The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-0825 PEC TOWN OF VAIt f PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 25, 2014 at 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visit: 1. 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane 30 minutes 1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a review of the Vail Land Use Plan map, pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan, to change the land use designation of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane/Lots 37 and 38, Buffer Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140026) Applicant: Triumph Development, LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 30 minutes 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from Two-Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple-Family District, located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane/ Lots 37 and 38, Buffer Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140025) Applicant: Triumph Development, LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the adoption of the Vail Valley Medical Center Master Plan, to establish a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center, Lot 10 (Town of Vail parking lot), and US Bank Building, located at 181 and 281 West Meadow Drive and 108 South Frontage Road West/ Lots E, F, and 10 Vail Village Filing 2, and Lot D-2, A Resubdivision of Lot D Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140011) Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Table to September 8, 2014 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 4. A request for the review of a development plan, pursuant to Section 12-8E-6, Development Plan, Vail Town Code and a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-8E-3, Conditional Use, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the Ski and Snowboard Vail Club Vail site with a new private and public club and multi-family residential dwelling units, located at 598 Vail Valley Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140020, PEC140023) Applicant: Ski and Snowboard Club Vail, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Table to September 8, 2014 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Page 1 5. A request for the review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the re-subdivision of Parcel 1 of the Golden Peak Ski Base And Recreation District Parcel and Part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, in order to establish Parcel 3, Golden Peak Ski Base And Recreation District Parcel, the redevelopment site for Ski and Snowboard Club Vail, located at 460 and 598 Vail Valley Drive/Parcel 1, Golden Peak Ski Base and Recreation District Parcel, and Part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140021) Applicant: Ski and Snowboard Club Vail and Vail Corporation, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Table to September 8, 2014 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow a revision to the approved development plan for the Cornerstone site to facilitate the construction of a tensioned membrane structure, located at 1300 Westhaven Drive/Unplatted, (Liftside/Cornerstone) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140019) Applicant: Charter Sports, represented by Braun & Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Table to September 8, 2014 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 7. A request for the review of amendments to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C- 3, Conditional Uses, to allow for improvements to a public park and active outdoor recreation area, facility, and use (restroom and picnic pavilion) on the Lower Bench of Ford Park, located at 530 South Frontage Road East/Un platted(Ford Park), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140024) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Table to September 8, 2014 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 8. Approval of August 11, 2014 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 9. Information Update 10. 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. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. 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 August 22, 2014 in the Vail Daily. Page 2 TOWN OF VAIt f PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 25, 2014 at 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Henry Pratt Webb Martin Dick Cleveland Michael Kurz Luke Cartin Pam Hopkins John Rediker Site Visit: 1. 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane 30 minutes 1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a review of the Vail Land Use Plan map, pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan, to change the land use designation of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane/Lots 37 and 38, Buffer Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140026) Applicant: Triumph Development, LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: Rediker Motion failed due to lack of a second ACTION: Recommendation of denial MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5-1-0 (Rediker opposed) Items 1 and 2 were discussed simultaneously, while actions on each were independently made. Jonathan Spence gave a presentation pursuant to the staff memorandum. He began with a discussion of the applications, how the two applications are related, and the process. Commissioner Cleveland inquired as to the ownership of the properties. Michael O'Connor, Triumph Development, is under contract and partnered with the current owners. He gave a power point presentation focused on land use policies and goals and the neighborhood history to support the proposal. The presentation highlighted many inconsistences in the built multi-family condition and the adopted zoning for many properties in the area. He concluded the presentation by addressing many of the concerns provided in the written correspondence of the neighboring property owners. Commissioner Hopkins inquired as to any future plans for the town to improve or add to pedestrian network of bike paths and sidewalks. Warren Campbell responded that he was not aware of any plans to extend or improve the pedestrian network in the neighborhood. Page 1 Commissioner Cartin asked for a clear explanation of the differences between the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map, which he felt might be confusing to some in attendance. Jonathan Spence explained the differences and how they were interrelated. He further detailed the criteria for reviewing each of the requests. Commissioner Rediker asked why the property at the intersection of the Frontage Road and Buffehr Creek Road was multi-family but zoned for a duplex and why it is not in conformance with the Land Use Plan. Greg Bemis, resident of Vail, spoke to his knowledge of the property as having being built prior to annexation. Jonathan Spence spoke to the effort undertaken when adopting the Vail Land Use Plan Commissioner Kurz inquired as to the plan and the EHU designated Barbara Brandon, resident across road from the site, spoke to her understanding that the neighborhood has some eye sores and there is some redevelopment needed. Hopes that future redevelopment occurs within existing regulations. This proposal is a jump of 40% in the number of units. Worried about traffic and safety of walking in their quiet neighborhood. When Vail Commons was approved all/majority of traffic was to access off the Frontage Road. She spoke to the preferred Chamonix Master Plan site plan as serving as the "move-up" housing spoken to by the applicant. By her estimation each unit will be in the neighborhood of$600,000 based on recent price per square foot of units recently sold at Pine Ridge Townhomes. Supports a comprehensive approach to developing a master plan for the area which allows for public input. Wendy Erb, lives on Meadow Ridge Road, spoke to the increase in square footage increase from existing and the fact that it will equate to more people at the site. She spoke to her inability to get on buses in the winter due to the number of individuals using the bus. Opposed to piece meal approach to planning the neighborhood. There needs to be a comprehensive approach. The argument of what is next door has consequences as elaborated in several scenarios provided. The plan needs to be headed as creep will occur if the criteria is based upon what is next door. Greg Bemis, highlighted that for each positive the applicant has made there is negative impact as well. For instance to the west is Vail Commons, but to the east in duplex residential. He spoke to the plans he has seen over the years for the redevelopment of the West Vail Mall and Safeway which included multiple floors including residential. Feels like this change leads to a domino effect of increased development. Inquired as to process and the action that would occur today. Commissioner Pratt spoke as to the Commission's role in this review and a future opportunity as the proposal moves forward to the Town Council. Greg Bemis spoke further about his belief that the public notice should extend beyond neighboring properties as West Vail is a neighbor that tries to look out for its neighbors and neighborhood. Wendy Erb spoke to her understanding that the Commission recommendation is heavily weighed by the Town Council. She asked that the Commission send the message to the Town Council that a broader approach to master planning the area. Page 2 Commissioner Hopkins spoke to her long term residency and asked when the last time a comprehensive review was performed on the Land Use Master Plan. Jonathan Spence spoke to his understanding that the last comprehensive review of the Land Use Master plan occurred at its adoption in the mid 1980's. Commissioner Cartin spoke to the criteria for the Land Use Master Plan and the third criteria which he did not feel was supportive with the application. He spoke to the pockets of low density that were put in place specifically. He spoke to the density projects access off the Frontage Road. Chamonix Lane is a more residentially neighborhood design. Commissioner Cleveland feels Chamonix is a residential street. It does not relate to the Frontage Road or I-70. It is a reach to speak to traffic on I-70 and the Frontage Road. The pockets of low density residential appropriately located. The plan is somewhat conceptual, however, the applicant has not met the criteria and the burden of proof. He feels that this is spot zoning. Commissioner Rediker, spoke to the opposition to the application. Piecemeal zoning is not appropriate. He has spoken in the past in opposition to projects he felt were spot zoning. He feels this is spot zoning. He asked staff to speak to the criteria that should be generally used to determine if a zoning request is "spot zoning". Jonathan Spence provided a response stating the difference between spot zoning and zoning requests which are not is in compliance with adopted plans. He spoke to how the first action in this request with regard to the Land Use Plan Map, if adopted, would negate an argument for spot zoning. Staff's review of the rezoning requested assumed the Land Use Plan Map amendment was recommended for approval. Commissioner Rediker asked staff to respond to its response to Criteria No. 5 and the impacts to the natural environment. How can staff respond to this criteria without a proposed development plan. Jonathan Spence spoke to the town's adopted regulations would address elements such as stormwater run-off, water quality, setbacks, etc. Commissioner Rediker inquired as to staff's response to the third criteria for the Land Use Plan Map amendment regarding support of the Comprehensive Plan. Jonathan Spence spoke to the general goals of the comprehensive plan being met by the proposed redevelopment of the site. Commissioner Kurz spoke his belief that Triumph previous good work however in his neighborhood in East Vail has narrow streets as well and cannot support the proposal. He did not feel change had occurred to warrant the proposed changes. Commissioner Pratt spoke to the fact that there is no guiding master plan for West Vail and that this may be a good time to undertake that effort. Does not feel that the sites warrant "trophy homes" in a neighborhood that doesn't support that approach. He did not feel the Land Use Plan Map amendment does not meet the criteria. Feels affordable townhouse properties are needed in Vail but this proposal today is not is supportable. Page 3 Commissioner Rediker spoke to the fact that the neighborhood is full of moderate density properties inappropriately zoned for two-family duplexes. Spoke to the likelihood of redevelopment of other greater density projects in the neighborhood. A motion to recommend approval by Commissioner Rediker failed due to a lack of a second. A motion to recommend denial passed. 30 minutes 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from Two-Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple-Family District, located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane/ Lots 37 and 38, Buffer Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140025) Applicant: Triumph Development, LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Recommendation of denial MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5-1-0 (Rediker opposed) 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the adoption of the Vail Valley Medical Center Master Plan, to establish a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center, Lot 10 (Town of Vail parking lot), and US Bank Building, located at 181 and 281 West Meadow Drive and 108 South Frontage Road West/ Lots E, F, and 10 Vail Village Filing 2, and Lot D-2, A Resubdivision of Lot D Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140011) Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to September 8, 2014 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 6-0-0 4. A request for the review of a development plan, pursuant to Section 12-8E-6, Development Plan, Vail Town Code and a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-8E-3, Conditional Use, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the Ski and Snowboard Vail Club Vail site with a new private and public club and multi-family residential dwelling units, located at 598 Vail Valley Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140020, PEC140023) Applicant: Ski and Snowboard Club Vail, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Table to September 22, 2014 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 6-0-0 5. A request for the review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the re-subdivision of Parcel 1 of the Golden Peak Ski Base And Recreation District Parcel and Part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, in order to establish Parcel 3, Golden Peak Ski Base And Recreation District Parcel, the redevelopment site for Ski and Snowboard Club Vail, located at 460 and 598 Vail Valley Drive/Parcel 1, Golden Peak Ski Base and Recreation District Parcel, and Part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140021) Applicant: Ski and Snowboard Club Vail and Vail Corporation, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Table to September 22, 2014 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 6-0-0 Page 4 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow a revision to the approved development plan for the Cornerstone site to facilitate the construction of a tensioned membrane structure, located at 1300 Westhaven Drive/U n platted, (Lifts i de/Corn erstone) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140019) Applicant: Charter Sports, represented by Braun & Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Table to September 22, 2014 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 6-0-0 7. A request for the review of amendments to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C- 3, Conditional Uses, to allow for improvements to a public park and active outdoor recreation area, facility, and use (restroom and picnic pavilion) on the Lower Bench of Ford Park, located at 530 South Frontage Road East/Unplatted(Ford Park), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140024) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Table to September 8, 2014 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 6-0-0 8. Approval of August 11, 2014 minutes MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 5-0-1(Rediker recused) 9. Information Update 10. Adjournment MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 6-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. 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 August 22, 2014 in the Vail Daily. Page 5 0 TOWN OF VAIL ' Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From Community Development Department Date: August 25, 2014 Subject: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from Two-Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple-Family District, located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane/ Lots 37 and 38, Buffer Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140025) Applicant: Triumph Development, LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicant, Triumph Development, LLC, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from Two-Family Primary/Secondary (P/S) District to Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF) District. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, to the Vail Town Council, for a zone district boundary amendment, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane (Lots 37 and 38, Buffer Creek Resubdivision) from Two-Family Primary/Secondary (P/S) District to Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF) District. This application is being processed concurrently with a Land Use Plan Amendment (PEC140026) that will facilitate, if approved by the Town Council, an application for the redevelopment of the subject property. If approved by the Town Council, the applicant will submit an application that includes details on site plan, height and all other development parameters. This application will be reviewed for conformance with all applicable standards and guidelines at that time. The Vail Town Code does not require development plans to be viewed concurrently with rezoning applications. The applicant has provided a written description of their request, with attachments, dated July 29, 2014 included as Attachment A. Staff has received correspondence from property owners in the vicinity concerning the proposed rezoning. These correspondences have been included as Attachment B. III. BACKGROUND Lots 37 and 38, Buffer Creek Resubdivision Lots 37 and 38 were part of a forty (40) lot subdivision that occurred in Eagle County in 1963. Both lots were subsequently developed in 1966 with a three-unit structure on Lot 38 and a four-unit structure on Lot 37. These lots were included in the West Vail annexation that occurred in 1980. Zoning was established for these lots through Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1981 with a designation of Primary Secondary (P/S) Residential, resulting in the uses of the both lot becoming nonconforming due to density and the structure on Lot 37 becoming nonconforming due to setbacks. According to the Town of Vail files, no significant building activities other than general maintenance has occurred on these properties since that time. The applicant has included in the application reference to land use covenants affecting the subject properties from the subdivision occurring in 1963. While these covenants may exist and be enforceable, private covenants are a civil matter and generally not a consideration by the Town of Vail. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS A. Town of Vail Land Use Plan Chapter II— Land Use Goals and Policies (In Part) The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. Town of Vail Page 2 The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows. 1. General Growth/Development 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2. The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. B. Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part) Chapter 12-1: Title, Purpose and Applicability 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. Town of Vail Page 3 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. 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. Article 12-6D Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PIS) District 12-6D-1: Purpose. The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The two- family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two- family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12-6D-2. Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted. Town of Vail Page 4 Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Single-family residential dwellings. Two-family residential dwellings. 12-6D-3. Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title. Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment. Funiculars and other similar conveyances. Home child daycare facilities, as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this title. Public and private schools. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. 12-6D-4. Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accord with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family and two-family residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. Town of Vail Page 5 12-6D-5. Lot Area and Site Dimensions. The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, eighty feet (80) on each side, within its boundaries. 12-6D-6. Setbacks. In the primary/secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15). 12-6D-7. Height. For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty three feet (33). 12-6D-8. Density Control. A. Dwelling Units. Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. B. Gross Residential Floor Area. 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site. a. Not more than forty six (46) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first ten thousand (10,000) square feet of site area, plus b. Thirty eight (38) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over ten thousand (10,000) square feet, not exceeding fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of site area, plus c. Thirteen (13) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not exceeding thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of site area, plus d. Six (6) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. 2. The secondary unit shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA). Town of Vail Page 6 C. Employee Housing Units. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections A and 8 of this section, a type 1 employee housing unit shall be permitted on lots of less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet in accordance with the provisions of chapter 13 of this title. Any type 1 employee housing unit existing on or before April 18, 2000, shall not be eliminated unless all dwelling units are demolished, in which case the zoning on the property shall apply. However, an existing type 1 employee housing unit may be replaced with a type 11 employee housing unit on lots of fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet or greater. 12-6D-9. Site Coverage. Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area. 12-6D-10: Landscaping and Site Development. At least sixty percent (60%) of each site shall be landscaped. The minimum of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet (10) (width and length) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. 12-6D-11: Parking. Off street parking shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. Article 12-G Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF) District 12-6G-1: Purpose. The medium density multiple-family district is intended to provide sites for multiple- family dwellings at densities to a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The medium density multiple-family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with multiple-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, and where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the zone district. 12-6G-2. Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the MDMF district. Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Multiple-family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and condominium dwellings. Town of Vail Page 7 Single-family residential dwellings. Two-family residential dwellings. 12-6G-3. Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the MDMF district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title. Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment. Dog kennels. Funiculars and other similar conveyances. Home child daycare facilities, as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this title. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations. Public and private schools. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. 12-6G-4. Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the MDMF district. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. Town of Vail Page 8 Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12-6G-5. Lot Area and Site Dimensions. The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80) on each side within its boundaries. 12-6G-6. Setbacks. In the MDMF district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20). 12-6G-7. Height. For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty five feet (35). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty eight feet (38). 12-6G-8. Density Control: A. Gross Residential Floor Area. Not more than fifty six (56) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall not exceed eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. A dwelling unit in a multiple-family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (113) of the total floor area of the dwelling. B. Exemptions. All projects that have received final design review board approval as of December 19, 1978, shall be exempt from the changes in this section as long as the project commences within one year from the date of final approval. If the project is to be developed in stages, each stage shall be commenced within one year after the completion of the previous stage. 12-6G-9. Site Coverage. Site coverage shall not exceed forty five percent (45%) of the total site area. 12-6G-10: Landscaping and Site Development. At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum Town of Vail Page 9 width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. 12-6G-11: Parking. Off street parking shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least one-half(112) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. V. SURROUNDING LAND USES Land Uses Zoning North: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) South: Commercial Commercial Core 3 (CC3) East: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) West: Residential Commercial Core 3 (CC3) VI. ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS COMPARISON The following table compares the dimensional standards of the Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District and the Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF) District. General Development Standard P/S MDMF Minimum Lot Size 15,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Minimum Setbacks Front: 20 feet Front: 20 feet Side: 15 feet Side: 20 feet Rear: 15 Feet Rear: 20 Feet Maximum Height Flat Roof: 30 feet Flat Roof: 35 feet Sloped Roof: 33 feet Sloped Roof 38 feet Maximum Dwelling 2 DU +EHU per site 18 units per acre units/acre GRFA 46% for 1S 10,000 sq. ft. 56% of Buildable Site 38% for 2nd 5,000 sq. ft. Area 13% for 3rd 15,000 sq. ft. 6% in excess of 25,000 sq. ft. Site coverage 20% 45% maximum Minimum Landscaping 60% 30% Required Parking Per Sec. 12-10 Per Sec. 12-10 Town of Vail Page 10 The table below compares the existing or permitted/required conditions on the combined Lot 37/38 development site with what is permitted/ required on the same site with the Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF) District standards. Specific to the Lots 37/38 Development Site Development P/S MDMF Change over Standard (Existing or permitted/ (Permitted/ existing, permitted required) required) or required TJ Lot Size 34,635 sq. ft. 34,653 sq. ft. N/A Minimum Front: 20+ feet Front: 20 feet Varies T Setbacks Side: 4 feet Side: 20 feet (nonconforming) Rear: 20 Feet Rear: 15+ Feet Maximum Height Flat Roof: 30 feet Flat Roof: 35 feet Flat Roof: 5 feet T (Permitted) (Permitted) Sloped Roof: 33 feet Sloped Roof: 38 Sloped Roof: 5 feet T (Permitted) feet (Permitted) Maximum 7 units 14 units 7 Units or 100%T Dwelling (existing/nonconforming) (Permitted) units/acre GRFA 13,591 sq. ft. 19,406 sq. ft. 5,815 sq. ft. or 43%T (Permitted) (Permitted) Site coverage 6,931 sq. ft. (Permitted) 15,594 sq. ft. 8,633 sq. ft. or maximum (Permitted) 125%T Minimum 20,792 sq. ft. 10,396 sq. ft. 10,396 sq. ft. or Landscaping (Required) (Required) 50%J Required Parking 14± spaces 28± spaces 14 spaces or 100%T VII. ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDARY AMENDMENT CRITERIA Per Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, before acting on a zone district boundary amendment application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to this proposal: Note* Staff's analysis is based on an assumption that the Vail Land Use Plan is recommended for approval and adopted by resolution. 1. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town. Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the following goals of the Vail Land Use Plan: Town of Vail Page 11 1. General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (in fill areas). 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the following general and specific purposes of the Town's adopted Zoning Regulations: 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. Town of Vail Page 12 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. 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. Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the following purpose of the Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF) District identified in Section 12-6G-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code: The medium density multiple-family district is intended to provide sites for multiple-family dwellings at densities to a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The medium density multiple-family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with multiple-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, and where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the zone district Therefore, Staff finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion. 2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents. Existing surrounding uses include single family and duplex residential, multi-family residential, and commercial uses. The scale and intensity of these uses is compatible Town of Vail Page 13 with the uses permitted under the Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF) District. The Vail Land Use Plan, as amended, identifies the subject properties and many of those in the general vicinity as Medium Density Residential, indicating their potential for possible future multi-family development. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is suitable with the existing and potential uses on the site and with potential and existing surrounding uses. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. The proposed zone district amendment from the Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (P/S) District to the Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF) District for the properties located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Drive will allow for a redevelopment that is harmonious with its surrounding uses. Potential concerns including pedestrian connectivity, traffic mitigation and visual impacts will be reviewed for required compliance with the Vail Town Code. The proposed amendment allows for the development of medium density multi-family housing, a housing need not currently met within the Town and identified as an objective in the Vail Land Use Plan. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion. 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole. The development standards of Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF) District will ensure appropriate, compatible development that is in the best interest of the community. This zoning amendment does not result in the granting of privilege nor is it incompatible with the Vail Comprehensive Plan, two tests for a determination of spot zoning. Therefore, Staff does not believe the applicant's proposal constitutes a spot zoning and finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion. 5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features. Staff finds that rezoning of the subject properties from the Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (P/S) District to the Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF) District will not substantially alter the impacts on the natural environment in comparison to existing conditions. All appropriate measures to address issues including stormwater run off and water quality shall be required with any development proposal. Town of Vail Page 14 The properties do not contain any desirable natural features for consideration. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion. 6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. As identified above, Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose of the Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF) District. The rezoning and subsequent redevelopment furthers the purpose of the zone district by providing a suitable location for medium density multi-family development, designed and constructed to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the district, and the greater neighborhood. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. The subject properties were constructed in 1966 prior to annexation into the Town of Vail in 1980 and the application of zoning in 1981. The development of the Vail Commons project directly to the east of the subject properties together with the continued increase in noise and traffic along the interstate and its frontages calls into question the appropriateness and suitability of the Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (P/S) District designation. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, to the Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from Two-Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple-Family District, located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane/ Lots 37 and 38, Buffer Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140025). Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria described in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. It should be noted that if the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to recommend approval, it is contingent on the Town Council approving PEC140026, the Land Use Plan Map Amendment. Town of Vail Page 15 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval, for this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from Two-Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple-Family District, located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane/Lots 37 and 38, Buffer Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 140025)" Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval, for this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll this Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated August 25, 2014, 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 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. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's Submittal dated July 29, 2014 with Attachments. B. Letters from neighboring property owners. C. Vicinity Map Town of Vail Page 16 Triumph Development www.triumphdev.com To: Town of Vail Planning Staff From: Michael O'Connor, Triumph Development, LLC Date: July 29, 2014 Re: 2000 & 2004 Chamonix Ln. - Proposed Zone District Boundary Amendment I. Request Summary Triumph Development, along with the current landowners, is proposing to amend the Town of Vail Land Use Plan for lots 37 and 38 of the Buffer Creek Resubdivision from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). Additionally, Triumph Development is proposing to rezone the properties from Two-Family Primary/Secondary (PS) to Medium Density Multifamily(MDMF). The applicant believes that these changes are in-line with the goals of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and statement of purpose for the Town of Vail's zoning ordinance. This rezoning would allow the construction of an infill residential townhome project, a use which the Vail Land Use Plan identified in 1986 as a category of residential housing with a deficit of throughout Town. The project is in context with the density that already exists throughout the neighborhood along Chamonix Lane and would act as an appropriate transition between the adjacent high-density commercial of the Brandess Building, the adjacent high-density residential of Vail Commons, and the pocket of duplexes to the north and east. II. Subject Properties- Lots 37 and 38 of the Resubdivision of Buffer Creek Lot Address Acres Zoning Existing GRFA 37 2000 Chamonix 0.373 Two Family Primary/Secondary 2,912 38 2004 Chamonix 0.420 Two Family Primary/Secondary 2,491 0.793 5,403 a. Land Use Covenants from the Resubdivision of Buffer Creek (October 7, 1963): • "Each of lots...37 and 38 shall be used as sites for either one or two buildings, which building or buildings shall have in aggregate no more than six separate living units" • "Apartments contained therein shall be counted when computing total amount of living units upon any of the aforementioned lots." CO:970.479.9990 12 Vail Road,Suite 700,Vail, CO 81657 MD:301.657.1112 8120 Woodmont Avenue,Suite 800, Bethesda,MD 20814 TRIUMPH Primary/Secondary Primary Secogda n Park ry " r :06 rti es w � r r Hig Densit It A �„ era c. Property Survey and Summary of Non-Conforming Zoning Items: w w w ?I �' ge of Street Asphalt—,_, /_ . I Asph2ft,RPlatking Ar a G erparkirig_ fira — I 3 U its _ asv I I a III, i j woo'°ASE I I I 4Units 4' etba ,oRF°Rr l_ tback - ... 31 I III I � �� I � � — - I 1 �I s II 0 w LOT 3] 0T 58 0 3]3 ACRES d 0420 ACRES I o'ulrt�r I � I I I I I I I I I �5 LAO I I I — — — — -- — — mes I II W ess- N5252'08'E 9902'(10000'PLATTED) N525208 E 100.00' • Unit Count: 3 existing units at 2004 Chamonix. 