Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-25 PEC pt1PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 25, 2021, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom. us/webinar/register/W N_QJ ybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6FEOg 1.2. Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Brian Gillette, Henry Pratt, Rollie Kjesbo, Karen Perez, Reid Phillips, Pete Seibert Absent: None Main Agenda 2.1. A request for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, 20 min. pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to amend the approved conditional use permit to reflect an increase in student enrollment, located at 3000 Booth Falls Road/Lot 1, Vail Mountain School, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0026) Applicant: Vail Mountain School Planner: Jonathan Spence Kurz says Commissioner Pratt will join after the first item on the agenda Planning Manager Jonathan Spence provides the history of the application and introduces the applicants. Dominic Mauriello represents Vail Mountain School (VMS). He references his memo to the board and asks for a tabling to next summer. He references various ongoing and future studies. He says it doesn't make sense to do engineering on roadway improvements until studies are complete. Mauriello quickly goes over the items in the memo. The applicants are also looking at other issues on campus like stacking, and ways to address this. The one lane exit on the frontage road could be changed. They are also studying the employee housing property and ingress and egress in that lot. He is asking for a tabling until all issues can be addressed. Kurz is disappointed that we're so late in resolving a problem that has been there since 2000. Now we're being asked to kick the can down the road another six months. He would be more upset if Tom Kassmel didn't think that extra time was necessary. He hopes school and staff make sure that we're ahead of the game for future reference. Other than that, he is in favor of granting the timeframe. Perez is disappointed, she references the timeline from the original presentation in April. She is discouraged that they had exceeded the limit in 2014 and nothing was done at that time. She is frustrated at the delays; this is not a new issue and the school is well aware of it. If this didn't have to do with education, she would want to pull the use permit. VMS thinks the conditions of its permit don't affect it. In deference to Tom Kassmel, she understands the extension, but would not want to extend it longer — it is unacceptable Phillips asks when VMS became aware they were non -conforming. Mauriello does not know the exact date, says there is new management at the school. Perez reiterates the 2014 point. Phillips asks for clarification. Spence talks about past applications regarding the parking and greenhouse. Gillette asks when people knew there was an issue with the frontage road? Spence is not certain. Mauriello says everyone was not aware it would need a CDOTAccess Permit. The school side did not know it meant millions of dollars. The school wants to do the right thing and are paying attention to this issue. They are trying to address these things correctly. Perez asks what was done in the last 6 months other than forming a committee? Mauriello says they have hired a team of consultants and experts, they talked to van services, are looking at studies, and put together an application for a school zone permit submitted in August. They are coordinating with the town for school zone study. They are taking the issue seriously and trying to do thing immediately and solve long term issues Phillips asks about what specifically was done in 2014? Perez says they knew they were over the condition in 2014. Kurz summarizes the board's concerns. He says we should go with the extension but there is a clear message to the process needed. Kjesbo agrees and says they will have to modify their plans for what CDOT says anyway. He doesn't see much choice in the delay. Kurz references a different use for the existing berm. He feels strongly that the berm is not sacred. Mauriello says the berm is in the right of way and they have a permit from CDOT but he takes the point. Amended Motion for continuation with a meeting in July of 2022 Board discusses the proper date for the next meeting. Rollie Kjesbo moved to continue to July 2022. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Abstain: (1) Pratt 2.2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 15 min. Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to add an exemption to allow vaults for car lift systems to be excluded from the GRFA calculation and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0046) The applicant requests this item be tabled to November 8, 2021. Applicant: KH Webb Architects & Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 8, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.3. A request for the review of an Exemption Plat, pursuant to Section 13-12-3, 20 min. Plat Procedure and Criteria for Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for an adjustment to the location of the platted building envelope for Lot 14, First Amendment to Spraddle Creek Estates, located at 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0049) Applicant: SC Mountain Top LLC and TLM Realty Holding LLC, represented by Davis Urban LLC and English & Assoc. Planner: Greg Roy Planner Roy introduces application and goes through presentation. He introduces the applicants. Gillette asks about previous discussion regarding building envelopes here. Roy doesn't recall that specifically. Spence talks about the past history of the lot, there have been no changes to GRFA or site coverage. Gillette asks if notification to neighbors is required? Spence says the neighbors approved it during the application process. Matt Davis is the applicant; he says he is happy to take questions. Kurz asks for public input. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 60 min. Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and Waterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0043) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Pete Wadden Planner: Greg Roy Roy goes through a presentation on the history of the proposal and addresses some changes and the criteria for review. He introduces the applicants. Environmental Director Kristen Bertuglia walks through the history of the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. She references the identified sources of impairment of Gore Creek. She talks about the community and stakeholder input in the process, as well as the actions of the Town of Vail in service to the Gore Creek plan. We're here today for the last recommended strategy which is regulation. She believes we have arrived at the most appropriate solution and introduces Wadden. Watershed Education Coordinator Peter Wadden goes through a presentation which addresses the questions the board had from the last meeting. He talks about the goals from the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. He talks about the criteria for an effective regulation. He addresses the effectiveness of setbacks of different widths. He says the centerline setback is inconsistent and ineffective. He talks about how the town has dealt with non -conformity in the past with items like wood shake shingles and the W UI code. He addresses the number of non -conforming properties with the different setback distances. He talks about the actions' property owners can take. He reviews the public outreach accomplished since the last meeting. He talks about the implications of non -conformity as it relates to the streambank setbacks. He talks about the definition of the ordinary high-water mark (OHW M). Wadden introduces Jason Carey, the Principal River Engineer of River Restoration. Carey talks about his past work and how it relates to Vail. He says the OW HM allows the setbacks to be different in different places. It is a more logical approach from a healthy river standpoint. He talks about two major federal regulations: FEMA national flood insurance (100 -year floodplain), and waters and wetlands defined under the Clean Water Act administer by the Corps of Engineers. He talks about Vail's goals, and recommends following the FEMA model as a good way to empower local communities. He talks about the FEMA process and how that can be applied at the local level. The goal is to establish a baseline that can be administered and regulated locally. Variances to the line can be requested from the floodplain administrator. He recommends using this model but with two-year elevations. It would be modeled after the existing process in Vail with the 100 year. Gillette asks if the 2 -year mapping has been done. Wadden confirms yes. Gillette asks how the 2 -year line relates to the 100 -year floodplain? Wadden says the 100 -year line is further out than the two years. The 2 -year line is based on the two-year average and used to determine the OHW M. Carey says it is a statistical average of historical runoff. Over 30 years of data is evaluated to determine the two-year flood line. Gillette asks if the town is eligible for FEMA flood insurance? Carey confirms. Wadden says the proposal has no impact on the 100 -year floodplain. It is the same process, but the elevations are different. Pratt asks about the letter from Alderman -Bernstein. They are not affected but they raise an interesting point. Wadden clarifies — Pratty says never mind. Gillette asks how are they involved if they're not affected by the regulation? Roy clarifies that the notification was sent to all property owners in Vail. Pratt asks if their threats were hollow? Wadden says he's not qualified to comment, but the town attorney is drafting a response. Kurz asks if the proposal has been vetted by the town attorney. Wadden says it has along with the proposed code language. Kjesbo is generally supportive. He asks when issues arise in the future, will this be reviewed by staff? He also references a future project as it relates to stormwater management and impacts. Wadden talks about how other towns handle stormwater impacts. He says we're not proposing any code changes that would dictate that at this point. Kjesbo says that could be something for future consideration. Gillette asks about the project Kjesbo referenced. He says Public Works usually keeps good track of that. Kjesbo clarifies the details of the referenced projects. With best practices, some will do it, some wont. Wadden says it has been discussed internally, it is something to consider in the future. Roy says in practice when properties are redeveloped around the creek, environmental makes comments on best practices. Phillips says the new proposal puts 26 properties in non-compliance. He asks if they only realize that status during redevelopment. Wadden confirms. Phillips says this doesn't initiate an immediate hardship on the property. They are non-compliant only in redevelopment. Wadden says there are properties that have remained non-compliant for decades. When they rebuild is the only time they must come into compliance. Gillette asks about remodeling a deck that's non -conforming. Roy says if you start enlarging a deck the conformity would come into play. Gillette asks about different criteria for theoretical deck expansion. Roy explains current regulations. Spence says if a deck is non -conforming, maintenance is the only work that would not require coming into compliance. Gillette asks about non -conforming landscaping. Roy says generally you only have to bring into conformance the area that is non -conforming if that is in the scope of the project. Gillette clarifies if a remodel project is big enough, more compliance issues come into play. Roy says if you're removing 50% of the GRFA, that comes into play. He talks about other benchmarks like building materials with 500 square foot additions and that there are multiple benchmarks that trigger different requirements. Gillette clarifies that the benchmark here is a voluntary remodel, Roy confirms. Pratt cites a public letter, proposing that you can trade setback distance for increased riparian zone. Wadden says staff has discussed this, and the goal is to create something that is standard and uniform across town. The current regulations can confuse people, there is value in having a standard across town. It would be difficult to enforce the proposed idea. We'd run into issues if we were shrinking the distance between setback and riparian zone. Roy says the counsel and public would like more time, so they will be asking for a continuation today. Kurz asks if there are funds available to help homeowners. Wadden says homeowners are not required to do anything that would cost them money. We would ask them to stop mowing within 10' of the creek. If the ordinance is adopted by the PEC and Town Council, he will ask for funds to that effect. Kurz asks for public comment. Gillette asks for feedback from the town attorney of any legal ramifications. Roy confirms. Bellm says there are several people online and in the room that would like to speak. Kurz says they will allow three minutes each for public comment and not necessarily engage in back and forth Linn Brooks is the General Manager of Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. She talks about water sampling done in the past. Gore Creek was significantly impacted, and urbanization was the primary stressor. She talks about the factors that influence this and how Gore Creek was listed on 303D list. She brings up the Urban Runoff group and its actions. The river is getting healthier, and the setback ordinance will allow nature to return the stream to a healthier state. Several years ago the Town Council set the goal of getting Gore Creek off the list and this will require the regulations such as the one here today. For these reasons, ERW SD supports the proposal. John Rediker asks about the definition of the OHW M. How will future drought conditions impact this, and is the calculation always a rolling 30 years? Do we need to define 2 year floodline? Gillette says we're not answering questions right now but made a note of the questions. Mauriello speaks on behalf of the Evergreen Lodge. He is glad to hear that they're not asking for a final decision today. He says the proposed language you have has not been fully vetted by Kendra Carberry and hopes they will not take action today. He has three main issues. The first is the OHW M line and where it is located? He doesn't know if there will be a full dataset to establish this line throughout town. He references the letter to the board, and the methodology of how you determine the OHW M. He says we're in favor of identifying the OHW M and need to know where that is. He says he is recommending a 20' setback, but also wonders what a 22' setback would look like. How it would affect non -conforming structures and acreage. He also brings up the tributaries and says he will submit additional comments in writing. Wendall Porterfield speaks for homeowners in the 11th filing. He has some confusion about how the 2 -year floodline is determined and asks for clarification. He also asks about the code language, whether "shall" means has to be. He also asks if projects like deck enlargements can go into the riparian zone? He references the streambank protection ordinance, and whether this would apply to town property equally? He asks if the golf course would be impacted, as they might be one of the primary causes here. Devin Duvall is the District Wildlife Manager for Colorado Parks and Wildlife. He expresses support for the ordinance. He says recent events underscores the need for this type of regulation. He asks the board to look at written comments from his agency. He says riparian zones occupy a small amount of land yet have a disproportionate impact. Most wildlife depends on them, they serve as wildlife corridors and they remove pollutants. Gore Creek is a Gold Medal Fishery, and anglers contribute to Eagle County economy. He reiterates his support for the proposed ordinance. Rodney Linafelter says he is strongly in support of the proposal. As a recreational user of the creek, he has noticed a large amount of non-native sand that is appearing. He used to live on Booth Creek, at one point he was informed he was non-compliant with a structure and landscaping and worked with staff to address this. He references another case he heard where the developers of properties were awarded utilities in exchange for easements. His final question is whether we are addressing Gore Creek or the tributaries as well? Siri Roman is Director of Operations for ERW SD and a resident of Vail. Her children are often in the creek and it means a lot to their family. While the ordinance is a takeaway for some, she asks the board to consider the community impacts of a healthier creek. It will take tough decisions like this to preserve Gore Creek and its tributaries. She says this will be important with increased flooding from climate change and talks about some of the effects of the Mill Creek incident. Carrie Bernstein is an attorney from Alderman Bernstein. She submitted a letter on behalf of her clients; the Delpontes at 3070 Booth Creek Drive. She says the Town of Vail is condemning the portion of his property that is on Gore Creek. If the case proceeds there is some truth that the client and others will not have creekside property. This buffer will go right up to his building and patio. The impact to private property rights is missing from the discussion today. She says the 10' zone is a regulatory taking and a significant impact to property rights. She says the Town of Vail should pay compensation for this. James Dilzell speaks from Eagle River Watershed Council. The council supports the proposal, and he talks about the importance of the riparian area. He says stormwater runoff is an increasing threat to the river. Property owners often find increased value once the areas are established, this will lessen the degradation of environmental zones. He thinks this is a critical next step. Kurz asks if Wadden would like to comment on questions. Wadden says he will have more detailed data available on the OHW M moving forward. We are not condemning properties, that is a town -owned parcel. There is no debate about the Delponte property extending to the stream. Pratt asks if he is more than 25' from the river he is not affected. Wadden says that is correct. The property has not been specifically surveyed but Town maps indicate that the proposed setback lines do not extend as far as Mr. Delponte's property line. Pratt says he is a homeowner on the creek. He is in favor of the goals but says anything less than 30' is not as effective so it may be arbitrary numbers at that point. He says he is not a lawyer but thinks creating new non- conforming properties could be considered a taking. He asks staff to consider a system that trades expanded riparian buffer to shrink the building setback. Siebert had these concerns last time regarding takings. But he considered if we don't do anything, the taking that occurs is that the stream is degraded down the road. There is a benefit the property owners are getting, that should also be considered. Gillette brings up the comment about sand in the river. Wadden says this has been identified by staff. Staff has worked with CDOT to address this, he references the East Vail Exchange, and West Vail Pass Expansion. Black Gore Creek has a healthy bug population with higher sand levels, while Gore Creek has bug populations that do not meet state standards. There are things going on in Vail that impact the creek beyond the traction sand. He says we have to consider the tradeoffs being in a semi -urban environment. Gillette references the comments about the OHW M. Are they moving or fixed metrics? Wadden says they can be updated on a regular timescale, and there is an opportunity for residents to appeal the line. He says increased technology like lidar can help measure this, and streams are dynamic systems. Gillette says we could have more or fewer non -conforming structures in the future. Wadden says if we restore riparian habitat, it's less likely people will lose land to erosion. We can't predict accurately right now if there would be more or less non -conforming properties in the future, streams are always changing. Gillette references a property where 50 feet washed out. Wadden says they haven't established a timescale for readdressing these numbers. Roy says we don't have them for the GSA hazards, it could be included in the proposal. Wadden talks about FEMA floodline. Properties that have lost streambank have been permitted to reestablish property they have. Having a line now will establish a baseline of where we are now. Gillette asks if the ordinance discusses reclaiming property Perez says the ordinance is well intentioned, but there is a lot more that needs to be done to provide clarity. Changing from the centerline method to OHW M we are making things less certain for the community and property owners. There is uncertain language regarding the OHW M. She has concerns about the legal ramifications of this. She asks why we are going from the centerline to the OHW M. She is not sure if it is worth the uncertainty we are potentially creating. Gillette asks why we're switching to the 2 -year floodline? Wadden says equity and uniformity around town are the primary motivations. It creates a more uniform setback rather than the inconsistency of the centerline. Gillette asks about the two methods and if the centerline moves? Wadden says it does change. The OHW M is sensitive to bank changes and erosion. Perez asks if the OHW M changes every two years? Wadden says it doesn't change every two years. The 30 -year dataset determines the average of the highest waterline in a two-year period. We could set a timeline to change these numbers as appropriate. Gillette asks when going from the centerline to 2 -year high water mark is it harder to determine. It seems they are equally difficult to determine. Wadden says it is easier to determine the high-water mark. The dataset will be made available soon. Gillette says that dataset should be produced where the public can react to it before the final meeting. Phillips says the centerline of the river has changed significantly. From a consistency standpoint, the OHW M moves less than the centerline. Gillette asks if redevelopment uses off a map that exists. Phillips asks how old is the current map? Wadden is not sure, it could be around 2002. Kjesbo asks about the 2 -year high water mark calculation. Wadden clarifies. Gillette asks for further clarification on the calculation. Carey says it is a statistical analysis of flows that happen every year. Kjesbo would like clarification for the board and for the public as well. Carey says the 2 -year floodline is analogous to the 100 -year floodline. Perez is confused about the calculation like the other board members. She doesn't understand the 2 -year floodline methodology and would like further clarification. Gillette says it is important how often the map is updated. Perez asks if that is true of the centerline and when it was updated. Wadden confirms, says it was last updated a couple decades ago. People could hire a wetlands specialist as part of an appeal of the elevation -based baseline. Perez asks how much this would cost? Wadden says the cost of a surveyor's time. Perez says it is shifting the burden to a homeowner. Gillette asks if you can appeal the 100 -year marks today? Carey says you can through an involved process. In order to regulate, Vail needs a baseline to regulate against, which is what this system does. Gillette asks if you can appeal the setbacks of the centerline right now? Wadden thinks you can have them surveyed Pratt says it is similar to the hazard's maps, an engineer or surveyor can look at the site. Phillips says we all support this effort, but we want to establish standards that are discernable to the public. He says an updated centerline map would help. It's important to get a little more data, otherwise we're spinning our wheels. He says we need to clarify some things for property owners and the town. Gillette asks if the centerline was resurveyed? Wadden says it was not as part of that process, and that he will provide the OHW M dataset. He thanks for board for feedback as the process is making a for a better ordinance. Phillips says the group needs to do due diligence on this. Pratt says he had to survey when he his property went right ne)d to a setback line. Mauriello says the streambank setbacks are happening in real time because the surveyors do it as part of an application. It has always been incumbent upon property owners to provide that data in real time. There is no regular updating of hazard maps. The only updates he is aware of is when the applicant comes in to apply for such. Gillette asks if the OHW M can be identified visually, why is it a confusing metric? Mauriello says he's been advocating for surveyors doing it by visual inspection. He wants to allow both methodologies, and the least restrictive on the property owner should be the one that is used. Phillips is not sure that's a great tradeoff. He says we're also trying to protect the environmental health of the river. Mauriello suggests increasing the no -mow zone. He says to think about what non -conforming status has done to the entirety of West Vail. People don't want to redevelop and lose what they have. Gillette asks for Wadden's response. Wadden says the maps do not have regulatory sway. Both methods need to be surveyed on the ground. The elevations establish a baseline that make it easier for surveyors. The method Mauriello referred to is ecologically based. Staff believes the elevation method is more effective as a regulation because it is not open to debate. There is still an opportunity for subjectivity in the visual method. An elevations -based baseline leaves less open for debate. Gillette asks how hard is the appeals process? Wadden says it would go to the Town Council like the hazard maps. Gillette asks if the appeals can come to the PEC? Roy says the proposed language mimics the appeals process for the hazard maps. Gillette says it should be as simple as delineating your wetlands. Spence says the difference is who has adopted the maps. If we don't have an adopted map, we would have a different process. Gillette says he is trying to get the right process. Roy says we would need something that is adopted by Town Council. Wadden says the town would have to pay to have wetlands delineations done. It is much less labor intensive to adopt lidar. Gillette says we don't have to do it like the hazard maps. Let's establish a baseline, and if not, they can hire a professional. Gillette says appealing to the town council is not an easy process. Phillips says it should not be easy, it should be an elevated process. Ultimately it falls on council; they adopt the maps we are passing this on for recommendation. Gillette says you are getting a better product if you get eyes on the ground Phillips asks are we not doing that already? Wadden says what they've done is based on stream cross-sections with interpolated data in between. Perez says we don't have language to allow people to appeal? Wadden says they do, Roy says it is in Subsection E of the proposal. Kurz wants to bring the debate to a close. The robust discussion shows that the protection of Gore Creek and tributaries is a major issue we need to address. It will not be a perfect solution for everybody, but it's important to continue moving forward. He wants time to allow staff to address these concerns. Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Reid Phillips seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.5. A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, 2 min. Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to adjust property lines in the vicinity of Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0050) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. Applicant: Mexamer Forest Road LLC, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district 2 min. boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of a portion of Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing (826 Forest Road) from Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) to Outdoor Recreation (OR) and to zone a portion of the Forest Road ROW to Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0051) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. Applicant: Mexamer Forest Road LLC, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.7. A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions 2 min. in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 816/826 Forest Road / Lots 14/15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing No. 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21- 0045) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. Applicant: Mexamer Forest Road LLC, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.8. A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions 2 min. in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 826 Forest Road/Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0048) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. Applicant: Mexamer Forest Road LLC, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. October 11, 2021 PEC Results Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4. Adjournment Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 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. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN QJybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6FE0g City of Vail, Colorado VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: Attendance City of Vail, Colorado VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 25, 2021 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to amend the approved conditional use permit to reflect an increase in student enrollment, located at 3000 Booth Falls Road/Lot 1, Vail Mountain School, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0026) ATTACHMFNTS- File Name PEC20-0026 Staff Memo October 2021.pdf Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment B. Applicant Scheduling Memo October 13 2021.pdf Attachment C. PEC Meeting Minutes April 12 2021.pdf Description Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Vicinity Map Attachment B. Applicant's Scheduling memo, October 13, 2021 Attachment C. PEC Meeting Minutes, April 12, 2021 Attachment D. PEC Meeting Materials and Minutes April 24 2000.pdf Attachment D. PEC Meeting materials including minutes from April 24, 2000 Attachment E. PEC Meeting Materials and Minutes August 12 2002.pdf Attachment E. PEC Meeting materials including minutes from August 12, 2002 TOWN OF VAIL ` Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 25, 2021 SUBJECT: A request for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to amend the approved conditional use permit to reflect an increase in student enrollment, located at 3000 Booth Falls Road/Lot 1, Vail Mountain School, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0026) Applicant: Vail Mountain School Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY The applicant, the Vail Mountain School (VMS), is requesting the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to amend the approved conditional use permit to reflect an increase in student enrollment, located at 3000 Booth Falls Road/Lot 1, Vail Mountain School. The applicant's team has provided a memo outlining a tentative schedule for moving forward with the traffic improvement project. This schedule includes timetables for the completion of relevant studies and CDOT applications. This meeting is an opportunity for the applicant's team to present and discuss the prosed schedule with the Commission and the community. In recognition of the project's status, Community Development Department recommends continuing this application to the July 11, 2022 regularly scheduled meeting. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, the Vail Mountain School (VMS), is requesting the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to amend the approved conditional use permit to reflect an increase in student enrollment. In 2000, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for the new VMS campus to be constructed on its exiting property, supplemented by a land contribution form Vail Resorts (site of the employee housing to the east of Katsos Ranch Road. Included in the conditions of approval was Condition #6 that stated: "6. If future student enrollment exceeds 330 students, the applicant will be required to appear before the Planning and Environmental Commission again for a revised conditional use permit." It appears from the information provided by the applicant that the enrollment exceeded 330 students beginning in the 2006-2007 school year and has continued to exceed that number to the present. Enrollment for the last five (5) years has plateaued and remained consistent in the 420-440 student range. Staff has been meeting with the applicant's team over the last few months to discuss the outstanding condition and appropriate steps forward. As the school campus itself has been operated successfully over the last fifteen years in excess of the 330 student limitation mentioned in the condition of approval, the applicant and the town have agreed that the ramifications of the condition related solely to access and transportation. VMS believes that an enrollment of 470 students is possible without any changes to the existing campus other than access. Many in the Booth Falls neighborhood and the community at large have experienced traffic congestion on the Frontage Road during peak drop off/pick up times. At the recommendation of the town engineer, the applicant has undertaken a study on possible turn lane improvements. This study is included in the applicant's narrative. The installation of the following improvements are recommendations of the study: • Eastbound North Frontage Road to northbound Booth Falls Road left -turn deceleration lane. • Combined westbound North Frontage Road to northbound Booth Falls Road right turn deceleration lane and southbound school parking lot exit to westbound North Frontage Road right -turn acceleration lane. • Southbound school parking lot exit to eastbound North Frontage Road left -turn acceleration lane. • Frontage Road right -turn acceleration lane. Also discussed with the applicant's team is the possibility of obtaining a school zone along the North Frontage Road in the vicinity of the school. The school zone designation will have an effect on the design and extent of the recommended improvements. Although supportive of this approach in principle, Public Works performed an initial speed study whose results indicate that the chances of a successful application through CDOT are extremely low. This application appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission on April 12, 2021. Commissioner Kjesbo requested meeting minutes from the April 24, 2000 PEC meeting when the related Conditional Use permit was approved. Meeting materials Town of Vail Page 2 including minutes from the April meeting in addition to materials from 2002 are included as attachments. A vicinity map (Attachment A.) the applicant's memo concerning scheduling (Attachment B.), PEC meeting minutes April 12, 2021 (Attachment C.), PEC meeting materials including minutes from April 24, 2000 (Attachment D.) and PEC meeting materials including minutes from August 12, 2002 (Attachment E.), are included with this memorandum for review. III. BACKGROUND On April 24, 2000, the Vail Mountain School received approval for a development plan and a conditional use permit for the expansion of the school facilities, including eight Type III employee housing units. It is this approval that Condition #6 was attached to. On August 12, 2002, the Vail Mountain School was granted approval for the following: • Rezoning three parcels to General Use to allow for consolidation, • Amending the Town of Vail Land Use Map, • Amending the development plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow for temporary classroom structures, • A conditional use permit to allow the construction of eight Type III Employee Housing Units, • A conditional use permit to allow for temporary modular classroom structures, • A recommendation to the Vail Town Council to modify the official Town of Vail Rockfall Hazard Map, and • A major subdivision. The Vail Mountain School Master Plan involved significant improvements constructed in three separate phases. 