Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-0614 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 14, 2010 1:OOpm TOWN OVAIL'� TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Special Presentation 15 minutes Linn Brooks, Assistant General Manager of the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, will provide a brief update on District matters. She will also query the Commission on topics that might be of interest for future presentations by the District, such as information on the health of Gore Creek and its watershed, the affects of land use on water supply and water quality, and District projects that impact stream flows. Site Visits: No Site Visits 30 minutes 1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Chapter 12 -6, Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to establish a new zone district, Townhouse and Row House District (TRH) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100011) Applicant: Chris Galvin, represented by K.H. Webb Architects /Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 30 minutes 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Section 12 -15 -5, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance), Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow applications to be made for additional GRFA prior to all the allowable GRFA being constructed on a property, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100021) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 60 minutes 3. A request for a work session on a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the area known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), with multiple mixed -use structures including but not limited to, multiple - family dwelling units, fractional fee units, accommodation units, employee housing units, office, and commercial /retail uses, located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West rig ht -of- way /Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080064) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Page 1 5 minutes 4. A request for an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12- 61 -11, Development Plan Required, Housing Zone District, Vail Town Code, to allow for revisions to the required landscape plan and geologic hazard mitigation plan for the redevelopment of the easternmost 5.24 acres of the Timber Ridge Village Apartments; and a request for the review of a variance, from Section 14 -5 -1, Minimum Standards, Parking Lot and Parking Structure Design Standards for All Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a crossover drive aisle width of less than thirty -feet (30') within the required parking structure, located at 1280 North Frontage Road /Lots 1 -5, Block C, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing 1,and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100018 /PEC100019) Applicant: Vail Timber Ridge L.L.C. Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Table to June 28, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 5. A request for final review of conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -5, Conditional Uses: Generally (On All Levels Of A Building Or Outside Of A Building), Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a public or private parking lot (parking structure); a vehicle maintenance, service, repair, storage, and fueling facility; a ski lift and tow (gondola), within "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right -of- way /Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080063) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to June 28, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 6. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of properties from Arterial Business District and unzoned South Frontage Road West right -of -way which is not zoned to Lionshead Mixed Use -2, properties known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 953 and 1031 South Frontage Road West and South Frontage Road West right -of -way, (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080061) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to June 28, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 7. A request for a final review of a variance from 12- 71 -14, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, to allow for additional site coverage below grade, within "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 934 (BP Site), 953 (Vail Professional Building), 1031 (Cascade Crossing) S. Frontage Road / Unplatted; 862 (VR Maintenance Shop) and 923 (Holy Cross Lot) S. Frontage Road / Tracts A and B, S. Frontage Road Subdivision; 1000 (Glen Lyon Office Building) S. Frontage Road / Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090035) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to June 28, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes Page 2 8. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Article 12 -9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the removal of the Glen Lyon Commercial Site, Development Area D, (Glen Lyon Office Building) from the District for incorporation into the properties known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54 Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090036) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to June 28, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 9. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to provide regulations that will implement sustainable building and planning standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090028) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Table to July 12, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 10. A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulations amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090017) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Table to July 12, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 11. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of a new special development district, pursuant to Article 12 -9A, Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Units 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 (Vail Rowhouses) /Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090037) Applicant: Christopher Galvin, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Table to July 12, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 12. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a change in land use, an increase in site coverage and building footprint, a decrease in the side setback and a deviation from parking requirements to accommodate a new restaurant, located at 68 East Meadow Drive, Unit 602/ Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100026) Applicant: Joe Staufer, represented by John G. Martin, Architect Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: WITHDRAWN 13. Approval of May 10, 2010 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Page 3 14. Approval of May 24, 2010 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 15. Information Update 16. 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 June 11, 2010, in the Vail Daily. Page 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 14, 2010 SUBJECT: A request for a work session on prescribed regulation amendments to Chapter 12 -6, Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to establish a new zone district, Townhouse and Row House District (TRH) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 100011) Applicant: Chris Galvin, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Bill Gibson SUMMARY The applicant Chris Galvin, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a work session on prescribed regulation amendments to Chapter 12 -6, Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, to establish a new Townhouse and Row House District (TRH) District. At this time, there is no application to apply this proposed zone district to any specific property. The applicant is requesting this work session is to discuss the proposed gross residential floor area (GRFA) limits for the proposed new zone district. The applicant has conducted a study of the existing GRFA conditions at the Vail Row Houses, Texas Townhomes, Vail Trails East, and the Vail Trails. The applicant's GRFA analysis has been attached for review (Attachment A). As this is a request for a work session, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission tables this item to its June 28, 2010, public hearing for further deliberation. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant Chris Galvin, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group, is proposing to amend Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to establish a new zone district specifically intended to regulate townhouse development in Vail Village. The applicant believes this new zone district could in the future be applied to the Vail Row Houses, Texas Townhomes, Vail Trails East, and the Vail Trails existing townhouse developments. Each of these properties have several factors in common: they are currently zoned High Density Multiple - Family (HDMF) District, they were constructed in the late 1960's and early 1970's, they are located in close proximity to each other in the Vail Village area, they are located to the north of Gore Creek Drive and south of Gore Creek, and they share similar existing non - conforming zoning issues. The applicant is proposing two provisions related to the allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA) density controls in the proposed new zone district: • Not more than 150 sq. ft. of GRFA shall be permitted for each 100 sq. ft. of site area (1.5 GRFA ratio). • Existing townhouse dwelling units will not be entitled to "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)" or Interior Conversions. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHAPTER V. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTION STEPS GOAL #1 Encourage high quality, redevelopment while preserving unique architectural scale of the village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. Obiective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Policy 1.2.1: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Obiective 1.4: Recognize the "historic" importance of the architecture, structures, landmarks, plazas and features in preserving the character of Vail Village. CHAPTER VII: Vail Village Sub -Areas East Gore Creek Sub -Area ( #6) �-.._ _�.... _. .,-.. X71 EAST ,� • VILLAGE 7 ... EAST GORE CREED A number of the earliest projects developed in Vail are located in the East Gore Creek Sub -Area. Development in this area is exclusively multi - family condominium projects with a very limited amount of support commercial. Surface parking is found at each site, which creates a very dominant visual impression of the sub -area. While the level of development in East Gore Creek is generally greater than that allowed under existing zoning, this area has the potential to absorb density without compromising the character of the Village. This development could be accommodated by partial infill of existing parking areas balanced by green space additions or through increasing the height of existing buildings (generally one story over existing heights). In order to maintain the architectural continuity of projects, additional density should be considered only in conjunction with the comprehensive redevelopment of projects. Clearly, one of the main objectives to consider in the redevelopment of any property should be to improve existing parking facilities. This includes satisfying parking demands for existing and additional development, as well as design considerations relative to redevelopment proposals. The opportunity to introduce below grade structured parking will greatly improve pedestrianization and landscape features in this area. This should be considered a goal of any redevelopment proposal in this sub -area. Development or redevelopment of this sub -area will attract additional traffic and population into this area and may have significant impacts upon portions of Sub -Areas 7 and 10. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS Staff believes that from the applicant's perspective there are two primary issues related to the current High Density Multiple - Family District's GRFA regulations that affect the applicant's desired future use of their property and other homeowners with similarly zoned townhouse dwelling units. 1. The loss of development rights associated with a demo /rebuild project. 2. The need for addition floor area as an incentive for redevelopment. The subject existing townhouse dwelling units were originally constructed in the late 1960's and early 1970's and do not meet many of today's real estate industry standards. The challenges associated with remodeling these existing townhouse dwelling units range from technical engineering and structural deficiencies to aesthetic and livability issues such as low ceiling heights. Many of these issues are not easily addressed in a remodel construction project compared to a demo /rebuild of the townhouse dwelling unit. As discussed at previous Planning and Environmental Commission hearings, the existing identified townhouse developments are legally non - conforming in regard to many of the High Density Multiple - Family District's zoning standards. Many of these existing individual townhouse dwelling units already meet or exceed the currently allowable 0.76 GRFA ratio for their lot size. This situation is due to original construction occurring under previously less restrictive zoning requirements and the construction of additions utilizing the Town's 250 Ordinance and Interior Conversion additional GRFA policies. The 250 Ordinance and Interior Conversion policies were originally intended as a minor floor area increase to induce residential redevelopment. However, given the smaller lot and unit sizes of these existing townhouse developments; 250 sq. ft. of additional GRFA or the conversion of a crawlspace to a full basement are proportionally significant increases in development potential. Many of the existing subject townhouse dwelling units have already constructed 250 Ordinance and Interior Conversion additions, and most have the development potential for another 250 Ordinance addition due to the Town's 2004 GRFA regulation amendments. Those homeowners that constructed 250 Ordinance additions prior to 2004 will ultimately receive two 250's. This has created the scenario where existing townhouse dwelling units in the same complex have unequal development rights. This was a primary reason why the Town eliminated the 250 Ordinance and Interior Conversion provisions in the Single - Family Residential, Two - Family Residential, and Two - Family Primary /Secondary Districts in 2004 and simply increased the allowable GRFA ratio to off -set any potential losses in development rights. Should a homeowner choose to demo /rebuild their existing townhouse dwelling unit, the unit must be reconstructed in conformance with the 0.76 allowable GRFA limit of the High Density Multiple - Family District. The homeowner could not reconstruct the existing floor area associated with previous 250 Ordinance or Interior Conversion additions. Additionally, if a homeowner chose to demo /rebuild their townhouse dwelling unit they would no longer be eligible to construct future 250 Ordinance or Interior Conversion additions since the dwelling unit would no longer qualify as being constructed prior to 1995. Staff believes there is merit to the applicant's proposal to not allow 250 Ordinance or Interior Conversion additions in the new townhouse zone district, and to instead only regulate floor area with an allowed GRFA ratio. Such a proposal creates equity between property owners and simplifies the development review process. This proposal to only regulate GRFA with a ratio will also alleviate homeowners' concerns about loosing floor area development rights when pursuing a demo /rebuild of their dwelling unit. The applicant is not proposing an allowable GRFA ratio in the new townhouse district to only increase today's 0.76 GRFA ratio by a factor equivalent to a 250 Ordinance and Interior Conversion addition. Instead the applicant is proposing a GRFA ratio of 1.5 to increase the allowable floor area for existing townhouse dwelling units. The applicant is proposing GRFA ratio of 1.5 in part based upon the Town's original High Density Multiple - Family Residential District regulations. The applicant believes that existing townhouse dwelling units should be given floor area redevelopment incentives like other residential projects in Vail Village and Lionshead. The applicant is proposing to increase the allowable GRFA from the 0.76 ratio of the High Density Multiple - Family Residential District to a ratio of 1.5 in the proposed townhouse district. While the allowable GRFA formula doubles, the actual floor area increase will not be doubled since today's GRFA policies allow 250 Ordinance and Interior Conversion additions to be constructed and not be counted as GRFA. The applicant has concluded in their attached analysis that only three dwelling units in the five existing townhouse complexes do not already exceed the 0.76 GRFA ratio of the HDMF District. The applicant has also concluded from their GRFA analysis that the proposed 1.5 GRFA ratio will continues to control bulk and mass in the district since a 1.5 GRFA ratio allows for less floor area than could be constructed in a townhouse only limited by building height and site coverage. The Vail Village Master Plan addresses increasing the allowable density of the existing Vail Village townhouse properties as follows: "While the level of development in East Gore Creek is generally greater than that allowed under existing zoning, this area has the potential to absorb density