4 existing units at 2000 Chamonix. • Setbacks: Side-yard setback of 4' and 5'-7" for 2000 Chamonix. • Front Setback& ROW: Parking area in the right-of-way and undefined border between right-of- way and parking at 2000 Chamonix. • Trash Storage:Trash dumpster storage in right-of-way. 3 www.triumphdev.com d. Site Photo - Lot 37 - 2000 Chamonix Lane Site Photo - Lot 38 - 2004 Chamonix Lane y 4 www.triumphdev.com e. How Conditions Have Changed in the context of the Proposed Rezoning: • Evolution of West Vail • With so much unmet residential demand, Vail Commons was built on one of the few remaining commercially-zoned lots. • Vail Commons establish the pattern of dense residential development in 1997 • Growth in amenities and community resources over the past 25 yeas— parks, commercial, public transportation network, fire station, the planned Simba Run underpass. All these help support additional residential density in this Chamonix neighborhood. • Notable lack of redevelopment/improvement to properties along Chamonix Lane caused by the inconsistency of Land Use Plan (MDR) and current Zoning (PS). Most of these non-conforming uses on Chamonix Lane predate the 1980 annexation of West Vail into the Town. Much of Chamonix Lane is non-conforming and exceeds the density allowed by the current zoning—thus inhibiting redevelopment and even renovation. (This is in contrast to the several new Primary/Secondary projects on the western section of Chamonix Lane). • Town-wide residential development pattern over the past 14 years • Vail's "New Dawn" from 2000 to 2010 introduced significant multifamily projects. • Substantial number of development and redevelopment of single-family and duplexes throughout Town. • Imbalance between MDR development vs. LDR and HDR development. Very few MDR townhome developments in the past decade because of the shortage of MDR land. • Nearby Town Sponsored Housing Projects • Acquisition and rezoning of Timber Ridge in 2003 • Chamonix Master Plan adopted in 2009—This rezoned town land has very similar land use characteristics as the subject property, namely it is immediately adjacent to the West Vail commercial zoning on the east, and will become the transitional use for the duplexes and single-family homes to the west and north. • The deterioration of the current rental buildings on the property and non-conforming parking/trash is out of sync with the quality of the other nearby homes. 5 www.triumphdev.com • This amendment can help address the ongoing community dialogue about the lack of"move-up" housing that is attractive to families and a more affordable alternative form of housing compared to larger single family homes or duplexes. 6 www.triumphdev.com III. Proposed Zone District Boundary Amendment a. Town of Vail Zoning Map Attachment C - Zbning Map & Summary of Uses % 795, II �09 �i99 1 ,9 oy^ Zoning Map Key PS - Two-Family rimary/Secondary Residentiat CO - Commercial Core 3 �o H - Housing 2179 rte.— `i � _ :1 .11 • 1750 y. �Y218 s� 1 / 111 • / S --- 2199 1750 7 230 x 7 r�•' 8 F� 2241 2.199 1850 7B 298 S , ao 7gsS S n 2328 AS 2199 S �1975 . � P-A,C PDID R g R W T�?9 1 1 005 n b. Summary of Surrounding Land Use Land Use Zoning Southwest: Multiple Family-20 units/acre CC3 Southeast: Commercial — 13,000 sf CC3 Northeast: Two-Family— non-conforming PS Northwest: Two-Family PS 7 www.triumphdev.com c. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Land Use The following table provides a comparison of the development parameters for the existing Two- Family Primary/Secondary District (PS) zoning and the proposed Medium Density Multiple Family District (MDMF) zoning for the subject property. Standard PS MDMF Minimum Lot Area: 15,000 sf minimum 10,000 sf minimum Setbacks: Front: 20 feet Front: 20 feet Side: 15 feet Side: 20 feet Rear: 15 feet Rear: 20 feet Height: 33 feet 38 feet Density Control: 2 DU (+EHU) 18 units per acre GRFA: 46%for 1st 10,000sf 56% 38%for 2nd 5,000sf 13%for 3rd 15,000sf 6%for excess sf Site Coverage: Maximum of 20% of site Maximum of 45% of site Landscaping: At least 60% of site At least 30% of site Parking: Unit < 500 GRFA= 1.5 Unit < 500 GRFA= 1.5 Unit 500 - 2000 GRFA= 2 Unit 500 - 2000 GRFA= 2 Unit > 2000 GRFA Unit > 2000 GRFA The following table provides a comparison of the development criteria for the current PS zone compared to that of the proposed MDMF zone as well as the sample sketch plan. 8 www.triumphdev.com Development Proposed Sketch Standard PS MDMF Plan Lot Area 34,653 sf 34,653 sf 34,653 sf Allowed Front: 20 feet Front: 20 feet Complies Setbacks Side: 15 feet Side: 20 feet Rear: 15 feet Rear: 20 feet Allowed Height 33 feet 38 feet Complies Density Control 4 DUs (+ 2 EHUs) 14 units 12 units GRFA 13,591 sf 19,406 sf 19,340 sf Site Coverage 6,931 sf 15,594 sf 10,100 sf Landscaping 20,792 sf 10,396 sf 13,683 sf Parking Varies with unit count Varies with unit count Required: 24 Provided: 34 d. Zoning District Boundary Amendment Review Considerations: • "The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town." • Please refer to the corresponding Land Use Plan Amendment Application dated July 29, 2014 that is being reviewed concurrently. • The proposed rezoning supports seven of the eleven stated purposes of the Town's zoning regulations. • "#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." 9 www.triumphdev.com ■ "#8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town." ■ "#9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features." ■ "#10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters." ■ "#11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community." • "The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents" • Sizeable high-density CC3 district adjacent to the property on two sides. Vail Commons at 20 units per acre is immediately adjacent to the property. • Appropriate transition between high-density residential to the west, the CC3 commercial to the south, and the PS to the north and east. • The land-use covenants for the property from the Buffer Creek subdivision anticipate building up to 6 units on each lot for a total of 12 units. • Proposed density is in-line with the other non-conforming multi-family buildings with significant numbers of units along Chamonix Lane. There are 10 multifamily buildings throughout the block and immediately surrounding area. • Land Use Plan identifies MDR use in all other areas immediately surrounding CC3 zone with the exception of this site. • Current buildings on the subject properties are non-conforming to the underlying zoning • "The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives." • Harmonious • Surround by CC3. Natural transition from dense residential in CC3 to the pocket of Primary/Secondary residential on the other side of the subject property • In their current condition, the existing building's are inconsistent with quality of homes in the neighborhood • Parking in the setback and ROW • Trash in the front setback • Dated, not well maintained and not attractive • A consistent theme of the neighborhood is smaller units with more density. • Convenient & Workable— Proximity to Town amenities 10 www.triumphdev.com • Bus stop • Neighborhood park • Commercial proximity • Simba Run Underpass • "The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole." • These are the only two lots in the neighborhood that are surrounded by CC3 zoning on two sides. • Subject properties non-conforming in setbacks, unit counts, as well as parking in the front setback. • Encouraging growth/density in an infill location surrounded by density • VERY few infill sites in Vail in existing platted areas of Vail • This project can help prove the viability of the market for Chamonix Commons • "The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features" • Infill development • Close to public transportation and walking distance to retail • "The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. " • MDMF is the appropriate scale transition between high-density Vail Commons and Brandess Building and the pocket of duplexes to the east and north. • MDMF is inline with the scale of development outlined in Exhibit E • The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate o Evolution of West Vail • With so much unmet residential demand, Vail Commons was built on one of the few remaining commercially-zoned lots. • Vail Commons establish the pattern of dense residential development in 1997 11 www.triumphdev.com ■ Growth in amenities and community resources over the past 25 yeas— parks, commercial, public transportation network, fire station, the planned Simba Run underpass. All these help support additional residential density in this Chamonix neighborhood. • Town-wide residential development pattern over the past 14 years • Vail's "New Dawn" from 2000 to 2010 introduced significant multifamily projects. • Substantial number of development and redevelopment of single-family and duplexes throughout Town. • Imbalance between MDR development vs. LDR and HDR development. Very few MDR townhome developments in the past decade because of the shortage of MDR land. • Nearby Town Sponsored Housing Projects • Acquisition and rezoning of Timber Ridge in 2003 • Chamonix Master Plan adopted in 2009—This rezoned town land has very similar land use characteristics as the subject property, namely it is immediately adjacent to the West Vail commercial zoning on the east, and will become the transitional use for the duplexes and single-family homes to the west and north. • The deterioration of the current rental buildings on the property and non-conforming parking/trash is out of sync with the quality of the other nearby homes. • This amendment can help address the ongoing community dialogue about the lack of "move-up" housing that is attractive to families and a more affordable alternative form of housing compared to larger single-family homes or duplexes. IV. Attachments: A. Vicinity Map B. (Not Used) C. Zoning Map D. Existing Conditions Survey E. Sample Development Site Plan 12 www.triumphdev.com • • �6 1 .rea k,M .y y � x • 1 X, `C� N r i r " IN C co lb � 5 1 � 6 l o�z � X915 CO �9� 10 X969 6'� •"r • `oa 0 p • ra 0 99 SO �r r S r ■ N . • lry In fo • O r • co ... • U W Ca V) L w 6VZZ �••i Q (� �jp 6£ZZ �69 L.L _ o ag9 O O .N N U =3 ti`s Cm OOv—o 'n1 .1—3'I Ill 30 N-1 — JN1833N191V� as a333ne 3o NOISIA10-3a IL equnoW aa4u�� K-1sS— O w o1N-0-3aoMd'w4nlVaWiVHI dVW�IHdt/FJrJOd01 i m 0 — ———— — — ---------J N aj 5 " j 0 l k, I 53]'0]52'E 17066'/BAS/S OF BEAR/NGS) aj Nom/ 5 w� — < — — —— —— — — G m k urea =2 � m $$ u nab% � —- w I - a v �n v ° Q °imse grim pie ® � sa °'♦ o ® O N ii i Q X Z N O z = Q Q m � U L w O O � N QJ s � v O rq ° o I Q OO -- i I O A e A A m " m a NN(U ""`� v v v v � v v -- 4 0 a a ^� / �17V913S�eL � 0 Q V U n w �b5'81P18+"n313 � �; �Ib3d From: Martin <martinwo @comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:05 AM To: Jonathan Spence Cc: 'John Kirschner'; 'Martin Ricketts' Subject: 200& 2004 Chamonix Lane Jonathan; further to our brief telephone conversation of this morning, please let me confirm that I am in opposition to the planned increase in density at the above addresses. The main reasons are as follows: Master Plan; rather than a piecemeal change in densities allowed I would much rather see a master plan for the whole Chamonix Lane area. This way all residents will have an opportunity to participate with suggestions such as a sidewalks, street lights etc. to make the road safer for the anticipated increase in traffic. Density increase: the requested GRFA increase of 43% is too high. As a long term resident (35 years) I would want to see the residential nature of our neighborhood retained. Unfortunately I am not able to attend the August 25, 2014 meeting. If you need a more formal letter outlining my objections please let me know. Sincerely Martin J Wohnlich 2019 Chamonix Lane, Vail Co file:///NWS-Storage/Desktops$/jspence/Desktop/PEC140026/200%202004%2OChamonix%2OLane.txt[08/20/2014 11:30:26 AM] 10265 E. Mountain Spring Rd. Scottsdale,AZ 85255 August 19, 2014 Jonathan Spence,TOV Planner Town of Vail Planning Staff 75 Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 RE: 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane Proposed Land Use Amendment and Proposed Zone District Boundary Amendment Dear Mr. Spence: George Burnett and I are the homeowners of 1987B Circle Drive which we purchased as a second home in 2006. We are writing to express our thoughts regarding the proposed rezoning of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane. The proposed amendments to these two properties must be considered in the context of the surrounding area which is essentially primary/secondary zoning. In fact,we purchased our home precisely because this was a quiet,low density residential neighborhood with many original homes. Given the nature of the homes in this area,it is understandable that many will need to be renovated over time. However,allowing the rezoning of these two properties on an ad hoc basis will set a precedent for future projects without the benefit of a master plan. We do not want the rezoning of these properties to be the rationale for all future proposals ultimately damaging the character and safety of the neighborhood. We think that the town should consider a broad plan which takes into consideration multiple constituencies, including area residents. Such a plan will provide a framework for making appropriate individual rezoning decisions. In addition,we are concerned that such a significant increase in the density of these two properties will substantially increase traffic and put pressure on the capacity of the buses that run along Chamonix. We are opposed to a one off, ad hoc,decision that will adversely affect the character and safety of the neighborhood.We are very supportive of a thoughtful,well developed master plan of the area and use of the town of Vail's resources. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully yours, Amy Burnett 1987B Circle Drive August 19, 2014 Jonathan Spence,TOV Planner Town of Vail Planning Staff 75 Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Spence, We received notice of the town meeting scheduled for August 25, 2014 regarding a request to rezone the property located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from low density to medium density. We feel that our community and local street cannot safely handle the traffic that multiple dwellings and parking facilities will bring. We would like to remain a low density community and oppose any rezoning. Sincerely, Dr. and Mrs.Jean Paul Jacobi 2009 Chamonix Lane Vail, Co. Jonathan Spence,TOVManner Town of Vail Planning Staff 7s Frontage Road Vail,CO DearMcSpence: I am the owner of property at 1989 Circle Drive.I am writing because I have concerns regarding the rezoning of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane.As I understand,the proposed plan would greatly increase the number of units as well as the number of parking spaces.|don't feel this particular area of town is designed for large increases in density.When we bought the property in the 1990's we did so because the neighborhood had more single-family units and was located on quieter streets with a park nearby.It is scary enough walking on Chamonix in the winter or summer with the TOV buses and cars driving through.There are no sidewalks so people walk in the street.Increasing the parking spaces to allow that many more cars would really increase the danger for pedestrians. Even though|aman absentee landlord,weuse the property frequently with family members who have children.VVepicked the location with children in mind.Had we wanted to invest in a high density neighborhood we would have looked elsewhere. There are several other nearby areas that would be better suited to this project. What are your guidelines and parameters for allowing rezoning?I was told there is no Master Plan for this area.Has the planning staff analyzed long-term effects of allowing rezoning? |would think that before you approve this rezoning request that there should be the development of a Master Plan that is put into effect before any rezoning is considered. Debbie Garland � A& " � � ! | | / Gary L. Palumbo Brooke Palumbo 1957 Circle Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 August 21, 2014 Via E-Mail Only O Spence @vailgov.com) Jonathan Spence, TOV Planner Town of Vail Planning Staff 75 Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane Proposed Land Use Amendment and Proposed Zone District Boundary Amendment Dear Mr. Spence: My wife, Brooke, and I, are the owners and residents of 1957 Circle Drive, a single family home. I am writing to express our opposition to the proposed rezoning of the parcels at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane. Our small neighborhood, eastward from Vail Commons and particularly in the vicinity of Buffher Creek Park, including the subject parcels, is zoned for primary/secondary residential construction. Consistent with the zoning and density, Chamonix Lane and Circle Drive, with light motor vehicle traffic, are regularly safely used by resident and visiting pedestrians and cyclists. The rezoning of the subject parcels will allow for the proposed more than doubling of permissible parking spaces, all directly accessing Chamonix Lane in the immediate vicinity of our otherwise low vehicular traffic environment—a dramatic threat to the character of our neighborhood. Vail Commons, with its almost exclusively North Frontage Road access to parking, posed no such threat, and is not precedent for the proposed, and unprecedented, rezoning. I urge the Town to maintain the character of our neighborhood as it was wisely and uniformly zoned—for primary/secondary residential construction only along Chamonix Lane east of Vail Commons. Sincefely, ` l rookerand Gary Palumbo by Gary Palumbo GLP/pkb cc: John Kirschner (via e-mail) John Kirschner and Barbara Brundin 1995 Chamonix Lane Vail, Colorado 81657 August 6,2014 Jonathan Spence,TOV Planner Town of Vail Planning Staff 75 Frontage Road Vail,CO 81657 Re: 2000&2004 Chamonix Lane Proposed Land Use Amendment and Proposed Zone District Boundary Amendment Dear Mr. Spence: We are the homeowners of 1995 Chamonix Lane. We have lived at the property since 1988 and remodeled our house in 2008. We live in Vail full-time. We are writing to give you our thoughts on the proposed rezoning of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane. We realize that our neighborhood is ripe for redevelopment. We are not opposed to it and recognize that in some form it is inevitable. Our concerns are twofold: the increase in density from the current seven units to twelve is too great; and the precedent of rezoning will set the stage for future development of our neighborhood in the same manner as a master plan without the input of the public or neighborhood's residents. The two properties currently have seven units. Triumph's plans are for 11 units plus an employee housing unit. This will increase the density by 41%. This is a substantial departure from its current usage and from its primary/secondary zoning. There are currently 15 parking spaces between the two properties. Triumph's plans are for 34 parking spaces. There is significant traffic in our neighborhood from residents and the Town of Vail buses. It is dangerous walking in our neighborhood without sidewalks and will be more so. Triumph uses Vail Commons as the reason that its rezoning should be approved; however, when Vail Commons was approved, all traffic for the development was funneled to the frontage road. This will not be the case here. Under Triumph's plan, there will be increases in GRFA (13,591 square feet to 19,340 square feet,a 43% increase)and in site coverage(6,931 square feet to 10,100 square feet, a 46% increase)and in building height(33 feet to 36 feet, an 9% increase). Under the zoning change, they can have 19,406 square feet of GRFA, 15,594 square feet of site coverage and 38 feet in building height. As we all know, Triumph is not legally bound to the plan dated 7/28114 which they submitted. West Vail does not have a current master plan. If you approve the rezoning,you are creating a master plan. Subsequent developers will point to this change as a reason that they also should be entitled to rezoning. In fact, Triumph is using this argument when it states that Vail Commons established a"pattern of dense residential development in 1997." The purpose of a master plan is to consider an overall plan for an area. When they are drafted, public input is considered that allows for the opinions of the residents. Thought is also given to the development of surrounding properties. Without a proper master plan, you will change the character of our neighborhood. We are long-term, stable residents who have invested in our community. We want to preserve its quiet, residential nature. We have not been given any middle ground or alternatives to the density. We are open to compromise such as another type of zoning with less density. We are looking for answers that will not destroy our quiet neighborhood and allow for improvement at the same time. Thank you for your consideration. respectfully, John Kirschner Barbara Brundin 1995 Chamonix Lane 1995 Chamonix Lane ti r ry \ w a � i • � 4 \r Zc ?� s r� 0 TOWN OF VAIL ' Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From Community Development Department Date: August 25, 2014 Subject: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a review of the Vail Land Use Plan map, pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan, to change the land use designation of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane/Lots 37 and 38, Buffer Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140026) Applicant: Triumph Development, LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicant, Triumph Development, LLC, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan map, pursuant to Section 8- 3, Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan, to change the land use designation of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of the amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a review of the Vail Land Use Plan map, pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan, to change the land use designation of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential (Lots 37 and 38, Buffer Creek Resubdivision). Concurrently, the applicant is requesting a subsequent rezoning of the property from Two-Family Primary/Secondary (P/S) District to Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF) District (PEC140025). The Land Use Plan Amendment and rezoning will facilitate, if approved by Town Council, an application for the redevelopment of the subject property. The applicant has provided a written description of their request, with attachments, dated July 29, 2014, included as Attachment A. Staff has received correspondence from property owners in the vicinity concerning the proposed rezoning. These correspondences have been included as Attachment B. For ease of reference, staff has included, as Attachment C, The Vail Land Use Plan in its entirety with the exception of the Chamonix Master Plan. III. BACKGROUND Town of Vail Land Use Pan The Town of Vail Land Use Pan was adopted on November 18, 1986, with the purpose of articulating land use goals and guiding future decisions regarding land use within the Town. Accompanying the Plan is a map which identifies in a spatial format the location of the Land Use Categories identified in the Plan. Pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment Process, of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan, the amendment process is one which is intended to assure the Plan's effectiveness with periodic updates to reflect current thinking and changing market conditions. The process includes amendments which may be initiated in any of the following three ways. A. By the Community Development Department B. By the Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council C. By the private sector For those requests initiated by the private sector, the following process shall be followed: 1. Make application with the Community Development Department. Applications may be made by either a registered voter, a property owner or a property owner's authorized representative. Such application may be made at any time. 2. Such applications will then be considered at a meeting with the PEC. At the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing, a recommendation shall be made to the Town Council, whereupon a decision shall then be rendered. To change the Plan by this procedure, it will be the responsibility of the applicant to clearly demonstrate how conditions have change since the Plan was adopted, how the Plan is in error or how the addition, deletion or change to the Plan is in concert with the Plan in general. Such decisions may include approval, approval with conditions or denial. Amendments may be requested for change to the goals and policies and/or Land Use Plan map. If such request is approved, such change shall be made to the Plan document and/or map. If such request is denied, no such request that is substantially the same as that previously denied shall be considered for a period of one year. Town of Vail Page 2 Lots 37 and 38, Buffer Creek Resubdivision Lots 37 and 38 were part of a forty (40) lot subdivision that occurred in Eagle County in 1963. Both lots were subsequently developed in 1966 with a three-unit structure on Lot 38 and a four-unit structure on Lot 37. These lots were included in the West Vail annexation that occurred in 1980. Zoning was established for these lots through Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1981 with a designation of Primary Secondary (P/S) Residential, resulting in the uses of the both lot becoming nonconforming due to density and the structure on Lot 37 becoming nonconforming due to setbacks. According to the Town of Vail files, no significant building activities other than general maintenance have occurred on these properties since that time. The applicant has included in the application reference to land use covenants affecting the subject properties from the subdivision occurring in 1963. While these covenants may exist and be enforceable, private covenants are a civil matter and generally not a consideration by the Town of Vail. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS A. Town of Vail Land Use Plan Chapter II— Land Use Goals and Policies (In Part) The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows. 1. General Growth/Development 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2. The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. Town of Vail Page 3 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. B. Town of Vail Land Use Plan Chapter VI- Proposed Land Use (In part) 4. Proposed Land Use Categories New land use categories were defined to indicate general types of land uses which should occur within the Town during the planning period. These categories were varied from the existing land use categories to reflect the goals of the community more accurately. The specific land uses are listed as examples and are not intended to reflect an all-inclusive list of uses. Uses would be controlled by zoning. These categories are indicated below. LDR Low Density Residential This category includes single-family detached homes and two-family dwelling units. Density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acres. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional/public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. MDR Medium Density Residential The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would Town of Vail Page 4 range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as parks and open space, churches and fire stations. 5. "Preferred Plan"Land Use Pattern The "Existing Trends"alternative was chosen as the preferred land-use plan and was carefully reviewed area by area to assess feasibility and compatibility with adjacent existing land uses. Some modifications were then made in proposed new areas of medium and high density because of potential land use and neighborhood conflicts. The pattern which is reflected on the "Preferred Plan"is discussed below. A. Residential Uses 1. Low Density Uses Low density residential uses are now planned for a total of 699.0 acres, or about 21% of the land in the plan area, which is an increase of 8% over the area presently in low density residential use. These areas reflect the completion of existing platted projects, with some additional areas added adjacent to the single family areas at low densities. The 8% increase reflects the large number of undeveloped, platted lots already existing in Vail. 2. Medium and High Density Uses Medium and high density residential areas now account for a total of approximately 15% of the land in the plan area, with 421 acres in the medium density category and 68.5 acres in the high density category. This is a 4 increase in land area devoted to these two land use designations, reflecting a need to accommodate additional market demand for multi-family uses. For the most part, these multi-family areas have been kept consistent with the pattern of existing land use with additional multi-family occurring within unfinished projects and adjacent to these multi-family areas. Some new areas of high density residential have been added, specifically in East Vail between the Frontage Road and 1-70, where access is good and surrounding land uses would be compatible for this type of use. Other areas, north of*-70 where existing land uses are mixed containing both low and medium density uses have been shown as medium density to meet the demand for additional multi- family dwelling units within the 15-year planning period. 6. "Preferred Land Use Plan"Analysis The "Preferred Plan" acreages were then compared with projected demands to the year 2000 for permanent housing, lodging units, commercial and office square footage. The resulting figures are shown in Table 10. This table compares the demand in units or acres with the supply of undeveloped land both platted and unplatted, which Town of Vail Page 5 is unconstrained. Unconstrained lands are those areas which do not contain high hazard avalanche and geologic areas, floodplains or slopes over 40%. This table shows that the Preferred Plan will be able to provide enough lots/land area for all of the projected demand for single family and duplex lots, with a surplus remaining of 326 dwelling units. There will be a shortfall of area for multi-family dwelling units of 17 acres, which may be accommodated through increasing the occupancy rate of existing multi- family units or encouraging the down valley communities to supply a portion of this demand. This shortfall occurred because of 1) the need to assure that new areas designated for multi-family were compatible with surround land uses, 2) the desire of the community to discourage development in sensitive, undeveloped lands, and, 3) the general satisfaction of the community with the existing land use pattern. It was thus decided that it would not be appropriate to increase densities in unsuitable areas just to completely fill market demands. TABLE 9: PROPOSED LAND USE— "PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN" LAND USE CATEGORY ACRES PERCENT Low Density Residential 698.8 20.8 Medium Density Residential 420.8 12.5 High Density Residential 68.5 2.0 Hillside Residential 33.3 1.0 Village Master Plan 77.0 2.3 Tourist Commercial 15.8 .05 Resort Accommodation Services 51.9 1.6 Transition Area 11.4 0.3 Community Commercial 24.4 0.7 Community Office 15.6 0.5 Park 255.9 7.6 Open Space 1,022.9 30.5 Public and Semi-public 72.0 2.1 Ski Base 86.3 2.6 Interstate 70 Right-of-Way 505.5 115.0 TO TA 13,360.1 1100.0 In summary, the Preferred Land Use Plan reflects a balancing of existing conditions, community opinion, opportunities and constraints, and projected growth demands. V. SURROUNDING LAND USES Land Uses Zoning North: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) South: Commercial Commercial Core 3 (CC3) East: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) West: Residential Commercial Core 3 (CC3) Town of Vail Page 6 VI. LAND USE CATEGORY COMPARISON Standard LDR MDR Housing Type Single-family detached Attached units with common Two-family dwelling units walls Density Not to exceed 3 structures A range from 3 to 14 dwelling per buildable acre units per buildable acres Other Uses Private Recreation Private Recreation Institutional/Public Uses Institutional/Public Uses VII. VAIL LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA Before acting on a review of the Vail Land Use Plan map, pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposal: A. Have conditions changed since the plan was adopted? Since the plans adoption in 1986, the West Vail area has experienced moderate development/redevelopment including the addition of Fire Station #3, upgrades to commercial properties, including Safeway, new parks and enhanced transit facilities and the development of the Vail Commons multifamily project. Vail Commons is a 53-unit mix of two and three bedroom condominium and townhome style units completed in 1997. All of the units are deed restricted to qualified buyers. In contrast to other areas of town, the West Vail area has not witnessed the levels of new development seen in the Vail Village/Lionshead Village core areas. With few exceptions, Vail, and West Vail in particular, has not seen the growth in medium density housing opportunities similar to that seen in low density single-family and duplex development or in high density, resort style development. General growth in the area and in Colorado as a whole has resulted in increased traffic along the 1-70 corridor, including along the Vail frontage roads. This increase in traffic may result in existing lands designated LDR as no longer being as suitable for single- family/duplex style development. Although conditions have changed, staff considers the general assumptions of the plan, including the "Preferred Land Use Plan" to remain largely valid. The development of the Vail Commons project directly to the east of the subject properties together with the continued increase in noise and traffic along the interstate and its frontages may warrant specific adjustments to the Land Use Map similar to that being proposed. Staff finds that this criteria supports the proposed changes to the Land Use Map. Town of Vail Page 7 B. Was the plan in error in respect to the delineation on the Land Use Map? Although considerable time has passed since the adoption of the plan in 1986, staff does not consider the map delineations in this area to have been made in error. Careful attention was made at that time when designating lands for multi-family development to maintain compatibility with surrounding land uses, the desire of the community to discourage development on sensitive, undeveloped lands and the general satisfaction with the community, at that time, with the existing land use pattern. The plan specifically did not designate additional lands for multifamily development despite the deficit identified in the Preferred Land Use Plan. Staff finds that the plan was not in error thus this criteria is not supportive of the proposed changes to the Land Use Map. C. Is a revision to the plan in concert with the plan, in general? The proposed revision to the plan, if approved by the Vail Town Council, will enable the applicant to proceed with a rezoning of the property to facilitate a medium density multi- family residential development. Staff finds that the following goals of the Vail Land Use Plan support this proposal: 1. General Growth/Development 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. Staff finds that the revisions to the plan are in concert with the plan, in general and that this criteria is supportive of the proposal. Town of Vail Page 8 VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, to the Town Council, for a review of the Vail Land Use Plan map, pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan, to change the land use designation of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane/Lots 37 and 38, Buffer Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140026) Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria described in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval, for this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for a review of the Vail Land Use Plan map, pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan, to change the land use designation of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane/Lots 37 and 38, Buffer Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140026)" Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval, for this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll this Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated August 25, 2014, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds. 1. That the applicant has clearly demonstrated how conditions have changed since the Plan was adopted, how the Plan is in error or how the addition, deletion or change to the Plan is in concert with the Plan in general. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's Submittal dated July 29, 2014 with Attachments. B. Letters from neighboring property owners. C. Town of Vail Land Use Plan, including Official Land Use Map, without the Chamonix Master Plan. Town of Vail Page 9 Triumph Development www.triumphdev.com To: Town of Vail Planning Staff From: Michael O'Connor, Triumph Development, LLC Date: July 29, 2014 Re: 2000 & 2004 Chamonix Ln. - Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment I. Request Summary Triumph Development, along with the current landowners, is proposing to amend the Town of Vail Land Use Plan for lots 37 and 38 of the Buffer Creek Resubdivision from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). Under a separate application, Triumph Development is proposing to rezone the properties from Two-Family Primary/Secondary (PS) to Medium Density Multifamily (MDMF). The applicant believes that these changes are in-line with the goals of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and statement of purpose for the Town of Vail's zoning ordinance. This rezoning would allow the construction of an infill residential townhome project, a use which the Vail Land Use Plan identified in 1986 as a category of residential housing with a deficit of throughout Town. The project is in context with the density that already exists throughout the neighborhood along Chamonix Lane and would act as an appropriate transition between the adjacent high-density commercial of the Brandess Building, the adjacent high-density residential of Vail Commons, and the pocket of duplexes to the north and east. II. Subject Properties- Lots 37 and 38 of the Resubdivision of Buffer Creek Lot Address Acres Zoning Existing GRFA 37 2000 Chamonix 0.373 Two Family Primary/Secondary 2,912 38 2004 Chamonix 0.420 Two Family Primary/Secondary 2,491 0.793 5,403 a. Land Use Covenants from the Resubdivision of Buffer Creek (October 7, 1963): • "Each of lots...37 and 38 shall be used as sites for either one or two buildings, which building or buildings shall have in aggregate no more than six separate living units" • "Apartments contained therein shall be counted when computing total amount of living units upon any of the aforementioned lots." CO:970.479.9990 12 Vail Road,Suite 700,Vail, CO 81657 MD:301.657.1112 8120 Woodmont Avenue,Suite 800,Bethesda,MD 20814 TRIUMPH Primary/Secondary Primary Secogda n Park ry " r :06 rti es w � r r Hig Densit It A �„ era c. Property Survey: ? u _ v ge of Street Asphalt aw /_ . I Asph2 Tlatking Ar a —u G erParCf�Area 4 fira �I 3 Units _ asv I I a II, i j woo'°ASE � I I 4Units 4' etba� IL oRF°Rr - I c� � � I tback — - I 1 0 w LOT 3] 0T 58 0 3]3 ACRES d 0420 ACRES I o'ulrt�r I � I I �5 LAO I I I — — — — -- — — mes I II �W ess- 9902'(10000'PEA JIE0) N525208 E 100.00' 3 www.triumphdev.com d. Site Photo - Lot 37 - 2000 Chamonix Lane Site Photo - Lot 38 - 2004 Chamonix Lane y 4 www.triumphdev.com III. Proposed Amendment to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan: a. Land Use Map: Attachment B - Land Use a � - - -- Land Use District Key: a � � MDR = Medium Density Residential ose Chan LDR = Low Density to MDR Residential CC = Community Commercial b. Summary of Surrounding Land Use Land Use Recommended Land Use Southwest: Multiple Family-20 units/acre CC Southeast: Commercial — 13,000 sf CC Northeast: Two-Family— non-conforming LDR Northwest: Two-Family LDR c. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Land Use Categories: The following table provides a comparison of the Land Use Categories for the current LDR zone and the proposed MDR zone for the subject property. 5 www.triumphdev.com Standard LDR MDR Recommended Land Single-Family Residential use with Use Duplex attached common walls. Private recreation Public Uses Recommended Density 3 units per acre 3 to 14 units per acre d. Outline of How the Proposed Land Use Amendment Addresses the Goals of the Land Use Plan: • The Land Use Plan's "Preferred Plan" Recommended Land Use Pattern - "This is a 4% increase in land area devoted to (medium and high density residential areas), reflecting a need to accommodate additional market demand for multi-family uses. For the most part, these multi- family areas have been kept consistent with the pattern of existing land use with additional multi-family occurring within unfinished projects and adjacent to these multi-family areas... Other areas, north of 1-70 where existing land uses are mixed containing both low and medium density uses have been shown as medium density to meet the demand for additional multi- family dwelling units within the 15-year planning period." • Land Use Plan calls out areas adjacent to existing multi-family for future multifamily development. Since the plan was adopted, Vail Commons was built with 52 units. • Land Use Plan calls out the area north of 1-70 with a mix of low and medium density uses as a good location for MDR development. • "Preferred Plan" Land Use Analysis - "There will be a shortfall of area for multi-family dwelling units of 17 acres" o The Land Use Plan identified a notable deficiency of multifamily land and MDR in particular as early as 1986. This shortage of land is more acute today. • Goal 1.1—"Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident." • The Property is surrounded on two sides by high-density CC land uses including the Vail Commons, which was improved with 20 residential units per acre in 1997. • Amendment would complete the MDR buffer around West Vail CC Area. It would provide transitional use between high-density CC area to the west/south and the pocket of LDR to our east/north. 6 www.triumphdev.com o Infill location provides walking proximity to commercial area, existing community amenities like the bus stop, and the nearby neighborhood park. • Goal 1.3 —"The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible." • Our plan will improve the esthetic of Chamonix Road considerably. • Redevelopment will clean up existing non-conformities such as side set-backs and parking/trash in the front setback and right-of-way. • Goal 1.12 —"Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas)." Policy 5.1—"Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriated in the new areas where high hazards do not exist." • In 1986 the Land Use Plan identified a shortfall of multifamily land of 17 acres. • The "Preferred" Land Use Plan calls out area north of I-70 with a mix of multifamily and single family as a preferred area for multifamily housing. • As one of the few infill locations with immediate proximity to high-density land use, this location is one few platted residential areas that can help address this shortfall of multifamily land. • Goal 5.4—"Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types." • There are numerous examples of the development of larger multifamily projects in the past decade— Middle Creek, Arrabelle, One Willow Bridge, the Willows, Solaris, the Ritz Carleton Residences, Four Seasons, and First Chair. • There are numerous examples of single family and duplex development/redevelopment throughout all parts of Town in the past decade • VERY few medium density townhome projects due to lack of land e. How Conditions Have Changed in the context of the Proposed Land Use Amendment: • Evolution of West Vail • With so much unmet residential demand, Vail Commons was built on one of the few remaining commercially-zoned lots. • Vail Commons establish the pattern of dense residential development in 1997 • Growth in amenities and community resources over the past 25 yeas— parks, commercial, public transportation network, fire station, the planned Simba Run underpass. All these help support additional residential density in this Chamonix neighborhood. 7 www.triumphdev.com o Notable lack of redevelopment/improvement to properties along Chamonix Lane caused by the inconsistency of Land Use Plan (MDR) and current Zoning (PS). Most of these non-conforming uses on Chamonix Lane predate the 1980 annexation of West Vail into the Town. Much of Chamonix Lane is non-conforming and exceeds the density allowed by the current zoning—thus inhibiting redevelopment and even renovation. (This is in contrast to the several new Primary/Secondary projects on the western section of Chamonix Lane). • Town-wide residential development pattern over the past 14 years • Vail's "New Dawn" from 2000 to 2010 introduced significant multifamily projects. • Substantial number of development and redevelopment of single-family and duplexes throughout Town. • Imbalance between MDR development vs. LDR and HDR development. Very few MDR townhome developments in the past decade because of the shortage of MDR land. • Nearby Town Sponsored Housing Projects • Acquisition and rezoning of Timber Ridge in 2003 • Chamonix Master Plan adopted in 2009—This rezoned town land has very similar land use characteristics as the subject property, namely it is immediately adjacent to the West Vail commercial zoning on the east, and will become the transitional use for the duplexes and single-family homes to the west and north. • The deterioration of the current rental buildings on the property and non-conforming parking/trash is out of sync with the quality of the other nearby homes. • This amendment can help address the ongoing community dialogue about the lack of"move-up" housing that is attractive to families and a more affordable alternative form of housing compared to larger single family homes or duplexes. IV. Attachments: A. Vicinity Map B. Land Use Map C. (Not Used) D. Existing Conditions Survey E. Sample Development Site Plan 8 www.triumphdev.com • • �6 1 .rea k,M .y y � x • 1 X, `C� N r i r " IN C C6 U N DC O � O i Ln +, J U N >- i �--+ L m 4 :3 N _ dJ � E o Ln ii Q J G 0C J 0C U U OOv—o 'n1 .1—3'I Ill 30 N-1 — JN1833N191V� as a333ne 3o NOISIA10-3a IL equnoW aa4u�� K-1sS— O w o1N-0-3aoMd'w4nlVaWiVHI dVW�IHdt/FJrJOd01 i m 0 — ———— — — ---------J N aj 5 " j 0 l k, I 53]'0]52'E 17066'/BAS/S OF BEAR/NGS) aj Nom/ 5 w� — < — — —— —— — — G m k urea =2 � m $$ u nab% � —- w I - a v �n v ° Q °imse grim pie ® � sa °'♦ o ® O N ii i Q X Z N O z = Q Q m � U L w O O � N QJ s � v O rq ° o I Q OO -- i I O A e A A m " m a NN(U ""`� v v v v � v v -- 4 0 a a ^� / �17V913S�eL � 0 Q V U n w �b5'81P18+"n313 � �; �Ib3d From: Martin <martinwo @comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:05 AM To: Jonathan Spence Cc: 'John Kirschner'; 'Martin Ricketts' Subject: 200& 2004 Chamonix Lane Jonathan; further to our brief telephone conversation of this morning, please let me confirm that I am in opposition to the planned increase in density at the above addresses. The main reasons are as follows: Master Plan; rather than a piecemeal change in densities allowed I would much rather see a master plan for the whole Chamonix Lane area. This way all residents will have an opportunity to participate with suggestions such as a sidewalks, street lights etc. to make the road safer for the anticipated increase in traffic. Density increase: the requested GRFA increase of 43% is too high. As a long term resident (35 years) I would want to see the residential nature of our neighborhood retained. Unfortunately I am not able to attend the August 25, 2014 meeting. If you need a more formal letter outlining my objections please let me know. Sincerely Martin J Wohnlich 2019 Chamonix Lane, Vail Co file:///NWS-Storage/Desktops$/jspence/Desktop/PEC140026/200%202004%2OChamonix%2OLane.txt[08/20/2014 11:30:26 AM] 10265 E. Mountain Spring Rd. Scottsdale,AZ 85255 August 19, 2014 Jonathan Spence,TOV Planner Town of Vail Planning Staff 75 Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 RE: 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane Proposed Land Use Amendment and Proposed Zone District Boundary Amendment Dear Mr. Spence: George Burnett and I are the homeowners of 1987B Circle Drive which we purchased as a second home in 2006. We are writing to express our thoughts regarding the proposed rezoning of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane. The proposed amendments to these two properties must be considered in the context of the surrounding area which is essentially primary/secondary zoning. In fact,we purchased our home precisely because this was a quiet,low density residential neighborhood with many original homes. Given the nature of the homes in this area,it is understandable that many will need to be renovated over time. However,allowing the rezoning of these two properties on an ad hoc basis will set a precedent for future projects without the benefit of a master plan. We do not want the rezoning of these properties to be the rationale for all future proposals ultimately damaging the character and safety of the neighborhood. We think that the town should consider a broad plan which takes into consideration multiple constituencies, including area residents. Such a plan will provide a framework for making appropriate individual rezoning decisions. In addition,we are concerned that such a significant increase in the density of these two properties will substantially increase traffic and put pressure on the capacity of the buses that run along Chamonix. We are opposed to a one off, ad hoc,decision that will adversely affect the character and safety of the neighborhood.We are very supportive of a thoughtful,well developed master plan of the area and use of the town of Vail's resources. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully yours, Amy Burnett 1987B Circle Drive John Kirschner and Barbara Brundin 1995 Chamonix Lane Vail, Colorado 81657 August 6,2014 Jonathan Spence,TOV Planner Town of Vail Planning Staff 75 Frontage Road Vail,CO 81657 Re: 2000&2004 Chamonix Lane Proposed Land Use Amendment and Proposed Zone District Boundary Amendment Dear Mr. Spence: We are the homeowners of 1995 Chamonix Lane. We have lived at the property since 1988 and remodeled our house in 2008. We live in Vail full-time. We are writing to give you our thoughts on the proposed rezoning of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane. We realize that our neighborhood is ripe for redevelopment. We are not opposed to it and recognize that in some form it is inevitable. Our concerns are twofold: the increase in density from the current seven units to twelve is too great; and the precedent of rezoning will set the stage for future development of our neighborhood in the same manner as a master plan without the input of the public or neighborhood's residents. The two properties currently have seven units. Triumph's plans are for 11 units plus an employee housing unit. This will increase the density by 41%. This is a substantial departure from its current usage and from its primary/secondary zoning. There are currently 15 parking spaces between the two properties. Triumph's plans are for 34 parking spaces. There is significant traffic in our neighborhood from residents and the Town of Vail buses. It is dangerous walking in our neighborhood without sidewalks and will be more so. Triumph uses Vail Commons as the reason that its rezoning should be approved; however, when Vail Commons was approved, all traffic for the development was funneled to the frontage road. This will not be the case here. Under Triumph's plan, there will be increases in GRFA (13,591 square feet to 19,340 square feet,a 43% increase)and in site coverage(6,931 square feet to 10,100 square feet, a 46% increase)and in building height(33 feet to 36 feet, an 9% increase). Under the zoning change, they can have 19,406 square feet of GRFA, 15,594 square feet of site coverage and 38 feet in building height. As we all know, Triumph is not legally bound to the plan dated 7/28114 which they submitted. West Vail does not have a current master plan. If you approve the rezoning,you are creating a master plan. Subsequent developers will point to this change as a reason that they also should be entitled to rezoning. In fact, Triumph is using this argument when it states that Vail Commons established a"pattern of dense residential development in 1997." The purpose of a master plan is to consider an overall plan for an area. When they are drafted, public input is considered that allows for the opinions of the residents. Thought is also given to the development of surrounding properties. Without a proper master plan, you will change the character of our neighborhood. We are long-term, stable residents who have invested in our community. We want to preserve its quiet, residential nature. We have not been given any middle ground or alternatives to the density. We are open to compromise such as another type of zoning with less density. We are looking for answers that will not destroy our quiet neighborhood and allow for improvement at the same time. Thank you for your consideration. respectfully, John Kirschner Barbara Brundin 1995 Chamonix Lane 1995 Chamonix Lane ti August 19, 2014 Jonathan Spence,TOV Planner Town of Vail Planning Staff 75 Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Spence, We received notice of the town meeting scheduled for August 25, 2014 regarding a request to rezone the property located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from low density to medium density. We feel that our community and local street cannot safely handle the traffic that multiple dwellings and parking facilities will bring. We would like to remain a low density community and oppose any rezoning. Sincerely, Dr. and Mrs.Jean Paul Jacobi 2009 Chamonix Lane Vail, Co. Gary L. Palumbo Brooke Palumbo 1957 Circle Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 August 21, 2014 Via E-Mail Only O Spence @vailgov.com) Jonathan Spence, TOV Planner Town of Vail Planning Staff 75 Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane Proposed Land Use Amendment and Proposed Zone District Boundary Amendment Dear Mr. Spence: My wife, Brooke, and I, are the owners and residents of 1957 Circle Drive, a single family home. I am writing to express our opposition to the proposed rezoning of the parcels at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane. Our small neighborhood, eastward from Vail Commons and particularly in the vicinity of Buffher Creek Park, including the subject parcels, is zoned for primary/secondary residential construction. Consistent with the zoning and density, Chamonix Lane and Circle Drive, with light motor vehicle traffic, are regularly safely used by resident and visiting pedestrians and cyclists. The rezoning of the subject parcels will allow for the proposed more than doubling of permissible parking spaces, all directly accessing Chamonix Lane in the immediate vicinity of our otherwise low vehicular traffic environment—a dramatic threat to the character of our neighborhood. Vail Commons, with its almost exclusively North Frontage Road access to parking, posed no such threat, and is not precedent for the proposed, and unprecedented, rezoning. I urge the Town to maintain the character of our neighborhood as it was wisely and uniformly zoned—for primary/secondary residential construction only along Chamonix Lane east of Vail Commons. Sincefely, ` l rookerand Gary Palumbo by Gary Palumbo GLP/pkb cc: John Kirschner (via e-mail) Jonathan Spence,TOVManner Town of Vail Planning Staff 7s Frontage Road Vail,CO DearMcSpence: I am the owner of property at 1989 Circle Drive.I am writing because I have concerns regarding the rezoning of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane.As I understand,the proposed plan would greatly increase the number of units as well as the number of parking spaces.|don't feel this particular area of town is designed for large increases in density.When we bought the property in the 1990's we did so because the neighborhood had more single-family units and was located on quieter streets with a park nearby.It is scary enough walking on Chamonix in the winter or summer with the TOV buses and cars driving through.There are no sidewalks so people walk in the street.Increasing the parking spaces to allow that many more cars would really increase the danger for pedestrians. Even though|aman absentee landlord,weuse the property frequently with family members who have children.VVepicked the location with children in mind.Had we wanted to invest in a high density neighborhood we would have looked elsewhere. There are several other nearby areas that would be better suited to this project. What are your guidelines and parameters for allowing rezoning?I was told there is no Master Plan for this area.Has the planning staff analyzed long-term effects of allowing rezoning? |would think that before you approve this rezoning request that there should be the development of a Master Plan that is put into effect before any rezoning is considered. Debbie Garland � A& " � � ! | | / OW LAND USE PLAN An element of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan Adopted November 18, 1986 Updated January 28, 2009 MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS: LAND USE PLAN TASK FORCE Mr. Dan Corcoran, Town Council Mr. Jim Viele, Planning & Environmental Commission Mr. Joe Macy, Vail Associates Mr. Bob Poole, Forest Service Mr. Rod Slifer, At Large TOWN COUNCIL Mayor Paul Johnston Mayor Pro Tern Kent Rose Mr. Eric Affeldt Mr. Dan Corcoran Mr. Gordon Pierce Mr. Hermann Staufer Ms. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Mr. Duane Piper, Chairman Ms. Diana Donovan Mr. Bryan Hobbs Ms. Pam Hopkins Ms. Peggy Osterfoss Mr. Sid Schultz Mr. Jim Viele CONSULTANTS THK Associates, Inc. Mr. Robert Giltner, Director of Urban and Regional Planning Ms. Leslie Freeman, Senior Urban Planner Mr. Roy Fronczyk, Senior Planner STAFF Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Mr. Peter Patten, Director, Department of Community Development Mr. Rick Pylman, Planner II AND MOST OF ALL CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITY TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I — INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1 CHAPTER II — LAND USE PLAN GOALS / POLICIES...............................................................4 CHAPTER III — OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ...........................................................7 CHAPTER IV— EXISTING LAND USE........................................................................................8 CHAPTER V—SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE ...........................................................................13 CHAPTER VI — PROPOSED LAND USE ..................................................................................21 CHAPTER VII —COMMUNITY FACILITIES ..............................................................................32 CHAPTER VIII — IMPLEMENTATION........................................................................................45 APPENDICES A. Community Questionnaire— Summary Results A-1 —6 B. Additional Goal Statements B-1 C. Additional Sources C-1 D. Economic and Demographic Overview D-1 — 12 E. Town of Vail Forecast Methodology E-1 — 15 F. Land Use Plan for Chamonix Parcel F-1 Adoption and Amendments to Land Use Plan (Land Use Map Amendments Listed On Map) 1. RESOLUTION NO. 27, SERIES OF 1986: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MASTER LAND USE PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL 2. RESOLUTION NO. 13 SERIES OF 1991: A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE TOWN OF VAIL LAND USE PLAN, CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A PARCEL OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF THE TOWN OF VAIL SHOPS FROM OPEN SPACE TO SEMI-PUBLIC, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 2 SERIES OF 2003: A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PLAN, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE PLAN REGARDING THE EXCHANGE OF UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE LANDS, AMENDING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE "SKI BASE" LAND USE DESIGNATION. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 17 SERIES OF 2005: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VII, PART 1, INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT OF TOWN OWNED PROPERTY, VAIL LAND USE PLAN, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER VIII, PART 3B, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION OR TOWN COUNCIL AMENDMENTS, VAIL LAND USE PLAN, TO ALLOW FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ADD THE CHAMONIX PARCEL AS TRACT 431 IN THE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT OF TOWN OWNED PROPERTY, CHAPTER VII, PART 1, VAIL LAND USE PLAN; ADD THE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE CHAMONIX PARCEL AS APPENDIX F, VAIL LAND USE PLAN; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 3 SERIES OF 2006: A RESOLUTION AMENDING A CERTAIN SECTION OF THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR ADDITION OF THE LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION, DELETION OF THE TOURIST COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION, AMENDMENTS TO VAIL LAND USE PLAN MAP. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 2, SERIES OF 2009: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CHAMONIX MASTER PLAN, TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING AND A FIRE STATION ON THE "CHAMONIX PARCEL" AND "WENDY'S PARCEL" AND TO AMEND THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN, PURSUANT TO SECTION 8-3, AMENDMENT PROCESS, VAIL LAND USE PLAN TO DESIGNATE THE CHAMONIX MASTER PLAN AREA LOCATED AT 2399 NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD AND 2310 CHAMONIX ROAD/PARCELS A AND B, RE-SUBDIVISION OF TRACT D, VAIL DAS SCHONE FILING 1. CHAPTERI — INTRODUCTION 1. Purpose of Project During 1985, the Town of Vail, Community Development Department initiated the process of developing a Comprehensive Plan for the Town. This process has involved the analysis and design of a series of plan elements including: A. Master plans for Ford and Donovan Parks, completed in 1985; B. The Vail Village Master Plan, presently being completed; and C. The Land Use Plan, contained in this document. Following adoption of this key element of the Plan, other components are scheduled to be undertaken including a Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and a Transportation Element. These elements, when integrated together, will serve to guide the development of the Town of Vail for the next fifteen years. This document 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 Land Use Plan has been 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 190,0001 annual skier visits and virtually no permanent residents to a community with 4,500 permanent residents and 1,223,450 annual skier visits in the short time span of twenty-four years. The Town is now faced with the challenge of creatively accommodating the projected growth, while preserving the important qualities which have made Vail successful in the past — as a ski resort, as a permanent place to live, and as a growing year-round resort. This is a considerable challenge, given the fact that land within the Vial Valley is a well-defined "finite" resource, with much of the developable land having already been developed at this junction. This Land Use Plan has been undertaken with the goal of addressing this challenge. A secondary purpose of the Land Use Plan project was to analyze a series of properties owned by the Town of Vail, to determine their suitability for various types of community facilities. Selected community facilities were analyzed for future needs and then matched with a series of suitable sites owned by the Town. 2. Planning Process The process which was utilized to complete the Land Use Plan has been a dynamic one, with citizen participation playing an important role. The process has involved: A. A systematic inventory of the physical properties of the Town, including the land conditions and the statistical components of the socioeconomic base. B. A thorough analysis of the inventory to determine the long-term implications of such data. C. An interactive public participation process to solicit goals, desires, and needs of the citizen, business and political communities within the Town. D. A creative interpolation of the public input combined, with the development opportunities and constraints, into a realistic and achievable Land Use Plan for the Town. 1 1965-66 Annual Skier Visits —"The Contribution of Skiing to the Colorado Economy— Eagle County Case Study— Colorado Ski Country U.S.A., 1982. 1 3. Public Participation The public participation process has been a major factor in shaping the preferred Land Use Plan. A. The participation process was initiated with the following goals: 1. To develop an understanding of the forces which will direct the future of the community. 2. To help discover the various futures which the community could have. 3. To help develop a "collective" vision for the future, which could be supported by the community at large. B. The public participation has involved the following steps: 1. A Land Use Plan Task Force was established to act as a steering committee to guide the plan development process. This Task Force included a representative from the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Town Council, Vail Associates, the Forest Service, a Citizen/Business Community Representative and Community Development Staff. This Task Force met regularly throughout the duration of the project to develop policy and refine the plan as it progressed. 2. The "Town Meeting" was held early on in the process to introduce the Land Use Plan project. There was a brief presentation of the purpose of the project and the project schedule, which was followed by an open discussion of growth issues. The meeting was well attended with a total of 60 participants. Those in attendance were asked to break up into smaller groups of about ten and then each group discussed: a. Likes and dislikes about the Town as it exists now. b. Level, location and type of growth. c. Hot Spots —areas of specific concern regarding land use. A community survey was also distributed which was tabulated and is included in Appendix A. The results of this first meeting were tabulated and categorized, then used to formulate an initial set of goal statements. This information also was then used as in put in the generation of several Plan alternatives. 3. A second public meeting was held one month later to review the findings of the project to date with respect to the socioeconomic data base, the Plan alternatives, and the goal statements developed from the first meeting. This meeting was also well attended, with approximately 60 people. Small groups were again formed and each group voted on and responded to the goal statements and finished by critiquing the proposed Land Use Plan alternatives. The results of this meeting were tabulated and used to refine the goal statements and to develop the preferred Plan. 4. A meeting was then held with the Planning/Environmental Commission and the Town Council to obtain their feedback to the socioeconomic base data and the preferred Plan. 5. A third public meeting was held to obtain additional input on the preferred Plan and begin the discussion of the various community facilities within the Town. This meeting was attended by 40 people and the input was again utilized to refine the Plan. The draft report was then written. 2 4. Growth Issues The Land Use Plan was intended to help to address the following growth related questions identified by the Task Force. A. General 1. What are the various existing philosophies, issues and problems which have shaped growth in the past and will continue to influence the future? 2. What are the major constraints to growth and how many these change or be changed in the future? 3. What are the market demands for growth and how should these be directed by public policy decisions? 4. What type of growth is necessary and desirable for the economic well being of the Town? 5. How should environmental quality of life concerns play a role in directing growth? 6. Where is there room for growth, where go growth pressures exist versus where growth should optimally occur? 7. How should the Town of Vail approach the issue of annexation and National Forest land transfers? 8. What types of general administrative changes are necessary to address the issue of growth (i.e., land use regulation revisions, zoning changes, etc.)? B. Level of Growth 1. Given that Vail Mountain has approved plans for expansion of its capacity gradually over the next 25 years (annual average 3%), how will this growth be accommodated and when? 2. What growth rate is appropriate? a. no growth (expand parking for day use of mountain); b. slow growth; and c. keep expanding at current rate 3. Should growth accommodations be steered toward day use or overnight use? C. Location of Growth —should growth be accommodated through: 1. Increased density in Core Areas; 2. Growth up hillsides / forest service land transfers; 3. Growth in existing multi-family developed areas; and/or 4. Growth in undeveloped areas. D. Location of Growth —should growth occur primarily in: 1. Hotels; 2. Accommodation units; 3. Condominiums; 4. Townhouses; 5. Single family / duplex residences; 6. Commercial facilities; and/or 7. Balances in all sectors. The series of public meetings, along with input from the PEC, Town Council and Task Force have effectively answered many of these questions, as will be evidenced in the later chapters of this document, specifically in the Goals Chapter and in the design of the Plan itself. 3 CHAPTER II — LAND USE PLAN GOALS / POLICIES The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows: 1. General Growth / Development 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2. The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4. The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.5. Commercial strip development of the Valley should be avoided. 1.6. Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.7. New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.8. Recreational and public facility development on National Forest lands may be permitted where no high hazards exist if: a. Community objectives are met as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. b. The parcel is adjacent to the Town boundaries, with good access. c. The affected neighborhood can be involved in the decision-making process. 1.9. The existing condition and use of National Forest Land (USFS) which is exchanged, sold, or otherwise falls into private ownership should remain unchanged. A change in the existing condition and use may be considered if the change substantially complies with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and achieves a compelling public benefit which furthers the public interest, as determined by the Town Council. 1.10. Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 4 1.11. Town owned lands shall not be sold to a private entity, long term leased to a private entity or converted to a private use without a public hearing process. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 1.13. Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. 2. Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.1. The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. 2.2. The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. 2.3. The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 2.4. The community should improve summer recreational options to improve year-round tourism. 2.5. The community should improve non-skier recreational options to improve year-round tourism. 2.6. An additional golf course is needed. The Town should work with the down valley communities to develop a golf course as well as other sports facilities to serve the regional demand for recreational facilities. 2.7. The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. 2.8. Day skier needs for parking and access should be accommodated through creative solutions such as: a. Increase busing from out of town. b. Expanded points of access to the mountain by adding additional base portals. c. Continuing to provide temporary surface parking. d. Addition of structured parking. 3. Commercial 3.1. The hotel bed base should be preserved and use more efficiently. 3.2. The Village and Lionshead areas the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of destination skiers. 3.3. Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4. Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3.5. Entertainment oriented business and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night-time businesses, on-going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged. 5 4. Village Core / Lionshead 4.1. Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2. Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 4.3. The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural settings, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 4.4. The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead should be enhanced through: a. Installation of anew type of people mover. b. Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk, alpine garden, and/or sculpture plaza. c. New development should be controlled to limit commercial uses. 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.2. Quality time share units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. 6. Community Services 6.1. Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2. The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6.3. Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. A number of additional goals were developed as a result of the public meeting input. These goals were related to other elements of the Comprehensive Plan such as Parks and Recreation, Transportation and Economic Development. These are included only for informational purposes in Appendix B. These goals are not considered as a part of the goals adopted in this Land Use Plan. 6 CHAPTER III — OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Before an accurate picture of potential land use in Vail could be developed, it was of critical importance to assess both the constraints and opportunities, with respect to development potential which exists in the Town of Vail. These constraints / opportunities included an analysis of: 1. Floodplains / River Corridors / Water Bodies These were mapped within the Valley and were considered an area which would preclude new development activity, except as related to open space and park development. The source for this information was the Gore Creek Floodplain Map, 1977, Hydro-Triad, Ltd. 2. Steep Slopes All areas over 40% slopes were mapped. These areas were also classified to preclude development, as the Town of Vail presently has adopted (as a part of the zoning ordinance) requirements for development on slopes greater than 40%. Slope maps were also obtained from the source listed above. 3. Major Barriers The 1-70 right-of-way was designated on the Existing Land Use Map as an area that would not be available for future development. 1-70 right-of-way maps were provided by the Town. 4. Rockfall, Debris Flow, Debris Avalanche, Snow Avalanche Rockfall debris flow and debris avalanche areas were mapped on a separate 1"=400' map for low, moderate and high hazard areas. A composite map which included snow avalanche, geologic hazards, steep slopes, and floodplain areas was then compiled at a smaller scale of 1"=1,000'. The composite map showed only high hazard avalanche, debris flow and rockfall areas. These high hazard areas were considered areas in which new development should not occur. The source of this information was the Environmental Constraints Map, 1977, Briscoe, Maphis, Murray and Lamont and Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abbey. The Debris Flow and Debris Avalanche Hazard Analysis, 1980, by Arthur T. Mears and the Rockfall Study, 1984, Schmueser and Associates studies and maps were also utilized. 5. Open Space / Park Lands All areas which were designated as permanent park and open space lands were identified as a part of the Existing Land Use Map Exhibit. These lands included active parks owned by the Town of Vail and passive open space and greenbelt areas owned by the Town and homeowners' associations. These areas were considered to be unavailable for any future development, other than park-type developments. The Community Development Department provided a list of these sites. 6. Vacant Lands Areas which contained no development as of 1986 were identified, mapped and quantified. Vacant lands were quantified with and without constraints according to the composite map which showed high geologic hazard areas, avalanche, floodplain and slopes over 40%. Vacant lands were identified through field observation and cross-checked with aerial photographs. 7 7. National Forest Lands An important component of the Land Use Plan study was to help the Town develop a process whereby National Forest lands, proposed for exchange or sale, could be evaluated at a time prior to transfer, annexation and zoning. The Tow of Vail Council and staff had identified this as an area of primary concern at the time requests for proposals were issued for this Plan. The main motivation for investigating his issue was for the benefit of both the town and the Forest Service, so that both entities would be able to develop a cooperative approach to evaluating proposals on National Forest lands, having carefully evaluated the long-term needs and desires of both entities. In order to evaluate these lands the following analysis was performed. A. As a starting point, lands which had been designated by the Forest Service on the "National Forest Land Disposal Map" were identified and added to the plan boundary. B. The Task Force decided, after discussion with the National Forest representative, to analyze all parcels adjacent to the Town that had areas less than 40% slope which could be feasibly accessed. These areas were evaluated by a study of U.S.G.S. quad maps, combined with the knowledge of the Forest Service, as to areas which should be analyzed. These areas amounted to isolated small parcels south of the Town boundaries, as well as parcels north and east of Potato Patch. These parcels were added into the plan boundary. 8. Vail Mountain Expansion Plans The Vail Mountain Master Plan provided by Vail Associates, was carefully studied and where the plans affected lands within the Town boundaries, these were identified and mapped. In particular, a new area for the ski portal at Cascade Village and planned improvements south of Lionshead were shown as Ski Base Facilities, to indicate that these areas would not be available to other uses. A more detailed list of all reports utilized as a part of this study is provided in Appendix C. A map which illustrates the combined constraints is contained on figure 1". More detailed large scale maps are available for review with the Town of Vail Community Development Department. CHAPTER IV— EXISTING LAND USE An important step leading to the development of the proposed land use plan is to analyze the pattern of existing land uses within the Town. This analysis allowed for a definition of the opportunities for future growth, where it could be located, and why based on compatibility of surrounding land uses and physical constraints. 