2003-04: Soccer field constructed, and cabin relocated. 2004-05: Eight faculty housing units and the eastern half of the new school building constructed. 15 parking spaces were proposed with the development of Vail Mountain School's faculty housing, but due to neighborhood opposition, the additional parking was omitted from the final development proposal. The only approved parking for this site was for the faculty housing, which included eight enclosed parking spaces and eight unenclosed parking spaces. Since the development of the site, it has served as informal overflow parking for employees of the school. The existing lot can accommodate nine vehicles parallel parked along the south edge of the pavement. 2005-06: Original building, gymnasium, and temporary classroom buildings demolished and removed, making way for the western half of the new school. Landscaping planted and parking lot constructed. Town of Vail Page 3 IV. V. VI LN I I In September of 2005, the new building was dedicated as the new Vail Mountain School. The last amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Vail Mountain School occurred in 2014, when approval was granted for the addition of a 1,040 square foot greenhouse and an increase to the Employee Housing parking lot. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS CHAPTER 12-16: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (in part) SECTION 12-16-1: PURPOSE; LIMITATIONS.- In IMITATIONS: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for Conditional Use Permits shall be denied. SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description Zoning: Land Use Plan Designation Current Land Use: Hazards: 3000 Booth falls Road Vail Mountain School Subdivision General Use (GU) District Public/Semi-Public Public and Private Schools None SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use North: Medium Density Residential South: CDOT Frontage Road East: Medium Density Residential West: Greenbelt/Park REVIEW CRITERIA Zoning District Two -Family Residential None Two -Family Residential Natural Area Preservation Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use. An analysis of this criteria will be provided at a future meeting. Town of Vail Page 4 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facility's needs. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this title. VIII. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission continue PEC20-0026 to the July 11, 2022 meeting. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant Scheduling Memo, October 13, 2021 C. PEC Meeting Minutes, April 12, 2021 D. PEC Meeting materials including minutes from April 24, 2000 E. PEC Meeting materials including minutes from August 12, 2002 Town of Vail Page 5 7 �� N O �x VM Mauriello Planning Group October 13, 2021 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Vail Mountain School - Conditional Use Permit Dear Members of the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC): Vail Mountain School (VMS) has been working diligently to address the traffic concerns raised by the PEC at the hearing last spring. VMS has expanded its team of consultants to provide guidance with the traffic related issues and has formed its own committee of staff, parents, and board members as a working group to analyze the issues, help develop solutions, and keep the process moving forward efficiently. Our consultant team now includes Hunn Planning and Policy, Alpine Engineering, McDowell Engineering, and Mauriello Planning Group. VMS is taking the concerns of the PEC and those of the neighborhood very seriously and want to work toward solutions that everyone can agree with. In early September I put together a conceptual schedule of activities (see attached) that need to occur before any designs for roadway improvements can really commence. Both the CDOT Speed Study and the application for a school zone are in the process of being conducted and reviewed by CDOT. Those will take to the end of the year at the earliest to complete and the results of those studies will set the parameters for designing potential roadway improvements. The schedule puts a likely review by the PEC in July of 2022. Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, has reviewed this schedule and has found it to be reasonable. VMS has also been busy collecting traffic data on the adjacent roadway network which will prove useful in the overall traffic analysis. In addition to the focus on the potential roadway improvements, VMS is looking into many other options to reduce the impacts of traffic by creating drop-off and pick-up efficiencies. Traffic congestion is only a problem for about 30 mins in the morning and 30 mins in the afternoon. The roadways during the remainder of the day are generally free of any significant traffic. Some of the ideas that are being worked on include: • Adding additional car stacking lanes within the primary parking area to eliminate back-ups on Boothfall Road and the North Frontage Road; • Expanding the primary parking lot exit from a single lane to a two lane configuration with right and left turn lanes to also eliminate traffic back-ups; u I lCJ Mauriello Planning Group • Reducing other pitch points within the drop-off and pick-up areas that are causing traffic inefficiencies and back-ups; • The addition of parking and a drop-off loop within the secondary parking lot accessed from Katsos Ranch Road that could be used for middle school drop-off, thus reducing the traffic volumes at Boothfalls Road. The original 2002 VMS redevelopment plan for this parking area included this concept; • Busing of students from strategic locations throughout the Valley which might involve contracting with existing shuttle providers; • Overall parent education program around traffic related issues; • Hiring personnel focused on efficient traffic in the field at the critical hours; • Requiring or incentivizing the use of carpooling made easy through the use of carpooling apps; and • Developing additional staff housing on the campus which will also help to reduce peak hour traffic impacts while also addressing a critical local and school housing issue. Our team believes the proposed schedule is reasonable to address the issues related to traffic at the school given all of the factors that have to be considered and request that VMS be given this time to come up with a comprehensive strategy to address the issues. VMS appreciates the help and guidance being provided by the PEC and Town staff and look forward to coming up with solutions that better our operation and the community at large. Sincerely, Dominic E Mauriello, AICP Principal VM Mauriello Planning Group Memorandum TO: Town of Vail Vail Mountain School FROM: Dominic Mauriello, AICP DATE: September 3, 2021 RE: CUP for School - Traffic Related Schedule The memo is intended to provide a tentative schedule for moving forward with decisions and designs related to roadway improvements due to the increased enrollment at the Vail Mountain School. The PEC tabled consideration of the amended CUP for the school in order for the school and the Town to work on potential roadway improvements as a result of the increased enrollment at VMS. The application was tabled to October 25, 2021. In order for the Town and VMS to have a clear picture of what may be required, certain studies and application by and for CDOT were required (speed study and school zone application). Below is a tentative schedule of activities required in order to get to a point of designing improvements. The results of CDOT studies and applications is necessary to understanding the design parameters necessary. Activities and Schedule Speed study conducted by CDOT School Zone Application to CDOT Traffic Studies of Boothfalls Road, North Frontage Road, and VMS access points Develop road improvement concepts with TOV (extent of lane requirements, roundabout versus turn lanes, etc.0 Depending on the outcome of the speed study and school zone applications, prepare an application to CDOT for a road design variance to accommodate proposed designs Applied for by TOV and in process. Expect final results Jan. 1 2022. Applied for by TOV/VMS and in process. Expect final results Jan. 1 2022. Being conducted in August and September. Results and analysis expected in October 2021. At conclusion of speed study and school zone determination. Begin in January 2022 to March 2022. This process could take several months and affect the timeframes assumed herein. Cost sharing discussions with staff and Town Council March 2022 to May 2022. Final Decision on roadway improvement design June 2022 Amended application to PEC for CUP Submit July 2022 I VMS believes the proposed schedule is realistic given the reports and analysis that is required and hope that the Town staff agrees. Therefore the request to the PEC will be table the CUP application until July of 2022. u I lrJ Mouriello Planning Group PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN Of VA10 April 12, 2021, 1:00 PM Virtual 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web. zoom. us/webi nar/register/W N_9dcxgkngSgi H-zHe8UX I Eg After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. 1.2. Swearing in of New Members 1.3. Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Rollie Kjesbo, Brian Gillette, Reid Phillips, Pete Seibert, Henry Pratt Absent: None Main Agenda 2.1. A request for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, 60 min. pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to amend the approved conditional use permit to reflect an increase in student enrollment, located at 3000 Booth Falls Road/Lot 1, Vail Mountain School, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0026) Applicant: Vail Mountain School Planner: Jonathan Spence Henry Pratt and Reid Philips have children at Vail Mountain School. Seibert adds that he does not have a concern, but believes they have experience at the school which could be beneficial. Pratt says he will stay on for the application if there are no objections. Phillips says he will stay on if there are no objections and agrees that they have firsthand knowledge of the situation. Perez adds that she would like them to stay on for the conversation but not vote. Kurz asks if members are allowed to stay on and not vote. Planner Spence says that is not an option, its either all or none. Perez expresses concern of the appearance of impropriety but does not think they need to abstain. Pratt abstains and Phillips remains seated. Planner Spence gives some background on the application, the original CUP application, and the conditions with the original application. Specifically, #6 that requires the applicant come back if enrollment exceeds 300 students, which happened years ago. The main concern is the traffic that is associated with the increased enrollment and the issue that creates Jamie Walker, Michael Imperi, Kari McDowell, Kelly Young, and Scott Hunn are promoted from the applicant team to present. Imperi gives a short introduction on the school and introduces the team. The school has no intention to increase enrollment, add buildings, or anything else. This is just about changing the CUP number to match with current enrollment. They currently have around 440 students but put 470 in the application to give a cushion even though they have no intention of going above 450 students. Hunn thanks the Town Staff for their help to this point. The school and Town have a mutual interest in updating the CUP and fixing the traffic issue. The school is located in the GU zone district which has standards that are not applicable to this application. He highlights the criteria for the CUP and specifically the traffic related criteria. Walker goes over the timeline from August when it was brought up that the CUP needed to be updated. Goes over meetings with the Town and CDOT that took place to inform the process. Goes over the history of the school from 1962 to present and "Historical Enrollment Milestones". A growth chart that shows enrollment over the years is presented. Young goes over the community partners to the school who are allowed to use the facility in the school year and off season for free or reduced cost. The school allows the use of the lot for overflow skier parking on the weekend and overflow trail parking during the summer. She goes over the existing traffic management and the time frame of the peak traffic concerns McDowell Schroeder goes over their participation in the study of the traffic in the area. They show a diagram of the proposed traffic alignment of the frontage road that would help to resolve the issue. They still need to get with CDOT on what their requirements would be. They believe it would be beneficial to the school and the Town to do these improvements. Hunn proposes a few improvements, a crosswalk, and a School Zone. A potential speed study may inform the needed design of the area. The reason for the School Zone would be to reduce the speed and hence the length of the turn lanes, which amounts to cost savings. Imperi goes over considerations of what the impacts could be if they had to go forward with the turn lanes. Costs are a major concern for the school. A neighborhood meeting was held prior to today's PEC meeting with limited participation from neighbors. Kurz asks if Spence has anything to add. Spence points towards the staff report recommendation that the application be continued out to allow the applicant to do the studies and find out exactly what the requirements for the traffic improvements would be. Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, joins the meeting and goes over some of the work they've done with the applicants. As the frontage road is owned by CDOT the Town has to abide by their regulations for design. The 45 mph speed limit in the area cause a lot of the cost issues. Dropping the speed to 40mph, would cut the turn lane length in almost half. CDOT has control over the speed on the frontage road. CDOT bases their decision on what current car speeds are now, not what the potential speed could be. There are numerous other factors that they consider as well. The largest consideration is what the 85th percentile of current car speeds. If the speed study is done, the result could be an increase in speeds as well. Imperi asks about speeds at the curves in the area. Walker asks about making an appeal to CDOT to lower the speed and if the Town would support that. Tom agrees, but appeal is the wrong term, it would be an application that would require a speed study regardless. I mperi asks for more time to do the appropriate studies Gillette asks what the trigger is for the turn lanes. Kassmel says it is the amount of traffic out there today. The turning counts on Booth Falls Road are the trigger. Gillette asks if they could stagger drop offs and pickups. Kassmel says that CDOT uses a peak hour metric, so they would have to be staggered outside of an hour to lower the numbers. He lists the numbers per hour that require turn lanes at 45 mph and 40mph, but either way the numbers are over those amounts, so a turn lane will be required. The turn lanes at 40mph are half the length as the turn lanes at 45 mph. He goes over the width of the lanes required and the space available on either side of the frontage road to accommodate those widths. Gillette asks if booth falls could be a right only. Kassmel answers that it would typically require a median in that area. Gillette thinks a right in/right out would make a lot of sense and reduce the congestion. Kassmel says the problem is also partly the backup from the queue for drop-off. The Town was hopeful that this could be designated a School Zone, but it is not up to the Town, it is up to CDOT and they have a process for that designation. CDOT has indicated that if it was a School Zone, they would still have to build the lanes to the speed of the through traffic, not the school zone speed. A variance would still be needed if a School Zone is granted. Kassmel outlines the reasons for asking for a continuation to perform all of the necessary studies and look at the different options. A timeline of 6-12 months would be necessary for review and design. Perez asks if school was in session in October of 2020 when the study was done? Was this done in a similar time that the Booth Heights study was done? Kassmel says they have looked at that study, and they did a traffic study this summer to capture the trailhead study and residential traffic. The school was in session when the October study was done. They can tell from those studies what the difference is between residential and trail traffic and what the school's impact amounts to. Spence asks Kassmel as to when he thinks it is appropriate to bring the PEC back into the conversation about the improvements needed. Kassmel says if the PEC wanted, they could conditionally approve the application with the knowledge that impacts will happen. If the PEC wants to know what the impacts are then they'll need to wait 9-12 months until the true impacts are known. Gillette proposes another possible design option that would mirror the look of the road out front of the grocery stores. There could be a lane for parking during busy times and would be available for skiers and hikers in the off season. Kassmel says he understands the request, but that the turn lanes would most likely be required regardless of the parking. The only reason there are not turn lanes now is that there has not been an application that required improvements. The previous site plan did not increase traffic above 20% so new improvements were not required to be put in. Philips asks about the traffic study that was performed and says it looks like they are barely above the 25 turns for 40mph for about a time of 15 minutes. Is it a full hour that is looked at? Kassmel says it is a peak hour, not a set time limit from 3-4 or similar. The best solution would be to get a school zone designation, then request a variance from CDOT to build the lanes to a 40mph design instead of 45mph. If the speed reduction occurred, that would be the best option, but hesitant that it is possible. I mperi questions why they have a sidewalk when there are not sidewalks along most of the frontage road in the area. Kassmel answers that it was in the transportation plan to add a bike path from the curve to bighorn road and Vail Pass. This was a segment of the path that will at some point be continued to the interchange. I mperi asks if the sidewalk going away is a non-starter? Kassmel answers that the masterplan would require the sidewalk be put back in place with any improvements to the road. Gillette thinks more parking would be a better variance to ask for than turn lanes, as we could use the additional parking while turn lanes would prohibit more parking. Kurz notes that Pratt recused himself due to the fact that he has kids enrolled in that school. Kurz lives in the area and was a member of Council when this was approved. He does not feel that he has a conflict in participating in this discussion. It sounds as if we have overall support that something needs to be done here but does not want to suggest outcomes and will leave that up to the professionals. Recommends that we move forward with CDOT, the School and the Town. Opens it up for Public Input. Kjesbo would like Spence to pull the minutes from the original approval. Kjesbo was on the PEC when it was approved and does not remember why turn lanes was not brought up. He believes turn lanes are inevitable and would strongly recommend we pursue a School Zone to reduce the length of the turn lanes. Glad that VMS reached out to the neighbors on this project. He thinks that Gillette brought up a good point on the parking. Spence would like the PEC to look at different designs after the studies are done. Thinks that an approval without knowing the effects is premature. Kjesbo agrees and would want to wait on approval. Penny Wilson lives on Bald Mountain road and would like to be included on the information and the considerations. They are impacted when trying to leave their neighborhood during peak hours. They would like the opportunity to comment as the process moves forward. John Picciotto also lives off Bald Mountain road and has concerns about how the conversation has revolved around the least impact to the school but would like to consider the impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. The stakeholders need to include the general community in the decision-making process. Kate Scott has lived behind the mountain school for 25 years. She likes the idea of turn lanes as she is impacted by the traffic. She is not opposed to a reduction on the frontage road if it helps shorten the turning roads. Likes Gillette's parking idea but could result in more accidents due to speeds on frontage road. Wants the PEC to wait until they have all of the information to issue any approvals. No further public comment. Kurz heard the comment that the berm is necessary for safety but wants the school to reconsider that and think of other safety options that would be possible. The area the berm takes up would be valuable when looking at the possible design options. Imperi would like to see a conditional approval but knows the PEC would lean the other way. If they have a preference it would be conditional approval. Perez asks if there is a timeline to solve a conditional use permit violation. Spence answers that we do not have a set time, but that we want to see progress to remedying the situation. Perez asks for an update in a few months on the progress. Gillette asks for how many months they will get an update. Kassmel says six months would be a realistic goal. Brian Gillette moved to continue to a date uncertain with an update from staff in six months. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Abstain: (1) Pratt 2.2. A request for a review of a Floodplain Modification Permit, pursuant to 15 min. Section 14-6-6, Grading Standards, and Section 12-21-11, Flood Hazard Zones, Vail Town Code, to allow for grading and a modification within the Gore Creek 100 -year floodplain, for the realignment of the Gore Valley Trail, in the vicinity of the Lionshead Ski Yard, located at parcel (210107219003)/Tract B, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0012) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence gives an overview of the application and why it is necessary. There is no increase in the base flood elevation, but a map change is necessary. Gillette asks who determines that there is no negative impact downstream. Spence answers that a professional study is done that has that result found. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE 0 Monday, April 24, 2000 MEETING RESULTS Proiect Orientation f PEC LUNCH - Community Development Department 11:30 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT DRB MEMBERS John Schofield Clark Brittain Galen Aasland Bill Pierce Diane Golden Brian Doyon Tom Weber Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Site Visits : 12:30 p.m. 1. Pearson — 303 Gore Creek Drive #k2 -C 2. F=ord Amphitheater — 540 Vail Valley Drive 3. Vail Mountain School -- 3160 Katsos Ranch Road Driver: George • �o�p NOTE: if the PEG hearing extends until 6;00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Public Works Conference Room 2:00 p.m. Swearing in of reappointed PEC members Diane Golden, and Brian Doyon. - Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk. 2. Election of 2000 Chair— Galen Aasland. Vice -Chair— Chas Bernhardt 3. A joint worksession with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development plan/master pian and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation facility for an approximately 12 acre unplatted parcel of land zoned General Use and Residential Cluster, commonly referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, located south of the South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle. Applicant: Town of Vail / Vail Recreation District Planner: Dominic Mauriello WORKSESSION — NO VOTE 7TV1VN OF yA1L i 4. A minor CC1 exterior alteration. to allow for a residential addition, located at 223 Gore Creek Drive #3/Creekside Condominiums, Block 5B, Vail Village 1'` Filing. Applicant: Phil & Kay Talalai, represented by Larry Deckard i Planner: Allison Ochs 0 WITHDRAWN 5. West Vail Lodge — A worksession to discuss a proposed height variance (Section 12-7D- 6, Town of Vail Code), to allow for the addition of dormers and tower elements to an existing roof ridge, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge)/Tract C, Vail das Schone #1; Lots 1, 2 and 3, Vail das Schone #3. Applicant: Reaut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson WORKSESSION -- NO VOTE 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the pavillion roof replacement , additional covered seating areas, addition to "stage left° buildings and a new service area addition to the "stage right" building, located at 540 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7tn Filing (Ford Park Amphitheatre). Applicant: Vail Valley Foundation, represented by Morter Aker Architects Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH 5 CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant revises the proposal and relocates the proposed trash dumpster. The dumpster shall be relocated to an area proximate to the upper parking lot. The final location of the dumpster facility shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. That the applicant submits plans to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval of an improved loading/delivery facility. The improved facility shall be designed to increase the amount of storage space and reduce the need to large vehicles to remain parked at the amphitheater loading dock. 3. That the applicant submits a sign application to the Town of Vail Community Development for the new signs proposed at the amphitheater. The new signs shall comply with the applicable regulations outlined in the Sign Code. 4. That the applicant submits a Design Review Board application and receives final design approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The final design shall comply with the adopted design guidelines for park development 5. That hike ,storage be addressed. 7. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a proposed expansion at Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12`r` Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5-0-1 (Brian Doyon abstained) APPROVED WITH 6 CONDITIONS: 2 01 r 1. The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with an easement for the existing public bus stop at the southwest corner of the property. 2. The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with drainage easements in accordance with the proposed grading and drainage pians. These easements will be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any proposed grading activities on the property. 3. Prior to the issuance of any permits for the "Phase 11" improvements on the property, the applicant shall conduct a revised traffic study for staff review to ensure appropriate mitigation measures (if applicable) are addressed in a manner that is proportional to proposed "build -out" traffic impacts from the project. It is acknowledged that the threshold for identifying traffic impacts from this proposal will also include existing conditions and "Phase I" improvements. 4. At least one Type III employee housing unit must be constructed within 5 years of the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) for "Phase I" improvements. The other seven units (for a total of eight) must be constructed prior to the issuance of a TCO for "Phase II" improvements. Required Type Ill deed -restrictions will be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office in accordance with the above -listed schedule. The employee housing units will contain full kitchen facilities, as defined in Chapter 12, Vail Town Code. 5. The bicycle path will run with a straight alignment from the parking area to Katsos Ranch Road ("punched through" the berm while avoiding vegetation). An easement will be provided to the Town of Vail for the bike path. 6. If future student enrollment exceeds 330 students, the applicant will be required to appear before the Planning and Environmental Commission again for a revised conditional use permit. 8. A request for a variance from Sections 12-61-1-6 and 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Townhouse #2-C/Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1 t Filing. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl Planner: Ann Kierulf MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 5-0-1 (Diane Golden abstained). APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. That no GRFA may be added horizontally beyond the building envelope into the rear setback. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must receive approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for renovation activities in the rear setback. 9. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage), 12-6D-8 (Density) and 12-6D-6 (Setbacks), Town Code, to allow for a garage and residential addition, located at 2955 Bellflower Drive/Lot 6, Block 6,Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan & Francine Peters Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 8, 2000 3 10. Information Update Lj Town Council joint worksession with the PEC on May 2r3d in the Town Council Chambers, at 1 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss philosply related to development review projects and how to coordinate between the two boards. One two-year term PEC vacancy— (Tom Weber). PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DR'R FOR 2000 - Doug Cahill - Jan -Apr. 5, '00 Chas Bernhardt - Apr 19, `00 Galen Aasland - May 3.. '00 Brian Doyon - May 17, `00 Apr -Jun '00 Diane Golden - Jul -Sep '00 John Schofield - Oct -Dec `00 11. Approval of April 10, 2000 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.. Community Development Department 0 0 r r MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an expansion of the existing facilities including eight Type I II employee housing units at Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch RoadlPart of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects Planner: Brent Wilson I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a phased master plan for long-term development at the Vail Mountain School campus. This conditional use permit would also include an approval for the construction of eight Type 111 employee housing units. On March 13th of this year, the PEC conceptually reviewed this proposal and requested that the applicant address the following concerns prior to final review of this proposal: Employee Housing Units — The PEC stated the school should be required to provide employee housing at the same rate (30%) as other private developments in the Town. Based on an increase in capacity from 244 to 300 students, the school would be required to provide a total of two employee housing units (based on the standard of 1 staff member/10 students * 56 add'] students*30%). Vail Mountain School is proposing eight Type III employee housing units. However, due to mobilization costs and economies of scale, the applicant would like to construct all of the proposed EHU's in conjunction with "Phase 11" improvements. Traffic Circulation -- It has been observed by members of the PEC and the Vail Town Council that a re-occuring problem during peak traffic flow at the school involves the `stacking" of cars along the frcntage road in anticipation of left and right turn movements into Katsos Ranch Road_ The result is a congested access to the school and impacts to traffic flow along Katsos Ranch Road and North Frontage Road East. In an effort to address this concern, the applicant has provided a relocated access and revised parking and loading configuration for significant additional drop-off capabilities (10 cars at one time) within the property boundaries. A transportation engineering consultant has reviewed the proposal and forwarded a traffic study to town staff for review. Landscaping — The PEC stated the existing and proposed parking areas should be 40 upgraded to meet the Town's landscape requirements for parking lots. The applicant has provided a revised landscape plan based on this input. WAILIDATAIEV ERYONEIPECIMEMOS\QMVMS2.DOC Buffering between the school and housing units — The PEC requested a buffer to 0 separate the institutional uses from residential uses on the property. The applicant has revised the site plan to reflect a separation of these uses. History of the Property The following is a brief synopsis of Vail Mountain School development over the last 20 years: 1979 — original 2 -story building constructed 1984 north classrooms and rockfall berm constructed (berm is no longer necessary) 1989 — gymnasium and stage addition constructed 1992 — additional story added to existing building 1995 — library expansion 1999 — temporary classroom structure added On June 81h, 1999, the Vail Town Council discussed the PEC's decision to approve a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for the addition of a temporary classroom structure at Vail Mountain School. The council agreed the CUP could be extended for an additional year if the applicant presented a master plan to the council within the next year. The Vail Town Council reviewed the plan at their March 7 I meeting and expressed unanimous support for the plan. The applicant is requesting final review of this request from the PEG today. The plan involves significant improvements constructed in two separate phases. Phase I (June 2000 -July 2001) improvements include: ■ Demolition of the rockfall mitigation berm ■ Removal of the existing temporary classroom structure ■ Construction of an eight -classroom wing to the north of the existing building • An elevator connection to all floors • Reconfiguration of the existing access and parking area to allow for the addition of a "drop off" lane and additional parking. Phase 11 (long-term) improvements include: • Addition of a 300 -seat auditorium Faculty housing Additional classrooms south of the gymnasium • Additional parking II. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Order of Review. Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for acceptability of use and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of CUP. 0 \IVAI L%DATAIEVERYONE1PECIMEMQS\00IVMS2. DOC w I 0 The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district - Lot area - Setbacks Building Height Density GRFA Site coverage Landscape area Parking and loading Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: The DRB has no review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation Adequate provision for snow storage on-site 11VAIUDATAIEVERYONEtiPEC',MEMOSWOWMS2.DOC 3 Acceptability of building materials and colors Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms Provision of landscape and drainage Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting The design of parks Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and pians conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for an expansion of the existing facilities at Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12" Filing, based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the General Use zone district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. I That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions be placed an the approval: 1. The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with an easement for the existing public bus stop at the southwest corner of the property_ WAI LIDATAIEVERYONE1RECIMEMOS�OOIVMS2. DOC • 2. The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with drainage easements in accordance with the proposed grading and drainage plans. These easements will be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any proposed grading activities on the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits for the "Phase 11° improvements on the property, the applicant shall conduct a revised traffic study for staff review to ensure appropriate mitigation measures (if applicable) are addressed in a manner that is proportional to proposed "build -out" traffic impacts from the project. It is acknowledged that the threshold for identifying traffic impacts from this proposal will also include existing conditions and "Phase I" improvements. 4. All housing units on the property shall be required to be deed -restricted as Type III employee housing units. These units must be constructed in conjunction with approved "Phase ll° improvements. Required Type III deed -restrictions will be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits for Phase II improvements. The employee housing units will contain full kitchen facilities, as defined in Chapter 12, Vail Town Code. 5. The bicycle path will run with a straight alignment from the parking area to Katsos Ranch Road ("punched through" the berm while avoiding vegetation). An easement will be provided to the Town of Vail for the bike path. 0 IV, ZONING AND THE APPROVAL PROCESS • Vail Mountain School is located in the General Use Zone District. Pursuant to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the purpose of the General Use Zone District is to: provide sites for public and quasi -public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi -public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10). Sections 12-9C-2 & 3 outline the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the General Use Zone District. Public and private schools and educational institutions are a conditional use in the General Use Zone District subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. \\VA I LIDATAtE V ERYONE\PEC\M E MOSIOOIVM S2. DDC Zoning Analysis Zoning: General Use *A11 development standards in the GU zone district are prescribed by the PEC Lot Size Density: Setbacks: Front/Katsos: Side/Frontage Rd Side: Rear: Height: Parking: Site Coverage: GRFA: Total Floor Area: 6.122 acres or 266,674 square feet Existing Phase I Phase II n/a n/a 8 EHU's = 4 d.u.'s 90' 78' 24' 76' 76' 76' 358' 358' 358' 23' 23' 20' 27' 85 spaces 27' 104 spaces 22,027 sf (8.26%) 29,081 sf (10.9%) n/a n/a 20,488 sf 31,188 sf (+10,700 sf) 36' 116 spaces 37,469 sf (14.1 %) 4,800 square feet 48,688 sf (+17,500 sf) V. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the develoDment objectives of the Town. The Vail Land Use Plan applies a "Public/Semi-Public" land use designation on this property. This category includes uses such as schools, post office, water and sewer service and storage facilities, cemeteries, municipal facilities, and other institutions which are located throughout the community to serve the needs of residents. Staff believes this proposal is in compliance with all applicable objectives of the Vail Land Use Plan. Staff believes the proposal furthers the following specific goals: 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. %NVAILIDATAIEVERYONE`PECIMEMOS1OOlVMS2.DOC 6 • 0 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). 5.1 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 marketplace 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. 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes this proposal will impact the following facilities: Transportation — please refer to item 3 below. Schools — Planned improvements for the school would increase capacity to approximately 300 students and provide affordable housing for teachers and staff. Staff believes the proposal would have a significant positive impact on educational opportunities in the Vail Valley. Parks and Recreation — Staff believes the proposed auditorium facility could be a great amenity to Vail residents if managed via a public/private partnership. The applicant has expressed a desire to provide opportunities for public events at the auditorium when school -related functions are not planned. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and Pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Traffic - The applicant's traffic engineering consultant performed traffic studies at Vail Mountain School on two occasions. Based on both the consultant's findings and traffic projections from the town engineer, construction of Phase li 49 improvements (specifically, the auditorium) could trigger the need for dedicated turning lanes. WA1 UDATAIEVE RYON EIPECIM EMOSIQQIVMS2. DOC The Town Engineer's projections of need are based on the following data: ITE industry standards, traffic counts for the 151" busiest skier day along the frontage road, the CDOT access code, and an assumed 300 student enrollment at build- out. Staff believes the proposed re-routed access is sufficient to meet the needs of users for existing and proposed "Phase I" improvements. However, due to potential fluctuations in student enrollment and traffic patterns, a revised parking study will be necessary to determine the extent of traffic impacts and mitigation (if necessary) to ensure a practical implementation of future plans once "Phase I" improvements have been constructed. Parking — the Vail Town Code (supplemented by ITE parking standards for educational facilities) would require a minimum parking space count of 104 spaces (total at build out). However, staff believes a higher number of students at Vail Mountain School commute by car than at an average high school and that the minimum 104 spaces should be increased slightly. The applicant is proposing a total of 116 spaces (an increase of 11.5%). Staff believes this is a preferable, but not excessive, amount of parking. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff believes the proposed scale and bulk of the additions are consistent with the existing facility. Additionally, staff does not believe the additions will negatively impact adjacent uphill structures. The proposed roof ridge height for the auditorium facility is 1' 8" higher than the existing building ridgelines and less visually impactive than the existing rockfall mitigation berm and chain-link fence. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings_ before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 40 \%VAILIDATAIEVERYONE\PECIMEMOS1001VMS2.DOC NO p E:IEI Em PAIL MOUNTAIN 5CMOOLk) 9160 ICAATSOS RANCH ROAD 11 VAIL, WL.ORADO 0 0 • • a a • Ell, 0, E I � • til :IK*'Io-XNTAIN 51�.�d7RAD0.* RANCH ROAD sail z � 's - 4�s �rs 3 r 1 E OF I Mil w' OU 00 1 i c � z z: a r , o R 0 lEll I„�}.,,,�� =VAILMOUNTAiN 5C+IOOLn!+' `t ROAD,, • 0 IN 0 1 f(I Im OL:][,, 11, t,,�!�; EVAIL, J�' R+ WoH ROAD i�';; fv/4GD pp a 1 11 ,1 } �i A �lp f ff MITI,! VAIL K7JNTAIN SGfiOOL a,' 11 1!1 i%Sr � ' 160 "705WGH ROAD JAIL, Cl:VE:IEY � [E] 0 • • • f f I I f f a L M EVAIL, tWArIN 5C+400L t !N60 U El El �aaa 0 B i 4 =Ll,-�:Al5+t; u�I El � �o 0 • John Schofield said to get it built. Diane Golden said thank you for enlarging the ladies restroom, but she was not comfortable with the dumpster being so far away. 0 George Ruther said it was found during the management plan process, that competing uses with between people and vehicles forced people off the path. He said with a centralized trash facility, it would eliminate paying four times what they could pay for once. He said that was one of the approved capital expenses. Chas Bernhardt said he had no further comments. Doug Cahill asked if there would be glass sections on the roofs for the horizontal rain. Jim Morter said, yes. Doug Cahill asked about the bike paths being traveled with trash haul. Brian Doyon said he would like to create a niche for bikes that is not so congested, but he said this was a great idea and great plan. Galen Aasland agreed with the dumpster and bike storage and asked how to incorporate art with AIPP. Jim Morter thought that was a great idea. Galen Aasland said art should be integrated here and the will -call ticket area should be larger as it was a weak point. He suggested landscaping improvements from where you pass the schoolhouse, across the bridge coming from the south. George Ruther said with some of `he major redevelopments in Town, this might be an opportunity to take the "moved evergreens from the VAC and Antlers. Galen Aasland asked for a motion. John Schofield made a motion to approve the conditional use permit , n accordance with the staff memo and findings and Condition on page 2; with the additional condition that bike storage be addressed and consideration of the suggestions mentioned by the PEC members_ Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 6-0. Galen Aasland suggested forwarding to the DRB, benches for the disabled. 7. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a proposed expansion at Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12t6 Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects Planner: Brent Wilson Brian Doyon recused himself. John Schofield disclosed for the record that his wife was a member of the Hoard of the 40 Mountain School, but he had no financial interest in this application. Planning and Environmental Commission 8 Minutes April 24, 2000 Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo_ Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. 46 Ned Gwathmey summarized the proposal adding the additional classrooms would offer a better environment. He said they would now comply with ADA requirements . He said they were adding a berm, a front entry that defined the school in a better way, straightening out the bike path and offering an easement to the Town for the bus stop. • Scott Lindall explained the berm and said they were building the foundations for Phase I this summer, as the goal was not to have heavy construction during the school year. He said the berm was on a 2:1 slope. Ned Gwathmey explained the auditorium, faculty housing and the master plan. He said they would like to get started on the grading this summer. George Ruther asked what assurance the Town would have that the building would be built after the grading and foundation went in. Ned Gwathmey said in order to do the wall, we would have to have a building permit, so we would probably just grade right now. George Ruther said that Council inquires any time a developer talks about phasing. Ned Gwathmey said by putting in the foundation, the process could be upped by a month. Doug Cahill said he was concerned with the removal of the berm and no construction. Brent Wilson said the Town Engineer would require it be up to safety standards, and asked if the applicant would agree to a bond. Ned Gwathmey said putting in the foundation would lock them into a time frame. Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. John Schofield said he was comfortable with the proposal and that a bond would not give us anything more than what we have right now. Diane Golden said she was concerned the drive up to the building, as it was very difficult for people living in that building. Scott Lindall explained the parking and said they tried to avoid parking directly off the road. Ned Gwathmey said they would address that. Chas Bernhardt said he was concerned about the parking. He said Ned brought up the Fire Dept. issues and that the PEC would have to wait on that. He said he wouldn't have any problem with putting in the retaining wall because it was a safety issue. Doug Cahill said that fire was a concern. He suggested a retaining wall as a landscaping feature, to be incorporated later, to stabilize the soil when the berm comes out. He asked about the landscaping plan. Planning and Environmental Commission 9 Minutes April 24, 2000 Galen Aasland said that Condition No 3 needed to be modified. He said after 5 years, two employee housing units would need to be put in, to be treated the same as any other developer. He would like to see the trash concerns be addressed and Diane's concern about the delivery drive -up was right on . 0 Brent Wilson said that all the projections were for 300 students as the maximum buildout. He said if the PEC wanted a cap, then that number should be 315 to allow for overflow. He said when we did our staff evaluation, the real trigger for the EHU carne with the larger scale stuff; the auditorium and the classrooms. Ned Gwathmey said there were 246 students right now. Galen Aasland said the PEC had to be fair like everyone else. Ned Gwathmey said what you're asking is not unfair. He then suggested within 5 years of the TCO for Phase 1, a minimum of 2 units. Chas Bernhardt asked if it would work for a long-term lease. John Schofield made motion in accordance with the findings on page 4 of the staff memo with a modification to Condition No. 4 that at least one Type 111 employee housing unit must be constructed within 5 years of the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) for "Phase I" improvements and that if enrollment exceeded 330 students they would have to come back before the PEC. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. Scott Lindall asked if the easement could be reverted back to the TOV if it was not used by the Mountain School. 0 The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6H-6 and 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Townhouse #2-C/Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1 Filing. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl Planner: Ann Kjerulf Ann Kjerulf gave an overview of the staff memo. She mentioned some corrections under the zoning portion of the memo, that the lot size should be 13, 245 sq. ft., the existing site coverage should be 51.9%, and the proposed site coverage is 52.4 %. She stated that on page 2 of the memo, the condition that the applicant receive approval from all relevant utility authorities had been satisfied. She stated that the Condominium Association approval had been received, but needed to be verified and suggested that this be a condition of approval_ Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. Vicki Pearson said she appreciated the effort that has gone into this. She said it was a benefit to the Town of Vail, as it was the first thing visitors see when crossing the bridge. She said that they pulled in the northeast corner of the turret since the last meeting and the turret would not affect anyone's view corridor. • Planning and Environmental Commission 10 Minutes April 24, 2000 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION is PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, August 12, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Doug Cahill George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartman MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt 1. East Vail Water Tank — 5004 Snowshoe Lane 1. Hamelin residence — 5167 Gore Circle 2. Vail Mtn. School — 3160 N. Frontage Rd. 3. Club Chelsea — 123 S. Frontage Rd. 4. Middle Creek 160 N. Frontage Rd. Driver: George 11:30 am 12:30 pm NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 prn 1. A request for a variance frnm Section 12-613-6 (Setbacks); Vail Town Code, to allow for a garage encroachment in the rear setback, located at 5167 Gore Circle/Lot 12, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision 5"' Addition. Applicant: Rolland S. Hamelin Planner: Matt Gennett MOTION: Doug CaNit SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED 2. A request for a conditional Use permit, to allow for a public utility installation, located at the East Vail Water Tank, 5004 Snowshoe Lane/Summer Recreational Area, Vail Meadows Filing 1. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND.- Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0 0 TABLE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 TOWi N OF VafL A request for a final review and recommendations of the following applications related to the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Mountain School, 1) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone 3010 Booth Falls Road/Lot 11. Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing from Two -Family Residential to General Use; 2) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone a portion of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12t`' Filing from Agriculture & Open Space to General Use; 3) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12"' Filing from Two -Family Residential to General Use; 4) A request for a recommendation to amend the official Town of Vail land Use Map for Tract , Block 1, Vail Village 121h Filing from Low Density Residential to Pubiic/Semi-Public; 5) A request for an amendment to the previously approved development plan and a new conditionai use permit for a private educational institution and an active outdoor recreation area at 3010 Booth Falls Road/Lot 11, Block 2, Vait Village 1 z"' Filing and 3160 N. Frontage Road East/ Lot 12, Block 2. Vail Village 12'h Filing; 6) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of eight Type III EHUs located at Tract C. Block 1. Va i Village 12"' Filing; 7) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for temporary modular classroom structures located at 3160 N. Frontage Rd. East/ a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12'h Filing; 8) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the Official Town of Vail RockfaII Hazard Map to indicate approved mitigation for 3150 N. Frontage Road/Lot 12, Block 2, and Tract C, Block 1, Vagi Village 12"' Filling; 9) A request for a final review of a preliminary plat for a major subdivision in accordance with Title 13, Chapter 3, Vail Town Code. and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12t" Filing and Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12''' Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner. Russ Forrest MOTION' Erickson Shirley SECOND. Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-1 (Lamb recused) APPROVAL REZONING 3010 BOOTH FALLSILOT 11, BLOCK 2, FROM 2 -FAMILY TO GENERAL USE WITH THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF MEMORANDUM. MOTION Erickson Shirley SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-1 (Lamb recused) APPROVAL REZONING LOT 12, BLOCK 2 FROM AGRICULTURE OPEN SPACE TO GENERAL USE WITH THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF MEMORANDUM. MOTION: Erickson Shidey SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-1 (Lamb recused) APPROVAL REZONING TRACT C FROM 2 -FAMILY TO GENERAL USE WITH THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF MEMORANDUM. MOTION: Erickson Shirley SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE.5-0-1(Lamb recused) APPROVAL AMENDING THE HAZARD MAP WITH THE CRITERIA ON PAGE 21 OF THE STAFF MEMORANDUM, MOTION Erickson Shirley SECOND. Rollie Kkesbo VOTE:5-0-1(Lamb recused) APPROVAL AMENDING THE OFFICIAL LAND USE MAP FOR TRACT C FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC WITH THE FINDINGS ON PAGE 12-13 OF THE STAFF MEMORANDUM. MOTION: Erickson Shirley SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE 5-0-1 (Lamb recused) APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE FINDINGS ON PAGE 19 AND THE CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW. MOTION; Erickson Shirley SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE:5-0-1(Lamb recused) APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TYPE III EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS WITH THE FINDINGS ON PAGE 19 AND THE CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW. MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE -.5-0-1 (Lamb recused) APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE TEMPORARY MODULAR CLASSROOM STRUCTURES WITH THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF MEMORANDUM AND THE CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW. APPROVED CONDITIONAL USES WITH 13 CONDITIONS: The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with an easement for the existing public bus stop at the southwest corner of the property prior to building permit submittal. 2. The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with drainage easements in accordance with the proposed grading and drainage plans. These easements shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy for any proposed development on the site. 3_ Prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Occupancy for any phase of the school, the applicant shall complete and receive a Certificate of Occupancy for the eight employee housing units constructed on Tract C except for the occupancy of the cabin. 4. All housing units on Tract C shall be deed -restricted as Type III employee housing units. These units must be constructed in conjunction with the approved development plan, Required Type III deed -restrictions shall be recorded by the appiicant with the Eagle County Clerk Recorder prior to the issuance of any temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy for development of the school. The employee housing units shall comply with the minimum requirements for Type III employee housing regulations, as defined in Chapter 12, of the Vail Town Code. The bicycle/pedestrian path shall be constructed by the applicant as per the approved development plan. Construction shall be completed prior to receiving a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for phase II of the School which will include the food service facilities and gymnasium. If phasing does not occur on the project then the path shall be completed before occupancy is granted for the school. An easement shall be provided to the Town of Vail by the applicant for the bike/pedestrian path prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant must submit a staging plan and have that plan approved by the Town of Vail that would allow pedestrian access across the site from Katsos Ranch Road to Booth Falls Road during all phases of construction. r] 5. The administrator, at his discretion, shall require either a cash deposit, bond, or letter of credit to be submitted to the Town of Vail by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permits for 100% of the value of creating a bine pathlpedestrian trail for the entire length of Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12`x' Filing of the same quality and width as the path specified in condition number 5 above and more specifically described in the Development Plan, If the Town of Vail does not complete a bicycle trail on this property within 5 years from the date of the issuance of a building permit, the Town shall refund this deposit. Approval of the conditional use permit for the development plan is conditioned upon the rezoning of Lots 12 and 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing to the General Use District and approval of a final plat. 8. The conditional use permit for the modular structures shall be null and void two years from the approval of the conditional Use permit for the two modular structures. This conditional use permit is valid only for the current number of modular structures as of the date of this approval. The applicant can propose a change in location to the modular structures and submit a DRB application for the new location of the modular structures within 8 months of the approval of this conditional use permit. 9. The Vail Mountain School shall not use any public right of way for parking. 10. A debris flow berm should be designed and constructed prior the location of the cabin on the northern portion of lot 12. A qualified engineer or geologist shall conclude in a written letter to the Community Development Department that the berm will adequately protect the cabin from a debris flow with out adversely impacting private or public property. 11. The applicant shall verify with a qualified lighting expert that luminance for all types of exterior lighting do not exceed 125. The applicant shall submit a report to the Town that the lighting complies with the Town's development standards, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 12. The applicant shall submit revised development plans to the Town identifying adequate snow storage for the north parking area and the parking area for Tract C prior to the issuance of final Design Review Board approval. 13. The applicant will move the Bus Shelter to the north side of the bus lane to a location in accordance with the Public Works Department. The Bus lane and shelter shall be maintained throughout construction of the project. MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE:5-0-1 (Lamb recused) APPROVAL PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION WITH THE FINDINGS ON PAGE 2E-27 IN THE STAFF MEMORANDUM AND TWO CONDITIONS: Within one year of the Planning and Environmental Comrmssion's approval, the applicant small submit a final plat to the Department of Community Development for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. 2. Prior to submitting a final plat the applicant shall address all comments of the reviewing agencies to the satisfaction of the said agencies. Any comments shall be incorporated into the final plat. 4 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to of an amendment to Section 12- 7A-7 (Height), Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 6-0 TABLED UNTIL. AUGUST 26, 2002 5. A request for a final review of a final plat for a major subdivision; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and development plan approval to construct employee housing; and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"Jan unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd.1to be platted as Lot 1. Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbc VOTE: 6-0 TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 26, 2002 6_ A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the Donovan Paris Master Pian and a request for a final review of an amendment for the previously approved development plan, to allow for the construction of the Donovan Park Pavilion, located at 1600 S. Frontage Ru. West/Unplatted Donovan Park. 40 Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by VAg, Inc_ Planner: George Ruther MOTION- George Lamb SECOND: Rollie Kjesbc- VOTE: 5-1 (Schofield opposed) RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO TOWN COUNCIL OF AMENDMENT TO DONOVAN PARK 7. A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 6. to allow for an expansion of commercial uses into common area, located at 123 S. Frontage Rd. West/Lots M.N, &O, Vail Village 151 Filing. Applicant. Club Chelsea, represented by JMP Architects Planner. Warren Campbell MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That the applicant not modify the uses of the SDD ##6, including the number of lodging or EHU units without following the procedures as outlined in Section 12-9A-10 of the Vail Town Code Staff Approvals VML LLC PECO2-0011 George Final review of townhouse Plat Review 285 Bridge StreeVVail Mountain Lodge, Vail Village 1 sS Filing Applicant: VML LLC, represented by Bailey & Peterson 7. Approval of July 22, 2002 minutes TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 26, 2402 8, Information Update The applications and informatlon about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Piease call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • LJ 6 1 • • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 2002 SUBJECT: Amendment to the Vail Mountain School Development Plan and associated rezoning, conditional use permit, and hazard area amendment requests located at Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12'' and Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Russ Forrest SUMMARY The applicant is requesting final decisions and recommendations on the various applications that have been submitted to redevelop the Vail Mountain School. It is critical that the Planning and Environmental Commission utilize the criteria and findings referenced in section VI of this memorandum in considering a decision. There are a total of nine applications involved with this proposal. The Planning and Environmental Commission should reference section 11 for a summary of those applications that the Planning and Environmental Commission makes a recommendation to the Town Council on those applications where they are making a final decision. Since the last Planning and Environmental Commission meeting on July 22nd meeting the applicant has: • Created a pedestrian trail from the north parking area to the school. • Further moved the soccer field away from the street. • Completed a lighting plan • Created a pedestrian connection to the bus stop. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST This project involves the following properties; Parcel Current Proposed Lot Size Property Zoning and Zoning and Owner Use Use 1) Lot 12 S , Block 2, Vail General Use General Use S.1 acres Vail Mountain Village 12tt' (Current (GU) Zoning/ School School Site) school, soccer field & 88 parking ,spaces 2) Lot 12 (applicant has Agriculture General Use 1.28 Vail Mountain referred to property as Open Space Zoning/ acres School 12N), Block 2 Vail Village (ACS) 12 parking (Previously 12t' (Tennis Court Site) spaces, awned by the This site was not properly relocated Booth Falls subdivided and is actually cabin Homeowners part of Lot 12, Associations) 3) Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Two Family General Use/ .408 Vail Mountain Village 12th (lot directly Residential Soccer Field acres School west of current soccer field) 4) Tract C, Block 1, Vail Two Family General Use/ 1.19 Vail Resorts Village 12th Residential 8 EHUs & 1E acres parking spaces required for EHUs • 0 Project Area The following is a summary of the applications for this project: Applications that the Planning and Environmental Commission will make a recommendation on: 1 j A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone 3010 Booth Falls Road/Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 121h Filing from Two -Family Residential to General Use; 2) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12"' Filing to General Use, The northern portion of this lot is zoned Agriculture Open Space; 3) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12" Filing from Two -Family Residential to General Use; 4) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to modify the official Town of Vail Rockfall Hazard Map to indicate approved mitigation for 3150 N. Frontage Road/Lot 12, Block 2, and Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filling; 5) A request for a recommendation to amend the official Town of Vail Land Use Map for Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12`h Filing from Low Density Residential to Public/Semi-Public; lications that the Planning and Environmental Commission will make a decision 0 L.1DI 6) A request tar an amendment to the previously approved development plan and a new conditional use permit for a private educational institution and an active outdoor recreation area on 3010 Booth Fails Road/Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing and 3160 N. Frontage Road East/ tot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 121h Filing; 7) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of eight Type I]I EHUs located on Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 121" Filing; S} A request for a for a conditional use permit to continue to allow for the existing temporary modular classroom structures located at 3100 N. Frontage Road East/ a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing; 9) A request for a major subdivision and preliminary plat approval for the Vail Mountain School Subdivision, A resubdivision of Lots 11, 12, Tract C, and Katsos Ranch Road, Vail Village 121" Filing in accordance with Title 13, Chapter 3, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regards thereto. The Town Council will also need to accept the dedication of land and approve of the subdivision. Ill. BACKGROUND A. 2000 Vail Mountain School Master Plan 0 On June 81h, 1999, the Vail Town Council discussed Planning and Environmental Commissions decision to approve a conditional use permit (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) to allow for the addition of a temporary classroom structure at the Vaii Mountain School. The Council agreed the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT could be extended for an additional year if the applicant presented a master plan to the Council within one year. On April 24°h, 2000 the Vail Mountain School received approval for a development plan (master plan) and a conditional use permit for the expansion of the school facilities, including eight Type ill employee housing units. Attachment A summarizes the development parameters that were approved for the master pian. The Vail Mountain School Master Plan involves significant improvements constructed in two separate phases. Phase € June 2000 -Jul 2001 improvements include: Demolition of the rockfall mitigation berm ■ Removal of the existing temporary classroom structure ■ Construction of an eight -classroom wing to the north of the existing building • An elevator connection to all floors • Reconfiguration of the existing access and parking area to allow for the addition of a "drop off" lane and additional parking. Phase 11 Ian -term improvements include; 0 • Addition of a 300 -seat auditorium • Faculty housing • Additional classrooms south of the gymnasium • Additional parking It is important to note that the proposed 2002 development plan and the approved 2000 master pian propose the same number of students (330 students) and 28 class rooms. The 2002 proposal does include a larger auditorium (400 seats versus 300). The total floor area is approximately 31,993 square feet larger than the 2000 master plan. Parking (116 spaces) and employee housing is proposed to be the same for the 2002 application and the 2000 master plan given that the number of students and faculty will remain the same. B. History of the Property The following is a brief synopsis of Vail Mountain School development over the last 20 years: 1972 - Vail Village 12`" Filing was annexed into the Town of Vail and platted. This subdivision plat shows Lot 12 at 8.66 acres in size. 1972 -At the time of annexation Agriculture Open Space zoning was applied to Lot 12. The total area of the parcel was 8.66 acres. The minimum lot size of the Agriculture Open Space zone district is 35 acres. 1979 -Vail Resorts conveyed the Tennis Court site to the Booth Falls Homeowners through a quick claim deed. 1979 -the first twc story building was constructed on the site - 1980 -Vail Resorts conveyed the land the school is on today to the Vail Mountain School. 1979 — Original 2 -story building constructed 1984 — North classrooms and rockfall berm constructed (berm is no longer necessary) 1989 — Gymnasium and stage addition constructed 1992 — Additional story added to existing building 1995 -- Library expansion 1999 — Temporary classroom structure constructed IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the P+anning and Environmental Commission for acceptability of use and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. A. Major Subdivision Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsibie for final approvallapproval with conditions denial of a major subdivision. Specifically the the code states: iThe burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter. the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C above, The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. (19 97 Cade: Ord. 2(1983) § 1 B. Conditional Use Permit Planning and Environmental Commission: Action. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/approval with conditions/denial of a conditional use permit. The Planning and Environmental Commission will make recommendations to the Town Council on rezoning land, text amendments, and modification of hazard designations. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1, Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town, 2. Effect of the use on fight and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive anc pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses, 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. The Planning and Environmental Commission is also responsible for prescribing the development parameters on General Use zoned land and ensuring the development parameters conform to approved zoning in other zone districts. The development parameters that must be considered include: • Lot area Setbacks • Building Height 11 ■ Density ■ GRFA • Site coverage • Landscape area ■ Parking and loading ■ Mitigation of development impacts C. Design Review Board Application Design f;eview Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a conditional use permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. The Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the Design Review Board proposal for: ■ Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings ■ Fitting buildings into landscape 49 • Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography ■ Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation • Adequate provision for snow storage on-site ■ Acceptability of building materials and colors • Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms • Provision of landscape and drainage • Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures ■ Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances • Location and design of satellite dishes • Provision of outdoor lighting • The design of parks D. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. E. Rezoning, Major Subdivision Town Council: The Town Council is the final decision making authority for a rezoning or a text amendment. Final actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. The Town Council is also responsible for accepting land for public right of way in a Major Subdivision. V. SUMMARY OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION & DESIGN REVIEW BOARD INPUT une t G" 2002 Plannino and Environmental Commission Meetin • The Planning and Environmental Commission asked that a sensitive lighting plan be developed, • Make the parking on Tract C more consolidated. • There was some interest in moving the Headmasters House onto Tract C. 40 • The Planning and Environmental Commission wanted to see a management pian for the EHUs to show how the units would be used by employees of the school. ■ There was a comment to move Katsos Road further to the East to create more space for the school. • There was a comment to subdivide the headmaster's house from the rest of the school and recreational field, • There was a need for additional information on retaining walls and grade changes. ■ Create enclosed parking for EHUs on Tract C • There was concern expressed about the van parking on Tract C. ■ There was agreement with Design Review Board that the height of the gymnasium could be reduced. • There was general support that EHUs on Tract C were appropriate. ■ There was some concern about the overall mass of the school. ■ Some members did not support an amendment to add the 425 credit to the Agriculture Open Space Zone District, July 8`' 2002 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting ■ The Planning and Environmental Commission asked the applicant to rezone the tennis court area to either General Use or Single Family Residential. There was agreement that a more appropriate zoning should be used for the headmaster's house and the soccer field. • The majority of Planning and Environmental Commission indicated that they would not support a text amendment for the Agriculture Qpen Space zone district to accommodate a 425 GRFA credit. • The Planning and Environmental Commission did not approve of parking on the Frontage Rd for overflow parking ■ There was some interest from the Planning and Environmental Commission in pursuing event parking at the Booth Falls trailhead. • The Planning and Environmental Commission wanted to see a sensitive lighting plan for the project. ■ The Planning and Environmental Commission stated that the fence beside the soccer field must be moved at least 10 feet from the edge of asphalt of Booth Fails Road. Several members of the Planning and Environmental Commission commented that the school was addressing their concerns and moving in the right direction. Also the new plan was similar to the plan approved in 2000 in that the school would be accommodating the same number of students and would have the same number of staff. + Planning and Environmental Commission heard testimony from adjacent neighbors that the school was still too big and that the height should be further reduced to minimize the visual impact of the school. There was testimony regarding the need to remove parking from Tract C. Also lighting was a critical issue neighbors were concerned about. There were also comments that the school needed to improve trash removal and clean-up of the grounds. A letter from Winston Associates was provided to the Planning and Environmental Commission by several Katsos Ranch neighbors that outlined their position on the project and recommendations for Tract C. Jul,22r° 2002 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting • The Planning and Environmental Commission asked that a pedestrian trail be created between the north parking lot and the school. ■ The Planning and Environmental Commission asked that a MOU be created to facilitate parking on the Booth Creek Trail Head for special events in the winter, • Planning and Environmental Commission asked that the bus stop be moved to the south Side of the bus turn in. • Planning and Environmental Commission asked that the Soccer Field be moved further from the road .#une 5T" 2002 Design Review Board Meeting • The Design Review Board was very supportive of the architectural form of the building. Specifically they liked the horizontal and vertical variation in the design. • The Design Review Board liked the contrast in the use of materials and that several roof materials would be considered_ • The Design Review Board requested that the applicant look at sinking the gymnasium to reduce the height of this element to address concerns from adjacent property owners. • The Design Review Board expressed concern regarding any impact to the aspen stand on Tract C. • The Design Review Board asked to see a very sensitive fighting plan. The Board asked that low level Ballard lighting be used. ■ The Design Review Board asked the applicant to consider structured parking underneath the soccer field which could enable the parking to be reduced on Tract C. • The Design Review Board wanted to make sure that the applicant would have adequate landscaping. They were concerned that much of the landscaping was on Colorado Department of Transportation right-of-way and wanted to make sure that they could plant that material. • Design Review Board asked that a gate be considered for Tract C to prevent non school related traffic from parking in that lot. ■ Design Review Board asked whether a parte-cochere was needed for the entrance to the school_ • The Board inquired whether there was adequate space for loading and delivery. L� Vl. APPLICATION CRITERIA, FINDINGS, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONDITIONS A. AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN FOR TRACT C 1 � General Overview of the Plan The Town of Vail Land Use Plan was initiated in 1985 and adopted in 1986 by the Vail Town Council. The main purposes of the Land Use Plan are two- fold: To articulate the land use goals of the Town. To serve as a guide for decision making by the Town. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a basis from which future land use decisions may be made within the Town of Vail. The goals, as articulated within the Land Use Plan, are meant to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. In conjunction with these goals, land use categories are defined to indicate general types of land uses which are then used to develop the Vail Land Use Map. The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature, but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. Where the land use categories and zoning conflict, existing zoning controls development on a site. To be effective, the Land Use Plan must be updated to reflect 49 current thinking and changing market conditions. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan can be amended in three ways. 1) The Community Development Department can update and revise the plan periodically. The Community Development Department then makes recommendations for the proposed changes to the Panning and Environmental Commission, where these changes would then be considered in a public hearing format. The Planning and Environmental Commission would then make a recommendation to the Town Council, where another public hearing would be held. The Council then adopts the changes by resolution. 2] The Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council can also initiate amendments to the Land Use Plan. Again, both boards hold public hearings and the changes are adopted by the Town Council by resolution. 3) The private sector can also initiate amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan. Applications may be made by a registered voter, a property owner, or a property owner's authorized representative. The amendments are then heard by both the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council, The Town Council then adopts the changes by resolution_ • • 2; Land Use Plan Designation Description for Tract C Current Land Use Plan designation for Tract C: 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 acre, however, ail of the adjacent residential uses exceed 3 dwelling units per acre. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and clubhouses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional (public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. Proposed Land Use designation: Public/Semi-Public (PSP): 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, 3) Criteria for amending the Town of Vail Land Use Plan Any amendments to the Land Use Plan require a public process. Adjacent properties are notified, the Planning and Environmental Commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposal. The Town Council adopts the changes by resolution. Any changes to the Land Use Plan must address the following three criteria: 1. How conditions have changed since the plan was adopted? Physical conditions and the fundamental land use patterns of the neighborhood have not changed since the 1986 adoption of the plan. However, the Vail Mountain School is proposing to expand their program and physical space consistent with a development plan that was approved in 2000. Since the Land Use plan was adopted the need for employee housing has significantly increased with only a 1% vacancy rate in the rental market in Vail. Employee housing is a critical need in the Town of Vail and any proposed use that generates new employees needs to provide a reasonable amount of housing for their employees. 2. How the plan is in error? The plan is not in error with respect to the land use designation. However, this land will be an integral component of the school's operation, and a PubliciSemi Public land use designation will be more appropriate in the future and will facilitate a cohesive development plan far the community and the school. 3. How the addition* deletion or change to the plan is in concert with the plan in general? Adjacent lands are designated Public/Semi Public to the west and Low Density Residential to the north. This designation allows for the creation of associated housing for the school which is similar to how housing located at Buzzard Park which supports the Town of Vail Public Works operation also with a Public/Semi Public designation. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan also states on page 8 of the plan that affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives and additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community." 4. Staff Recommendation The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the land use amendment in that it allows for uses consistent with adjacent land uses and the creation of a harmonious relationship with the adjacent residential aid institutional uses and that this application meets the criteria mentioned above. B. REZONING OF LOTS 12, 11, AND TRACT C 40 1. Rezoninq Criteria Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the Planning & Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: 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. Lots 11 and 12 have a Public/Semi Public Land Use Pian Designation. Rezoning Lot 11 and the northern area of Lot 12 will increase the conformance to the Vail Land Use Plan. With an amendment to the Land Use Plan for Tract C; the rezoning of Tract C to General Use zone district would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The affordable housing on Tract C is an integral part of the school on Lot 12. 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 A school in a residential neighborhood is suitable and can work well together. Schools are typically located in residential areas. The 13 school has been located on Lot 12 since 1980. There has been a 116 relatively harmonious relationship between the school and the adjacent neighborhood. The location of school employee housing on Tract C is also consistent with the adjacent neighborhood_ Tract C currently has a zoning of Two Family Residential. With that zoning, the lot could be subdivided into three parcels and have approximately 15,400 square feet of gross residential floor area. The school is proposing 2 structures with 8 employee housing units for a grand total of 7,280 sq. ft. of gross residential floor area. 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 rezoning of the entire area of Lot 12 as General Use creates a more workable relationship among land uses and corrects an error that occurred in 1979 when that land was improperly subdivided and conveyed to another owner. Lot 11 which is now owned by the Vail Mountain School should be rezoned to General Use since the use of the property will be a school. This lot has been surrounded by school land and this rezoning creates a more harmonious workable relationship with the Vail Mountain Schools development plans. Tract C will continue to have a residential use that is interconnected with the school. The proposed housing on Tract C in relationship with the circulation plan for the school will reduce traffic on Katsos Ranch Road. These rezonings essentially consolidate the land on and around the school into the same zone district (General Use) and creates a more workable relationship for the school's development plans and allows the impacts of the school to be effectively mitigated to the extent possible. 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. By rezoning the northern area of Lots 12 and 11 to the General Use Zone District there is increased conformity to the Land Use Plan since the designation for this land is Public/Semi Public. With the amendment to the Land Use Plan for Tract C to Public/Semi Public and the development of housing on the site for the school that amendment will also serve the interests of the community as a whole by having an employer provide housing for a portion of the new employees that would be generated by the project. 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 14 C7 An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this proposal. No significant environmental impacts were identified in the report. There are existing trees that would be removed as the result of the. project. Approximately 330 aspens and 40 evergreens. However, the landscape plan helps mitigate that impact. The applicant is proposing to add 445 deciduous trees and 250 evergreen trees to the site as part of the landscaping plan. 5) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. The purpose statement of the General Use Zone District is defined in Section 12-9C-1, Vail Town Code, and reads as follows: "The general use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi -public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds 40 and certain types of quasi -,public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. (Ord. 21(,994) § 10) A school is a public or quasi public use which does have special needs. The development plan process provided for in the General Use zone helps ensure that the proposed development is in harmony with the adjacent uses and that the potential impacts of the building are adequately mitigated. 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. With regard to Lots 12 and 11, the proposed rezoning addresses an error that was made in 1979 when the northern portion of Lot 12 was conveyed to another owner. In addition, the school has surrounded Lot 11 making a residential development on that site difficult at best. With regard to Tract C, an increased need for employee housing has resulted in the last 20 years. It is now a matter of policy that when an 40 employer generates new employees that they need to accommodate housing for a percentage of those new employees. Also employers are finding it necessary to provide employee housing to recruit high 15 quality employees. Therefore, staff believes that the eight proposed EHUs are an integral and necessary component of the school. 8y Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. 3. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a zone district boundary amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment; 1) That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town. 2) That the amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas. 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. 4_ Staff Recommendation The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval for the rezoning of Lots 11 and 12; Block 2, Vail Village 12" and Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12"' and that the proposed amendments are consistent with the criteria and findings described above. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(S) FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN, EIGHT EHUs ON TRACT C. AND MAINTAINING THE MODULAR STRUCTURES ON THE SITE. Criteria for a Conditional Use Permit 1 j Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The Vail Land Use Plan applies a "Public/Semi-Public" land use designation on this property. This category includes uses such as schools, post office, water and sewer service and storage facilities, cemeteries, municipal facilities, and other institutions which are located throughout the community to serve the needs of residents. Staff believes this proposal is in compliance with all applicable objectives of the Vail Land Use Plan, Staff believes the proposal furthers the following 40 specific goals j [, 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). 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas whe-e 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 pare with the marketplace 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. 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. With relationship to the conditional use permit for the temporary structures, Section 12-9C-3, Vail Town Code allows for temporary structures subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The Vail Town Code requ,res the issuance of a conditional use permit for temporary structures, in part, to insure that adequate steps are taken to insure that the structure complies with the development objectives of the Town. The intent of allowing temporary structures is to accommodate those situations when a permanent structure is not appropriate or circumstances, such as duration of use, warrants a temporary structure. In the case of the Vail Mountain School, staff believes a temporary structure is warranted for a Limited period of time to accommodate the immediate needs of the school while the school completes construction of the new facility. Staff believes the two-year request is appropriate. However, a request for an extension to the two-year timeframe should not be permitted. 2] The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Transportation — please refer to item 3 below. Schools — Planned improvements for the school would increase capacity to approximately 300 students and provide affordable housing for teachers and 17 staff. Staff believes the proposal would have a significant positive impact on educational opportunities in the Vail Valley_ Parks and Recreation — Staff believes the proposed auditorium facility could be a valuable amenity to Vail residents if managed via a publiclprivate partnership, The applicant has expressed a desire to provide opportunities for public events at the auditorium when school -related functions are not planned, The redevelopment of the soccer field will also provide recreational opportunities for the community. The requested conditional use permit for the temporary structures will have positive effects on the immediate needs of the school to meet growing demands. The temporary classrooms will allow the school to provide educational opportunities for up to 18 additional students. . 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The applicant has completed a traffic impact assessment. This study concludes that traffic: on Katsos Ranch Road will be reduced. Traffic on Booth Creek Road will not be increased significantly and the traffic consultant has concluded that additional turning lanes are not required. Adjacent fields and open space will provide more than the 30% of the parking area for snow storage. However, the applicant needs to identify snow storage for the EHU parking and the north parking lot, With the change in circulation of the parking area and with the eight EHUs on Tract C a net decrease in traffic will occur on Katsos Ranch Road. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The proposed structures are larger than the 2000 development plan with approximately 87,300 square feet of gross floor area versus approximately 55,390 square feet of floor area approved in the 2000 master plan, which is nearly 58% increase in floor area. It is important to note that the Vail Mountain School has increase its land area from 6.1 acres to 9.18 acres. That is an approximately 50% increase in total lot area. The applicant is attempting to articulate the building to reduce the perceived bulk and mass of the building. However, this is still a large structure for this area of Vail. The proposed EHUs are compatible in scale with other adjacent uses. The total floor area of the EHUs is less than if the lot was fully developed for duplex development under the Two Family Residential Zone District. 49 With regard to the conditional use permit for the temporary structures, staff believes that due to the exterior improvements of the structures, the location Is of the structure on the school site, and the temporary nature of the building, the temporary classroom will have minimal, if any negative impacts on the character of the area. Findings for Conditional Use Permits The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the fo#lowing findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity_ That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning cede. 40 1 Staff Recommendations and Conditions The Department of Community Development recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve of the proposed conditional use permits, based upon the above mentioned criteria and findings referenced above, for: * The Development Plan * 8 EHUs on Tract C * Continued use of modular trailers If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve of these conditional use permits, staff would recommend the following conditions: The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with an easement for the existing public bus stop at the southwest corner of the property prior to building permit submittal. 2. The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with drainage easements in accordance with the proposed grading and drainage plans. These easements shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy for any proposed development on the site. 3. Prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Occupancy for any phase of the school, the applicant shall complete and receive a Certificate of Occupancy for the eight 19 i employee housing units constructed on Tract C except for the is occupancy of the cabin. 4 All housing units on Tract C shall be deed-restrioted as Type 111 employee housing units. These units must be constructed in conjunction with the approved development plan. Required Type III deed -restrictions shall be recorded by the applicant with the Eagle County Clerk Recorder prior to the issuance of any temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy for development of the school. The employee housing units shall comply with the minimum requirements for Type III employee housing regulations, as defined in Chapter 12, of the Vail Town Code. 5 The bicyclelpedestrian path shall be constructed by the applicant as per the approved development plan. Construction shall be completed prior to receiving a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the School. An easement shall be provided to the Town of Vail by the applicant for the bike/pedestrian path prior to the issuance of a building permit. B. A cash deposit shall be submitted to the Town of Vail by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permits for 100% of the value of creating a bike: path/pedestrian trail for the entire length of Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12 Filling of the same quality and width as the path specified in conditlon number 5 above and more specifically described in the Development Plan. Approval of the conditional use permit for the development plan is conditioned upon the rezoning of Lots 12 and 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing to the General Use District and approval of a final plat. The conditional use permit for the modular structures shall be null and void two years from the approval of the conditional use permit for the two modular structures. This conditional use permit is valid only for the current number and location of the existing modular structures as of the date of this approval. 9. The Vail Mountain School shall not use any public right of way for parking. 10. A debris flow berm should be designed and constructed prior the location of the cabin on the northern portion of lot 12_ A qualified engineer or geologist shall conclude in a written letter to the Community Development Department that the berm will adequately protect the cabin from a debris flow with out adversely impacting private or public property. 11. The applicant shall verify with a qualified lighting expert that luminance for all types of exterior lighting do not exceed 125. The 49 applicant shall submit a report to the Town that the lighting complies 20 [1 • with the Town's development standards, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 12, The applicant shall submit revised development plans to the Town identifying adequate snow storage for the north parking area and the parking area for Tract C prior to the issuance of final Design Review Board approval. D. Hazard plan Amendment: 1. Criteria for Hazard Amendment Specific criteria for amending the Master Hazard Plans are not provided in the code. However, the purpose statement of Chapter 12-21 and provisions for providing mitigation for development specified in Section 12-21-15-C.1 of the Vail Town Code do provide criteria for a decision to amend the hazard master plan_ The following are the recommended criteria for making an amendment to the hazard plans.- 1) lans: 1) That the mitigation supports the purpose statement of section 12-21 which states in part "The purpose of this Chapter is to help protect the inhabitants of the Torn from dangers relating to development of flood plains, avalanche paths* steep slopes and geologically sensitive areas...." Based on the review of the mitigation by qualified professionals the mitigation will help protect the inhabitants of the Town frons dangers relating to geologically sensitive areas. 2) That the corrective engineering or engineered construction or other Mitigation or alternations can be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health and safety to property to a reasonable level. Based on the engineering design of the rockfall berm and the review of the construction by qualified engineers, staff relieves that the rockfall hazard is reasonably mitigated, Dr Bruce Collins a qualified geologist has concluded that the mitigation will be effective in protecting the northeastern portion of Lot 12 and Tract C. 3) Such mitigation does not increase the hazard to other property or structures or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities or facilities. Based on reliable engineering input the mitigation will not impact other Property or structures, or public buitdings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities or facilities. 4) The applicant must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the information contained in the site specific geological investigation is 21 r reliable. The rockfall berm has been reviewed by a qualified geologist and Bruce E Collins has concluded that the mitigation will effectively protect Lot 12 and Tract C. 2. Staff Recommendation: The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council of an amendment to the Rockfall Hazard Map to show approved mitigation on Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12`h Filling and Tract C. Block 1, Vail Village 12`" Filing. E. MAJOR SUBDIVISION 1. General Overview of a Marcor Subdivision Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Vail Town Code establishes the review process and criteria for a major subdivision proposed in the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Chapter 13-3 (Major Subdivision) of the Town Code, the first step in the review process is for the applicant to meet with a Town Planner to discuss the preliminary plan. Staff has met with the applicant on several occasions to discuss the proposal and address submittal requirements. Staff feels the applicant has successfuily complied with the initial step in the review process. The Town of Vail is required to notify the following agencies that a major subdivision is proposed and that preliminary pians are available for review: a. Department cf Public Works. b. Town Fire Department. C. Town Police Department. d. Public Service Company of Colorado. e. Holy Cross Electric Association. f, U.S. West g. Cablevision company serving the area. h. National Forest Service. i. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District_ j_ Vail Recreation District - k, Eagle County Ambulance District. I. Other interested agencies when applicable. The next step in the review process shall be a formal consideration of the preliminary plan by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant small make a presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. The 40 presentation and public hearing shall be in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Code. The applicant's appearance before the Planning and 2,1 A Environmental Commission today shall serve to meet the public hearing and presentation requirement. The burden of proof that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Code and other pertinent regulations shall lie upon the applicant. In reviewing the preliminary plan, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to: 1. Subdivision Control, 2. Densities proposed, 3. Regulations; 4. Ordinances, resolutions and other applicable documents; 5. Environmentallntegrity; 6. Compatibility with surrounding land uses; and 7. Effects upon the aesthetics of the Town and surrounding land uses. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall have twenty-one days from the date of the review of the preliminary plan to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions or modifications, the major subdivision request. Within ten days of making a decision on the request, the staff shall forward the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision to the ',fail Town Council. The Council may appeal the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. The appeal must be placed within seventeen days of Planning and Environmental Commission's action, If the Council appeals the Planning and Environmental Commission's action, the Council shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. The Council shall have thirty days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the Planning and Environmental Commission decision. The appeal hearing shall be held during a regularly scheduled council meeting. The final step in the review process of a major subdivision request, after Planning and Environmental Commission preliminary plan review, is the review of the final plat. At any time within one year after the Planning and Environmental Commission has taken action on the preliminary plan, a final plat shall be submitted to the Town -of Vail Community Development Department. The staff shall schedule a final review of the final plat. The final review shall occur at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission pub=ic hearing, The review criteria for a final plat are the same as those used in reviewing the preliminary plan as contained in Section 13-3- 4 of the Subdivision Regulations. The Town of Vail has the ability to require certain improvements when approving a major subdivision. The following improvements shall be required by the applicant unless otherwise waived by the zoning administrator, Planning and Environmental Commission, or Council - 1. Paved streets and parking lots; 2. Bicycle and pedestrian path linked with the town system and within the subdivision itself; 3. Traffic control signs, signals or devices; 4_ Street lights; 5. Landscaping; 6. Water lines and fire hydrants; 7_ Sanitary sewer lines; 8- Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers; 9. Bridges and culverts; 10. Electric lines; 11. Telephone lines; 12, Natural gas lines; 13. Other improvements not specifically mentioned above but found necessary by the Town Engineer due to the nature of the subdivision. 2. Criteria for Review Section 13-3 of the Town of Vail Code provides the criteria by which a proposed major subdivision is to be reviewed. Section 13-3-4; Commission Review of Application; Criteria states: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town- 1) own. 1j Subdivision Control There are two lots being platted as part of this major subdivision request: Lot Zoning Lot Size Fronts e Lot 12 General 347,826 sq ft. 954 ft on Use the Frontage Rd./680 ft on Booth Creek Rd. Tract C General 52,410 sq ft 360 ft on Use Frontage Rd 24 r is • • Lot 1 is proposed to be zoned to the Housing Zone District. According to Section 12-61-10: Other Development Standards: Prescribed By Planning and Environmental Commission: In the H District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as proposed by the applicant, as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and as adapted on the approved development plan: A. .Lot area and site dimensions. B. Building height. C. Density control {including gross residential floor area), Therefore, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall prescribe the minimum lot size and frontage requirements. Staff believes that the lot size. and the frontage are appropriate in this subdivision. 2) Densities Proposed Density does not apply to EHUs or a school 3) Regulations Both lots 11, 12, and Tract C are proposed to be zoned General Use. The General Use District requires an approved development plan in conjunction with development on the site. The rezoning is contingent on the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of the development plan. 4) Ordinances, resolutions and other applicable documents In reviewing this proposal, staff relied upon the Town Code and the Vail Land Use Plan. The issues relating to the Town Code have been addressed previously. 5) Environmental Integrity The Vail Mountain School does have a rock fall hazard and a medium severity debris flow on the northwest corner of the site. The rockfall hazard has been mitigated by the existing rockfall berm. A qualified geologist has concluded that the berm does mitigate the rockfall hazard on all areas of Tract C and Lot 12. The geologist, Dr. Collins, also recommends the construction of a debris flow berm on the northwest corner of the site. A condition of approval is recornmended above to ensure this occurs if the cabin is located in the northwest corner of the site. n 6) Compatibility with other adjacent Land Uses 0 Compatibility with adjacent land uses is described above, The Vail Mountain School has been located on the site since 1979 and has operated harmoniously with the neighborhood. The eight EHUs are consistent in bulk and mass with other adjacent residential uses. In fact their total floor area is less than would be allowed under the current Two Family Residential zoning. 7) Effects Upon the Aesthetics of the Town and Surrounding Land Uses The Vail Mountain School and the eight EHUs will need to comply with all applicable Design Review Board guidelines. There are existing trees that would be removed as the result of the project. Approximately 330 aspens and 40 evergreens. However, the landscape plan helps mitigate that impact. The applicant is proposing to add 445 deciduous trees and 250 evergreen trees to the site as part of the landscaping plan. 3. Findings. The following findings are used for a Major Subdivision: 0 1. That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Major Subdivision Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. 4. Staff Recommendation The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the preliminary plat for Vail Mountain School Subdivision, a resubdivision of Lots 11, 12, Tract C, and Katsos Ranch Road, Vail Village 12`r' Filing based upon the criteria evaluated in mentioned above in this memorandum. The recommendation of approval includes the findings mentioned above. In addition to the findings above, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) Within one year of the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval, the applicant shall submit a final plat to the Department of 26 11 Community Development for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. 2y Prior to submitting a final plat the applicant shall address all comments of the reviewing agencies to the satisfaction of the said agencies. Any comments shall be incorporated into the final plat. . Vl. ZONING ANALYSIS Vail Mountain School is located in the General Use Zone District. Pursuant to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the purpose of the General Use Zone District is to: provide sites for public and quasi -public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi -public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spa; es, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. [Orsi. 21 (1994) § 10]. Sections 12-9C-2 and 12-9C-3 of the Vail Town Code outline the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the General Use Zone District. Public and private schools and educational institut,-ons are a conditional use in the General Use Zone District subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The Agriculture Open Space zone District is outlined in 12-8A of the Town Code and the Two Family Residential District is in section 12-6C. 27 Zoning Analysis Lot 12 and Lot 11 Zoning: General Use *All development standards in the GU zone district are prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission Lot Size: 7.98 acres (Lot 12 S) or 347,826 sq. ft. Landscape Cover Snow Storage Floor Area Students Faculty 20,488 sf 261 43 55,390 330 48 Lot 12 S & Lot 11 2002 Proposed nla 25' 162' 135' 20' 25" 370' 20' F11r Welf, 16%/55,804 sq- ft - 71%/246296 t_71°/01246296 sq ft 31 % for main parking No defined storage for other parking 87,383 324 48 �M • Existing 2090_ Density: n1a nia Setbac ks: Cabin} Side/Booth Ck Rd n1a nla SidefEast nla Wa Frontinorth nla nla School Side/Katsos: 90' 24' Frontage Rd: 76' 76' Side: Booth Creek 358' 358' Rear: 23' 20' Height: 27' 36' Parking: 85 116 5 ite Coverage, 22,027 sf (8.26%) 141% Landscape Cover Snow Storage Floor Area Students Faculty 20,488 sf 261 43 55,390 330 48 Lot 12 S & Lot 11 2002 Proposed nla 25' 162' 135' 20' 25" 370' 20' F11r Welf, 16%/55,804 sq- ft - 71%/246296 t_71°/01246296 sq ft 31 % for main parking No defined storage for other parking 87,383 324 48 �M • Tract C • L� Zoning: Two Family Residential 1 Proposed zoning is Generai Use Lot Size: 1.194 acres or 52,010 square feet Existing (allowed TFR 2002 Proposed Density: 2/site Not counted towards density (potential for 3 lots) 6.7 unitslacre (Total = 8 EHUs) Setbacks Side: East 15' 138' Side: West 15' 30' Rear. North 20' 25' Front: South 20' 65' Height: 33' 33' Parking: 2.5/unit 16 Site Coverage: 20% 9% /4,859 sq ft. Landscape 76010139,692 Area Floor Area: 7318511 lot 8,478 (EHUs excluded from GRFA) 11,25013 lots of 15,040 total sq ft - 29 Summary of Entire Proiect Total Area: 9.18 Acres or 399,837 sq ft. Existing 2000 Approval Proposed Plan Density: n1a 8 EHU's = 4 dm,'s 8 EHU's = 4 d.U.'s Setbacks: Main School Huilding5etbacks: Cabin Side/Booth Ck Rd n1a n1a 25' Side/East n/a n1a 162' Front/north n1a n1a 135' School Side/Katsos: 90' 24' 20' Frontage Rd: 76' 76' 25" Side: Booth Creels 358' 358' 370' Rear' 23' 20' 20' Faculty Housing S-ide: East 138' Side- West 30' Rear: North 25' Front: South 65' Height: 27' 36' 36' - 42' Parking: 85 spaces 116 spaces 116 + 20 for events S ite Coverage: 22;027 sf (8.26%) 37,469 sf (14+1%) 60,663 sf (15%)* GRFA: n1a 4,840 square feet nla Total school 31,990 sf 55,390 sf 95,861 s€ Floor Area: • IS VAR �+ �+ F 1• s li l �$ �r� s ��:� ..« 1901114� � N5`_ UM � �Fl -00-OL 0 — ■ s m �1 Iiia F I : Nil 1QDHOS NIViNnON IN 4 L� i �A • 11 • ICOHOS NIVINnOM 11VA Ell! NYM aMA "lob, rl Fl - 6 -1 C7 r i ;; 100HOS NIViNnON li`dll .g W1111 i;.��r01111; Aj wo 1p i }}4 n eFSF'R r9$• 1 100HOS NIVINnOA 7A R Wd �Mffl R-21 F a Ir, 4-1 41t 717- I T I LZ E 0 I dig - - --------- dig MAO,, 'LIA 100HOS WNW TVA NVId HIISVVq III i v, PA 01 'A - jig it I FIN iii rililllal Njill 6i 4, L-1 li VLl 0 ------------- I is • 1 � Z f � - �•�,i N'd�dl�31Sb'VY , ii $'� ` --- 3- i L --j t �i �a I y� ■ f{ 11 Sf E;i�r=fii'�S 11Llm `7r^S'.11fi CEJ 3- i L --j t �i �a ■ 1UVHO+71�i�1NGIV11]IY11 LJ u k i ;, i �; IVd1d �31StliY ag } ai1l �1 l I E Vll�ldl! ' 11 -li i jilt IOOHOS NIViNnOW IIVA = I I { 1 ! M Wks" a if oil L� r� C7 100HOS NIVi nOW TVA ; Nrda3lS449 I IT F it} I i + _ v I a 4- t l S II II l I� IT F it} I i + _ v E f HVId H3.LM �ff1F i wk l 1 1 I I Ril I I AAlml • CPM )PA 100HOS NI' iNnON NYld MSYA i 100HOS NIVINnOW 1N1l i 0 0 100HOS NIViNnoNlIVA A e3 } } � s �i�f: 100HOS NIViNnoNlIVA A 11 112, 1511i'li, IOOHOS NIViNnOA IIVA ilFii MOM 100HOS NiViNnON TVA i � i • M 100HOS NIVIVOIN ]IVA f , gig it I I I I I I 1 ` I I I 1 I I I i I i! i I 1 1 ` I I I 1 I I I • 11 1 WVA 100HOS,(����dlN 11VA l�Sy ijt t I 41M 100HOS Wd 8UM NIVINAM 11VA ��i� ipl"!l i I Ij 1 1 1 1 1 1 pot • • 4j �p ICOHOS Nl�1NflQW SIVA • � , ! � � 1' �! , �tiT! I�r V a11�i w" � I I � � � � � .! 1 ! � I I �ii � -�— _ r I I I 'I ! �I tii __- m k 114 IOCHOS NIViNnOlA TVA Wid WISYN q i I rye rx a J7 fj 00 IOCHOS NIViNnOlA TVA Wid WISYN q i I I f5 vo TO ,' - '�;,.,�;4 •E". } I� .j �.� �f i `,SIM:, ��� i�. �•: N 'tri _ __ _ti-'��.:- �S' i • ::}_' - r� 1 •• � 'r�: y ' _ n ` 4S fit, ,� � N� � [^ �.{ • • . {�� � �'�' l 01 v •-f - ,,yam-- � I r+:a• •�,. � 71 �'�-: �'i'.;4 ; � � A• � - .:��.: :�' FIs ' .t . 50 r �"; �. `�_`--r: • �1 . ,r • - � • ?ll x- fµ _ 1 I • 'Yr .'2�a�'t� -•fir;., .� •4 -�;+:'... I••-, iAkY•['�` ;- ` .`;'�#' .i Isf - f�. •:.' '-_�!�y r.r.'" _ .. �;'air riy L'i��'.. v •'��y,I- � •_. � � K�Rq.i ' `'• ' M1T.+' .Jr `IyL"r � r 00 r r 'r �4, y.: w ti-in-';;;y,A,";y'�.;'i•��f+�Fy�. ; Irl+ _�L.:� +, � f� ,,}. I.� i ih. JIM I'.Y ^.•r;.h � r�.•9) � 1yµ - .p i �� ,: iqp rc.��.E... z�0] X71 i '_ i '� ji.l• i�:,4� S r fa �`F':ti.� �' ..� � •' A •�� �x�i! '' : l; i�l �� - r 'Y'rti y � a' I'�J f . , L ` � - r = •---� r fir. � �'' y v�. n..�-• � .. Wil. r f�- j' ��� .i �i ,! �yi�f ■"-::, �.'r-�; - � _ .�f�;• ':� �.L tea+-' I y Jr -kid •y - =`tip ';Y �. �-�' ] .f i• y ���� E��-J"' �r--•-i'��,. vim-- �' .�'f1 r+�''�: �: .� ` s,. i . �" • •. � ,: ,per;,;:.,; t Snr PF lililth-WHIY1Y HIM I ft6e • 100HOS N VINnaw lldn - NO rJ Jr f rf rrJ,' r ! rfr�r�, � � 1 i r �I !fir 1 '1 I i --r ?•'�;;;� r r rr r r rrlfrrr I lrl r rl r Ir r r r 1 1,';�,�+. 'r'�riF'.rr Jrr � rrrrfJ�11 Jr r �• r rl r+ � 1 r I ;'':-.� - rrrfr- Jr ;f�-ff l�frrrr�rrfrrl rJrr JJrJrrrlrlr rr =1 +�I�, �,�.. r:•! r/ r r/ J r J r I r r I r I' '. •' / r r J ,C J,.( r 1 r ■ Jr r r .'f ! •�1L� I S : •� ri ' Jfr � � lrrJ,'S[•'rf r I 1 J rr r r.y I I� •`:.'I ' r r r r� r / r r r r r r J J• I r„',•rr;-; ',�;� .ir r r r rrr r I�rr rl I I r J r I• I;�f�`r 1'� � r�'� { rrJ'/r I � J J r � i i i rl {I r r { I��:�{ ; •1 �i;, 1 Jf � • . �,� , / rr. rI r r r rr r � Ir � •k. S � { rJ Jf • Jr, f JrJ rJ r+ fro r � 1'. r J r oo 17 r J I r rl r Ir r ' � ~ `� � • I� Ir JJrIJrJI Ir rr Jr � Ir r� r � � -- ! I I P r r j 1 rl j �,1 •” V ;F- �1 - -- _� I r Ji - -- •L ,1 J} •y^+^r,�ri'1. - —'�" r•`.J- + l .1.111 A-�•`y � r f n iml jr IMM 'ED I l y�+1 N,� _ I , 1 r e r L J 3 100HO5 NiyiNnoN iw W 1 ..3�'717 r CJ y- Xo' Z • Attachment B Information From Applicant 32 EBAI/BRAUN ASSOClATFS, INC. � PLANNING and COMMUNITY ❑EVELOPMEN'T August 6, 2002 Planning and Environmental Commission And Russell Forrest, A1CP Director of Community Development Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: August 22 hearing for Vail Mountain School Project, Vail, Colorado Dear Planning Commission Members: 0 Thank you again for your insightful comments on the Vail Mountain School project. We appreciated the opportunity to review with you our progress on the project at your last meeting - We are requesting a final review of the project at the August 12 hearing and believe that we have addressed all of the issues raised by the PEC and the neighbors. The revised plans that have been submitted address the specific comments raised at the July 22 hearing. Below is a list of the comments and how we have addressed them: Rotate or pivot the soccer field to provide increased separation of the northwest corner of the field to Boothfalls Road. o The plans were revised to provide this separation and provide a landscape berm between the soccer field and Boothfalls Road. • Move the bus stop to the west side of the bus stop loop. o The bus stop has been relocated to the west side of the bus stop loop. • Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the bus stop to the school and provide a raised crosswalk within the parking area.. a A direct pedestrian co;uiection and raised crosswalk have been provided. Edwards Village Ce -titer. Suae C-209 Ph_ - 970.926.7575 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Fax - 970.926.757+1 Post Office Box 2658 www.braunassociates,corn Edwards, Colorado 81532 • Provide a painted crosswalk at the entrance on Boothfalls Road to allow pedestrians the ability to cross. o A crosswalk has been provided in addition to sidewalk connections to the bus stop area. Provide a paved path from the cabin arca to the school. o A paved path has been provided, Add a statement in the parking management plan that the school will pursue an agreement with the Town of Vail to utilize the Boothfalls trailhead parking area for overflow parking during special events. o This language has been added to the Special Event Parking Managcmcrit Plan (attached). We believe that we have addressed your final comments on the project and hope that you will approve/recommend approval of all of our applications, Thank you again for your help on this project. r el Domini F "Maurielln, MCP 2 Vail Mountain School Special Event Parking Management Plan u�1TAIN August 8, 2002 • L LI Vail Mountain 5choo 5pecal Event Parking Management Plan Augu5t 12, 2002 Purpo5e The purpo5e of this Special Event Parking Management flan (here after, "Plan") 15 to regulate how parking 15 controlled during 5peoal event5 at the Vail Mountain 5chooi (VMS) campus. The 5chool will utilize th15 Man when planning Special event5 or when working with community groups de5iring to u5e the 5chool'5 facihtie5. Thi5 Plan 15 intended to be a quide. Additional parking 50lUtl0n5 may be developed by the 5chool working in concert with the Town of Vail. II. Special Events The proposed 5chool facilities have been designed to addre55 the typical programmatic needs of the Vail Mountain 5chool. The parking provided on the 51te will meet the day-to-day needs of the school. Additionally, the i 1 E parkincj 5pace-5 provided on-5ite exceed the Town's parking requirement for a 404-5eat auditorium. The Town'5 parking requirement of 1 parking per 120 5q, ft. of 5eatincg floor area generates a need for 30 parking 5pace5 ;3,500 5q. ft. 5eating area). however, VMS under5tand5 that certain rare event5 may exceed the Town's parking calculation and the number of Standard 5pace5 provided on -Site. VM5 will from time -to -time have event5 in the auditorium or within the athletic facil,tie5 that may generate parkinq demand beyond the normal capacity of the: de5,gnated parkinq areas. In these rare circuri5tance5 alternative parking 5cenario5 and modes of tran5portat on will need to be utilized. VM5, on a ca5e-by-ca5e ba5r5, may allow other community groups to utilize :t5 facil+tIe5. These community event5 may reauire Special provi5ion5 for parking depending on the number of participant5 and the type of event planned. SIl. Parlung Alternatives Durincg 5pecIa! events VMS may employ (or require of others utilizing the 5chool facl11tte5) the following parking management techn,que5 in order to reduce parkirn,� impacts to the neighborhood and the Town'5 Street network. One or a combination of the following technique5 may be utilized. A parking Flan 15 attached to ths5 pian. 2 ■ Fncourac3c users to utilize the Town of Vail bus system. The Town's bus stop 15 located on the property and 15 proximate to the 5chool'5 fac l t,e5. VMS will use notices, letters, or flyers to indicate that the Town'S bus 5y5tem is available and encourage participants to take the bus to and from the campus. • Require/encourage the use of private 5huttle5 to deliver u5er5 to the- property heproperty from other remote public park,ncj areas. These public parking areas may include the CQDT parking area located at the east Vail interchange, Booth Falls Trailhead parking area, Ford Park parking areas, the Vail Wlage parking Structure. and the bon5head Parking structure. Any use of the Town's parking facilities will reclu+re coordination with the Town of Vail. ■ Employ the services of a parking valet to )5e the on-site parking areas as efficiently as possible. With valet service approximately 20 additional cars that can be accommodated within the designated parking areas. • Encourage carpooling by users and partic pants. The school will notify guest and users that parking is limited on the property for Spec+al events and will encourage them to ride together. • The Vail Mountain School will pursue an agreement with the Town to allow overflow parking during special events. on the boothfa115 Trail Head parking area in exchange for the use of VMS parking for the Town's overflow to the Summer motith5. IV. Parking Re5tr;ction5 Parking on Booth Falls Road, Kat505 Ranch Road. and the North Frontage Road will not be endorsed or encouraged by VMS. VMS. through notices to parents, participants, and u5er5, shall indicate that parking 15 prohibited on Booth Pal15 Road, Kat5o5 Ranch Road, and the North Frontage Road. VMS will work with the Town of Vail and code enforcement to ensure that u5er5 of the school facilities do not park on these neicghborhood streets. W • s :7 • AUG -01-02 THU 13:23 ROH HIGGINS GROUP FAX NO, 3037722329 P. 01 T R A N S P R T A T i L7 N G R 1 u R MEMORANDUM Date. August 1, 2002 801048 Parkins","" pd To: Dominic Maurlello Braun Associates, in . (via FAX. 970.926.7576) From: Jo Ann Higgin 4 ' Subject. Vail Mountain School Project - Parking and Access Since completion of the traffic impact study (TIS) dated May 9, 2002 for the Vail Mountain School Project, the proposed school parking configuration has been revised. The TIS was based on a total c 115 parking spaces on the site with 80 parking spaces in the main school lot access from Booth Falls load and 35 spaces in the faculty housing lot access from Katsos Manch Road. The current plan identifies a total of 120 parking spaces with 92 spaces in the main school lot (Booth Falls Road access), 12 spaces in the northern lot fBooth Falls Road north access), and 16 spaces in the faculty housing lot (Katsos Ranch Road access). The parking supply on the school carrlpus will sufficiently serve the average day to day school operations. These operations currently include school plays, performances, meetings, and athletic events. The revised parking configuration will result in slight diversions in traffic (15- 20 vehicles) from the Katsos Ranch Road to the Booth Falls Road intersection along the Frontage Road. This traffic diversion does not warrant the need for auxiliary lanes along the Frontage Road since the percent increase in traffic over existing volumes will remain at less than 20%. As noted in the TIS, alternatives to reduce parking demands should be considered if an event occurs on the site or at the auditorium that Creates a parking demand in excess of the proposed 120 spaces. A parking management plan has been established by the school that addresses parking dernands and methods for containing these vehicles on site for large events. The parking a Iternatives include shuttle service during large events, valet parking assistance where vehicles are stacked on the site, or identifying overflow park ng areas such as remote parking areas. Because less than 10 events per year are planned at the auditorium, on-site parking should be adequate in most cases. There are adequate areas (remote and valet parking, etc) that allow foroptaortunities to contain excess parking demands within the site boundaries. This concludes our supplemental review of the current parking and access plan for the Vail Mountain School site. P-0BOX 1 9765, BOULDCR, COLORADO E30308 -276S r'H©NE: 303-552-3571 r rAX: 203-652-0574 kid/ ki 1 1 .01132 t7z);U0 7ed—ljr.o—rIjI❑ OM04UN Hzx-->UU1caor-,j rHur- ell BA!/BRAUN ASSOCIATES. INC. K MNlNG and COMMUNITY D� OPMENT FAX TRANSMISSION To: gjlSs ��ao- FAX#- q' 9- a Lf5 z - FROM: fD�1L-1 - DATE: Z �:d - RE: , AkS PAGE$: (includes this cover sheet) COMMENTS: 6e der �eorer� : I (?eu S '30 Please cull if you have not received all pages or have any Problems with this trvrisxniiSiCTL E&war&1,rj ge Cerner, Suite C-209 Ph. -970.926.7575 4105 EdvAardsi/illage Boulevard Fax - 970.926.7576 hast O[fce Baa 2650: vnvwkraunassoriates.=n Edwards, Ccktrado 81632 r L-1 40 08/07/2002 05:05 970--926.7576 BRAUN ASSOCIATES PAGE 02 ' 0810712802 17:02 3038532204 l PUG. 7. ME 4;12PM CIVITRS SELECT10N D PAGE 04 NO. 939 p - 22 TY. SIZE DECIDUOUS TREU CUPL-LEAF, MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY 50 5G ALNUS-ENUIFOLIA • THIN -LEAF ALKR 25 5.61 6& FRAMUS PENNSYLVANICA LANCEOLATA GREE! ASH 10 3" CAL, POPULUS ANGUSTIFOLIA NARROMEAF COTTONWOOD 26 2" CAL, FOPULUS TREMULDIDES MAKING ASPEN 385 2" 'CAL. GAILLARDIA X GRANDIFLORA BLANKET F0WER 300 1C LAVANDLIV ANGUSTIFOLIA ENGLISH LAVENDER 200 1G AB1ES LASIDGASP� SUaALRINE FIR 56 6-10, PICEA PUNGENS COLORADO SPRUCE 125 5.10' PINUS ARISTATA DRIST�FCONE LINE 25 5.101 PINUS PONDEROSA PONDEROSA PINE 55z 6.10' DECIDUOUS SHRUBS 0 ARTEMISIA FILIFOLIA SAND SAG►:SRUSH 150 0 AMELANCHIER ALNIFOL[A SERVIGEBERRY 1110 6' Bia CARAGANA ABORESCEN5 SIBERIAN PEASHRUB 1E0 5G CORNUS STCLGNIFERA REO OSIER DOGWOOD 50 5G COTONEAS T ER ACUTIFOLIA PEKING CCTONEASTER 50 5G JAMFSIA AMERICANA MOUNTAIN MOCKCRANGE 100 5G LONICERA INVOLUCRATA BEAR�ERRY HONEYSUCKLE 60 5G MARONIA REPENS • CREEPING GRAPE HOLY 100 5G RISES ALPINUM ALPINE CURRANT 19 5G RISES AUREUM YELLOW FLOWERING CURRANT iso bG SYRINGA VULGARIS COMMON LILAC 5C. 5G VIBURNUM OP'ULUS EUROPEAN CRANBERRYEIUSH 5G 6G CcNIFERaUS-SHRUBS CERCOCARPL1S �EDIFOLIUS CUPL-LEAF, MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY 50 5G JUMPERUS HORIZONTALIS 'BLUE CHIP' IBLUE CHIP JUNIPER 100 5G JUNIAERUS SABINA 'BUFFALO' BUFFALO JUNIPER 100 5C JUNIPERUS SABINA TAMARISCIFOLIA TAMARIX JUNIPER 100 5C GRO UN DCOVERSI'ER1MS AAUILEGIA COLUMBINE 400 1G ASTER ALPINUS PURPLE ASTER 475 IG UHlRYSANTHEUM MAXIMUIVI SHASTA DAISY 450 iG COREOPM GRAIDIFLCRA CCREOPSIS 475 1G ECHINACER PURPUREA PURPLE CONEFLOWER 400 If GAILLARDIA X GRANDIFLORA BLANKET F0WER 300 1C LAVANDLIV ANGUSTIFOLIA ENGLISH LAVENDER 200 1G LIMONIUM LATIF>OLIUM SEA LAVENDER 400 9G SEDUM AUTUMN JOY 400 1G 08/07/2002 05:e5 978-926-7576 U,8/97/2M 3.7:82 3038532704 DATE: August 7, 7002 TO: Kyle Schracdcr COWANY: Klipp Colussy3enks Dubois FAX NUMBER: 303-893-2204 FROM: Tia Nord SUBJECT: Lighting Standards )PROJECT NUMBER: 7511.01 MESS.A CE: BRAUN ASSOCIATES K= ILE SgUTAL 'NUMBER OF FACES: 1 (MCLUDING COVER) PAGE 03 {SAGE 132 BIAUDIN GANzE coili<i3k.'f C Gow" Qrsm w.+n us 1'sQ V*,Vm � om M -3s The cxtcdor lighting design for the Vail Moutitain School meets the Town of Vail Development Standards as follows. I, freight Limits - Type S I fixture is rnotmted to a S' ptilc which is the maximum height allmued for a residential zone - 2. Light Sources Affixed To Structures - Type S2 is a wall sconce mounted to the wall at a height of 10' above finished ground, taus meeting the requirement that no fixoze is mounted on the roof. 3. Cutoff Shields - Type Sl fm=c meets the cut-off requireuzent by:t louver that shields the lamp and does not emit light above 60 degrees from vertical. 4. Luruinaace - For type S3 the ratio of source lumens, 9,000 lumem, to luminous area, 100 sq. in., is 90 which is less them the maximum 125. Calculation Suuu nary The illumin cc level the parking lots are designed to are those recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society. The average illutrlirance level for the West and East Pmking lot are 0.4 footcazdles and 0.2 footcandles, respeativeiy. PLEASI Vk' x UCFM ❑P ALL PAGES. r' &-TY ARE MSSLNG, MEASE CALL (303) 278-3824 FOR RZTRANSi4f:[S&ON. cc: GIWr sMffwee? r.d 4 0-Wk4WVKO 9-41Ww lTw"--r fntw—u F uCL-W751141S"nN 10 smrdzr& ev*;wmdvs 0 r�L :7 LJ 0 08/07/2002 05:05 970-926--7576 BB/07/2002 17;02 3038932204 Ax. 7. EWE 411"PM CIV17PIS Fax To: Kyle Schraeder Kli cluwt JenDuBois From; a DesJardins IPM10 Vall Mountain School Sulajact: Daminlc's request BRAUN 4S5CCIATES KC.JD Fam NQ= 303.93.2244 0atx pug, 7. 02 CVr Nn., F= Not Pagel; 2 Md MAWU kyle. Plimae plod mn lassd aI table of vegdolon that Dominic mquesDad, PAGE 04 PAGE 03 HD.939 P11r2 CMTAS ;�VTb&M lyail=eat. +Planarro .-LgA41140pe ACChIt4f 08/09/2002 62:49 970-926-7576 BRAUN ASSMIATES PAGE BI BAI/BRAUN ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANN(Nr. and CAMKJNfTY DEVELOPMEW FAX TRANSI+ USION T4: FAX #: FROM: DATE ?) RE-- 64 J�j,,_ PAGES.- (includes AGES:(includes this cover sheet) COIH>hAIEIWTS: .l f Please *Wl If you have not received all p"es or have any problems with this transmission. Edwards ViNe Cer$e , Suite 0,209 �� PK - 970.920575 0105 t✓dwards Viltage SaAevard t Fax - 970,926.7576 Pbst Qfike Box 2650 www.braaormoQareccvm Hoards, Colorado 81632 s LJ • 08/09/2002 02:49 88/07/2002 77:02 970-926-7576 3038932284 4',12PM CIVITRS BRAUN ASSOCIATES KCJD PAGE 02 PACS 04 No. 9399 R. 2/2 PLANT SELE07ON QTY, 81� � FALNUS FDLIA THIN -LEAS ALDER LANCEOLATA GPEEN ASH 25 6-6'NNSYLVANICA GUSTiFOUA MULDIDES NARROW,L AF COTTONWOOD ID 25 3" CAL= 2" CAL, 0WING ASPEN 385 2" 'GAL CONIR RODS TREES ARIES _ASIOCARPA PICEA PUNGENS SUBALPINE FIR �� 50 6 -�0� 6 PINUS ARISTATA COLORADO SPRUCE SRIS'1•LECQNE �IH� -SD' PINUS PONDEROSA PINE 25 50 5-��' 610' DECIDUOUS SHRUBSPOHDEPoSR ARTEMISIA FILiFOLfA AMELANCHIER ALNI�OLIR SAND SAQZaRVSH 160 5G CARAGANA ABDRESCE)ls CORNUS STOLWNIFERA SERVICEBERRY S16FRIAN PEASHRUB i6d 1gp 6' BI B 5G COTONIEASTER ACUTIEOLIAc REO OSIER voQWOOioll Y� COTON�AS i 50 5a 5G JAMESIA AMERICANAPI~i�IIvG OI�ICE�4A I�VDLUCRArA �R MOUNTAIN M4CKDPAI�41; In 6G 5G ,RI�oNIA R',PEI�S � BEARBFPRYMOUNTAIN NErsUCI<�� CRE.,PIN�a GRAPE �� RIBES ALPWUm RISES AUREum a~iaLY ALPINE CURPANT 100 5G SYRINGA VULGARIS YELLOW FLOWERING CURRANT COMMON L)X 160 &G VIDURNVM OPUI_US EUROPEAN CRAN5ERRY6J8H 5c 50 50 5G CONRRDLS-SHRUSS CERCOCARPUS 1_ERIFOLIUS JUfVIPERUS HORVONTAL1S 13L, E CHIP' CURL -LEAF, MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY BLUE CHIP JUMPER 50 5G JUNIPERU8 SABINA 'WALO' BUFFALO JEINIPER 100 5 JUNiPERVS SABINA TAMARISCIFOLIA TAMARix .JUNIPER ISD X00 5G GROUNOGOVER&p 1mm AQUILEGIA ASTER AL�IIVUS COLUMPINE PURPLE ASTER 400 ' IG QdRYSANT�HEUM MAXIMUM COREOPSIS GRADIFLOAA SI a45TR DAISY 475 455 4G IG EC�HINACEA PURPU9EA GAILLARDIA K GRANDIFLORA GOREOFSIS PURPLE CONEFLOWER a 4 7s 4 50 IG 1G LAVANDULA ANG�JSTIFOLIA BLANKET FLOWER ENQLI51-1 LAVENDER 304 0 iG LIMONIUM LATIEOLIUM SEDUM SEA LAVENDER 400 1G 1G AUTUMN Jor 400 TG 08/09/2002 02:49 970-925-7575 06/07/2002 17:02 3E38932204 DATE: August 7, 2002 BRAUN ASSOCIATES KCJD LAMM ILE TRANSMUAL TO: Kyle Schroeder COMPANY: Klipp Colllssy Jenks Dubois FAX NUMBER: 303-893-2204 FROM: Tia Noxi SUBJECT: Lighting 5tmdi PROaCT NCIf$ER: 7511.01 MESSAGE: NUMBER OF PAGES: I (INCLUDING COVER) PAGE 03 PACE 02 CI]HStlR.MC r(mQnts, INC. WDOW offim 11 M41 Ddmw wsct rk1 kft W w pwl 03M Zri-We The exterior lighting design for the Vaal Motmtain School meets the Town of Vail Development Standards as follows. 1. Heigbt Limits - Type SI fixture is mounted to a 8' pole which is the maximum height allowed for a residential zone. 2. Light Soarces Afxcd To Structures - Type S2 is a wall stance- mounted to the wall in a height of 10` above fznishad ground, thus meeting the requirMunt that no fixture is mounted on the roof. 3. CutofTShields - Type S1 fixture meets the cut-off requixemcat by a louver that shields the lamp and docs not emit tight above 50 degrees fmm vertical. A. Luminance - For type S3 the ratio of source lumens, 9,000 lumens, to lwninotus area, 100 sq. in., is 94 Which is less thea the maximum 125, Calculation Sulumary The illuminance level the parking lots are designed to arc those rmornmcnded by the Illumination Eagineering Society. Tbc average illuminance level for the West and East Packing lot are 0.4 footcandles and 0.2 footcandles, respectively. PF EASE VERIFY RECaPT OF ALL PAGES. EF AP1'3i AU ir+Q MNr,, FLFASE CALL (303) 27$-387.0 FOR nTRANSKISSjori. cc: y u7ccumrnu W4 Lrtrft0 %%L"0 Sa*V, TU'0-" ""M r#tW-VU1751101>lYMN C9* reS§4 COrf"A .dm r -1 L-A 6 11 C� LJ 0810912002 02:49 970-926-7576 08/08/2002 15:22 3834496912 AutU5T 7, 2oo2 MR. PETER M. AbUl!)l - tlL-AM tASTtR VAJL [FOUNTAIN �)CH003'_ 316CG KAT E ;ZANCH ROAD VAIL [C). 8157 BAR MR, AbLY51 BRALJN ASSOCIATES WINSTON ASSOCIATES mill! 'j" HANK% YOU FOP. YOUR �T ; �u nT AI c,aST or TH- - VAIL MOUNTT AIN _�CHOOL TO HELP P THE �,ATSO65 RANCH JZCAV NE I W +DOR 00)0 L1=77tR AN-) APPRtCIATv T}HE atVl5IQ,%iD Ti4E DtVELQP,MNT OT 7 RALT TH: NMI -1@0q,5 IJNLXR.5TAN0 THE DIMCU1,T STAW OP i Ht PROJECT GIVtN `Hi AWITION, VAI;, MOWirVER THE MIGHCORD ARE CONC Y:)1 LETrM CAA1C>_R LNG Trlt LAN05CAPINC TO HELP RESDLVE THIS nITUATION WE Wt O7P9QRTQNITY TO REVIEW i r[E 5PEC.IPIC P'. A5 THEY Alk DEVtLOPED AND PRIOR, TO I NtIGN �DR� C -AN R°1" A;N IN THE PPOC-59 TOWN CON"1PLETING 'sT.'SAI; AMEW OF THt PP THE KLY MsUES FOR THt NKHBC>Pji0Op THE KlrjHD0R5 WANT 10 0E ZURE PERCENTAGt OF tVtRGl7.ttt-5 UX C PERENNIAL PLAwNTINGS AR: CON --X51 LA1uC)3C�PING BEST COPY AVAILABLE 2ccz AND THE QtNtRAL GC7F`T'+iT•9tNT.5 IGATt THE IMPACTS OF THt txPAMNON ON At NEI-uHl30;U HAVE RtVIEWEO YDUR :H iL HrAy rV%OE TO i Fit KLOPM v 'N MAKINQ --�PM71C COiT" IIiMNIT-5 AT THIS . AtVIEW RtC LARE'D PY 7HL TOWN Of LNtO ADOUT THE LACK Of' JPFCrFjCITY {N AN'; ARCHITICTURI= OF' PRQjEGY L) REQUEST THAT 7Ht NCIGHDOP5 I-IIAV'E AN MR THE LAa�I175GAPt AND AP4KTECTLJR.E TO�--t� RtVIEw TH15 WAY THE 4E. 0LVE ANY 1-5- . C5 PRIOR TO -,Ht CT Aly rOLLOWS: iA-r TKSIZE AND %;mnm OY TR.=t ] RM: LANDSCrAPt D0ULptR,5 AND (T WITW THE C"3'glITM&NT OF *!Q)5 T ANTIAL 11 $18Ic)z PAGE 04 PAGE 02 IN -4i0 -92,3D • FAA 701.4-V.6401 I - WVYW WItiSTOKA6SOC,ATgVcor1 ZZ99 PEAAL SYKEET, SUITE 100 - 4OUL00k. CG 10302 OB/09/2002 02:49 970-925-7576 89/06/2092 15:22 3E34496911 BRAUN ASSOCIATES WINSTON ASSOCIATES Z. THt DULDING ARCH- 7tCTURE INCI-UDE-� HC.H QUALITY D?SiGN AND P-ATtRIAL'J WHICH I VGLUDE NATURAL 5T0NE CAPP*f)XIMATFLY ;L5i6 OF THE tXT(-AICR ELEVX710N) IAISTAULEQ TO APPtAk A51PAIRT OF THE- DUIL.DINC. STRUCTURI: ANO THA.- THt DeML7 ANf? MATtRIALS Chi EACH POUR PLC% ARC :,ur citNTLY pl1'FERtNT 50 THE BUILVING,S WiL.L N� APPEAR iDtNTICAL. ` He NEIGHDM5 UN Q --NANO THt _�CHOOL 151 NOT IN A PO.517I ON +0 C.ortlT TO THESE iTtM UNlTIL THt MlA!LE'D 0G.5;GN 0 rURTHEALONG R^THER Tr?AN WM-4HOLD 7Ht NE-lQ}-;5[7AH0C0'� voppoRT Of THE PROJECT cit TO LACK OF SPl`GiF G5 AT TLiV TME THEY WOULD nA-THER WORK GOonRATIVELY *iTH TrgE _�CH(X>L A5 THL 0``TAIL5 Qr THE PRQ)L-C7 CAN 3E .PROVIDED. � i THAr''K--) YOU FOR YOUR C01ti:SI9r;;LAT10N OF i'H1i5 APPROACH AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUSt RE--PON_]e �iltiGtR�LY i WIN�TON A n0QlAT`I:� INC, t 1 1 RODEIRT L PERL'-Tx A,.�LA _�ENfck ,4�XoGIATL- i i QQ NtNNY LUDIN w i [ oOM IC MAVRtELUD DRAUN A-% a TES PAGE 05 PAGE 03 A F - -I L J 2I 6/8/CZ 303.440-9240 • FAX 743.44Y.6911 - WWW .W N3� TONASSOCIATE¢.C4m 2294 CIcARL STiEE S✓ LT1 00C • 8OtriOEx. CO 4*3ra Approved 8/26102 3. A request for a final review and recommendations of the following applications related to the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Mountain School - 1) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone 3010 Booth Falls Road/Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12"' Filing from Two -Family Residentlal to General Use; 2) A request far a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone a portion o" Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 121r Filing from Agriculture & Open Space to General Use; 3) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12`h Filing from Two -Family Residential to General Use; 4) A request for a recommendation to amend the of€icial Town of Vail Land Use Map for Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 121h Filing from Low Density Residential to Public/Semi-Public; 5) A request for an amendment to the previously approved development plan and a new conditional use permit for a private educational institution and an active outdoor recreation area at 3410 Booth Fails Road/Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12t" Filing and 3160 N. Frontage Road East/ Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village W' Filing; 6) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of eight Type III E H U s located at Tract C. Stock 1; Vail Village 12`" Filing; 7) A request for a conditlonal use permit to allow for temporary modular classroom structures located at 3166 N. Frontage Rd. East/ a part of Lot 12, Block 2. Vail Village 12" Filing; 8) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the Official Town of Vail Rockfail Hazard Map to indicate approved mitigation for 3160 N. Frontage RoadiLot 12, Block 2, and Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12,h Filling; 9y A request for a final review of a preliminary plat for a major subdivision in accordance with Title 13, Chapter 3, Vail Town Code, and setting fortis details in regards thereto, located at Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12" Filing and Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12'h Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner. Russ Forrest Russ Forrest gave a presentation per the staff report. John Schofield stated that his wife is on the board of trustees, however, he has no economic gain from any decision and therefore feels he has no conflict of interest George Lamb recused himself, as he has been a parent of a student for the past 15 years and is a neighbor in the immediate area. Dominic Mauriello stated that the staff report accurately rerlected the current proposal. He then explained to the boards changes in the plan. He said the soccer field shifted closerto the parking lot to pull it away from Booth Falls Road. He pointed out a raised crosswalk from the bus stop to the internal pedestrian circulation system and said a paved path from the proposed northwest corner has been put in place. In addition, he said the parking master plan has a statement added that there will be shared parking agreement with the Town, with regards to the proposed new parking area and the Booth Falls traiIhead_ He said currently the applicant wou€d like to grade the soccer field at the relocated Katsos Ranch Road yet this year and then next year, begin construction of the eastern portion o` the building. He stated that the applicant would prefer not to construct the pike path along the Frontage Road as a part of Phase One. He stated that the applicant was willing to provide whatever guarantee was needed to appease the concern that the path will be constructed. Erickson Shirley asked if he meant a bond. Dominic Mauriello stated yes, a bond - Erick son ond. Erickson Shirley asked how they would calculate the cost three years out for the construction process. Dominic Mauriello stated that the TCO could be conditioned on the construction of the bike path. He also stated that he believed the Town had a methodology for figuring out bond amounts. Approved 8126102 Gary Hartman asked where construction fencing would go? Dominic Mauriello stated that he wasn't certain, but that it would be slightly past the property line to allow for the proposed grafting which will take place in the right-of-way. Gary Hartman added that he and several others where concerned with keeping a safe pedestrian right- of-way along the Frontage Road. Dominic Mauriello brought up a concern with Condition 8 regarding a cash deposit for the remaining portion of the bike path. He added that he would like to see a time frame for refunding the money if the Town does not follow up on construction. He added that he would like to see a condition that the eastern most module could be moved adjacent to the western existing without coming pack to the PEC for a conditional use. Russ Forrest stated that cash is always nice. He added that five years is a typical time frame for refunding money, A neighbor woman said she saw the school growing by leaps and bounds and she didn't want to see Booth Falls Park and tennis court converted to a soccer field. Russ Forrest stated that the applicant has requested and received Council approval to proceed through the process to explore youth -size soccer fields on Tract A and Booth Creek Park. Alan Dansen said he was pleased with the process and plan and glad to see the applicant working with the neighborhood. Rollie Kjesbo felt that some type of temporary bike path needed to be put in and he felt that if a temporary path was put in as a condition, it could be placed on TCC. He said he felt cash for 100 percent was the option to be utilized and pain back in five years. Erickson Shirley asked Russ what the Town would like to see. Russ Forrest stated that 125 percent was the norm and is what they would like to see. Rollie Kjesbo stated that he didn't see the need for 125 percent of the Tract C portion. Russ Forrest agreed and said that 100 percent was all that would be needed on Tract C portion. Erickson Shirley asked where the bus structure would be placed. Dominic Mauriello stated that the existing bus structure would remain on the current side. Gary Hartman stated that he fait the reason the Commission suggested moving the bus slop was so the soccer field could be shifted and he wondered if shifting the EHUs ccuid be moved to preserve the Aspens. Dominic Mauriello stated that they would need to shift them a great deal and he stated that currently they are set back into the slope to minimize the visual impact. Doug Cahill stated that he commended the applicant for all the work they have done to work with the residents and Town. He asked about the hazard berm protecting the relocated cabin. Dominic Mauriello stated that a berm was on the plan and height was not listed by the geologist in his first letter. Doug Cahill added that he would like to see the temporary bike path put in place and stated that a five Approved 8!26102 year bonding on Tract C was fine and he would attempt to get a condition for moving the modular, Russ Forrest discussed a concern with granting wide open approval of the modular structure. John Schofield pointed out that this plan is not greatly different from the plan approved two years ago and that movement of the module could be tied to the final DRB approval. He said he fel: the bike at was in need of some form of temporary existence. John Schofield called for a five-minute break to consider the motion, The meeting reconvened at 3:40 pm. MOTION: Erickson Shirley SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-1 (Lamb recused) APPROVAL REZONING 3010 BOOTH FALLS/LOT 11, BLOCK 2, FROM 2 -FAMILY TO GENERAL USE WITH THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF MEMORANDUM. MOTION: Erickson Shirley SECOND: Rollie Kjesbe VOTE; 5-0-1 (Lamb recused) APPROVAL REZONING LOT 12, BLOCK 2 FROM AGRICULTURE OPEN SPACE TO GENERAL USE WITH THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF MEMORANDUM. MOTION: Erickson Shirley SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-1 (Lamb recused) APPROVAL REZONING TRACT C FROM 2 -FAMILY TO GENERAL USE WITH THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF MEMORANDUM. is MOTION: Erickson Shirley SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE:5-0-1(Lamb recused) APPROVAL AMENDING THE HAZARD MAP WITH THE CRITERIA ON PAGE 21 OF THE STAFF MEMORANDUM, MOTION: Erickson Shirley SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE:5-0-1 {Lamb recused} APPROVAL AMENDING THE OFFICIAL LAND USE MAP FOR TRACT C FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUBLICISEMI-PUBLIC WITH THE FINDINGS ON PAGE 12-13 OF THE STAFF MEMORANDUM. MOTION: Erickson Shirley SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE:5-0-1(Lamb recused) APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE FINDINGS ON PAGE 19 AND THE. CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW. MOTION: Erickson Shirley SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE,5-0-1(Lamb recused) APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TYPE III EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS WITH THE FINDINGS ON PAGE 19 AND THE CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW. MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE:5-0-1(Lamb recused) APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE TEMPORARY MODULAR CLASSROOM STRUCTURES WITH THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF MEMORANDUM AND THE CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW, 5 Approved 8/26142 APPROVED CONDITIONAL USES WITH 13 CONDITIONS: The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with an easement for the existing public bus stop at the southwest corner of the property prior to building permit submittal. 0 The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with drainage easements in accordance with the proposed grading and drainage plans. These easements shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy for any proposed development on the site_ 3. Prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Occupancy for any phase of the school, the applicant shall complete and receive a Certificate of Occupancy for the eight employee housing units constructed on Tract C except for the occupancy of the cabin. 4. All housing units on Tract C shall be deeo-restricted as Type III employee housing units_ These units must be constructed in conjunction with the approved development plan. Required Type Ill deed -restrictions shall be recorded by the applicant with the Eagle County Clerk Recorder prior to the issuance of any temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy for development of the school. The employee housing units shall comply with the minimum requirements for Type III employee housing regulations, as defined in Chapter 12, of the Vail Town Code, 5. The bicyclelpedestrian path shall be constructed by the applicant as per the approved development plan. Construction shall be completed prior to receiving a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for phase 11 of the School which will include the food service facilities and gymnasium. If phasing does not occur on the project then the path shalt be completed before occupancy is granted for the school. An easement shall be provided to the Town of Vail by the applicant for the bike/pedestrian path prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant must submit a staging plan and have that plan .approved by the Town of Vail that would allow pedestrian access across the site from Katsos Ranch Road to Booth Falls Road during all phases of construction. 6. The administrator, at his discretion, shall require either a cash deposit, bond, or letter of credit to be submitted to the Town of Vail by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permits for 100% of the value of creating a bike path/pedestrian trail for the entire length of Tract C, Block 1. Vail Village 12'n Filing of the same quality and width as the path specified in condition number 5 above and more specifically described in the Devetopment Plan. If the Town of Vail does not complete a bicycle trail on this property within 5 years from the date of the issuance of a building permit, the Town small refund this deposit. 7. Approval of the conditional use permit for the development plan is conditioned upon the rezoning of Lots 12 and 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing to the General Use District and approval of a final plat. 8. The conditional use permit for the modular structures shall be null and void two years from the approval of the conditional use permit for the two modular structures. This conditional use permit is valid only for the current number of modular structures as of the date of this approval. The applicant can propose a change in location to the modular structures and submit a DRB 6 Approved 8126/02 application for the new location of the modular structures within 8 months of the approval of this conditional use permit - 9. The Vail Mountain School shall not use any public right of way forarkin . p g 10. A debris flow berm should be designed and constructed prior the location of the cabin on the northern portion of lot 12. A qualified engineer or geologist shall conclude in a written letter to the Community Development Department that the berm will adequately protect the cabin from a debris flow with out adversely impacting private or public property. 11. The applicant shalt verify with a qualified lighting expert that luminance for all types of exterior lighting do not exceed 125. The applicant shall submit a report to the Town that the lighting complies with the Town's development standards, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 12. The applicant shall submit revised development plans to the Town identifying adequate snow storage for the north parking area and the parking area for Tract C prior to the issuance of final Design Review Board approval. 13. The applicant will move the Bus Shelter to the north side of the bus lane to a location in accordance with the Public Works Department. The Bus lane and shelter shall be maintained throughout construction of the project, MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE:5-0-1 (Lamb recused) APPROVAL PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION WITH THE FINDINGS ON PAGE 28-27 IN THE STAFF MEMORANDUM AND TWO CONDITIONS: 1. Within one year of the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval, the applicant shall submit a final plat to the Department of Community Development for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission 2. Prior to submitting a final plat the applicant shall address all comments of the reviewing agencies to the satisfaction of the said agencies. Any comments shall be incorporated into the final plat. 4- A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to of an amendment to Section 12- 7--7 (Height), Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George RuthenWarren Campbell George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum - Erickson Shirley asked about the notification requirements of this type of application - George Ruther clarified that applications of this nature are published in the newspaper, but do not require adjacent property owner notification- George Ruther provided the official TOV zoning map, 40 outlining a I I properties zoned Public Accommodation ,Zone Distr, cts. Jay Petersen, representing Bob Lazier, presented thea lican ' pp t s proposal - Erickson Shirley asked Jay Peterson for clarification regarding other projects- City of Vail, Colorado VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 25, 2021 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to add an exemption to allow vaults for car lift systems to be excluded from the GRFA calculation and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0046) The applicant requests this item be tabled to November 8, 2021. ATTACHMENTS: File Name Staff Memorandum PEC20-0046 (final).pdf Attachment A. Applicant Narrative October 4 2021.pdf Description Staff Memorandum PEC20-0046 Attachment A. Applicant Narrative October 4, 2021 rowN OF vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 11, 2021 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow for underground car lifts to be added and exempted from GRFA calculations and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0046) Applicant: Mauriello Planning Group and KH Webb Architects Planner: Greg Roy SUMMARY The applicants, Mauriello Planning Group and KH Webb Architects, are requesting a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow for underground car lifts to be added and exempted from GRFA calculations. 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 forward a recommendation of approval of this application subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants request a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow for underground car lifts to be added and exempted from GRFA calculations and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0046) The purpose of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) chapter of Town Code is noted below: "This chapter is intended to control and limit the size, bulk, and mass of residential structures within the town. Gross residential floor area (GRFA) regulation is an effective tool for limiting the size of residential structures and ensuring that residential structures are developed in an environmentally sensitive manner by allowing adequate air and light in residential areas and districts. " In summary, GRFA is meant to control the bulk and mass of a building as viewed from the exterior of the property. The nature of underground car lifts means that they would not add to the bulk and mass of the building as viewed from the exterior and should be exempted from the GRFA calculations. As currently proposed, the entire vault would be required to be below finished grade. 11 will also not count as a portion of the lowest level for the basement deduction. This prevents a vault from being used as additional wall area below grade to increase the basement deduction, but also does not penalize applicants for adding a vault that may be below the basement level of the house. The benefit of allowing this additional exemption could lessen the visual impacts of exterior parking or additional garage bays on a home. It could also reduce the amount of lot area taken up by driveway space to accommodate the minimum parking requirements. By increasing the amount of possible interior parking, those externalities are removed from the visual aspect of a residence. Please see the applicant's narrative, dated October 4, 2021 and included as Attachment A for additional information. BACKGROUND The Community Development Department strives for rules and regulations that are consistent, enforceable, predictable and easily understood. The current code language does not address underground car vaults which are growing in popularity and are being requested more frequently. The proposed amendment will clarify the rules around these new features to ensure they are applied consistently and predictably in the future. IV. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE The applicant proposes the following language to be added to Title 12: The proposed amendments are as follows (text to be deleted is in StFikethFo g -h text that is to be added is bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.): Proposed new code language 12-15-3 (A)(1)(a): Town of Vail Page 2 (9) Underground vaults with a mechanical lift system for the purpose of enclosed parking, if all the following criteria are met: A. The vault is only used for the storage of vehicles. B. The vault floor to the finished floor elevation of the garage does not exceed sixteen feet (16') in height. C. The entire perimeter and volume of the vault shall be below finished grade. D. The vault is only accessible from within the garage. E. Any openings to the vault shall be no larger than the minimum required by Building Code. Underground vaults with a mechanical lift system for the purpose of enclosed parking that meet the criteria above shall not be considered as part of the lowest level for the purpose of the deduction for basements in subsection (6) above. V. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Commission will forward a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application and make the final decision. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Town Council. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. Town of Vail Page 3 VI. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code and Vail Land Use Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal: Vail Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Development Goal #1 • 1.3: The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. Vail 2020 Strategic Plan • Goal #3: Ensure fairness and consistency in the development review process. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and The general purpose of the zoning regulations is for "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". This text amendment is intended to allow for the addition of underground car vaults within a building. Doing so will enhance the character of the town as a residential community of the highest quality by reducing the visual impact of surface parking. It will also reduce the necessity of larger paved driveways to accommodate parking minimums. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The proposed text amendment will result in an improved level of development within the town. While lifts are not prohibited at this time, they may be underutilized due to the additional square footage of GRFA requirement or conflicting with a basement level deduction. Adding this language will keep the Town Code up to date on modern trends and allow car vaults to be regulated similarly as they become more popular. This will also have the desirable outcome of allowing more parking inside of a structure with no visual addition to the structure. Town of Vail Page 4 Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 3. The text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and The current regulations were not set up with a consideration of car vaults. As time has progressed, these have become more affordable and accessible to the single-family or duplex residence in Vail. Trends predict that these will become more utilized in the future and it would benefit the Town to set explicit regulations around them. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and The proposed language will provide a workable relationship that is consistent with development objectives. The proposed language fits easily into the GRFA exemptions and clarifies that it will not conflict with the basement deduction in subsection six. Staff did not find any conflicts or potential externalities that may arise from explicitly permitting these car vaults with the included criteria. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendments Staff will provide additional information as needed should the PEC and/or council determine other factors or criteria applicable to the proposed text amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval for the prescribed regulation amendment to the Vail Town Council. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined 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 to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: Town of Vail Page 5 "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow for underground car lifts to be added and exempted from GRFA calculations and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0046)" Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section Vll of the October 11, 2021 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 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 outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code, 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 Narrative, October 4, 2021 Town of Vail Page 6 To Amend the Zoning Code to Address the Opportunity for Mechanical Lift Systems to Provide for Parking 7 1 ;kd u Mauriello Planning Group Submitted to the Town of Vail: September 13, 2021 Revised October 4, 2021 I< \A/eb b A R C H I T E C T S Introduction New technologies have allowed for innovative methods to provide enclosed parking which was not contemplated when the Zoning Code was drafted. While these technologies have been around for a few years for multi -family or commercial usage, these opportunities have actually become more affordable and available to apply to single-family or duplex units. In partnership with KH Webb Architects, Mauriello Planning Group is submitting this application to amend the Zoning Code, in accordance with Section 12-3-7 Amendment, to allow for the opportunity to provide for car lift systems in single-family and duplex residential development. While car lift systems are not prohibited by the Zoning Code, there are other limitations that make the use of them challenging in single-family and duplex zone districts. The amendment is proposed for Section 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions. This section applies to the following zone districts: • HR - Hillside Residential • SFR - Single -Family Residential • R - Two -Family Residential • PS - Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential This section provides for various exclusions from the GRFA limits. The proposed amendment would add a ninth exclusion, allowing vaults for car lift systems to be excluded from the calculation of GRFA. The applicant has worked with staff on the language and has proposed the following: Underground vaults with a mechanical lift system for the purpose of enclosed parking, if all the following criteria are met: a. The vault is only used for the storage of vehicles. b. The vault floor to the finished floor elevation of the garage does not exceed sixteen feet (16) in height. c. The entire perimeter and volume of the vault shall be below finished grade. d. The vault is only accessible from within the garage. e. Any openings to the vault shall be no larger than the minimum required by Building Code. Underground vaults with a mechanical lift system for the purpose of enclosed parking that meet the criteria above shall not be considered as part of the lowest level for the purpose of the deduction for basements in subsection (6) above. In 2004, when the GRFA limits were increased, there was also an increase in the number of parking spaces required for homes. Prior to 2004, the parking requirement was a maximum of 2.5 spaces for any home over 2,000 sq. ft. When GRFA was increased, the parking requirements were drastically increased. Current parking requirements for dwelling units is as follows: <2000 sq. ft. = 2 spaces 2,000 sq. ft. - 3,999 sq. ft. = 3 spaces 4,000 sq. ft. - 5,499 sq. ft. = 4 spaces >5,500 sq. ft. = 5 spaces Homes now require significantly more parking than what was required previously. The increased parking requirements have caused projects to have significantly more pavement and more site disturbance to construct the additional parking spaces. At the same time, there was no increase in garage credit of 600 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, which equates to approximately 2 parking spaces. The construction of garage area in excess of 600 sq. ft. counts towards GRFA limitations. However, people are unlikely to build enclosed parking that counts towards GRFA as living area is more valuable than garage space. If a homeowner does choose to build a larger garage, it creates a larger footprint, impacting a greater area of the site. Stacking parking, rather than double loading spaces, is a smaller footprint, with less land dedicated to parking. Mechanical parking systems are therefore more efficient and have reduced impact on the environment. It is the intent of the text amendment that a car lift system will not impact the bulk and mass of residential structures because the vault is entirely underground. As a result, there is little impact to adjacent property owners. In fact, adjacent property owners will benefit from additional enclosed parking rather than having to view parked cars and excessive paved areas. A car lift system will likely be most beneficial for homeowners looking to do additions to existing homes. The current regulations often require the creation of additional parking to serve the new GRFA of an addition. Instead of providing additional pavement to address the parking requirement, a car lift system could allow a homeowner to provide additional enclosed parking within an existing garage footprint. Car Lift Systems Car lift systems have become more common in multi -family and commercial development. In communities with little available land, it is a more efficient use of land. Additionally, it can be much more cost-effective to "stack" vehicles rather than double -loading them. The technology is not new, but until recently, has been cost -prohibitive for many homeowners. However, the technology has become more affordable and applications in residential development are being explored by many homeowners. Generally, the biggest advantage is more parking in less space. For residential projects, the intent of the proposal is that the garage level will count towards the garage credit exclusion. The car drives in at that level, parks, and then is lowered into the vault which is a level completely below grade. Another car can then park on top of the car within the vault. For mechanical equipment, there may be an additional space within the vault but below the level that the car is parked. This area is referred to as the mechanical pit. It is the intention of the proposed amendment that neither the vault or the pit within the vault count towards either GRFA or the garage credit exclusion. Entry Level at Grade Parking Vault Below Grade 0 Mechanical Pit Criteria for Review of Zoning Text Amendment Section 12-3-7: Amendment provides the criteria for review for a text amendment. This section states: Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in this title, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment. (1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations Applicant Analysis: Section 12-1-2: Purpose provides the general and specific purposes of the Town's Zoning Code. The purposes are: F. 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. The general purposes of the Town's Zoning Regulations identify "conserving and enhancing the natural environment." The overall goal of the proposed amendment to allow for car lift systems is to allow homeowners a creative method of providing required enclosed parking. This means that there will be less reliance on additional surface parking and the ability for homeowners to provide additional pervious landscape area, which is beneficial to the natural environment. G. 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. Of the above -listed specific purposes, the applicant believes that the proposed amendment furthers two: 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. The proposed amendment encourages the use of a mechanical lift system to allow for stacked enclosed parking, which helps to provide appropriately located off-street parking, with no impact on adjacent property owners and no impact on the bulk and mass of homes. Furthermore, by encouraging this option, there is less impervious area dedicated to surface parking. This is beneficial to the environment as impervious area contributes to stormwater run-off, impacting the local stream ecosystem. (2) The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town Applicant Analysis: One of the desirable outcomes of car lift systems is the minimization of surface parking. The impervious surface of parking areas increases storm -water runoff and less opportunity for landscape area. The following graphic is intended to outline the benefits of allowing for car lift systems. Example: Duplex Residence with 4,000 sq. ft. of GRFA in each unit Parking Requirement: 4 spaces per unit Garage "Credit" or Exclusion: 600 sq. ft. per unit / 2 enclosed spaces per unit Current Regulations: surface surface surface surface enclosed enclosed 9x19 9x19 enclosed enclosed 9x19 9x19 171 sq. ft. 171 sq. ft. 171 sq. ft. 171 sq. ft. = 694 sq. ft. of impervious area to meet minimum parking requirements Proposed Amendment: enclosed enclosed enclosed enclosed enclosed enclosed enclosed enclosed = stacking the parking allows for 694 sq. ft. of additional landscape area as all parking is enclosed The Vail Land Use Plan provides the following Goals and Policies, which are furthered by this proposed amendment. 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. 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. (3) The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable Applicant Analysis: Innovation in parking technologies have created opportunities that the Town's Zoning Code did not contemplate. The ability to stack parked cars in an enclosed environment is relatively new, but the application of within single-family or duplex residences remains cutting-edge. Providing stacked parking with no impact to a structure's bulk and mass is beneficial. However, the Town's GRFA limitations make it challenging. The proposed text amendment will allow the vault of the system to be excluded from the calculation of GRFA. This is appropriate as the space is unfinished, inaccessible except for maintenance uses, and cannot be used for livable area. (4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives Applicant Analysis: In consideration of the proposed amendment, one of the primary goals was to draft an amendment that would encourage the use of a lift system while not increasing the bulk and mass of a structure. The amendment is structured to allow the lift system that creates additional parking below -grade so as to remain consistent with the Town's bulk and mass standards, along with the Design Guidelines. One of the hurdles of using a mechanical car lift system is the GRFA restrictions. The proposed amendment maintains the integrity of the GRFA requirements, but excludes the space required below -grade from the GRFA calculations. As a result, the the proposed text amendment is consistent with municipal development objectives and is harmonious with the existing land use regulations. (5) Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment Applicant Analysis: The applicant can provide any additional information requested by the Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council. City of Vail, Colorado VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 25, 2021 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of an Exemption Plat, pursuant to Section 13-12-3, Plat Procedure and Criteria for Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for an adjustment to the location of the platted building envelope for Lot 14, First Amendment to Spraddle Creek Estates, located at 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0049) ATTACHMFNTS- File Name PEC21-0049 Spraddle Exemption Plat Staff Memo (Final).pdf Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment B. Applicant Narrative.pdf Attachment C. Proposed Plat.pdf PEC21-0049 Plans.Ddf Description PEC21-0049 SStaff Memo Attachment A. Vicinity Map Attachment B. Applicant Narrative Attachment C. Proposed Plat Attachment D. PEC21-0049 Project Plans TOWN OF VAIL Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 25, 2021 SUBJECT: A request for the review of an Exemption Plat, pursuant to Section 13-12-3, Plat Procedure and Criteria for Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for an adjustment to the location of the platted building envelope for the Fourth Amendment to Spraddle Creek Estates, Lot 14, located at 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0049) Applicant: SC Mountain Top LLC and TLM Realty Holding LLC represented by Davis Urban LLC and English and Associates, INC. Planner: Greg Roy SUMMARY The applicant, the SC Mountain Top LLC and TLM Realty Holding LLC represented by Davis Urban LLC and English and Associates, INC, are requesting a final review of an Exemption Plat application, pursuant to Title 13, Chapter 12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an adjustment to the location of the platted building envelope for Fourth Amendment to Spraddle Creek Estates Lot 14, located at 1326 Spraddle Creek Road. The Community Development Department is recommending approval of the Exemption Plat application with the findings as noted in Section VI of this memorandum. For reference, the attachments include a Vicinity Map (Attachment A), a copy of the applicant's narrative (Attachment B), the proposed plat (Attachment C), and the project plans (Attachment D). II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a final review of an Exemption Plat application, pursuant to Title 13, Chapter 12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an adjustment to the location of the platted building envelope for Fourth Amendment to Spraddle Creek Estates Lot 14, located at 1326 Spraddle Creek Road. The purpose of this application is to adjust the building envelope to allow for a different siting of a future home. There will be an area of approximately 1,315 SF removed from the northern portion of the existing envelope and approximately 2,462 SF removed from the southern portion of the envelope. The same area will be added to the west to create an envelope with a total square footage of 15,474 SF, which is five square feet less than existing. There is a small decrease in the total area of the building envelope and the shape of the building envelope will be modified slightly. The proposed building envelope is within the required setbacks. ARM @lam LD G El RE rte, JJ III. ZONING ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use Designation Mapped Geological Hazards: 1326 Spraddle Creek Road Lot 14, Spraddle Creek Estates Hillside Residential Hillside Residential Medium Severity Rock Fall LOT 15 Town of Vail Page 2 Development Allowed / Existing Proposed Change Standard Required Site Area 21,780 sq. ft. 277,500 sq. ft. 277,500 sq. ft. No Change Setbacks* Per building Front: 40'+ Front: 40'+ North Side: 12' envelope Rear: 40'+ Rear: 40'+ S Side:38.59' SE Side: 20' SE Side: 20' S Side: 34.76' S Side: 73.35' North Side: 18' North Side:30' Density 2 dwelling 1 dwelling unit No Change No Change units/lot Building N/A 15,479. ft. 15,475 sq. ft. -5 sq. ft. Envelope Area Building Envelopes The purpose of platting building envelopes is to define the portion of the lot where structures on the lot must be located. Building envelopes are more restrictive than setbacks, which only require that structures be located a minimum distance from a property line. Building envelopes are often used to maintain views and separation of structures, protect vegetation, and prevent development on sensitive areas including steep slopes and geological and hydrological resources. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 13: Subdivision Reaulations, Vail Town Code (in part) 13-12-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and an appropriate review process whereby the planning and environmental commission may grant exemptions from the definition of the term "subdivision" for properties that are determined to fall outside the purpose, purview and intent of chapters 3 and 4 of this title. This process is intended to allow for the platting of property where no additional parcels are created and conformance with applicable provisions of this code has been demonstrated. 13-12-2: EXEMPTIONS IN PROCEDURE AND SUBMITTALS: "Exemption plats"; as defined in section 13-2-2 of this title, shall be exempt from requirements related to preliminary plan procedures and submittals. Exemption plat applicants may be required to submit an environmental impact report if required by title 12, chapter 12 of this code. 13-12-3: PLAT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: Town of Vail Page 3 The procedure for an exemption plat review shall be as follows.- A. ollows: A. Submission of Proposal, Waiver of Requirements: The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of the proposal following the requirements for a final plat in subsection 13-3-68 of this title, with the provision that certain of these requirements may be waived by the administrator and/or the planning and environmental commission if determined not applicable to the project. B. Public Hearing: The administrator will schedule a public hearing before the planning and environmental commission and follow notification requirements for adjacent property owners and public notice for the hearing as found in subsection 13-3-681 of this title. C. Review and Action On Plat: The planning and environmental commission shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the first public hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in section 13-3-4 of this title. V. REVIEW CRITERIA The following are review criteria from Section 13-3-4 Vail Town Code, as required to be reviewed per Section 13-12-3 C: 1. The extent to which the proposed subdivision 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 that the proposed exemption plat is consistent with all 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. Specifically, the proposed envelope increases the setback from the north and south property lines. By limiting the size of the building envelope to the existing size, the applicant will gain no additional area, and the site will remain consistent with the original design intent of this subdivision. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 2. The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this title, as well as, but not limited to, title 12, "Zoning Regulations", Town of Vail Page 4 of this code, and other pertinent regulations that the planning and environmental commission deems applicable; Staff finds that the proposed exemption plat is in compliance with all standards of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, and Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. The location of the building envelope is consistent with other building envelopes approved within this subdivision, and with the setback standards in the underlying Hillside Residential zone district. The proposed envelope increases the setbacks between this lot and the property to the north while maintaining the street presence closest to the access point for the property. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 3. The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; Staff finds the proposed exemption plat presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses that is consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff has reviewed the location of the building envelope to ensure that the proposed envelope change will have no negative impacts on views, light, access, existing vegetation, slopes, or other impacts to adjacent lots. The majority of the proposed envelope is in the same location as the existing envelope. The portions of the envelope that are newly proposed largely have a similar slope to those that would no longer be in the envelope. No portion of the proposed envelope is located within an excessive slope that is equal to or above 40%. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area; Staff finds the proposed exemption plat will have no negative impacts on the future development of the surrounding area. The proposed changes to the building envelope will have no impact on the future development of the subdivision or any of the individual lots within the subdivision or the neighborhood. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 5. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; Town of Vail Page 5 As this application is for a modification to an existing platted envelope within a developed subdivision, staff finds the proposed exemption plat will not cause any inefficiency in the delivery of public services and will not require duplication or premature extension of public services and will not result in a leapfrog pattern of development. This is due to the fact that the subdivision is platted and developed. No changes are proposed to the location of roads, utilities, easements or other changes that impact the delivery of public services. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 6. The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade undersized lines; Staff finds the utility lines are sized to serve a complete build -out of the site, and which are not impacted by this building envelope modification. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 7. The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole; Staff finds that the proposed exemption plat provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole by allowing flexibility in the siting of the home to provide efficient design. This application will maintain views from adjacent properties and preserve vegetation in the location of the current building envelope, which is in the best interest of the community as a whole. There is a portion in the southern area of the existing envelope that has existing vegetation that is not in the proposed envelope. This will preserve that area of vegetation on the downhill side to aid in the screening from view on the valley floor. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 8. The extent to which the proposed subdivision 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 the proposed exemption plat will not result in any adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features. The revised location of the building envelope will preserve existing vegetation and allow development in areas with no vegetation. Town of Vail Page 6 The proposed envelope follows the contours on the property allowing for development to be benched into the hillside while maintaining the same envelope size. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 9. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed subdivision. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the request for review of the final plat, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 13, Exemption Plat Review Procedures to allow for an adjustment to the location of the platted building envelope for Fourth Amendment to Spraddle Creek Estates Lot 14, located at 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0049) This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this plat amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "Based on the evidence and testimony presented at this hearing and the review criteria in Section V of the staff memorandum, the Planning and Environmental Commission hereby approves a request for a final plat, pursuant to Section 13-12-3 Plat Procedures and Criteria for Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for an adjustment to the location of the platted building envelope for Fourth Amendment to Spraddle Creek Estates Lot 14, located at 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0049)" Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this plat amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated October 25, 2021, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Section 13-3-4 A, Vail Town Code; and 2. That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and Town of Vail Page 7 3. That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. That the subdivision 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. " VII. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant Narrative C. Amended Plat D. Project Plans Town of Vail Page 8 4 t �%r sw' c s t LO N O �x DAVISURBAN 1 3316 Tejon Street, Studio 105 1 Denver, CO 80211 09.27.2021 (Revised 10.13.2021) Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: PROJECT NARRATIVE: 1326 Spraddle Creek Rd. (Lot 14) Exemption Plat — Building Envelope Modification Attached is our application to modify the building envelope for the property at 1326 Spraddle Creek Road (Lot 14). The attached adjustment has been dramatically downsized from our initial submittal based on feedback from Town of Vail planning staff. The proposed envelope is essentially the same size as the original envelope, but reallocates the southernmost and northernmost portion of the building envelope to the west. The western edge of the proposed envelope is adjusted an average of approximately 45', which we feel is very minimal considering the 6.5 acre site. This adjustment to the envelope allows for a residence that runs more parallel with the existing slope and eliminate the lower 14' vertical feet of topography from the envelope. The resulting envelope we feel will allow for a residence that is more integrated into the hillside. The new building envelope also provides a means to provide more of a buffer from the two adjacent homes by allowing some of the density to be reallocated farther from the two homes at 1314 and 1315 Spraddle Creek Road. It is also our intent to preserve some of the existing mature vegetation that is present on the eastern edge of the site. The combination of adjusted envelope, and preservation of landscape both improve on the visual buffer between residences. In evaluating the site, we did a slope study analysis to understand the areas with excessive slopes and confirm compliance with Town of Vail limitation on portions of the site with slopes greater than 40%. In our slope study, our building envelope has an average slope of 25% with no single slope more than 40%. The slope study along with the other site plan requirements are attached in this submittal. Through this process we have also worked closely with the Spraddle Creek Estates Architectural Control Committee, of which two of the most immediate neighbors are members. The committee has been gracious with there time and guidance and have provided us with their approval of the building envelop adjustment. Finally, in addition to the required documentation for the Exemption Plat we've attached a photographic analysis of the envelopes from various location around Vail. This effort was recommended by staff and is included below. The study below includes a reference map with each view shown, and then each view includes both existing and proposed envelopes. To more accurately depict the impact of the proposed envelope, we have shown in blue the portion of the proposed envelope that extends beyond what you would see in just the existing envelope. In all cases we feel the adjusted envelope has minimal visual impact from around the Town of Vail. Please feel free to call or email if you have any remaining questions I can address. --L n $ Matt Davis DavisUrban, LLC 303.919.9530 LOT 14 - SPRADDLE CREEK PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE IMAGE STUDY Vail Chalet PSP Pmtl� pf � P �WOPe[cM1 Q- W Rtl U � y, a, b QVail Gymnastics Center SUBJECT SITE Red SandstoneQ N OT 14 Parking Garage Flo RdW Middle Creek iillagev VIEW 1 c,` ,"' 9Pt9 c' Lionshead �� as Parkin Structure g ©Evergreen�6'odge.af-Vai �aae o� e �"' Q�+n he Little Riner� V ale Al Vail® VIEW �.aa�e c.ea. Ra Yail Marriott Four Seasons Reser t� I� 4Mountai�n Re and Residences Vail ✓ \fes ©The Sebastian* _ EI Saborq wM�0µ4 VIEW 5 vCclorado-snowspo s Museum and I�- all -off ... ek tea. Sonrtenalp>�ail1The Geor =_ -w Restaura9te R Pub y Ranch fl �aoam as J^� orgl-cesthof - - a Ra • .. un5 twin Stantl rd Grar��sh rr 9 wva�e """���+++���� � � SFranta eA VIEW 3b &OrOAd '' wcnren as w`° ea v © For Field Vail Recreati The Lodge J IVail ©Tivoli Lodge _ w me, if ttyFord Rkxiedve Re °Aa Pirate Ship Playground I` 1 -T:��Alpine Gardens�Vail Nat r" -Free Ma{nor Vail Lodge® _fie un ernwe. �'pp \� µm 'Vail At I ields4 l�RgT°'u¢e • MA�cte.} Si Club VIEW % .�.: neso«e ° P1 ••11 \ ; �Nor[hwaade II `\\$ Wre rw J� Mix !!•:' •'s9.., l;o rrdaminium- 1 liry8!�r� riff BTgy,@ � � �'4G s 4 VIEW POINT LOCATIONS - MAP KEY a r e :_I 7 4b�. LOT 14 - SPRADDLE CREEK PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE IMAGE STUDY LEGEND - Existing Building Envelope - Proposed Building Envelope LOT 14 - SPRADDLE CREEK PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE IMAGE STUDY LEGEND Existing Building Envelope - Proposed Building Envelope View 3 W rO1ei 21 All N 4� i/•. --moi ��4 " ��� - ��t - � ���b<i1i'� � � (�� ;�l�,Yhdn' 4rw� _ �.w �� »�+. ty 4� � �� �`•�"':� "`"'-.a. LOT 14 - SPRADDLE CREEK PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE IMAGE STUDY LEGEND W Existing Building Envelope - Proposed Building Envelope View 5 LOT 14 - SPRADDLE CREEK PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE IMAGE STUDY LEGEND - Existing Building Envelope - Proposed Building Envelope LOT 14 - SPRADDLE CREEK PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE IMAGE STUDY LEGEND - Existing Building Envelope - Proposed Building Envelope o a0 pEJ` v E� _ aE o��W LaE- PEv rT�1 rTl -ME Wv°a F E E m< 1z o a z000 O E /V/`1 Pc3 Ln E EE EE Eco PL E zG Eo so - oi -E- S0o'i 9'08 E 0 (P"19'00'E ) hryQ _ z _ Neu am m ao m m ro A-E mo z oo c W ry m III 2 3 3 m E _ of 1 a o I �'�opy\36( 6 rr a Irr � _ao o Ir p r o I�w mo \F� f H -_ o '0h -.o oh o o o rus 1, 5 5 0 SNI 542"E 2 '"E 2 2 (P) O • 'I8' 2 iM) Eo ao Q1 Q1m m i W Z oo� a000 O OO a0 • o an lei! Fe N ti oEz owe, m g N�m_n M� »o env � ro (�—�a�o ��� 4"°'=� Q q V h Wit PC L(i i o AI I � I�II�'II / Y%l�� o kO i Jl /➢!lI Q $z� U� o yI Z !II//I�1IIIn IIm�III//, W /IS Il� I 1II11 w / I/f i--i � IIIIII III l�°Jl1 X111111 I I /l////✓/ //// �/�,,�i�//� � �, Z � , rr>>i /��rlliii/r l/l illihllli/ii ii � Iii/ls s>iyQ� 3 ���'0° � m019e XOSS I � J I sooerza"e z oz rP� / j I I I out T - � a000 = O OO a0 • o fill 1 ¢Em - _ - -p pl - - ill m g ✓� Ec .ami u - - b�� h • FM 3� � / Y// 1 �N o � $z � W U m i 141 1 / .Two l 11 l l f l l l W I- O 111111 11/1l1//IUII I� ����r/T�/tet /i�/��i/i` w r1111J11/��11�l//////j//�/// j o Z W o hP (li/llili�411 Hy Q � � p:'��'Illhll�l!11///i/!•�i��//// i/////io/ice/s/� - v� Q haps IIII II4Ij)11/ A //q/r,�=a 59 IIIIII�TI1111j11111//�/// C'3 III' Ilf�l 111111111 // 11 Id 111 / 111//////o/ ///%�/lllll/l/1/1111111/1/Il�jl/�l/�l/llllllS>/j�3"��° v Soo 19 I � - / a vEE-1 E3=E' o= Q�v Lo ZSM 00TVA 'AIIHO 3lddb'bdS 9ZC6 N a NEEI�10 EPGGV2JdS K 1M> mo 7wco P W Wrn o�Zm aaegLev o co 0 Q w Om(ODa fia F aa:^ -__- - Q _ O JJ I� W o 1 / CO W LLJ O Of LU > r� �,i,, -�„IMIW:jrr� 0 LU LU XDw ���������II,�// i��il J��ii„%�i�/r wow o� Q z a I � ae z ZSM 00TVA 'AIIHO 3lGGVHdS 9ZC6 ro m Z mo 6 N s J Z as Q NEEI�10 EPGGV2JdS K 1M i M / )pp � Ineli �� nn � �i VJ LU II III II�J,IIII �II II��I � ��/��j�j IIII I I IIII I IIII'Il��l�l�jl�j////////� o /�j///�j�j/��j VJ 0 Yw 0 WLIJj�/ 0Ir Soo' 19j/E��,Y W LU/ � LJ_ Z D avo< o LLJ wco J N Q Q LU o w Q / 0 F 0-0 O V//� ? J / i0 O I J J 3 si, Q Q > O Soo18'42"E 280.32' (M) 9 29919 00 IIVA '>E]3HO 310(]Vl ddS 9Z£ l z 0 o az Drn m0 Ow a �Z N NEEIcjo EPGGV�JdS tl� iM 5<�d Zm o W w 7 7 i J �o �l (n uJ Qi l o WY g/ pLU/ X W c) C) s G JK J 0 Z 0 zz ZZ/ < O /-, J J N s _ / LUDw W J a VJ I l a 0 I I I "� g/ 9 ✓ S� / LL LL Q a0 DO CO� / / I I I i zz / i i / zjj // `L /A 11=1/ / U 0 �r � o a 0 c� ao z o a0 pEJ` v E� _ aE o��W LaE- PEv rT�1 rTl -ME Wv°a F E E m< 1z o a z000 O E /V/`1 Pc3 Ln E EE EE Eco PL E zG Eo so - oi -E- S0o'i 9'08 E 0 (P"19'00'E ) hryQ _ z _ Neu am m ao m m ro A-E mo z oo c W ry m III 2 3 3 m E _ of 1 a o I �'�opy\36( 6 rr a Irr � _ao o Ir p r o I�w mo \F� f H -_ o '0h -.o oh o o o rus 1, 5 5 0 SNI 542"E 2 '"E 2 2 (P) O • 'I8' 2 iM) City of Vail, Colorado VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 25, 2021 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and Waterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0043) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Staff Memorandum PEC20-0043 Oct 25 (final).pdf Attachment A. Narrative 10-25-21.pdf Stream Co rri dorP resentati on PECOct252021. pdf Attachment B. Comparison of Stream Setback Options 25 Map.pdf Attachment C. Comparison of Stream Setback Options 10 Map.pdf Attachment D. Public Outreach Responses 10-25.pdf Pec results 092721.pdf Site Setback for ToV Climate Action Collaborative 10.21.21.pdf Memo Style.pdf 2509. pdf CPW Comment - TOV Stream Protection Ordinance.pdf Proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Hochtl Familv.Ddf In Support Kaitlyn Merriman.pdf Description Staff Memorandum PEC20-0043 Attachment A. Narrative 10-25-21 Environmental Presentation Attachment B. Comparison of Stream Setback Options 25' Map Attachment C. Comparison of Stream Setback Options 10' Map Attachment D. Public Outreach Responses Attachment E. PEC Meeting Minutes 9-27-21 Climate Action Collaborative Response Mountain Organics US Forest Service Colorado Parks and Wildlife Hochtl Family Merriman rowN OF vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 25, 2021 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and Waterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0043) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Peter Wadden Planner: Greg Roy I. SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, represented by Peter Wadden, is requesting a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and Waterbody Setback Regulations, to change the waterbody setbacks. 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 forward a recommendation of approval of this application subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant requests a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a new Section 12- 21-17 Riparian Protection and Waterbody Setback Regulations, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0043) Based on these recommendations from the Town's Comprehensive Plan and with the intention of protecting crucial riparian habitat the proposed changes would establish a new stream setback and change where the setback is measured from. The new setback would be measured from the "Ordinary High Water Mark" (OHWM), which would be defined in the code as follows. "The Ordinary High Water Mark is the average 2 year flood line on Gore Creek and its named tributaries which can be established by survey using elevation data available from the Community Development Department." The OHWM is primarily along what would be commonly called the "bank" of the creek or watercourse. While centerline of the creek may change on a daily or weekly basis, the OHWM varies on a longer timescale due to bank erosion and changes to the stream channel. It is a more static baseline from which to measure the setback and has become the industry standard in the decades since Vail's setback ordinance was adopted. A setback measurement based on OHWM is also more equitable among properties adjacent to reaches of stream of varying width. The effective setback from the watercourse based on the centerline is wholly dependent on how wide the watercourse is in that location. If the watercourse is one hundred feet (100') wide in one location the setback would permit building up to the bank of the watercourse. Comparatively if the watercourse is fifty feet (50') wide, the effective setback from the bank would be twenty- five feet (25). As the goal is protect the watercourse, the best way to achieve that goal is to have a consistent setback from the bank of the watercourse, which can be distinguished by the average two-year flood line. The proposed language also includes the addition of a "Riparian Zone". This 10 -foot wide portion of the setback would be a protected area to remain as native vegetation and natural materials. The Gore Creek Strategic Plan identifies "loss of riparian and streamside vegetation" as one of the three main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek. The proposed riparian setback seeks to reverse this trend by establishing a contiguous corridor of healthy, native vegetation along Gore Creek and its tributaries. The proposed code change would remove the section on the setbacks from the watercourse from the Supplemental Regulations in Section 14 and the new setback language would be inserted in Section 21 on Hazards to be consistent with the location of the floodplain regulations. An additional section has been added to the proposed code language to allow for an adjustment to the OHWM with a site specific hydrologic study. This section was crafted to be similar to the adjustment process for geologic hazard maps. It will require a site specific study and if accepted, will be adopted into the OHWM Elevation Dataset that will be adopted by Town Council. Town of Vail Page 2 BACKGROUND Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1976 created the streambank setback regulations in place today. They required a minimum setback of thirty feet (30') from the center of the established creek or stream channel and fifty feet (50') from the centerline of Gore Creek. The Gore Creek Strategic Plan, adopted by Vail Town Council in 2016, identifies loss of riparian (streamside) vegetation as one of the three main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek. The Plan recommends Town of Vail "update stream setback, riparian zone, vegetative buffer zone and other water quality objective definitions and maps (Title 12 Review and Amendments)." The PEC heard this application on September 21 st and tabled the item to the October 25th meeting. This was done to allow for additional noticing beyond the noticing required to meet Town Code and to address some concerns the PEC had based on the discussion at that meeting. IV. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE The applicant proposes the following language to be added to Title 12: The proposed amendments are as follows (text to be deleted is in StFikethr„ g4 , text that is to be added is bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.): 12-14-1&7: BED AND BREAKFAST OPERATIONS: 12-14-1-9-8: SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS: 12-14-29-19: COMMERCIAL CORE CONSTRUCTION: 12-14-240: OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF GOODS: Proposed new code language 12-21-17: Riparian Protection and Waterbody Setback Regulations A. Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to protect the health and resiliency of Gore Creek by; increasing the area of riparian habitat along Gore Creek and its tributaries; encouraging the use of native vegetation in landscaping on private property; discouraging the use of water and chemical -intensive Town of Vail Page 3 landscaping practices; and providing clear, measurable, equitable building setbacks along all waterways. B. Applicability: This chapter shall apply to all properties located in whole or in part within twenty five feet (25') of the ordinary high water mark of Gore Creek or any of its named tributaries. C. Restrictions within the Riparian Zone 1. No work, including, but not limited to, mowing, landscaping, grading, or disturbance, within the Riparian Zone shall be permitted with the following exceptions, subject to Design Review Board approval: a. Removal and management of State of Colorado listed noxious weeds. b. Property owners may maintain up to a 4 -foot wide creek access path. The path shall consist of permeable materials (such as native soils, sand, gravel, or flagstone set in gravel). No pavement, concrete or other non -permeable construction shall be used. c. Public right-of-way such as roads, bridges, recreation trails and public parks shall not be subject to the restrictions of the Riparian Zone. d. Utility infrastructure within utility easements shall not be subject to the restrictions of the Riparian Zone. e. Erosion control measures, stormwater control measures and stream grade control structures that conform with best management practices in bank stabilization and riparian restoration. 2. Removal of vegetation shall be allowed within the Riparian Zone if done for the purposes of fire mitigation with documented Fire Department approval. 3. Building setbacks shall be twenty five (25) linear feet from the OHWM. 4. Encroachments into the building setback shall be permitted as per Section 14-10-4. D. Nonconformities: Existing features or structures constructed legally prior to the adoption of this chapter are subject to Section 12-18. E. Ordinary High Water Mark Amendment; Procedure: In any case where a person wishes to dispute the Ordinary High Water Mark on any property as a result of the OHWM Elevation Dataset {insert date of adoption}, the following procedures shall be followed: Town of Vail Page 4 A written application shall be filed with the department of community development requesting such a hearing and providing a supporting site specific hydrologic investigation. 2. A hearing shall beset on a date a minimum of thirty (30) days after the application has been filed to allow for a staff review. 3. At the hearing before the town council, the applicant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present his/her case and submit technical and hydrologic evidence to support his/her claim. If the site specific hydrologic investigation establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the Ordinary High Water Mark is not accurate, the town council shall direct the department of community development to amend the OHWM Elevation Dataset appropriately. To be included in 12-21-2: Definitions: • ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM): The Ordinary High Water Mark is the average two (2) year flood line on Gore Creek and its named tributaries which can be established by survey using elevation data available from the Community Development Department. • RIPARIAN ZONE The buffer of undisturbed native vegetation that extends from the Ordinary High Water Mark ten (10) linear feet inland. V. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Commission will forward a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application and make the final decision. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Town Council. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code. Town of Vail Page 5 Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also prov des the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. VI. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code and Vail Land Use Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal: Vail Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Development Goal #1 • 1.2: The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. Vail 2020 Strategic Plan • Goal #5: Maintain Gore Creek watershed as a Gold Medal fishery, while working to maintain tributaries that meet and/or exceed aquatic life standards set by the state of Colorado. Gore Creek Strategic Plan Recommended Actions • 82. Updated Title 12 and Stream setback map with additional buffer boundaries, as proposed by this Plan, to achieve objectives of preserving vegetation. • 83. Update stream setback, riparian zone, vegetative buffer zone and other water quality objective definitions in Title 9, 12, 13, ad 14 of Town Code to improve consistency and better conform to GAP objectives and recommendations. Currently, the stream setback official map and definition do not articulate what practices are prohibited within the stream setback. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and The general purposes of the zoning regulations are for "promoting the health, safety, Town of Vail Page 6 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". This text amendment is intended to enhance the protection of Gore Creek as part of the town's natural environment. The current setbacks are measured from the centerline of the creek, but depending on the width of the creek the streambank may or may not be protected. As the preservation streambank, and its native vegetation, is one of the three main ways to improve the water quality, it is wholly important to make sure the regulations ensure that protection. Having the setback measured from the OHWM or the "streambank", will ensure that the native vegetation along the river is being equally preserved along it's shores. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The proposed text amendment will furthers the Town's environmental goals in the comprehensive plan. This amendment was specifically recommended in the Gore Creek Strategic Plan as a way to further protect the creek. It also meets the goal of protecting the environment and water quality set forth in the Land Use Plan. The equal protection of the streambank is imperative to preserving and enhancing the water quality throughout the town. By changing the base of the setback measurement from the centerline to the OHWM, the sensitive area of Gore Creek and it's tributaries will be consistently protected. Adding the riparian buffer ensures that the sensitive area adjacent to the water is preserved to the greatest extent possible. This allow for the natural filtration of water and other processes to take place before reaching the creek. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 3. The text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and The current regulations were set with the best information at the time. Since then, new studies and best management practices have evolved and improved. The existing setbacks have no regulation on what can happen inside of the setback. It is now recognized that the area between the development and the creek is vitally important to the health and function of the creek. The proposed code change incorporates the best practices out there today to establish an acceptable setback that protects Gore Creek and it's water quality. The research that went into the Gore Creek Strategic plan looked at Town of Vail Page 7 comparable studies and the suggested setbacks to maintain creek health. Those suggested buffer of anywhere from 30-330 feet along the creek. The proposed is a modest setback to balance the character of Vail with the protection of its natural resources. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and One of the decision making factors going into the proposed setback was the relation to the other setbacks throughout the town and picking one that would be harmonious with other sections of Town Code. The proposed setback was one of several studied options that rose to the top as the most practical into existing regulations. When working with Section 14 on design regulations and allowed encroachments into setbacks, the 25 -foot setback allowed for the encroachments allowed in that section with plenty of room too keep a protected riparian zone up to the creeks. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendments Staff will provide additional information as needed should the PEC and/or council determine other factors or criteria applicable to the proposed text amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval for the prescribed regulation amendment to the Vail Town Council. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined 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 to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse Town of Vail Page 8 and add a new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and Waterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0043)" Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section Vll of the October 25, 2021 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 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 outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code, 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 Narrative, 10-21-2021 B. Comparison of Stream Setback Options 25' Map C. Comparison of Stream Setback Options 10' Map D. Public Outreach Responses E. PEC Meeting Minutes 9-27-2021 Town of Vail Page 9 Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Department of Environmental Sustainability Date: October 25, 2021 Subject: Narrative- Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance The Gore Creek Strategic Plan (The Plan), adopted by the Vail Town Council in 2016, directs staff to "update stream setback, riparian zone, vegetative buffer zone and other water quality definitions and maps" in order to reverse "the loss of riparian and streamside vegetation, which reduces the natural ability of these areas to protect Gore Creek from the effects of land use activities and urban runoff." To that end, staff has undertaken a thorough review of the scientific literature concerning best practices in riparian buffers, regulations adopted by other communities around the state, and the situation on the ground in Vail to propose an ordinance designed to accomplish the objectives required by The Plan. Goals of proposed Code Changes The proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance seeks to: • Create a clear, comprehensible, and enforceable set of guidelines for building and riparian setbacks on private property in Vail • Promote the establishment of a contiguous riparian buffer along Gore Creek and its tributaries • Limit turfgrass and hardscape and deter excessive chemical use within a delineated buffer zone To be successful, the ordinance must meet the following criteria: 1. Establish a net increase in the amount of riparian buffer o A robust riparian buffer throughout town is the strongest tool available to protect Gore Creek from pollutants such as landscaping chemicals and road runoff 2. Establish a net increase in the distance of buildings and structures from Gore Creek and its tributaries o As Vail developed over the past 60 years, structures were built very close to Gore Creek and its tributaries, leaving little space for riparian habitat. Establishing an adequate and equitable building setback will help resolve this problem over time 3. Have a clear, objective and measurable baseline in the field o The baseline for setbacks must not be subjective or open to interpretation. It needs to be clearly defined in order to be effective. 4. Be consistent, fair and equitable o A setback based on Ordinary High Water Mark is more equitable because it does not vary based on the width of the creek. Based on those criteria, and through an extensive stakeholder process, staff have determined that a twenty-five foot (25) building setback and ten foot (10') riparian setback from an elevation -based Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) are the most appropriate for Vail. Scientific and practical basis for a twenty -five-foot (251 setback from OHWM Town staff undertook extensive review of the likely effectiveness and impacts of setbacks of various widths and determined a twenty-five (25) foot building setback from OHWM is most appropriate for several reasons. 1. A contiguous buffer of diverse, native riparian vegetation along waterways in Vail is the single greatest tool available to restore Gore Creek. Riparian buffers filter runoff, reduce erosion and sedimentation, shade waterways, and provide crucial habitat for myriad species. While riparian areas make up less than 4% of the habitat area in Colorado, more than 95% of Colorado animal species depend on riparian habitat at some point in their lifecycles. Riparian buffers perform services that cannot be replicated through engineered or manufactured means. Protecting and restoring these buffer zones is the most cost-effective and efficient tool available to a community to protect its waterways. 2. Twenty-five feet (25) from OHWM is the smallest five-foot increment building setback that would not decrease the area along Vail's streams and waterways protected from development. A twenty -foot (20') setback from OHWM would be a step in the wrong direction when it comes to protection of aquatic resources. Figure 1. Number of non -conforming properties and acres protected from development under various setback scenarios. Importantly, twenty-five feet (25) best approximates existing, centerline -based setbacks without reducing them. Attached maps show that a twenty -five-foot (25) setback line from OHWM closely tracks the existing thirty-foot (30') (tributary) and fifty foot (50') (Gore Creek) setbacks through most of town. 3. A smaller setback would create conflict with existing defensible space recommendations provided by Vail Fire Department. The Town's Fire Resistant Planting Guide recommends "no coniferous trees within fifteen feet (15) of the structure." A twenty -five-foot (25) setback from OHWM is the minimum building setback required in order to establish a ten -foot (10') no mow zone from OHWM and not conflict with existing fire wise guidelines. Evergreen trees are an important part of a healthy riparian habitat. They are also a major concern when establishing defensible space around a structure. A twenty -five-foot (25) building setback is the smallest available that avoids that conflict. 4. Twenty -five -feet (25) from OHWM is the smallest setback adopted by any other community in Colorado. As the Premier Mountain Resort Community in Colorado and a leader in environmental sustainability, this is the absolute least that can be done to protect Gore Creek and its tributaries. The proposed text changes in the attached memorandum have been thoroughly vetted and discussed. As Number of Acres non- protected conforming from Setback scenario properties development Existing (centerline) 102 26.27 20 feet from OHWM 97 24.45 25 feet from OHWM 128 30.83 Figure 1. Number of non -conforming properties and acres protected from development under various setback scenarios. Importantly, twenty-five feet (25) best approximates existing, centerline -based setbacks without reducing them. Attached maps show that a twenty -five-foot (25) setback line from OHWM closely tracks the existing thirty-foot (30') (tributary) and fifty foot (50') (Gore Creek) setbacks through most of town. 3. A smaller setback would create conflict with existing defensible space recommendations provided by Vail Fire Department. The Town's Fire Resistant Planting Guide recommends "no coniferous trees within fifteen feet (15) of the structure." A twenty -five-foot (25) setback from OHWM is the minimum building setback required in order to establish a ten -foot (10') no mow zone from OHWM and not conflict with existing fire wise guidelines. Evergreen trees are an important part of a healthy riparian habitat. They are also a major concern when establishing defensible space around a structure. A twenty -five-foot (25) building setback is the smallest available that avoids that conflict. 4. Twenty -five -feet (25) from OHWM is the smallest setback adopted by any other community in Colorado. As the Premier Mountain Resort Community in Colorado and a leader in environmental sustainability, this is the absolute least that can be done to protect Gore Creek and its tributaries. The proposed text changes in the attached memorandum have been thoroughly vetted and discussed. As such they allow for some exceptions that other Colorado communities do not accommodate in their riparian and wetland setbacks, including a "creek access path." Jurisdiction Stream/Wetland Setback Glenwood Springs 35 feet from OHWM Eagle County 75 feet from centerline Pitkin County 100 feet from OHWM Aspen Additional review within 100 feet of OHWM Fort Collins Minimum 50 feet from OHWM Steamboat Springs 100 feet from OHWM Estes Park Minimum 50 feet from OHWM Colbran 100 feet from OHWM Summit County 25 feet from OHWM Figure 2. Selected setbacks codified by other Colorado municipalities 5. Twenty-five feet (25') is the minimum recommended buffer zone identified in the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. Scientific literature cited in the Plan recommends that native vegetation within twenty- five feet (25') of the streambank be "left undisturbed." Establishment of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in Vail The Ordinary High Water Mark proposed in this ordinance is based on specific elevations above sea level. While alternative methods to determine OHWM exist, methods based on bank scouring, vegetation, and erosion are more time-consuming and expensive to define. They can also be subjective; two surveyors or wetland scientists working in earnest could establish different OHWM delineations along the same reach of stream. An elevation -based OHWM is the better approach if Vail wishes to avoid conflicting delineations and establish a regulation which can be applied fairly, consistently and equitably. Based on the above recommendations from the Town's Comprehensive Plan and with the intention of protecting crucial riparian habitat the proposed changes would establish a new stream setback and change where the setback is measured from. The new setback would be measured from the "Ordinary High Water Mark" (OHWM), which would be defined in the code as follows. "The Ordinary High Water Mark is the average 2 year flood line on Gore Creek and its named tributaries which can be established by survey using elevation data available from the Community Development Department." The OHWM is primarily along what would be commonly called the "bank" of the creek or watercourse. While the centerline of the creek may change on a daily or weekly basis, the OHWM varies on a longer timescale due to bank erosion and changes to the stream channel. It is a more static baseline from which to measure the setback and has become the industry standard in the decades since Vail's setback ordinance was adopted. The OHWM in Vail will be determined on the ground by Professional Land Survey. The procedures for surveying the OHWM are similar to the procedures for surveying the 100 -year floodplain line. The Town of Vail will publish elevations for the OHWM that are determined through Professional Engineering and hydraulic modeling procedures. These engineering procedures are similar to those used to develop the Base Flood Elevations (BFE) published by FEMA. Most properties that will require survey of the OHWM also require survey of the 100 -yr floodplain line defined by Vail Town Code. A setback measurement based on OHWM is also more equitable among properties adjacent to reaches of stream of varying width. The effective setback from the watercourse based on the centerline is wholly dependent on how wide the watercourse is in that location. If the watercourse is one hundred feet (100') wide in one location the setback would permit building up to the bank of the watercourse. Comparatively if the watercourse is fifty feet (50') wide, the effective setback from the bank would be twenty-five feet (25). As the goal is protect the watercourse, the best way to achieve that goal is to have a consistent setback from the bank of the watercourse, which can be distinguished by the average two-year flood line. The proposed language also includes the addition of a "Riparian Zone". This ten -foot (10') wide portion of the setback would be a protected area to remain as native vegetation and natural materials. The Gore Creek Strategic Plan identifies "loss of riparian and streamside vegetation" as one of the three main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek. The proposed riparian setback seeks to reverse this trend by establishing a contiguous corridor of healthy, native vegetation along Gore Creek and its tributaries. The proposed code change would remove the section on the setbacks from the watercourse from the Supplemental Regulations in Section 14 and the new setback language would be inserted in Section 21 on Hazards to be consistent with the location of the floodplain regulations. Non -conformity to foster change over time Nonconforming status is used to create change over time. It is a natural progression that occurs as a community's regulations evolve. Non -conformity fosters change without triggering the need for property owners to make an immediate change or upgrade to the property. It has been used with great success in Vail in the past to implement long-term changes for the betterment of the community. One example of an appropriately used nonconforming process is the code language governing wood shake roof shingles. Much of Vail was developed prior to the awareness of the value of protecting streams and water bodies with adequate buffers. In recent years the Vail community has come to recognize the importance of riparian buffers in protecting our waterways from pollution, providing shade and habitat. Adoption of a new building setback which adheres to modern best practices in waterbody protection and is implemented over time through the town's regulations on non -conforming properties is an equitable way to act on those changing values. In addition to protecting waterways from pollution and erosion, healthy riparian buffers will enhance the resiliency of these ecosystems in the face of a changing climate. Insurance Implications Staff could find no evidence that non -conforming status of a property would have an impact on a homeowner's insurance rates. Online research revealed no evidence of increases based on non- conforming status under municipal code. Furthermore, conversations with Will Comerford of State Farm Insurance and Patty Hood of Hood Insurance indicated that neither had encountered an instance in their careers where insurance rates rose because of non -conforming status. Neither believed that an owner's independent decision to tear down and rebuild a home would be an "insurable event." Rather, Mr. Comerford commented that fire risk and flood risk do have an impact on insurance rates and it was his opinion that greater distance from waterways and fuels might benefit insurance rates of homeowners. Furthermore, Vail's Town Code provides homeowners whose property suffers damage from an act of nature (such as flood or fire) the opportunity to rebuild a structure as it was, even if it was non- conforming, providing an application for construction is received within 1 year. Water quality improvement and bank stabilization Addition of vegetation and grading which conform with best management practices would be permitted under the proposed ten foot (10') vegetative setback. Vail Town Code allows a property owner to add new plants to their landscaping without a permit. Exceptions within the proposed code language below allow the Design Review Board to permit construction of "erosion control measures and stream grade control structures" providing they follow industry best practices. Rain gardens, bioswales and constructed wetlands are typically considered "best management practices" (BMPs) in watershed management, erosion control and stormwater treatment. I GJ v 2 L .. M -J o +� a 0 Co a� (1) ,o a 4-1 o �, •L � � a N �� tn 4-1U N N U Nf it ca O > a 0 a —� O a--+ (� L N N U +, U N 0� � C6 -0 C6 ?�to N �_ O p VH o, •N �° °' � 14; 1 a� O 4-1 �, o tn +� 4.0 tn N i O u ca 4 CO Q ca N M +J C CN C Q O N C > N N E C o' O Q) I ro c6 E E - > u Y E > O O c a O L N U Y J C L QV O L •L E U 0 `n _0 S2•� NLn " 's N w v O 00 L O CO L N % O� — n O O O +� °J cn Z3 N Ln CO � v O v o N Ln +r + M M f� n Ltin +� 'LO � j ,C co � N n N .� cB Q p 4-U un N U v m m vC- L OL 'cB +J T w- *�' N O O •� O Q) 2i L U m N ND O- m [- 4- cn O L U cn _ o 10 bn a N Z3 v 1 O cn N OO d -[-N _ " Ln U — = N / co c6 nn Q bA 5� In O N 4- N> N 1 i nn - N Q) N L ` 2 co 4-L O COO > v (�= > U' E m 2 Q U Cn C 2� Y z Y V' Y C C 0 co Ln 4- 4J m N J a Y o m 2 00 CO cn Lf) Q Y H cn H cn L L 'c CO _I- Q -I-- U Q U co N O co O +' • v U- 0 CO ul m cn r .E c� N OD U O m O U O � +' _0 � (�7 N N Ln _I-_ OO t U � � C N L Ln N co co L Q L O O > +- Z3 1-- Z3 L _0 m N N CO 4-p co _I-_ N ON co Q C L c6 U (� u� m v 0 p O U > L z U }I 7 •1— C L _ N > c6 _ _ C c6 " -E -0 -W W N N C L N C N — c6 vi C N N O U L N O L-0 C `� U O w D O L +-1 00 d Y N Q N c6 Q 2 2 > = cB cB co CO cn D T O U L Y z co co N Ln L a co N Y N U L Y> O / H H 1 d Y H H H U H= Q Y Q d W-:; cn L C- r -4 - N O E C- u C - 4J OJ N C- O }' N dJ OJ � E E Q cn > C- 4-- -0 O C- +� � N O - 4 � O E E O o E F4 O — � C- o (� (� (n J O (� QJ QJQ cn L C- r -4 - N O E C- u C - 4J OJ N C- O }' N dJ OJ � E E Q cn > C- 4-- -0 O C- +� it C— CSA aJ � � � N Ln a O N LnLn f� N N O O N aj 0 f� > S O aJ S aJ E c- 0 O N E 0C O - O X aj O -&— Ln E O _ S-- 0 O .� O N O O L O �'— U o aJ Ln N M N aJ W /O V Ln • O ��\ OO c— TO O of E+ O }+ r O m L ♦'d � L O � ate-+ N 4A (j N O ~ i CL ca L 0 C/) O V CC/).O O O N N U L C: >1 N CL Ocn Q (1) CL O E U > � X N > 0 N � C O � N O (a m N L U C U N cn C: Q m O 4-0 N E D 4-0 cp N O E � • � 4-0 3 cn C a) N Q cn (a c Co: � E N O N N 4-0 C: m 'L; .'A N L c O Q U d V m m N G � � 0 N J rn C z N W } , m� O113 1-- a �jd 4--7 ---J 4-J O O V t F'� ^ U 0 •� O 0 w N }'a--+ O N 'L = a--+ W O i � N L_7 LL d a-0 U M d! 2 0 0 > Q 71 a +�} G rL E W LU o cu m- oE °ICLs -Vcu Ln N C �7 c n, .- 5 4, CV E N_ Ln E E O CL Lu x m m m -U' SI ``SIJ 4-1 m Y�/ tl7 N d Q 0 N -o .J O E �� { 0 a) O— = • �%i {} y� W i 0 O vii i1 ate--+ C G 0 r -I E O Q 3 LA N +�.+ +�.+ G � � 0 N J rn C z N W } , m� O113 1-- a �jd N CA >— o E 0 V t F'� al 0 cr E ' 0 w W st Q Lu M W W � W L_7 LL d m W — m 2 0 0 > r y 71 a +�} G rL E W LU o cu m- LL r� °ICLs -Vcu Ln N C �7 c n, .- 5 4, CV E N_ E E O CL ZW T}C5 C O 0 N J rn C z N W N C W 1-- U �jd Z CA >— �W LLj V t F'� al 0 cr E ' 0 w W st Q Lu W W W � W C1�2n-• LL _ m 0 0 �coLLU r y 71 ZW T}C5 C O N J rn C C, N 8y N C a E $ c �F_ m L Q V A E F'� al LJ C W LL cr E ' CL Ln N E st Q 21 C CV v i o E N � � C1�2n-• � � rn C s U N 8y cin p W m N � Q C O ,cc, +V+ +L+ p C r y 71 +�} G rL E T m- 1J °ICLs V E .. E E O CL Lu x m m m -U' W m tl7 N d Q f 62 N m ua O --Fn O � 2 �¢ ti a� y� eu P W .7I C G E Z . p __ T r, yam- C L� LL. �J Gu 42 1 ID C3 i Y CD C'4 0 W 2 O w Li Q ri co 5 ;a `u tiF lz • nom.` os Lr 44 ka" Z + ' ILI - - 1 -tt 11 z tj PEM O E 0 O LnE EM CM O E PEM O E 0 O LnE EM CM LU PEM O E 0 O r -I V) C�0 a -J Q Y = dj O O v E E o O O �-J V w E tj PEM O E 0 O LnE EM CM O E PEM O E 0 O LnE EM CM LU PEM O E 0 O r -I V) C�0 Q a-�+ v O U U �-J V w E tj PEM O E 0 O LnE EM CM O E PEM O E 0 O LnE EM CM LU PEM O E 0 O r -I ,(n V ate -J a -J N a -J N .N O U N _0 N bD Q W E 0- 0 O N N 0 E O L W U ate+ 0 Q m w L m U i _0 O 2 0 E 0 U C6 a -J N N O 0 O El F- c) �f C M LL J ¢ Q 0 r--1 4--) 0 0 4--) Ln N 0 -0 m E 0 4-j Ln u 0 Spl, -.4 1/ " WWR 6 A;J- - > 4-1 i Q O L. CL buo M-08� cn L- 0 0 N O l) T O O ^L' W U) O O W ' E N W 4—A .' O U E C6 0-E L Q � W a) U W VJ ^L^'' W O O L ^'' W ^ cn O F OJ � O aJ aJ U O c Ov �_ cn c O O QJ 4J -s- m U > Ln - +, 4- N 4— a -1- i -11.� ca � E U � N O E o E oO C6 -0 = c: .0 C6 � N � U N N N = N a -J U L O O 4- (3j (3j N U = C6 a -J Q N cn a) a_+ C6 E EL O O N 0 Ln 3:z 0 ca _0 Q E N 4-J 0 bD Q �C6 N N L N N O O ro �t Lt4 a N E N O cn i cn 0 N E O W 0 O U O Z m 3 i H L Q -0 H G 4- LM D 0 O U O0 >- 00 ca Q -0 O Q LU LL ' No 0 Ln V N U N N N �D U N .S r ME U CDn a -J V) CSA wal m i O O O O O tw U 4a 4 -OP w w 'x w O Ln cn W N N E o � s � N o a� a� o �- s a� c� tw • Q buo •- dQ U no a i >- L (1) i L • M 3 Q p N tw a _Q N• tw Q � Q � T CLQ O o /A U O Q C Q CL M In N moQ • _ d T /� \ �/ - m C Q N d O •- E 3 2 L fir`. O .� N ca � L E N �N.� �� N -W CL .� o E i +� 0 p V � V 0-0 V O L L O � Q O .N X Z a) W fir`. 4-J -l-j M C- D w R � D D � 4-5 E Ln D N D aj � � E _2 D U 4-j0 Ec- Ln O D � � C- 0 )%ƒ \ § .$20 ] / C N \ / o { / q g 2 g .\ ± > 2 0f/ m ƒ -0 0 \Ef E 2 / \ o m / E e k k k m E n } 5 E ) 0 $ % & :t-- 0 /0 E/ e 2» E'&/ ƒ/[® ��a E $ / / § I / 2 / � V- 00 Cl)�% / §=02 « o CL � � � � � / -0 � � � 0 0 0 m\ 0 O. a) O 0 / ƒ% n 2 / U \ §� � / w ± 0 % a f n 0 / 2 0 9 0 ° a% m$ - o f§ m ° °5 ®> e _ ° / 0 © E = 3 ° 2 ° G � W 0 y E 3 _ /© 0--o / = c ¥ 3 2 = 5 2a - a) k/# \ )2 0 \/ / \Pa$ 0 2 7 y g 2 E f/ W u » E = 9 »'a § 0 $ ± u $ -0 y = 5 / % / £ ° ƒ 2 2 E \ \ / m Q- / 7 / & / ƒ / -0 70 0 E / 3 3 / ƒ f / / . . / 3 0 N �f � C-) CL0 k Ln .0 0 / 0 3 O 0 CO O ^^ ,, fo L TO V E O W W O O a--+ O -t�Q bn O o +-j 4-J O O Q N �/` CLJ O N >c - N i V U N O -C X c/') E O c N Ln N N � 4-1 Ln O �a N c V) N U G ^^ ,, • L TO V O W W O a--+ O -t�Q bn O o 0 4-J O - > 4J �/` CLJ O � te o �a N --+ N U C - Ln m m 4J C- L 4- a-•+ (� X QJ X 4-J > (3) O _C ;,- ;C C U U_ rl Ln � an CSA }+ _ N L.L N L O E E f� 4J M Ln > — a -j 4te-+4J N C- > Q � 0 4J L 4J N 0 O O aJ ' 4-J 4 O ~ Q ate-+ N ( f� Q U 4J 4-J U O M a--+ Q Ln E O Oa) N Ln LnO U O 4-j a� Ln N U 4-J (1) O +•+ Q 0 U Q Ln � E C6 LL ate-+ (n O _ O i 0 U N U � � = 0 O = a- W ate-+ •Q ate-+ O � N N (>� i O i N v � +� •� • U � � ca N i O c O 0co N U C6 � N • — Q •E -0 O +, " N L � L Lm V+ ■- ■� O O 0 O Coco O N i L U .U) M },N . � U > M i N U) N • L N Q 4-0 OU i cdi U -04-1 N O O L N co O N N O }+ � O� �� o O� co 0O QN�� +� OU OU �+ O O O_ O CM V v o 0') o Z•- U) a C cn _ �_� �N `Q O L +r N H O •— Vi Qi U� co �_ L p '+-� v }= N L +O�+O Q U Q O i) O t� O o O W m }' }' — ca t o � L .L � � Q N Q M > U N U i CU t0') SZ 00 p }' ai i U p ,� \ N +r •_ r N Q � C-4 0-) o V' r� N.- -0O m U)Nco to 0 ro Qj O J r / Qj O O Ln f6 > Ln O O � o ate-+ Zi Ln m Q O L ca U ate-+ tb — � 4-J � • Ln N (� O •- > 4J Ln U cn 4J +-+ O -1--+ N Ln -&-- U N U 4J Q QJ N f� N 0 QJ -0 O `n UQJ O 4J Q •� _0 Fm-- U 0 4J Q U i lZA Ln O � a-; +-+ QJ O U O Ov - O >- 4-j � E C N i, o m 0 Vf O .O � O U O � O O 'co � vi s O O MO c� � W c Om2 _ 0 c 0 Oul*, .O O E O O N N > 3 m � o N /N I QJ C ° L �j Lm O� 0 N f� Jr1� L +' 1p Tt Q Q ` f � QJ N QJ QJ OM, ! - 7� +ski.,',; NQJ N Q O N o .; Q QJ4-j QJ o r O O c o — O Q u o aJ 0 o m + U o > m U O - dJ Q 0O QI dJ N QJQJ O W O O E ate+ }'N �_ Ln Ln O -0 -M C bn dJO C- N � E O Q dJ _ E 0X W O Ln �J dJ Q • • Q m U c% L fir^ 4 LL Ll r + 4- -f , 4. :c( I 1'�: bc t Pct +ttt-it 7 +1 J I 4 tt + d4 + i-rJ+ 1 t J + 4-1- .- -! C i:�-, 4-- -_L4 MQ I:x cc EH 4Q ';Nft 0 0 LU -77 ,._ Of xCD LO LU vJ C) ffff=1-77-p— LL I— C) u) o n O in in w —0 —0 —0 c m c 0 0 a CL 0 0 0 Z z z :E, RI -L. t- -�PL4- - 14- 4- 1 �Vt f t t - I +-4-4 -4� Tom_-'j4i- +rj4T-1, U) t x W -It i�-Irlr i -1 f k Z O CL O Aw, .1� m l co Co cC-0 G � L >�L(6 U > Co C to � L U) >1 O c o w O N Z O CL O -r . it ' % ?ail. • . �L� f. IAC �1 r co Co G (6 G L _ >�L(6 U > Co C U) = O L cl, Q C � LLO w O 64 !�. �-�►de �._, ._ ..rte '� Pil Z O CL z O V ir AU�► w. dw - ,,p ;�.. N-1 Ro.4� .r- - ter' t' 0 CL 0 V m � J W LL W 0 Z LL 0 0 0 e CL z 0 co Co C-0 C-0� L >�L(6 U > Co C U) � U) = O L cl, Q SH LLO w 0 64 Z O CL O m � J W LL W O Z LLO O Z O CL C O V W9 4.6 Tln '.r C) CL 0 z 0 CL 0 V co �Co L >�L U > (6 Co U) >, O cl,o � o L w 0 64 z O CL O O CL C O c6 N Co C-0 C-0� L iL U > (6 Co C U) >, O Co 0 � o w O N Z O CL O O CL z O V ti 'l� , ,✓.T�� v L4144 Aa . � .. } spa �•� r s O CL O a r4 . - Z # �. 7 ow Z O CL z O V ••rte l } LIL1 Oj Z O CL O O CL z O U c6 L Co c� C L >�Lc6 U > Co C U) � (A O FO x Lo w 0 64 C) CL O L � a'Et4 '4 7.Ojpn 0 \ CL z O V .I - 4L . •'{. 1. �'' r '�� A � �• •* 4p co �Co C-0� L >�L U > (6 m C U) = O Co 0 o LLo w O 64 co a� Co L >�L(6 U > Co U) >, O cl, o x LO L w O 64 O CL O r s ` IMF %q L•9 t. co N Co (6 L >�L(6 U > co c L U) O co C OL L w O 64 O CL O ,J •� s s •- ►was ow co Co L >�L(6 U > m c �� (!J O Co 0 L w 0 64 Z O CL O V Q m � J rrW vl LL W O Z LL O O O CL O V �� , �► . `:�'.,� _p/ is r s- "OOVI wn =� r. co a� Co >�L(6 U > Co C U) >, O L c6 0 LLo w O N t M6mmo�L � T * ` LL A JA }, wl"Ir _ �. .o�. y r :` kAl Ilk L . LL `�, •til r- - _ � 1 F 7 S Wilk yy a l M c6 Co C-0 U) G � L >�L U > (6 Co L U) O clo C Q LLO w 0 cN L P- 4 K ry F h_ rrPk 4 rybar co Co G L a�+ Co C-0� L >� L cc) > (6 Co C L U) O L �Co LLo w O cN z O CL O z O CL z O C 1r rQ MOL ]PROV, AlpfYM AP lr ► r �k � ■ r ` ry wi•N - O CL O a z O CL z O V O CL O r.. O CL C O V c6 N Co L >�L(6 U > Co c U) = O L cl,Q i L L w 0 64 0 CL 0 Y V MQ W � J W LL W LL 0 0 0 CL z 0 1 i co L Co c� C L >�L(6 U > Co C U) = O co 0 0 LLO w O 64 O CL O Z O CL z O v co Co C-0 C-0� L _ >�L(6 U > Co =o L O L w O cN z O CL O Z O CL z O V r r fir:';: _ /r Or AV Or AAR AMA co Co (6 L _ >� L U > (6 Co C L U) O co 0 i OL a� L w 0 N AVE r r fir:';: _ /r Or AV Or AAR AMA co Co (6 L _ >� L U > (6 Co C L U) O co 0 i OL a� L w 0 N b v 0 CL 0 Z 0 CL z 0 V co L _ >� L CW) > (6 Co c uj O � o LLo w 0 64 O CL O F J& w c6 Co c� G � L _ >�L U > (6 Co U) = O L (6 O i L LLo w O 64 O CL O Z O CL z O V c6 Co C-0� L >�L U > c6 Co c L U) O L Co O x Lo •H w O cN z 0 CL 0 0 CL z 0 V co Co G a�+ c� G � L >�L(6 U > Co L U) O L Co 0LLo w 0 cN O CL O O Q CL z O V co Co C-0� L _ >� L(6 U > Co U) = O L E _� Co O i L .U) a� x Lo L w 0 cN O CL O L co Co C (6 L >�L(6 U > CoAll- J16, C L U) O o . �o L w 0 cN z O 0 Z O CL O Ir ZA '� • �; i . rte— x,, �c �►_ '� � rte. AO S s AIIL ,y. kL z O CL O Z O CL z O `- A(b, ~J , C z O CL O Z O CL G O V .damRib_�. r ''.. ■ Vu 4JIll; .i1 7.• [,moi y�,y AL c6 N Co L >�L U > (6 m C L U) O L cl,Q i L L w 0 64 z O CL O O CL z O V Ilk •y:.�: #.�• i. ���! � s� � �. it . PA 7 Ar .Ar �Y ow � " ��;�` '"�� � � - 1 '` �:• lam- � �\� � #�' �'�': ,.t .AL �u L� ` 6w .Ap - it ol 941 � .. . j 4 0 CL 0 M A�1 0 CL z 0 V r At- T~- y•J f yy,��� r Y •y ,-a ►I [� co N L _ >�L(6 U > m C U) � U) O L Co O L w O 64 0 CL z r0 V 0 O CL O O CL z O (i co co c� G � L a�+ 2 U > (6 co c to � L U) O L Co O a� w O N �� � ,:� �. •_ ''Nff ••� �`�� . L . r _ �y.i• .�� K. yrs `•+ - �?h�'. •�. w!.' •4 _� 4lipLL • .. . tip..•.. � � .�r• � _ �t� .�. �.lip �.,'ti' 4. • yyAV44 • � -ter. _�'`. - .' - ... •` , .•. • yam. �•�,. � .: �c. : ��. ,y� � � � �-` � � . .. �� 'y'N'f �. ¢'�—�.s�+�r' r`��►'. Y �•`n.rf¢�i� •ted'.. J*. ` _ - _ � ie •.� y '*� . - +. • . -t __y rte. n^ • " �.r.�i_ _ .. . r -i mss. Y.. ..i• .:�.., y,tl.. • .. ..:. �y�r � ��..r_: '� i�+4 _�-�-•`k r�r�� �, � .. �� .Y• y :r �, ,c.4tirr. }tom co Co G Co c� G >�L U > (6 Co C U) = O L (6 O i L x Lo a� w 0 64 4 }' Ak r jr . tiW _-. V6 31 r L c� C U > (6 Co C U) = O • co 0L — C L w LLO O 64 "r O CL z O V I LO qo O F m c6 IV I co >�L U > (6 Co C c (n >1 OCC cC Q LLo w 0 64 O CL O z O CL z O wr Paw C: SOO gotA Fl. ■ aw 41W- Jil i jjp 11w ,.O 7 7. �• 44,, i 1 X04 t4l J� tc, .1 /" 11 co L Co c� C L _ >� L U > (6 m C L Un O co L OLoL w 0 cN f is e � Irf 1 ! fI [•� Y 1v LIJ u srmo LW 61 OF LL if 4 ScL� L.1 -ML LL el iCJ �. ry er L u e� • u LNII � �. ...� fflkk�- LE LL. :. •� _ti •_ t �r • O CL O Z 0 Q CL z O C co L Co c� C >�L U > (6 Co C U) = O L (6 O L w 0 64 OAR . �,4� r � `.. +�f. 'Ieliha4., ` s • ry � ' �Y• { : d � �'S! ' r k . �� � � . ir. a axe �t :�i' I%.h�' rJr �'..�' •:F '=y.,; ;iC+,'v i-�; a. CL sif Y � i`vS . � p. t+S.•-•�i y{ T �t� �d �',�y„�`li' ?' ms's' �'a4- ''-, Silt 's��•� �� �{.� .� � - � -�� �'i co L Co c� G � >�L U > (6 Co C U) = O co 0 L w O 64 ml� * Z 1 ! O 1L1 O 1 . , 'N /O vl L^Q 5\ co L Co c� G � >�L U > (6 Co C U) = O co 0 L w O 64 O CL O A Z O CL O V JW, O l L co a� Co C-0� >�L(6 U > Co C L U) >1 O co 0 L w O N LJ 0 4 �+ t _4W-1 40* ;,'� `ice.-. � Z- •_� � "¢ •� ;yR.i� .. i oo '� �� '• •} ` f ," , .l .��.�� , 1, � �.r �;� 3_•�t�r � , , �' �. �/ ',�, r � • '.rem, �-�� - .- _ .. �� � ` -� . ^A rr LL Lo LO g° c6 a� Co C-0 (6 L c>� L U > (6 m U) = O L (6 O LLO w 0 64 O CL O O CL C O V Ilk SS k' � V i +r►; jo x . - Ob It 4�yy�,�' F gyp, = "`�• a-, .� Y�'y:�4 � . .r' �sry�'. �� Alr..r XR x � y,r 4r' k L M. N c6 L >�L U > (6 Co L U) O LE c6 0 LLo w O 64 c6 Co L _ >� U > c6L Co Uo L E Q C L L w O cN t.. WI L co N Co c� G � L >�L U > (6 m C L U) O Co 0 x Lo L w O 64 'F R` LL - LO fit- c�1-14 IFL fir. A. CL .+' _ �� rte' , y Y f =Fr c, rt• 's� ''yY , . l �` . % • W + � y. LL LU LL �... r a4 �" a• Ok,_ io fi. co ►K y. • ,f L L V ' r► Co co co ` •,s r _ L V:. E- � O � S C L a �• ` - ' F- S X L Lo cN x F i Z ct a O r"::.." .ot, 4 LL o H ct a 0 42 a 3a i co N L _m co O O i N a>� m aYi = U co N � c� O 1 job Z O ct Q CL O U _ 7 y ti s� �+ yr _ ._ - _:_�. `, �• ` " ,+ `4 410 +� IN. - Y - . 4L op aw S m co c O 0 0 m co a� .0 m N 2 N U co 0 1 U Q M W J_ W LL WD 0 0 v! ct a 0 IV -: !i 4y tiC • .�' µ� �� ll�� I� Z v! ct a O co a� O Om co m c 0 O co N co .0 m � 2 U co c� o 1 Lei v, ct a 0 A L4` J •. IS Ah 1r r Ilk LI• LLL Ns F y U ICZm J W--. �LL WO O LL�-ft O Z ct a O U i ct a 0 U Jail n � rte. • p leis, .N e V J _IX wo % LL ao- o ¢ co a� co a O 0 0 Y co co >N .0 _m N 2 N U co C7 O 1 EE Jail n � rte. • p leis, .N e V J _IX wo % LL ao- o ¢ co a� co a O 0 0 Y co co >N .0 _m N 2 N U co C7 O 1 Nva ,i, '.. '•�; 1 Ar o ,� -, .. Z O ct a 0 °9 s 's a 2i �o j 6 ,a 2�d 40°9 o� i 1p ct a 0 1 _ c Xt �• - �' (�0?7 PFF O y CL ! � � s c1 L'J a ct a 0 A OF 0 44 Mji ' O y- - � ,•lwti4 fA - o ' •e r rl � o jr n* Ap N jL i o 's Y Po ti Z ct a 0 U Z ct a 0 do s� e '.zl,. ?_ `. IN y e U r J ''W v! �LL W� 0 LL�-ft 0 Z ct a 0 J6illilif ;. Sw �� � � • ttr.•r:m N sem, =Z, r. N N kk A*y� jw-�I � N _ �� w •:� •� Fes. � ���` N � N � B Al +� X :.� � •" J• �� tip *'''. Mit, vM -M -r ul El I iW s - -aw fir: i co >N co m c 0 0 O co m a� m aYi = U co �0 1 -V !III4 o• N � B Al +� X :.� � •" J• �� tip *'''. Mit, vM -M -r ul El I iW s - -aw fir: i co >N co m c 0 0 O co m a� m aYi = U co �0 1 4 •j uu��� �I Z t rIwo cet ' _ 9 +y t f CL �y p° O m _4ift r w Q Q N �' ca ui ui p � cter Q N Ap All AWN r7 - IA Jo ; — Y.: lot ' tea, ■ � ,� � N �i - - s LL v Ko LO *jw , F � y Ap All AWN r7 - IA Jo ; — Y.: lot ' tea, ■ � ,� � N r� rZ W� p �� r � ct a O U • V �S Y7L' 4 co m co 0 0 0 co co m N U co o O 1 e I � + ■ __ r e F L r� rZ W� p �� r � ct a O U • V �S Y7L' 4 co m co 0 0 0 co co m N U co o O 1 ., :R Rp77 di LL �go AR A 5� ii ` ✓ \ ` r �w O Z CL ry•. ��> l � r ct r ui LL ui O ., :R Rp77 di LL �go AR A 5� ii ` ✓ \ ` r �w O Z ct ., :R Rp77 di LL �go AR A 5� ii ` ✓ \ ` r �w O� X L•T-pw - /0 x L v! ct a O U ua-"r�4 � T Lei ct Q CL O 6 tI Asl co N >N m co c O 0 0 co co .0 m N 2 N U co N C o O 1 'O v! ct CL 0