without compromising the character of the Village. This development could be accommodated by partial infill of existing parking areas balanced by green space additions or through increasing the height of existing buildings (generally one story over existing heights). In order to maintain the architectural continuity of projects, additional density should be considered only in conjunction with the comprehensive redevelopment of projects. " 4 During the review of this proposed new zone district, the Planning and Environmental Commission must determine if the applicant's proposed 1.5 GRFA ratio is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan recommendations and if the ratio creates townhouse buildings that are compatible with, and appropriate for, the neighborhood. Staff recommends that during the review of this proposed new zone district, the Planning and Environmental Commission also re- evaluates the sub -area recommendations of the Vail Village Master Plan for these townhouse properties. Staff recommends that any master plan updates the Commission deems necessary be forwarded to the Vail Town Council with the Commission's recommendation concerning the proposed new zone district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a request for a work session, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission tables this item to its June 28, 2010, hearing for further deliberation. VI. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's GRFA Analysis ►'� I lr' Mauriello Planning Croup June 14, 2010 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Vail Town House Zoning Dear Members: Over the last three weeks we have been working closely with the Town staff to analyze all of the Town House properties located in Vail Village and zoned High Density Multiple Family. The properties analyzed include Vail Row Houses 1 -6, Vail Row Houses 7 -13, Texas Townhomes, Vail Trails East, and the Vail Trails Chalets. The spreadsheet attached summarizes our analysis of GRFA of these properties. We also analyzed site coverage and landscape area and found that all properties appear to comply with site coverage. Of the properties we analyzed for landscape area most properties were under the minimum required by HDMF zoning. It is suggested that the landscape area requirement be reduced to 20% from 30% to more closely reflect existing conditions. The GRFA analysis clearly shows that there are great inequities in what GRFA is allowed today on these town house properties. If you observe what is allowed today after application of the 250 ordinance, GRFA ratios on the properties range from a low of 0.85 to a high of 2.54. This inequity is largely due to the application of the 250 ordinance over the years. The median GRFA ratio comes out to 1.22, which indicates that 50% of the properties are allowed to exceed 1.22. As a side note, Mr. Bridgewater's unit has the highest GRFA ratio existing and allowed today at 1.1 1 and 1.33, respectively, within the Vail Row Houses 7 -13. We also looked at the GRFA ratio resulting if you were able to maximize the building envelope using setbacks, site coverage, and building height. The resulting GRFA ratio would be 1.98 with four stories. We believe based on the research performed that the GRFA ratio or multiplier should be between 1.5 and 1.98. A ratio of 1.7 would accommodate all but one property; unit 6 in the Vail Trails Chalets with an existing allowed ratio of 2.54. We also looked at other recent approvals around the Vail Village as a comparison of GRFA ratios allowed. The following were approved: • The Willows — 1.5 GRFA ratio • Ramshorn Lodge — 1.31 GRFA ratio • Tivoli Lodge 1.19 GRFA ratio These are lodging and condominium properties which by there very nature also contain a substantial amount of square footage in common area like hallways, lobby areas, and meeting rooms that are not factored into the GRFA ratio and which result in much larger buildings. If this common area were taken into the ration calculation the results would be well in excess of 2.0. Town house development has very little, if any, common area and therefore the result is a much smaller overall structure even at a GRFA ratio of 1.7. We look forward to presenting our findings to you and answering your questions. Sincerely, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Principal 2 T A a` T N 6 O � d N N '^ a 0 z v c c 3� o^ F rn m �LL 'E 00 'E � zE,° iIIlJlllMlllllrlllllllllrll11111111 �I�plhl�Ml� 01 �I �LL 'E 00 'E � zE,° MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 14, 2010 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Section 12 -15 -5, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance), Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow applications to be made for additional GRFA prior to all the allowable GRFA being constructed on a property, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100021) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson SUMMARY A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Section 12 -15 -5, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance), Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow applications to be made for additional GRFA (gross residential floor area) prior to all the allowable GRFA being constructed on a property, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval subject to the findings noted in Section VI of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST At the April 12, 2010, Planning and Environmental Commission's public hearing, the Commission initiated the request for a prescribed regulations amendment application to consider changes to the Town's 250 Ordinance regulations. The Commission requested that Town Code amendments be considered to allow applications for the construction of additions to existing residential dwelling unit utilizing the Additional GRFA 250 Ordinance provisions prior to all the allowable GRFA being constructed on the subject property. The proposed text amendments as they relate to single - family and two - family structures are as follows (text deleted is in strikethro gh text added is in bold, text not affected by this amendment has been omitted): 12- 15 -5 -C: Single- Family Dwellings And Two - Family Dwellings In Zone Districts Other Than The Single- Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), And Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) Districts: 6. Applicability: No pooling of gross residential floor area shall be allowed in single- family or two - family dwelling units. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area per single- family dwelling or two - family dwelling PoF shag °n„ Applications for additional GRFA may be submitted before all the allowable GFRA has been constructed on the property. The proposed text amendments as they relate to multiple - family structures are as follows (text deleted is in stFikethFe gl text added is in bold, text not affected by this amendment has been omitted): 12- 15 -5 -D: Multi - Family Dwellings: Applicability: The provisions of this section are applicable only to GRFA additions to individual dwelling units. No pooling of GRFA shall be allowed in multi - family dwellings. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area per dwelling unit -P49" When exterior additions are proposed to a multi - family structure, the addition of the GRFA shall be designed and developed in context of the entire structure. Applications for additional GRFA may be submitted before all the allowable GFRA has been constructed on the property. II. BACKGROUND The 250 Ordinance provision allows additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) to be constructed in excess of the GRFA limits prescribed by the various zone districts as an incentive for homeowners to upgrade their existing properties. The original 250 Ordinance regulations were adopted through Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1985, based upon the following: "WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Community Action Plan encourages the upgrading and remodeling of existing structures; and WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the belief that it would benefit the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail to allow property owners to add up to an additional 250 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) as an inducement for the upgrading of existing structures which are five years old or older. " The original 250 Ordinance granted an additional 250 sq.ft. of GRFA to every dwelling unit existing for more than 5 years. To utilize this additional floor area, property owners were required to demonstrate compliance with a list of criteria including: compliance with the Town's other zoning regulations (or obtain a variance), existing garages would not be converted to GRFA unless a new garage was proposed, final certificates of occupancy had already been obtained for the existing structure, and the additional floor area would not be used to enclose deck and balconies in multi - family dwellings. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1995, an ordinance which precluded "demo /rebuild" projects from qualifying for the 250 Ordinance additional floor area, more thoroughly outlined the original intent of the 250 Ordinance as follows: "WHEREAS, prior to 1985 the Planning and Environmental Commission entertained many requests for GRFA variances for small additions to homes that provided primary residence; and WHEREAS, such applications were to improve the property and enhance its livability such as a mud room, an airlock, enlarging an existing room or adding a bathroom; and WHEREAS, much of the housing stock was originally built for vacation use and needed small improvements to be better adaptable to full time living; and WHEREAS, these dwelling units in many instances did not meet the Design Review Guidelines in regard to landscaping, paved driveways, paved parking areas and undergrounded utilities; and WHEREAS, it was apparent that the increase in GRFA would be offset by the enhancements to the property which resulted in a benefit to the Town by improving the housing stock; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has studied the effects of Chapter 18.71 in the Town of Vail as it has been applied; and WHEREAS, this examination has led the Town Council to find that there have been abuses of the additional GRFA process and that the original intent of the allowance of additional GRFA is not being met in the majority of the `250 additions'; and WHEREAS, The Town Council finds that allowing a demo /rebuild to take advantage of an additional 250 square feet has not met the purpose and intention of the ordinance and does not prove to be an inducement for the upgrading of existing housing stock but rather simply confers a benefit upon an individual with no benefit being conferred upon the Town; and WHEREAS, Council finds it is inappropriate to allow an additional 250 square feet in the instance of a demo /rebuild where the same advantage is not provided to a parcel of land, or lot similarly situated that has never been developed. " In addition from precluding demo /rebuild projects from utilizing the additional floor area provisions, Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1995, further clarified that applications for additional floor area could not be submitted "until such time as all allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property" and that any addition involving exterior changes to a building required Planning and Environmental Commission review. In 1997, the Town of Vail adopted the "Interior Conversion" provisions to supplement the 250 Ordinance by allowing property owners to "convert" interior spaces of an existing building to GRFA if that property had no remaining allowable GRFA by the limits prescribed in the various zone districts. In 2004, the Town of Vail revised the GRFA regulations in the Town's residential districts. The Planning and Environmental Commission recommended eliminating the 250 Ordinance and Interior Conversions in all residential districts. The Town Council chose to eliminate the 250 Ordinance and the Interior Conversion only in the lower density districts (Single Family, Two - Family, Two - Family Primary /Secondary). The allowable GRFA limits in these districts were adjusted to grant an increase in the allowable floor area equivalent to the 250 and an Interior Conversions. Today, existing individual dwelling units in the multi - family districts and the mixed -use commercial districts are still eligible to utilize the 250 Ordinance to construct new gross residential floor area (GRFA) beyond the limits prescribed in the district. As thoroughly discussed by both the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission, the 2004 GRFA amendments did not simplify the Town's development review process. It was acknowledged that the code changes not only created multiple calculation methods, created new credits such as the "basement deduction ", but also rendered the Town's historic GRFA records worthless. It was acknowledged in 2004 that future new construction or remodel projects would be required to re- calculate their existing GRFA and could not defer to the Town's archives for this information. As required by the Town Code, all construction projects involving 250 Ordinance and Interior Conversion GRFA bonuses since 2004 have been required to complete this task. IV. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS 12 -1 -2: PURPOSE: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 4 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. 12 -15 -1: PURPOSE: This chapter is intended to control and limit the size, bulk, and mass of residential structures within the town. Gross residential floor area (GRFA) regulation is an effective tool for limiting the size of residential structures and ensuring that residential structures are developed in an environmentally sensitive manner by allowing adequate air and light in residential areas and districts. 12 -15 -5: ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (250 ORDINANCE): A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwelling units which have been in existence within the town for a period of at least five (5) years by permitting the addition of up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) to such dwelling units, provided the criteria set forth in this section are met. This section does not assure each single- family or two - family dwelling unit located within the town an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet, and proposals for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed closely with respect to site planning, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable town development standards. The two hundred fifty (250) square feet of additional gross residential floor area may be granted to existing single- family dwellings, existing two - family and existing multi - family dwelling units only once, but may be requested and granted in more than one increment of less than two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Upgrading of an existing dwelling unit under this section shall include additions thereto or renovations thereof, but a demo /rebuild shall not be included as being eligible for additional gross residential floor area. B. Applicability: The provisions of this section shall apply to dwelling units in all zone districts except the single- family residential (SFR), two - family residential (R), and two - family primary/secondary residential (PS) districts. C. Single- Family Dwellings And Two - Family Dwellings In Zone Districts Other Than The Single- Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), And Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) Districts: A single- family or two - family dwelling unit shall be eligible for additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) not to exceed a maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA in addition to the existing or allowable GRFA for the site. Before such additional GRFA can be granted, the single - family or two - family dwelling unit shall meet the following criteria: 1. Eligible Time Frame: A single- family or two - family dwelling unit shall be eligible for additional GRFA, pursuant to this section, if it is in existence prior to November 30, 1995, or a completed design review board application for the original construction of said unit has been accepted by the department of community development by November 30, 1995. In addition, at least five (5) years must have passed from the date the single- family dwelling or two - family dwelling unit was issued a certificate of occupancy (whether temporary or final) or, in the event a certificate of occupancy was not required for use of the dwelling at the time of completion, from the date of original completion and occupancy of the dwelling. 2. Use Of Additional Floor Space: Proposals for the utilization of the additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) under this provision shall comply with all town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. If a variance is required for a proposal, it shall be approved by the planning and environmental commission pursuant to chapter 17 of this title before an application is made in accordance with this section. The applicant must obtain a building permit within one year of final planning and environmental commission approval or the approval for additional GRFA shall be voided. 3. Garage Conversions: If any proposal provides for the conversion of a garage or enclosed parking area to GRFA, such conversion will not be allowed unless: a) either the conversion will not reduce the number of enclosed parking spaces below the number required by this code; or b) provision is made for creation of such additional enclosed parking spaces as may be required for the new total GRFA under this code. Plans for a new garage or enclosed parking area, if required, shall accompany the application under this section, and shall be constructed concurrently with the conversion. 4. Parking: Any increase in parking requirements as set forth in chapter 10 of this title due to any GRFA addition pursuant to this section shall be met by the applicant. 5. Conformity With Guidelines: All proposals under this section shall be required to conform to the design review guidelines set forth in chapter 11 of this title. A single- family or two - family dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to meet the minimum town landscaping standards as set forth in chapter 11 of this title. Before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with this section, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing single- family or two - family dwelling and site, including landscaping, to determine whether they comply with the design review guidelines. No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this section until all required improvements to the site and structure have been completed as required. 6. Applicability: No pooling of gross residential floor area shall be allowed in single- family or two - family dwelling units. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area per single- family dwelling or two - family dwelling, nor shall any application be made for additional GRFA until such time as all the allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property, or an application is presently pending in conjunction with the application for additional GRFA that utilizes all allowable GRFA for the property. 7. One Time Grant: Any single- family or two - family dwelling unit which has previously been granted additional GRFA pursuant to this section and is demo /rebuild, shall be rebuilt without the additional GRFA as previously approved. 6 8. Demo /Rebuild Not Eligible: Any single- family or two - family dwelling unit which is to be demo /rebuild shall not be eligible for additional GRFA. 9. Nonconforming Structures And Site Improvements: Structures which do not conform to density controls shall be eligible for additional GRFA pursuant to this section. D. Multi - Family Dwellings: Any dwelling unit in a multi - family structure that meets allowable GRFA shall be eligible for additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) not to exceed a maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA in addition to the existing or allowable GRFA for the site. Any application of such additional GRFA must meet the following criteria: 1. Eligible Time Frame: A multiple- family dwelling unit shall be eligible for additional GRFA, pursuant to this section, if it is in existence prior to November 30, 1995, or a completed design review board application for the original construction of said unit has been accepted by the department of community development by November 30, 1995. In addition, at least five (5) years must have passed from the date the building was issued a certificate of occupancy (whether temporary or final) or, in the event a certificate of occupancy was not required for use of the building at the time of completion, from the date of original completion and occupancy of the building. 2. Use Of Additional Floor Space: Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA under this provision shall comply with all town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. If a variance is required for a proposal, it shall be approved by the planning and environmental commission pursuant to chapter 17 of this title before an application is made in accordance with this section. The applicant must obtain a building permit within one year of final planning and environmental commission approval or the approval for additional GRFA shall be voided. 3. Parking Area Conversions: Portions of existing enclosed parking areas may be converted to GRFA under this section if there is no loss of existing enclosed parking spaces in said enclosed parking area. 4. Parking Requirements Observed: Any increase in parking requirements due to any GRFA addition pursuant to this section shall be met by the applicant. 5. Guideline Compliance; Review: All proposals under this section shall be reviewed for compliance with the design review guidelines as set forth in chapter 11 of this title. Existing properties for which additional GRFA is proposed shall be required to meet minimum town landscaping standards as set forth in chapter 11 of this title. General maintenance and upkeep of existing buildings and sites, including the multi - family dwellings, landscaping or site improvements (i.e., trash facilities, berming to screen surface parking, etc.) shall be reviewed by the staff after the application is made for conformance to said design review guidelines. No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this section until all required improvements to the multi - family dwelling site and building have been completed as required. 7 6. Condominium Association Submittal: An application for additional GRFA shall be made on behalf of each of the individual dwelling unit owners by the condominium association or similar governing body. 7. Applicability: The provisions of this section are applicable only to GRFA additions to individual dwelling units. No pooling of GRFA shall be allowed in multi - family dwellings. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area per dwelling unit nor shall any application be made for additional GRFA until such time as all the allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property. When exterior additions are proposed to a multi - family structure, the addition of the GRFA shall be designed and developed in context of the entire structure. 8. Nontransferable To Demo /Rebuild: Any building which has previously been granted additional GRFA pursuant to this section and is demo /rebuild, shall be rebuilt without the additional GRFA as previously approved. 9. Demo /Rebuild Not Eligible: Any multiple- family structure or dwelling unit which is to be demo /rebuild shall not be eligible for additional GRFA. 10. Nonconforming Structures And Site Improvements: Structures which do not conform to density controls shall be eligible for additional GRFA pursuant to this section. E. Procedure: 1. Application; Content: Application shall be made on forms provided by the department of community development. If the property is owned in common (condominium association) or jointly with other property owners such as driveways or C parcels in duplex subdivisions, by way of example, and not limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners or applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the application. The application shall also include: a. A fee pursuant to the current schedule shall be required with the application. b. Information and plans as set forth and required by subsection 12 -11 -4C of this title. c. Any other applicable information required by the department of community development to satisfy the criteria outlined in this section. 2. Hearing Set; Notice: Upon receipt of a completed application for additional GRFA, the design review board shall set a date for a hearing in accordance with subsection 12-11 - 4C2 of this title. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with subsections 12-11 - 4C2 and C3 of this title. 3. Compliance Required: If the department of community development staff determines that the site for which additional GRFA is applied for pursuant to this section does not comply with minimum town landscaping or site standards as provided herein, the applicant will be required to bring the site into compliance with such standards before any such temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy will be issued for the additional GRFA added to the site. Before any building permit is issued, the applicant shall submit appropriate plans and materials indicating how the site will be brought into 8 compliance with said town minimum standards, which plans and materials shall be reviewed by and approved by the department of community development. 4. Building Permit: Upon receiving the necessary approvals pursuant to this section, the applicant shall proceed with the securing of a building permit prior to beginning the construction of additional GRFA. V. REVIEW CRITERIA Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in the Zoning Regulations, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and As stated in Section 12 -15 -5, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area, Vail Town Code, the purpose of the 250 Ordinance is as follows: "The purpose of this section is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwelling units which have been in existence within the town for a period of at least five (5) years by permitting the addition of up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) to such dwelling units... " As proposed, the text amendments do not change the requirement that existing non- conforming properties must be upgraded to meet the Town's design review guidelines when the 250 Ordinance floor area is utilized. Whether the 250 Ordinance is utilized before or after the allowable GRFA has been constructed, the end result is the same. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed amendments are consistent with the purpose of the 250 Ordinance policy. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and As noted above, the purpose of the 250 Ordinance is to provide an incentive for the upgrading of existing dwelling units. Whether the 250 Ordinance is utilized before or after the allowable GRFA has been constructed, the end result of compliance with the design guidelines is the same. Today Section 12 -11 -3, Design Review, Vail Town Code, requires existing properties to upgrade into compliance with the Town's design guidelines when any addition of GRFA is constructed. However, this section of the Town Code also allows a one -time exemption from this requirement for residential additions no larger than 500 sq. ft. in GRFA. Since conformance with the design guidelines will be achieved sooner if the 250 Ordinance is utilized before the allowable GRFA is constructed, Staff believes the proposed amendment better implements the adopted 250 Ordinance policy. As described further in the criteria below, the time and costs associated with calculating the allowable GRFA in multiple - family developments has discouraged some homeowners from moving forward with plans to construct an addition to their residence. Staff believes the proposed text amendments remove this barrier to redevelopment and therefore better achieves the adopted goals of the 250 Ordinance. There are negatives associated with the implementation of the proposed text amendments. The proposed amendments do not eliminate the need for homeowners to re- calculate GRFA for existing multiple - family developments. Instead, the proposed amendments simply defer this requirement to a later date. The proposed amendments do not benefit multiple - family residential developments constructed after 1995, associations wishing to construct new dwelling units, or individual homeowners wishing to construct additions larger than 250 sq. ft. From an administrative perspective, the proposed text amendments both simplify and complicate the Town's development review process. The proposed amendments will simplify the process of determining homeowner eligibility to utilize the 250 Ordinance. However, allowing 250 Ordinance additions to be constructed prior to all the allowable GRFA being constructed further complicates the Town's property file record keeping. The proposed amendments will also complicate future determinations of collective development rights for those multiple - family developments were individual 250 Ordinance additions were constructed. 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and The Town of Vail has historically kept record of the allowed, constructed, and remaining GRFA for every residential property constructed under Town of Vail jurisdiction (GRFA records do not exist for some properties constructed under Eagle County jurisdiction prior to annexation). In 2004, Vail's GRFA regulations were amended. These amendments altered the methodology for calculating GRFA and the Town's historic GRFA records became null and void. It was acknowledged in 2004 that future residential addition projects would require a re- calculation of the allowed, constructed, and remaining GRFA. Homeowners can no longer rely upon the Town's archives for this GRFA information. Due to the complexity of the Town's GRFA calculation methodology, many multiple - family dwelling unit owners must hire architects, land surveyors, and other consultants to assist in re- calculating the GRFA for their properties. Depending upon the scale of the residential development, number of buildings, number of dwelling units, complexity of floor plans, the availability of accurate architectural drawings, the availability of an accurate topographic survey (necessary to calculate "basement deductions "), and other factors; the re- calculation of GRFA can be both time consuming and financially expensive. In some multiple - family developments these costs have been shared by the collective home owner's association. In other residential developments, the association has been unwilling to collectively participate in the re- calculation of GRFA and the costs have been the burden of the first individual owner wishing to construct an addition. In some circumstances, residential property owners have determined that re- calculating GRFA is cost prohibitive to them proceeding with the construction of an addition to their residence. 10 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and The final build -out bulk and mass of multiple - family residential structures will be the same whether residential additions utilizing the 250 Ordinance are constructed before or after the allowable GRFA is constructed. Additionally, for multiple - family properties, there are few design review required upgrades associated with an individual unit's 250 Ordinance addition. 5. Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission and /or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Section 12 -15 -5, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance), Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow applications to be made for additional GRFA prior to all the allowable GRFA being constructed on a property, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval of this request; Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: " "Based upon a review of Section V of the Staff's June 14, 2010, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Section 12 -15 -5, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance), Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow applications to be made for additional GRFA prior to all the allowable GRFA being constructed on a property, and setting forth details in regard thereto. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed text amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of Staff's June 14„ 2010, memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 11 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. " 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 14, 2010 SUBJECT: A request for a work session on a major exterior alterations, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the area known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), with multiple mixed -use structures including but not limited to, multiple - family dwelling units, fractional fee units, accommodation units, employee housing units, office, and commercial /retail uses, located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West rig ht -of- way /Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080064) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Thomas Miller Planner: Warren Campbell 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 present the proposed height, bulk, mass, and setbacks of the structures comprising Ever Vail. This work session is intended to bring the afore - mentioned topics before the Commission to continue building an understanding of the above grade structures being proposed. Staff is continuing to review this information and will be providing input on bulk and mass at a future hearing with additional expertise provided by the urban design services of Jeff Winston, of Winston and Associates. At this hearing power point presentation will be given by both the applicant and Jeff Winston to further aid the Commission in understanding the intricacies of the bulk, mass, spaces between building, and interaction between the structures. The presentations will begin to address some of the comments heard at the May 24, 2010. As this is a work session and the Planning and Environmental Commission is not being asked to reach any conclusions. This application is to be tabled to the July 12, 2010, public hearing. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 24, 2010 1:OOpm TOWN OVAIL'� TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Luke Cartin Tyler Schneidman Michael Kurz Bill Pierce Henry Pratt David Viele Sarah Paladino arrived at 1:06 Site Visits: None 15 minutes 1. A request for the review of amendments to an existing conditional use permit for public buildings and grounds (fire station), pursuant to Section 12- 16 -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for changes to the approved development plan, located at 2399 North Frontage Road West/Parcel A, Resub of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and 2310 Chamonix Road /Parcel B, Resub of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 (West Vail Fire Station Site), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100025) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -0 -1 ( Paladio recused) CONDITION(S): 1) This conditional use permit approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval for the associated amended final plat application and associated design review change to approved plans application. Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Don Watkins, architect representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the changes to the site based upon the surveying error. There was no public comment. The Commissioners expressed their support for the application. Commissioner Paladino expressed that since she arrived after the presentation for this item that she would recuse from voting on the motion. 15 minutes 2. A request for the review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the re- subdivision of Parcels A and B, located at 2399 North Frontage Road West/Parcel A, Resub of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and 2310 Chamonix Road /Parcel B, Resub of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 (West Vail fire station site and future Chamonix employee housing site), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100022) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson Page 1 ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6 -0 -0 Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. There was no public comment. The Commissioners expressed their support for the application. 30 minutes 3. A request for the review of a conditional use permit for a business office, pursuant to Section 12- 7A-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a new real estate office, located at 1 Willow Bridge Road /Tract K -L, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100023) Applicant: Vail Dover Associates LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6 -0 -0 1) The approval of this conditional use permit shall expire on June 1, 2011. Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum recommending denial Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, gave a power point presentation highlighting changed economic conditions which make it unlikely that a retail establishment would open or that the market would expand into the space. He pointed out that the property is zoned Public Accommodation not Commercial Core 1. The Public Accommodation district allows for offices on the first floor as a conditional use and other land uses. He further highlighted associated operations for the lodge which could be put in the space precluding it from being retail and unlikely to be converted back to retail in the future. By approving this proposed office there will be an opportunity to have retail in the space in the future. He did not believe the land use violated any of the criteria of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Pierce entered into the record the receipt of an email from Tom Saalfeld expressing his support for the proposed conditional use permit. There was no public comment. Commissioner Pierce inquired as to how One Willow Bridge markets their product availability Dominic Mauriello explained how off -site real estate agents where probably used. Commissioner Kurz understood the issue and was supportive of a one -year term approval. Commissioner Pratt understood staff's position, but was in favor of a one -year term of approval Commissioner Cartin agreed that a one -year term is more appropriate. Commissioner Viele expressed his support for up to a two -year period. 5 minutes 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Chapter 12 -6, Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to establish a new zone district, Townhouse and Row House District (TRH) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100011) Applicant: Chris Galvin, represented by K.H. Webb Architects /Mauriello Planning Group Page 2 Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to June 14, 2010 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -1 (Pratt recused) Commissioner Pratt recused. Tabled without discussion at the applicant's request. 60 minutes 5. A request for a work session on a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the area known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), with multiple mixed -use structures including but not limited to, multiple - family dwelling units, fractional fee units, accommodation units, employee housing units, office, and commercial /retail uses, located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West rig ht -of- way /Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080064) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to June 14, 2010 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 4 -0 -0 ( Viele and Cartin recused) Commissioners Viele and Cartin recused. Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group, presented a summary of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan recommendations for the Ever Vail site and the pertinent design guidelines. Jeff Winston, Winston and Associates, representing the Town, asked the Commission to consider how much of an extension of Lionshead should Ever Vail be, should it be an extension of the core or a new area on the periphery of Lionshead with its own character. How should Ever Vail be evaluated under both the text and the images of the master plan? Dominic Mauriello clarified that the details of the architecture and building design will be discussed at a later date, but they would like direction on the general style and architectural character of the Ever Vail buildings. Commissioner Pierce clarified that today's discussion is focused on the quantitative bulk and mass portions of the guidelines. Commissioner Kurz recommended clarifying what existing buildings are being considered "Lionshead" and which character will this project be compared to. Jeff Winston clarified the discussion today is bulk and mass, including roof forms, but other Commissioner comment is welcome. He further noted that a significant question is how much continuity and consistency is desirable between Ever Vail and the other areas of Lionshead. Dominic Mauriello identified the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan design guidelines related to building mass, roof forms, building roles (portals, edge definer, public space definer, landmarks, etc.), building width -to- height relationships (perceived street width and building step backs), public and private domain. He also discussed the proposed future review schedule. Page 3 Warren Campbell clarified that his interpretation of the "antecedents" of Vail Village with regard to carrying forward design elements was referring to the goal of timeless architectural design. Commissioner Kurz clarified that today there is a variety of building types and styles in Lionshead and the goal should be to achieve a neighborhood look instead of creating a look of a single development project. He noted that Lionshead is currently dominated with colonnade and angular building, and some softer or rounder forms should be introduced. Jeff Winston and Chase Mullen, Winston and Associates, presented a digital three dimensional model of the proposed Ever Vail development. Jeff Winston noted that today Ever Vail is being between the Vail Village and Lionshead in terms of building mass and scale, but is within the guidelines. Generally, should buildings in Vail be designed with a separate front and back of house or should every side of buildings be a front. Commissioner Pratt asked why pedestrians would enter the Ever Vail building portal walking from Lionshead when the lift is visible from the street along the western elevation of the Ritz - Carlton. It's a choice of sun, trees, and mountains versus walking into an area that looks like downtown Denver. He noted concerns that guests not staying over night in Ever Vail will not enter Ever Vail to get to the gondola. Commissioner Pierce agreed with Commissioner Pratt's observations. Commissioner Pierce noted that the theme should be vehicles crossing pedestrian routes instead of pedestrians crossing vehicular roads. Commissioner Pratt noted that the portal entrance will be dark with a bus stop and cars, but no pedestrian draw such as a fountain or other visual element. He believes a significant opportunity is being missed if pedestrians aren't drawn into the core of Ever Vail. Commissioner Pierce noted that a goal is to continue the overall shape and form of the buildings when they are lowered to the street level pedestrian scale, rather than simply "layer caking" buildings with inconsistent forms to simply lower the building height. He gave an example of the street functioning like a stream that can either be channelized or organic with eddies. Commissioner Pratt commented that the gondola plaza area is a well designed public space, but he is still concerned that people won't be drawn through other areas of Ever Vail first to make this plaza a success. Generally, the bridges and skywalks are too monolithic in design and are too similar to the massing of the buildings. Commissioner Paladino asked for clarification about the layout and function of the stream amphitheater. Dominic Mauriello explained the anticipated use and design considerations. Commissioner Pratt asked if the creek is accessible as children, including his own, will be drawn to it. Dominic Mauriello explained where the creek will be accessible and where sensitive wetlands are being protected. Commissioner Pratt recommended adding a pedestrian overlook adjacent to Gore Creek. Commissioner Pierce commented on today's Lion Square Lodge and the Antlers where the bottom floors area disconnect from the creek areas. He recommended considering The Page 4 American Restaurant in Kansas City where the building stair steps down to the creek and creates a strong aesthetic connection. Commissioner Pratt recommended lowering the buildings in elevation along Gore Creek to better connect to the creek and with lower ridge heights add more sunlight to the streets and plazas in the middle of Ever Vail. Commissioner Pierce commented that 99% of the public will experience Ever Vail from the Frontage Road and 1 -70. He gave Gateway, Vail Village Inn, and Solaris as an example where large buildings, loading bay and garage doors, and minimal landscaping create a streetscape that in hind sight could have been done better. Commissioner Pratt asked for clarification about the Frontage Road bridge design. Commissioner Pierce noted concern about the building massing and design at the rear (Frontage Road side) of the transit center building. Commissioner Pratt added that the large width and straightness of the Frontage Road sidewalk /bike path should be reconsidered. He noted that this sidewalk should be design to accommodate bikes, since pedestrians will more likely use the sidewalks interior to the project and along the creek. Commissioner Pratt recommended that the transportation center should be open or glass so as a guest your arrival doesn't feel completely confined within a large building. Commissioner Pierce recommended not using flat roofs on the lower building elements at the entrance to the parking structure. Commissioner Pierce noted that times and tastes change over time, but recognized that Arrabelle and the Ritz - Carlton have a regal character. He cautioned against create a strong visual conflict between this and Ever Vail. Commissioner Pratt expressed that the more traditional look the more timeless it will look. Lionshead was "edgy" when it was built but is no longer desirable. He expressed the need for a variety of building forms and styles in Ever Vail. Commissioner Kurz reemphasized his concern about the entire project having strong angular building forms. Commissioner Paladino expressed that special event use should be considered when designing the public spaces. Speaker, concert, and display venues need to be created in these areas and should be design for easy use. Commissioner Pierce noted that in hind site projects like Solaris, Vail Plaza Hotel, etc. create one overwhelming building complex with a singular style and character. He identified the Sonnenalp as a successful example of minimizing building mass. Commissioner Pratt commented that the technology to digitally "walk through" the project at this development phase is extremely beneficial. He reinforced connecting to the creek and the outdoors, since that is what brings people to Vail. Commissioner Pierce commented that the applicant's presentation was impressive and very helpful in understanding the proposal. Page 5 5 minutes 6. A request for an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12- 61 -11, Development Plan Required, Housing Zone District, Vail Town Code, to allow for revisions to the required landscape plan and geologic hazard mitigation plan for the redevelopment of the easternmost 5.24 acres of the Timber Ridge Village Apartments; and a request for the review of a variance, from Section 14 -5 -1, Minimum Standards, Parking Lot and Parking Structure Design Standards for All Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a crossover drive aisle width of less than thirty -feet (30') within the required parking structure, located at 1280 North Frontage Road /Lots 1 -5, Block C, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing 1,and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100018 /PEC100019) Applicant: Vail Timber Ridge L.L.C. Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to June 14, 2010 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 4 -0 -0 5 minutes 7. A request for final review of conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -5, Conditional Uses: Generally (On All Levels Of A Building Or Outside Of A Building), Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a public or private parking lot (parking structure); a vehicle maintenance, service, repair, storage, and fueling facility; a ski lift and tow (gondola), within "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right -of- way /Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080063) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to June 14, 2010 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 4 -0 -0 5 minutes 8. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of properties from Arterial Business District and unzoned South Frontage Road West right -of -way which is not zoned to Lionshead Mixed Use -2, properties known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 953 and 1031 South Frontage Road West and South Frontage Road West right -of -way, (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080061) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to June 14, 2010 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 4 -0 -0 5 minutes 9. A request for a final review of a variance from 12- 71 -14, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, to allow for additional site coverage below grade, within "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 934 (BP Site), 953 (Vail Professional Building), 1031 (Cascade Crossing) S. Frontage Road / Unplatted; 862 (VR Maintenance Shop) and 923 (Holy Cross Lot) S. Frontage Road / Tracts A and B, S. Frontage Road Subdivision; 1000 (Glen Lyon Office Building) S. Frontage Road / Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090035) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to June 14, 2010 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 4 -0 -0 Page 6 5 minutes 10. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Article 12 -9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the removal of the Glen Lyon Commercial Site, Development Area D, (Glen Lyon Office Building) from the District for incorporation into the properties known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54 Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090036) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to June 14, 2010 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 4 -0 -0 5 minutes 11. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations and Title 14 Development Standards Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, implement sustainable building and planning thereto. (PEC090028) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Tabled to June 14, 2010 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Paladino Vail Town Code, to provide regulations that will standards, and setting forth details in regard VOTE: 4 -0 -0 5 minutes 12. A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulations amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090017) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Tabled to June 14, 2010 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 4 -0 -0 5 minutes 13. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Section 12 -15 -5, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance), Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow applications to be made for additional GRFA prior to all the allowable GRFA being constructed on a property, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100021) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to June 14, 2010 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 4 -0 -0 14. Approval of May 10, 2010 minutes MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pierce VOTE: 2 -0 -2 ( Paladino and Pratt recused) 15. Information Update 5 minutes Linn Brooks, Assistant General Manager of the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, discussion was rescheduled to the June 14, 2010, public hearing. 16. Adjournment MOTION: Pratt SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 4 -0 -0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The Page 7 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 May 21, 2010, in the Vail Daily. Page 8