1. Inventory Process Existing land use within the Town were inventoried through the combination of: a) field reconnaissance; b) analysis of 1977 existing land use maps: c) aerial photo interpretation; and d) verification with the Community Development Department. This information was then mapped and land uses were measured by land use category. The categories which were used to classify land use were chosen to be consistent with earlier land use inventories, as well as to accurately reflect the array of land uses within the Town. The land uses were classified as follows: 8 A. Residential 1. Single Family Detached /Two Family— includes single family and duplex units, at a density of less than 3 units per acre. 2. Multi-family Medium Density— includes Townhomes, row houses, condominiums, and cluster housing when individual units are not detached. Densities range from 3 to 18 dwelling units per acre. 3. Multi-family High Density— includes apartments and condominiums at densities of over 18 dwelling units per acre. B. Hotels, Lodges and Accommodation Units Includes all units which are occupied on a short-term basis, other than condominiums and apartments. C. Village and Lionshead Core Areas Includes a mix of uses including: retail, office, hotel, condominiums and public/semi-public facilities such as: the municipal complex, post office, hospital and fire station. D. Commercial 1. Business Services — includes offices, clinics, banks, savings and loans. 2. Commercial / Retail — includes retail uses, restaurants and personal services. 3. Intensive Commercial — includes commercial recreation, service stations, vehicle repair shops and sales, and general storage facilities. E. Public and Semi-Public Includes fire stations, churches, schools, water and sewer service and storage facilities, communication facilities, and municipal facilities such as maintenance and storage facilities. F. Parks Includes designated parks and athletic fields. G. Open Space Includes greenbelts, stream corridors, drainageways and other areas which function as passive open space. H. Ski Area Development Includes ski trails and ski base facilities such as ticket purchase areas, restaurants, ski school facilities, etc. I. Vacant/ Platted Includes all lands which are within recorded subdivisions that are presently vacant. 9 J. Vacant/ Unplatted Includes all undeveloped lands that are unsubdivided, including National Forest lands administered by the Forest Service, as well as private holdings within the present municipal boundaries. K. Interstate 70 Right-of-Way Includes all lands designated interstate right-of-way as it traverses the Vail Valley within the Town boundaries. L. Areas of Less than 40% Slope Outside of Town Boundary Includes lands adjacent to the Town boundaries presently within the National Forest, which have areas of less than 40% slope. In the analysis of existing land use, a series of documents were studied. These documents included: 1. The Community Action Plan —Town of Vail, 1984. 2. Development Statistics — Community Development Department, 1985. 3. Vail Plan — Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey, 1973. 4. Final Report— Economic Development Commission, 1984. 5. The Vail Village Master Plan — Draft, 1986. 6. Vail Mountain Master Plan —Vail Associates, 1986. 7. Land Development Regulations and Codes— Community Development Department. 8. Numerous other technical reports supplied by the Community Development Department, as noted in Appendix C. The study of these documents led to a clear understanding of the various forces that have influenced the development of Vail and will play a part in its future development. 2. Land Use Pattern The pattern of existing land uses in Vail has been shaped by the natural characteristics of the Valley in concert with the man-made features that have been constructed over the years. The predominant features of the Valley which have played a major role in Vail's design include the proximity of steep slopes, the location of Gore Creek and its floodplain, the location of the ski mountain and attendant ski facilities and the presence of a major transportation corridor — Interstate 70 and its interchanges. The primary nodes of urban development have developed at the base of the ski mountain at the Vail Village and Lionshead. With the ski access points planned at Cascade Village along with the construction of the hotel, and its attendant retail uses, a third node of urban development is being created. These nodes are presently the focus of the majority of the tourist oriented retail, service and hotel activity within the Town. A fourth urban node has emerged at the 1-70 interchange at West Vail, which is primarily oriented toward serving the consumer needs for local residents. The areas outside of the urban nodes have been shaped by the combined forces of the steep sloes, Gore Creek and 1-70. gore Creek has remained as an open space spine through the Valley and along with the golf course, has served to influence the location and type of growth. Residential land uses have developed over the years east and west of the urban nodes, 10 primarily south of 1-70, due to the proximity of steep slopes to 1-70 on the north. Some development has also occurred in West Vail, north of 1-70 where suitable development conditions have existed. The focus of the most intensive residential development has been to the south of 1-70 between the freeway and Gore Creek. Less intensive development has occurred south of the Creek, where more sensitive land conditions and less suitable access to I- 70 have continued to influence the type of growth. These factors have significantly shaped the pattern of growth in the Vail Valley and will continue to do so throughout the life of this Plan. As Vail is, at this point in time, already fairly intensely developed, with land being a finite resource within the confines of the Valley, these past land use patterns are not expected to change drastically with the design and adoption of this plan. The community, at its public meeting process, expressed a desire to continue to build on these well established trends and for this reason, these trends have been used as a foundation for the design of the proposed Land Use Plan. A. Residential Development The most important force which has directed the mix of land uses in Vail has been the ski industry, which is dependent on an adequate supply of lodging units, tourist-related retail uses and areas for parking. These demands, when combined with the physical components of the Vail Valley and a relative scarcity of suitable land for development, have created a fairly intense pattern of development within the Town of Vail. This is reflected in the fact that 60% of all dwelling units are devoted to multi-family, with an additional 20% in accommodation units. Densities range from 18-20 dwelling units per acres for multi-family and up to 50 dwelling units/acre for hotels in the core areas. While multi-family accounts for the majority of the types of units, single family uses still cover morel and area, with 408.6 acres (or 12%) of the total land area in Vail devoted to single family and duplex uses. Multi-family uses account for 11% of the land area in Vail outside of the core areas of the Village and Lionshead. B. Parks and Open Space The residential areas are broken up by significant amounts of open space, greenbelt and park areas in both public and private ownership. These combined areas account for 17% of the land area within the Town of 555.7 acres. The park acreage includes both developed and undeveloped parks and the golf course. These park areas include Stephen's Park and Donovan Park in West Vial, Ford Park in the Mid-Vail area and Big Horn Park in East Vail, all south of 1-70 and the Buffehr Creek, Red Sandstone and Booth creek Parks, north of I- 70. Areas designated as open space, which account for 296.6 acres, include the Katsos property east of the golf course, owned by the Town and several other parcels which have been designated to remain permanent open space, i.e., the Gore Creek stream tract. C. Ski Base Facilities / Public and Semi-Public Uses Ski based facilities within the Town boundaries add up to 43.6 acres or 1% of the Town. Public and semi-public facilities also serve as partial areas of open space within the Town. Uses such as churches, schools, water service and storage facilities make up a today of 56.6 acres or 2% of the Town's land area. D. Core Areas As previously indicated, the Village and Lionshead Core Areas are the most intensely developed areas. These cores contain a mix of uses including hotels, condominiums, 11 offices, retail businesses and personal services, often all within the same building. Other types of uses such as pedestrian plaza areas, municipal services (town hall and fire station), semi-public uses (hospital and chapel), and multi-level parking structures are also found n the core areas. The two urban cores total 131.5 acres or 4% of the land area. This land use document did not analyze land use for these areas on a parcel or building-by-building level because of the in-depth study the Town has given these areas in the past (completion of the Lionshead Urban Design Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan currently being completed). As a consequence, land uses for these areas only addressed in a general way in this document. E. Commercial Uses Most of the commercial, business, retail, office and hotel uses have been traditionally located within the core areas. With the steady growth of the permanent population, Vail has experienced the need for diversification from tourist-based retail into a broader range of goods and services to serve both the needs of the local residents and the long-term visitor. These types of services, while found to some degree in the core, occur primarily in West Vail. These business and commercial areas make up a total of 16.4 acres, which is a very small proportion of the Town. In addition, there is an 8 acre site in use as hotel and accommodation units in West Vail. In terms of the more intensive commercial uses, which include mostly service stations, vehicle repair, maintenance and storage areas, and areas of commercial recreation (outside of the ski area); there are 11 acres altogether. The combined commercial areas make up a total of 27 acres, which is only 1% of the total land area. This small proportion, may be attributed to the fact that Vail is a ski-based community, therefore, the demand and the range of non-tourist related commercial uses in general is limited in Vail. F. Interstate Right-of-Way One of the most significant areas within the Town, is the Interstate 70 right-of-way. The right-of-way takes up an area of 505.5 acres or 15% of the land area, within the study area. This is the largest proportion in any one type of use. G. National Forest Lands An important aspect of the land use analysis was to assess National Forest lands adjacent to the Town boundaries, within the White River National Forest, which may be considered in the future for an alternate use other than public. It was determined by the Task Force, after discussions with the Forest Service, to assess areas that: 1) had been identified for disposal by the Forest Service; 2) could be feasibly accessed; and 3) contained acreage of 40% slope or less. These areas for the most part were small parcels along the corners of the Town on the south side, with two larger parcels identified north and east of the Potato Patch club area. These land areas came to a total of 125 acres, or 4% of the land within the study area. Existing Land Use is shown on a large scale map available at Town of Vail offices. This map shows the configuration of land use within the Town, illustratively. Land-use categories have been generalized into broader categories such as residential, commercial, parks, open space and ski base and vacant for ease of illustration at this scale. A larger scale map (1"=400") is on file with the Community Development Department in both color and black and white, which shows land uses by parcel for the more detailed categories contained on Table 1. 12 TABLE 1: EXISTING LAND USE LAND USE CATEGORY ACRES PERCENT Single Family/Two Family (under 3 units per acre) 408.6 12 Multi-Family Medium Density 3-18 du/ac 287.4 9 Multi-Family High Density (over 18 du/ac) 57.5 2 Village/Lionshead Core Areas (mixed-use areas) 131.5 4 Hotels, Lodges, Accommodation Units (units for lease or rent on 8.0 0 regular basis) Business Services (offices, clinics, banks) 3.5 0 Commercial/Retail (retail uses, restaurants, personal services) 12.9 0 Intensive Commercial (commercial recreation, service stations, vehicle 11.0 0 repairs, storage) Public/Semi-Public (schools, water & sewer service & storage facilities, 56.6 2 communication facilities and municipal facilities) Parks (designated parks and athletic fields) 259.1 8 Open Space (greenbelts, stream corridors, drainageways) 196.6 9 Ski Area Development (trails and ski base facilities) 43.6 1 Vacant/Platted (subdivided, undeveloped lots) 412.5 12 Vacant/U n platted (unsubdivided, undeveloped land) 767.8 23 Interstate 70 Right-of-Way within the limits of the Town 505.5 15 Areas of Less than 40% slope outside of Town Boundary (National 125.0 4 Forest Lands) TOTAL 3,360.1 100% CHAPTER V—SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE At the same time that they physical characteristics were being analyzed, the socioeconomic profile of Vail was being investigated. This process involved an in-depth analysis of the historical patterns of growth within the Town of Vail, Eagle County, and in the ski industry as a whole. This process required developing a clear understanding of the complexity of factors which have interacted to influence development over the years. After assessing the historical growth characteristics, projections were developed for both the permanent and visitor populations to the year 2000. The Vail Mountain expansion plans were carefully studied because ski area growth is the single most important factor which drives growth within the Vail Valley. These projections were then utilized to determine overall demands for the different types of land use which would need to be accommodated within the proposed Land Use Plan. These projections represents THK's best professional forecast for growth within the Vail Valley over the next 15 years. The assumptions used in the forecasting model were carefully reviewed with the Task Force and the Community Development Department staff and were accepted to be the most appropriate data from which to make projections. The forecasting projections and assumptions should be analyzed and adjusted periodically as market conditions change throughout the life of the Plan. Presented in this chapter is a summary of the methodology used to generate the projections of the most important findings of the analysis. The complete socioeconomic report is included in Appendices D and E. 13 For the purpose of analyzing the differing effects on housing and retail space demand2, three ratios of destination (overnight) skiers were assessed. These varied from 50% to 60% up to 70% destination skiers, with the local percentage remaining fixed at 20%; while day skiers varied from 30% to 20%, to 10% respectively. As the percentage of destination skiers increases, the demand for housing and the amount of annual retail sales, and hence retail space, need to increase proportionately. For the purpose of fixing land use demand, the 60% destination skier scenario was chosen, because it most accurately represented the percentage of destination skiers visiting the Vail area in 1986. The other two scenarios are included in the Appendix and can be used to adjust projections for land use demand in the future, should Vail Associates reorient its marketing to increase or decrease the percentage of destination skiers. Before presenting the projections, it is important to understand the methodology used to generate the numbers. 1. Forecasting Model The Town of Vail Forecasting Model was prepared by THK Associates in order to assist the Department of Community Development in their efforts to develop a Master Plan for the Town of Vail. In general, the model utilizes estimated skier, population, housing and retail characteristics in order to project additional housing unit and retail space demands for the Town of Vail through the year 2000. All assumptions are based on existing studies and surveys available from the Department of Community Development, Vail Associates, Inc., Vail Resort Association, and Colorado Ski Country USA members. The following is a brief overview of the sources and methodology employed in the Town of Vail Forecasting Model. The entire model keys off the projected design day3 skier visits made in the Vail Master Development Plan (VA, Inc. and RRC, 1985). From the design day skier visits, average day, peak day and total skier visits are calculated based on conversion formulas provided by VA, Inc. The design day skier visits are then allocated into day, destination and local skiers based on proportions available from The Vail Mountain/Gore Valley Capacity Study (Gage Davis Associates, 1980) and the Report of the Vail Economic Development Commission (1985). Although not activated in the model currently, the model has the capacity to allow an incremental change in the proportion of day, destination and local skiers over the length of the projection period, rather than a constant proportion throughout. The day visitor and overnight visitor populations and permanent population are derived from different methodologies. The day skier visits and destination skier visits are adjusted upward to reflect non-skier members of a skiing party which results in the day visitor population and the overnight visitor population. The non-skier adjustment factors come from The Vail Mountain/Gore Valley Capacity Study, the "Village Study Assumptions" (RRC, 1985) and the Department of Community Development. The Town of Vail permanent population is based on the historical ratio of the permanent population (State Division of Local Government, 1985 and Department of Community Development) to the total skier visits. The number of households is then determined by dividing the overnight visitor population and permanent population by the weighted average number of persons per household in visitor lodging and permanent housing, respectively. The additional housing unit demand projections incorporate numerous assumptions from several studies and surveys. Assumptions pertaining to the distribution of permanent population by housing unit type, the average number of persons per household by unit type, and the 2 Office demand was not projected due to the lack of adequate inventory information. 3 "Design Day" is defined as that level of skier attendance which will be exceeded on only 10% of the days of the ski season. 14 occupancy rate are from the study Affordable Housing Eagle County — 1984 (Eagle County Community Development Department and RRC, 1984). Assumptions regarding the distribution of overnight visitors by housing unit type, the average number of persons per household by unit type, and the occupancy rate by unit type are from The Vail Mountain/Gore Valley Capacity Study, Department of Community Development and VRA. To calculate the additional housing units required by type each year, the additional overnight visitor households and permanent households per year are distributed according to the proportion of each unit type indicated by previous studies. Concurrently, additional units by type are adjusted upward by the appropriate occupancy rate. The retail sales projections for the Town of Vail are based on average day skier visits rather than design day skier visits. Average day skier visits are used because the goal is to determine the total winter visitor sales over the entire five month ski season rather than looking at sales on a "one day" design day. Day skiers and destination skiers have different total dollar expenditures per day, and the allocation of their total expenditures among various retail categories is also different. The day skier and destination skier expenditure patterns are from The Contribution of Skiing to the Colorado Economy (CSCUSA, 1984 Update) and are adjusted upward to reflect the pricing structure of Vail (per Task Force discussion 7/17/86). To arrive at the total winter visitor sales, the day skier and destination skier expenditures by retail category are aggregated. The "Town of Vail Monthly Retail Sales" (TOV, 1986) was utilized to determine the proportion of total winter sales made by the local population, the ratio of total winter sales to total annual sales, and the proportion of total annual sales made by the local population. Industry standards of dollar support per square foot of retail space are applied to the lodging, eating and drinking, and entertainment categories for the day and destination skiers and to the total annual sales to the local population category in order to translate the average annual additional dollar support into average annual additional square feet of retail space required. It should be noted that the terms "local population" and "permanent population" do not define the same group. Retail purchases in the Town of Vail are made both by the permanent population of Vail and by residents of surrounding communities. Since it is the total additional dollar support in the Town of Vail which determines the total additional retail space required, it is irrelevant for the purposes of this remodel from where those dollars come. Therefore, the local population refers to both the permanent population of Vail and residents of surrounding communities who make retail purchases in the Town of Vail. 2. Summary of Forecasting Results The following is a discussion of the specific tables which led to the development of the land use demand figures. A. Projected Vail Area Skier Visits by Type (Table 2) Total skier populations have been projected from the Vail Associates Master Plan, which then translates into skier numbers, broken down by day, destination, and local skiers. Table 2 shows average, design day4, and peak day skier population projections for all three skier groups projected to the year 2000. As can be seen from the table, by the year 2000, total skier visits are projected to be 1,617,000, up from 1,223,450 in the year 1985, with the total number of average skiers per day being 10,780 in the year 2000, up from 8,160 per day in 1985. 4 See "Design Day" definition in methodology section. 15 B. Projected Population and Households by Type (Table 3) These numbers are then converted into population projections for overnight visitors, day visitors, and the permanent population. This table shows increases of approximately 25% for all three population groups. Day visitors increased from 2,670 in 1985 to 3,530 in the year 2000, overnight visitors increased from 9,200 to 12,150, and the permanent population goes from 4,400 in 1985 to 5,920 in the year 2000. C. Projected Town of Vail Housing Unit Demand by Type (Table 4) The household numbers from Table 3 are then assigned a person/household number and occupancy rates (based on historical occupancy ratios) and housing demand can then be estimated for the different types of residential housing and lodging, for both the overnight visitor and the permanent resident. This is reflected in Table 4 which shows the additional demand for housing each year by housing type. The total residential housing demand for both permanent and the overnight visitor by the year 2000 is 1,523 units and for lodging and the total demand is 395 units by the year 2000. D. Projected Town of Vail Retail Sales by Category (Table 5) Retail space demands were estimated based on annual retail sales projections. This is accomplished by converting annual sales (by looking at industry standards for sales per square foot) into future demand for retail space for visitor and locally oriented retail needs. This table shows total retail sales growing from $173.8 million in 1985 to $229.5 million in the year 2000. The estimated amount of sales attributed to the permanent population is 25% of the total annual sales. TABLE 2: PROJECTED VAIL AREA SKIER VISITS BY TYPE, 1984-1985 TO 1999-2000 Projected Skier Visitor Characteristics Average Design Calendar Day Day Peak Day Dest- Season Year Total Skiers/Da Skiers/Da Skiers/Day Day Percent ination Percent Local Percent 1984-1985 1985 1,223,450 8,160 12,560 15,910 2,510 20.00% 7,540 60.00% 2,510 20.00% 1985-1986 1986 1,250,000 8,230 12,680 16,050 2,540 20.00% 7,610 60.00% 2,530 20.00% 1986-1987 1987 1,294,770 8,480 13,060 16,540 2,610 20.00% 7,840 60.00% 2,610 20.00% 1987-1988 1988 1,318,750 8,480 13,060 16,540 2,610 20.00% 7,840 60.00% 2,610 20.00% 1988-1989 1989 1,358,380 8,730 13,450 17,020 2,690 20.00% 8,070 60.00% 2,690 19.90% 1989-1990 1990 1,373,700 9,000 13,860 17,550 2,770 20.00% 8,320 60.00% 2,770 20.00% 1990-1991 1991 1,373,700 9,000 13,860 17,550 2,770 20.00% 8,320 60.00% 2,770 20.00% 1991-1992 1992 1,393,500 9,290 14,300 18,120 2,860 20.00% 8,580 60.00% 2,860 20.00% 1992-1993 1993 1,432,500 9,550 14,700 18,620 2,940 20.00% 8,820 60.00% 2,940 20.00% 1993-1994 1994 1,432,500 9,550 14,700 18,620 2,940 20.00% 8,820 60.00% 2,940 20.00% 1994-1995 1995 1,480,500 9,870 15,200 19,250 3,040 20.00% 9,120 60.00% 3,040 20.00% 1995-1996 1996 1,519,500 10,130 15,600 19,750 3,120 20.00% 9,360 60.00% 3,120 20.00% 1996-1997 1997 1,519,500 10,130 15,600 19,750 3,120 20.00% 9,360 60.00% 3,120 20.00% 1997-1998 1998 1,558,500 10,390 16,000 20,260 3,200 20.00% 9,600 60.00% 3,200 20.00% 1998-1999 1999 1,617,000 10,780 16,600 21,020 3,320 20.00% 9,960 60.00% 3,320 20.00% 1999-2000 2000 1,617,000 10,780 16,600 21,020 3,320 20.00% 9,960 60.00% 3,320 20.00% Average Annual Change 1985-2000 26,240 170 270 340 50 18.50% 160 59.30% 50 18.50% Source: THK Associates, Inc. 16 TABLE 3: PROJECTED TOWN OF VAIL POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE 1984-1985 TO 1999-2000 POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS Calendar Day Overnight Overnight Season Year Visitors Visitors Permanent Visitors Permanent 1984-1985 1985 2,670 9,200 4,400 2,560 1,600 1985-1986 1986 2,700 9,280 4,500 2,590 1,630 1986-1987 1987 2,780 9,560 4,670 2,660 1,700 1987-1988 1988 2,780 9,560 4,760 2,660 1,730 1988-1989 1989 2,860 9,840 4,910 2,740 1,780 1989-1990 1990 2,950 10,150 4,970 2,830 1,810 1990-1991 1991 2,950 10,150 4,970 2,830 1,810 1991-1992 1992 3,040 10,460 5,050 2,920 1,830 1992-1993 1993 3,130 10,760 5,200 3,000 1,890 1993-1994 1994 3,130 10,760 5,200 3,000 1,890 1994-1995 1995 3,230 11,120 5,390 3,100 1,960 1995-1996 1996 3,320 11,410 5,540 3,180 2,010 1996-1997 1997 3,320 11,410 5,540 3,180 2,010 1997-1998 1998 3,400 11,710 5,690 3,260 2,070 1998-1999 1999 3,530 12,150 5,920 3,390 2,150 1999-2000 2000 3,530 12,150 5,920 3,390 2,150 Average Annual Change: (1985-2000) 60 200 100 60 40 Sources: Gage Davis Assoc., VAIL MOUNTAIN/GORE VALLEY CAPACITY STUDY, (1980); Eagle County Planning Dept., EMPLOYEE HOUSING SURVEY, (1984); CSCUSA, THE CONTRIBUTION OF SKIING TO THE COLORADO ECONOMY, (Various 1982 to 1985); Vail Associates, Inc. & RRC, VAIL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, (1985) and THK Associates, Inc. 17 M O M M O M M O M M O M N O (D s= CO Cl) Cl) � Cl) � Cl) Cl) (D N LO 7 O O N J O O O CA Cl) I- O M � O M o 70 � 0 � 0 00 O O Cl) O O O H C0 Q O r o QC) LO M 0 M 0 M 007-- 0 000 7-- M0 To C E N N N N N N N Cl) N O O N ~ I a X N 1- 0 7-- 'IT O � LO O M � O LO "T 0 LO C14 7-- C14 co � O 0 (n Q LO O CO N Cl) co O I,- Cl) O CO M O M CO O (3) co 00 CO M 00 LO (D O M 00 O O N °O 70 O N O N O c T- =U Q: �O 0') co M M O N 1- 0 M = 0 O O co a 7 'IT CO CO � Cl) Cl) LO N O O j ° LO (- O � a) co cOM � MONLO0cO � OLO1- 0 Mo O) o 00 E Lr) _ g O 0 CO Cc: O Z ~ o Q � X 001- 001- = 0 "T 1- 0 = 1- 0 co ° Cam ~ N p = N N N N N \ Z3 W W W �— p = (n Q Cl) T O O � � w Z N N co N O M O M O M O CA o W Z >F Cl) I- CO LO CO N (D I- LO (D 00 M 0 W (� O 0 o Y Z r 00 C) ()f 00 WO � r D � Cl) O CO Cl) O Cl) 00 O 00 CO O CO N O (D o z Q O s= CO co 'IT � M � Cl) M (D N co C, O = i 70 CA H J J .t J N >- co > > L of LL O 1` Cl) O N O N O O N O N I- O O ° U Z 70 N (D 00 00 I` O I` r- LO 0- Q O Cr O 0 6 Q W 06 Z N C) } = c OO O � 00000m00000000 JQ CV CV co U OO CV > U 0 � U U O ._ Q W X N � O � LO O LO 'IT O LO 'IT O � 1` O M o (� N z 00 > 0 M Q " ;LO CL (n Q Z > rn D w M � 0 0 0 O O O O M O O O N O 0 M � � M (D M CO m ° D N In W p r CV 0 (n CO m O j C� Q _ z o g -a LO O 1` M O O N M "T LO O 1` M O O vi O m Y s= CO CO CO CO CO CA CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q S > _ CU } O O O O O m m m m m m O O O O O <n W N C6 � > W } -o c LO O 1` M O O N M � LO O 1` M O O O 0 0) 0- 0 05 p CO CO CO CO CO O CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O j U p CA CA CA CA CA CA CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Qj O W W ( i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i co i N N � � O � CO CA O � N M � � O � CO CA � O to CO CO CO CO CO CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Co CO Z3 CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA > = O,) o u r V M M r N N N r r N N N N N N m N N m m m m N N M V V Q U r m m O W W W N N N O O m W O) J 5 O V O m m O m m m m m N m m r O M) M) m M M v r r M r r O O O 0 0 o N M� M� v m iri r W W o M m iri F��a v v v v v v v v v v m in in m m m M M M M w r r m v v v m m m M M oe> m m m m m o o r rn rn rn v v v rn rn c 0:N N m O O m m m m m m m O O O co Q (0 M m m M O O N N N V 0 N j O J M m O O m r M M m m m O m m O O O r r N N N W W W O O O N N N F�F US N N N N N N N N M r N N r O o r O o M r r r r r V V V O O M N N N r r r M M o y3 M V N N m m m r r r m M M m M M N N N N m m N r O O V O O m O M M m O m m U N V m m N N N O m m N M O O o,> 0 r r co co N m m m O O N N N N N co N N m m N O O N O O N N N N N N p N M M N O O N O O N N N N m p m m r O O m m m m m m p (n— m N O V V V V O m m M m m Mp (0 m N N O O V V m m m M M M pp 0 0 v M rn rn m M M M m v v O r r m Y o Y m r O O V m m N m m O V V m M M N M M V V V V m m fp N > O O m O O m O O m m m m m m p O O m m m m m O O V m m W O O O C V V p " �p y,'y. EA r m M M V V m O O m m N N N Mp N U y W r m O O V r r m m m m N N m O O N F>W F W W O O O O O N N N M M Fp O m m O W m O W m m O M O M m O O O O N N r O m m O m m N M M W O O m O m m O O r m O O N O O O rn O O O M M m m N M m oo oo N N v v v v v v v i°n ion in m m 0') 0') m m m m O o O m m m O O O M M M p m m N m m V m m r r r r m m m m m m m V V V M M W M m m M m m m N N r r N m m p " m rn o o N M m m r r rn o o N v v 11^^ W ig g v v m m m m M m m m m m m m m m N M r r O m M M N N m m O co W ci m V V O O M M M N N m m m r O O m m m N N N O N N m m m m'y O O V V m m m M N N m m m O m m O1 m O O CO W O N N N N N N N N N N m O O O N N Fp O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m m m m O O V m m V m m m V V O m m m m m V m m m W W m m V V a V N 'm y3 m O W m O W (� m � � m O O m m O O N N M m N V V m m m r m m Fp J N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O N EA O O m m m O O M m m m m m m m m 'n O m o m m o v v m M M m r r o `J � r O o o m O O m m m m m r r v W � oa v r m m r Mi Mi v m m r r m m N V N N O m m m m m r m m M m m m ,� Q m m m r r m m m m O O N N M V V _ W d' N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M Q O U O O m N N N M M M m m(V 0 m m O N m m m m m m m O m r m m(mm 0 m O m m m W m m m m m M M O O U) N N o W W m M M oN N (n q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m(mm 0 O O m 7 N N VJ �JJ Y m m m m m 0 0 0 m m m m m 0 0 O J N rn v v v O O m M m m m o m O m v v m r r v m m O m m N v v m Q v o5 05 M� M� N r r v o5 05 v N N 'n 6 � m v v m N N m v v r r m r r r J W W O O O N N N N N N N N N N N � J_ Q O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 M O W 0 W 0 W m 0 o 0 m 0 m m m O m m O O O N N N N N M M M V V V N F r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Q O / .� �Y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c oo o m ° ° M LL m rn rn o M m rn rn °o d V V V V V V V m N N N N N N m m O c N O O O m m O m m O m O m O m O m O m O m O M O r V O�M O m m O O M M U N y m m O O N N m O O N m m m m O Y � r V p p m U) N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q M m m m m O O m r M M m m m a N y m m m m r m m m m m m O O O W O ❑(n N N N N N V U co W �-) N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O W Or O > O m M M O O m — M O y — N O O N O Q co m m m m m rn O O O O r p r N l'1 N m m r m m O N M V m m r m m O R 70 N m m m m m M OJ m m m m m m m U�} O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) T O) O) O) O) O) O C N � a a r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Y W m m r N m O N M V m m r N M O O F J m m m m m rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn o 0 m o rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn o -N Q N466i,� c6 & 6Lc� c� 46mi,� M _� � mmmmmmm � mmmmmmmm � �� m T T rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn T T T T<U m � E. Statistical Summary— Skier Visitors / Population / Housing / Retail Sales (Table 6) This table is a composite of the four preceding tables showing projections by five year increments. As the table indicates, total population for both the visitors and permanent groups is projected to be 21,600 by the year 2000 generating a need for 1,534 residential units and 395 lodging units. Retail sales will increase 24% over the 15 year time period. 3. Land Use Demand These housing unit and retail sales numbers are then converted to additional acreage demands and broken down as shown in Table 7. The results of the projected unit and retail space demands then become the amount of growth which is expected by the year 2000. This growth may be accommodated in several ways: 1) by adding additional dwelling and lodging units and commercial space; 2) by increasing the occupancy rate for dwelling units and lodging units; 3) by directing growth down valley, outside of the Town of Vail; and / or 4) through a combination of the three alternatives above. The ability of the Town to meet the growth demand will be defined by the physical constraints such as geologic hazards, steep slopes, floodplain areas, the availability of undeveloped land and the development policies of the Town. The land use plan has been developed keeping these factors in mind. The projected growth is moderate overall and necessarily follows an average of 3% ski area visitor growth (with some peaks and valleys occurring in certain years). Due to the existing inventory of approved and undeveloped lots, a majority of the residential and lodging units may be accommodated through development in these already approved subdivisions and development projects. The Town of Vail has the following number of units already approved, but unbuilt as shown in Table 8. TABLE 6: STATISTICAL SUMMARY Skier Visits / Population / Housing / Retail Sales—60% Destination Skiers 1985 1990 1995 2000 TOTAL A. SKIER VISITS 1. Average Skiers/Day 8,160 9,000 9,870 10,780 2. Design/Skiers/Day 12,560 13,860 15,200 16,600 3. Peak Skiers/Day 15,910 17,550 19,250 21,020 B. POPULATION PROJECTIONS 1. Overnight Visitors Winter Only) 9,200 10,150 11,120 12,150 2. Day Visitors (Winter only) 2,670 2,950 3,230 3,530 3. Permanent 4,400 4,970 5,390 9,920 TOTAL POP- 2000 21,600 C. ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNITS 1. Residential Units 67 465 467 535 1,534 2. Lodging Units 14 114 129 138 395 TOTAL UNIT DEMAND- 2000 1,929 D. RETAIL SALES (millions) $173.8 $191.5 $209.9 $229.5 Source: THK Associates, Inc., June 21, 1986. 20 TABLE 7: LAND USE DEMAND- YEAR 2000 LAND USE TYPE DEMAND ACREAGE DEMAND 1. Single Family / Duplex 232 du 78 acres+/- 2. Multi-famil a. Townhouses 214 du 22 acres' b. Apartments / Condos 1,088 du 78 acres? Subtotal Multi-family 1,302 du 95 acres Total Residential 1,534 du 173 acres 3. Lodging: Hotels, lodges, 395 du 8 acres accommodation units 4. Commercial / Retail a. Ski Related Demand 131,850 sq. ft. b. Local Demand 89 122 s . ft. Total Retail Demand 220,972 sq. ft. Demand at 10 du/acre. 2 Demand at 15 du/acre. 3 Demand at 50 du/acre These densities were chosen to reflect average existing densities within the Town of Vail. TABLE 8: APPROVED UNITS / UNBUILT LAND USE CATEGORY NUMBER OF UNITS 1. Single Family / Duplex 1,080 2. Townhomes /Apartments / Condos 879 Total Residential Units 1,959 3. Lodging 447 These numbers include all residential lots and projects presently approved within the Town of Vail, including those which have development constraints and would most likely never be built upon. Further analysis to determine how many of these are actually buildable was undertaken and is discussed in the next chapter, Proposed Land Use. However, these numbers indicate that a substantial amount of the projected land use demand may be accommodated through infill within existing platted projects. CHAPTER VI — PROPOSED LAND USE The proposed Land Use Map was developed through utilization of: • Public input at the three meetings; • Analysis of existing land use conditions; • Analysis of opportunities and constraints; and • Projected market demands for residential, lodging, and retail uses. 1. Land Use Plan Alternatives For the purpose of initial discussion, three land use alternatives were developed. A. The first alternative was one which showed all areas containing constraints as undeveloped open space. These constraint areas covered parcels within already platted subdivisions. This alternative was essentially a "No Growth" option, allowing for only limited infill in unconstrained areas. 21 B. The second alternative was called the "Existing Trends" alternative which took constraints into consideration but would allow for continued infill within already approved subdivisions, so long as existing Town land use regulations could be met, with respect to slopes and hazards. Some areas of increased density were shown as a way to meet market demand for multi-family during the planning period. C. The third option showed new development outside of existing developed areas, irrespective of constraint areas. These options were reviewed with the Task Force and the "Existing Trends Alternative" was chosen as the preferred alternative. Option A, the "No Growth" option was eliminated because: 1) it would have required a change in policy by the Town to prohibit future development within existing platted areas; and 2) it would not have provided enough areas for new growth, needed to accommodate projected market demands throughout the planning period. Results of the first public meeting indicated the importance of accommodating "balanced" growth to meet the needs generated by expansion of the ski mountain. It was generally recognized that growth of the ski mountain. It was generally recognized that growth of the ski areas was tied to the economic stability of the Town and growth should be accommodated, preventing major sources of revenue going outside the Town, down valley, Option C, the "Unconstrained" alternative was not chosen as the preferred alternative due to: 1. the fact that development of hazard areas would have required major changes to development regulations in the Town. 2. The market projections, combined with available undeveloped land did not indicate a need to develop highly sensitive areas. The land use analysis showed that most of the new demand could be accommodated within existing platted projects. 3. The opinions expressed by the public about development of hazard areas. The consensus was that development should not occur within high hazard areas. The "Existing Trends" alternative thus became the preferred option. This alternative most accurately reflected the market demands and the desires of the citizenry. The public input had shown a general satisfaction with the location of existing land uses, which was used as the foundation for the preferred alternative. 2. Key Goals The most important goals culled from the public meetings were used to formulate the Trends Alternative. These key goals are as follows: A. Commercial Uses 1. Commercial strip development should be avoided. 2. Commercial growth should be concentrated primarily in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3. New hotels should continue to be located primarily in the Village and Lionshead areas. B. Residential Uses 1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas. 22 2. New subdivisions should not be permitted in proven high geologic hazard areas. 3. Development proposals on the hillsides may be appropriate, in a limited number of cases, for low density residential uses. These proposals would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with development being carefully controlled as to sensitivity to the environment and visibility from the Valley floor. C. Village / Lionshead Core Areas 1. Increased density for commercial, residential and lodging uses in the Core areas would be acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is being preserved. 2. The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead should be strengthened, through the creation of a natural pedestrian corridor which could contain garden areas and sculpture plazas. D. Parks and Open Space 1. While an additional golf course was identified as being necessary, no site within the Town was pinpointed as a desirable site. 2. The preservation of open space was determined to be a high priority. The improvement of existing parks and open space areas, in concert with continued purchase of open space by the Town were both identified as priorities. E. General Growth and Development 1. Vail should continue to grown in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 2. The quality of the environment should be protected as the Town grows. 3. Recreational and public facility development on National Forest lands could be appropriate if: a. No high geologic hazards exist; b. Community objectives are being met with the proposal (as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan); c. The parcel has adequate access and is adjacent to Town boundaries; and d. The affected neighborhood could be involved in the decision-making process. 4. The existing condition and use of National Forest Land (USFS) which is exchanged, sold, or otherwise falls into private ownership should remain unchanged. A change in the existing condition and use may be considered if the change substantially complies with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and achieves a compelling public benefit which furthers the public interest, as determined by the Town Council. (Res. 2 (2003) §1) 5. Development may also be appropriate on Town-owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than park and open space) where: a. No high geologic hazards exist; and b. Such development is for public use. 23 3. Land Use Plan Assumptions With the consideration of these goals, the following parameters were established for the Trends plan. A. New development would for the most part, occur within and adjacent to already developed areas. B. No new commercial districts would be created, but commercial activities would take place adjacent to or within existing commercial areas. C. That substantial areas of open space would remain in the Town. D. That constraint areas should be considered in the designation of areas for future development. E. That National Forest lands should continue to remain as open space, accommodating only public facilities or recreational uses. F. That hillsides should also be assessed, taking constraints into consideration. G. That the Village and Lionshead Core Areas would remain essentially the same, with the addition of a transition area to strengthen the connection between the two core areas. Several new land use categories aimed at strengthening hotel and other tourist-oriented uses were also added. 4. Proposed Land Use Categories New land use categories were defined to indicate general types of land uses which should occur within the Town during the planning period. These categories were varied from the existing land use categories to reflect the goals of the community more accurately. The specific land uses are listed as examples and are not intended to reflect an all-inclusive lists of uses. Uses would be controlled by zoning. These categories are indicated below. LDR Low Density Residential This category includes single-family detached homes and two-family dwelling units. Density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acres. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional / public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. MDR Medium Density Residential The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutional / public uses such as parks and open space, churches and fire stations. 24 HDR High Density Residential The housing in this category would typically consist of multi-floored structures with densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities and institution/ public uses such as churches, fire stations and parks and open space facilities. HR Hillside Residential This category would allow for single family dwelling units at densities no more than two dwelling units per buildable acre. Also permitted would be typical single family accessory uses such as private recreational amenities, attached caretaker units, or employee units and garages. Institutional / public uses would also be permitted. These areas would require sensitive development due to slopes, access, visibility, tree coverage and geologic hazards. Minimum buildable area of 20,000 square feet would be required per dwelling unit. (See Chapter VIII for more specific discussion of implementation.) LRMP Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan 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. RAS Resort Accommodations and Service This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short-term visitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 accommodation units per buildable acre). CC Community Commercial This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short-term visitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 accommodation units per buildable acre). These areas are oriented toward vehicular access from 1-up, with other support commercial and business services included. Also allowed in this category, would be institutional uses and various municipal uses. CO Community Office This area is to include primarily office uses of all types. Some limited commercial uses, such as retail businesses; including general merchandise, apparel and accessories and auto service facilities would also be permitted. 25 T Transition The transition designation applies to the area between Lionshead and the Vail Village. The activities and site design of this area is aimed at encouraging pedestrian flow through the area and strengthening the connection between the two commercial cores. Appropriate activities include hotels, lodging and other tourist oriented residential units, ancillary retail and restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other types of civic and culturally oriented uses, and the adjacent properties to the north. This designation would include the right-of-way of West Meadow Drive and the adjacent properties to the north. PSP Public / Semi-Public The public and semi-public category includes schools, post office, water and sewer service and storage facilities, cemeteries, municipal facilities, and other public institutions, which are located throughout the community to serve the needs of residents. P Parks Included in this category are town owned parcels intended for both active recreation activities such as athletic fields, golf courses and playgrounds, as well as areas for various passive recreation activities. OS Open Space Passive recreation areas such as geenbelts, stream corridors and drainageways are the types of areas in this category. Hillsides which were classified as undevelopable due to high hazards and slopes over 40% are also included in this area. These hillside areas would still be allowed types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres, for areas in agricultural zoning. Also, permitted in this area would be institutional / public uses. SB Ski Base Ski base areas are designated at the main mountain portals found within the Town. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient and aesthetically- pleasing transition between the ski mountain and surrounding land use categories. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Ski Base (SB) 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, and residential, retail, and restaurant uses. 1-70 Interstate 70 Corridor This category includes the right-of-way devoted to Interstate 70 and would be reserved for permanent public use as a roadway. NF National Forest Lands National Forest lands not designated within the Land Use Plan boundary are assumed to remain as open space due to steep slopes, inaccessibility, high hazards and not having adjacency to the town. 26 CMP Chamonix Master Plan Area Included in this category are those properties which are identified as being included in the Chamonix Master Plan boundaries. Properties located within this land use category shall be encouraged to develop, per the Master Plan recommendations, as it has been found necessary in order for Vail to remain a successful resort community. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient and pleasant resident experience. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Chamonix Master Plan (CMP) land use category may include deed restricted employee housing, private recreation facilities, private parking facilities, and institutional/public uses such as a fire station and other municipal facilities to serve the needs of residents. 5. "Preferred Plan" Land Use Pattern The "Existing Trends" alternative was chosen as the preferred land-use plan and was carefully reviewed area by area to assess feasibility and compatibility with adjacent existing land uses. Some modifications were then made in proposed new areas of medium and high density because of potential land use and neighborhood conflicts. The pattern which is reflected on the "Preferred Plan" is discussed below. A. Residential Uses 1. Low Density Uses Low density residential uses are now planned for a total of 699.0 acres, or about 21% of the land in the plan area, which is an increase of 8% over the area presently in low density residential use. These areas reflect the completion of existing platted projects, with some additional areas added adjacent to the single family areas at low densities. The 8% increase reflects the large number of undeveloped, platted lots already existing in Vail. 2. Medium and High Density Uses Medium and high density residential areas now account for a total of approximately 15% of the land in the plan area, with 421 acres in the medium density category and 68.5 acres in the high density category. This is a 4% increase in land area devoted to these two land use designations, reflecting a need to accommodate additional market demand for multi-family uses. For the most part, these multi-family areas have been kept consistent with the pattern of existing land use with additional multi-family occurring within unfinished projects and adjacent to these multi-family areas. Some new areas of high density residential have been added, specifically in East Vail between the Frontage Road and 1-70, where access is good and surrounding land uses would be compatible for this type of use. Other areas, north of*-70 where existing land uses are mixed containing both low and medium density uses have been shown as medium density to meet the demand for additional multi-family dwelling units within the 15-year planning period. 3. Hillside Residential The new category of land use types "Hillside Residential" covers a portion of two large parcels. These parcels account for 33.3 acres or a total of 1.0% of the land use area within the plan area. 27 These parcels were designated in this category to allow the possibility for limited development if certain criteria could be met. Any development proposed would require the evaluation on a case-by-case basis, accompanied by an in-depth analysis, to assure sensitivity to constraints, provision of adequate access, minimization of visibility from the Valley floor, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. Any such development would be required to meet all applicable Town ordinances and regulations. (See Chapter VIII for more specific information on implementation.) B. Commercial Uses 1. Vail Village The Vail Village areas has been designated separately as a mixed-use area and accounts for 77 acres or about 2% of the plan area. This area has not been analyzed in this Plan document because the "Vail Village Master Plan" study has addressed this area specifically in more detail. 2. Tourist Commercial The area planned for commercial uses oriented toward products and services for the tourist includes the Lionshead commercial area and totals 16 acres or .5% of the land within the plan area. 3. Resort Accommodation Services This area has been designated for the area which extends from the Lionshead hotel / accommodation unit area east along the Frontage Road to Vail Road. Cascade village has also been designated as Resort Accommodation. These are the areas where hotel uses will be concentrated during the planning period, reflecting the community goals to concentrate hotels within the core areas. These areas total 52 acres, or about 2% of the land area studied. 4. Community Commercial This new category has been designated for the West Vail commercial area, which is primarily oriented to serve the needs of the permanent resident and the long-term visitor. Because the community expressed the desire to concentrate commercial uses within existing commercial nodes, no new commercial areas have been designated. The CC land use area contains 24 acres or 1% of the land area 5. Community Office This area has been designated a mixture of office and support retail uses and is located to the west of the Lionshead RAS area. These areas will affect a transition from the more intense commercial and resort uses to less intense uses outside of these areas. There is a total of 16 acres (about 1%) in this land use category. C. Transition Area A transition area has been designated for the area to the north of West Meadow Drive (including the roadway) between the RAS area to the north and the medium density residential area to the south, between Vail Road and the Lionshead Tourist Commercial Area. This area is intended to 28 provide a strengthened pedestrian link between Lionshead and Vail Village. There are 11 acres (.3%) shown in this land use category. D. Parks and Open Space Parks, open space, greenbelts and stream corridor areas account for 1,278 acres or approximately 38% of the land area within the plan boundary. The area designated as parks has stayed consistent with the areas shown on the Existing Land Use Map and include major and minor parks owned by the Town along with the golf course. This makes up a total of 266 acres. Open space areas have increased significantly from 297 acres to 1,022 acres reflecting the community goals of preserving open space in sensitive environmental areas on the hillsides. Areas shown as open space include both public and private land ownership patterns. E. Public / Semi-Public Land Uses These areas, scattered throughout the Town, are consistent with the existing land use pattern. The acreage has increased from 57 acres to 72 acres or 2% of the total land area due to the inclusion of a possible cemetery site in East Vail. F. Ski Base Area This area has remained consistent with the location of the existing ski facilities. New areas have been added at Cascade Village and Lionshead for planned ski-related improvements, bringing the ski base acreage from 44 acres up to 86 acres (about 3% of the land area). G. Interstate 70 Corridor This acreage remained fixed, although the new access point west of Lionshead is shown on the Plan. The corridor accounts for 505.5 acres or 15% of the land use in Vail. This area is intended to remain as right-of-way during the planning period. All National Forest lands outside the plan boundary are assumed to be open space, with the best use considered to be National Forest. Table 9 shows the acreage breakdown of the proposed Land Use Plan. Figure 4 "Land Use Plan" shows the configuration of the proposed land use plans illustratively. A larger map (1"=400') also hereby adopted shows proposed land use in more detail. This is available at the Community Development Department and should be consulted prior to time of preparation of development proposals. 6. "Preferred Land Use Plan" Analysis The "Preferred Plan" acreages were then compared with projected demands to the year 2000 for permanent housing, lodging units, commercial and office square footage. The resulting figures are shown in Table 10. This table compares the demand in units or acres with the supply of undeveloped land both platted and unplatted, which is unconstrained. Unconstrained lands are those areas which do not contain high hazard avalanche and geologic areas, floodplains or slopes over 40%. This table shows that the Preferred Plan will be able to provide enough lots / land area for all of the projected demand for single family and duplex lots, with a surplus remaining of 326 dwelling units. There will be a shortfall of area for multi-family dwelling units of 17 acres, which may be accommodated through increasing the occupancy rate of existing multi-family units or 29 encouraging the down valley communities to supply a portion of this demand. This shortfall occurred because of 1) the need to assure that new areas designated for multi-family were compatible with surround land uses; 2) the desire of the community to discourage development in sensitive, undeveloped lands; and, 3) the general satisfaction of the community with the existing land use pattern. It was thus decided that it would not be appropriate to increase densities in unsuitable areas just to completely fill market demands. TABLE 9: PROPOSED LAND USE - "PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN" LAND USE CATEGORY ACRES PERCENT Low Density Residential 698.8 20.8 Medium Density Residential 420.8 12.5 High Density Residential 68.5 2.0 Hillside Residential 33.3 1.0 Village Master Plan 77.0 2.3 Tourist Commercial 15.8 .05 Resort Accommodation Services 51.9 1.6 Transition Area 11.4 0.3 Community Commercial 24.4 0.7 Community Office 15.6 0.5 Park 255.9 7.6 Open Space 1,022.9 30.5 Public and Semi-public 72.0 2.1 Ski Base 86.3 2.6 Interstate 70 Right-of-Way 505.5 15.0 TOTAL 3,360.1 100.0 This table also shows that there will be a deficit of 70,272 square feet or approximately 3.3 acres of land for commercial / retail uses. This may be accommodated through: 1) increasing intensities of use within the core areas; 2) adding commercial square footage within Lionshead through the relocation of the Gondola building and possible addition of commercial space to the parking structure. These are both options being discussed but are not yet quantified. These two options could then provide the additional 51,850 square feet of skier-related retail space; 3) addition of support retail outside of the core areas within the Community Office land use area; and, 4) increased intensity of use in the West Vail Community Commercial undeveloped area. These two options could be utilized to accommodate the 18,422 square foot shortfall of local related retail space. It was decided to rely on the marketplace to accommodate this additional retail demand through these types of options, rather than designating new commercial areas away from existing nodes, which would have been contrary to the desires expressed by the community at large. In summary, the Preferred Land Use Plan reflects a balancing of existing conditions, community opinion, opportunities and constraints, and projected growth demands. This Land Use Plan, adopted as a part of this document and shown as a graphic representation in Figure 3 is intended to be used along with the goal statements, as a general guide for the review of new development projects which may be proposed in Vail. The Land Use Plan illustrates in a general way the categories of land use which would be appropriate throughout the town. The small scale (1"=1,000') map contained herein should not be used to determine the suitability of uses on a parcel by parcel basis. The larger scale map (1"=400') is also hereby adopted and is on file with the Town of Vail Community Development Department. This larger map is more suitable for identifying specific parcels, though this map does not determine land use based on property boundaries. 30 � LO 9 / e � \ � o a § ± � A 7 e » c ® ff \ � / % / 04 CO LL + % \ " � \ # / 00 CD er r n A ¥ C 22 rA e & n ¥ � { ¥ 2 / \ LO Cl) Q0 It U D \ { n 7 // O /ƒ / Qa 2 � 0 \ q < / \ / q \ \ / c $ 9 = 00 o 7 �¥ e o/ A e0 = \« D ¥ r o � 00 r O �co m + fi r/ + C s R w 0 i LO w § 2 w a e Q f \ « 2 0 < � R § [ \_ 2 2 2 m » 0 = o o \ < � U () w co \ � \ « w iL 5 > Q / \ Q Q ƒ U) 0 k 2 \ § 7 w M § \ \ k O 2 O < O = \ w Q e co co $ _ > X e/ \ 0 \ 2 _ f co % o E kU W \ / / § § 2 co 06 2 r /�/ R f 0 f ¥ ¥ \¥ f ¥ / � � r $ / \ n n f n \ n ca cl)® ® � � § � > 02050 > 0 < / iL iLn \ ± ± r a / / / e / " / e q Cl) / i / 7 < \ \ / / / < / / \ o o co � a a E E E = co r m ° a o 0 0 k Q / / \ \ CO / \ / _ _ _ _ _ ® ° 5 D D D � cn -0 2 / / co _7 qm 222 m A It e r r - o o LO o D \ & % ƒ \ LO � 777 k kkk CL % ƒ E E E w § -0 7 ƒ 222 � \ \ ƒ ƒ � � E 0 w & a O o = -a E / 2 ƒ / / a 2 - 3 m a & w g » CHAPTER VII —COMMUNITY FACILITIES 1. Inventory and Assessment of Town Owned Property The initial section of the study provides a general evaluation of the suitability of the numerous town owned sites to accommodate development. The term development is used in its generic sense in that land which may currently be void of any activity or could be improved or developed to accommodate a public or private use. An initial screening of the properties is presented in which the site and location is presented. The physical character of the site is briefly described as is its current use. Finally, an assessment of the suitability of a site is based on a number of factors including the following: • Size The site may be too small to accommodate any active or passive function. • Physical constraints The site may be subject to flooding, may contain geologic hazards or severe slope conditions. • Accessibility The site may contain significant limitations on access which may suggest only certain types of use. Existing Use There may be an existing public use on the site which is providing a valuable service to the community and likely not to change. (Note: for purposes of this assessment, the planning horizon of the Year 2000 is used as the basis for commenting on future needs of the community.) Restrictions on Use A number of parcels of land which have been deeded to the Town of Vail contain covenant restrictions as to their use. These restrictions could preclude certain activities and dictate site utilization. This initial evaluation would be termed a coarse screening of the town properties. The intent is to identify those parcels which are likely not to change from their current use or activity and to eliminate them from further discussion. Conversely, those tracts of land which do represent opportunities for change or development will be analyzed further for their potential. Coarse Screen of Sites Following is a listing of identified Town of Vial owned properties and comments as to their character and suitability. The parcels are numbered generally from the east part of the community to the west and are located on Figure 4— Inventory of Town Properties. Tract 1 — Bighorn Park This 6.43 acre parcel of land is improved as an athletic field and playground for younger children. It serves as a neighborhood park for area residents and will continue as a park and recreation site. Tract 2 — King Arthur's Court This site is located across Meadow Drive from Bighorn Park. The site provides public pedestrian access to the mountain side on Forest Service lands to the south. The site is identified as being an area of high environmental constraints and would appear to be most suitable for park and open space activities. 32 Tract 3 East Vail Fire Station Located on Columbine Drive in the Bighorn Subdivision, the station provides for the fire protection needs of the East Vail area. Tract 4— Bighorn Subdivision, Third Addition This area is north of Interstate 70 in the Pitkin Creek area. The tract of land had been subdivided into 18 lots, a dedicated road and a 5.73 acre unplatted parcel. The parcel has limited access and it is located in an area of high environmental constraints. No covenant restrictions have been identified with the site, however, its inaccessibility and development limitations suggest that open space is its most appropriate use. Tract 5— Pitkin Creek Stream Tract This is the streambed and associated floodplain area of the Pitkin Creek located between 1-70 and Bighorn Road. It is also the site of the Historic Circle K ranch house which is used as a bus shelter. The open space character of Pitkin Creek should remain as would the historic site and thus no change is anticipated. Tract 6 — Katsos Ranch This parcel of land has been the subject of much community-wide discussion since its purchase by the Town of Vail in 1977. The tract contains 146 acres and lies immediately east of the Vail Golf Course and south of Gore Creek. A study was prepared in 1978 to examine the impacts of alternative development scenarios for the property. The alternatives ranged from a "do nothing" or "no development" scenario to the construction of an executive style golf course. The study concluded that a moderate level of development is the most desirable for the site. This level of development would include a bike trail, running trial, cross-country skiing trails and picnic areas. Many of these improvement have been constructed and are used by area residents and tourists alike. Based on this expression it is assumed that passive open space is the acceptable and appropriate use for the parcel. Tract 7— East of Booth Falls Road This area consists of three separate tracts of land which were dedicated to the Town of Vail for open space as part of subdividing. Of the separate tracts of land that have been dedicated, Tract C has little in the way of development constraints. Its location at the intersection of Katsos Ranch Road and the East Frontage Road has good proximity to roads and utilities. There are other public and private recreation facilities in Booth Creek and the site offers no apparent unique visual or environmental benefits. This is a possible site for disposition by the Town. However, it should be noted that there has been no confirmation of covenants or deed restrictions associated with the property. No alternate use has been identified for this site at this time. Tract 8 —West of Booth Falls Road This area is similar in formation to Tract 7 in that individual parcels of land were dedicated to the town of Vail as part of park and open space requirements. Two of the parcels are within high environmental hazard areas and are likely to remain as open space areas. The third parcel of land in the subdivision has frontage along 1-70 and back ups to the residential area along Bald Mountain Road. This parcel is attractive for development because of its visibility, access to the frontage road, relative large size (14 acres) and only a portion of the property is within a moderate environmental hazard area. There is, however, some question as to the covenant restrictions on the property which may limit the use to open space. This tract has been discussed in the past as a possible location for an executive par 3 golf course, however it is not large enough to accommodate such a use. A well-planned, 18-hole par 3 course requires 50 to 60 acres. A 9-hole pare 3 course could possibly be accomplished on as little as 20 acres, however this site is only 14 acres and therefore would not accommodate "executive" type 33 course very adequately.5 While it is a possible candidate for some type of development, there are not current public facility needs which could be accommodated at this site. Tract 9— East of Sunburst Drive This site contains just over 28 acres and is located south of the Vail Golf Course. The site is entirely within a high hazard area and is viewed as designated open space for the community. Just to the south of Sunburst Drive are several small parcels which are avalanche chutes, scheduled to remain as open space. Tract 10 —Vail Golf Course The Vail Gold Course comprises just over 94 acres of land along Gore Creek in the east-central part of the community. A portion of the course winds through a residential area along Vail Valley Drive. No change is anticipated in the function and extent of the area. Tract 11 — Bus Barn, Public Works The Town of Vail bus barn and public works shops are located on a 17.3 acre site north of 1-70 in the vicinity of the golf course. There is no change anticipated in this area and there appears to be sufficient room for expansion of the facility. This site is a potential candidate for the location of a limited use, special event oriented heliport. Tract 12 — Ptarmigan Road Avalanche Chute A 1.15 acre area has been designated as a safety area to accommodate potential avalanches. The site would remain as open space in the community. Tract 13— Fairway Drive Avalanche Chutes A 2.16 acre site to accommodate avalanche hazards has been dedicated to the town along Fairway Drive in the Vail Village 10th Filing. This site provides a safety area and would remain as open space for the community. Tract 14— Ford Park The Ford Park is the focus of outdoor summer recreation activities in the community. It contains athletic fields for softball, soccer and lacrosse, tennis courts, a picnic pavilion, barbecue grills, bike paths and a nature center. A Master Plan was recently adopted for the park and an amphitheatre is currently under construction. During the past winter seasons, the athletic fields of the upper bench of the park has served as a day use parking area for skiers. The use of special WWII vintage landing mats have been used to protect the turf from damage. There is no change, other than on-going facility development for the park. Specifically, a community indoor swimming pool has been proposed for the east end of the site. Tract 15— Golden Peak Athletic Field This five acre athletic field accommodates soccer, rugby and lacrosse activities during the summer. This athletic field is anticipated to continue to serve as a site for active recreation functions in the community. Tract 16—Vorlaufer Park, aka Roger Staub Park The small .5 acre open area is located off of Gore Creek Drive in Vail Village serves as a passive pocket-park adjacent to Gore Creek. This passive area is landscaped and contains boulders for resting and provides a pleasant relief from the dense built-up nature of the Village. It is viewed as a positive attribute likely to continue to function as such. 5 DeChaiara, Joseph and Lee Koppelman, Urban Planning and Design Criteria, pg 380; and THK Associates, Inc. 34 Tract 17— Mill Creek Stream Tract This area extends from Hanson Ranch Road to Gore Creek Drive in back of the Red Lion Building. The tract serves as a drainageway and should be preserved in its open state. Development along Bridge Street has turned their back to the stream and rehabilitation and/or renovation in the area should be encouraged to take advantage of this pleasant open area. Tract 18 — Gore Creek Stream Tract The stream tract extends from Ford Park in the east to Forest Road on the west and consists of a series of dedicated parcels as development progressed within the Town . The area serves as an invaluable environmental and aesthetic component to the Village core. The primary uses of this area are linear open space and recreational paths. Tract 19— Slifer Square Slifer Square consists of the covered bridge, the landscaped plaza and the "vest pocket" park between the Village parking structure and the bridge. The area serves as an entryway to the Village core and is unlikely to change. It has also been identified as a possible site for the Town of Vail Christmas Tree. Tract 20 —Village Parking Structure The site of the parking structure contains just over 5.5 acres of land not all of which is occupied by the three level parking structure. The top of the structure serves as the Vial Transportation Center and is the focus for regional and town-wide bus routes. The east of the structure is undeveloped and this area represents an opportunity for development. Tract 21 — Pirate Ship Park This facility is located along Mill Creek in the vicinity of the Vista Bahn chairlift. The tot lot and playground serve the recreational needs of smaller children in the community and would likely remain unchanged. Tract 22 —Willow Circle Landscaped Area This 3.8 acre area serves as an open relief for residences which surround it and would remain as such. Tract 23— Ski Museum Located at the intersection of Vail Road and West Meadow Drive, this 1.23 acre site serves as one of the many tourist attractions in the community. The site is at one of the more congested vehicular intersections in town and there are numerous vehicular / pedestrian conflicts in the area. There are approved plans (related to the Vail Village Inn Special Development District) for the relocation of the museum. The plan calls for this site to become a small park / open space with opportunities for public art, to serve as a window into the transition area, between Vail Village and Lionshead. The plans for this site may be modified in the future, with the intersection improvements noted in the Vail Village Master Plan. Tract 24 - Village Fire Station The station site is likely to remain unchanged. Tract 25— Interfaith Chapel Land south and wet of the chapel is owned by the town and currently is used for parking for the chapel. Unless there is a change in the chapel activity then there appears to be no need to affect this tract. 35 Tract 26— Municipal Building and Post Office This site contains 2.81 acres and is located along the frontage road west of the Vail interchange. There are numerous options available for change in use of this site which are discussed later in this study. Tract 27— Dobson Ice Arena and Adjacent Lot to East The site and use appears to be fairly well fixed for the neat future. There have been discussions about expansion and/or modification of the building to accommodate small conventions. To date, no firm plans have been identified, and thus there is no change expected for the arena site. As possible use of the adjacent lot may be an outdoor ice arena. The lot is now planned to accommodate additional hospital parking needs. Tract 28 —Vail Library and Adjacent Park Area The library is located south of the Dobson Ice Arena and like the arena there are no known expansion plans or relocation plans which would affect the site. There is a small park area adjacent to the library, which will remain in its present use. Tract 29— Lionshead Parking Structure The Lionshead parking structure site is one which offers an opportunity to include some additional activities. The structure presently contains a number of uses including the Teen Center. The types of activities are tied in with the options which may results from activities at the municipal center. Tract 30 — Pedestrian Overpass The landing areas for the pedestrian overpass which connects Red Sandstone Elementary School and Lionshead are the two sites of this tract. No change is expected for this are, other than realigning the south approach. Tract 31 — Lionshead Entryway / Right-of-Way This "tract" is actually a series of parcels in and around Lionshead which are entryways and landscaped bus turnarounds. No change is expected in this area. Tract 32 — Lionshead Mall The pedestrian mall of the Lionshead commercial area is the site of this tract. The tract winds in and around the mall and connects the parking structure with Lionshead Circle. The "Urban Design Guide Plan" addresses potential changes in this area. Tract 33— Lionshead Centre This site is located directly south of the Lionshead Centre building adjacent to the Gore Creek stream tract. It currently is part of the open space and trail system in the are and no changes are likely. Tract 34—Old Town Shops This site is used for Town of Vail recreational programs and for storage. This site may have some potential for redevelopment at the time the new access to 1-70 becomes a reality. Tract 35— Mountain Bell The Mountain Bell microwave facility and two daycare center are located on a 25 acres site owned by the Town of Vail which is north of 1-70. A portion of this site under the microwave facility, is owned by Mountain Bell. Part of the entire site is located in an area of medium environmental hazards and should continue to remain in its present use, with possible expansions of the day care centers. It may also be an option for the cemetery, further discussed later. 36 Tract 36— Red Sandstone Elementary School The Town of Vail leases the site to the Eagle County School District for educational purposes. This arrangement will likely continue through the planning period. Tract 37— Potato Patch An irregular shaped area above Red Sandstone Elementary School was dedicated to the Town as open space. This area has a variety of high and medium environmental constraints as well as some areas with no identifiable development constraints. There are no apparent deed restrictions for use of the property, however, the site is relatively difficult to access and seems to be most appropriately left in open space. Tract 38 — Lion's Ridge The Lion's Ridge parcel is designated as open space and because of the severe topographic and environmental conditions is not suitable for other uses. Tract 39— Cascade Village Stream Tract This is an area along Gore Creek in the vicinity of the Westin Hotel which serves as flood protection and provides some open space for this area. Tract 40 — Donovan Park The undeveloped park consists of a 12-acre lower bench area north of Gore Creek and a 39- acre upper bench south of the Matterhorn Subdivision. The park has been the subject of a Master Plan which outlined the proposed park facilities for the site. The community intends to proceed with development of the project as funding becomes available. The upper bench has also been identified as a potential cemetery site. Tract 41 — Buffehr Creek A site of approximately one acre in size has been identified as a park site for neighborhood residents. The use of this site is likely to continue throughout the projection period. Tract 42 — Stephens Property This is a ten acre parcel of land located along Gore Creek in the Intermountain area of West Vail. The tract is currently undeveloped and could be a possible cemetery site. Tract 43 -Chamonix Parcel The 3.6 acre Chamonix Parcel has been identified for the location of a future high density, for- sale, deed-restricted employee housing development consisting of approximately 58 dwelling units *16 to 17 dwelling units per acre). A Land Use Plan depicting the uses has been prepared as the result of a comprehensive public planning process and is included as Appendix F of this document. Tract 44—West Vail Fire Station The 1.25 acre West Vail Fire Station Parcel has been identified for the location of a new fire station in West Vail. A Land Use Plan depicting the location of the new fire station on the parcel has been prepared and is included as Appendix F of this document. 2. Facility / Service Requirements In this section of the study the existing facilities used by the Town of Vail's service providers will be discussed. In general, a majority of the municipal sources offered by the town are well situated to serve the growth needs of the community. However, as the community grows and matures there are likely to be demands for additional services and/or facilities. For example there has been an expressed need for an indoor aquatic center in the community. This facility 37 would be difficult to justify under normal measures of demand (one pool per 25,000 population is a typical National Park and Recreation standard). However, community interest is extremely high in a facility of this type due to the higher recreational participation rates and the higher guest populations found in Vail and a site is recommended for its development. Following then is a brief discussion of status of existing services / facilities. (Note: a significant amount of information reported in this section is a results of a Space Needs Study conducted for the town in December of 1984.) Vail Police Department The Vail Department of Police is currently housed in the Municipal Building. The department occupies a portion of upper and lower levels of the building with approximately one-third of the structure needed for the law enforcement function. The department is in need of additional space for personnel, facilities and storage. The 1984 study indicates that between 1,500 and 2,000 square feet of additional space is needed. Fire Protection Currently, two fire stations are serving the community: The East Vail Station on Columbine Drive in the Bighorn subdivision; and the Central Station on east Meadow Drive which is adjacent to the Village. The determination of fire protection adequacy involved a complex formula which incorporate construction type, building height, water flow rate, response time and service radius. The American Insurance Association (formerly the National Board of Fire Underwriters) prepares the evaluation. A rule of thumb for protection of residential areas is a radius of one and one-half miles for engine companies and two miles for ladder. Applying this standard suggests that an additional station could be proposed to serve the West Vail area. Library The library is housed in a new facility with apparent adequate space to accommodate the present and near future needs of community residents. Public Works The Public Works / Transportation Department is housed at the Town of Vail shop property which is located north of 1-70 in the vicinity of the golf course. The Public Works Town Shops may need to be expanded to accommodate future space needs to allow far additional services to be located at the shops. Also, in the previous space use study, it was recommended that a small satellite facility to accommodate under storage and a snowplow be developed in West Vail. Recreation The administrative function of the recreation department is currently located in the lower level of the library. There has been no indication that the current space is inadequate and thus it is assumed that the near term space needs of the department are satisfied. The second component of the recreation function is the land and/or facilities required to meet the recreational needs of community residents. This investigation has not included a parks and recreation master plan which would examine in some degree of detail these needs. However, there are some general indications of recreational desires as expressed by residents involved in the public meetings associated with the Land Use Plan project and during the completion of the Master Plans for the Ford and Donovan Parks. Park and recreation standards have historically been the means by which park requirements for future population have been estimated. The application of a ratio, typically expressed in acres per 1,000 population is often the point of beginning in projecting needs for a community. Also, these standards tend to be based on national trends as monitored by the National Park and 38 Recreation Association. Often these national standards are not applicable to a community's situation — in the case of Vail, this is most certainly true. The unique location of the community and its recreation / tourist base tends to skew the national standards. However, using a ratio as expression of future requirements is a technique which has some validity in this case. The results of the survey conducted as part of the land use plan indicated that there are over 555 acres of land in the area devoted to park and open space use. A further breakdown indicates that 296 acres of the 555 acres are classified as open space and the remaining 259 acres are used for park purposes (improved parks and athletic fields). A major component of the parks acreage is devoted to the golf course which is just over 94 acres of land. The current permanent population in the community is estimated to be 4,500 persons. Applying this population to the current park and open space acreage results in the following: 1. Open Space Land = 65.8 acres per 1,000 population 2. Park Land (including golf course) = 57.6 acres per 1,000 population 3. Park Land (excluding golf course) = 36.7 acres per 1,000 population Total Park & Open Space Lane (1+2) = 123.3 acres per 1,000 population As a means of comparison, the most frequently used ratio in expressing the requirement for park needs for urban conditions amounts to 25 acres per 1,000 population. The Town of Vail far exceeds this "normal" standard to the provision of park and recreation space. Throughout the public meetings associated with the land use plan and the results of a community services questionnaire, there appeared to be general satisfaction with the level and amount of park and recreation facilities and areas. (A notable exception is the desire for an indoor aquatics center.) Thus, as one measure of the future needs in the community, today's standards of providing park areas could be used to determine future demands. The year 2000 population projections for the community indicate that the permanent population is 5,920 persons, or an increase of 1,420 persons above current levels. Using the existing ratio of park land now provided to the increase in population results in the following: In the future, the Town may desire to annex National Forest lands for the purpose of recreational and/or public facility development. This will involve close coordination with the Forest Service. The use and existing conditions of National Forest Land which is exchanged, sold, or otherwise falls into private ownership should remain unchanged. A change in existing condition and use may be considered if the change substantially complies with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and achieves a compelling public benefit which furthers the public interest, as determined by the Town Council. (Res. 2 (2003) §1) Additional Park and Open Space Land Required Open Space Land (65.8 acres x 1.42)* = 93 acres Parkland — Excluding Gold Course (36.7 acres x 1.42) = 52 acres Total = 145 acres (*Note: the ratio which excludes the golf course was used because there are no additional areas which could accommodate a golf facility in the planning are.) Using the above stated assumptions on level of service, one could anticipate an additional need for 52 acres in parks and 93 acres in open space. This is only a general indication of need — it does not include important factors such as location, down-valley activities, or the availability of private recreation facilities in the community. 39 This aspect of community facilities will be the subject of further study by the Town as a separate component of the Comprehensive Plan. This will be accomplished through completing a "Recreational Strategic Plan" which will study needs for all types of recreational and parks amenities and identify locations for such needs. This effort will complement the already completed Master Plans for Ford and Donovan Parks, which programmed specific uses and locations for recreational facilities in each park. Cemetery A cemetery site has been identified as a high priority item for the community. In the process of identifying potential sites, contacts were made with agencies that may have regulations affecting the siting of such a facility. The Colorado State Department of Health was contacted and there are no regulations from their prospective which would affect siting of a cemetery. The only agency which does have an affect on cemetery operations is the Colorado State Division of Insurance, which is concerned with internment, general maintenance of the facility, and administration organization necessary to operate the facility. There are several key considerations in site criteria for a cemetery including: 1) the suitability of the terrain for internment such as the nature of the subsoil; 2) drainage; 3) proximity to community water sources; and, 4) accessibility. Also, there is the sensitive issue of the "feeling" of death that is associated with a cemetery and the inclination on the part of some people to avoid living in the vicinity of a cemetery. Finally, it is likely that a cemetery site will be used in perpetuity. Burial grounds are rarely moved due both to the practical and legal difficulties involved. Four sites have been identified as meeting the above outlined criteria; there are, however, some resolved questions with each. Parcel H This tract of land is located I East Vial under an elevated section of Interstate 70. The portion of the site appropriate to internment is north of Gore Creek and has direct access from Bighorn Road. Utilities, specifically water service, is available in the area. The site is presently within the White River National Forest and acquisition of the tract would have to conform to a complicated and lengthy set of procedures. Also, it is unknown at this time what rights the Colorado State Highway Department may have on the tract. Even though 1-70 is elevated as it transverses the parcel, there may be some restrictions on the use of the space under the freeway. Mountain Bell Tract The 25-acre tract of land, currently owned by the Town of Vail, with a portion owned by Mountain Bell, which houses the telephone microwave transmitting facility, is recommended as a second potential cemetery site. The site has many positive attributes including access, availability of utilities and isolation. The one negative factor of the site is the terrain type. Presently, a portion of the area is identified as having moderate environmental constraints. It does appear that a carefully designed site plan could adequately overcome some of these constraints and provide a suitable cemetery site. This site is also intended to continue to be used by the two day-care centers with additional area to accommodate necessary expansion of these centers. Stephen's Property The Stephen's Property, West Vail, is the third site which has been identified as a possible cemetery. Gore Creek transverses this triangular shaped tract of land with the south portion being more flood prone and subject to moderate environmental constraints. As suitable as the site is it may face competition for use from the recreational requirement to meet future demands. 40 Donovan Park A portion of the upper bench of Donovan Park was also previously identified as a possible cemetery site through the Mast Parks Plan process for Donovan Park. General Governmental Services General governmental services include those municipal functions such as town administration, community development, finance and personnel. The previously cited space needs study indicated that, with the exception of the Police Department, department needs are primarily in the area of additional storage. The individual needs of the departments are comparatively minor, however when they are added to the Police Department requirements and the current site constraints of the municipal building and post office site there becomes a cumulative effect and/or requirement which is discussed in a latter section of this report. Schools While education services are not provided by the Town, it is important to address the question of whether or not new sites for schools should be planned. According to conversations with Dr. Charles Schwann, Superintendent of School District RE50J, there are not projected needs for additional school sites with the Town of Vial. There are currently several school sites in Avon and Edwards which have been dedicated to the district. Due to the projected population distribution, in combination with the bus circulation routes, it is anticipated that needs for new schools will be met through the placement of facilities on these sites. 3. Locations for Other Facilities During the course of this investigation there have been a number of special facilities or conditions which have been identified as being appropriate for comment. These items along with a summary of the key findings of the previous sections are presented as follows. Aquatic Center Concurrent with this investigation the Department of Community Development conducted an evaluation of alternative sites for an aquatic center. The evaluation used a checklist of seventeen different items which were applied to six separate sites in the community. The analysis resulted in an area at the east end of Ford Park as scoring the highest in almost all of the evaluation categories. The results of the evaluation confirms the recommendations which were made as part of the Ford Park Master Planning process. Therefore, should plans proceed for such a facility it would be most appropriately located at the east end of Ford Park. Golf Course The only site in the community large enough to accommodate an executive style, Par 3 course is a portion of the Katsos Ranch property as a well-planned 18-hold par 3 course requires 50 to 60 acres of land. As mentioned previously in the discussion of tract 8, a 9-hold par 3 course could possibly be built on approximately 20 acres. Tract 8 in the Booth Falls are could not accommodate this acreage requirement.6 At the public meetings held during the development of this plan, there was overwhelming community opposition to the use of the Katsos property to accommodate a golfing facility. Seasonal Surface Parking Areas In support of the impact assessment of the Vail Mountain Master Plan, a parking and bus utilization analysis was conducted. This analysis identified the magnitude of the increase associated with skier expansion, as well as the internal shift in ski portal use because of the 6 DeChaira, Joseph and Lee Koppelman, Urban Planning and Design Criteria, pg. 380; and THK Associates, Inc. 41 location of mountain expansion. It was projected that a shortfall of 597 public parking spaces would occur in the Village / Golden Park area while a surplus of spaces would result in the Lionshead / Cascade Village area. A variety of solutions to the projected shortfall were identified including: • Expansion of the Transportation Center by 450 spaces • Relocation of the rental car operation to free up spaces in the Transportation Center • Increased parking as part of the Golden Peak base facility redevelopment • Expanded parking at Ford Park • Increased use of remote parking facilities such as the golf course lot • Leasing of private spaces by employees • Greater utilization of the bus system The variety of option available to accommodate this growth suggests that there is likely no need to immediately look for additional surface parking areas. The experience with using Ford Park as a temporary solution has not been fully evaluated. However, from the community's perspective, there was no significant opposition to use of the upper bench of the park, as a temporary solution to the parking problem. One of the concluding recommendations of the parking and bus utilization study involved the on-going activities of the Parking Task Force which would continue to monitor and document the adequacy of the parking system in the peak February-March period. Village Parking Structure The Village parking structure was previously mentioned as being one means by which to partially meet the additional parking requirements generated by the mountain expansion plan. The east end of the parking structure site is undeveloped. This area has been viewed as a possible site for numerous activities. It is recommended that since the parking structure has been designed for expansion and that the Village / Golden Peak ski portals are to be the focus of mountain expansion. Extending the existing parking structure would create a building area of 31,250 square feet on top of the structure (the length extends 250 feet, which is 50 feet short of the west pavement line of the Vail Valley Drive and the width is held at the current 125 feet). This are could then be utilized for some other type of use. The landscaped slope facing south of the existing structure, along East Meadow Drive, has been discussed as possibly having some redevelopment potential. During the public meetings held to review this plan, the residents expressed a desire to keep this area in its present use, as permanent open space. Lionshead Parking Structure The Lionshead parking structure offers some of the same opportunities for joint use development as those of the Village structure. The types of activities and possible joint uses are somewhat different, however. The east end of the parking structure site is currently not developed as a parking structure but is utilized for parking for large recreational vehicles or buses. This area has been suggested as a possible site for a new municipal building or town hall. The site could easily accommodate a building of 20,000 square feet in a single or multi- level structure and could use either the existing parking for employee and/or business parking or could incorporate structured parking of its own. This potential building, along with the adjacent Dobson area and library, could form the components of a municipal center or complex, along with the existing Teen Center in the structure. 42 Another potential joint use for the site would be an extension of the commercial space along the south face of the structure. There is currently 5,000 square feel of commercial / office space and some additional square footage of space could be incorporated in the structure. Unlike the Village structure, however, the depth of the space (i.e., from street R.O.W. to parking structure) is relatively shallow. Commercial uses requiring a more square rather than rectangular shape may have to extend into the parking structure. The deed of transfer from Vail Associates to the Town of Vail specifically prohibits nonpublic uses for the structure. It should be noted, however, that existing commercial space is not physically attached to the structure — they are two separate buildings which may be a means to be in compliance with the deed restrictions. The restriction may preclude any extension of commercial space into the structure site. In the discussion of using the east end of the parking structure as a building site, it should also be noted that the parking structure itself has been designed to accommodate additional roof-top loads. This a new building could almost be placed anywhere on the parking structure site. The future use of both parking structures is now the subject of further investigation by the Town. A feasibility study has been initiated to address whether the structures should remain in their present use or be positioned for the addition of commercial, office and/or parking uses. Municipal Building / Post Office Site The suggestion that municipal functions be relocated, as discussed in the previous section, would then make available the municipal building and municipal building site. Added tot his is the desire of the post office to relocate its distribution function to an outlying location (the community would like to maintain a "retail" function in Commercial Core I or II however) could possible "free up" both buildings as well as the site. Some of the possible scenarios for site and activities include the following: A. Municipal Function Relocated: 1. Use of the eastern part of the existing municipal building as a visitor's center. This portion of the building (police department) has good visibility as well as parking. As a supplement to the visitor center, a historical display area and/or the ski museum could also be provided. The post office could operate its retail presence in the building it presently occupies. 2. Another general option would be to abandon the existing structures and develop a multi- purpose community building to accommodate the visitor center, Vail Resort Association, as well as space for other community service organizations. 3. Along the same lines as 2 above, the private sector could be encouraged to participate by offering the parcel for development, in exchange for the provision of a visitor center in the development. The combination of uses are almost too numerous to list. Also, there needs to be some assessment of the size requirement of these facilities and whether any specific types of space are needed, as well as additional parking requirements. B. Municipal Function Remains 1. If the municipal functions remain at the current site, then there would likely be a reallocation of uses among the two buildings. The Police Department's need for additional space plus their need for communication equipment suggest that they remain in the existing municipal building. The post office building could become an "annex" to 43 the main building in which some municipal functions could be housed. The post office retail function would probably have to find a new facility. 2. A variation to the above would be to demolish the post office building and build and addition to the existing municipal building. 3. Another variation could demolish both buildings and construct a new municipal complex. Locations for Public Art The presence of public art in a community adds to the quality of life of its citizens. Public art can be commemorative by reminding the viewer of an individual or event of significance in the community or it can be created to evoke an emotional response on the part of the viewer. Because of the diversity of the types of public art, it is difficult to prescribe specific locations which are appropriate and suitable for all objects of art. Thus, the following items of consideration and suitable for all objects of art. Thus, the following items of consideration are provided as a means to review each proposal for the siting of a piece of public art, as further discussed following. The piece of art proposed for public viewing has characteristics and qualities which should be examined prior to its siting. The following should be examined: • Size and Scale: Is the physical size of the piece of art such that it requires a certain amount of distance for the object for proper viewing? For example, a kinetic sculpture the size of a small vehicle would likely require a pedestrian plaza are. • Shape and Form: Whether the piece of art has a symmetrical shape of has a free-form has an influence on the most appropriate area from which to view it. • Material: The material of the piece of art should be considered. For example, a high- tech material of glass or polished metal may be out of place in a natural setting along a streambed or in a forested area. Conversely, this type of material may provide a dramatic contrast to a natural forested setting. • Mass and Density: The bulk and volume of a piece of art is also a factor which should be evaluated. There is a natural affinity between the mountainous terrain features of the area and a sculptural piece which expresses the mass and bulk. In addition to aesthetic and design concerns associated with individual pieces of art, there are some very practical questions which should be addressed. The placement of a piece of art in a public place should be evaluated as to its effect on public health, safety and welfare. The types of issues include the safety of the piece of art from the standpoint of the viewer. Are there any sharp edges or delicate construction techniques which have the potential to cause injury to the viewer? Is the piece of art secure and well fastened to its viewing area, not subject to easy removal? Is there some measure of protection against vandalism associated with the piece? Can the piece be easily defaced, or should vandalism occur, can the defacing be easily removed? Finally, how does the piece of public art and it's location relate to the public works function of the town? Specifically, are there any conflicts with snow removal, emergency service access and bus transit routes? The above criteria are suggested as a means to evaluate individual pieces of art. There are, however, general locations which are more appropriate for public art. Within the Vail Village Master Plan, specific locations have been identified. Beyond the village area, locations should focus around pedestrian concentrations or movement. Bus stops make excellent location for art 44 because of the congregation of people. Similarly, formal plaza areas and areas where pedestrian pathways intersect are suitable locations. Siting areas along the pedestrian pathways associated with Gore Creek also are appropriate. In any of the above areas, the piece of public art should be selected and placed to compliment the urban or natural setting and should act as a magnet to draw people to an area. CHAPTER VIII — IMPLEMENTATION The Land Use Plan developed as a result of this effort will become a part of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, which in its entirety will serve to guide growth within the Tow of Vail for the next 15 years. The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. Specific implementation measure should be undertaken to assure that the intent of the Plan is carried forward throughout the life of the Plan. Such measure should include changes to ordinances and regulations or policies adopted by the Town. These measures should also include developing a system by which the Plan may be continuously monitored and periodically amended. This is important because the planning process is one of continuous evolution with data, public opinion and market forces changing over time. 1. Land Use Regulation Analysis The zoning and subdivision regulations should be analyzed carefully to assure that objectives of the Land Use Plan may be met. While an in-depth analysis of these regulations is not within the scope of this project, some general recommendations may be made concerning new land use categories developed for the Land Use Plan. The following categories should be reviewed for compatibility with the zoning regulations. A. Hillside Residential This new category will require the adoption of a new zoning category, which would allow for single-family residential units at a maximum density of two per acre, with a minimum buildable area of 20,000 square feet of contiguous area per unit. Allowance should also be made for an employee or guest housing unit to be built as an accessory unit attached to the primary living unit or garage. The existing regulations for access to subdivisions and for control of hazard areas should still be applicable. B. Community Office This category would require a review of the Arterial Business District zoning category to ensure that permitted and conditional uses were broad enough to be consistent with the objectives established with the Land Use Plan. C. Transition This are would require an analysis of the actual zoning along West Meadow Drive to ensure that the purposes of the transition district could be met. 45 D. High Density Residential The actual location of the parcels of high density residential should be analyzed to determine a suitable minimum lot area permissible for high density development. The present high density zone district has the requirement of a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet of buildable area. It is conceivable that this minimum would not be adequate in some cases and may need to be increased to 20,000 square feet. 2. Procedural Method of Implementation The general method of developing implementation measure should be as follows: A. Define Plan /Zoning Differences Compare Land Use Plan Map with Zoning Map and identify areas of conflict between categories as described in the Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. B. Evaluate Zoning Ordinance Begin evaluating the zoning ordinance as compared with the Land Use Categories adopted in this document and develop new categories or wording / use changes to bring the zoning document into conformance with general spirit of the Plan. C. Refine Plan It is anticipated that after the Plan has been adopted and has been used as a working document for some time, the Town may identify refinements which will need to be made to the Land Use Categories, Map and Goal Statements. These should be undertaken after the zoning code and revisions and other implementation documents have been prepared and are ready for adoption to "fine-tune" the Plan. It is recommended that these changes take place within the first year after adoption and occur as an amendment to the Plan, initiated by the Town. Amendment procedures are described on page 62. D. Rezonings The Town may wish to consider initiating select rezonings, when the community interests would be met through bringing areas into conformance with the Plan. Where conflicts arise between existing zoning and proposed land use categories (and changes have not been made in the development of the implementation measures described herein) existing zoning shall control. When new applications for zoning or rezoning are made and the requested zoning is not consistent with the adopted Plan, this nonconformance shall be addressed by the applicant. It will be the responsibility of the applicant to clearly demonstrate how conditions have changed since the plan was adopted, how the Plan is in error or how the addition, deletion or change to the Plan is in concert with the Plan in general. Such nonconformance shall then become a factor for consideration in the rezoning process, along with all other factors considered in such cases, with respect to Town ordinances and policies. E. Annexation of National Forest Lands In the future, the T own may desire to annex National Forest lands for the purposes of recreational and/or public facility development. This will involve close coordination with the 46 Forest Service. However, National Forest land which is exchanged, sold or otherwise falls into private ownership should remain as open space and not be zoned for private development. F. Parks and Open Space Consideration should be given by the Town to amending the ordinance which regulate the real estate transfer tax to allow funds to be utilized for the development of parks and open space, in addition to the purchase of these lands. 3. Amendment Process The amendment process is one which is intended to assure the Plan's effectiveness with periodic updates to reflect current thinking and changing market conditions. The process includes amendments which may be initiated in any of the following three ways: A. By the Community Development Department B. By the Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council C. By the private sector A. Community Development Department Amendments The Community Development Department should update and revise the Plan every three to five years, whenever possible. However, if the plan is not updated within such time frame, this shall not jeopardize the validity of the plan. This should include analysis of the goals and policies; update of the forecasting model and review and revision of the Land Use Plan map. The Community Development Department would then make recommendation for proposed changes to the Planning and Environmental Commission where these changes would then be considered in a public hearing format. The Planning and Environmental Commission would then make recommendations to the Town Council, which would also hold a public hearing on the proposed changes. If adopted, the changes would then become a part of the Plan. B. Planning and Environment Commission or Town Council Amendments These entities could also initiate plan amendments periodically, as deemed appropriate. These amendments would also require public hearings with both the Commission and the Council, and upon adoption then become a part of the Plan. C. Private Sector Amendments The private sector may also initiate amendment requests. These should be initiated in the following way: 1. Make application with the Community Development Department. Applications may be made by either a registered voter, a property owner or a property owner's authorized representative. Such application may be made at any time. 2. Such applications will then be considered at a meeting with the PEC. At the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing, a recommendation shall be made to the Town Council, whereupon a decision shall then be rendered. To change the Plan by this procedure, it will be the responsibility of the applicant to clearly demonstrate how conditions have change since the Plan was adopted, how the Plan is in error or how the addition, deletion or change to the Plan is in concert with the Plan in general. Such decisions may include approval, approval with conditions or denial. Amendments may 47 be requested for change to the goals and policies and/or Land Use Plan map. If such request is approved, such change shall be made to the Plan document and/or map. If such request is denied, no such request that is substantially the same as that previously denied shall be considered for a period of one year. 4. Use of the Land Use Plan Map The Land Use Plan map and the goal statements are intended to serve as the primary focus for the review of development proposals, along with Town ordinances and regulations. The Plan Map and goal statements are founded upon the supporting information and data contained in this document and therefore should not be utilized as the sole instrument for analysis of a project. Any project should be reviewed within the context of the intent of the overall Plan Document. The Community Development Department, along with the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council will be responsible for the interpretation and implementation of the Plan. Where the 400 scale Land Use Plan map (adopted by reference herein) does not adequately define a land use category boundary, the boundary shall be interpreted by the Community Development Staff. It should be noted that the boundaries established on the Plan Map are general in nature and were not determined based on parcel by parcel property boundaries. When ambiguity exists, generally, roadways, natural barriers and property edges shall define such boundaries. When a property in single ownership is divided by a land use category such that the property cannot be developed in a feasible and logical way for either land use, the staff may determine which use is appropriate, based on compatibility of surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed, and physical site characteristics. Where a disagreement between the staff and the applicant occurs, appeals may be made to the Planning and Environmental Commission. In conjunction with the use of the Plan Map, the constraint maps adopted by the Town for geologic hazards, snow avalanche and flood plains referenced herein shall also be utilized in the review of any development proposal. Areas which may fall with the I-70 corridor shall be determined by consulting the Town right-of-way maps also referenced herein. 48 e fill M Sp B _ H s` - o � Y � e c g� 9 �d e € all i 2 ^ 4 c ice. age RI o 8 ya J � E E Een V m v/ C 8 �8 st:d D d o .$x J n 1149 E =o e s �sas s M; 5 5555 g eR r E gg Mid nm �oRog o3?rsn 010000*�� 2 O 1 F HJ ffiDaR EEa'8E p$a,p DEpy ju F W 12ap = $_ N 8p aYEm E .;o W$EHE o=s =a�3s�3 �000101111 � � a 0 VAIL LAND USE PLAN APPENDICES Page A. Community Questionnaire— Summary Results A-1 —6 B. Additional Goal Statements B-1 C. Additional Sources C-1 D. Economic and Demographic Overview D-1 — 12 E. Town of Vail Forecast Methodology E-1 — 15 F. Chamonix Master Plan F-1 LIST OF TABLES Appendix D 1. Historical Skier Visits to Vail, Beaver Creek and the State of D-2 Colorado, 1962-63 to 1985-86 2. Historical Population and Household Growth Trends in Vail D-4 and Eagle County, 1970-1986 3. Housing and Household Characteristics of Vail and Eagle D-5 County, 1970-1980 4. Historical Eagle County Average Annual Employment by Industry D-7 and Place of Work, 1975-1985 5. Historical Average Annual employment by Place of Work for Vail D-8 and Eagle Country, 1975-1985 6. Historical Eagle County, Personal Income by Industry and Place D-9 of Work ( $000's) 1974-1984 7. Historical Eagle County Business Establishments by Industry D-11 and Employment— Ski Class, 1974-1984 8. Historical Retail Sales by Month in Vail in Eagle County D-12 ($000's), 1975-1985 Appendix E Table 1-A Town of Vail Forecast Assumptions 1-50, 1-60, E-4 1-70 — Projected Vail Area Skier Visits by Type, 1984-85 to 1999-2000 2-50, 2-60, 2-70 — Projected Town of Vail Population E-5, 9, 13 and Households by Type, 1984-85 to 1999-2000 3-50, 3-60, 3-70 — Projected Town of Vail Housing Unit E-7, 11, 15 Demand by Type, 1984-85 to 1999-2000 4-50, 4-60, 4-70 — Projected Town of Vail Retail E-8, 12, 16 Sales by Category, 1984-1985 to 1999-2000 APPENDIX A—VAIL COMMUNITY QUESTIONNAIRE —SUMMARY RESULTS Strong Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Total 1. Growth can be accommodated in a variety of ways. Which of the following area or areas do you consider? Most appropriate? a. In the Village Core area thru redevelopment, 9 6 3 2 2 22 if necessary. b. On vacant land in already developed subdivisions 6 10 4 - 1 21 c. On vacant land at the edge of the built-up area. 2 4 6 3 4 19 d. On land suitable for development regardless of 2 6 1 5 7 21 ownership. Total 19 26 14 10 14 83 e. Other: hillsides (no growth on) limit growth and improve what we have Village, Lionshead, Westin down valley leave softball fields alone 2. What type of growth should be encouraged? a. Hotel/lodge rooms. 8 5 5 2 2 22 b. Condominium (short-term rental or long-term 2 2 4 7 6 21 c. Townhomes. 1 8 7 5 1 22 d. Single family/duplex residences. 4 7 7 3 1 22 e. Commercial uses. 5 7 4 1 1 18 Total 20 29 27 18 11 105 f. Other: limit growth, focus on improving what we affordable family living space more time-share condos recreation facilities low cost housing for locals A-1 3. What do you like about the Town of Vail? Ambiance ambiance of village core natural setting friendliness of locals mountain character well kept and prosperous people scale-public areas are accessible and naturally landscaped everything freedom the people surroundings — mountains climate mountain location the look of the Vail area neighborhood —community ambiance rural character setting, location, variety of people and interests summers it's clean, scenic, well planned small town flavor with cosmopolitan flavor its location natural setting atmosphere design and location original and architecture Recreation availability from village to ski mountain (summer and winter) skiing community support for conservation of open spaces skiing recreation (paths and facilities) proximity to nature cultural activity open space (what little there is) library, ford park, tennis Village Core/Lionshead pedestrian core pedestrian areas and Tyrolean design excellent landscaping like pedestrian streets when there are no trucks good atmosphere for tourist business flowers in summer shopping A-2 General Growth/Development size and variety economic viability controls to keep greedy under control growth potential Government/Public Services free bus management good building codes 4. What do you find undesirable about Vail as it now exists? Commercial economics of commercial areas lower cost restaurants expensive shops high rents for retail shop owners restaurants too expensive Roads/Parki ng/Traffic 4-way intersections with bad visibility poor road conditions (Beaver Dam and Forest Road for example) parking in winter traffic control 4-way stop parking commercial vehicles in CCI cars in core lack of traffic organization lack of core parking in Village for work force Village Core/Lionshead quality diminishing — need for upgrade of structures high — rise buildings near ski mountain growing congestion no activity in Lionshead — need vendor carts, night life no cohesion between Vail Village and Lionshead too much core construction during summer months Lionshead over built high rises in old Vail quit tearing up town in summer village activities lack variety Residential Family living space (owner occupied) Housing too expensive A-3 Recreation night time recreation emphasis on adult rather than youth activities teens drinking and disorderly no swimming pool Government/Public Services public rest facilities no rest rooms in restrictions of governmental bureaucracy the willingness of council to grant variances overbearing of fire and police 1-70 —too many cops General Growth/Development Too many opportunist wishing to make fast buck and leave the area before many of the problems of overdevelopment occur Not growing Being all things to all people —sports vs. culture If old Vail goes like Lionshead — it will be a disaster. Hi rises and overbuilding thru variations will ultimately hurt the image and experience of visitors. Stability and control is necessary — looseness in the planning — zoning — variations is bad. As a condo owner in old Vail, we must keep the open areas open for summer fall and winter use. Because Vail has grown at an unusually fast rate and because many developers wanted a fast buck, it seems that the focus on growth should begin improving what we already have. This concept would help to better utilize our limited space as well as make our town more attractive and cohesive. What has become of the original architecture and standards of building? Lionshead, in my opinion, will never reach its potential as a town center, a retail center or an arts center. Vail Village looks like its seen its hay day as the quality of some of the older buildings deteriorates and the new ones, like Lionshead, just don't fit in to the warmth our village is supposedly portraying. As a potential shop owner myself, I am sorry I can't say that the rents they are asking in town for store space are worth it. I've seen too many good business people run out of town because of the high costs here. If Town of Vail would realize it's the little people who have made a commitment to live and work here who count, we'd be making progress in the right direction. General eye sores signage dogs loose large groups with special rates who feel they can control the village to their liking no major complaints details need attention for quality—the last 10% don't' take care of everyone's needs —just the "haves" tourists A-4 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Total 5. Please indicate your satisfaction with the following services or facilities. Public Facilities and Services: Sidewalks and Street Maintenance 8 4 10 22 Roads and Highways 8 3 13 24 Water Service 12 8 3 23 Fire Protection 16 5 1 22 Sewer System 14 7 - 21 Parks and Recreational Facilities and Programs 14 5 4 23 Law Enforcement 7 13 2 22 Traffic Control 4 6 13 23 Animal Control 5 11 7 23 Insect Control 5 13 2 20 Library Facilities 19 2 - 21 Other Community Facilities and Services Sanitary Land Fills 4 14 3 21 Telephone Service 10 10 2 22 Utility Services 8 10 3 21 Shopping Facilities 10 4 8 22 Professional Services (physicians, lawyers) 13 7 2 22 Restaurants 20 1 1 22 Total 177 123 74 374 A-5 6. Of the categories of public and community facilities and services above, which do you consider to be the most important to you? Public Facilities and Services traffic at peak periods road maintenance snow plowing —street repair maintain pedestrian core with delivery access bike paths, walking paths parks and recreation facilities more golf open space along base of ski mountain more golf more community facilities— parks, swimming pool, etc. library fire and police protection animal control Other Community Facilities and Services utility services restaurants professional more shopping facilities are needed but not big mall professional services V.A. (the mountain) A-6 APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL GOALS (Related to Other Elements of the Comprehensive Plan) Parks/Open Space 1. Vail should develop the parks system. 2. Forest Service properties should remain as open space or may be used for public or recreational facility development; where appropriate. 3. More bike paths, which are separated from walking trails, should be developed. 4. Open space areas and Gore Creek should be preserved and left underdeveloped. 5. High quality landscaping should be encouraged in all development projects. Recreation Facilities 1. More youth activities should be provided by the Town. 2. Construction of a public pool should be a high priority for the Town. 3. Non-skier, family activities should be encouraged. 4. Cultural experiences should be enhanced. 5. Construction of a visitor center should be a high priority for the Town. Transportation 1. Vail should improve opportunities for group transportation from Denver to Vail. 2. Parking and bus service should be improved. 3. Adequate parking should be provided to accommodate day skier growth. 4. The traffic flow, especially obstructions caused by truck traffic, should be improved in the core. 5. Pedestrian/vehicle conflicts should be reduced through transportation improvements. 6. Surface parking should be reduced and provided underground where possible. 7. Construction of a people mover should be a high priority for the Town. Economic Development 1. The community should help create a business environment which can serve middle income clientele and accommodate affordability for small businesses. 2. New growth should also be made affordable for families living and working in Vail. 3. The Town of Vail should consider developing some type of mechanism to control tenant mix, so that a balance between tourist and convenience type of commercial uses is maintained. B-1 APPENDIX C-ADDITIONAL SOURCES STUDIED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT 1. "The Vail Village - Urban Design Guide Plan", June 1980. 2. "Vail Village Design Consideration", June 1980. 3. "The Vail Lionshead - Urban Design Guide Plan", June 1980. 4. "Vail Lionshead Design Consideration", June 1980. 5. "Lionshead Improvement District- Economic Benefit Analysis Addendum" - Larry Smith & Company, LTD., February 1983. 6. Zoning Code & Official Zoning Map-Town of Vail, 1985. 7. Land Transfer Tax Ordinance-Town of Vail. 8. "Park and Recreation Feasibility Analysis" - Community Development Dept., 1984. 9. "Vail Bikeway Plan" - Recreation Dept., 1984. 10. "Vail Traffic Counts" - Centennial Engineering, Inc., March 1986. 11. "Final Report I-70/Vail Feasibility Study" - Centennial Engineering, Inc., April 1984. 12. "Transit Development Plan 1978-1983- Summary Report" - Community Development Dept., 1978 13. "Transit Development Plan 1987-1991 - Summary Report" - Community Development Dept., 1986 14. "Statement of Reasons of Town of Vail Appeal -Vail Land Exchange Proposal" -Town of Vail, 1986. 15. "Vail Master Development Plan" -Vail Associates, Inc. and Rosall, Remmen & Cares, Inc., October 1985 16. "Transportation Work Program: Vail Master Plan" - Rosall, Remmen & Cares, July 1985. 17. Parking and Bus Utilization -Vail Mountain Master Plan Update" - Rosall, Remmen, Cares, January 1986. 18. Air Quality Analysis- Expansion of Vail Mountain and Development of the Valley- 1986 to 1993", Air Sciences, Inc., October 1985. C-1 APPENDIX D: ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW OF THE TOWN OF VAIL INTRODUCTION From its opening season in 1962 — 1963, the ski industry has fueled and shaped the growth and development of the Town of Vail. Today, Vail is the largest ski resort in the State of Colorado. Although composed of only one-fourth of the total permanent population of Eagle County, Vail provides approximately 60% of all jobs and accounts for approximately 50% of all retail sales in the county. Vail is clearly the center and driving force of economic activity in Eagle County. The following economic and demographic overview begins with the review of historical skier visits to Vail, Beaver Creek and the State of Colorado. Next, historical population and household growth trends as well as housing and household characteristics in Vail and Eagle County are examined. Finally, the economy of Vail and Eagle County is analyzed through historical employment, income, business development and retail data. Skier Visits Skier visits are the leading indicator of the Vail economy. From 55,000 skier visits during the 1962 -1963 opening season, Vail experienced nearly 1.3 million skier visits over the past 1985— 1986 season as presented in Table 1. This increase represents a substantial 14.5% annual growth rate over Vail's twenty-three year history. With increased competition, varying snow conditions and changing skier demographics, Vail's skier visits have fluctuated over the past decade, 2.7% over the past four seasons, and 2.2% since last season. Vail consistently increased its share of skier visits to the State of Colorado from 10.0% in 1962 — 1963 to 18.8% in 1976 to 1977. Since the 1976-1977 season, however, Vail's share has declined over time to 13.7% by the 1985 — 1986 season. Much of this decreased share can be directly attributed to the opening of the nearby Beaver Creek ski resort during the 1980 — 1981 season. When combined, Vail and Beaver Creek have captured between 17.4% and 19.0% of the State's skier visits over the past six seasons. Therefore, a significant proportion of State skier visits continue to occur in the Vail Valley, but no longer exclusively at Vail Mountain. D-1 Table D-1: HISTORICAL SKIER VISITS TO VAIL, BEAVER CREEK AND THE STATE OF COLORADO, 1962-1963 TO 1985-1986 Vail and Beaver Creek Beaver Vail and Combined Vail as Creek as Beaver as Percent State of Percent of Beaver percent of Creek of Season Colorado Vail Colorado Creek Colorado Combined Colorado 1962-1963 549,151 54,984 10.00% 54,984 10.0% 1963-1964 801,631 84,822 10.60% 84,822 10.6% 1964-1965 1,102,690 146,389 13.30% 146,389 13.3% 1965-1966 1,168,159 189,593 16.20% 189,593 16.2% 1966-1967 1,411,577 235,897 16.70% 235,897 16.7% 1967-1968 1,813,210 273,000 15.10% 273,000 15.1% 1968-1969 2,329,546 360,000 15.50% 360,000 15.5% 1969-1970 2,741,101 433,178 15.80% 433,178 15.8% 1970-1971 2,999,453 481,019 16.00% 481,019 16.0% 1971-1972 3,260,510 545,602 16.70% 545,602 16.7% 1972-1973 3,974,250 617,710 15.50% 617,710 15.5% 1973-1974 4,304,787 673,178 15.60% 673,178 15.6% 1974-1975 5,194,720 815,123 15.70% 815,123 15.7% 1975-1976 5,965,172 1,026,088 17.20% 1,026,088 17.2% 1976-1977* 3,653,409 687,000 18.80% 687,000 18.8% 1977-1978 6,648,866 1,058,000 15.90% 1,058,000 15.9% 1978-1979 7,215,316 1,182,000 16.40% 1,182,000 16.4% 1979-1980 7,887,181 1,285,000 16.30% 1,285,000 16.3% 1980-1981* 5,498,962 932,000 16.90% 112,000 2.00% 1,044,000 19.0% 1981-1982 7,622,182 1,125,000 14.80% 218,562 2.90% 1,343,562 17.6% 1982-1983 8,200,422 1,255,626 15.30% 229,573 2.80% 1,485,199 18.1% 1983-1984 6,717,318 1,264,621 14.70% 343,371 4.00% 1,607,992 18.7% 1984-1985 9,041,461 1,223,446 13.50% 363,647 4.00% 1,587,093 17.6% 1985-1986 9,118,751 1,250,000 13.70% 340,000 3.70% 1,590,000 17.4% Average Annual Change 1962-1963 to 1985-1986 (23 years) Number 372,590 51,960 13.90% -- -- 66,740 17.9% Growth Rate** 13.0% 14.5% -- -- -- 15.8% -- 1975-1976 to 1985-1986 (10 years) Number 315,360 22,390 7.10% -- -- 56,390 17.9% Growth Rate** 4.3% 2.0% -- -- -- 4.5% -- 1981-1982 to 1985-1986 (4 years) Number 374,140 31,250 8.40% 30,360 8.10% 61,610 16.5% Growth Rate** 4.6% 2.7% -- 11.7% -- 4.3% -- *Poor snow conditions. **Compound annual rate of change. Source: Vail Associates, Inc., U.S. Forest Service, Colorado Ski Country U.S.A. and THK Associates, Inc. D-2 Population and Households Typical of many Western Slope ski resort communities, Vail has experienced rapid population and household growth since 1970. As shown in Table 2, from a permanent population increased to 2,261 by 1980 and is currently estimated at 4,500 in 1986. These figures represent an increase of 250 persons per year, or a 14.9% annual growth rate, over the sixteen year period and 370 persons per year, or a 12.2% annual growth rate, over the most recent six year period. Households in Vail have also increased at a rapid pace from 191 in 1970 to 988 in 1980 to the current estimate of 1,630 in 1986. These increases represent 90 additional households per year, or a 14.3% annual growth rate, over the sixteen year period and 110 additional households per year, or a 8.7% annual growth rate, over the most recent six year period. The slower growth rate of households in recent years reflects the increase in the average household size in Vail. Although both state and national trends show a continuous decline in the average household size since 1970, an increase in the average household size is not unusual in a resort community such as Vail. More persons per household portrays the preference of employees to live in Vail but the reality of a limited supply of affordable employee housing. Eagle County has also experienced strong population and household growth since 190 although not at the same pace as the Town of Vail. The population of Eagle County increased at a 5.7% annual rate from 7,498 in 1970 to an estimated 18,200 in 1986. This growth was, nevertheless, significantly faster than the State of Colorado growth rate of 2.6% over the same period. Households in Eagle County increased from 2,302 in 1970 to an estimated 6,230 in 1986, representing a 6.4% annual growth rate. As in Vail, the average household size in Eagle County decreased over the 1970 to 1980 period, but increased over the 1980 to 1986 period. The Town of Vail has substantially increased its share of the population and households in Eagle County from 1970 to 1986. Vail's permanent population comprised 6.5% of Eagle County's total population in 1970 but rose to 24.7% by 1986. similarly, Vail's households accounted for 7.0% of Eagle County's total households in 1970 but rose 26.2% by 1986. In recent years, approximately one-half of all growth in Eagle County has occurred in Vail. D-3 TABLE D-2: HISTORICAL POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH TRENDS IN VAIL AND EAGLE COUNTY, 1970-1986 Average Annual Change 1970 1980 1986* 1970-1986 1980-1986 April 1 Aril 1 Aril 1 16 Years 6 Years Vail Permanent Population 485 2,261 4,500 250 370 Permanent Households 191 988 1,630 90 110 Average Persons per Household 2.54 2.28 2.76 Eagle County Permanent Population 7,498 13,320 18,200 670 810 Permanent Households 2,302 5,217 6,230 250 170 Average Persons per Household 3.25 2.54 2.92 Vail as a Percentage of Eagle County Permanent Population 6.5% 17.0% 24.7% 37.3% 45.7% Permanent Households 7.0% 18.9% 26.2% 36.0% 64.7% *Estimate. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: Colorado State Department of Local Affairs, Division of Local Government; Eagle County Planning Office; Town of Vail, Department of Community Development; and THK Associates, Inc. D-4 The housing stock and households of Vail and Eagle County are characteristic of communities and counties dominated by the tourism industry. Table 3 indicates that second-home households comprise a significant proportion of the total year-round housing stock in both Vail and Eagle County. Whereas in the State of Colorado only 1.9% of the total year-round housing stock is classified as second homes, in Vail 65.7% and in Eagle County 33.7% of the total year- round housing stock are in the second-home category. Both Vail and Eagle County have high proportions of renter-occupied households with 59.5% and 43.1%, respectively. In comparison, in the State 35.5% of households are renter-occupied. The generally young and mobile population attracted to ski resort communities results in a high proportion of non-family households. In Vail, 57.4% of households are non-family whereas in Eagle County 43.1% are non-family. Only 30.0% of households in the State, however, are non-family. TABLE D-3: HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS OF VAIL AND EAGLE COUNTY, 1970-1980 Eagle County Vail 1970 1980 1980 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total Housing Units 3,257 100.0% 11,060 100.0% 5,029 100.0% Seasonal and Migratory 445 14.0% 389 3.5% 197 3.9% Year-round 2,802 86.0% 10,671 96.5% 4,832 96.1% Year-Round Housing Units 2,802 100.0% 10,671 100.0% 4,832 100.0% Permanent Households 2,302 82.2% 5,223 49.0% 990 20.5% Second-home Households* 295 10.5% 3,599 33.7% 3,174 65.7% Other 205 7.3% 1,849 17.3% 668 13.8% Permanent Households 2,302 100.0% 5,223 100.0% 990 100.0% Family Households 1,828 79.4% 2,973 56.9% 422 42.6% Non-family Households 474 20.6% 2,250 43.1% 568 57.4% Average Persons per 3.25 2.54 2.28 Household Permanent Households 2,302 100.0% 5,223 100.0% 990 100.0% Owner-occupied 1,269 55.1% 2,973 56.9% 401 40.5% Renter-occupied 1,033 44.9% 2,250 43.1% 589 59.5% *Second-home households are defined as housing units held for occasional use regardless of the annual periods of occupancy. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census and THK Associates, Inc. D-5 The Economy The driving force of a local economy is those industries, known as basic industries, which derive their support from non-local dollars. These new dollars brought into the community generate income in the wholesale/retail trade, services, construction, transportation, communications, public utilities, real estate and finance sectors. In most rural economies, agriculture, mining, manufacturing and tourism account for the great majority of basic economic activity. Within Eagle County, basic economic activity is centered almost exclusively in tourism led by the ski industry of Vail. Reflecting the rapid growth of the ski industry in Vail, Table 4 shows the substantial increase in the Eagle County employment base from 1975 to 1985. Over this period, the average annual employment increased from 4,124 in 1975 to 11,085 in 1985, representing a significant annual growth rate of 10.4% or 700 new jobs per year. New jobs in Eagle County formed at the rate of 740 per year over the 1982 to 1985 period and 800 over the 1984 to 1985 period, reflecting continued healthy economic growth. The dominance of the tourism economy in Eagle County is evidenced by the composition of employment. The services and retail trade sectors have consistently provided the majority of jobs in Eagle County with 73.1% in 1975, 62.5% in 1980 and 61.4% in 1985. The finance, insurance and real estate, government and construction sectors all place a distant second, each sector with approximately 10% of all jobs in 1985. Approximately 80% of all jobs in Eagle County are estimated to be either directly or indirectly related to the ski industry.* The center of economic activity in Eagle County is the Town of Vail. Over the 1975 to 1985 period, approximately 60% of all jobs in Eagle County where located in Vail. As presented in Table, Vail's employment base increased from 2,470 in 1975 to 6,870 in 1985 for an annual growth rate of 10.8%, or 440 jobs per year. Over the 1982 to 1985 period, new jobs in Vail formed at the rate of 460 per year while nearly 500 new jobs were created over the 1984 to 1985 period. Although data by industry were not available for the Town of Vail, it is expected that the proportion of services and retail trade sector employment is higher in Vail than Eagle County as a whole. Personal income data also reflect the dominance of tourism in the Eagle County economy. Table 6 indicates that personal income in Eagle County increased from $39.5 million in 1974 to $198.5 million in 1984. Approximately 80% of total personal income in Eagle County is estimated to be derived either directly or indirectly from the ski industry.* The majority of personal income has consistently been derived from the services and retail trade sectors with 43.4% in 1974, 47.4% in 1979 and 50.9% in 1984. The emergence of Vail as a "mature resort" is evidenced by the decline in the proportion of construction sector income and the increase in the proportion of services sector income in recent years. In 1979, construction represented 21.4% of personal income; by 1984, this proportion had declined to 17.5%. In contrast, services accounted for 27.9% of personal income in 1979; by 1984, this proportion had increased to 31.5%. *CSCUSA, The Contribution of Skiing to the Colorado Economy: Eagle County Case Study, 1982, p.v. D-6 — CorMMv V OO O 00� 00 N N r LO MT- co (U fn O O qT 00 00 (O 00 N O � NL CO CO V V co U � = � N O � � } c Y 7 _ a r0000 (O (fl Nr co �- Q ' Q � � N (ON = (ON� O N (1) 01) N (.0 Cl) Q N Y= E LL O O Q a co W � LO � N � cocoom � F �: U r � O O 0')� N s= g A (.0 LO _ � Q 000N00) V Nr- NT 0000 CV CV Z 00 C\l = CO NT O L > a rn m m O D ry U 00 (ONO (nN N (O O N 00 CO co 00 U) 00 00 � ON OONO N D rn m m O O r QC z �rj CO a0 N 0 � CO 'o a0 � (O (D O } aD rNONO000000r- 0 N U O m N N = O Q O (CU Z N 0') N00 (Dr � (f) O LO C �Q W 00 00 N 0O 00 O O (fl co O (D C O N N = a0 > 0 co } O O CO LO (0 00 (0 N (fl r J ao (oNcoLO 00vO r U 0 n rn o � (c� rvo c� N N a0 O W ~ coo:) (C) = rnrnrnrN = (c� O N 70 > 0 J (oN0000 = � v (nvo rn N C 0 (12 D N N r >, N O zO ONO (000 (oN0 � CQC Q a (`7N0000 = 1(7N ((V 0000 N N CV C W N N r N O O Q y Ur O C6 O Q 00 (fl r r ch � 00 co = co O a V O CV a r M = Lo 00 = N r O 0 O (fly O "T Or V 0- ( >> W N N (O N V S= U O a r N Lo (.0 � (A 00 Lo 00 00 00 C6 U Co (V } co = C) ONONCO00 O L Q CV E W LO 70 70 Z _ N 70 s= O O "T (oN0 (o000r N O co r (ri = NrN (0 (0rr O � N O "T (fl co r- r S= 0 v O N 70 70 W N co J ONLoC\lLoON V (fl - N 0 J N co N TcN') ((� (O � D 70 >+ N " 0 O a � � v V 7E A N W O O U c E U mom "_ co ry N LU S= C6 N Z > 0 � - CO LL ? (f O N O OU 70 Co co a`�i coo U` O O o c ti co p LL 0 > � =. U _ a 0 -0 c W o CO � — o (1 .__ cu o o rn rn O O Q � U � OfLLw0 U � (n TABLE D-5: HISTORICAL AVERAGE ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK FOR VAIL AND EAGLE COUNTY, 1975-1985 Year Eagle County Vail 1975 4,120 2,470 1976 4,700 2,820 1977 5,020 3,010 1978 6,400 3,840 1979 7,350 4,410 1980 7,970 4,780 1981 8,380 5,190 1982 8,870 5,500 1983 9,250 5,730 1984 10,290 6,380 1985 11,090 6,870 Average Annual Change 1975-1985 (10 Years) 700* 440* 1980-1985 (5 Years) 620 420 1982-1985 (3 Years) 740 460 1984-1985 (1 Year) 800 490 *Higher than actual annual average due to the exclusion of state and local government employees in the 1975 employment data. Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment ; Town of Vail, Department of Community Development, Transit Development Plan 1978-1983; Rosall Remmen and Cares, Inc.; Transportation Work Program V.A. Master Plan, July 1985; and THK Associates, Inc. D-8 N M O O Lo I- O Lo Lo O co N LL7 Cn V N CO (b (D r- r- � W U) LL7 O LO V LO O M Cb (O L(7 N �Irn 1 04 N 6 6 60 60 60 N C UV co c � V Z � L oc CO CMO 7 C O Lo co 1- 00 00 O O N r- N r- (A O Q N N (fl M b M V m Cf � CO M N 66 60 N (AI r- D N W 6 � 6 Cb W EA Cfl CA (a } ER U) ER r L 4 O > p O co V I� O w O N M M (0 N Q O N O r-- LO V O (b O V M i W V CO N N LQ (A 69 69) O C) co O N V LO CO N I'. I'. I-- O r- co O V O O Cb In V � W r- r- r N CF) In V L() V LO O In NY O) m r- � M � O 60 M ; (D N LL fR fR 60 fR 60 fR 60 60 O L I\ (A V (fl CO V W O 04 04 00 M M r- LL r- O N N _ fl M (A O (A � C (b N V N O O (b M V 60 � 60 60 60 U) ;; q � (D LLI U 60 60 ER Jr- O r M N (b (b M (b M (D LO (b N N In V 0 LO r- LO O V N N L(7 N LO (b M (A (D M N M� Q I( � CM 6p, (A (fl � � (b (fl A z LLB M 60 � ER ER ER � d) � LL7 Q 60 EL? 0 } (D N M V Q LO M (b (b (D Q O O V N � O (b Z N (D � O O Z V r- (A 00 LO O O V O N � O L(� V V N � U) ER CL? 66, d) Q ER ER EA z N I- LO O Q O V LO Q (O LO N N CO N (fl O M Z M N Z M (0 r- V M m A M � CA O V LQ V O oc N� N N N N O N 6a (R 60 CO L.f (00 O 75 60 Cy) i U � M O Q Q LO co CO LO V N V O Q 00 0 z O O (fl W Z Z M W Cb OV O V � Lr Cli J p CO CA N 60 60 (R 04 60 N O Y Q 6a 6a 6a CR 60 A z E 0 70 Cl) r- CA Q Q (b CA LO O N (D (D (b (b O co W Z Z � V� � M O (b W CF) CA O co co d) LO M N CA O 60 60 6a 60 60 2:1 co O z N N Or Q Q O co r- � V O r- CA LO V Q V r- � Z Z O) O LO V LO N (7J (A U O (A (fl LO M 69 6p, M (D O EA 66 U) ER U) EA O W O J U Q co co m M N CO LO CO CO V V V M W M 1- O V N (b (b r- � O V M M M LO M M V M � N V co LO N r (� O LL] (A 60 LO 00 LLB V fR CO 60 60 60 � - � LO LO O J U 6? 60 Ff? 63 63 co _ N co O CO V O_ co N LO (b V co LO m (b m I-- CO V V CO (0 m CO r- 0 In N � O V co co M (b V N V V 1- O co N CO co � M L(� N d) Cl6 N M L!) O U CA U) ER EA Cfl K3 EA U) � Ef) VFFT L 2 � CO O LO Q Q CO CO I- CO CO � � V LO EO (fl (fl M (A LO (b LO LO CA O N Q V M M Z Z � OC N V M M OC LQ () (A � O 6a W CO CO 6p, EA EF � CO p m E V- co m a� C N LL C: C2 N N ' H O o O o U) — (a -5 Q (D H U 0 0 O O yO+ U) U U) c C O (0 N U C Qj co (0 70 6)N E O N N W N N w L U > Q (D U H( Of 'LL (n O > c o d N = m O 0 O (n W Li Z E O U Cl) Q The growth and composition of business establishments in Eagle County in another indication of the strength and orientation of the area's economy. Table 7 shows that in 1974, there were 365 firms in Eagle County. The number of firms increased to 695 by 1980 and reached 1,022 by 1984, or 657 new business establishments over the ten year period. Reflecting the tourism orientation of the economy, retail trade and service business establishments dominate, accounting for 58.8% (530 firms) in 1984. Although the proportion of retail trade and service firms has declined slightly over the ten year period, it has been offset by a significant increase in the proportion of finance, insurance and real estate firms from 9.6% (35 firms) in 1974 to 13.8% (141 firms) in 1984. The vast majority of business establishments in Eagle County are small; nearly 90% of all firms employ fewer than 20 persons. The largest employer in the county is Vail Associates, Inc. with peak employment of over 2,000. Other major employers (100-500 employees) are concentrated in the lodging, restaurant and real estate industries and the Vail Valley Medical Center. The cyclical nature of a tourism economy based on the winter ski season is clearly demonstrated in Table 8. Over the 1975 to 1985 period, two-thirds of total retail sales in Vail consistently occurred during the five month winter ski season of November through March with the remaining one-third occurring during the seven month off season. Overall, Vail has consistently accounted for approximately one-half of total retail sales in Eagle County on an annual basis. As expected, this proportion is substantially higher during the ski season and substantially lower during the off season. The influence of the ski industry on Eagle County retail sales is profound. Approximately 90% of total retail sales in Eagle County are estimated to be either directly or indirectly related to the ski industry.* The high level of summer tourism in Vail, for example, is generated by the ski- oriented amenities, lodging, second-home industry, retail shops and marketing base. *CSCUSA, p.v. D-10 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O W 6(y) 0 O(Y) LO 0 N N m U O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N V M 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O O O O O M O N LO V O O O — O O O O N O N O O O O O O O N O O O V N N N N O O O O O O 0 (O co E Lo a O W O O O M O N O (O co N N (O O M O M 0 N co O C,4 q N E Q O M O O M M N J r V V N M O N r M O r N O r V V N O (MO U ° W N N O) M (MO LO O LO W O I In N N I- Ln V Ln N N O O MO H N In N Z N W � V O M In N � N (O O M N O N M LO W W N N V N m N N In O M N N W 0) } LO 0 J O M O I- V V N d N LO O M N W N N O N LN O N M 2 O M N N O NO W 0 Z 0 R R 0 R R R 0 R R R R R R R R 6 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 09 -< o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (. 0 � � to V E N M M CO CO V — — co (O (O In O O — 0 — O N N M V N (O O CD co o 0 O W N V N In N N 0 0 In W I-� M N O In V N O N N — O C co 0 U V N O V CO NJ Il- O N N co M N l9 co r— O O M V (O (O M N Z — M ED N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n '6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I- M W W M O W (O (O M W I� U? V N N N I� V I� O O Z > — E M o O N N M N N O M N W 0 M O O N N M O O W �C N N N — O N �W (n o N J � Ln N O E N In V W V (O M N ( LO I� r 0 Q N H Z LL) m 0 � � 0 � � � 0 � � � � � � � � 09 0 09 09 0 � � � 0 W N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M W N _2 N In In — I- N CO I- co In V co O O co In N M O M M M CO N O M N E 0 — O (O N N N O N N O O M M M N N 05 0 W � N 0 co LL Z � 0) N N n O CO N O I� O LO O M O V N m m M N N CO N N O O V N M V N N O NO 0 N N Z N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - N N M V I- O O co V O V CO O V co N O I- CO O V O O (O � O N 0 0 o O O N N M N N M O O O N O M N M — O N W 00 m W W L.� 0 �. O W N N O O CO M (0 LO N U O Q V N N — N Z M 00 M Z I(O n L(0O W 0 (j C J N N Q N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-iR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C(0 w O Cl? W N LO (O LO I� O M M O O M ll� (P N P,� N O V LO O O I- c O O V N CO N (O O M M O O N O 0) N I- N O N O O r-� O U N M N O O N M N O) M O) V N M LO 0) LO CO CO LO O co o LO 2 LO M Q — Q Q V MMN Q Q Q N (O 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z M N'O W m (a J U) p� N Q N O U 0 H _ O N Q U U) O N C U) 9 N m M p 0 ca N � a) N a m a � m N U co N O) O U C O -O O W C m O N N-Fa L — m T LL d — N -° (j N U N I- D CD N E CD B J w w � N � 'O m N N O Y d' N N U U 'O N M m m O CL o m m o 0 ° 0 � m D � m 0 w o m N L°L � O H O N j Q CO -O N N -O (7 (7 N N � (7 o m o -° ° w m m m m w E U) N U U � m m E N m � o CD o :N LD o rn a o o 'E N 5 o E m ui in 5, w -° O r o m o m o a� 5 E T o N O �CD o m o m LL Q m a LL W x a m Q x Q 5 co) H Of � Q LL i) z i)a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) }, N o 0 C (. 0 0 ( (. 0 0 ( 0 0 U � - � aD N O aD CO O CO V aD O l(7 O (0 U CU l(7 CO l(7 N N N O W CO (O (O (C) N co co N co (C) � (0 N , O > O U >= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U O 00 O N Lo � 0 m r— (f) O O i co co 00 00 N -�T O � V N co Lo O N O LO CO O V O (h (O (h V O (h (h 00 LO r- O N 00 co (O co (C) (C) (O O i 00 O O CO (O (C) N CO CO 00 CO (O N 00 N O � (h O V � z N N co N (O C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 U l(7 l(7 O l(7 0 0 � � l(7 00 CO N O (D O 00 � co 00 V O 00 S O N co � O 00 O V O V O O N CO 7 V (h 00 � C4 O N � � Lo � ( z CO CO V N N N N V � O 0 C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O (UO N N O 00 O O O CO 00 N CO O O I- C) - i O> O � (h � O O 00 (C) (O O r--� > (0 O W U (O (O (O ((7 N (`'� co V N N N V "T H C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o � N N N (O V N N (`') CO (`') O 0 2 O N V O O V (ri cri O W O J Q (h N V 0 V O CO CO O r- LO LO co LO O O co V O co "T O W V � V N N cl 00 V N V cl co E (f) LO r- (O N V O O V co co (C) Z Z Q 0= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q N CO CO CO � CO CO CO O V CO I- O > i O O � Lo (h (O (o (o � O Z (D O N zO N O CO CO N (O O (O N (O V co O CO (C) I� N O O O 0) 1,- (f) (O CO N N O O N = 1�4- N CO I-- O CO CO 00 -0 C6 (ri (O C4 6 C6 (O (O L6 C6 C6 N } E N N N C) m z N W J Q cu N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q � a I- LO CO CO I- "T O I- V CO I- O cu LO LO I- O O LO LO I- N N CO (f) N W c0 N W O 0 � CO N V (f) V M M � 0 (C) > o U J Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N � O � CO CO N1- 0 0 0 O ry i -4 -4 r- (f) =' (h (O r- V (h V O O 0 N O CO O (f) M I,- LO I� O CO 00 pp (f) O I� N I,- LO (f) CO N O I,- O_ ' (C) (O � N N (ri CO O E V W Z3 J Z m H o N N C 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 c (O CO "T O V (`'i � co O O O O O c (f) � (f) 00 r- V (f) C=\' O i O N co LO co co O 00 (O � O � (f) O co O N E 00 O N C') V V O (f) ((� N O Z3 00 00 00 (D V CO V (O (f) CO V O co Z � � Z3 2 � � N N _a 2 Q Z3 Z3 0 ) LL Q 2 —) —) Q U 0 Z 0 APPENDIX E: TOWN OF VAIL FORECAST METHODOLOGY Forecasts for the Town of Vail were prepared by THK Associates in order to assist the Department of Community Development in their efforts to develop a Master plan for the Town of Vail. In general, the methodology utilizes estimated skier, population, housing and retail characteristics in order to project additional housing unit and retail space demands for the Town of Vail through the year 2000. All assumptions are based on existing studies and surveys available from the Department of Community Development, Vail Associates, Inc., Vail Resort Association, and Colorado Ski Country USA with adjustments made based on review and discussion with the Vail Land Use Plan Task Force members. Note that all estimates utilized in this approach represent current conditions in the Town of Vail; no attempt is made to adjust current conditions to reflect subjective "preferred" conditions. The following is a brief overview of the sources and methodology employed in the Town of Vail forecasts. The methodology keys off the projected design day* skier visits made in the Vail Master Development Plan (VA, Inc. and RRC, 1985). From the design day skier visits, average day, peak day and total skier visits are calculated based on conversion formulas provided by VA, Inc. The design day skier visits are then allocated into day, destination and local skiers based on proportions available from The Vail Mountain/Gore Valley Capacity Study (Gage Davis Associates, 1980) and the Report of the Vail Economic Development Commission (1985). The day visitor and overnight visitor populations and permanent population are derived from different methodologies. The day skier visits and destination skier visits are adjusted upward to reflect non-skier members of a skiing party. These adjustments result in the day visitor population and the overnight visitor population. The non-skier adjustment factors come from The Vail Mountain/Gore Valley Capacity Study, the "Village Study Assumption" (RRC, 1985) and the Department of Community Development. The town of Vail permanent population (State Division of Local Government, 1985 and Department of Community Development) to the total skier visits. The number of households is then determined by dividing the overnight visitor population and the permanent population by the weighted average number of persons per household in visitor lodging and permanent housing, respectively. The additional housing unit demand forecasts incorporate numerous assumptions from several studies and surveys. Assumptions pertaining to the distribution of permanent population by housing unit type, the average number of persons per household by unit type, and the occupancy rate are from the study Affordable Housing Eagle County-1984 (Eagle County Community Development Department and RRC, 1984). Assumptions regarding the distribution of overnight visitors by housing unit type, the average number of persons of household by unit type, and the occupancy rate by unit type are from The Vail Mountain/Gore Valley Capacity Study, Department of Community Development and VRA. To calculate the additional housing units required by type each year, the additional overnight visitor households and permanent households per year are distributed according to the proportion of each unit type indicated by previous studies. Concurrently, additional units by type are adjusted upward by the appropriate occupancy rate. *"Design Day" is defined as that level of skier attendance which will be exceeded on only 10% of the days of the ski season. E-1 The retail sales forecast for the Town of Vail are based on average day skier visits rather than design day skier visits. Average day skier visits are used because the goal is to determine the total winter visitor sales over the entire five month ski season rather than looking at sales on a "one day" design day. Day skiers and destination skiers have different total dollar expenditures per day, and the allocation of their total expenditures among various retail categories is also different. The day the skier and destination skier expenditure patterns are from The Contribution of Skiing to the Colorado Economy (CSCUSA, 1984 Update) and are adjusted upward to reflect the pricing structure of Vail (per Vail Land Use Plan Task Force discussion 7/17/86). To arrive at the total winter visitor sales, the day skier and destination skier expenditures by retail category are aggregated. The "Town of Vail Monthly Retail Sales" (TOV, 1986) was utilized to determine the proportion of total winter sales made by the local population, the ratio of total winter sales to total annual sales, and the proportion of total annual sales made by the local population. Industry standards of dollar support per square foot of retail space are applied to the lodging, eating and drinking, and entertainment categories for the day and destination skies and amount to total annual sales to the local population category in order to translate the average annual additional dollar support into average annual additional square feet of retail space required. It should be noted that the terms "local population" and "permanent population" do not define the same group. Retail purchases in the Town of Vail are made both by the permanent population of Vail and by residents of surrounding communities. Since it is the total additional dollar support in the Town of Vail which determines the total additional retail space required, it is irrelevant for the purposes of these forecast from where those dollars come. Therefore, the local population refers to both the permanent population of Vail and residents of surrounding communities who make retail purchase in the Town of Vail. The following tables present the quantitative assumptions incorporated into the methodology and the results of the three series of forecasts. Since it is the destination skier which has the greatest impact on the Town of Vail in terms of lodging and retail requirements, three different proportions of destination skiers were utilized in order to determine a range of values for planning purposes. Table 1-A shows the quantitative assumptions used in the methodology. Note that the only variables which change in the three scenarios are the proportions of destination skiers and day skiers. Tables 1-50 to 4-50 present the results of the 50% proportion of destination skiers scenario, Tables 1-60 to 4-60 present the results for the 60% proportion of destination skiers scenario, and Tables 1-70 to 4-70 present the results of the 70% proportion of destination skiers scenario. For each scenario, forecasts of skier visits by type, population and households by type, housing units by type, and retail expenditures by category are made. E-2 TABLE 1-A: TOWN OF VAIL FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS Calendar Design Day Season Year Skiers/Day Type of Housing Skier Persons Single/ Town- Apt./ 1984-1985 1985 12,560 Characteristics: per Unit Duplex home Condo Lodging Total 1985-1986 1986 12,680 Permanent 2.753 0.325 0.085 0.59 0 1 1986-1987 1987 13,060 Pop./Unit 3.2 2.8 2.5 0 1987-1988 1988 13,060 Day 1988-1989 1989 13,450 Destination 3.588 0.03 0.12 0.54 0.31 1 1989-1990 1990 13,860 Pop./Unit 5.2 5.2 5.2 2.42 1990-1991 1991 13,860 1991-1992 1992 14,300 1992-1993 1993 14,700 Market Share Max/ Skier Annual Min 1993-1994 1994 14,700 Characteristics: Current Share Increase Share 1994-1995 1995 15,200 Permanent 0.2 1995-1996 1996 15,600 Pop./Unit 1996-1997 1997 15,600 Day 0.2 0 0.2 1997-1998 1998 16,000 Destination 0.6 0 0.6 1998-1999 1999 16,600 Pop./Unit 1999-2000 2000 16,600 Occupancy: Visitor Permanent Skier Conversions: Single 0.55 0.95 Design Day 1.54 Townhome 0.55 0.95 Average Day 0.6494 Apt./Condo 0.55 0.95 Peak Day 1.95 Lodging 0.65 Total Days 150 Non-skier day 0.06 Dest. 0.018 Permanent Pop. 0.0036 0.0039 Skier Retail Average Sales Daily Ski Equip. Eating & Enter- Other Characteristics: Expenses Lift Ticket School Rental Lodging Drinking tainment Retail Local/Annual 0.24 Day $38.00 0.575 0.025 0.025 0 0.2 0 1.75 Destination $155.00 0.124 0.017 0.021 0.256 0.197 0.043 0.342 Winter/Annual 0.67 Source: Town of Vail, Department of Community Development; Vail Associates, Inc.; Vail Resort Association; Vail Land Use Plan Task Force; Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Local Government; VA, Inc.and RRC, VAIL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1985; Gage Davis Associates, THE VAIL MOUNTAIN/GORE VALLEY CAPACITY STUDY, 1980; RRC, VILLAGE STUDY ASSUMPTIONS, 1985; REPORT OF THE VAIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, 1985; Eagle County Community Development Department and RRC, AFFORDABLE HOUSING EAGLE COUNTY, 1984; CSCUSA, E-3 C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O -0 � — — 00 ti ti Cfl � � � N N O N N LO V L L Cfl Cfl Cfl ti ti 00 O O O — N M M .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. J N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 00 O O LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO L O W N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 � co M M M M LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl) O O N M L L P- Cl! Cl! M M Cfl 00 00 O M M O co O O O O O O O ti ti ti ti ti ti 00 00 00 Q c L O O C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 co 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 0) CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO M N r � U W L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W 0 ti O N N � O O O O 00 00 O 00 00 00 to Ca ti CO O O O - - N LO O Cfl 00 O O > Q M M M M M� L W Q� (n T T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O u) u) N N N u) u) u) O N N � (n � Q Q M 0 LO LO 0 LO L Cfl Cfl N ti ti N O O co U Y i L Cfl Cfl Cfl ti ti ti 00 00 00 O O O O i — — — — — — — — — — — — — N N N w Of Y U U T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Q m O 00 O O U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti W (n T Q U) O O O -t 00 00 co I-- ti N Cfl Cfl O Cfl O N Q CO L N N M M M M M 4 4 4 W W W Cfl Cfl Cfl Q — — — — — — J Q Y Q (n Q T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O �J J CV M (fl M 00 00 M O O O U) U) ti M M O 00 00 ti Nt t I-- O O N LO LO OO M I-- ti U 2 co- 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Q> Q L N0 V Q lC^ ry J LL O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO O I-- LO 00 O O O O O O O O O O O ql:t O ti ti M ti ti � � � � � W W O O N .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. co O B 00 M M M M N N O M M 00 I-- ti CO O N LO M — L) I-- ti O M M M — — LO — — N LLI N N N M M M M M 4 4 4 Lo Lo Lo O O J — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — m Q U co L - L LO O ti M O O — N M �t LO O ti M O O C 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O } O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co U co O v s O O U N � 0000 Q M Y c c O LO CO I� M O O — N MI�t LO O ti 00 O O Q to 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O — — — — — — N co 4 6 O ti 00 O O — N M 4 6 O ti 00 O L > 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O > O Q (n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O M O M M — — M O Cfl Cfl - - ti LO L O O ti ti ti M M M M O O O O O .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. CO — — — — — — — — — — — N N N N N E O C O J p . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q = M LO N N O (fl Cfl M O M M LO LO N N N LO _ 0) L N N N M M LO LO LO CD CD I-- M M LJJ L N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O 2 LO Q0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O W O O O I-- Cfl — ti ti LO 0 M M O N N Z O a �t LO CD I-- O O O O N M M LO LO CD O O .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. O O m 4 4 L L L L L L L L W N L J O W r 00 W a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O J O Cfl CO Cfl Cfl — LO LO N (D ti ti — — (D N N (D .� L Cfl ti O O N -t -t I� O N N uf) uf) ti > P- ti ti ti 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O 7 L � Q 00 O > > M O O W } O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O L �t ti ti O CO CO Cfl O LO LO 00 00 0 0 O O O CO LO Cfl 00 00 O O CO CO � >- CO 0 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 L L L U m O .w W > O ry U W C L _ O Co to -0 L LO Cfl ti 00 O O N CO LO Cfl ti 00 O O O O C 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N a p co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W CO >- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — N Co OO U m U U N � < Co rn Q � � Y LO CD ti M O O — N MI�t LO Cfl ti 00 O O 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 4 6 O ti 00 O O N M 4 6 O ti 00 O c i O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O > O Q Cl) O O M O M M O M M O 00 M O M 00 O N C Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) N ° O O 00 O J 00 N O O I-- O — CO O N O O CO M O 00 O Cl) O 00 00 O N O O CO LO Q C ti Q O LO U O C O ti N M O M O I- O 0 0 M 0 M M o N N N N N N N O O X CO O � O Q O M O M O L O O 0) N N N N N N M ° O ti N a Q N Cl) 0 O O 0 CO LO N M O N �t O NI�t O � I-- O 00 O L O O co ti LO � 00 ti 00 LO — O ° m O N N 0000 p O M O O O N I-- O M O I-- O O co O CO CO Cl) Cl) L N O W 7 Q U LO O } a , O M O M M O N O CO O I� O co C E m co O O 00 co 0 Z L Q X O �t O ti 0 0 ti O �t ti O ti 0 M o 4) N N N N N LU 0 �_ a LO M z N N M N O — M O M O M �t O O ° Z_ M I-- M LO M N O ti LO O 00 M °O W Cl) O O D O O J O M O M M O M M O 00 M O M 00 O N Cl) co co co co Cl) Cl) M N Q LO > O ti LL N 0 J O > 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O LO Q ti Q O LO LU U 0 LO O LO LO O LO LO O ti LO O LO N O O W c � — — N — o O p O N L O 0) o N M a M 4) Cl) 0 co ~ LO — O O O O — O — M O O co N N N N N co N N I-- 00 ° Co r U O C 0 O O .0.1 c co co O L L LO O ti M O O N M � Lo CO I-- M O O U Co CO 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U c } — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — N 0�0 Q O LO O ti M O O — N MI�t LO O ti M O O _ � 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q � p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O — — — — — — N M 4 6 CO I-L 00 O O M 4 6 CO I-L 00 O cu 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 7 O O Q N Cl) N N m O O m M M W V V W V V O M O O W m m N m m N c m m 0 m m m m m O O m m m m p m ro cj 0 0 0 o M N N r r r m Iri Iri M Q- o- O m V m m W (h M N m m O m m m J r O - - N (h C7 m m m N m m r O 00 a0 M M M M M M Ov V V V V V V V V F O m m m O O O m m m m m m m O O o M O O N O O I( M M W r r (00 (00 C(n (0 N N m N m m m m m m M M V N N O m M N r N N N (h m m m O O m m N N m N F.N 0 r N m m m O O W m m m m m m m > m O V V W V V m V V O o� v rn r r m r r m m m r m m rn N N O r v rn v v c� m m m O O m N N W N r o o r5 0 0 o r r W Iri o 0 05 m rn v v v rn rn v o r r m m m rn o m m o v v o In In m m o v Iri Iri Iri m J N N N N r r m r (h M W N N O N N N N W m m V V V (h V V V m m m O m W r r m m m N N N O O O O m m m (q v(O r O O m r r N M M r m m M O O N o m m O O m m m O m m r m m m `p J `m m m m m r m m m r r m m m O m m O F O O O O O O M m m O N N N (h M Or r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N N m m m m m O O O m m O m m O O O O N N Y m V m m V O O O m m W V V O W W m m m � O O W r r V (h M N � � r (n J U N W O O M r r m m m M M M O O N �j N s c N m m m V V V m m m r r r m N N r O X y U N r m O O r V V m N N m N N W W W m O"W U U d' V m m m O m M m W W N m m r O F m m m m rn rn rn rn rn rn O O O O � � i» O O O m m O m m O O O O Ip W O m m O O O O W W O O O O W O W W m O O m W W O m m O In In M m Iri v r r Iri Iri r o o M m m o 0 o m m N m m (O r r m r r m m m V m N N N m m N N m c� m r� v o o r v Iri m m r w w m 0 o N m m v m m 00 Cl) 0 Q O O O O m m m m m m m m m O m m O J m r v v O r r m O O m m m O m m J � rn rn rn rn rn m m m m m r r r r m m c� E r C' C, c�m rn rn v r r m m rn m m m o � v v m r r M o o mm e> W m v v v v v v v v v v v I(i I(i I(i I(i I(i Lw r ON 00 (00 (00 W N N (00 W W (m0 (m0 O w w W U 0 m y O m r r N W W m m m O r r V W W c m m N O m m r m m O m m r m m m '- V (D (h (h O m m V r O m m m m m V co W N N (h (h (h V N 10 m m m r m m o co N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Cl) U uJ >1 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O J m V N V N O O w mmw m m � N o o NN m O N m m O V V m O O N m m O W Q m m N (h (") m m r m m O r r m m m V m N N O r r m V V V W O O m J V m m m m m r m m W O O O N N J o rrc^ N N N N N N N N N N N (h (h (h (h (h r— Q VJ W O w d N m m m O m m W m m r m m m W W mO V m V (h O m m m V V m O O m W W O w m r r m m m m O O J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (h M Q O c V O M M W r r w r r M m m O r r M L p r V N N m (h C7 V N N (h W m m W Cl) 0 M M o M M Iri W W v r r M 0 0 O C/) U W W O O O m m N N N M V V V 100 100 Z co N N N N N N N N N N N N N N VJ O (Q m m m m O O O m m m O O O O m m O O W W 0 - _Y In M m m r r r V V V V m m N _ _ _ Q � F � r m m � N N 100 V 0 0 r N N N r W m m _ W W W O O N h C C V V m (D m J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U LLJ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r� M m m O r r M m m M m m v v v O O Ip W O V m W V m m N m m O m m N zl CL ^ � F L.L N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r m r r m O O W V V W N N O L(') (0 Y V m m r W W W O N N m m m m W W I E d' V V V V V V V m m m m m IO IO IO m O Z co p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co N m N N V r O O m m m V r r O W W W Cl) (0 O N m O O N m m V/ C Y V V V V V V V V V V V m m m m m �Cl)r N U J C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O T m r m m N O O W r r m V V N m M m v v m m m r r r m m W O O N N Q 0 3 N N N N N N N N N N N (h C7 C7 (h C7 co N O O O O V O r O O O O O O O O O O r O r O m m m O O m m m r c2 r2 m m m O O N m m o o o o 0 0 0 0 Q r N lT � N 0 N m m r m W O N (h V m m r m W O (0 'U N} m m m m m W W W W W W W W W W O p (0 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W O U N U N Q O O T Q ~ o 4mOm6r i,� W mcb m&OO Nc mA V 4mOm6 r m mc6 m 60 p) N N W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W ON N W co U r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Q ._. - \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Iq O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 i N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r N d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r M r r O I- "- 0 `* `* `* N N O N N In In Cfl Cfl Cfl 00 O O O r r N M M U N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M O J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O i O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO N d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r I- N N 00 N N N Cfl Cfl O Cfl Cfl Cfl O Lr Cfl 00 00 O M MLr 00 0 r M M Cfl O O r N :- 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl cu \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO O O O 00 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O d N m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O rqtt r r O I- 1- Cfl � � qz* N N O N N L") O Lr� Lr Cfl Cfl Cfl I� 00 O O O r r N M M r co N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M O cl LO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O >+ r LO � qtt N LO LO N N N LO LO LO 0 N N Nt co CU O O LO LO O LO LO r 0 0 N I- r— N O O co 4 0 Q Lo CD Cfl Cfl I� r-.: r-. 00 00 00 O O O O r r C? 0 i r r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N m U W Y r U co W Mn (n W N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CU6 C6 C6 CD 00 CD CD LO CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I- i c LO co O O Nt 00 00 M I� � N Cfl Cfl O Cfl Cfl N cu m N N M Co- Co- CO CO lzt LO LO LO 0 r r cn U L r r r r r r r r r r r r r r (n .° p U) > >, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co >1 O M 00 00 co O O O LO LO r- co co O 00 00 ti W Q Q N � � I,- O O N LO LO 00 r r M I� r Y Yr^ O 0 00 00 C C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '^ VJ 0) L r r r r r Q c O O Y U > Q Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O J L LO O I- LO 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1� Q d � O � � M I-- � L L L L L L L O O N 0 M C) Nt 00 00 M M M N N 0 0 0 00 I- r- CD 0 N LO O r In I,- I- O M M 00 r r In r r N Q N N N M M M M M � LO LO LO CD CD .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. W r r r 1-: r r r r r r r r r r r r H U L �i LU co -0 L LO CD 00 O O r N M Nt LO CD I�- 00 O O C 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cq r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N C O cu U u O U o U N U) 0`00 Q W C C Y m o Lnml-- OrnOrNM LO01-- Orn0 � Q cu 0 0 0 0 0 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o a� U) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0)N N In Cfl IL 00 O O r N M In CD jr— 00 O L cu ar o O O O O O O O a>coo000000IM rnrn Mimi O r r O O r r r O O � O (/� TABLE 2-60: PROJECTED TOWN OF VAIL POPLUATION AND HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE, 1984-1985 TO 1999-2000 Population Households Calendar Day Overnight Overnight Season Year Visitors Visitors Permanent Visitors Permanent 1984-1985 1985 2,670 9,200 4,400 2,560 1,600 1985-1986 1986 2,700 9,280 4,500 2,590 1,630 1986-1987 1987 2,780 9,560 4,670 2,660 1,700 1987-1988 1988 2,780 9,560 4,760 2,660 1,730 1988-1989 1989 2,860 9,840 4,910 2,740 1,780 1989-1990 1990 2,950 10,150 4,970 2,830 1,810 1990-1991 1991 2,950 10,150 4,970 2,830 1,810 1991-1992 1992 3,040 10,460 5,050 2,920 1,830 1992-1993 1993 3,130 10,760 5,200 3,000 1,890 1993-1994 1994 3,130 10,760 5,200 3,000 1,890 1994-1995 1995 3,230 11,120 5,390 3,100 1,960 1995-1996 1996 3,320 11,410 5,540 3,180 2,010 1996-1997 1997 3,320 11,410 5,540 3,180 2,010 1997-1998 1998 3,400 11,710 5,690 3,260 2,070 1998-1999 1999 3,530 12,150 5,920 3,390 2,150 1999-2000 2000 3,530 12,150 5,920 3,390 2,150 Average Annual Change: (1985-2000) 60 200 100 60 40 Source: THK Associates, Inc. E-9 O M O M M O M M O M M O M N O O C M Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) O N o LO O O 0 O N J O Cfl O co O O M O O M M O O I-_ O Cl) O lt O — 0 0 O O Cl) O O O ti ° Q� r r Q U LO O O O M O — 0 0 — 0 Cfl O O — M O C p N N N N N N N N M N OO � � r O O X N I-- O LO O LO O M 0 Lo � 0 L o O CU p N N N N N N co O N Q M Cl) 0 M r 0 O M N M M O I-- M O O M O M O O O 00 M M M M I-- O O co 00 O O N ° O N N 0 O 4 4 O r 00 O O M O O O N I-- O M O I-- O O co Q� M M Cl) CO L N O O Q U LO 0 a O co O co It co O N LO O O � O LO I-- O M o a) LO CO 0 0 00 2 E W Cu D � O H O I� O O ti O �t I-- O I-- O co O N N N N N Z LO Q N :3 co (� U) 0 O H Z_ 0 F13� W 0 N N M N O — M O M O M �t O M 0 co I-- co LO co N CO I-- LO CO 00 co C ° O O —i Q > O It M O M M O M M O M M O M N O Cfl M o LL -0 0) — CO co co co co O N CA O J '— N L O '= I� CO O N — O — N O O N O N I� O O o O D N CO I-- 00 00 ti O ti ti L _ Cl) > Q a 0 Q U LO LW •- r L Cco -t OCfl00000CflOOCflOCflCflO) o N N co O 0 0 a_ x N It O It LO O LO It O LO � O ti O M o M co CV U 0 E M O 0 0 0 O O O O co O O O N O O -0 co co O co CO O o0 V O C r — O � M O .p - L LO O ti M O O — N M �t LO Cfl ti M O O a O M C 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO C) U = O } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O U 0000 Q M Y LO O ti M O O — N MI�t LO Cfl ti M O O a _ � 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q � p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O — — — — — — N am 4 6 O I` 00 O O N M 4 6 O ti 00 O M i 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > O Q U) O N In N N N O N_ C (O � V V N W W W In In M (D (14 C) �p (0 U) N N W (O (O In N N M — — N V V N M O n O O d d W W N O O (O d d - C(V) H =N p O LO LO O (O (O W LO LO N (O (O (,o CL r— O M M (D O CF) I- r— M r— r— O O O O Q O U - N M M V In In N W O M In In W d' d V V V V V V V V V V LO LO LO LO LO LO U) 0 M M M M m Lo v v v Lo Lo oo M M O _ LO ao LO LO 00 O O r O O O V V V O O Cl) (10 N N N (O O O O LO LO (O LO (O (O O O O 7 (0 N CO V 00 O O (O 00 00 d) (O LO LO LO (O (O 0 0 (fJ O o0 00 M O O M O O N N N V (fJ (fJ r (N ;N -1 r V V o0 V V LO N N O (O (O O V V r- Q CO LO o o LO CO CO of (rS (rS o of of O ao ao ao rn rn rn O O o M I� lf7 lf7 I� O O O O M O V' V' V' O O M N N N r— CO M Q M N N (O (O (O I— r r O M M O M M N O "'_ N I7 00 00 (O N N N r O O V, O O LO J (n O O M M I— V' V' LO N N (o I,- r O (O O M (O (O N N oc O (O (O N O O I- r 00 00 00 M M M O (D N CO CO CO N N N N N N N N 60 U) N W N In In N O O N O O N N N N N N O 2q) N W M M w O O W O O w w w w w O C (0 (p L4 (O I� M M O O LO N W W LO LO Q (n U (7 LO N O V V V V O O O CO LO LO W O W N N O O LO I V LO (O (O Cl) M M W 00 J V CO O O In M M M � M V V O I- 1- o�j C (O O O N N N M M M V V V V !;2 L2 69 16 SS LO LO O O LO O O LO O O LO LO LO LO LO LO OO r— O O O (O O O V 00 00 O O O O V V } N O N J(n o N M CO CO V V 00 O O 00 00 N N N 00 _ N (r) L(j M c) v oo oo oo c) c) c) oo oo oo LO LO V N L C o0 00 M LO LO O N N LO O O N I� r L.L S N X Y U N pNj I� r 00 O O V I� r LO I� r 00 (O (O S M oo rn o C L C o N LO LO of N N LO O O (\i H rn rn va (_/ T Lo LO o O_ LO O O LO O O LO LO LO LO LO LO O I— 00 00 O O O N N LO I�r � � O O Q W L � N N O O V- (O (O N M M O O O O Oc Oc LO W (O W W M M LO I-- I-- I-- O O N O O O N rn n n v v v o cam) cam) (o (°o (°o Q °v °v v v CO v v v v v v °n °n (n CO LO 60 U �- Lf") N ap ap O O O ap ap ap O O O M M M O co O Lf") N O O O N ap ap V ap ap � (p co != O M a0 a0 M O O (O N N 1� 1� N (O (O O o T W 'ca a0 O O O O N V V ^ -0 r VJ W LO LO M M O_ O O M M M O O O co co co O (n Otf N M I— r N N O M M co N N LO co C V O O N M M M N N oc , (O (O M J �Y I— O O N N N N N N O N N O O O Q V— C O O � � m co co M N N (o (O (O O O O O M LO N N O I� r O V V M O O O W Q � � V) LO LO to (o I-- W W O O O O N N LO Cl)vJ Cl) N N N N N N N N N N N CO CO CO M M 60 r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I J cc cc W W W cc oc g O co oc O O co V • �_ o0 00 (o (o v o0 00 (o rn rn oo rn v v � W (4 V- N U) LO W O O N V- V- V) 00 W O O M CD CD Q +-+ - O N N o0 LO O O N o0 00 co LO LO N U M J N N O(O OM M M M M M M M co co M M M fR W O O ap ap N O O M ap ap N N N ap ap ap Q LL Q Q(Q I� O O O a0 O O (O a0 a0 a0 a0 1� 1� Q J iT N N V N N O O Cn ap O O r Lf") N M O O Q (n W d' m m I� ao ao ao rn o o N N M v v LO co N N N N N N N N () Q (3) O O W W LO O O Cl) co co LO LO LO co co W O (n O (O V V W LO LO O LO LO O CF) CF) O M M Q _ 0 O (O (O (O V W W LO O O (O M M N O O Y LL — � O r— N N O O O M M M O N N N n LO - (O W LO LO N O O (O M M N O CF) LO (O (O (O 1 M — — N N CO CO CO V LO LO (O (O (O I- N M O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N EA LO LO LO LO U.) O O O LO LO U.) U.) U.) O O_ O_ O Z N N m Nr Nr Nr O O O Cl) (O (O a) M co U O o0 v v LO I� r v (O (O O O O N LO O O M M N I— I— V' O M V' 00 N N (o � � O O N I� I� N o0 00 I� M M O O V O N N cc V V Lr I'- I� O O O O O N N N CO Nr Nr Nr L6 LO J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N fR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q O V V — V — — N (O (O O — — W =3 N N N N N M M M V V V o N ._... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O N (0 C N N N ° Lr O O O O O O cs cs M Lr Lr (00 � G O W °n a E of 70 v v v v v v v LO LO LO LO LO V) V) V) V) co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N O � O O � O O r Cl) Cl) N 00 00 Cl) r r Y O 15 C N O O O O N V V N r r O O O N V V O N D C cn v v LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO to to to to to T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl) LO O O N O O O I— Cl) Cl) 00 O O Q Co'.1 N O O O O r cc cc cc d1 d1 O O O O Im O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O ^N (O M 00 00 M O O m N N I' M M — — — 0)EM � ca 'Y N C N V V O O N lf) LO oc M r r Q Q 0(n W W W W W O O m m m m 0 0 0 0 o N O^ -1 O U o N Co Fu N o N N U0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — o CO Q rn _ C cn co r ao rn o � — M c — co r — — o H N o — — — — — — — — — — — - rn rn o cu co (0 c uS co r ao & o c� A c uS co r ao o i M rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn Q (n C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O -0 — CO — — 00 I-- ti Cfl � � � N N O N N LO U L L Cfl Cfl Cfl ti ti 00 Cl! Cl! O N M M .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. J N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M \o \o \o \o \o \o \o \o \o \o \o \o \° \° \° \° \o C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 O O O I-- ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti N � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 00 N O O — O O � N N O N N O O ti 00 mt ti ti O N N CO O O N CO CO 0 O —co 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D c LO — 00 ;- O r •L y-- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � co 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — r co L W U } o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Cfl ti — — LO O O CO ti ti N O O O O O co � co N N co co co co M -t -t -t Lo Lo Lo CO CO CO m ^ V` L J Q) Cl) Cl) T T O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O > 0CO — u) -t -t N u) u) N N N u) u) u) Co N N It 0 M 0 LO LO 0 LO LO — CO CO N I-- ti N O O co W � U Y i LO CO CO CO I� ti ti 00 00 00 O O O O W CV Co � — — — — — — — — — — — — — N N N Y o (1) Y Q LLI T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q Co CO 00 CO CO Lo CO CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I- T O LO O O O 00 00 M I-- ti N O O O O O N CO to N N CO CO CO CO M � � '�t LO LO LO Cfl Q Q 0 (1) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — > Y 0 LLI T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U O Co O co 00 00 co 0 0 0 Lo Lo I-- M M O 00 00 I-- N � � I-- O O N LO LO M — — M I-- ti � co co 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 C5 C5 C5 C O Q) p L LL Cl) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO O LO 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO ll:t O ti ti M ti ti W W � � � � � O O N .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. co C:) -t 00 00 co co co N N 0 0 0 00 I-- ti CO J N LO O — LO I-- ti O M M M — — LO — — N U m N N N M M M M M LO LO LO O O Q — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — � to L c y"1 -0 L LO CO I-- M O O — N M � LO O ti M O O O CO C 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U O } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O U 0000 Q m Y LO CO I-- M O O — N M � LO O ti M O O _ � 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO co O 4 6 O ti 00 O O N M 4 6 O ti 00 O L (n 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (I) CO :3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O > = O Q U Cl) TABLE 2-70: PROJECTED TOWN OF VAIL POPLUATION AND HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE, 1984-1985 TO 1999-2000 Population Households Calendar Day Overnight Overnight Season Year Visitors Visitors Permanent Visitors Permanent 1984-1985 1985 1,340 10,720 4,400 2,990 1,600 1985-1986 1986 1,350 10,830 4,500 3,020 1,630 1986-1987 1987 1,390 11,150 4,670 3,110 1,700 1987-1988 1988 1,390 11,150 4,760 3,110 1,730 1988-1989 1989 1,440 11,490 4,910 3,200 1,780 1989-1990 1990 1,480 11,830 4,970 3,300 1,810 1990-1991 1991 1,480 11,830 4,970 3,300 1,810 1991-1992 1992 1,520 12,210 5,050 3,400 1,830 1992-1993 1993 1,560 12,550 5,200 3,500 1,890 1993-1994 1994 1,560 12,550 5,200 3,500 1,890 1994-1995 1995 1,620 12,980 5,390 3,620 1,960 1995-1996 1996 1,660 13,320 5,540 3,710 2,010 1996-1997 1997 1,660 13,320 5,540 3,710 2,010 1997-1998 1998 1,700 13,660 5,690 3,810 2,070 1998-1999 1999 1,770 14,170 5,920 3,950 2,150 1999-2000 2000 1,770 14,170 5,920 3,950 2,150 Average Annual Change: (1985-2000) 30 230 100 60 40 Source: THK Associates, Inc. E-13 O M O M M O M M O I-- M O M I-- O C LO O Cl) 00, O O O N J O M N O M I-- O LO O — M 0 LO I-- O O ° -0 M — — — CO CO co 00 00 Q C co _ ti c0 Q O U LO O ~ O O O M �t LO O ti O N �t O ti M O I- o N N N N N co N N co 0, O O O O O N X N O O N CO O N O O O N O O LO O CO 6j O O N N N co N N co — � � a O a O r C 0 O t O N M LO O O O — M O CO I-- O O 00 M M O O O co 00 O co N It ° 0000 N N N N N N N co O 0 O r (n 00 O O O O M O O O N I-- O M — O I-- O O M � M M co CO N O 7 Ld C = Q U LO ~ C O M O M mt CO O N LO O CO S O LO I-- O M o mC �: E LO M O O 00 0 E z �, Q X O H O I-- O O ti O � I-- O I-- O M O O N N N N N LO W a 0 :3 M F Cl) D z N It N CO N O — CO O CO O M �t O O co I-- CO LO CO N O ti LO O 00 co °O O Z C) Cl) W D 0 O M O M 00 O M M O I-- M O M I-- O = C O LO M LO J O L 0 N Q O J 0-0 N 00 00 O O O CO O co CO ti O C)- C r r L Q U O0 C O ti O O O N O N N O O O O N O -t o LU Q E N N N N N N N N M O N U W OX N LO O LO LO O LO LO O I-- N O L) 00 O M o 8) Q N Cl) 0 O ti N O O O co O co co O M CO O M N O LO LO LO ti ti ti O LO ti � ° M O N N O O O O CO � — 4) � M O .0 7 L LO O ti M O O N M It LO O ti M O O a O M C 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O U O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = N O } — — — — — — N U U 0000 Q M Y LO O ti M O O — N MI�t LO O ti M O O _ � 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q � p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4) am 4 6 O I` 00 O O N M 4 6 O I` 00 O M i 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > O Q Cl) O m m m O V V V m m N N N N M M O 0 o v O O r M M m m m M M O m m O (O y0 fIl U (0 N N� O m m O N m r V V N V V W V V N O c 0 0 N M m m m M M O m m N N N N m m N F Q d' J m O V V W m m N r r m m W W O d r N m m O N N V m m r W m O N N V V V V m m m m m m m m m m m m N V M N N r m m N N O N N r V V O N qSi r m N N O r r W m m V m m r m m m O O r M M m m m N M M m O O m m l0 m Iri N Iri N N 0 0 N N N r o 0 N M m m M m r r m m c� In In m F ac'FU F.N J V O O M M M m V V M M m M M N N m O m m N m m m N N O m m N N N V a. > W O O O N M M V V V m m m EA N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O V m m W M M N m m M m m W OM O M M M y_ N m m N O O V r r r m m l M W W m O O m V V m m m m m V N Cl) V O O M O O m m m M m m m m m U rn r r M O O m M M r r M M M J W O O O N N N M M V V V m m m m V m m V M M r V V M M N m m N m m V N N m m m N O O M W M M r r W m N N cn U O m M M co O V O V O m 0 1� O r(0 m m(0 m m(0 m m m r r m J Q O d m m m m M m m O O O N m m M m O O N Q y C r r Q r r m > N O O O m O O m m m O O O m m m o Q y a p m J O O O m m r O r m r v v Iri o m o N m r N m N N N v U c O r m m N m m M m m V m m m O O O ox U O O m M M m m m m M M r N N m V V _N W F O M M r r o V V N N N N o o m o o N LO CO o m O O O m O O m m m O O O m m m r N W r r m O O N W O N N N O O N m N m N m V V M M W m w m M r w Q O O m m Q m m O O N m M r m V m m v v m m m m m m m m m m m r +' M O m m M m m m m m M m m M M M O LL O O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m N O m N N O m m m m m O m m m V V n - w Ip r r m m N N V m m m O O N m m Ep LLI N N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r co < U m O M M m m m m M M m M M m m m O Q o N V m m N r r N r r N r r m m O U O O m m M O O O m m y m r W W m m m m m m V N N m c c m m m M M M r N N m m } (0 O (h W m m m r r r m m V m m m m r w❑ r r N N N o 0 o Cl) r V^�^ N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M VJ J W — O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N m m N O O O m m N m m V O O J CB c rn m m m r m m O m m m m m O m m +-' "- m co m m �O r r co co N m m m r r o Cl)Q m m N N m W W m N W W r M M M n/ O W N N N M V V m m m N N N W W r LLLL J O V m m m r r m O) O) N N (h V V LO J M M M M M M M M M M V V V V V V r _ � 1 LQ O LLI r _-F m O m m m m m O M M M m m m m m (00 co p m r V V O N N m m m m r m m M W (1) r v v m N N m m m r N LL co m m w v Iri N r o o m O O O O M V V EA W W O O N N M V V m m m m m m J_ Cl) N N (h (h (h (h (h (h (h (h (h (h (h (h (h (h Q J > m O m m m m m O M M M m m m m m O (4 0 O 0 M N m m O N O N N m N N m m O M O O M O m W r W m m V O m m r V V N M M m l0 M M v v m m m r r r m rn rn o e> Z N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M O O m m O O O m O O m m m O O O O O m m M m m m M m m r r r m v v m m m Ol V O O M m m m m m N r r o M M V U W M N N W N N r M M m O O m m m O F V W m m W m M M m m m m O O W N N N N N N N N N N N N U � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m O m O M m O m V V O W W O W N V m m O m m N F OF � r r � r r �! r r �2 �2 �2 V V V �0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 11 N y O O r r r r m O O M V V M N N O LL V m m m W m m O N N M m m m m m CL E O a � d 0 0 o O o O O O O O o O O O O O o O O co m M M o 0 o rn r m m m 0 0 N m rn o o N m m co co co m Iri N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r O mco O YCl)J T N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N m m N O O M m m m V m m N T 0 y m m m m m rn rn rn rn rn rn o o O O O (j co m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U) m m M m m M O O m m m r M M rn m m r O m N v v r O O N C;) `m❑y❑ N m N N N o 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 (a m ¢' co- - - - - - U O O > Q `m rn o rn O Q a m m r m N M v m m r m m m m m m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn O Y O N (0 � m m r m m O N M V m m r m M O C m m m m m OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ m O Q p OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ O O L O V In (O r c6 W O N A V 6 6 N m m m m m m OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ O O O OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ Q '^ Ad Name: 10444945A THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33 hold a public hearing in accordance with section Vail � � 12-3-6,Vail Town Code,on August 2014 at 1:00:00 p pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request for the review of amendments to a con- ditional use permit,pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, PROOF OF PUBLICATION Conditional Uses,to allow for improvements a public park and active outdoor recreation area,,f a- cility,and use(restroom and picnic pavilion)on the Lower Bench of Ford Park,located at 530 South Frontage Road East/Un platted(Ford Park),and STATE OF COLORADO } setting forth details in regard thereto.(PEC140024) Applicant:Town of Vail,represented by Greg Hall 1 ss Planner:Jonathan Spence COUNTY OF EAGLE }I A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a review of the Vail Land Use Plan map, pursuant to Section 8-3,Amendment Pro- cess,Vail Land Use Plan,to change the land use designation of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified Low Density Residential to Medium Density Resi- dential, located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix representative ofthe Vail Daily.That the same Daily newspaper Lane/Lots 37 and 38,Buffehr Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. printed, in whole or in part and published in the County (PEC140026) Applicant:Triumph Development,LLC of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation Planner:Jonathan Spence A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,Amendment,Vail Town and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of Code,to allow for a rezoning of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from Two-Family Primary/Second- more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first ary District to Medium Density Multiple-Family Dis- trict,located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane/ publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and Lots 37 and 38,Buffehr Creek Resubdivision,and setting forth details in regard thereto.(PEC140025) that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice Applicant:Triumph Development,LLC p q g Planner: Jonathan Spence and advertisement as requested. The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department,75 South Frontage Road. The The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Sign language interpretation is available upon re- Rule rOV1SlOn. quest, with 24-hour notification. Please call 1� 970-479-2356,Telephone for the Hearing Im- paired,for information. Published August 8, 2014 in the Vail That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was Daily 00444945) published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of I consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 8/8/2014 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 8/8/2014 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 08/19/2014. General Man ager/Publisher/Editor Vail Daily Subscribed and sworn to before me,a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 08/19/2014. Pamela J. Schultz,Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1,2015 �pRY PUe/ ' PAMELA J. SCHULTZ 9��COt-ARP$ My Commismn Expires 111012015 Ad Name: 10483867A PLANNING AND O NM ENTAL COMMISSIISSION N August 25,2014 at 1:00pm Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS /PUBLIC WELCOME Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33 75S.Frontage Road-Vail,Colorado,81657 7777 T MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Vail ■ -�y Site Visit L Site Vi and 2004 Chamonix Lane 30 minutes 1.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a review of the Vail Land Use Plan PROOF OF PUBLICATION map, U pursuant Section 8-3,Amendment Pro- cess,Vail Lend Use Plan,to change the land use designation of 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Resi- dential,located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix STATE OF COLORADO } Lane/Lots 37 and 38,Buffer Creek and thereto. and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140026) }SSApplicant.Triumph Development,LLC �7s7 PIanner:Jonathan Spence COUNTY OF EAGLE } ACTION: MOTION:SECOND:VOTE: 30 minutes 2.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,Amendment,Vail Town I Don Rogers do solemnly swear that I am a qualified Code,to allow fora rezoning of 2000 and> > Chamonix Lane from Two-Family Primary/Second- ary pe-F milt'Di District to Medium Density Multiple-Family Dis- representative ofthe Vail Daily.That the same Daily newspaper trict,located at 2000 and 2004 Chamonix Lane/ Lots 37 and 38,Buffer Creek Resubdivision,and setting forth details in regard thereto.(PEC140025) printed, in whole or in part and published in the County Applicant:Triumph Development,LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation ACTION: MOTION:SECOND:VOTE: therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously 3.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the adoption of the Vail Valley Medical and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of Center Ma er Plan,to establish a comprehensive plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center,Lot 10(Town of Vail parking lot),and US more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first Bank Building,located at 181 and 281 West Mead- Drive and 108 South Frontage Road WesV Lots E,F,and 10 Vail Village Filing 2,and Lot D-2,A publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and Resubdivision of Lot D Vail Village Filing 2,and setting forth details in regard thereto.(PEC140011) Applicant:Vail Valley Medical Center,represented that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice by Braun and Associates Planner:George Ruther andadvertisement as requested. ACTION:Table N September 8,2014 ll ll ll MOTION:SECOND:VOTE: 4.A request for the review of a development plan, pursuant to Section 12-8E-6,Development Plan, Vail Town Code and a conditional use permit,pur- The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, suant to Section 12-8E-3,Conditional Use,Vail Town Code,to allow for the redevelopment of the only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Ski and Snowboard Vail Club Vail site with a new private and public club and multi-family residential dwelling units,located at 598 Vail Valley Drive/Part Rule provision. of Tract B,Vail Village Filing 7,and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140020, PEC140023) Applicant:Ski and Snowboard Club Vail, represented by Braun and Associates That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was Planner:Jonathan Spence ACTION:Table September 8,2014 MOTION:SECOND VOTE: published in the regular and entire issue of every 5.A request for the review of a final plat,pursuant number of said daily newspaper for the period of I to Chapter 13 for Minor Subdivision,Vail Town Code,to allow for the Minor of Parcel 1 n the Golden Peak Ski Base And Recreation District consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said Parcel and Part of Tract B,Vail Village Filing 7,in order to establish Parcel 3,Golden Peak Ski Base And Recreation District Parcel,the redevelopment notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 8/22/2014 and site for Ski and Snowboard Club Vail,located at 460 and 598 Vail Valley Drive/Parcel 1,Golden Peak Ski Base and Recreation District Parcel,and that the last publication of said notice was dated 8/22/2014 in Part of Tract B,Vail Village Filing 7,and setting forth details in regard thereto.(PEC140021) the issue of said newspaper. Corporation,Ski and Snowboard Club Van and Van Corporatio Skia d represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION:Table to September 8,2014 MOTION:SECOND:VOTE: In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 6.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town 8/29/2014. Council on a major amendment to Special 0 Development District No.4,Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10,Amendment Procedures,Vail Town Code,to allow a revision to the approved development plan for the Cornerstone site to facilitate the construction of a tensioned membrane structure,located at 1300 Westhaven Drive/Unplatted,(Liftside/Cornerstone) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140019) Applicant:Charter Sports,represented by Braun& Associates General Man ager/Publisher/Editor Planner Jonathan Spence ACTION:Table to September 8,2014 Vail Daily MOTION:SECOND:VOTE: 7.A request for the review of amendments to a Subscribed and sworn to before me a notary public in and for conditional use permit,pursuant to Section 12-9C-3,Conditional Uses, to allow for p improvements to a public park and active outdoor the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 08/27(�/2014. recreation area,facility,and use(restroom and picnic pavilion)on the Lower Bench of Ford Park, located at 530 South Frontage Road East/Unplatted(Ford Park),and setting forth details in regard thereto.(PEC140024) Appl a r Town of Vail,represented by Greg Hall Planner Jonathan Spence ACTION:Table to September 8,2014 MOTION:SECOND:VOTE: B.Approval of August 11,2014 minutes MOTION:SECOND:VOTE: Pamela J. Schultz,Notary Public 9.Information Update (+ 1 O.Adjournment My Commission expires. November 1,2015 MOTION:SECOND:VOTE: .7 Y 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 De- PRy p� velopment Department. Times and order of items O'(•....,•••B� are approximate,subject to change,and cannot be �,. •:� relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an PAMELAJ, item. Please call(970)479-2138 for additional SCHULTZ information.Sign languae interpretation is available upon request with g 24-hour notification. 9:• ��$ Please call(970)479-2356,Telephone for the Q. Hearing Impaired,for information. Community Development Department My Commissbn Expires 1ll012915 Published August 22,2014 in the Vail Daily. (10483867)