Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PEC Aug 25 2003
ADDREss oFF. Si4-E, MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 25, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, 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 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Jay Peterson, has requested a worksession with the Planning & Environmental Commission to discuss Vail's Front Door project. Specifically, the applicant and staff are asking the Commission to listen to a presentation on the proposed redesign of the skier services building. The proposed design has been amended in response to input received from the public and Commission on July 28th and from the Design Review Board on August 6th. Upon completion of the presentation, staff is requesting that the Commission engages in a discussion with the staff and applicant and provide their input and feedback on the proposed redesign in anticipation of a final review of the proposal at the September 8, 2003, public hearing of the Planning & Environmental Commission. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC), represented by Jay Peterson, is requesting a worksession meeting with the Planning & Environmental Commission to continue discussions regarding Vail's Front Door project. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the applicant an opportunity to present their plans for the development of Vail's Front Door project to the Commission and to allow the Commission to engage in a discussion with the staff and applicant and provide their input and feedback on the proposed improvements. Specifically, the applicant and staff are asking the Commission to listen to a presentation on the proposed redesign of the skier services building. III. BACKGROUND r ~ ,''tic.. ,-:;t•.~ c:.'.•3S~U+ On January 6, 2003, the Community Development Department received the applicants submittal of 14 development review applications to facilitate the redevelopment of Vail's Front Door project. On February 10 and 24, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held worksessions to discuss the applicant's proposal and requests to amend various planning documents of the Town of Vail. On March 10, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval of the applicant's request to amend the Vail Land Use Plan, Vail Village Master Plan, and the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations to the Vail Town Council On April 1, 2003, the Vail Town Council approved Resolutions No. 2 and 3, Series of 2003, amending the Vail Land Use Plan and Vail Village Master Plan, and approved Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2003, amending the Town of Vail Zoning Regulation, upon first reading. On April 14, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discussed the proposed plans for improvements to Lots P3 and J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing (Vail Park). , On April 15, 2003, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2003, f amending the Town of Vail Zoning Regulation, upon second reading. ! On June 9, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to continue discussions on the proposed plans for improvements to Lots P3 and J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing (Vail Park). The Commission tabled the final review of the four development review applications directly associated with the Vail Park improvements until the July 14, 2003, public hearing of the Planning and Environmental Commission. On June 23, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss the proposed improvements and development applications associated with the Vista Bahn Ski and Vail's Front Door project. Upon presentation of the proposed plans, the Commission accepted public comment and then provided feedback to the applicant. In providing feedback to the applicant, the Commission raised a number of questions. The applicant and staff agreed to provide answers to those questions at the July 14, 2003 meeting. On July 14, 2003 the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss the proposed improvements and development applications associated with the Vista Bahn Ski and Vail's Front Door project. Upon presentation of the proposed plans, the Commission accepted public comment and then provided feedback to the applicant. In providing feedback to the applicant, the Commission raised a number of questions. The applicant and staff agreed to provide answers to those questions at the July 28, 2003 worksession meeting. The more significant issues raised by the Commission and public were questions regarding traffic impacts, loading and delivery operations and management, and the summer and winter programming of the Vista Bahn ski yard. 2 I Is AO On July 28, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss the proposed improvements and development applications associated with the Vista Bahn Ski and Vail's Front Door project. Specifically, the Commission directed their attention to the operational and management issues associated with the proposed loading and delivery facility and the conclusions of the revised traffic impact report. To help understand the impacts of the loading and delivery facility the Commission members visited the centralized loading facility in Beaver Creek. The Commission also focused their attention on the site plan location and design concepts of the skier services building. On August 6, 2003, the Town of Vail Design Review Board held a hearing to discuss the proposed design concepts of the four major components of Vail's Front Door Project. Following a presentation on the proposed Vail Park, the 13 residences, the member's ski club, and skier services building improvements, the Board provided their initial comments and input. A copy of a letter to Tom Braun and Jay Peterson summarizing the Design Review Board's comments has been attached for reference (attachment A). On August 11, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed improvements to Lots P3 & J and a request to amend the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map. Upon evaluation of the applications, the Commission voted to approve the requests, with conditions, and to forward a recommendation of approval of the zone district amendments to the Vail Town Council. IV. DISCUSSION ISSUES The purpose of today's worksession meeting is to focus on the design changes proposed for the skier services building. Specifically, the applicant will make a brief presentation on the proposed design changes and communicate the rationale for the changes. Staff recommends that the Commission then engages in a discussion with the applicant and the public with regard to the new proposal. The proposed development site will be "staked" for the meeting to aid in the understanding of the proposed improvements. A copy of the reduced plans has been attached for reference (attachment B). V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession, the Community Development Department will not be making a recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a formal recommendation with proposed conditions at the time of final review. Staff is anticipating a request for a final review by the applicant at the September 8, 2003, meeting of the Planning & Environmental Commission. VI. ATTACHMENTS A. Letter to Tom Braun and Jay Peterson, dated August 18, 2003 B. Reduced copy of the proposed skier services building plans, dated August 25, 2003. • . 70WN OF VAILY 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) F-A 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 Attachment: A 4 C IAA IIABIRA UIN ASSOCIATES, IINC. PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 22, 2003 Mr. George Ruther Chief of Planning Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 RE: Vail's Front Door-PEC 8/25 Work Session Dear George: Enclosed you will find reduced copies of revised plans for the skier service building. Plans provided include: 1. Site plan with roof plan 2. Floor plan 3. Elevations 4. Perspective We look forward to presenting this and other material on the skier service building to the PEC on Monday. As we have discussed, our sole focus of this work session is to present these revised drawings. While these revisions reflect a major departure from our previous design efforts, we are very excited about the "new design direction" this element of the project has taken over the past three weeks. Our goal in this re-design process was to respond directly to both PEC and DRB comments regarding the design of this building. While many detailed design issues are yet to be resolved, our hope for Monday is to get clear direction from the PEC regarding this new design. We will then make further refinements to the building as necessary in response to PEC comments and present final plans for the Commission's consideration on September 8`h. Sincerely, Thomas A. Braun, AICP Cc: Jack Hump Jay Peterson Bob Fitzgerald Edwards Village Center, Suite C-209 Ph. - 970.926.7575 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Fax - 970.926.7576 Post Office Box 2658 www.braunassociates.com Edwards, Colorado 81632 L4-01 E Q N C 0 0.. 4z 0 o v a x 7E r~ ~C C N ~I 1 + VAIL'S FRONT DOOR IL -A Li P 0 0 0- i i ' i - ~i - - -z Q 0 0 0.. . 4= e ■ IBAII/IBIRAUIN ASSOCIATES, IINC. PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 20, 2003 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: Front Door Staff Review Comments Dear Greg and George: The following outlines our response to each of the comments raised in your Front Door comment letter dated July 21, 2003. A revised plan set dated August 20, 2003 has been submitted with this correspondence. These revised plans, in conjunction with attached exhibits, address each of the comments raised in your letter. Using your letter as a "base", the following explains how we have addressed each of your comments. 1. Please submit an updated adjacent property owner list. The current list is now nearly eight months old. An updated adjacent property owners list is attached. There have been no property transfers that would affect this list when compared to the property owners list previously submitted. 2. Please submit an illustration indicating the impacts of the proposed development on View Corridor #2, as defined in the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. A photo overlay of View Corridor #2 depicting the proposed skier service building is attached. As indicated by this photo, the proposed building is outside of the designated view corridor. Edwards Village Center, Suite C-209 Ph. - 970.926.7575 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Fax - 970.926.7576 Post Office Box 2658 www.braunassociates.com Edwards, Colorado 81632 OW 3. Please submit a traffic report indicating the potential impacts of additional vehicle and truck trips to the development site. The report shall include traffic trips from all points along Vail Road from the Main Vail Roundabout to the development site. 6. l_ 7 An updated traffic analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn dated July 2003 has been submitted to the Town. This report was presented to the PEC at their July 14th meeting. At that meeting, the PEC requested a LOS analysis of the Meadow DriveNail Road intersection. A copy of this analysis is attached. 4. Please review the proposed plans and reconcile the information on the plans sheets. As the plans currently exist, there is conflicting information on the various sheets of plans (ie, grading) A comprehensive set of revised plans has been submitted to the Town. These revised plans reflect the latest design of the project, with the most significant change being made to the skier service building. In preparing these revisions we have also attempted to identify and correct any conflicting information throughout the plan set. 5. Please submit a retaining wall detail for the Forest Service access road on the east side of the underground structure. A cross-section of the tunnel is attached. This exhibit provides an indication of how the tunnel design relates to the rest of the project. It is assumed that the design detail of this element of the project is more of a DRB issue than a PEC issue. As such, we anticipate providing more design detail once we are through the PEC process and have moved on to the design review process. Please indicate the proposed sight distance triangle for each intersection and driveway affected by the development proposal. The sight distance standards can be located in the Town of Vail Development Standards Handbook. tI A variety of exhibits depicting sight distance trig 'gles are attached. As discussed with town staff, the sight distances AASHTO standards for a 15 mph roadway (Vail Road is posted 15 mph) at both the tunnel and residence drive intersections. For truck movements, the tunnel access actually exceeds standards for a 25mph roadway. 12_1.. DLO C,17> ?u111utJ OUT' 'Di51-A"GE . 'DtSLt OUD Re3plvr.Please increase the right turn out turning radius from the underground structure to accommodate the turning radius of a 65-foot semi tractor and trailer. ® Si+1- 'piST»uc£ 4415itDkc. -hE +01-W41 (19. Y";0402 r4%tcP 5uu'6C4) 00911, Turning radius studies for WB-30, WB-40 and WB-50 trucks are attached. As demonstrated by these sketches, each of these vehicles can exit the tunnel and turn right down Vail Road. We have also attached an exhibit demonstrating how a WB-50 can exit the tunnel by turning left. We have not increased the turning radius to allow a 65-foot semi to exit the tunnel turning right due to the fact that the largest truck we can accommodate in the loading facility is a 57' truck. A l Pi+.t_ ~v C ou P`de. 8. Please amend the appropriate plans to indicate the proposed location of the bike/pedestrian path through the development site. A bike/pedestrian corridor through the site is depicted on the site and landscape plans. This corridor will tie into the existing path adjacent to Pirate Ship Park on the east and into the access road to the ski club/residences on the west. In between, the ski plaza and hardscape in front of the skier service building will provide for bike and pedestrian access. Stairs at the southernmost corner of the skier service building have been eliminated. 6 9. Please label and quantify the proposed parking spaces on the parking level plans to indicate valet, compact, or standard spaces. Where relevant, valet and compact spaces are identified on the plans. 10. The grading plans and all other appropriate plans shall include all top-of-wall (tow) and bottom of wall (bow) elevations. Top and bottom of retaining wall heights are identified on grading plans. It should be noted, however, that at the "zoning/development plan review" stage of the project, we are only just beyond a schematic design phase. Once the project is approved, we will be moving into design development and then construction drawings. It is very likely that as designs progress refinements will be made to our plans that may vary from what is now being reviewed. gom-- e>A-7, O U- b ml't. 11. Please indicate on the appropriate plan sheets all match-lines for off-site and street improvements. The Public Improvement Plans submitted in our June 9 plan set have been refined (in a format similar to what was done for the P3&J off-site improvement plans). ~k",potwr IA-jpoojao ~Q 00e ~ -t5gk Rtvkkl;~ 001 12. Please review the proposed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and amend as necessary to address all revisions to the proposal to date and submit 12 amended copies to the Town of Community Development Department A revised EIR has been prepared and submitted to the Town. ~vtM 90*4 13. Please revise the proposed plans to indicate a reduction in the number of steps and the slope of the sidewalk grade along the existing walk from Founder's Plaza to north to Gore Creek Drive. We have studied this area and concluded that reducing or eliminating the steps would adversely affect existing improvements (much of which was just rebuilt) in the surrounding area. While the existing steps are relatively shallow, the overall grade change is significant and there is very little room with which to "take out the grade". 1, b6 'DaA"P ve~ • . -50b M, 14. Please review the proposed plans to verify the need for retaining walls on the west side of Vail Road near the southeast corner of the Riva Ridge South property corner, at the existing evergreen trees. The attached exhibit demonstrates how the proposed improvements can be done with minimal impact on existing vegetation. It is assumed that only one spruce tree will be removed as part of these road improvements. 15. The Town of Vail has requested the dedication of Private Ship Park to the Town of Vail as part of the proposed annexation and major subdivision approval process. Please revise the proposed plans to reflect this exchange of land. Vail Resorts is happy to discuss the possible conveyance of a parcel of land under Pirate Ship Park to the Town. However, in lieu of "revising plans", it is suggested that this conveyance be discussed in the context of an overall annexation/development agreement. 16. Please submit a revised off site improvements plan. The purpose of the plan is to visually illustrate the off site improvements proposed by the applicant. This document shall be a separate document and not incorporated into any other plan sheet (ie landscape plan) The Public Improvement Plans submitted in our June 9 plan set have been refined (in a format similar to what was done for the P3&J off-site improvement plans). L'! 00,1. 17. Please submit a proposed traffic circulation plan. The purpose of this plan is to visually illustrate the turning movements and the flow of all modes of transportation in and around the development. The Front Door has been designed to maintain existing traffic patterns and allow for a full range of turning movements and traffic flow alternatives. For example, the tunnel has been designed to allow exiting traffic to flow either direction on Vail Road. The majority of traffic flow will occur on Town of Vail roadways. As such, we believe it is the Town's role to determine how traffic will be managed. While we have not prepared the requested exhibit, we would be happy to assist town staff in the preparation of an exhibit depicting how the town envisions flowing traffic in and around the Front Door. -Dow~. 18. Please submit a proposed management plan for the operation of the loading and delivery facility in the lower level of the parking structure. A final plan will be required for review and approval of the proposed approved development plan. As previously discussed, it is agreed that Greg Hall is taking the lead in preparing the Town's management plan for the loading facility. 19. Please submit noise level statistics for the ventilation system of the Town of Vail Transportation Center. This information will be used in the evaluation of the proposed underground parking structure ventilation system. As previously discussed, you have agreed that this information is no longer requested. 20. Please amend the proposed plans to indicate a larger Vista Bahn ski yard area. As designed, the area is prone to congestion and overcrowding. The size of the ski yard has been increased and was presented to the PEC on July 14th. At this meeting the PEC indicated support of the proposed ski yard. As such, this comment has been addressed. Dow a 21. Per Town of Vail development review application requirements, please stake the proposed building locations, property corners, and centerlines of vehicular access points for the worksession hearing on Monday, July 28, 2003. The property will be staked for review by the PEC prior to their August 25th meeting. 22. Please submit the amended physical model to the Community Development Department by noon on Friday, July 25, 2003. A revised model of the project was submitted to the PEC at their July 28`h meeting. Based on input received during this meeting, major revisions are being made to the skier service building. We will not have a revised model for the PEC work session on August 25th. If requested by the PEC, we will prepare a revised model for their final review on September Stn. ~ O "FAeTf_ VV1006L_ X02 q~ ZZ 23. Please submit a report prepared by a licensed geologic engineer attesting to the slope conditions of the site prior to and proposed post-construction conditions. A geo-hazard analysis was included in the EIR. This report concluded that existing site conditions do allow for construction on the site. 24. Please add a second exit out of the loading and delivery hand truck tunnel onto the ski plaza in the area between the proposed skier services building and One Vail Place. The previously enclosed delivery corridor has been eliminated. As such, upon exiting the elevator hand trucks will be able to flow out of the skier service building in multiple directions. 25. Please revise the turning radii and entrance gate location tot eh residence club units to ensure adequate fire truck access and maneuverability. The location of the gate has been modified based on input received from Mike McGee. A turning radius study has been submitted demonstrating how a fire truck can access the road to the residences. 26. Please revise the turning radii and parking lot configuration of the Lodge at Vail to ensure adequate motor coach bus access and maneuverability. The proposed re-design of the access to the Lodge at Vail has been designed to allow for a "smoother" driveway into the lot from Vail Road. The re-design of the Lodge parking lot is not an element of this application. 27. Please revise the stair configuration at the southeast corner of the ski club building to provide a minimum of a five-foot wide landing at the bottom of the stair and a through sidewalk connection to the stairs leading down to the lower level of the Lodge at Vail. This change is depicted on the revised plans. 28. Please revise the plans to illustrate a change in paving surface materials at all pedestrian crosswalks. The crosswalk paving material shall match the adjacent sidewalk material. If the material of the sidewalk is the same at the roadway or driveway, then a change in paving pattern shall be illustrated instead of a change in material. Crosswalks have been depicted where access roads intersect with Vail Road and at the driveway to One Vail Place in the vicinity of the skier club. 29. Please revise the plans to increase the size of the four exterior parking spaces outside the entrance to the One Vail Place parking garage. The minimum size shall be 9' x 191. The previously proposed four spaces has been re-designed only two spaces. Each of these spaces are 9'x19'. 30. Please revise the plans to illustrate a relocated bike/pedestrian path along the frontage of the skier services building. The new path shall connect into the existing path to the east and continue through the development site to the vehicular access road to the ski club building. While not labeled specifically as a bike path, the hardscape/plaza area immediately in front of the skier service building will serve as a bike path/pedestrian route in the summer time. This hardscape area does connect with the existing bike pate that runs by Pirate Ship Park and with the residences access road. 31. Please revise the plans and remove the proposed three sets of stairs located at the southeast corner of the skier services building. Upon removing the proposed stair, the proposed grades shall be revised to provide a maximum slope on the bike/pedestrian path of 5%. The stair way has been eliminated and the "ramp" is designed to a 5% grade. 32. Please revise the plans to provide a minimum distance of 15 feet between the skier services building and outer edge of the bike/pedestrian path. While dimensions vary, we do have at least 15 feet between the skier services building and the edge of the hardscape area. 33. Please revise the plans to relocate the proposed electrical transformer location from the Vista Bahn Plaza to an alternate location. Upon relocating the transformers, please submit detail architectural drawings illustrating the proposed screening design. The two transformers have been eliminated from the plaza area. While the location of these transformers is still being finalized, it is expected that one transformer will be located behind the skier service building and the other on the south side of Tract E, generally east of the Vista Bahn. It is anticipated that final locations and screening will be handled at DRB. 34. Per Town of Vail submittal requirements, please include a complete legend on the proposed landscape plan. The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale as the site plan(s) and include a detailed legend, listing the type and size of all proposed landscaping. A legend has been added to the landscape plan. 35. Please review a Town of Vail Design Review Board application and ensure that all the necessary information, as listed on the application, is included on the proposed plans (ie, site and grading plan, landscape plan, topographic survey, architectural floor plans, architectural elevations, architectural details, lighting plan) At this time we are making a PEC level application and information submitted is geared towards PEC requirements. We will ensure, however, that all required DRB material is included in our DRB application. 36. Please review a Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission application for a development plan approval and ensure that all the necessary information, as listed on the application, is included on the proposed plans. We believe all necessary information has been provided. t ^t-f- 37. Please revise the driveway and garage entrance design for residential unit #6. As designed, the required 20-foot centerline turning radius can not be achieved. The driveway to Unit #6 has been re-designed in order to improve access/turning radius. H 38. Please submit a sign application for the proposed comprehensive sign program for the Op" development. The sign program shall include all informational, directional, and advertising signage for the development. As previously discussed, you have agreed that a sign application is not necessary at this time. 39. Please revise the plans to illustrate a section of pedestrian sidewalk along the southside of Vail Road between Forest Road and the proposed entrance to the residential units and the ski club building. This sidewalk has been added to the revised plans. 40. Please review the plans, revising where necessary, all proposed site walls and retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height. The only exceptions to this requirement shall be the walls associated with the entrance and exit for the public access road through the underground structure. Revised plans conform to the 6 foot retaining wall height limit. 41. Please revise the plans and remove the proposed pedestrian walkway from the private residence east of the Vista Bahn ski yard (Head residence) to the Town of Vail bike/pedestrian path. This walkway has been removed. 42. Please revise the plans to illustrate a step in the retaining walls at the east entrance/exit of the underground structure. The upper most step in the wall shall be a maximum of six feet in height. Cross-sections included in the revised plan set depict a step in the south wall of the tunnel. E We look forward to meeting with you to review these refinements. Thank you again for your ongoing assistance with this project. We look forward to a final review with the PEC on September 8th Sincerely, Thomas A. Braun Cc: Jack Hunn Jay Peterson Bob Fitzgerald N e Front Door Project Adjacent Property Owners List Updated August 2003 TOWN OF VAIL FINANCE DEPARTMENT 75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, CO 81657 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE 24747 U. S. HIGHWAY 24 MINTURN, CO 81645 LODGE SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C/O STAN COPE 164 GORE CREEK DR VAIL, CO 81657 RIVA RIDGE CHALETS SOUTH CONDOMINUIM ASSOCIATION 114 WILLOW RD VAIL, CO 81657 RIVA RIDGE CHALETS SOUTH CONDOMINUIM ASSOCIATION 133 WILLOW RD VAIL, CO 81657 LAZIER ARCADE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C/O LAZIER, ROBERT T. & DIANE J. PO BOX 1325 VAIL, CO 81658 ONE VAIL PLACE: DRESCHER, JARED M. & IRENE M. -JT 1000 WILSON BLVD UPPER MALL 800 ARLINGTON, VA 22209 SMEAD, HAROLD JOSEPH 244 WALL ST 2 VAIL, CO 81657 WELLS, LUANNE 450 NEWPORT CTR DR STE 450 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 1NTRAWEST RETAIL GROUP INC 221 CORPORATE CIR STE Q GOLDEN, CO 80401 VAIL CORP PO BOX 7 VAIL, CO 81658 VV1ST: HEAD, MARTHA 325 MILL CREEK CIR VAIL, CO 81657 BERKOWITZ, HOWARD P., JUDITH ROTH & C/O HPB ASSOCIATES 65 EAST 55TH ST 30TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10022 \ CHILDERS, MARY ANN - LEVINE, JAY 222 E CHESTNUT ST 19 A&B CHICAGO, IL 60611 RHINEHARDT, MAURICE O. TRUSTEE 333 KEY PALM RD BOCA RATON, FL 33432 PRECOURT, JAY A. 328 MILL CREEK CIR VAIL, CO 81657 W. GRANT WILLIAMS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LP 3145 POLO DR GULF STREAM, FL 33483 W. GRANT WILLIAMS, II 3145 POLO DR GULF STREAM, FL 33483 0 OSBORNE, BARBARA M. C/O BEACH INVESTMENT COUNSEL INC ATTN R M PENDERGAST THREE RADNOR CORP CTR STE 410 RADNOR, PA 19087 RAPPAPORT FAMILY TRUST 16379 SKYLINE BLVD WOODSIDE, CA 94062 REMONOV & CO INC PO BOX 1888 EDWARDS, CO 81632 OTTO STORK LLC 860 24RD GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 286 BRIDGE ST INC 50 E SAMPLE RD STE 400 POMPANO BEACH, FL 33064 PUBLIC SERVICE CO OF COLO 1225 17TH ST STE 2100 DENVER, CO 80202-5521 HILLARY, JAMES A. & ANNE M. -JT 7 CHURCHILL LN ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 BYRNE, RONALD J. 16 FOREST RD VAIL, CO 81657 DEEP POWDER INC % LINDA MCGLYN PO BOX 307 LAKE FOREST, IL 60045 DORE, WILLIAM J. CIO DORE' FAMILY OFFICE PO BOX 67 SULPHUR, LA 70664 C7 BRIDGE STREET LODGE: RILEY-BSL LLC 228 BRIDGE ST VAIL, CO 81657 COLORADO SKI SERVICE INC PO BOX 2796 VAIL, CO 81658 RAD THREE LLC 228 BRIDGE ST VAIL, CO 81657 HOEVELMANN, KARL & URSULA 161 S GOLDEN DR SILT, CO 81652 KAEMMER, JOHN TRUSTEE -ET AL 291 BRIDGE ST VAIL, CO 81657 BOLANOVICH TRUST C/O JOHN KAEMMER 434 GORE CREEK DR VAIL, CO 81657 MBW REALTY - RILEY, RONALD H CIO RON RILEY 228 BRIDGE ST VAIL, CO 81657 CANNON, ROBERT E. PO BOX 80407 MEMPHIS, TN 38108 ARNOLD BISSEGGER LIVING TRUST 2625 S ATLANTIC AVE 5NE DAYTONA BEACH SHORES, FL 32118 BRIDGE STREET ASSOC LLC 30100 TELEGRAPH STE 220 BINGHAM FARMS, MI 48025 0 GEORGI LLC 30 MADISON HOUSE, THE VILLAGE 101 AMIES ST LONDON SW11 2JW, ENGLAND BRIDGE STREET INVESTMENTS LLC FELIX GUZMAN NO 16 COL EL PARQUE 53390 NAUCALPAN MEXICO BARTELS, ROBERT & NANCY REVOCABLE TRUST 3426 S TWYCKENHAM DR S BEND, IN 46614 MBW REALTY C/O CLARK WILLINGHAM 3878 OAK LAWN AV STE 400 DALLAS, TX 75219-4469 BISSEGGER, ROBERT & NATALIE -JT 5345 WIND POINT RD RACINE, WI 53402 BISSEGGER, PETER A. 3021 GARRETSON AV CORONA, CA 92881 ARTHUR C. COX QPR TRUST - EMMA JANE COX QPR TRUST 12001 GUILFORD RD ANNAPOLIS JUNCTION, MD 20701 CANNON, R. HOWARD % BUCKEYE CELLULOSE CORP 7574 POPLAR AVE GERMANTOWN, TN 38138 CHRISTIANIA LTD 356 HANSON RANCH RD VAIL, CO 81657 CHAMBER CORP C/O CHRISTIANIA INC 356 E HANSON RANCH RD VAIL, CO 81657 Lel ov", MAD JACK TRUST - THOMAS HANSEN TRUSTEE C/O SINGER BURKE & COMPANY 6345 BALBOA BLVD BLDG 4 STE 375 ENCINO, CA 91316 TIVOLI LODGE C/O ROBERT LAZIER 386 HANSON RANCH RD VAIL, CO 81657 VAIL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C/O JOHN EVERLY 356 E HANSON RANCH RD VAIL, CO 81657 VAIL ROWHOUSE: HILL, MEGAN LLOYD 1469 UPPER CANYON RD SANTA FE, NM 87501 SHIRLEY, ERICKSON S. PO BOX 2179 VAIL, CO 81658 HARRIS TRUST & SAVINGS BANK AS TRUSTEE OF THE CHRISTOPHER B. GALVIN REVOC TRUST 111 W MONROE ST ATTN: JANE BARNETT CHICAGO, IL 60603 GALVIN, ROBERT W. & MARY B. ROLLING OAKS FARM 160 DUNDEE ROAD RTE 68 BARRINGTON, IL 60010-9399 BRIDGEWATER, B.A., JR & BARBARA P. 7701 FORSYTH BLVD STE 1000 ST LOUIS, MO 63105 KNOX, GEORGE WASHINGTON, IV 291 BRIDGE ST VAIL, CO 81657 41 00,, VAIL TRAILS EAST CONDO ASSOC C/O MARK FOSTER 60 S CLERMONT DENVER, CO 80246 VAIL TRAILS CHALET CONDOMINIUM ASSOC C/O PATRICK GRAMM 695 PROSPECT WINNETKA, IL 60093 VAIL CONDOS (ROW HOUSES): GORE CREEK PTNSHP % OLIVE C. WATSON 100 FIELDPOINT CIR GREENWICH, CT 06830 KNOX, GEORGE WASHINGTON, IV 291 BRIDGE ST VAIL, CO 81657 DECKED, LLC 641 W LIONSHEAD CIRCLE VAIL, CO 81657 PAN EAGLE LLC PO BOX 398 VAIL, CO 81658 PARKER, RICHARD K. 68 S GARFIELD ST DENVER, CO 80209 FAMILY VAIL LP 200 W MADISON ST STE 2500 CHICAGO, IL 60606 JOY R. HILLIARD QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST 3333 E FLORIDA AVE 119 DENVER, CO 80110 BINION, JACK & PHYLLIS -JT 4021 MEADOWS LN LAS VEGAS, NV 89107 J opbl COLTON, STEWART 232 HARTSHORN DR SHORT HILLS, NJ 07078 4 BARBARA C. & JOHN G. WELLES QUALIFIED PERSONL RESIDENCE TRUST 1133 RACE ST 11-B DENVER, CO 80206 WHITEFORD, WILLIAM B. & G. MITCHELL ET-AL C/O WILLIAM B. WHITEFORD 2530 S GARFIELD ST DENVER, CO 80210-5619 VAIL 4A LLC 200 W MADISON 25TH FL CHICAGO, IL 60606 FAMILY VAIL LP 200 W MADISON STE 2500 CHICAGO, IL 60606 LODGE PROPERTIES INC C/O THE LODGE AT VAIL 174 E GORE CREEK DR VAIL, CO 81657 LODGE AT VAIL: MOUNTAIN WOLF PROPERTIES LLC 6532 VIA ROSA BOCA RATON, FL 33433 ELEGANT ILLUSIONS INC 542 LIGHTHOUSE AVE STE 5 PACIFIC GROVE, CA 83950 DOMINGUEZ, CARLOS V. & ELVIRA M. 8908 OAKMONT CT FLOWER MOUND, TX 75022-6530 DENSON, KATHLEEN PO BOX 2120 EAGLE, CO 81631 H WEINSTEIN, RONALD A. PO BOX 1947 VAIL, CO 81658 WOOD, FELIX E. & CATHERINE R. CIO CHRIS WOOD 5354 FOXHOUND WAY SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 CAMPBELL, JOSEPH S. & THERESA B. 1379 COUNTRY CLUB DR LOS ALTOS, CA 94024 CLEMENS, VINCENT M. & LAURA V. 6 BIXTONE PATH HAWTHORN WOODS, IL 60047-9011 MCLEAN, AUDREY R. PO BOX 4194 VAIL, CO 81658 HOGOBOOM, SUSAN M. 6022 S BROOK VALLEY WY LITTLETON, CO 80121 MURPHY, WADE WARREN 200 N. JEFFERSON SUITE 500 EL DORADO, AR 71730 OSKARSSON, MARY JOSETTE TIAMPO - 1219 6TH ST BOULDER, CO 80302 KAEMMER, JOHN R. & JULIA D. 434 GORE CREEK DR VAIL, CO 81657 BYRNES, THOMAS J. & ELAINE R. 6224 BRIGADOON LONGMONT, CO 80503 H BARRY, DANIEL S. C/O EYEPIECES 122 E MEADOW DR VAIL, CO 81657 WEASLER, AMY E. 87-3172 RD J CAPTAIN COOK, HI 96704-8732 SHERWOOD, JAMES B. C/O SEA CONTAINERS SERVICES LTD SEA CONTAINERS HOUSE, 20 UPPER GROUND LONDON, SE1 9PF, ENGLAND WHITE, JOHN E. 551 S MASHTA DR KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 CONLEY, RICHARD P. & LISA B. -JT 12700 W BLUEMOUND RD ELMGROVE, WI 53122 ALLISON MARIE JACOBY TRUSTEE - ALLISON MARIE JACOBY TRUST 2991 E WYECLIFF WY HIGHLAND RANCH, CO 80126 182 GORE CREEK DR LLC 2990 BOOTH CREEK DR VAIL, CO 81657 CB - VAIL LLC 309 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 MOUNTAIN WOLF PROPERTIES LLC 6532 VIA ROSA BOCA RATON, FL 33433 LODGE SHOP UNIT #164 LLC C/O GOTTHELFS 196 GORE CREEK DR VAIL, CO 81657 ~01 I op" COGSWELL, JOHN G. & PATRICE N. 794 POTATO PATCH DR VAIL, CO 81657 GORE CREEK PLAZA: LADY BELLE PARTNERSHIP LLLP PO BOX 85 EAGLE, CO 81631 GIVREN, AGGIE PO BOX 3827 VAIL, CO 81658-3827 SLIFER, RODNEY E. & ELIZABETH W. 230 BRIDGE ST VAIL, CO 81657 RIVOLTA, PIERO 215 ROBIN DR SARASOTA, FL 34236 SITZMARK AT VAIL INC 183 GORE CREEK DR VAIL, CO 81657 BELL TOWER CONDOS: BELL TOWER PARTNERS LTD C/O VAIL MANAGEMENT CO 143 E MEADOW DR STE 395 VAIL, CO 81657 WILHELMSEN LLC 201 E GORE CR DR C2 VAIL, CO 81657 STAUFER, HERMANN PO BOX 5000 VAIL, CO 81658-5000 Lie] ddftMILL CREEK COURT: DELUCA, ROBERT & BARBARA PO BOX 1471 VAIL, CO 81658 MC RENTALS LLC 302 GORE CREEK DR VAIL, CO 81657 RAMS-HORN CONDO ASSOC 416 VAIL VALLEY DR VAIL, CO 81657 VORLAUFER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 385 GORE CREEK DR VAIL VAIL, CO 81657 HILL BUILDING: HILL, BLANCHE C. 311 BRIDGE ST VAIL, CO 81657 SUMMERS LODGE: ZALE, DONALD & BARBARA JEAN 3102 MAPLE AVE STE 100 DALLAS, TX 75201 HAMILTON, DAVID R. & CATHARINE C. 1500 N LAKE SHORE DR CHICAGO, IL 60610 FREDERICK R. MAYER QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST PO BOX 481150 DENVER, CO 80248 JACOBS, WILLIAM T., JR 2001 W JEFFERSON ST JOLIET, IL 60435 C•. 0 ~3~ a AUG-20-2003 09:26 P.02i19 KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc. 2003 suite 1050 August 20, 950 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81657 Re: Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment KHA Job 067867001 Dear PEC Member: This letter has been prepared to provide the results of an updated Traffic impact Study required as a result of the Planning and Environmental Commission Public Meeting held on Monday, July 28, 2003. This letter serves as an updated Traffic Impact Study for the previous traffic impact study for the Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment project. A summary of the analysis has been completed by Kinley-Horn to address the comments received from the planning and Environmental Commission to include level of service analysis of the intersection of Meadow Drive with Vail Road with the addition of peak hour site generated traffic from the proposed Front Door redevelopment project. Peak season, peak hour directional counts were obtained at the study intersection of Meadow Drive with Vail Road from the Town of Vail for the President's Day Holiday weekend in 2000 (count sheets attached). These counts were conducted on several days during the AM and PM peals hours. The highest traffic volume day was found to be Monday, February 21, 2000, and was therefore used in this analysis to provide a conservative evaluation. From these directional counts, peak hour turning movement counts were projected at the intersection based on the existing street network and traffic flow patterns in the site vicinity. These volumes are shown in Figure 1, attached. ■ TEL 303 228 2309 FAX 303 448 8675 AUG-20-2003 09:26 P.03i19 KimleyHorn CM =F-1 and Associates, Inc. vo Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment, August 20, 2003, Page 2 To obtain background traffic for the subject intersection, project traffic from the future Vail Plaza Hotel traffic impact study completed by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig in September 1999 was added to the existing turning movement counts. These background traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. Based upon the trip generation calculations included in the traffic impact study for the Front Door Redevelopment, the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 69 entering and 28 exiting, as well as 10 entering and 89 exiting automobile and delivery vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Peak season site generated traffic is shown in figure 3, This traffic was then added to the background traffic volumes shown in Figure 2 to obtain total background plus peak hour site generated traffic volumes as shown in Figure 4. Level-of-service (LOS) analysis was conducted for the Meadow Drive/Vail Road intersection as requested from the Planning and Environmental Commission comments. The intersection was analyzed based on methodology for unsignalized intersections presented in the Transportation Research Board's 2000 "Highway Capacity Manual" (Special Report 209). Level of service for unsignalized intersections is defined in terms of total delay. Table 1 shows the definition of level of service for unsignalized intersections. 7'1,10 7 T auol of Service Definitions Level of Service E Unsignalized Intersection Average Total Delay (sec/veh) A 510 B >10 and :5 15 C X15 and 5 25 D X25 and 5 35 E X35 and :5 50 F >50 + Definitions provided from the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board 2000. 101 The following table summarizes the level of service results for the existing, background (existing plus Vail Plaza Hotel), and total background plus project conditions for the intersection during both RUG-20-2003 ❑:n 09:27 KimleywHorn and Associates, Inc. Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment August 20, 2003, Page 3 peak hours of the peak day of the peak holiday season. Results from the level of service analysis determined that this intersection is expected to continue to operate acceptably with or without project traffic in the future. No modifications to the intersection regarding lane configuration or all way stop control were found to be required. Results of the level of service analysis for this intersection are shown in Table 2 (analysis worksheets are attached). Tninta') -Vail Rnad/Meadow Drive LOS Results AM Pea k Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS sec veh sec/veh Existing 11.33 B 10.77 B Eastbound Approach 11.00 B 11.07 B Westbound Approach 8.80 A 8.76 A Northbound Approach 9.73 A 10.31 B Southbound Approach 12.26 B 10.94 B Existing with Vail B Plaza Hotel 11•`14 B 1 Eastbound Approach 11.06 B .13 11113 B Westbound Approach 8.83 A S•79 A Northbound Approach 9.82 A 10.41 B Southbound A oath 12.43 B 11.07 B Proposed with Project 13.20 B 11.93 B Eastbound Approach 11.67 B 11.75 B Westbound Approach 9.17 A 9.14 A Northbound Approach 10.51 B 12.26 B Southbound Approach 15.18 C 11.81 B It is important to recognize that the traffic counts used in this analysis represent the peak hour of the peak season. During typical conditions throughout the year far less traffic passes through this intersection than is reflected in this analysis. In addition, Meadow Drive is a pedestrianized road and as such the Meadow Drive/Vail Road intersection experiences a significant amount of pedestrian traffic. It should be noted that industry standards for determining the level of service of an all-way stop controlled intersection does not account for how pedestrian traffic may affect the performance of an intersection. While it is expected that pedestrian traffic does affect the performance of this intersection, the relative affect of the pedestrian (in terms of traffic delay) would be the same on existing conditions as P. 04/19 Elements of Design C Criteria for Measuring Sight Distance Sight distance is the distance along a roadway throughout which an object of specified height is continuously visible to the driver. This distance is dependent on the height of the driver's eye above the road surface, the specified object height above the road surface, and the height and lateral position of sight obstructions within the driver's line of sight. Height of Driver's Eye For sight distance calculations for passenger vehicles, the height of the driver's eye is considered to be 1,080 mm [3.5 ft] above the road surface. This value is based on a study (4) found that average vehicle heights have decreased to 1,300 mm [4.25 ft] with a comparable decrease in average eye heights to 1,080 mm [3.5 ft]. Because of various factors that appear to place practical limits on further decreases in passenger car heights and the relatively small increases in the lengths of vertical curves that would result from further changes that do occur, 1,080 mm [3.5 ft] is considered to be the appropriate height of driver's eye for measuring both stopping and passing sight distances. For large trucks, the driver eye height ranges from 1,800 to 2,400 mm [5.9 to 7.9 ft]. The recommended value of truck driver eye height for design is 2,330 mm [7.6 ft] above the roadway surface. Height of Object For stopping sight distance calculations, the height of object is considered to be 600 mm [2.0 ft] above the road surface. For passing sight distance calculations, the height of object is considered to be 1,080 mm [3.5 ft] above the road surface. Stopping sight distance object. The basis for selection of a 600-mm [2.0-ft] object height was largely an arbitrary rationalization of the size of object that might potentially be encountered in the road and of a driver's ability to perceive and react to such situations. It is considered that an object 600 mm [2.0 ft] high is representative of an object that involves risk to drivers and can be recognized by a driver in time to stop before reaching it.. Using object heights of less than 600 mm [2.0 ft] for stopping sight distance calculations would result in longer crest vertical curves without documented safety benefits (4). Object height of less than 600 mm [2.0 ft] could substantially increase construction costs because additional excavation would be needed to provide the longer crest vertical curves. It is also doubtful that the driver's ability to perceive situations involving risk of collisions would be increased because recommended stopping sight distances for high-speed design are beyond most drivers' capabilities to detect small objects (4). Passing sight distance object. An object height of 1,080 nun [3.5 ft] is adopted for passing sight distance. This object height is based on a vehicle height of 1,330 mm [4.35 ft], which represents the 15th percentile of vehicle heights in the current passenger car population, less an allowance of 250 mm [0.82 ft], which represents a near-maximum value for the portion of the vehicle height that needs to be visible for another driver to recognize a vehicle as such (15). Passing sight distances calculated on this basis are also considered adequate for night conditions 127 P:\TOV99004\dwq\Master\CC-Turn.dwq, 8X11, 08/18/2003 09:07:35 AM, LUPINE a~ As 0 0 0 9 ~i'i; G agog W o o a p o 00 7 a F :r N N O po po po po m 0000 0000 Dino T N n n m F c R,o 0 Dr n F m 3 V N91 O O o 0 (A 00 O N O wl w 0 O P:\TOV99004\dwg\Master\CC-Turn.dwg, 8X11, 08/18/2003 09:11:54 AM, LUPINE ti 0 0 / I B 0000 ~ w ~o~o i o Cn ° o~a:-F, 0 f~l 7 a F =r N N po 90 po po A (POND 0000 D V1p T o n (j N 7c c 6"o Dr o'0 Do ~ 10 i 3 V X01 ~ v O 00 ~ 0 N O P:\TOV99004\dwg\Master\CC-Turn.dwg, 8X11, 08/18/2003 09:10:04 AM, LUPINE z h .b~ Of ~ CO O a 0 O O O CO W , o o n O Q F F ::r N N O 00 00 W 00 0000 0000 DSO f0 n (j N F ~ ] O 3 >r- 30 D~ F 10_ O A VN01 O O o O W O 00 B :IJ N O W O O D_ cr inr~ r w o n ~ m xF~ _ o .A r _ .n x C A N 91 PD 00 A IPOOO 000 v k ~ J J I / co z ~ C7 z ern T 00, D m A JJ ~i~ \ J \ i cn ~ ; ~ ~ cn \ x~ a C w 5. 1~FS O 5 , o 1 tio C,` Z7 I :3 0 CO > y U 1 N~[.1f01<~) \ U1 O ,L~J1 0 RUG-20-2003 09:27 C]= ~ Kimley-Horn M and Associates, Inc. it would be on total traffic (adding traffic from the Front Door). The end result is that the addition of Front Door traffic has minimal impact on the performance of this intersection. Hopefully this letter provides the requested information to obtain approval for the project. If you have any questions relating to this response letter or traffic study project analysis, please call me at (303) 22$2304. Sincerely, /Z Z- Vail Resorts Front Door Redevelopment, August 20, 2003, Page 4 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ' fz Curtis D. Rowe, P.E., PTOE Associate Attachments Cc: Mr. Greg Hall, P.E. Director of Public Works Mr. George Ruther Chief of Planning G,\-tptolO67867001 Vail Rcsorth%Vail Villagellntersection 1ctt4r%1cttcr.DOC P.05/19 E AUG-20-2003 09:27 P. 06/19 NC FtTH NTS 067SM01 CD LEGEND Study Area Key Intersection XX (XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes moo" VAIL'S FRONT DOOR TRAFFIC COUNTS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2000 FIGURE 1 (Wiley Hung tend Associates, Inc. RUG-20-2003 09:27 P. 07/19 N NTS 097MM01 max. LEUND Study Area Key Intersection XX (XX) AM(PM) Peok Hour Traffic Volumes VAIL"S FRONT DOOR EXISTING PLUS APPROVED BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES n,± _ FIGURE 2 Kimlyy-Hoof and Asauciate ,Inc. con AUG-20-2003 09:28 0 CD C P. 08/19 LrQEND Study Area Key Intersection XX (XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Trcffic Volumes 10u VAIL'S FRONT DOOR PEAK SEASON SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC N G RT" ~--1 NTS OB7567Wt r a FIGURE 3 = wid Flom ~e. and Associale~„ 11 RUG-20-2003 09:28 P.09i19 0 y V FGEND Study Area Key Intersection XX (XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes VAIL'S FRONT DOOR BACKGROUND PLUS SITE GENERATED FIGURE 4 TRAFFIC VOLUMES - Kindey-Hon i, arldAsociate , hic. r~ C 5' ~ itE81D~NCa. !-ry vv sYr ~ . c=> RT'H Nt5 0676E7Da1 AUG-20-2003 09:28 c P.10/19 E C7> _ U- o Cn ro ~ w c» cd cn w D ~ y O ~ z o m U W H a ,R X >C X X Z w 0 ato Q © ,,,,t w ~ Q J tic. S ~ ,e 4 y AUG.20-2003 09:28 P.11i19 o~ wx~ N w o E ~ ~ tV U. > N U LL t+G a 0 w r W ~ d 7 E O ~ z ~ Y m V a d1 I! !t In X- X X X x X a V _F "a W ,C] I RUG-20-2003 09:29 a N , / r r P.12/19 C'7 [11 O i' o Cb = N 1L V ~ U- 0 2 0 CD E ~ H a. tU Ei C ~ = Q Y a a a, a Q n n x x v x x W W ~tS C7 -51 x a ~ m LU st 6 ie u AUG-20-2003 09:29 e . P.13/19 tt W N c~ m LL 0 b LU co w w c m a 70 Q cv z, a~ LL a IL 0 0 a~ I-- b x t6 G7 R- CL. ~ LL v Q N ~ ~ U F z x x w 000 1I X N J Q 44 -j IISM.d 0 e 6 a TOTAL PAGE, 05 AUG-20-2003 09:29 1-114- ry ay vw}+ WAA ' ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS .7 P. 14/19 uuntita1 1111unu ll-dws, - - tersactlon Vail Road(Meadow Drive nal st CDR van, Colorado urisdiction -Nom enc /Co nifny :g . 2000 Date Performed 07/3i/2003 nal sis Year nal sis Time Period xistin AM Peak Pro ect ID Vait's Front Door EastfWast Street: Meadow Drive North/South Street: Vail Road olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R 30 0 10 0 olume 180 10 °loThrus Left Lane 50 50 roach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 10 165 0 0 255 145 oThrus Lett Lane 50 50 Eastbound westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 12 onfiguration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 220 10 175 400 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustmen t Worksheet Prop. Left-Toms 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 Prop, Right-Turns 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 Prop, Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 hLT adi 0.2 0.2 0.2 0-2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0-2 RT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0-6 -0-6 -0-6 wV-ad) 1.7 1.7 1.7 1-7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1-7 had), computed 5.38 5.36 5.38 5-38 De arture Headway and Service Time na, Initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.20 0, 01 0.16 0.36 no, final value 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 final value 0.33 0-02 0.25 0.51 Move-up time, m 2. 0 2.0 2.0 2. 0 Service Time 3.4 3-4 3.4 3.4 Capacity and Level o f Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 capacity 470 260 425 650 Delay 19.00 8.80 9.73 12.26 LOS 8 A A B Approach; Delay 11.00 8. 80 9.73 12.26 LOS f3 A A B Intersection Delay 11,33 Intersection LOS file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\curtis.rowe\iLocal%205ettings\Temp\u2kF6.tmp 07/31/2003 AUG-20-2003 09:29 riu- vv ay 0LvY t v.L,LL%J1 P. 15/19 ALL WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General information Ito Information Intersection V9if Road/Meadow Dave nel s! CtlR urisdiatlon VaN. Colorado enc /Co. Kimle -Horn Analysis Year 2000 Date Performed 7!31/2003 nal sis Time Period Existin PM Nair Project ID Vall's Front Door East/West Street: Meadow Drive North/South Street: Val) Road olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound Movement L 200 T 10 R 10 L 0 T R 10 0 plume %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 roach Northbound Southbound Movement L 10 T 220 R 0 L 0 T 195 130 plume %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 1_2 onfiguration L TR LTR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 220 10 230 325 o Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duratlon, T 0.25 aturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 h1_T-adj 0.2 012 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 o.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0-6 hHV-2d] 1-7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 5.42 5.42 5.42 5.42 Departure Headwa and Service Time hd, Initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.20 0.01 0.20 0.29 hd, final value 5.42 5.42 5.42 5.42 final value 0.33 0.02 0.32 0.42 Move-up time, m 2.0 2-0 2.0 2.0 ervice Time 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Capacity and Level o f Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 0 L2 L1 L2 L1 1.2 L1 L2 Capacity 470 260 480 575 Delay 11.07 8.76 10.31 10.94 Los B A B B oproech: belay 1 1-07 8.76 10.31 10. 94 LOS 8 A B 8 Intersection Delay 10.77 Intersection LOS B file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settingslcurtis.rowelLocal%20SettingslTenip\u2kF6.tmp 07/31/2003 AUG-20-2003 09:30 lP.16i19 All-way atop t,omroi 4 0 file://C:1Documen.is%20and%20Settings\cwrtis.rowe\Local%20Settings\TemPlu2kF6.tmp 07/31/2003 RUG-20-2003 09:30 P.17i19 till- VV ily owy %,viuiv. file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\curtis.rowe\Local%2OSettings\Temp\u2kF6.tmp 07/32/2003 AUG-20-2003 09:30 P.18/19 PILL- rr "Jv '-'wY v.,...,. - X-A file://C:documents%20and%20Settinas\curtis.rowe\Local%20Settings\Tcnip\u2k607.tmp 07/3 Y /2003 AUG-20-2003 09:30 P.19i19 IQ111-vvdy gLuP %-%JiiuUi O TOTAL P.19 %/1~/-Wit`-~~r~~`. ItI J APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 21 Series of 2003 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF VAIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 5, ZONING MAP; REZONING LOTS 1 AND 2, MILL CREEK SUBDIVISION, FROM NATURAL AREA PRESERVATION (NAP) DISTRICT TO SKI BASE RECREATION-2 (SBR-2) DISTRICT AND REZONING LOTS P3 AND J, BLOCK 5A, VAIL VILLAGE 5T" FILING, FROM PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION (PA) DISTRICT TO PARKING (P) DISTRICT, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARDS THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 5, Zoning Map, of the Vail Town Code establishes the procedures for evaluating changes to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail ("Zoning Map"); and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the "Zoning Map" has been reviewed in accordance with the prescribed requirements outlined in Sections 12-3-1 through 12-3-7 of the Zoning Regulations of the Vail Town Code; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail reviewed and forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval of the proposed amendment to the "Zoning Map" to the Vail Town Council in accordance with the criteria and findings outlined in Section 12-3-7 of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds the proposed amendment to the "Zoning Map" is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and WHERAS, the Vail Town Council finds the amendment to the "Zoning Map" is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds the amendment to the "Zoning Map" promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Zoning Map Amendment: The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail. The Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail is hereby amended as follows: Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision shall be rezoned from Natural Area Preservation (NAP) to Ski Base Recreation-2 (SBR-2) District; and Lots P3 and J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing shall be rezoned from Public Accommodation (PA) District to Parking District, as illustrated on Exhibit A (attached) Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares thatthis ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The C; amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 2nd day of September, 2003 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 16th day of September, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 16th day of September, 2003. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk U PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, August 25, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Doug Cahill Rollie Kjesbo Erickson Shirley Gary Hartmann George Lamb Site Visits : Vail Memorial Park-Katsos Ranch Vail's Front Door Driver: Matt MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt 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. A request for a final review of an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, 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 John Schofield began with the thought that at least one more worksession would be needed prior to proceeding with a final vote. George Ruther introduced the project according to the memorandum, commenting that changes had been made since the previous meeting. He mentioned that any interested persons should visit the site soon, since it was currently staked and the staking would likely be removed soon. ~Y TnWN ff VA TI. Jay Peterson, from Vail Resorts, stated that the purpose of the meeting was to focus on the Skier Services Building. Tom Braun, of Braun Associates, mentioned that concerns had been voiced about the Skier Services building. The last month had been spent re-designing the building, he said. The functions of the building remained the same, though the storage functions had been designated to below-ground space. The building was now 15,000 square feet, down about 4,000 square feet from previous meetings. A roof had been put on the building and the building had been "broken up" in order to interrupt the straight faces of the structure. A clock tower element had been introduced to act as a "landmark feature", per the Design Review Board's suggestion. View corridors had been addressed and the building was outside any designated corridors. John Schofield asked how the tunnel would function during different seasons. Tom answered that a seasonal-railing would be installed (during the summer) and that during the winter, the railings would be removed and a deck-type use would remain. He proceeded to pass out mock postcards illustrating the attractiveness of the proposed building. John Schofield mentioned to the audience that, though the concentration of the meeting would be on the Skier Services Building, questions and comments regarding other aspects of the building would be addressed. He also clarified that the architectural elements of the project were under the purview of the DRB more than the PEC. George Ruther passed out additional materials relative to the memorandum. Ron Byrne, a neighbor on Forest Road, mentioned his positive outlook on the project. He said that the development should take into account all the neighbors for a number of years into the future. He thought it was important to consider how the building was going to function. Previously, the building had been conceived in order to please the neighbors. However, he said, the building's function was far more important than the neighbor's input. He was in favor of a larger building, in spite of knowing that constraints of size, density, and other aspects existed. He was also glad to see that the building's architectural aspects were being addressed. The PEC should not review the project too quickly and should be allowing of increased size, mass, and site uses in order for a great project to occur. Arthur Cox, of Bridge Street Lodge Condominium Association, said that in general, he was in support of the project. However, he was interested in knowing what uses the Skier Services Building was going to house, especially during the summer. He stressed that whatever uses would exist there should be quiet and discreet. John Schofield asked that Tom Braun and George Ruther elaborate on the uses and Mr. Cox's questions. Tom Braun said that a variety of uses would exist in the Building, primarily ski school and ski patrol. Below the south end of the Building, hotel and ski storage would exist. John Schofield mentioned that it could be assumed that little summer usage would result from the storage aspects. Tom Braun continued to comment on the usage of the Great Room and the rest of the building. George Ruther read that the Master Plan had assigned a land use category of Ski Base Recreation to the area in question. The range of uses included a number of different things that were related to skiing, dining, and recreation. He continued to say that in the Ski Base II zone district, similar uses were allowed, with the addition of single or multi- family residential units and even public accommodation uses. Other uses, after approval, could include EHU's, brew pubs, and other uses that the PEC could determine to be related. He mentioned that within this zone district, a development plan would be required. Arthur Cox returned to the podium to ask if the restaurants allowed in the zone would be allowed to serve alcohol during late hours, etc. John Schofield said that if the plan were approved today, the only eating establishment allowed would be the coffee shop inside the building. At a later date, that could be amended via a hearing process from an applicant. Arthur Cox said that general noise was the biggest problem in his mind. