Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEC Aug 11 2003I ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 11, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing from Public Accommodation zone district (PA) to Parking zone district (P); a request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the proposed zoning of Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation II zone district; a request for subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5m Filing; a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a "private off-street vehicle parking facility and public park" to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing;[a request for an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for a variance from Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to allow for the construction of multiple-family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard theret A (A more complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Jay Peterson, has submitted five development review applications to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The five applications are intended to facilitate the redevelopment of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5`h Filing and to allow for the rezoning of Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision, from Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD) to Ski Base Recreation-2 District (SBR-2). The applicant has submitted the applications to allow for the construction of Vail Park and a new 134 space private underground parking structure in Vail Village and to facilitate the development of Vail's Front Door. Staff is recommending approval of each of the applicant's development review applications with the conditions listed in Section IX of this memorandum. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC), represented by Jay Peterson, has submitted five development review applications to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Lots P3 & J Four applications have been submitted to facilitate the redevelopment of a paved parking lot on Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing and build a new public park (Vail Park) and an above-ground/ underground, private off-street vehicle parking facility. The four applications include; • A major subdivision of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing, • An amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail to rezone Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing from the Public Accommodation (PA) district to the Parking (P) District, • A conditional use permit to allow for a `public park"in the Parking District, and • A conditional use permit to allow for a `private off-street vehicle parking structure" According to the applicant's written statement submitted with the application, the proposed redevelopment of Lots P3 & J is intended to address two major goals: • To upgrade existing conditions of the site by replacing the majority of the existing surface parking lot with a neighborhood park; and ' . ; • To provide an additional source of parking for the surrounding neighborhood and the greater Vail comimunity. This development concept is in keeping with the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan. The upgrading of this site has been a long-standing goal of the Town. The Vail Village Master Plan specifically identifies this "as appropriate for park/open space and/or central loading and delivery facilities": The proposed development of Lots P3 & J includes the construction of a sub-surface parking structure containing 108 parking spaces. The uppermost plate of the parking structure will be located at approximately the same grade elevation as the existing gravel parking lot. The uppermost level of the structure will be dedicated for the exclusive use of the Christiania Lodge, in accordance with an existing contractual agreement between the applicant and the Christiania Lodge. Vehicular access to the upper level will be from Hanson Ranch Road and access to the parking structure will be through a garage door located along Gore Creek Drive. Pedestrian circulation to and from the below grade portions of the parking structure will be via a small on- grade building containing a set of stairs and an elevator. A vicinity map of the development site and surrounding area has been attached for reference (Attachment A) A reduced copy of the proposed plans and the proposed major subdivision final plat has been attached for reference (Attachment B). IV. Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision The applicant has submitted an application to rezone Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision from Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD) to the newly created Ski Base Recreation-2 District (SBR-2). The purpose of the proposed rezoning is to facilitate the development of Vail's Front Door Project. BACKGROUND In 1965, Lots P3 & J were created by the adoption of the Vail Village 5th Filing Subdivision. As platted, Lot P3 and Lot J are separated by a 25-foot wide Town of Vail right-of-way. For reasons that are not clear in the Town's property files, a road (Hanson Ranch Road Chute) was constructed outside of the right-of-way on the westernmost portion of Lot P3. Until now, this discrepancy has never been addressed. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, Lot P3 is located in the Parking (P) District and Lot J is located in the Public Accommodation (PA) District. Notwithstanding the zoning, these two lots have historically been used for surface parking. On April 14, 2003, VRDC appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission for a worksession meeting to discuss the proposed plans for the redevelopment of Lots P3 & J with the Commission. At the time, the applicant was proposing to incorporate four loading and delivery spaces into the parking structure to provide a dispersed loading and delivery facility for the businesses in Vail Village. A copy of the approved Planning and Environmental Commission April 14, 2003 meeting minutes have been attached for reference (Attachment C). ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BODIES Maior Subdivision Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a major subdivision. Specifically the code 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. (1997 Code: Ord. 2(1983) § 1 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. Town Council: The Town Council is also responsible for accepting land for public right of way in a Major Subdivision. Rezoning/Zone District Boundary Amendment Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is advisory to the Town Council. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority on zoning/rezonings. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. 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: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of a zoning/rezoning. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. Conditional Use Permit Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/denial/approval with conditions of conditional use permits. 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 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. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a conditional use permit but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. 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 memorandum 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. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 13, Subdivision Regulations 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. 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 shall make a presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. The presentation and public hearing shall be in accordance with Section 12-3-6 (Hearings) of the Vail Town Code. 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 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. Environmental Integrity; 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 (21) 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 Vail 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 public 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 3 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. Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code) Parking District (P) 12-913-1: PURPOSE: The Parking District is intended to provide sites for private or public unstructured off-street vehicle parking and conditionally to provide for private or public off-street vehicle parking structures and private or public parks and recreational facilities. The Parking District is intended to allow such uses while ensuring adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each valid use in adjacent areas. 12-913-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the P District: Private or public unstructured off-street vehicle parking. 12-913-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Major arcade. Private or public off-street vehicle parking structures. Private or public parks and recreational facilities. Public uses, private office and commercial uses that are transportation, tourist or Town related and that are accessory to a parking structure. Temporary construction staging sites. For the purposes of this Section, a temporary construction staging site shall mean a site on which, for a temporary period of time, construction materials, heavy construction equipment, vehicles and construction trailers may be stored. Type III employee housing units (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title. In 12-96-4: ACCESSORY USES: Minor arcade. Chapter 12-16: Conditional Use Permits 12-16-1: PURPOSE. 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 and evaluation 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 and 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 ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with 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. Town of Vail Land Use Plan Chapter 11- Land Use Plan Goals/Policies 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. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community, and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. i According to the Official Town of Vail Land Use Plan map, the applicant's proposed redevelopment site is located with the "Vail Village Master Plan" land use category. Pursuant to the Plan, the "Vail Village Master Plan" land use category description, "Vail Village has been designated separately as a mixed use area and accounts for 77 acres or about 2% of the Plan area. This area has not been analyzed in this Plan document because the Vail Village Master Plan study addressed this area specifically in more detail. " Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan The Town of Vail is in the process of preparing a revision to the adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The original Master Plan is an outgrowth of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The Guide Plan was created in 1982 to give guidance to the overall physical development for the Village. In addition to providing broad design guidelines, the Guide Plan suggested specific physical improvements for the Village. Improvements such as new plazas, new landscape area, etc. Along with the construction of these public improvements included proposals to complete numerous private sector improvements. Improvements such as building additions outdoor deck expansions, and fagade improvements. The Streetscape Master Plan was written in part to provide clear design direction for coordinated public/private improvements. According to the Master Plan, the purpose of the plan is to provide a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvements that: 1. is supported by the community; 2. enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and 3. emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order to create an excellent pedestrian experience. Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whole. It is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly, this Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. Furthermore, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and along with the Guide Plan, it underscores the importance of the relationship between the built environment and public spaces. Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. While there is a certain amount of overlap between these six goals, each focuses on a particular aspect of the Village and the community as a whole. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of objectives outline specific steps that can be taken toward achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision- making in achieving each of the stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in implementing capital improvement projects. The Vail Village Master Plan's objectives and policy statements address key issues relative to growth and development. These statements establish much of the context within which future development proposals are evaluated. In implementing the Plan, the objectives and policies are used in conjunction with a number of graphic planning elements that together comprise this Plan. While the objectives and policies establish a general framework, the graphic plans provide more specific direction regarding public improvements or development potential on a particular piece of property. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. The most significant elements of the Master Plan are the goals, objectives, policies and action steps. They are the working tools of the Master Plan. They establish the broad framework and vision, but also layout the specific policies and action steps that will be used to implement the Plan. As noted on page 35 of the Master Plan, "It is important to note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for those proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Plan. " Staff believes this statement re-emphasizes that the Master Plan is a general document providing advisory guidelines to aid the Town in analyzing development proposals and that full compliance is not required in order for a project to be approved. The stated goals of the Vail Village Master Plan are: Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. Objective 1.3: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 10 Objective 2.1: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 11 sub-areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns Objective 2.4: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. Objective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Objective 3.2: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. Objective 3.4: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. Objective 4.1: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspaces and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type pf open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. Objective 4.2 Improve and expand the opportunity for active and passive recreational activity throughout the Village. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. Objective 5.1: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. Objective 6.1: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. Objective 6.2: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically pleasing resort setting. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan This Guide Plan represents collective ideas about functional and aesthetic objectives for Vail Village. Diagrammatic in nature, the Guide Plan is intended to suggest the it nature of improvements desired. It is based on a number of urban design criteria determined to be appropriate for guiding change in the Vail Village. The Guide plan is intended to be a guide for current planning in both the public and private sectors. VI. ZONING ANALYSIS Lots P3 & J Legal Description: Lots P3 and J, Block 5A, Vail Village Fifth Filing Zoning: Parking (P) District Land Use Designation: Vail Village Master Plan Lot Size: 16,858 sq. ft./0.387 acre Development Standard Allowed Proposed Parking: Unlimited 134 spaces Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision Legal Description: Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision Zoning: Ski Base Recreation-2 District Land Use Designation: Vail Village Master Plan Lot Size: 90, 077 sq. ft./2.067 acres Development Standard Allowed Proposed Lot Area: !0,000 sq.ft. min. N/A Setbacks: Per the approved N/A development plan Height: 0'- 43', and per the N/A approved development plan Density Control: 8 du's per buildable N/A acre/per the approved development plan Site Coverage: Per the approved N/A development plan Landscaping: Per the approved N/A development plan Parking Per Chapter 10 of N/A the Zoning Regulations 12 VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Lots P3 & J Land Use Zoning North: Residential High Density Multiple Family South: Residential/Lodging SDD No. 28 (Christiania Lodge) East: Residential High Density Multiple Family West: Mixed Use Commercial Core I Lots 1 and 2. Mill Creek Subdivision Land Use North: Mixed Use South: Recreation East: Residential West: Residential Zoning Commercial Core I Not Zoned (USFS Land) Primary/Secondary Residential Primary/Secondary Residential VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Lots P3 & J Major Subdivision Chapter 3, Major Subdivision, Title 13 Subdivision Regulations, of the Vail Town Code prescribe the review criteria for a request for a major subdivision. Pursuant to Section 13-3-7, Review Criteria for Final Plat, Vail Town Code, the criteria for reviewing the final plat shall be as contained in Section 13-3-4 of the Subdivision Regulations. According to Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Criteria: "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. 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". The purpose of the proposed major subdivision is to correct an error in the location of the Hanson Ranch Road Chute versus the location of the platted Town of Vail right- of-way. As platted, the 25-foot wide right-of-way connects Gore Creek Drive to Hanson Ranch Road across the center portion of Lot P3. The Hanson Ranch Road Chute, as constructed, is located on the westernmost portion of Lot P3 entirely outside of the platted right-of-way. To resolve this discrepancy, the applicant is proposing to vacate the existing right-of-way and plat a new right-of-way underneath the Hanson Ranch Road Chute. The new right-of-way will be 40-feet wide and located on the westernmost portion of Lot P3. 13 Staff has reviewed the application for a major subdivision to vacate and re-plat the Hanson Ranch Road Chute right-of-way. Upon review of the proposed final plat, staff finds that the proposal complies with the criteria prescribed for a major subdivision application. A reduced copy of the proposed final plat for Lots P3 & J has been attached for reference (Attachment B). Amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail (rezoning) Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, Title 12, Zoning Title, of the Vail Town Code authorizes amendments to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, in part, "an application to amend the district boundaries of the Zoning Map may be initiated by petition of any resident or property owner in the Town." Furthermore, Section 12-3-7 C prescribes the criteria and findings the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider with respect to a request to amend the Zoning Map. Lots P3 & J The applicant is seeking a recommendation of approval to rezone Lot J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing, from the Public Accommodation (PA) District to the Parking (P). According to Section 12-3-7 C, of the Vail Town Code, Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the Planning and 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; and Section V of this memorandum outlines all of the goals and policies implemented or that are relevant to the proposed rezoning of Lots P3 and J. The proposed rezoning specifically implements the Vail Village Master Plan Sub-Area Policy 7-1 which states that, "development of this site should be restricted to parking and other public purpose uses". According to Section 12-9B-1 of the Zoning Regulations, the purpose of the Parking (P) District is intended to, "to provide sites for private or public unstructured off-street vehicle parking and conditionally to provide for private or public off-street 14 vehicle parking structures and private or public parks and recreational facilities. The Parking District is intended to allow such uses while ensuring adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each valid use in adjacent areas." The proposed rezoning and proposed development plan is consistent and compatible with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and the Town's development objectives. 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; and The Parking (P) District establishes zoning that is more consistent with both existing and proposed uses on the parcel. The proposed use of the property will remain as parking with the addition of a public park area. The property is surrounded by residential and lodging uses and parking for those uses. The proposed zoning and use of the property (parking and public park) is consistent with the existing and potential uses in the area and is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and The Parking (P) District is consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. The proposed zone district implements specific goals of the Vail Village Master Plan by restricting the use of the land for parking, loading, and neighborhood park uses. Staff believes that the proposed re-zoning presents a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship with land uses in the area consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. 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; and The proposed re-zoning establishes one consistent zoning for the property. Part of the parcel is currently zoned Parking (P) District and the proposed re-zoning simply extends that zone district to another portion of the site. This re-zoning will create a zone district consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. The proposed re-zoning and development plan provide for the development of an orderly viable community consistent with the Town's development interests as expressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. 5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse C or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including but not 15 limited to water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and Given the developed nature of the property and the findings of the Environmental Impact Report, the proposed project will not result in adverse impacts to the environment including water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides, or other natural features. The project will result in beneficial impacts resulting from properly designed structures, drainage facilities, and additional vegetation being added to the site. 6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. The Parking (P) District is proposed for the subject property. The proposed zone district is consistent with the intended purpose of that zone district. The proposed use of the property is a structured parking and loading area and a public park. All of the proposed uses are listed in the purpose statement and the list of allowable and conditional uses for the Parking (P) District. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. The use of the property for more than two decades has been parking. However, the zoning designation of a portion of the property has been Public Accommodation for the same period of time. The Vail Village Master Plan identifies the property as being appropriate for parking. The existing zone district does not appear to be consistent with the envisioned use of the property and is perhaps no longer appropriate. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision The applicant is seeking a recommendation of approval to rezone Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision from the Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD) to the newly established Ski Base Recreation-2 District (SBR-2). According to Section 12-3-7 C, of the Vail Town Code, Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: 16 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; and Section V of this memorandum outlines all of the goals and policies implemented or that are relevant to the proposed rezoning of Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision. The proposed rezoning implements the Vail Village Master Plan Sub-Area Policy #11-1 and a portion of Policy #11-2, which states that, "Limited development of this site provides an opportunity to consolidate and/or remove existing uses and in doing so improve the visual quality of this area. Medium density residential development and associated uses respecting and complimenting the adjacent Lodge at Vail, Lodge Tower, and Vista Bahn ski yard are appropriate. Most parking except temporary guest arrival spaces should be located below grade. Existing mountain and USFS access should be maintained and if feasible placed below grade throughout the parcel. To the extent feasible, service and delivery facilities, including existing service and delivery facilities for the Lodge Tower, the Lodge at Vail, and surrounding commercial uses should be located below grade. A pedestrian/bicycle connection between Willow Circle/Vail Road and the Vista Bahn ski yard should be retained. Development of this sub- C area will attract additional traffic and population to this area and may have significant impacts on sub area 1-12 (Willow Circle). " and, "Redevelopment of ski yard should improve and emphasize the connection between the Vista Bahn lift area (the mountain) and the lower skier plaza area (the village). Opportunities exist to re-grade the ski yard to improve access and usefulness of the site. Existing modular ski storage structures in the ski yard should be replaced with new skier/guest service facilities to improve year-round use of the area and to encourage summer season usage. If developed, the scale of a skier/guest service building should be limited to one-story as viewed from the skier plaza area." According to Section 12-8E-1, of the Zoning Regulations, the purpose of the Ski Base Recreation-2 District is intended to, "provide sites for facilities, activities and uses necessary for and appurtenant to the operation of a ski mountain. A variety of other facilities, uses and activities, including but not limited to residential, public and semi-public uses and special community events typically associated with a vibrant resort community are also permitted within the District. The Ski Base/Recreation 2 District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to ~.r permitted and conditional uses throughout the District. In order to achieve this objective and to ensure compatibility with adjacent land 17 uses, all permitted uses, development and activity within the District shall be subject to approval of a comprehensive development plan in accordance with the provisions of this Article. Furthermore, due to the likelihood of this District being located at the base of Vail Mountain, and upon some of the most critical and important lands to the future success and resort character of the Town, development within this District shall be evaluated based upon its ability to meet the specific purposes of this Title and to provide "compelling public benefits which further the public interests" that go beyond any economic benefits to the landowner. " The proposed rezoning and proposed development plan is consistent and compatible with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and the Town's development objectives. 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; and In March of 2003, the Vail Town Council approved text and map amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan (Resolutions #2 & #3, Series of 2003). The purpose of the amendments was to establish the opportunity for a property owner to propose an annexation of USFS lands for inclusion within the boundaries of the Town of Vail and to establish the "Front Door Sub-Area (#11)" within the boundaries of the Vail Village Master Plan. In addition, the land use categories of the two plans were amendment to more accurate reflect he desired future conditions of the Tow of Vail. According to the Vail Village Master Plan, "The Front Door sub-area plays a critical role in the interface between the ski mountain and the fabric of Vail Village. While the Vista Bahn ski yard received a minor face-lift in 1998, this entire area is in great need of major renovation and addition of new guest facilities. As the premier guest portal to Vail Mountain, the Front Door area should reflect in both use and design the world class stature of the Vail resort and community. The goals for development in this sub-area are as follows: To provide for a year-round, world class guest experience at the interface between Vail Village and the ski mountain. To provide new and improved guest service facilities at the top of Bridge Street that will not only improve the quality of the entire guest experience, but will increase evening guest retention in Vail Village. Provide for new below-grade loading and delivery facilities to better serve the Front Door and upper Bridge Street areas, consistent with the overall "dispersed quadrant" approach of the Vail loading and delivery master plan. 18 • Provide for the removal of surface vehicular traffic and parking that currently occurs within the sub-area. • To provide for limited (6-10 dwelling units/acre) private medium density residential development. " Upon review of the Vail Land Use Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan, and the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the staff believes that the proposed use of the property (ski base/ recreation/residential) is consistent with the existing and potential uses in the area and is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Land Use Plan. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and The Ski Base Recreation-2 District is consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. The proposed zone district implements specific goals of the Vail Village Master Plan by restricting the use of the land to those uses listed as permitted, conditional, and accessory in Chapter 8, Article E, of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. Staff believes that the proposed re-zoning presents a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship with land uses in the area consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. 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; and The proposed re-zoning and the required development plan approval will provide for the orderly and viable development of the site consistent with the Town's development objectives. The intended uses in this zone district include sites for facilities, activities and uses necessary for and appurtenant to the operation of a ski mountain. A variety of other facilities, uses and activities, including but not limited to residential, public and semi-public uses and special community events typically associated with a vibrant resort community are also permitted within the District. The recently amended Vail Land Use Plan contemplates the previously described uses on this site. This re-zoning will create a zone district consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. The proposed re-zoning and development plan provide for the development of an orderly viable community consistent with the Town's development interests as expressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. 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; and Given the developed nature of the property and the findings of the Environmental Impact Report, the proposed project will not result in 19 adverse impacts to the environment including water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides, or other natural features. The project will result in beneficial impacts resulting from properly designed structures, drainage facilities, and additional vegetation being added to the site. A revised Environmental Impact Report analyzing the potential impacts of proposed development on this site has been submitted for review and consideration. The findings of the revised report conclude that with certain mitigating measures, this site can be developed with minimal, if any, negative impacts to the environmental quality of the Town of Vail. 6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. The Ski Base Recreation-2 District is proposed for the subject property. The proposed zone district is consistent with the intended purpose of that zone district. 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. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, Lots 1 and 2, of the Mill Creek Subdivision, are presently zoned Natural Area Preservation District. The existing uses on the property include unpaved parking, ski lifts, ski storage, mountain access roads and other ski mountain operation uses. The Vail Village Master Plan and Vail Land Use Plan identify the property as being appropriate for certain types of development, subject to review by the Town of Vail. Upon consideration of the Town's adopted master plans, including the Town of Vail comprehensive Open Lands Plan, staff believes that the conditions of the Town have changed and that this proposed rezoning is in the best interest of the Town of Vail. The existing zone district does not appear to be consistent with the envisioned use of the property, as contemplated in the Town's master planning documents, and is perhaps no longer appropriate for the site. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. Conditional Use Permits Lots P3 & J The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town Code. Upon approval of the request to amend the Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the proposed project will be located within the Parking (P) District. Therefore, this proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. 20 A. Consideration of Factors Regarding Conditional Use Permits: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Public Park The proposed public park is intended to provide an open space or green space opportunity for residents and guest in Vail Village. As designed, the park will sit atop the underground parking structure. The park design incorporates a small grassed lawn area into the gently sloping hillside. No active recreation is contemplated and therefore concerns of excessive noise from organized activities is unlikely to occur. The landscape design of the park is intended to complement the proposed streetscape design and existing uses in the immediate vicinity. Staff believes that the use and benefits of Vail Park are analogous to Bishop Park which is located on the west end of Vail Village. Staff believes that the proposed use of the site as a public park will have a positive impact on the development objectives of the Town. Private Off-street Parking Structure The proposed use of the site as a structured parking lot implements the long-term goals of the Town and neighbors as expressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. According to the Vail Village Master Plan, this site is an appropriate location for a parking facility and other public uses such as a neighborhood park. The use of the site as a structured parking facility will no doubt increase the number of vehicle trips into the area. Staff believes that an increase in vehicle trips could potentially have negative impacts on the surrounding uses in the immediate vicinity. That said, however, staff believes that the current use of the site for parking and loading/delivery already negatively impacts the area and is detrimental to the development objectives of the Town. Overall, staff believes that the proposal for a private parking structure on this site is in compliance with 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 facilities needs. Public Park The use of site for a neighborhood park will have positive impacts on the above-described criteria. Specifically, the park will provide yet another outdoor opportunity for the residents and guests of the Town of Vail. Historically, parks in the Town of Vail are heavily used by the residents and guests of Vail and one of the most popular public amenities in Town. Staff believes that the proposed use will have little, if any, negative effects on the above-described criteria. Private Off-street Parking Structure The proposed use of the site for parking will have few, if any, negative impacts on the above-described criteria. The proposed parking use will provide much needed parking in a more efficient and orderly manner than 21 currently exists on the site. The private parking structure will act to reduce the demand for parking on the public parking facilities in Town and thus increase the amount of available parking to the general public. As an underground facility, the parking use of the site will not impede upon the availability of light and air to the surrounding in the vicinity of the site. Staff believes that the proposal for a private off-street parking structure complies with the above-described criteria. 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. Public Park The public park will have no negative impacts on the above-described criteria. If anything, the use of the site for a public park will have significant positive effects on the above-described criteria. Staff believes that the proposal for a public park complies with the above-described criteria. Private Off-street Parking Structure The proposed redevelopment of this site to construct a private parking structure will improve traffic flow, vehicular and pedestrian safety, vehicular maneuverability, and snow removal. The current use of the site and right-of-way for loading and delivery creates many unsafe situations and creates traffic congestion. The proposed plan removes all loading and delivery from this site in Town and replaces with a short-term skier drop off area. It is clear that the removal of the loading and delivery activity will have significant positive effects on the above-described criteria, staff remains reluctant that the same negative effects created by the delivery trucks will not be reintroduced by the skier drop off traffic. Staff does believe, however, that regardless of the provision of the skier drop off area, the activity will continue regardless. Staff believes that the proposed plan will improve pedestrian safety and circulation in the area through the construction of new pedestrian sidewalks and stairs. Overall, staff believes that the proposed private off-street parking structure complies with the above-described criteria. 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. Public Park The public park will be essentially constructed on the grade of the existing surface parking. With the exception of the elevator building, no above grade structures will be constructed on the site. The height of the elevator building has been held to the minimum necessary to accommodate the uses of the building. The design of the building has been proposed to be compatible with the structures and uses on the adjoining properties. As the park is designed to be only a small neighborhood park for passive recreation with no organized active 22 recreation facilities proposed, staff believes that the use will have minimal, if any negative effects upon the character of the arga, If- " anything, staff believes that the park will only improve the existing character of the area and provide an open space amenity to the residents and guests of the town. Private Off-street Parking Structure The underground parking structure will largely conceal the use of the site for parking and the associated activities below grade and out of sight of the adjacent uses. While a 26 space, surface parking lot will remain, the surface lot will be landscaped and screened from view to the exlpnt possible. Currently, little, if any landscaping is on the site and all" ft. parking is in full view at all times. The main garage entrance to the' :.v. parking structure is designed with an operable door to minimize the•/ negative effects that an entrance to a parking structure can create. The exposed exterior walls of the structure are to be covered in stone to better blend into the character of Vail Village. All exterior lighting on the parking garage entrance will be required to comply with the Town's adopted outdoor lighting regulations and approved by the Design Review Board. The design of the parking structure is such that it is as low as possible and buried into the hillside. Overall, staff believes that the proposed private parking structure improve the existing character of the area. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Lots P3 & J Maior Subdivision The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 3, Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the vacation and relocation of the dedicated Town of Vail right-of- way on Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum Ae4 and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: kA, D "The Planning and Environmental Commission recommends approval to the Vail Town Council of the proposed major subdivision and finds that the major subdivision 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, - effects on the aesthetics of the Town. Specifically, the Commission finds that the major subdivision resolves a historical error in the location of the Hanson Ranch Road Chute versus the platted Town of Vail right-of-way location. Through this final plat the Hanson Ranch Road Chute will be properly located in a platted Town of Vail right-of-way." 23 I ,,,r Amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail Lots P3 & J The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of an amendment to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, pursuant to Chapter 3, Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to rezone Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing. 16~ A-D Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of an amendment to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, pursuant to Chapter 3, Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to rezone Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision. Staff's recommendations are based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following 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: 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; and 2. That the amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and generate welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances -44 its natural environment and its established character as a resort and h~ erao~o * N.D residential community of the highest quality. " Conditional Use Permit The Community Development Department recommends approval for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9B-3, Conditional Uses; Vail Town Code, to allow for a "public park" and a `private off-street vehicle parking structure", located at 360 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: 1 24 1. 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 Parking (P) District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will 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 will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve or forward a recommendation of approval of the applicant's to the Vail Town Council, staff recommends that the Commission makes the following conditions a part of the approval: That the approval of the condition use permits to allow for a public park and a private off-street vehicle parking structure becomes effective upon second reading of an amending ordinance rezoning Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) District to Parking (P) District. Should an amending ordinance not be approved by the Vail Town Council, the approval of the conditional use permits shall become null and void upon the passage of a motion denying the amending ordinance. 2. That the applicant submits a revised set of plans for review and approval by the Director of Public Works to the Town of Vail Community Development Department addressing each of the comments provided by the Town of Vail Public Works Department, prior to first reading of an ordinance amending the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map. 3. That the applicant submits an off-site improvements plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department illustrating the limits of construction of all off-site improvements, as required by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission, prior to first reading of an ordinance amending the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map. 4. That the approval of the condition use permits to allow for a public park and a private off-street vehicle parking structure becomes effective upon the approval of the proposed major subdivision of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing by the Vail Town Council. Should the proposed major subdivision not be approved by the Vail Town Council, the approval of the conditional use permits shall become null and void upon the passage of a motion denying the major subdivision. El That the final approval of the request to amendment the zone district boundaries of the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail to amend the zoning on Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision shall become effective upon approval of second reading of an amending ordinance by the Vail Town I%W Council. 25 X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. A reduced copy of the proposed plans and the proposed major subdivision final plat C. Approved copy of the April 14, 2003, meeting minutes of the Planning and Environmental Commission D. Update of the Traffic Engineering Study for P3 & J, dated August 7, 2003 '1i r- Q 26 t Fw r F z a ti x ice, ~r• . ~ u s~. 'Qh. E L~-] ~I I FF~ HDvxvD r s-a g g 9N~< eo W !8 ~pdi.~i E R x¢ o n P S O !fv S ,'IIVA 2I0 0 Q s jf' °~taC If aka 3I8 s E a v y Aoo ~QA a ~ ~..~cc PPal ~oNOgN d7 dCC<6 m s° a 8 ~ Hill s a.I All A Hlb. it HI-of 9R e al l ]r RS a a 9 k R V ail o NJ I nO O hy-~ r C7 M H P-4 O C O U 589 6g~g8i y F ~59~~~ I K k d~ ~ is a6 8` ~9 K 4k d R .R So 0 > 859 ~ agxe gg99gg 51 N U cd 4~~ ni °o x N W O ^ ~3 V E I 1 a~ s g€ S~$ Aga ~ e§5E v ~ 1 bj ~Y¢¢ ~:g ~a$y s~~p~ 6 E p 9 ~ h na k~Y Y I §!e b 9 H `Jd~~`~ FT 2I00(I S, IIVA o 6~~; @~{!ff 19! ~ @ ° ~ a a~ Ro Q u ~ n1 V] ~ ! eaq < ~ a H ~b r h° ~~tl lh~ I oo~ I p 3 3 6 YyF'B IN fCa~ S RR@ R ~°9I,3A IIISRIIII .$";°111#0 !11111 • 0 6m HDV?IV9 r~V E-a ~a< ~c 9e 7 y R a poti o ZIOOQ S,rIIVA MAU a" t 0 • 0 0 LM ~ovxd~ f v - d ° a< i w! i E g sf € s ° - xooQ E, s,-Iidn - 3 1 fl ,C e • 8 HO HVD 28 r ~ C-a g9 f 5 sue! ~ ~ 6 ° d. 7 7 HOOQ S,rIlVA 1 ~ p {g ! ~°`Y 9~Q, !ta'l~j@f g=~~ pa ? p a } ~ I • 0 I C C p.l 2I000 S,rIIVAwa1 -11 gil I'll 7E. FL~~. a f z l° 3 ~I L -J 0 Am 2I0 0 Q S ,'II~A a A t t ;tsE I~ ff~a s~s g Y ~ 4 1, I Nfly \ ~ ~ ` L I IE UJ • 0 i ■ ~ Hodxvo ~ r C- a ~ I V N ~ i ~ i ~ J 0 0 d O y p r T 7T1 HOOQ I Si1VA f [ ~~a° 8aQ! 1 ~ !!tli iii ° a q 3~ ~ o VO p 0 i 3 3 i z u Q ! a z 0 C7 C.. V 3 I L-] H o~ R# 3i ! g ~ ( Ilk e jib I W be ti o Bpi! = 1 IQ4 ry~CUW ~ MsRl F g.- ~ 2RBs11% f Co ~t34•-w ' ~o i'~~o ~ pp~5 C113 R ~e ~ @ ! 99 RR 99 R~ RR~ a* rn all 1-21 Q if g g ! a fir, Jill "ah~~~~~}~~~F aexe ~ #~s<~~6# ! ~a ~ ~ ¢ 9! i ! 6 e a a1 C V ~o 0 '4 L4 Q ~~Vy y M O ~ ~ V C.5 N~M~ ~ 1.4 c,4 . co 2 C) gczU~ co 44 O O "T ti ~ q O 6 r ! 4" . 1] gR T} ~c §6 IN 3~ _ N In H . ao eF Ir a 1 Sp 1 1 I~ i I I I I I n n I 507.1 KOYE , 153.~0 N N ka 0 U EEE n I 0 a 8 o~ J avoa linHO n ,88ZC - U0.10. 80N I F- d R §t q8 ~ ~ o r~ 1 I. II I I Approved 4/28/03 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartman Site Visits 1. Vail Mountain School - 3000 Boothfalls Road 2. Sonnenalp - 20 Vail Road 3. Vail Park (P3&J) - Hanson Ranch Road 12:00 pm 1:00 pm Driver: George ®o NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. Swearing in of reappointed PEC members John Schofield (41h term), Chas Bernhardt (3rd term) and Doug Cahill (3rd term) -Pam Brandmeyer on behalf of Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk. 2. Election of 2003 Chair 7-- Vice-Chair - George Lamb nominated John Schofield for Chairman and Erickson Shirley for Vice-chair. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0, with John Schofield abstaining. TOWMEMBERS ABSENT 3. A request for a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses; Generally, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to a previously approved development plan for a private school and educational institution, and setting for details in regard thereto, located at 3000 Boothfalls Road/Lot 1, Vail Mountain School Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Associates Planner: Russell Forrest John Schofield, Rollie Kjesbo, and George Lamb disclosed connections to the Vail Mountain Attachment: C *I!A11, Approved 4/28/03 Rollie Kjesbo made a motion to forward the proposed text amendment to Council with a change made to make PEC the authority and "larger" changed to "varying." In addition, forwarded a recommendation to the Town Council to consider alternative ways to encourage a centralized loading and delivery facility, including a pay-in-lieu process. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Doug Cahill was not in the room. 6. A request for a worksession to discuss the following applications: a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Section 12-713-13, Density Control, Zoning Regulations; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing from Public Accommodation zone district (PA) to Parking zone district (P); a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the proposed zoning of an unplatted parcel of land commonly referred to as the "trade parcel" and Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation II zone district; a request for a minor subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Code of a proposed major subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of the "trade parcel"; a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a "private off-street vehicle parking facility and public park" to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing; a request for an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-76-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for a variance from Section 12-21- 10, Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to allow for the construction of multiple-family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther Erickson Shirley noted that he has placed a deposit on a parking space in this project; however, he does not feel that this will bias his review and will not be a conflict of interest. George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Jay Peterson presented an overview of the applicant's proposal, with the primary changes made since the last presentation to the PEC, to include the relocation of a skier drop-off area and loading area. Erickson Shirley asked the applicant to clarify the height of the proposed building. The applicant responded that the height was approximately 22 feet and would not impact the existing view corridor. John Schofield asked the applicant to examine multiple traffic circulation patterns. Erickson Shirley asked where a third delivery vehicle will stage when the two bays are in use. Jay Peterson responded that a third vehicle will not be allowed to stage in this area. Doug Cahill asked if the chute would be heated. WW 9 Approved 4/28/03 Jay Peterson responded that it would not be due to the logistics of starting and ending the snowmelt locations. Jim Lamont commented on the proposal. He noted that the whole circulation needs to be further examined with specifically, that the number of bays and their location need to be part of a larger loading/delivery plan. He noted concerns about the design of the north fagade. He also commented that the parking use of this lot has been around since the late 1960's. He mentioned that the proposed park might be open to the public, but is a privately owned property parcel and that some neighboring property owners would like to see that the Town design and maintain the park as a public privately owned park. Jay Peterson noted that the additional loading bay was to be a benefit to the Town and the surrounding property owners. Erickson Shirley questioned who will maintain this property. Jay Peterson noted that the loading area would function as a separate condo unit to be owned by another entity - possibly the Town. Jay also envisioned that the Parking Structure Condo Association may retain ownership and control of the park itself. Gary Hartman questioned if the surface parking will be part of this Parking Structure Condo Association and if the surface space could be incorporated into the structure. Jay Peterson responded that was not a financially viable alternative. Gary Hartman noted the importance of examining this proposal in overall loading/delivery discussions for the Village. Doug Cahill asked about the noise generated from the parking structure ventilation system. He also asked about on-site maintenance or supervisors on the site. Jay Peterson noted that the Parking Structure Condo Association would probably take on that responsibility. Erickson Shirley questioned who will pay for the construction. Jay Peterson responded that it is not the Town, but the specifics of who pays, that has not been determined. Chas Bernhardt commented that he likes the project and would like to see more bays. He also noted that if constructed with stone, the bay will be attractive. Rollie Kjesbo asked for further clarification of the project funding. George Lamb noted that his concerns are more related to the actual logistics of the loading/delivery. Erickson Shirley noted his concerns that the parking space owners are paying for the park and loading bays in addition to the parking spaces. He also noted concern about forcing parking owners to navigate around the loading bays. He also commented that the sound of the ventilation system should not detract from the use of the park. John Schofield summarized that some of the remaining issues include; further examination of traffic flow and condo ownership of the loading bay. He said some of the benefits include removal of traffic from the adjoining streets and close-in parking for local residence business owners. John 10 Approved 4/28/03 also noted that a pay in lieu fee should be examined for maintenance and possibly construction to spread the cost to those benefiting from the proposal. He commented that conceptual management plans should be submitted with the next PEC review. He also commented that the chute should be redesigned to be safer. Doug Cahill made a motion to table this until May 12, 2003. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to amend Chapter 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Types, Vail Town Code, to amend the Type II EHU requirements and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: AMS Development Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson made a presentation per the staff memorandum Greg Amsden presented the proposed text amendments and said the existing regulations create a gap in the market, in terms of the type of employees that will occupy EHUs. He said this amendment creates a new incentive to construct EHUs and fill a niche in the market need and that this text amendment creates a private-sector funding source to build EHUs. He said this amended use will likely occur in West Vail and Matterhorn areas and it is unlikely to occur in "high dollar" neighborhoods. He said this type of unit will provide housing opportunities for local middle-income professionals and diversify the housing base. Greg then explained how, in his opinion, this amendment complies with the text amendment criteria. There was no public comment. Rollie Kjesbo stated he thought that this amendment would be making a duplex lot a triplex lot. George Lamb stated that he agreed with Greg that there is a need for this type of unit, but that this type of regulation is hard to create. He said this is the right direction, but it would be hard to regulate and that DRB may be inadequate to address the unintended consequences. He questioned how to do this? Erickson Shirley asked who would be eligible to live in these units. He said he is in favor of broadening the opportunities of housing types and shares some of Rollie's concerns regarding DRB issues. Gary Hartman applauded Greg's efforts and he stated that it is important to dictate a size cap on the EHUs. Doug Cahill thought this would likely occur in West Vail and also applauded Greg's efforts. He asked how the streetscape of garage doors would be addressed and that a maximum cap is needed. He said the one car garage limit should be changed and mentioned that it will change the appearance of the neighborhood. Chas Bernhardt thought this was a great idea, but feels it needs further consideration to successfully implement. He said he is uncomfortable with the concept as proposed, but feels more study is needed. He too asked about the garage doors and to continue with this idea. John Schofield stated that the PEC needed input from the housing authority and DRB. He shares a concern with regard to density. He felt there needed to be an amendment to the 300 square foot 11 J Public Works Comments on Site P3&J February 7, 2003 1. Additional stamped survey will be required in front of Villa Valhalla to match the proposed improvements to the existing improvements at Villa Valhalla 2. The Gore Creek Drive section from north to south should be 19' space, bollards, 4' conc. Pan, 12' asphalt drive lane, 8' paver walk with concrete band, 2.5' curb and gutter. This affects the edge of the roadway and the stairs coming down please adjust. 3. Please show turning radius for truck delivery and vehicles coming out of the townhomes. 4. On Hanson Ranch Rd connect proposed curb and gutter to existing curb and gutter on north side. 5. On Hanson Ranch Rd. Flatten/smooth out the curve for the pan and paver walk at the above ground parking entrance by bringing it in. 6. A sand/oil separator shall be provided for the structure drainage and the surface deck drainage. 7. By relocating the drainage on Gore Creek drive to a curb and gutter on the south side the storm sewer should be able to follow the curb and gutter instead of going into the middle of the street. 8. Please provide drainage study/talc's showing that additional drainage entering existing storm sewer will not exceed capacity. 9. The two surface deck spaces at the north end will be considered compact spaces due to 8' width. 10. If the TOV approves use of below grade TOV ROW a lease/agreement will have to be put in place. Vail Town Council will need to approve the application to approve through the process. 11. Please show matching improvements to the TOV streetscape plans on Gore Creek Drive to the west. 12. Stairway wall on the north side of site should not exceed 6' at any point. 13. The grade on Hanson Ranch Chute is increased. This should in fact decrease. Heat Hanson Ranch Chute if the grade increases. Heat the adjacent walkway along the Chute no matter what. 14. Limits of Streetscape improvements required. W Gore Creek Drive W curb return of Chute across the street to match Villa Valhalla and accommodate Truck turning and snow storage a Roger Staub Park. Hanson Ranch Chute The entire Chute to the band shown on the West Hanson Ranch Road plans Rebuild the planter Hanson Ranch Road Show proposed streetscape plans for this. Both sides of the road to match Tivoli improvements at Bike path. Tivoli is heating their portion. 15. Remove the surface parking on the Town of Vail Right of way 16. Provide a calculation of right of way vacating and right of way creating. Provide a calculation of how much of the right of way is being parked underneath the surface. 17. Show roof drainage off the building. Show drainage system for parking lot and the grass. 18. Maintenance of the park should be the owners responsibility 19. Where do replacement VRI parking spaces go? 20. Sight distances need to be maintained 21. The plan is eliminating 265' of loading zone and providing 128' of loading zone. The project net replacement is to be provided in the Front Door project in addition to the net decrease in VRI employee parking. The front door needs to be constructed prior or concurrently with this project to ensure we are a no net loss in either category. 22. A net increase in traffic generation of will result in a 50001 trip impact fee. L*] G` Cl 0 0 A Kirr~ey aW Associates, Inc. 0 August 7, 2003 Town of Vail Department of Public Works/ Transportation 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81657 Attn: Greg Hall, P.E. Director Re: Update of Traffic Engineering Study for P3&J Vail, Colorado Dear Mr. Hall: This letter has been prepared to provide you with an update of the previously completed traffic analysis for the proposed Vail Resorts' redevelopment of the existing parking lot known as P3&J east of the Village Core at Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive. This update was prompted by changes to the plan involving a slight increase to the parking structure and the elimination of loading facilities. This existing parking lot is proposed to be redeveloped with a parking structure. This parking structure is planned to contain 108 parking spaces that will be for sale to the public. Currently the parking lot provides parking for 38 vehicles (primarily parking for the Christiana hotel). Therefore, the parking structure would increase the parking capacity of this lot by 70 vehicles. Per the Town of Vail's request, trip generation calculations were conducted to determine the volume of new trips expected by this redevelopment. The 108 parking spaces proposed for sale at P3&J are anticipated to attract additional passenger car vehicle trips. Based upon initial interest in the program, it is expected that at least half of the parking spaces will be sold to local residents who already own homes in the neighborhood. As such, it is assumed one half of the new spaces will not create new trips. Therefore, it can be assumed that of the total 108 spaces, 54 will remain for sale to the public for day trip use. Of these 54 parking spaces, it is assumed that half of the parking spaces would be full on any given peak day, resulting in a daily elpl* trip generation of 27 vehicles making 54 trips (one entering and one exiting). Based upon the estimate that 33 percent of all arrivals occur during the common peak hour, nine (9) peak hour trips are expected on any given peak ATTACHMENT D .o Associates, Inc. Mr. Greg Hall, P.E., August 7, 2003, Page 2 day. These 9 trips would be entering vehicles in the AM peak hour and exiting in the PM peak hour. In addition to the new passenger car vehicle trips expected due to the development of the parking structure and sold parking space program, a reduction in delivery vehicle traffic is expected due to the removal of the existing delivery zone adjacent to P3&J. These delivery vehicles would be expected to use the proposed Town of Vail loading and delivery facility being developed at the Front Door. Therefore, based upon counts conducted during the summer peak season on July 3, 2002, there were a total of 25 delivery vehicles during the day at P3&J, with two (2) occurring during the morning peak hour and four (4) in the afternoon peak hour that would be expected to be rerouted to the new central delivery facility. Based upon data and information provided from the Town of Vail, winter peak season deliveries could be as much as 30 percent greater than peak summer season deliveries. Therefore, in the winter, 33 deliveries would be expected daily at P3&J, with three (3) and five (5) occurring during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. Since these delivery vehicles make two trips (one entering and one exiting), there would be an expected removal of 66 daily, 6 AM peak hour, 10 PM peak hour delivery trips during the winter peak season. Therefore, the net resultant in trip generation that would be expected in the area of P3&J during the peak winter condition includes the following: • a decrease of 12 daily trips (54 new daily passenger car trips minus 66 daily delivery vehicle trips); • an increase of 3 AM peak hour trips (9 new passenger car trips minus 6 delivery vehicle trips); and • a decrease of 1 PM peak hour trip (9 new passenger car trips minus 10 delivery vehicle trips). We hope that this study provides sufficient data needed for approval of the P3&J redevelopment project for the construction of a parking structure. If you have any questions or comments regarding the results from this traffic evaluation, please give me a call at (303) 228-2304. Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Curtis D. Rowe, P.E., PTOE Associate G:\-TPT0\067867001 VAIL RESORTS\VAIL VILLAGEUULY TRAFFIC STUDY REVISION\P3&J LETTER.DOC PIJG-11-2003 MON 10:16 AM A FAX NO, 3034423139 P. 02 A W MEMORANDUM AM 303.442.3130 303.442.3139 FAX 1375 Walnut Street, Suito 211, Boulder, CO 60302.5263 TO: Mr. Andrew Littman FROM: Janet Hrub.x ..a DATE: August 7, 2003 RE; Review of Front Door Redevelopment -Traffic Study SCII No. ASLB'fW0401,00 At your request, SEH has reviewed the Vail Resort's Front Door Redevelopment plan prepared by Kimlcy-flont Associates, July 2003, The purpose of our review was to evaluate the traffic study and delivery/loading plan. Within the short time line allotted for this review we were unable to extensively research background information or gather any more information on the background assumptions used in the report. We have the following overall comments: - The study shows, and we concur, the site traffic can technically be accommodated on the roads. Based on our review we are concerned that enough detail is not provided to demonstrate one delivery/loading facility can reasonably and effectively serve the entire downtown Core. This facility seems like a good first step toward the overall master plan delivery/loading goal, but would more reasonably serve 1/4 to 11-2 of Vail Village, with the other 3/a or 1/2 being served by on-street loading until another facility can be constructed, The goal of establishing a new delivery/loading system is to enhance visitor/resident enjoyment and safety, The study did not evaluate the impacts to the goal from additional trucks on Vail Road and increases in time and length of handcart deliveries. More detailed review comments follow: General Concepts The documentation seems to be at the general planning level, nothing we reviewed clearly defines the requirements and impacts of implementing a centralized loading/delivery facility. • The Transportation Master Plan long-term plan for delivery/loading recommends phasing in an underground system with up to 4 loading facilities in different quadrants of town. • This plan seems to be a good first stop in achieving the goal for the southwest quadrant, but it may he premature to say this facility can serve the whole town. This facility seems to be capable of reasonably serving 114 to 1/2 the Vail Village core, The other 3/4 01r/z of town would need to maintain on-street loading until a future facility is phased in. That would be consistent with the overall master plan and would help to distribute impacts so they are not concentrated in any one area. 'Traffic Impact Analysis • The traffic analysis for the new uses seems reasonable. • Level of Service C or D is a generally acceptable standard for traffic. We agree with the study that the new uses and central bay (even if the truck volumes double) can be Short Elliell HunariOW Inc. Your Trusted RaSOmce Equal opponunily Employer AUG-11-2003 MON 10:17 AM A FAX NO, 3034423139 P. 03 Review of Front Door Redevelopment - Traffic Study August 7, 2003 Page 2 accommodated by the road system from a purely technical standpoint. However, the report does not evaluale some of the aesthetic or perceptible issues. (for example, if you live: along Vail road an increase from 10 to 20 trucks may he significant. Or handcart deliveries being made with higher frequency and during peak pedestrian periods will have an impact). The site plan closes the alley between the Lodge and One Vail. The study does not indicate if this has any impact to pedestrian access/circulation. Deliveryll.-oading Plan • As noted, it seems this facility is a good first step toward the town's long-range goals, but it seems that the facility may not be adequate to serve the entire town. • The recommendation of 14 bays accommodating 28 vehicles is presented as a worst-case scenario serving the maximum potential situation. Based on our review and the following notes, it seems 14 bays serves only the average demand if there is no increase in deliver tirne ordeliver volume and based can their possibly low assumptions. The number of hays required to serve the entire village core may be more in the range of 30 - 50. o The report shows a maxirnutn demand of 12 delivery spaces at any one time. However, it appears on Table 4 that 1.5 deliveries were the maximum observed at 9AM, not 12 deliveries. o The recommendation assumes the same delivery time and truck volume will occur in the future as it does today. Because there will be a much longer travel lime from the central facility to the door than from the curb to the door it would follow that lontier time and more trucks are needed. o The report estimates 1.5 deliveries per vehicle, 1999 master plan actual data shows 3 deliveries per vehicle (Vail Transportation Master Plan, Fellsburg, llolt, & Ullevig. January 1993 shows 70 to 90 truck round trips to Vail Village on average, waking 230 to 250 separate deliveries: this is an average of 3 deliveries per truck) o Maximum walking distance shown at 1,000 feet looks like it might be 1,500 feet. o A walking time of 4 feet/second seems high. 4 feet/second is the walking speed for a pedestrian crossing a road at a decent pace. Considering maneuvering around crowds, potential inclement weather, currying a load the speed would be slower, closer to .1 fect/second. (1 x 18 hour/minutes o Existing repoitruck 27 min) xt 14/bays vehicle; vehiclcs perdeliveries bay can accommodate 28 vehicles. o Based on our review it may be closer to 1 truck x 3 deliveries x 24 minutes 72 minutes/vehicle; I bay can accommodate .83 vehicles per hour x 14 bays W 14 vehicles. Double the amount of bays - 28 might be needed to serve the Vail Village core on average (50% of the time). Additional bays would be needed to provide a margin of safety, o This rough calculation is consistent with the master plan analysis that indicated 40 - 50 bays might be needed to serve the entire village core. AUG-11-2003 MON 10:17 AM A FAX NO, 3034423139 P. 04 Review of Front Door Redevelopment - Traffic Study August 7, 2003 Page 3 • The plan does not outline a contingency if all bays are full. Where will trucks queue? Will on-street deliveries still be permitted in certain instances? • Current program limits delivery times in many areas. The new plan proposes unlimited delivery times. This raises the questions about the impacts - Would trucks be in the village throughout the day night? Would handcart deliveries be taking place all day and evening? Would there be a negative effect if hand truck deliveries were occurring during busy lunch and dinner times? • 't'ruck turning templates should be provided to demonstrate that large trucks can aduquatcly enter and exit the site with the narrowing road at the entrance. Also it looks like there may be insufficient space for the truck bays near the entrance to maneuver. (Do the pillars at the end of the bays force a truck to completely back out of the stall bCfore turning?) • The plan does not establish defined route for truck traffic. • The plan does not evaluate the impacts of increased hand truck deliveries through Vail Village or the feasibility of making longer deliveries (crowds, inclement weather, etc.). • We reviewed the Vail Village Loading & Delivery S Year Management Plan Preliminary Initial Draft, July 22, 200: and have the following questions/comments: o The plan indicates deliveries could occur from Sam to ] pm weekdays with possible closures on weekends. The traffic analysis should evaluate if this would require additional deliveries during the week and require a larger facility. o The plan indicates not all vehicles may be able to use the dock facilities due to physical limitations (turning radius, etc). Where do these exceptions deliver? o The plan references golf carts or mini trucks for larger deliveries; impacts and conflicts with pedestrians should be evaluated. Additional Commentary We were able to contact a Budweiser distributor representative who works in the Vail/Beaver Creek area. He is unable to attend Monday's meeting, but offered the following comments: • Currently Budweiser has approximately 50 separate accounts in Vail. • The longest delivery trip Budweiser distributors make is 100 yards. Budweiser trucks spend 2 - 3 hours in Vail Village. • If Budweiser was required to use a central facility, it may increase delivery time up to S Limes. • As it result, the number of delivery trucks would need to increase. (It would be too long for one driver to get all the deliveries made.) • The highest delivery volume is during winter. • There is a concern about elevator congestion if only one delivery can fit in at a time. • The additional time would likely require an additional delivery charge, • In Heaver Creek, even with the central loading, they still make 3 separate delivery stops if you have additional questions, please give us a call. AUG-11-2003 MON 10:17 AM A Denver • Regional Headquarters Dean Peterson 303.758.4349 dpetemonusehinc.com Bozeman Harry Hughes 406.587.4554 hhuglies®sellinc.com Boulder Ron Henson 303.442.3130 ihensen®sehlnc.com Cheyenne Doug Wellock 307.633.6440 dweilock0sehine.com Fort Collins Doug Yadon 970.484.3611 dyadon©sehinc.com Westminster Chuck Schesel 303.487.1757 cschosel@sehlnc,com Pueblo John Simmer 719.542.6481 isimmer0sehinc.com FAX NO, 3034423139 SEH Rocky Mountain Region Montana 9 Wyoming • Colorado SEN is a multi disciplined, single source firm offering architecture, engineering, environmental, and transportation services to private and public sector clients since 1927. Our Rocky Mountain offices have been in operation for over thirty years and are now operating under the SEH name, We invite you to give us a call or visit one of our offices to find out what we can do for you. P. 05 =ASal Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc, www.sehinc.com AUG-11-2003 MON 10:18 AM A FAX NO, 3034423139 P. 06 Corporate Overview - Rocky Mountain Region Shop Elliott Hend6ekson Inc .0 (ST311) is a ntultidisciplined firm of engineers, Corporate Headquarters plantlcrs, alld scientists providing a full range of quality services architects Minneapolis 1 St. Paul 800.325.2055 , to private and public sector clients since 1927. SEH maintains twenty-seven offices in eight states, including seven offices Rocky Mountain Offices in the Rocky Mountain states of Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. These Bozeman Mendenhall Street, Ste C~1 215 W offices are comprised of three formerly independent firms - ESA a11d TransPlan Associates that have joined ineering e En n R Bozozer Bman MT 59715 406.540.0000 , g g a Consultants, together under the SFH mums. Together they offer expertise in architecture, Cheyenne 30 water resource engineering, hydrology and hydraulics, geotechnical Structural engineering, roadway and bridge design, bridge i i 7000 Yellowtail Road. Sto 2 Cheyenne VW 82009 ng, neer eng inspection and coostnlctioll adulinistration/management, transportation 307.633.6440 planning and traffic engineering. Fort Collins 2637 Midpoint Drive, Ste F SEH undcrstwids that engineering, architecture, v1d planning projects are 711cy're and buildings t Fort Collins CO 80525 970,484.3611 . ures, about more than improving roads, streets, struc about meeting the needs of people, SEH works with you to snake sure the projects fit your community and our environment. Well-executed projects Boulder 1375 Walnut Street, Ste 211 can both enhance the duality of life and provide economic benefit. Boulder CO 80302-5263 303,442,3130 SEI-I'S multi-disciplined capabilities and proven team approach ensure that you will have people with the right expelicncc providing the right solution, Westminster 9191 Sheridan Boulevord The result is a collsiswritly high level of quality, service and cost officiency. Westminster CO 80031 303,487.1757 Denver - Regional Headquarters 2101 Soulh Clermont Street Denver CO 80222 800.490.4966 Pueblo 112 West D Street, Ste 100A Pueblo 00 B1003 719.542.6461 uo 0 SEH Office Localiuna e h; Co." Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. www.s® mc. Am AUG-11-2003 MON 10:18 AM A FAX NO, 3034423139 P. 07 Multidisciplined. Single Source. Consistent client satisfaction is a key benefit of SEI-I's mullidisciplined, single source approach. An abbreviated overview of the firtrt's areas of expcrtisc includes: Architectural ♦ Avintion Iluildirtgs • I luilding Code Services ► Comnwreinl and Induslrldl 13nildinge ♦ DOD Building Dcsign Serviccs ♦ Eduoationnl Fuvilities • Interior Dusigtt and Spricc I'Ianning • Lnndscepe ArchitecYurc • Mrnliuipullluildings ♦ Religious Cotters • Rool Monagcntcul Scrvicc9 Engineering ♦ Cily I.,ngincering Serviccs • Coastal L'mginecring • Compruhcusive U1011y Pluttaing ♦ Dtlms • flood ConlroMaviSation and Laved ♦ DOWtlluwu Revilahziltion ♦ Flcctricgl Enginecring ♦ Fcdarul POD Enginuvnng and Phoning ♦ Gloodplnin Muppi119/Insurance Studies 1 (ieotcchniwtll'•:ngmk~ering ► 1-lydralogic and 11ydrruhl; Modeling. ♦ 1nliltrnliorvlnilow Studics unJ SCWGI' System IMlunlion Surveys ♦ I'ark and Rccrroation Planning ♦ Povomont Monngement • Site: Studies, Surveys, 1111juing, and Mopping • Streets and Drimwgu ♦ Utility Ratc Studies • Vnllle 17.rtginccring ♦ W nt,:r god Sewer Systems Environmentnl ♦ Agricullurul Chemicals ♦ Air Qunlily ♦ 13rownficlJ~+ 1 Contaminuled Sedimcnls ♦ T;nvirmimeni it Complilli= and mirnagentcnt ♦ Csnvirunmcnlel Site Asscssmenh ♦ Frivironntental Stud ics (EA, l•.AW, E.I S) ♦ Expert TcAimurty ♦ Lnkc Manage+natt ♦ I.mtdfills ♦ Mining Support Scrviocs ♦ Petroleum ♦ Regulatory Penniltang nod CompWilea • Remedial Invusligation mid Design ♦ Risk Asscsymertts ♦ Solid/II,r7.ardous WHSIC ♦ Stonn Water Management ♦ Underground Sloruge Tanks (()STs) 1 Wnstuw+UCr'lYcntnicnt / Wtiler'1'rcnt11tcnt ♦ Wellhead I'mteclion/Groundwater Modeling • Watland Delineation rind Mitigation Transportation • Aitport Plumring and Engineering ♦ Bridges and Structures ♦ Bridge Inspection Scrvicee tr Conslruclion Administnrliott/ Management ♦ Currider Siudics/Plunning ♦ highways and Frueways ♦ llttclligunt Tran.porlalion System (1,1S) ♦ Multi-Modal Planning • Parking Facilities • Project Duvelopment Documentation ♦ Railroads • "traffic Engineering ♦ Transportation Planning, Dcsign Lind operations ♦ Trunsit Docility and Capital Improvement Plana ♦ 'rransit Operations and Patronage Studies ♦ Truvol Demand Management (TDM) SpeciAlty Services ♦ Community and Economic T)evclopntcnl ♦ Community Planning ♦ Desigtt/1311ild ♦ Gcugraphic Informnlion Systems ((31S) ► Global Poaitimting Systems (0N) • protective: Coatings Mnnugemcnt (PCM) ♦ SEIi Communications Services • Tclccommuniculiony Site Dcvel upme+tt • Training, and Manngemcnt Consulling Serviccs (TMCS) ♦ Virtual Reality Imaging ' (Vail) it Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. www,sehlnc.com AUG-11-2003 MON 10:19 AM A FAX NO, 3034423139 P. 08 Transportation Planning. Design. Operations. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.0 (SEH) offers Transportation services specifically tailored to meet the needs of public agencies who seek safer and more efficient transportation systems, As needs grow and budgets tighten, today's transportation systems demand thorough analysis and knowledgeable recommendations. With our multidisciplined, single source approach to consulting, we provide solutions on time and within budget. Frorn planning through construction, SEH can help with all your transportation needs, SEH takes a total learn approach that includes building strong, productive partnerships not only with our clients, but with the various regulatory agencies as well. We believe that proper communication and responsiveness maintains long-lasting relationships and produces effective transportation projects. Planning Transportation Plans Traffic Impact Assessments Bikeway and Pedestrian Studies Travel Demand Forecasling Design Roadway and Bridge Design Bridge Inspection Traffic Signals Signal Control Systems Surveying Construction Management Operations Traffic Control Pedestrian Safely Improvements School Tone Management Parking and Circulation Signal Progression improvements Neighborhood Traffic Calming Signing and Striping Tralfic Safety Improvements Access Management Plans support services Geotechnical Engineering Intelligent Transportation Systems Virtual Reality lrnaqing1-1 (VRI) GIS Training and Support Litigation Support _=.W~r Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. www.sehinc.com SFTA007 sere i c e s AUG-11-2003 MON 10:19 AM A FAX NO. 3034423139 P. 09 Ronald J. Hensen, MD., P.E. Senior Principal Education General Background Ph.D., Engineering, Purdue University (1908) Dr. FIensen is a recognized expert in the field of transportation engineering. Over the years his work experience has included fifteen years teaching and Master of Science, Civil traffic engineering researcli at Purdue University and the 1niversity of Engineering, Purdue University (1084) Denver, live years as the traffic engineer for the City of Lakewood, Colorado, and twenty-plus years as a full time traffic engineering' consultant. Bachelor of Science, Civil Dr. hlensen has been the principal-in-charge of a wide scope of municipal Engineering, University of traffic and transportation projects while working for over twenty-five Denver (1960) different City, County, State and Metropolitan District clients. Dr, Ilensen Professional Registration has applied his technical expertise to a wide variety of transpotlatioll issues Professional Engineer; including Transportation Access Planning, Long Range and Regional Colorado, Nebraska, New Transportation planning, Traffic Signal Systems Design and Evaluation, Mexico, Wyoming, California, Freeway Coin nlunlcatlon Systems, Major Street Planning Design and Arizona, Montana Constriction, Traffic Safcty Studies, Traffic Operations Management, Professlonal Associations Arterial Street Planning, and Major Land Development Projects Review, Institute of Transportation Previous f?xp ience Engineers (Life Member) Principal, Richard Fay & Asvocimes (1973-1980) Transportation Research Board Transportation Administrator, City of Lakewood, CO (1974-1979) National Society n Professional Engineers Professor of Civil Engineerin6, University of Denver (1964-1975) Colorado Consulting Engineers Experience Council Re innal 'l'rans ~ortation Plannin American Society of Engineering Education Dr. Ifensen has been the retained consultant for the Denver Technolo ical 6 Center, the Meridian Metropolitan District and the (irecnwood Plaza American Society of Civil developments for the past twenty years. Engineers (Fellow) Illuminating Engineering Traffic Signal _Syslems Design and I✓vlluation Society Dr, Hensen has been involved in the design of thirteen traffic signal systems National Academy of Forensic in six states wilh both NWA and Type 170 controllers, as well as over 300 Engineers (Fellow) individual signal installations. Society of Automotive 'transportation Planning and Modelintt Engineers - Dr. Hensen's work includes traffic forecasts for Boulder, Fort Collins, Loveland, Arvada, the North Front Range, and the U.S. Air rOrCe, as well as the southeast I-25 corridor and numerous other ailerial and freeway corridor projects. Roadway Geometric Design Development of realistic geometric solutions to complex capacity/access conflicts has been one of Dr. Hensen's most important areas of work. 1.10 has been involved in retrofitting freeway interchange and arterial intersection configurations to minimize safety conflicts and congestion in Ilse Denver Metro area for over 30 yc;irs. Short L-Mott Hendrickson Inc. Page 1 AUG-11-2003 MON 10:19 AM A FAX NO, 3034423139 P. 10 Janet M. Hruby, P.E. Senior Professional Engineer Education General Background Master of Science Ms. Hruby has worked both in the public and private sectors performing a Civil Engineering University of Colorado (1999) range of traffic engineuting and planning services including Signing and Striping Plans, Traffic Signal Design, Traffic Impact Studies, and Bachelor of Science Environmental Impact Studies. Janet evaluates and designs parking and University of Michigan (1980) pedestrian facilities. Other skills offered to municipal clients include developing Transportation Master Plans, establishing Traffic Impact Fee Professional Registration programs, evaluating Access Management and Circulalion, and Development Professional Engineer in Review. Many of the projects Janet works on involve multiple engineering Colorado and planning issues simultaneously, and she has developed expeiti.se in factoring, in and balancing all of the needs of a project. As a project manager Professional Associations for SEE she works with clients to identify definitive scopes of work, Member, Institute of establish project schedules and budgets, and proactively monitor project Transport.1tion Engineers progress. Previous f,xpcrience Senior'fransporOtion Engineer, BRW, inc. (1999-2000) Development Review Engineer, City of Aurora, CO (1997-1999) Environmental fngincer Project Manager, Must E & I/Waste Management (1989-1997) Experience Signing and Striping Plans and Traffic Signal Design Janet prepares signing and striping plans in conjunction with roadway construction and traffic control improvement projects. Tn addition to standard roadway projects, Janet prepared a way-finding sign program designed to reduce travel time and driver confusion in it national park. Janet provides full-service traffic signal design including traffic count data review, signal warrant evaluation, phasing determination, mast arm and span wire design plans, quantity estimates, and cost estimates. Her experience includes preparing designs to COO'T' specifications. Traffic implct,Stydies Traffic Impact Studies are an important tool to aid public agencies and developers is identifying existing constraints and future transportation needs to support proposed development. Ms. llruby has extensive experience preparing traffic impact studies for a variety of developments from large- scale commercial sites to residential communities. She also reviews site plans to identify eff ieient and effective access locations and circulation patterns. Environmental Impact Studies '1'o support construction of public improvements, Janet prepares the transportation impact evaluation component of environmental impact statements. She is experienced in defining and evaluating alternatives, establishing impact criteria, and cnrnpletulg the transportation assessment according to NEPA guidelines, criteria, projecting future Irrffie, and evaluating impacts.. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Page 1 RUG-11-2003 MON 10;20 AM A FAX NO, 3034423139 P. 11 4: Janet M. Hruby, cont. Mrkin Evllwati011 Developing site plans to include sufficient parking with adequate circulation and access is a challenge for many developments whore site size is limited. Janct works with both public and private clients to design efficient and economical parking facilities. Projects include identifying existing parking supply, determining existing utilization, projecting future demand, evaluating access and circulation, and designing parking layouts. Pedestrian Systefrl Design and Evaluation Many traffic study or design projects Ms. Hruby has worked on have included pedestrian design elements. In addition to these multidisciplinary projects, she has also worked on projects solely involving pedestrian elements. These include crosswalk design, pedestrian signal tinting evaluation, pedestrian crossing enhancement design, and safe access to school plans. Trans ortation Master Plans Janet assists towns and larger developments in determining infrastructure needs and preparing overall master plans. Elements of the plans include evaluating existing conditions, estimating future vehicular, pedestrian, and transit demands, recommending future infrastructure, and identifying mitigation measures where needed including traffic control, pedestrian crossing treatments, auxiliary lanes, and road cross-sections.. in conjunction with master plans, Janet works with municipalities, CDO T, and developers to develop access control and managemcrtt plans for arterial corridors, Traffic Impact F'oe Pro rams Many municipalities are establishing traffic impact fees to fund future roadway improvements. Ms. Ilruby helps cities evaluate appropriate improvement funding mechanisms and develops impact fee programs. Tho programs included identifying existing transportation constraints, projecting future traffic volumes and infrastructure needs, recommending future transportation improvements, estimating future costs, and determining a fee appropriation method, Development Review Janet provides bolh transportation engineering and civil engineering development review. Transportation reviews cart include determining road geometry and right-of-way requiremcuts, identifying appropriate road and traffic control improvements, evaluating cross-sections and implementing street standards, evaluation of access and CirCUlation, and revicsw of pedestrian and transit facilities. Janet also conducts civil engineering design reviews that include checking roadway, drainage, and storm water quality plans for compliance with city standards. As pnrt of the rovicw process, she often coordinates with developers, architects, and other rcviQw dcp;trtinents or nbencies to identify and resolve development issues. C Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc Page 2 COMPI Kirrde0orn Assccales, Inc, August 7, 2003 Town of Vail Department of Public Works/ Transportation 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81657 Attn: Greg Hall, P.E. Director Re: Update of Traffic Engineering Study for P3&J Vail, Colorado Dear Mr. Hall: This letter has been prepared to provide you with an update of the previously completed traffic analysis for the proposed Vail Resorts' redevelopment of the existing parking lot known as P3&J east of the Village Core at Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive. This update was prompted by changes to the plan involving a slight increase to the parking structure and the elimination of loading facilities. This existing parking lot is proposed to be redeveloped with a parking structure. This parking structure is planned to contain 108 parking spaces that will be for sale to the public. Currently the parking lot provides parking for 38 vehicles (primarily parking for the Christiana hotel). Therefore, the parking structure would increase the parking capacity of this lot by 70 vehicles. Per the Town of Vail's request, trip generation calculations were conducted to determine the volume of new trips expected by this redevelopment. The 108 parking spaces proposed for sale at P3&J are anticipated to attract additional passenger car vehicle trips. Based upon initial interest in the program, it is expected that at least half of the parking spaces will be sold to local residents who already own homes in the neighborhood. As such, it is assumed one half of the new spaces will not create new trips. Therefore, it can be assumed that of the total 108 spaces, 54 will remain for sale to the public for day trip use. Of these 54 parking spaces, it is assumed that half of the parking spaces would be full on any given peak day, resulting in a daily trip generation of 27 vehicles making 54 trips (one entering and one exiting). Based upon the estimate that 33 percent of all arrivals occur during the common peak hour, nine (9) peak hour trips are expected on any given peak ATTACHMENT D Kirday-Morn aam Associates, inc. Mr. Greg Hall, P.E., August 7, 2003, Page 2 day. These 9 trips would be entering vehicles in the AM peak hour and exiting in the PM peak hour. In addition to the new passenger car vehicle trips expected due to the development of the parking structure and sold parking space program, a reduction in delivery vehicle traffic is expected due to the removal of the existing delivery zone adjacent to P3&J. These delivery vehicles would be expected to use the proposed Town of Vail loading and delivery facility being developed at the Front Door. Therefore, based upon counts conducted during the summer peak season on July 3, 2002, there were a total of 25 delivery vehicles during the day at P3&J, with two (2) occurring during the morning peak hour and four (4) in the afternoon peak hour that would be expected to be rerouted to the new central delivery facility. Based upon data and information provided from the Town of Vail, winter peak season deliveries could be as much as 30 percent greater than peak summer season deliveries. Therefore, in the winter, 33 deliveries would be expected daily at P3&J, with three (3) and five (5) occurring during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. Since these delivery vehicles make two trips (one entering and one exiting), there would be an expected removal of 66 daily, 6 AM peak hour, 10 PM peak hour delivery trips during the winter peak season. Therefore, the net resultant in trip generation that would be expected in the area of P3&J during the peak winter condition includes the following: • a decrease of 12 daily trips (54 new daily passenger car trips minus 66 daily delivery vehicle trips); • an increase of 3 AM peak hour trips (9 new passenger car trips minus 6 delivery vehicle trips); and • a decrease of 1 PM peak hour trip (9 new passenger car trips minus 10 delivery vehicle trips). We hope that this study provides sufficient data needed for approval of the P3&J redevelopment project for the construction of a parking structure. If you have any questions or comments regarding the results from this traffic evaluation, please give me a call at (303) 228-2304. Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Curtis D. Rowe, P.E., PTOE Associate G:\-TPTO\067867001 VAIL RESORTS\VAIL VILLAGEUULY TRAFFIC STUDY REVISION\P3&J LETTER.DOC T, VAIL1 Y gu- 61g? Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 www.ci.vail.co.us August 13, 2003 Mr. Ron Byrne Ron Byrne & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Request for Information on Vail's Front Door Project Dear Ron, I have received your letter requesting copies of all correspondence relating to the proposed Vail's Front Door project. In response to your request, I would like to invite you to stop by the Town of Vail Community Development Department to review the extensive file I am maintaining on the proposed project. The file contains development review application materials; correspondence between my self and the applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company; copies of staff memoranda and meeting minutes of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission; full size and reduced sized copies of the numerous iterations of the proposed plans; as well as other valuable and important report and study information. All of this information is of public record and available to you for your inspection and review. To inspect and review the file, simply contact me at the office so that we may schedule a mutually convenient time to go through the contents of the file. The Planning & Environmental Commission will be holding two public hearings in the coming weeks to discuss the proposed project. The Commission will meet on Monday, August 25"' and Monday, September 8`n to continue discussions on the project. I anticipate the focus of the meetings to be on the proposed ski yard and skier services building improvements, though I have required the applicant to stake the location of all of the improvements on the development site for the August 25"' meeting. At this time, I can only speculate the next steps in the process after the September 8 h meeting. I am hopeful that I have addressed your requests as indicated in your August 8`h letter. Regardless, should you have any additional questions or need further clarification, please do not hesitate to call. You can reach me by telephone at 479-2145. Sincerely, George Ruther, AICP Chief of Planning Town of Vail U WW RECYCLED PAPER 10 RBYNE &ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE August 8, 2003 Mr. George Ruther Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear George: As an adjacent neighbor to the proposed Front Door Project, I am requesting to receive all correspondence related to it. As you are aware, I reside at 10 Forest Road-the first home on the south side of Forest Road. I would also like to be advised of any meetings in which the Front Door Project will be discussed. C Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you in advance. Warmest personal regards, Ronald J. Byrne RJB:tt 0 285 BRIDGE STREET • VAIL, COLORADO 81657 • 970/476/1987 • FAX 970/476/6747 www. ronbyrne. com 0 BAIVIBIRAIUIN ASSOCIATES, IINC. PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 18, 2003 C~1 J 14u-01 Mr. Greg Hall, Director Department of Public Works Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81632 Mr. George Ruther, Chief of Planning Department of Community Development Town of Vail Vail, CO 81632 RE: Public Works Comments/P3&J Dear Greg and George: As you know, a condition of approval for P3&J is that we submit a revised set of plans and or information addressing each of the points raised in the February 7, 2003 comment letter from the Public Works Department. These revised plans are to be submitted for review prior to the Town Council's first reading of an ordinance to re-zone the property. Revised plans are attached. Attached are revised plans for P3&J and an off-site improvement plan. The plans for P3&J are consistent with the plans approved by the PEC on August l lth, with the exception that this plan set includes a grading and drainage plan. In order to distinguish this set as the "final PEC approved plans" they have been dated August 25, 2003-PW Revisions and we have added a note indicating that this set has been done in order to satisfy Condition #2 of the PEC's approval. The following outlines our response to each of the comments raised in this letter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have. Sinc ely, Thomas A. Braun Cc: Jack Hunn Jay Peterson Bob Fitzgerald Edwards Village Center, Suite C-209 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Post Office Box 2658 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Ph. - 970.926.7575 Fax - 970.926.7576 www.braunassociates.com Public Works Comments on Site P3&J February 7, 2003 1. Additional stamped survey will be required in front of Villa Valhalla to match the proposed improvements to the existing improvements at Villa Valhalla Additional survey work has been completed. A new existing conditions survey is included in the revised plan set. 2. The Gore Creek Drive section from north to south should bel9' space, bollards, 4' conc. Pan, 12' asphalt drive lane, 8' paver walk with concrete band, 2.5' curb and gutter. This affects the edge of the roadway and the stairs coming down please adjust. The street section as described above (from the existing bollards to the south edge of the 2.5' curb and gutter) has been incorporated into the revised design. Please show turning radius for truck delivery and vehicles coming out of the townhomes. With the removal of loading, this comment is no longer relevant. 4. On Hanson Ranch Rd connect proposed curb and gutter to existing curb and gutter on north side. The proposed curb and gutter has been extended to tie into the existing curb and gutter. 5. On Hanson Ranch Rd. Flatten/smooth out the curve for the pan and paver walk at the above ground parking entrance by bringing it in. The pan has been re-designed at the entry to the surface parking lot. 6. A sand/oil separator shall be provided for the structure drainage and the surface deck drainage. Two separate sand/oil separators are to be provided. One separator will serve just the garage (the design of this is not depicted on the attached drawings, but will be depicted on construction drawings). A second separator will be located on the Gore Creek Drive side of the project and will handle storm water from the surface parking lot. %wo The grade of Hanson Ranch Road Chute is not increased. The grade of the road remains unchanged. The Chute (and adjacent walkway), however, are proposed to be heated. 14. Limits of Streetscape improvements required. W Gore Creek Drive W curb return of Chute across the street to match Villa Valhalla and accommodate Truck turning and snow storage a Roger Staub Park. Hanson Ranch Chute The entire Chute to the band shown on the West Hanson Ranch Road plans Rebuild the planter Hanson Ranch Road Show proposed streetscape plans for this. Both sides of the road to match Tivoli improvements at Bike path. Tivoli is heating their portion. The attached sheet titled P3&I - Off-site Public Improvement Plan depicts the extent of off-site streetscape improvements around P3&J. 15. Remove the surface parking on the Town of Vail Right of way This revision has been made. 16. Provide a calculation of right of way vacating and right of way creating. Provide a calculation of how much of the right of way is being parked underneath the surface. The right of way to be incorporated into Vail Park is 4,547 square feet. The new right-of-way to be created for the Chute is 2,865 square feet. The portion of parking garage that extends into the Hanson Ranch Road right-of-way is 2,944 square feet. A drawing depicting these areas is attached. 17. Show roof drainage off the building. Show drainage system for parking lot and the grass. The drainage for the west half of the roof flows directly into the lawn of the park. This amount of runoff is minimal and no drainage provisions are provided. Drainage from the east half of the roof will flow into the parking lot and on to the oil/sand separator. 18. Maintenance of the park should be the owners responsibility It is understood that the owners will be responsible for the maintenance of the park. 19. Where do replacement VRI parking spaces go? There are approximately 12 spaces on the west end of P3&.I that are utilized by Vail Resorts. Approximately one half of these spaces are used as "executive perks "for both current and former executives of Vail Resorts. The other half are used by upper level management personal that work in the Village. The parking calculations (and parking provided at the Front Door) for the new skier service building account for these spaces. 20. Sight distances need to be maintained The proposed design does not impact existing sight distances. 21. The plan is eliminating 265' of loading zone and providing 128' of loading zone. The project net replacement is to be provided in the Front Door project in addition to the net decrease in VRI employee parking. The front door needs to be constructed prior or concurrently with this project to ensure we are a no net loss in either category. No comment necessary. 22. A net increase in traffic generation of will result in a 50001 trip impact fee. As demonstrated by the traffic report prepared by Kimley Horn, the project results in a net decrease of traffic generation. 0 io 04/30/2003 04:22:09 PM 1-- I arc 1-7 1 C~ c/) - - 1 A - - - - - r -t I ~ 1 '"OWN OF VAIL LY Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 www.ci.vail.co.us August 18, 2003 Tom Braun Edwards Village Center, Suite C-209 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard P.O. Box 2658 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Jay Peterson Bailey & Peterson 108 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Vail's Front Door Project - design review comments Dear Tom and Jay, Thank you for appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board on Wednesday, August 4, 2003, for the conceptual review of the proposed plans for Vail's Front Door project. The purpose of my letter is to provide you with a summary of the Board's initial comments. As indicated at the meeting, the purpose of the conceptual review meeting was to provide the Design Review Board with an opportunity to review and comment on the four major aspects of the proposal; Vail Park, 13 residential units, members ski club, and the skier services building. The following is a summary of the Board's comments: Vail Park • Avoid blank walls on the elevator tower element of the parking structure access building • Consider the proportions of the building with the scale of the neighborhood park • The building design with the elevator tower in the center of the structure is preferable • Consider the noise of the ventilation system, the quality of discharged air, the aesthetic appearance of the garage entry, and the impacts of any required surface parking lot lighting on the surrounding uses and properties • Provide complete architectural details on the parking structure access building at the time of final review (soffit, fascia, roofing, trim, corbels, bracing, etc) 13 Residential Units • The proposed design concept and architectural theme is well thought out and proposed • The below grade parking for the units is a good plan • What is the proposed roof material? • Down lighting of the units is a must. • The mixture of stone, stucco, and wood for exterior building finishes is compatible with the area IL~~ RECYCLED PAPER Members Ski Club • The proposed design is consistent with the design of the residences • Ensure that pedestrian circulation is considered and evaluated in the site planning of the area • The timber frame building is appropriate for the site • What is the proposed pool elevation relative to the existing skier plaza level? Skier Services Building • Guest service uses and function should be the primary focus of the design • The proposed design sketches are preferred over the sod roof design • A grand architectural statement is needed in this location • A smooth and seamless transition between the building and the ski yard is needed • Create a "centerpiece" or focal point in this location, maybe a ski school bell tower • The grass roof design is wrong for this site and this building • Make this building a show piece for Vail, a post card image • The sod roof design creates a cave-like appearance to what should otherwise be a landmark feature in Vail • Design with open spaces and public gathering spaces in mind • The building design should capture more southern exposure • Present the design changes to the neighborhood and be sensitive to the concerns of adjacent properties • The final design should be for the community of Vail and not just special interests • Look to the design of the Vail Park access building for design direction Should you have any questions or concerns with regard to the information addressed in this letter, please do not hesitate to call. I can be reached by telephone at (970) 479-2145. C Sincerely, George Ruther, AICP Chief of Planning Town of Vail 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, August 11, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Chas Bernhardt John Schofield Erickson Shirley George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Site Visits None Driver: George MEMBERS ABSENT Doug Cahill Gary Hartmann ~o NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. An appeal of a staff determination regarding joint property ownership signature requirements as prescribed by Chapters 12-11, Design Review; 12-15, Gross Residential Floor Area; 12-16, Conditional Use Permits; and 12-17, Variances; Vail Town Code. Appellant: John Schofield Planner: George Ruther John Schofield recused himself from the discussion and turned the discussion over to Erickson Shirley. George Ruther made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Near the end of his presentation, he outlined the time frame for dual-homeowner response that the PEC had mentioned in the pre-meeting as part of a solution to the joint property ownership signature. Erickson Shirley asked if the applicant had any questions or issues. Barbara Schofield, the appellant's representative, introduced herself and presented her case. Russell Forrest verified that soon after that application, a change was made to the regulations that required proof and signature of same for same renovation. Mrs. Schofield did not believe that the code only applied to modification of a residence, not maintenance of a residence. She requested that a same for same repaint did not require approval or a signature since there was not a design change. She stated that her home should be able to be maintained without a DRB application and joint property owner's yjy TOWN Off VA signature, etc. Robert Kossman, the appellant's neighbor, spoke of the approved plans he had to redo his stairs, which Mr. Schofield would not approve. He mentioned that Mr. Schofield did not want him to redo the stairs, but instead wanted him to remove his mature landscaping. He opposed the roof repair because medium shakes were replaced with heavy shakes and painted flashing was replaced with copper, therefore not same for same. He said that he was wanting to make property and upkeep changes, but his neighbor would not agree. HE was hoping that the issue could be resolved, but realized it could not. He said that he could not sign off for a paint job when his neighbor would not let him improve his property. Barbara Schofield mentioned that in the long-range picture, the Town of Vail should encourage homeowners to maintain their homes and that this would be best helped through common maintenance without signatures. Erickson turned the discussion to PEC commentary. Rollie Kjesbo mentioned that he understood staff's needs to avoid these situations. He agreed that maintenance should be of the highest priority. He agreed that a non-response of a joint homeowner after 45 days should be considered an affirmative and that an inspection of same for same would be preferable to a signature. George Lamb shared his experience on the DRB stating that often, even same for same applications achieve a distinct change and that in order to keep consistency as a structure, repairs should be done at the same time, or close to the same time, he said. He wanted to uphold the staff's recommendation in that he wanted the town to rescind themselves from this type of a dispute. He mentioned that he understood the stance of the appellant. However, the disputes need to be settled outside of the town setting. Chas Bernhardt said that in purchasing a duplex or a joint home, it is understood that situations will need to be arbitrated with the fellow homeowner and though maintenance is important, it is not the town's responsibility to solve these struggles. He wanted to uphold the Town's position. Erickson Shirley mentioned that two topics were under discussion. Firstly, making an exception such that one owner can notify his neighbor and proceed with the improvement after a passage of time during which no response has been acquired (same for same). Secondly, properties should be well-maintained, but perhaps the owners should be forced to come to a conclusion on their own, though joint signatures were an imperfect means of doing that. He said that a joint owner should be allowed to maintain his property to the extent that the appearance was not changed (i.e. shingle replacement). In regard to re- painting, it seems better to have one neighbor be able to keep the place maintained vs. having the entire residence fall into disrepair. Chas Bernhardt mentioned that regarding health and safety issues, a signature should not be required. Erickson replied that he agreed and that somehow an agreement should be reached such that simple repairs could be fixed as long as a change in the appearance of the property did not occur. George Ruther asked more about the notification period. He recommended that the time frame in which a joint owner could reply to maintenance notification should be narrowed to a smaller amount of time. He said that to date, fifteen days was an appropriate notification. George Lamb thought that 21 days seemed an appropriate amount of time for the joint owner to respond. 2 Erickson Shirley suggested that the Town Attorney be questioned for legal advice. George Ruther commented that he understood the policy procedure but still suggested a shorter time period for response. Erickson Shirley asked what the PEC wanted to do. Russ Forrest commented that a vote was needed. Erickson Shirley clarified that specific language was not needed at this time. Barbara Schofield asked if this was going to apply to all duplexes? She pointed out that if this was applied separately or differently, as it had been in the past by the Town, then no progress would be made. Chas Bernhardt asked if the repaint was approved before or after the signature was required. Barbara Schofield brought up an approval that was done through the previous owner of the duplex: it was an approved roof and paint that was same for same. George Ruther mentioned that approval applications have a one year time limit before expiration. George Lamb said that this appeal related to all jointly-owner properties in the TOV, not just the property under question. Barbara Schofield said that she wanted no special treatment, just consistency. Erickson wanted clarification regarding visual differences in improvements. Some maintenance will cause visual difference, at least for a period of time. He suggested that staff should "play with the language" and bring it back to PEC. He then asked if there were any motions from the PEC. Motion: George Lamb, to deny the appeal and keep current policy of joint signature apps. Second: Chas Bernhardt Vote: 3-1-1 George Lamb added that he would be in favor of a 21 day period during which the joint homeowner could reply to regular maintenance issues, especially when timeliness was of the essence. Erickson suggested that in regard to the first issue, i.e., where there is a jointly-owned property on which one neighbor wishes to maintain and notifies the other, without response after 21 days, the application could proceed without the notified persons signature. Rollie Kjesbo asked if the notified homeowner would need to contact the TOV as it regarded this issue. George Ruther stated that those legal proceedings would be discussed with the Town Attorney. Erickson restated that this provision would apply to same for same applications only. A casual consensus was reached. 3 George Lamb asked further about whether this provision should apply only to same for same applications or not. George Ruther again stated the need for staff to evaluate the process on its own time. Rollie Kjesbo seconded that he had questions. Erickson asked the PEC if there was agreement on simple improvements. Chas Bernhardt asked if the approval of the repaint in 97 occurred within the same year. He then asked if one half of a duplex wants to fall into disrepair, the other should be free to make improvements as he sees fit. Erickson verified the stance that the TOV would need to continue to gain signatures in the case of visual changes, unless the visual changes were very small. Russ Forrest wanted to clarify the effect of the vote. Chas Bernhardt clarified that he understood the issue, but said that he stood by his vote that staff stay out of the personal issues confronted. Erickson suggested that the issue be looked at more globally and not specifically regarding this issue. He stated that it was a tough issue but that he would agree with the TOV stance on the issue. John Schofield retained the chair. 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single-Family Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple-Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson John Schofield mentioned that this was another worksession. Bill Gibson introduced the project according to the memorandum, detailing the changes made since the last meeting. He stressed that non-conformity OR property and development rights increase will be the result of a change in regulations. Erickson asked about the issues on page 7. He wanted further clarification on how to stop structures from being built entirely above grade. Bill Gibson explained that there is no measure in place requiring an applicant to build a certain amount of GRFA above or below grade. It is a fundamental question whether we want the ability to tell homeowners where GRFA can be constructed. John Schofield asked if we allow a total number and a person chose to put as much above grade as possible, where do height and setback limits kick in? Bill Gibson explained that we would address the issue of basement square footage by not counting it, or by building in extra square footage into the formula. 4 Erichson Shirley said that it seems to him we got to a point where we said if we give people a space below grade it's another way to skin the cat. Russ Forrest said correct me if I'm wrong, but if you included it all we would not care where you put space. Bill Gibson said he is available for any questions. Vickie Pearson stated that she did not have much time to look at the memo, but she thinks the cleanest way to do it would be to exclude basements, it keeps everything the same. Steve Riden said that, according to Arrowhead regulations, anything that is exposed more than four feet above the ground is counted, making the staff's job easier. He also spoke of the 14 foot measurement for vaulted space definition, etc. He also mentioned that crawl spaces of 18 inches would not be sufficient in height. Duane Piper asked if simplification was going to be achieved, especially since that was the original premise for the current discussion. Bill Gibson said that he thought so, but that basement space would continue to be the nemesis. Russ Forest agreed with Bill. Duane had concerns about the definition of basements. He agreed that the Building Code did not define basements, but rather first floor spaces. He stressed the importance of synchronicity between the building and planning departments. Another issue, he thought, was loft space, which could be a nightmare to figure out due to sloping ceilings, etc. Footings may prove to be a problem as well, he said. Erickson asked that if it is structurally necessary to put a wall in a space that visually affects the exterior of a space, is it an issue? Duane did not understand the question and mentioned that he wanted simplicity. Erickson asked Bill if the 18 inches was proposed above ground. Bill mentioned that the option always remains to pour a wall and fill the space, not creating the crawl space, or to create a crawl space and use it as such, due to a deep footer, or dig it out and use it as a different space. Duane thought that it looked like progress had been made. John Schofield concurred, adding that the figures would continue to be worked with. Russ commented on the same. Duane mentioned that regarding lofted space, height and site coverage still existed, which addressed the issue. Erickson asked if Duane wanted to see basements excluded or deducted. MK Duane said "excluded" but that he was willing to acquiesce on that point. Steve Riden returned to comment that rather than considering ceiling height, consider plate height. John Schofield mentioned that crawl space height, footer height, attic height, etc were still issues that needed to be dealt with. He also mentioned that parking would need to be addressed. He asked if DRB needed to give comments. Also, what about the transition phase and an amnesty clause. PEC comment: Rollie Kjesbo thought that from bottom of footer to bottom of framing would be appropriate measurements for crawl space. Regarding loft space, cross sections done by architects could address that problem. He agreed with Duane that basements were hard to define but opted for more restriction if anything. He was worried that on lots larger than 20,000 sq. ft., bulk and mass would increase. He opted that basements not be counted. He said that 20 percent might be too high for basement calculation. George Lamb agreed with all of Rollie's comments. He suggested a transition period as well. The progress was substantial, he said. As far as percentages, he would err on the higher side in regard to examples. He admired Arrowhead for its limits on visual bulk and mass. Though, he commented, that slopes in Vail are the difficult exceptions. Erickson asked if crawl spaces were discouraged because of bulk and mass reasons. Bill answered that today the town code encourages bulk and mass through hidden crawl spaces, unfortunately. Erickson mentioned that he did not want to oversimplify, but that an agreed-upon definition of a basement, then excluded, would cause the issue of crawl spaces to "disappear". Bill commented that, regarding simplification, a comprehensive FAR is simple. Once exclusions are added, the development potential becomes more complex. Erickson commented that the PEC thought that basements should be excluded. If basements are excluded, then crawl spaces cease to be an issue to the extent that they are underground? If crawl spaces are above ground, we have to careful that they don't get too big and contribute to the bulk and mass of the structure. Bill commented that terminology about basements and crawl spaces was harmful. Staff would rather address bulk and mass below grade than the exact terms being used currently. Erickson said that if basements are excluded, above grade becomes a problem with extra bulk and mass. Bill Gibson clarified that today's definition of crawl space does not necessarily create below grade exteriors of the building. Rollie Kjesbo clarified that he did not want to count basement space, larger lots would prove to be a problem. Erickson continued to talk about basements, adding that he thought they should be excluded. He expressed agreement with every thing else that had been said. As to the amnesty clause, he suggested a time limit to simplify the process. Chas Bernhardt commented on the amount of good work that had been invested in the project. He agreed that 18 inches of crawl space was too little. He thought that perhaps the footing depth should be given a limit. He questioned whether 7 foot, 6 inches was habitable space, but 5 feet and over was habitable space: i.e. crawl vs. habitable space. He commented that a volumetric system was being approached. He was in favor of every subterranean space being excluded. If any part of the subterranean space was exposed, it should be included. He 6 wanted to incentives sub t growth. John Schofield commented on the thoroughness of the memo and his appreciation regarding the research. He thought that it was important that a huge increase was not misperceived but rather understood. The new number should be perceived simply as new and different, not necessarily that much bigger. Therefore, bulk and mass and the overall number are pretty similar. He commented on the difficulty of defining abasement. Was there any way to use the UBC definition? Grade and average grade are already defined in the code and don't need to be redefined, fortunately. Regarding the percentage added to existing GRFA for exterior walls and vaulted areas etc, he preferred that the error be on the high side of the percentage. Dramatic differences in size were not preferred, but allowable market variation on the positive side was okay. In terms of crawl space height, 18 inches will not be sufficient. 60 inches should be the top end of the spectrum, and maybe a range should be encouraged. In terms of treating vaulted spaces, what would be totally usable? If the floor plate could be extended and the whole are would be usable, that should count. The EHU bonus had not been addressed, he mentioned. A small percentage should be added for that, or it should at least be incorporated into the increase. Bill Gibson commented that it was not an incentive or a disincentive. Russ Forest agreed. Bill Gibson said that additional density was the true incentive. John Schofield requested a firm direction on the EHU issue. Erickson Shirley stressed that the Housing Authority be consulted on the issue. John Schofield continued with the suggestion that GRFA be renamed. He suggested one more worksession and a graph with a min. and max. percentage. Parking should be addressed and new standards that work better should be considered. He asked that Staff recommend an appropriate measurement. He asked if DRB had comments and requested specifics regarding a transition phase, knowing that non-conformities will occur. Bill Gibson mentioned that a non-conformity section of the code existed. Bill also mentioned that regarding below grade, should square footage still be added to "the formula"? John Schofield said that below grade not being counted was a unanimous decision. He stressed simplicity and said that a restriction of basements not exceeding the actual footprint of the structure might be implemented successfully. Theoretically, a basement could extend all the way to site coverage lines, which might be larger than the footprint of a site. Chas Bernhardt said that the reason in needing to extend beyond the footprint of the site may be structural in nature. Site disturbance, if reclaimed, doesn't necessarily matter, he said. The basement should be kept inside of allowable site coverage. Erickson Shirley said that disturbances will be made if a structure is wanted to be a certain way. Bill Gibson clarified that the basement could go to site coverage limits, not necessarily just footprint limits. Chas Bernhardt said that exceptions will exist and perhaps the new name should be called "BS" or buildable space. Laughs ensued. 7 Erickson suggested that before a final formula come into the final worksession, several outsiders should be consulted. One month was decided to be sufficient until the final worksession. John Schofield asked for any further input from the applicant. Motion: Rollie, to table for four weeks Second: Chas, to table for four weeks Chas congratulated the applicant on her attention to this matter, since it was a rather insolent one. Vote: 5-0-0, Tabled for four weeks 3. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing from Public Accommodation zone district (PA) to Parking zone district (P); a request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the proposed zoning of Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Base Recreation 11 zone district; a request for subdivision, pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing; a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a "private off-street vehicle parkin facility and public park" to be constructed and operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5 h Filing; a request for an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for a variance from Section 12-21- 10, Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to allow for the construction of multiple-family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther Chas Bernhardt left at 4:30pm George Ruther introduced the project according to the memorandum. John Schofield mentioned that as long as the Town is not a party to the restrictions mentioned, that the Town is not privy to the discussion. George Ruther mentioned that the traffic study was included at the request of the Commission. He also mentioned that a copy had been included of a traffic study prepared for the Front Door project by SEH, a firm in the service of LuAnne Wells, that related to the study. John Schofield asked that the number of parking spaces be clarified. George Ruther said that 108 spaces were in the structure, the remainder were other spaces. Tom Braun concurred. Jay Peterson, Vail Resorts, asked to table three items. John Schofield repeated the request. Therefore, a portion of what was advertised as final, would be tabled. Jay Peterson stated their presence simply to answer questions regarding P3 and J and the zoning of lots 1 and 2. John Schofield clarified that there were no changes other than the traffic study. Jay Peterson answered affirmatively that no changes had been made and that questions regarding traffic flow would be answered at a later time. Erickson Shirley expressed confusion at the number of items to be discussed. John Schofield stated the piecemeal order of addressing the issues. Karen Romeo, attorney for LuAnne Wells, requested that the vote be table entirely due to the unanswered questions regarding loading and delivery and if not, the vote for ski base zoning should be at least tabled. She requested that the original open space designation be honored and remembered. John Schofield said that the ski base zone district had been approved but not applied. Erickson Shirley clarified that the piecemeal fashion in which the project was being addressed should address the public's concern. Andy Littman, representing Ms. Wells, asked that the rezoning be conditional on the loading and delivery of the project. Erickson Shirley stated that nothing gets built until final approval and therefore, nothing can be built until the entire project is approved. George Ruther commented that Erickson's input was appropriate and that if the conditions were rezoned, the applicant would be required to make "major headway" before coming before the Town Council based on PEC recommendation. Erickson Shirley stated that many of the issues had already been addressed. Andy Littman said that the alterations wanted by the PEC should be expressed clearly. Arthur Cox, Bridge Street Lodge Association homeowner and assoc. president, said that the homeowners were generally supportive of the ski yard being proposed. He was concerned about the open-ended nature of the zoning and that usages such as bars and restaurants would not be welcome or consistent with the residential nature of the surrounding units and therefore, zoning restriction would be preferred. He said that residential owners should make their preferences clear, regardless. Erickson Shirleyrequested that the homeowners be precise about the issues they most care about. Arthur Cox said that nighttime usages were not welcome. He said that the zoning would leave open the possibility of unwelcome uses later. He was concerned about the usage of the location where the Vista Bahn currently was. John Schofield stated that the input was not particularly applicable to the discussion today, but were appropriate, regardless. He mentioned that they would be more applicable once *tw, the development drew nearer. Arthur Cox wanted to make sure that protections not easily circumvented were in place. He felt most worried about issues left open-ended in the zoning process. 9 John Schofield clarified the issues that were being currently addressed. He mentioned that he would welcome Arthur's input in the future as other issues concerning the ski yard, etc, were addressed. Erickson Shirley mentioned that by breaking the project down, each session is an opportunity to have input on the end result. Basically, he said, comments that are not immediately pertinent or well -informed were not always helpful at any time. Arthur Cox clarified that usage was the primary concern and that a vibrant ski yard was encouraged. John Schofield encouraged him to keep in touch with George and Jack concerning future meetings, etc. Erickson Shirley communicated that perhaps the public had some difficulty understanding the nature of the project and the approval process, etc. He suggested that a memo of some sort be distributed demonstrating the process and current status, etc. Russ Forrest understood the difficulty in staying abreast of the changes constantly. He suggested that the website be used for information on current projects. Erickson Shirley clarified that his comments were not meant to be ungrateful, but that comments which applied directly to current memos were always the most helpful. Arthur Cox asked if direct contact with the Chief of Planning could be arranged in the future. John Schofield suggested further collaboration. Erickson Shirley encouraged public input and collaboration, etc. PEC comment: Rollie Kjesbo felt comfortable with the issues addressed. George Lamb agreed that nothing was being created that could not be undone. Per the garage, the proposal had been simplified somewhat. Erickson Shirley said that he had heard no opposition to P3 and J, especially since much public benefit would be included in the outcome. Aside from the park and heated sidewalks, more parking would be a benefit. He commented that more traffic would affect him, as a nearby resident, but that he was still in favor. John Schofield mentioned that vast amounts of time that had been put into the project. The change in zoning would be to take one piece, zoned PA, and zone it parking, which is what was supposed to be. He agreed with Erickson in that the addition of parking was a good thing, especially since it would be buried. A more attractive situation would result because of the park. The loading and delivery was addressed already and the consensus was that the loading and delivery not be placed in the structure. The traffic concerns were adequately addressed. Loading and delivery did not need to be addressed for the whole village. As far as conditional use permit, preliminary approval would seem appropriate, he thought. He expressed concern with provision #3, which had not been reviewed yet. George Ruther said that the off-site improvements plan had already been submitted and that the PEC had seen the improvements. His reference to this condition regarded specific components of the project. He wanted to be specific and detail-oriented about the improvements. He said that included in today's plans were off-site improvement plans. 10 John Schofield requested to add the provision that public works submit specific plans for certain issues like water lines, etc. Jay Peterson concurred that that discussion would be held at a later date. Erickson asked about the areas that the discussion involved. George Ruther explained. Jay Peterson said that he understood that approval held room for change, provided that the change was not too outrageous. He said that the worst case scenario would be that nothing would be built. John Schofield asked for further PEC discussion. Motion: Rollie Kjesbo, to approve the major subdivision, per the staff memo Second: Erickson Shirley Vote: 4-0-0 Motion: Rollie Kjesbo, to amend the zoning map, Lots P3 & J, per the staff memo Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0-0 Motion: Rollie Kjesbo, to amend the zoning map, Lots 1 and 2, per the staff memo Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0-0 Motion: Rollie Kjesbo, to approve the two conditional use permit requests, per the staff memo, Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0-0 John S. reiterated that these approvals would go to Council. Andy Littman requested that clarity of the publications be required. The "roadmap" for the public would be helpful for the general public. John S. recommended that the TOV subscription e-mail be accessed for information. Russ F. agreed that the website was very helpful and that the project planner, George R. would be one of the best sources. Andy L again expressed that the more in depth and clear the information is, the better it is for the public. Erickson expressed that last minute changes not be the modus operandi. Erickson told Jay Motion: Rollie Kjesbo, to table until Aug 25, the balance of the items Second: George Lamb, Vote: 4-0-0 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to allow for text amendments to the outdoor display requirements as prescribed by Sections 12-61-9, Location of Business Activity; 12-7B-18, Location of Business Activity; 12-17-14, Location of Business Activity; 12- 7D-11, Location of Business Activity; 12-7E-13, Location of Business Activity; 12-7H-17, Location of Business Activity; 12-71-17, Location of Business Activity, Vail Town Code, and 11 setting for details in regard thereto Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett Matt Gennett introduced the project according to the memo. Russ Forrest commented that when the Council suggested this be addressed as part of the sign code, the issue was brought before the Vail Chamber. Therefore, the issue has been addressed in a public forum. Tom Higgins, of American Ski Exchange, referred to collective public observation, which he questioned. He commented that current public observation (cpo) included the need for good shopping. Summer guests were like winter guests, he said. When the initial question arose, the retail market was entirely different. The outdoor displays add interest and fun, he said. He mentioned that people like perceived value. The time frame would be limited to the summer. The recreational activity of the guest included shopping. Why limit it just to summer? As for the winter businesses, they would be segregated from taking advantage of the display opportunity? The retail health is not as good due to the market, competition, etc. Perceived value and spontaneous sales are part of the retail "game". Guests enjoy getting a good deal. Outdoor techniques are always interesting, he said. He would have been happy to make his racks as attractive as necessary "dipping them in gold leaf, even". He commented that having a chair of the merchant association who had a failing business model was not particularly pleasant. He said that he was not sure he was even a part of the last nine years of the problem. He would be willing to "dress up" his racks or be part of the committee. Overall, limited time was not an issue. Do it all year round, he said, and just "crush us". PEC comment: Erickson said that much has been discussed regarding the recession. Things will be hard, regardless. Therefore, long term policies that help businesses should be adopted. Things that add to the street life should be welcome. There should not be a lot of racks, however. Some way to entice shoppers is appropriate. Parking is far greater an issue than clothing racks in front of a shop. He was not in favor of the proposal. George said that generally he agreed with Erickson. The division in the regulation was not helpful. It was important for merchants to rotate their merchandise, he said. Locals buy things and lack of variety is not helpful, he said. Rollie K. asked who the impetus behind the issue was. Russ said that the TOV and the Council were behind the proposal, especially to clean up the streets and the clutter. The recommendation was to create a time of year, during which wealthy guests were in town, to limit the display racks for the benefit of the business community. Rollie K said that the market area over the weekend was nice, invigorating, really. He did not think that it was particularly a big issue, overall. John S said that time limits were not appropriate. TOV could not regulate good or bad business tactics. Display on private property should be absolutely mandatory. The display of goods also related to newspapers was an example of display on public property. George L. said that as a rep of AIPP, attractive displays for newspapers was important. John S. was adamant about the private property issue. 12 Russ asked if design guidelines were necessary. John S. said no, business tactics could not be regulated. Erickson asked if the racks were generally on public or private property. Russ said that there the racks were on both public and private property, currently. Rollie K asked who would be responsible for policing the issue. Russ F said that the Code Enforcement Officer would be responsible. A black or white decision would be most preferable. Erickson suggested that guidelines be implemented. In terms of public vs private property, the racks create "synergy". The streets are "fat" and conducive to pedestrian traffic. The racks serve to create healthy action, "hanging out", etc. The village aspect was important to maintain, he said. Russ Forrest said that stringent regulations were in place in almost all of the resort towns studied. Erickson stated that the retail nature was not necessarily high end, but that display racks were not the answer to improving that. Motion: Erickson Shirley, to leave text remaining, unmodified Second: Rollie Kjesbo George Lamb suggested that these were DRB issues, not PEC issues. He encouraged vocalism in those meetings instead. Vote: 3-1-0 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Warren Campbell Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Erickson Shirley asked if the properties which would be require to construct and/or fund streetscape improvements were residential or commercial. Greg Hall stated that the requirements would not really apply to single-family residences. Curb and gutter improvements had, to date, been paid for by the Town when it came to single-family residences. Erickson Shirley asked if anything would be required of the single-family residences. Greg Hall stated that the landscaping required would be worked on with the residents that were involved in the areas under question. Warren Campbell stated that the south side of West Meadow Drive was were the majority of single-family homes were located which were adjacent to proposed streetscape improvements. He added that the south side of the road proposed less intense improvements which included landscaping improvements primarily. He continued, that each 13 development proposal varied in intensity and therefore would warrant different levels of participation in constructing or funding streetscape improvements. As an example the recently approved Halaby residence at the end of West Meadow Drive was required to incorporate streetscape landscaping elements into their design. He concluded by requesting implementation advice and comments at today's meeting and stated that staff recommended approval. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowner's association, asked if properties previously developed were to be assigned the least financial responsibility under the "codified public improvement impact fee" found on page 77 of the Streetscape Master Plan draft. Greg Hall responded that public improvement impact fee was not currently codified and it would be Council who would determine the amounts the impact fee would collect. Jim Lamont used Erickson Shirley's house as an example, because it is adjacent to Gore Creek Drive which is covered under the Streetscape Master in the Village Core Sub-area. If this is impact fee was to become codified, will he be assessed an improvement fee when the streetscape plan is implemented? Greg Hall stated that the intent was to not charge the impact fee until a particular owner submitted a plan for work on the property. The amount of the impact fee would depend on the intensity of the proposed work. The smaller the impact like a renovation with no additional GRFA would be billed a small impact fee where as an addition would be assessed a larger impact fee. John Schofield stated the need for clarification of minor work, etc. Jim Lamont stated that the way he understood it, anytime someone came in for a building permit, a fee would be assigned. This was a huge "cloud", as he said. Greg Hall said that those who did improvements would pay, and that was the intent. Those who did not propose a change, would not pay. The amount would probably be very little. Russ Forrest said that any impact fee needed to have a rational nexus. Things with zero impact would have zero fee. Improvements with a lot of impact would cause a higher fee. Erickson Shirley asked what the fees would be. What if his street is heated? Would he have to pay every month for that? Greg Hall responded that if the sidewalk was in front of his place, it was his responsibility to keep it clear. The Vail Town Code currently requires individual property owners to keep their sidewalks clean and clear. Erickson Shirley asked if the residents would pay a monthly fee to heat the street. Greg Hall said that the sidewalks would be his responsibility, not the Town's. Jim Lamont mentioned that there could be a disincentive to improve one's property, if this fee schedule was implemented. Though streetscape improvements were necessary, the payment for the improvements was an entirely different question. Erickson Shirley stated that a resident should not bear the cost of heating a sidewalk that the tourists were primarily using. Businesses are different in that they receive direct economic benefit from the tourists using the amenities such as heated sidewalks. He continued by stating that last November the ballot initiative to fund streetscape improvements failed as the community was not clear that the money collected would be 14 earmarked for implementing streetscape improvements. He believes that if the initiative is placed on the ballot this November and people are informed as to what it will go towards than it will pass. Ift Russ Forrest stated that the Council was trying to put the plan into the capital budget. Erickson Shirley stated that homeowners were not going to be happy to pay fees and construct improvements. Jim Lamont stated that there was good comprehension by property owners of what was needed to get the Village to "self-renew". The renewal process should not come as a cost to the homeowner. Secondly, trucks may have to drive on Gore Creek Drive. There must be high-load lanes that are unheated, he said. Is there enough money in the design to continue to have truck circulation routes? Greg Hall stated that the truck load through checkpoint Charlie was studied and that the roadway materials and design would withstand the wait of delivery trucks. He reminded everyone that fire trucks would need to get down the streets. Jim Lamont requested that the PEC approve the proposal, except for the funding strategy. Gwen Scalpello, 9 Vail Road, agreed with Jim Lamont. She could not imagine being assessed an impact fee as a secondary measure to her doing improvement on her property. John Schofield suggested that two sets of comments come from the commissioners. Firstly, regarding aesthetics and layout, and secondly, regarding the fee structure. George Lamb stated that the design seemed insightful. The way that the ballot issue was presented was not good, he said. The questions of financing are always first and foremost. The plan is great, but the fee structure must be the obligation of the town, not the homeowners, and must be well-organized as such. Rollie Kjesbo agreed with George Lamb that the design was great. He said that if Vail Resorts and others are being charged for the improvements as part of their development proposals and then would be potentially taxed if a ballot issue passed, that was a bad scenario. It would be a double whammy, however he did not have an answer. Russ Forrest stated that for four years, Lionshead funding had been researched. The results of the study showed that eventually the private developer needed to chip in due to the impacts that they were involved with under any funding scheme. Rollie Kjesbo asked about an eventual Crossroads redevelopment. Would they be charged for improvements already completed? Greg Hall stated that generally fees are not assigned in hindsight. He said that the intent was not to apply fees to those that will eventually redevelop. Erickson Shirley thought that it was appalling that the town is requiringapplicants to implement a streetscape plan that was neither completed or has a clear plath to funding. Greg Hall stated that the Streetscape Master Plan's final implementation rested with the Town Council. Erickson Shirley restated the foolishness of the way Council has handled the development of this plan. He added that the PEC had requested the document for months before a draft brought to them. 15 Greg Hall replied that the 1999 Streetscape Master Plan is being implemented currently. Erickson Shirley stated that levy failed because the cart was being "put in front of the horse". He mentioned that lawsuits would be the result of asking people to heat the streets, etc. The responsibility of the fees was a huge issue, he reiterated. The economy was not going to come around and create a cushion, he said. The fact that the PEC did not receive a document that detailed the fee structure was "shameful". John Schofield concurred with Erickson Shirley and expressed that anywhere a snow plow would be used should not have a curb and gutter. The plan should be lasting and fairly easy to maintain. Greg Hall stated that it was simple and easy to heat, with materials that were well-suited to the environment. John Schofield stated that the Streetscape Maintenance section found on page 77 needed to be clearly defined and detailed before he would ever think of approving anything. If it is high maintenance, there is not a chance he would be in favor of the plan. Also, the general funding should not be the responsibility of the Town, but rather the primary users of the improvements. He said that "he who uses it should pay for it". Staff should return with a document detailing who the users would be and how the plan would be paid for. Greg Hall asked if the plan was on the right track regarding implementation of the streetscape improvements. John Schofield expressed confusion about the specifics. He was not comfortable about the levels, etc. Erickson Shirley clarified that the SDD issue was the only one which was clearly addressed. Russ Forrest asked again about the feeling of the Commission regarding the overall design. Erickson Shirley stated that he was concerned about the arrangements and colors of street pavers. One street should not look better or worse than other streets. Russ Forrest asked if there was a plan that was more specifically laid out if that could be approved. John Schofield stated that was the Council's responsibility. Erickson Shirley stated that assurance was what was lacking in how the plan would be implemented. Jim Lamont stated that the construction could be predicted, but the ongoing maintenance could not be. Joe Kracum stated that the funding issue is always a problem. What were the personal ideas of the Commission as to how funding should be generated? John Schofield restated that the people who use the service should pay. He did not know how those costs could be allocated, however. Erickson Shirley stated the reason why the levy failed was because the Lionshead plan was not presented well enough. He continued that a levy should be put on the ballot to pay for the majority of the improvements. 16 Joe Kracum stated that the need to develop the plan in greater detail was related to the need to replace many of the utilities in the Village. Erickson Shirley stated that with a clear source of funding maybe the plan was a little too extravagant. George Lamb stated that the levy failed by only a small margin. He believes it should be funded through a levy. Rollie Kjesbo stated that a levy should be placed on the ballot with a clear purpose of 50% going to streetscape improvements in the sub-areas and 50% going towards streets in the remainder of the Town. John Schofield added that the Council did "a lousy job presenting the levy" on the previous ballot. Motion: Rollie Kjesbo made a motion to table the application to the September 8, 2003 PEC agenda. Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an outdoor dining deck, in accordance with Section 12-713-413, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson Motion: Rollie Kjesbo, to table for 4 weeks Second: George Lamb, to table Vote: 4-0-0 Tabled to August 25, 2003 7. A request for a variance from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and 12-6H-7, Height, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at Manor Vail, 595 E. Vail Valley Drive/Lot A, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Bob McCleary Planner: Warren Campbell Withdrawn 8. Approval of July 25, 2003 minutes Tabled to august 25, 2003 9. Information Update John Schofield requested that the background for upcoming projects, such as Ford park parking, be clarified in advance. Russ Forrest stated that the VRD was unclear about the proposal to park at Ford Park. Rollie Kjesbo stated that the new fields did not have much of a history yet. 17 Russ Forrest stated that those fields were not options due to their nature. John Schofield asked that the list detailing master plans be turned into a recommendation to Council. Russ Forrest questioned how that should be addressed? John Schofield stated that a recommendation with a regular schedule on the master plans was most needed. Russ Forrest suggested that it be an election issue perhaps. John Schofield agreed that it needed to be in front of the council in some form soon. Erickson suggested "red-flagging" any project in the Town that results in less than ideal results. John Schofield said "3 months". If there was an agenda that was a little slighter during that time period, it should be put on the agenda. Motion:George Lamb, to adjourn Second: Rollie Kjesbo, to adjourn Vote: 4-0-0 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 Published August 8, 2003 in the Vail Daily. 0 18