over time, they won't fit in the median. He continued by describing Option 3
which looked at the possibility of eliminating the 10-foot bike lane on the North Frontage Road.
In this design there would be the CDOT required 6-foot shoulder, but no bike lane. This would
result in a 9.5-foot area of landscaping between the wall and shoulder. Without a bike lane,
there could be plantings in front of the retaining wall. In this option the retaining walls are the
same height, however a foot of the base would be buried to create positive drainage thus
resulting in one less foot of exposed wall height. He concluded by describing Option 4 which
reduces wall heights by raising the grade of the proposed Frontage Road while maintaining the
elevation of the bridge, access to the Glen Lyon Office Building (GLOB), and the elevation of the
Simba Run underpass. This option eliminates all the retaining walls east of the proposed bridge
and reduces the height of the walls west of the bridge with smaller portions measuring 10 to 12
feet in height.
Commissioner Kurz stated the he believes there needs to be landscaping in front of the
proposed walls to reduce the impact of the height. .
Commissioner Pierce asked about the connection between the Frontage Road and the GLOB.
Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, stated that Staff has brought some sketches which will help
explain the grade changes.
Commissioner Pierce stated that it would make a big difference to the height and impact of the
retaining walls to raise the grade of the Frontage Road.
Mr. Miller pointed out the extent of the tallest portion of retaining wall. He added that access to
the GLOB and to the creek are essential.
Commissioner Pierce stated that the retaining wall could get shorter if you change the access to
the GLOB.
Commissioner Viele stated that it was a legal requirement to keep access to the GLOB site from
proposed relocated Frontage Road through the Ever Vail site.
Page 2
Mr. Kassmel stated that if the GLOB access stays at existing, there is an 8% grade with straight
shot to GLOB. This meets Town Code but 8% is teeper than ideal for the proposed traffic
roundabout located just east of the proposed parking structure.
Mr. Miller stated that Option 4 raises the road while providing access to the GLOB and adequate
cross slope in the roundabout.
Commissioner Tjossem asked whether raising the road will improve grades which were a
concern she expressed previously with regard to the approach to the proposed Simba Run
underpass.
Mr. Miller stated that it does reduce the grades fo the relocated Frontage Road.
Commissioner Pierce asked what the roundabout east of the proposed parking structure would
serve.
Mr. Miller said it is similar to the entry area to Cascade Village, where it will serve many functions
of the site, including transportation center, skier drop off, shuttle drop off, etc.
Commissioner Tjossem said with it being legally required to maintain access to the GLOB, would
you have one access to GLOB or would the new access to the west end of the property replace
the access?
Mr. Miller responded that the GLOB will have its own access exactly where it is today.
Commissioner Kurz asked if this is the highest elevation the Frontage Road could be raised.
Mr. Miller stated that to respond the fixed elevations of the bridge, GLOB access, and Simba
Run it was the maximum it could be raised.
Mr. Kassmel then presented several exhibits which he created in response to questions and
concerns raised at the December 22, hearing. His exhibits would show what Staff found if the
grade of the relocated Frontage Road was raised. He stated that his exhibits solely looked at the
best case scenario for design the Frontage Road with the least possible amount of retaining
walls and minimal height of retaining walls. In his exhibits the walls east of the bridge could
easily be removed to match the existing grade. Furthermore his exhibits showed that a large
portions of the retaining walls west of the bridge could be eliminated and by locating the "hinge"
point of beginning to flare the Frontage Road out to align with the future Simba Run underpass
resulted in a greater distance being created between the Interstate and the Frontage Road thus
allowing for the tiering of retaining walls.
Commissioner Kurz asked that if the Frontage Road grade is raised, is one story taken off the
buildings?
Mr. Miller stated that the grades would need to be reexamined, but yes, one story could be taken
off.
Mr. Kassmel stated that one of the benefits of the exhibits he created was that if it works
together, the roundabout will allow for ease in vehicular movement into the GLOB and proposed
parking structure.
Commissioner Viele asked how the Town could design a solution which impacted another
entity's property?
Page 3
Mr. Kassmel stated that staff was just examining all the possibilities and of course agreement
from the GLOB would be necessary.
Commissioner Pierce stated that in the long run, all of this could benefit all of the property
owners.
Mr. Miller stated that based on Tom Kassmel's drawing, the applicant has not had a chance to
review and determine the impacts to the proposed redevelopment. If it is the direction from the
Commission to follow Staff's suggestions they will need more time to respond.
Commissioner Pierce said the Frontage Road will always be there. The design should be
designed around the best alignment for the Frontage Road. In the long run, the Frontage Road
will be there and will impact a great deal of the community.
Commissioner Proper stated that a great deal of information was provided and that he needed
time to absorb it before responding.
Commissioner Viele stated that this is a difficult discussion because he is close to GLOB
ownership and on the Water District Board. He suggested that if anyone thought he should
recuse he would do so. (Mr. Miller stated he did not believe a recuse was necessary) He stated
that solving the Frontage Road design is paramount. He feels strongly about access to GLOB
and the Simba Run underpass location. He doesn't necessarily agree with the need for a Simba
Run underpass, but this is the direction he's been given. He is concerned about wall height and
the effect of creating a canyon. He would like to see what Vail Resorts wants, which Tom Miller
responded with Option 4.
Commissioner Kjesbo stated that as he looks at the various options he is worried about how you
get the snow out of there. It does look like a canyon with 12-13 foot high walls. If we could raise
Frontage Road more, it might help. Raising the grade of the Frontage Road will help with snow
removal due to the matching of grade between the Interstate and the Frontage Road.
Commissioner Tjossem stated that the community would be concerned about the walls
associated with underpass and feels that this was not clearly identified when it was determined
that Simba Run underpass should be constructed. The community likes the openness. The
underpass is causing implications that the community is not going to appreciate. She would like
to know what the town council and the community would think.
Mr. Kassmel added that the walls have impacts. With regard to walls, the Simba Run underpass
is not causing the walls. The relocation of the Frontage Road at the proposed grade is what is
causing the walls. If you did not relocate Frontage Road, you could build Simba Run with
minimal walls. It would look like the underpass going to East Vail by Aspen Lane. It does have
impacts to the South side, with the creek, which is why they looked at the change in location.
Access to the creek and better access to GLOB is causing the walls.
Commissioner Paladino stated that she believed another site visit was warranted with the greater
level of understanding about the Frontage Road from the work sessions. She also stated that
the Town should coordinate getting the GLOB, Vail Resorts, and Staff together to discuss the
GLOB access. The DRB comments made her rethink her position. The walls make this urban.
Commissioner Kurz stated that the walls are not the big issue. He said looking at the location of
the proposed buildings on the south side of the Frontage Road was his concern. The buildings
are very close to the back of the sidewalk along the proposed Frontage Road design. This
increases the backside feeling of the project. The canyonization is not because of the walls, but
Page 4
because of the height of the buildings in relationship to the pedestrian walkway. The dimension
and width of the entire boulevard does not look enjoyable. The long frontages on the buildings,
which is apparent on the 3D model, show vast lengths of building. The horizontal mass is
affecting his perception, not the height. He said the only relief is straight up. The height of the
roadway, the facades and the backside of the facades, all factor into his feeling of canyonization.
This is not the best job we can do. We are creating practical problems with steep grades. Fire
trucks will not want to have such steep grades.
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Homeowners Association, stated that he finds the terminology
being used in the discussion interesting. Last time we saw a rural village was 1968, with
Lionshead setting the urban tone that has not changed. We have been successful with
urbanization modulating itself so it has a character without massive boxes fronting the
transportation corridor. We are the most urban ski resort in the world. We will probably become
more urban because we are not willing to sacrifice densities. He said he hears compromises
between Town Staff and the applicant, and is glad to hear that both parties want to continue the
conversation. There are ways to avoid monolithic walls, with the interstate in East Vail showing
ways to sculpt walls, so the wall is not affronting. If the Simba Run underpass is not built, the
community will have gridlock. We can make decisions that will make it more expensive in the
future to build the Simba Run underpass but, in the future, we will be a more urban community.
We need to be less selfish and go along with the givens about Simba Run underpass. If the
grades can be reconciled, with heated streets, etc, the idea of a roundabout with the
transportation center is essential. The thing we are not doing well is that there is no
comprehensive plan for skier drop-off, mass transportation terminals. The thing that makes a
city work is traffic flow. He discussed super capacity skier drop off. We are limiting our capacity
to handle visitor and local traffic by not doing our jobs to recognize that we are doing a bad job at
making this place work. We have to back off from selfishness about making our neighborhoods
work from a traffic standpoint.
Mr. Miller responded to Paladino, saying the PEC needs to go on another site visit. He said the
goal is to mitigate I-70 for their development, and all development south. Option 1 is what VRDC
wants, however, they are willing to do Option 4. Town of Vail wants no walls at all. There needs
to be compromise. They have a legal obligation to GLOB to provide access. This will not change
anytime soon. Vertical or horizontal separation from I-70 will help the development and creek
use.
Commissioner Pierce asked if George Ruther, Director of Community Development, could
orchestrate a meeting between VR, Town, and GLOB to discuss compromise.
Commissioner Paladino asked for a cross section from the Frontage Road to East Lionshead
Circle in the proximity of the bus stop. She stated that this would help her better understand
what is being discussed and proposed.
Commissioner Pierce stated that there is a strong commitment from the Commission to have the
Frontage Road be the primary determinant.
Mr. Miller said that the building heights on the west side are concerning. Staff could determine
that the heights are ok, but the feeling going forward is that the building steps down. It does that
currently. You are seeing bulk and mass now, but not full articulations int eh model. There is a
lot of play with landscaping, per the LRMP guidelines. There is more relief than shown on the
model.
Greg Hall stated that if the only goal was to minimize retaining walls, there are only a few issues.
However, there are several aspects which need to be balanced. There is a balance between
Page 5
north/south and up/down that will work for everyone. Are any areas more important than others?
If the Commission has more direction with what is most important, then let us know.
Mr. Miller said VRDC said Option 1 and 2 are preferred because they have been working on it
and it meets all standards. His compromise position is Option 4, but need to understand impacts
of what the Town is suggesting before further comment.
Commissioner Tjossem asked for some examples around Town of wall heights in relation to
Frontage Road.
Mr. Ruther stated that the next site visit will be very extensive.
30 Minutes
3. 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 LoY', 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: Tabled to January 26, 2009
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 7-0-0
30 Minutes
4. 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: Tabled to January 26, 2009
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 7-0-0
5 Minutes
5. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish 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 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
ACTION: Tabled to January 26, 2009
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 7-0-0
5 Minutes
6. 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
Page 6
second floor and above, located at 250 South Frontage
Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: HCT Development, represented by TJ Brink
Planner: Rachel Friede
ACTION: Table to February 9, 2009
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Tjossem
7. Approval of December 22, 2008 minutes
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Paladino
8. Information Update
9. Adjournment
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino
Road West/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail
(PEC080033, PEC080072)
VOTE: 7-0-0
VOTE: 6-0-1 (Kjesbo abstained)
VOTE: 7-0-0
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The
public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the
Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional
information.
Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970)
479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published January 9, 2009, in the Vail Daily.
Page 7
•
•
_
� .
•
•
• •
•
•.
� •
� �--+ ti-i •—� Vj
ftj Q CCS �j
b�A
Q � � � �
� � O �
c�d rn U N v�i
� � � � �
+'.t�"- b `� � "C7
� � . � .� cc3
E-� ^d � � �"'
�
�, '� � _o a�
:~ ° a -� �
�s o � '-N
Q���o
� p '''' � ^'
� .� � �
� � � � �
��b�b
�� �� �
� cd� �' � �
Wa--' �'
.,F �+-� O y..i i�-�
��.+ � � '� �
� �''� f,., �
X 'b
� O U � �
� U ^CJ � ,.�-�
� � � � �
� � � � �
4�,� p � �n
� N Q'' •'� -�"
�' � � � �
� :� y V �
� '.� y cd
� � � O �
F--� 'Ci ,L7 V '3
� � � �`�, �
r�-+ � � � 'd
cs.d t'�' � �' �
N � � � .�
��O � ��
,—�i � ;b .� "C�
�� �
� � � �
� � � � G
�
O
`n . '��" �' O
O b � `.d c�/]
'd � • N O ..-.
�i .� � �� a�i
� �'� �b
°�o��ti
� � '� �° ° -°�'
a� a�
Q3��'��
�� �
��'�w��
�-� �; - -
�ro� ��E '�
�_ m >
� w
a�
O D,T :Qy C � ..
y
�
"C
i�r
O
O
�
d
�
C
�
�
�
�
s,
�
R�
O
�
b
�
�
�
Lr
�
..�
�
�
�
C�
O
�
"CJ
�
C�JD
C
�
�
b
cC
bA
�
"C!
�
�
�
u
ctY p
� �
� �y
�a
�
Aa
y
a�
a� �
Hx
,, �.. O . �:,.
�.:�.'.O .��:.: �:.
,....�.N .��..'.
:��.��, ���::.�::
� 'Y
:,..`..,� �.:�-:
..:::::� ��.�.:'
NN,�.� '�
....mNO�. �.L]
�
:��n o�m a :' a
;b
CSS
�
4-i
O
�
�
�
.L
�
�
a�
U
.�
'd
�
�
�
0
�
O
_U
�
i�r
�
cc!
.��"
�
cb
a'�-+
G
�
�
O
O
N
�
H
'd
�
td
"C)
�
�
�
�
Q
b
�
�
�
0
�
�
�
.�
�
�;
0
0
N
�
r�i
^C7
�
�
b
�
�
�,
�
�
O
O
N
�
�
ti
�
0
c�
-�
�
N
N
�
Y
�
�
.fi
F
�
�
�
.r_;
4-�
O
�
�
�
�
-�
.�
N
0
ti
�
N
c�
�
�
"ri
N
N
�
.�t"-+
'�
�
O
O
v
�
0
�
�
C/)
�
c�
w
�
0
�
O
v
�
N
�
�
ccl
.�
�
�
�
N
�
cd
�
H
�
�
.�
0
�
�
�
�
b
a�
�
�
�
�
�
O
O
N
c�
�
ti
�
0
�
b
�
��1 � p��� �
� � O
� � �
� � Q` .
��d STP����.��
.�
�
a
�
z
�--1
r-I
O
N
�
Lw
�
�
�
z
�
.�
�
�
0
.�
�
.�
0
U
�
a
�
�
¢p�°v
Zm�iD.. a
W��
QO�'
UVc
Z �
z
Z
a
¢ �
mw`o
a0°
=VU
jW=
��
Om°
¢
=a �
o LL
n
t�/�
m
�
�
�
�
o> �
�`w¢°
tnf.- m
v�
�
z�., ,�. �.,
�
� A
� �
0
� 0
aU
00
G=, W
� �
� �
W
�
W
�I
O
H
�
O
doom�
��° --_
__ ~EmH
_�Uju�a^
'_��OC ' _t6`�i
�V���y-4
_ - o+� ° o:E o
_ vi�„°,o� m_�a
�=J 3''�
��:oo�
m�E>9�`_.a o ..
� �- m= Q'o=�s•�. 1-
3 m�.�"z- � �`o> °-' O
jaa°��'�:==g� O
v.�
�m �'n.mV1 �Ernt @�Z N
oo_ m�o.m�mc�2z
��'° .'=.�y�00
v¢A�N°occ �FF
���ir==`�U�E°Qa¢�
�' � O � cC
Q N C � N
��o��
� rn U N �
��� � a�i
.� ^O � y ,�
� C�C � .�.� �
H -°v >' o �
�
�o�oa�
Cy '�, U
CC '
.� O O
Q� �.�
C
w ?� �
.� Q � � �
> �' � .-� a�i
� � a � ......
,�cn-ow-v
4, � � °' �
o �n >, � a�
� � � o �
> w o � ,a°�i
y o �•� a�
� � .� p, �
� � �
K 'L1
� � � N �
y0" U .� C �
� � � � .
� Y � � .�
4; . � � 3 °.
.���;�
Q' � C � w.
� . � V N
� � � � C l .
�
�
,� -o ,� � 3
� c�0 y � C
� � � � '�
4" p, �' �' �
a�� � 3 � .�
3 � � � .0
�a�b�b
�����
�, 3 0 .�
o � Y � �
v' � o �
a�
o-o �.� �,
'O �•N O•
vi � y �� N
w, ' � �
� Cl. '� CL 'O
o �, � c� c�
� ��° o o �°
� w
O Q" � ?? c,�j �
Q���'o�
�r c � w c �
�,� ° 3 � m c�_ _
s -
�`�Y E ii � �
wU= C9L
_- - �
oy?og"�'^Na
� o, a
E�,-m.'G�3jm _
oo>LEi°aj� m
;.o o,�_ w
W���t�°�� a =
m`n'� E 3 0 o a n�
--='000mt = � �
-_'_' - �°nU >
_ U
��`�`'�°o`o= 2Jy Z
mo � o, ._ g❑ o
�awst�°�c� �
� - N
���_o?�m����`Z=
�m m3� u`V�-``cFF
°nN='- - �'w
ma camu,-�adaaaf
�
O
'C
�
L
0
O
U
L
�
'O
C
0
on
c
a
L
v
Q.
0
�
a
0
�
.�
L
w
�
C
O
�
�
a�
CD
C
�
>
a
C�
�
CA
�
"O
a�
c.
�
�
�
�a
C fl
� �
� �>
�O
A �'
'� �
, �
v �
F� x
4--i
O
�
�
a
A
�'
>
N
4..
0
a�
a
.�
�
c
a�
�
�
m
�
�
a�
a�
�
�
'�
N
�
�
�
a.
�
3
�
�
�
.�
�
>
'O
�
O
a�
U
.o
�
c�
bU
�
'O
N
x
GJ
C
a
�
a�
�
�
�
H
.�
�
3
a�
�
0
�
'O
c�
w
0
c
0
tC
U
�
�
u.
�
a�
�
�
"O
�
c�
C
O
.�
N
.�
N
>
�
U
�
�
0
U
4-�
O
'�
O
.�
a�
u.
N
�
w
a`"i
a.
c�
f-1.
3
a�
�
>,
.�
"O
�
m
�
_�`c�osmerdcad �
3L^ro%L�gS`omc .4
a�'
'a>ocm_a��� i �
i003°cm93'O�t y ¢
09.�0 �°Ne° � �
_ - _a2P�oUO, `o
� � �.' _ = n L?
� � m o o - - - .-. _
v,.� m � � lu
YE.�"m �i�vo°�O� O
3o�=tmj�� �gy m >
� 3^:� U�
-�, o- ¢° � cw¢� � i
c"3`°� LEa=g= O
� n ° �" _
u� = J -0-'=_d>o� w
- _ - m `� '� � _: C� UI
��=�9a��`ro°°�°4�Fo
t°� a°U m>`v;�%r�°E �aa�
'O
c�
w
0
N
�
.�
�
�
G
�
3
N
U
O
�
b
ro
w
0
�
0
�
�
Cl.
c�d
�
�
�
�
�
CC
�
0
0
N
M
N
'O
�
c�
�
N
�.
�
a.
a3i
�
'O
�
w
0
v
�
.�
a�
�
O�
0
0
N
M
N
�
'O
�
CC
�o
i
u.
�
�l.
3
a�
�
�
0
0
N
�
�
�
a�
w
w
0
�
cC
'O
�
�
�
b
c
�
�
�
�
N
N
�
�
�
w
O
�
N
�
3
�
G
3
�
�
0
w
L
�
�
�
�
c�
�
_�m�� _ i
� � � = Y
�r
� p�-j m
° m o_
3.=>mLc
°ca`on'"
m _
�t �� m-
E.'_"m 9�� ` a
0��0 � w�E A..
n-N-c.°�.'oi�ai7 2�
_ - E�¢° mr n �°, oZ
_-- -�a°���0
- � � � m > ' � o - � w
� ° Eo °o> c@�-y
_���-°t����Q .=z
fvo> ma'oo �s=s �FF
�r-acn°c��m� `�d" 3aa�
�
M
�
O
'v
�
O
O
U
�
0
�
�
�
�
�
�
W
w
0
�
a
0
U
�
�
w
"O
�
cC
.�
U
�
�
CS.
�
0
�
[C
ai
�
w
N
�
0
O
3
�
'O
a
c�
�
a�
�
.�
U
�
�
�
==m'o�o�3^ f ' J
»_ja�_��dm
�t>„i9°>^i�i0-
_=.VE�%����E� E
ocN���tw� �m a o
� E o Ea ° > a� _
��a�,;°c°v>Na.-� w ..�
ciD� -�a�c_� Oc r
°�1O - ° �w
��� - m_ E z r E C`�-
qo�ory-N c`°im,° _ a
� ° Ea mii�
m b-�a�=m m= F¢�g°
-_NwN=___-aR^ �ZFO
���o�_Ey�y�':S�- N
�mmno,°.o°hEE-m"°'`p0
�NO=o16�m+�i°o6Va:cFF
�>a°>�-mo an� aa vaaf
��'C Z Op� ,�*
6�
Q � O�
� � U
Z 0�
<
!'bd s�P��.r�
�
0
O
N
U
�
�
a
�
0
z
�
�
0
N
�
i.
�
�
�
>
0
z
�
.�
K
a�
G
O
.�
0
U
�
�
°o
(V O
�
�?
�O
O W
_ v�
oz
n0
��
v
2
a�
na°
�
s_`3
o�
r� U
c o a v E m
oV �_ nUo
�> o _ -
��(n-tj m
—a.e
go^-�.y o � E
_ L E c _ _ _
�LO� c�t
� flY=t�
= o O C � m
o R : � m � �
4a(..= O pLiv
aP o
�3a
_ � E
� � �v�
o °x
�rc°
�;�.0
_ � m O
tnmv _
0
>
cc
ON
o.?
sti
o�
�O
Va�'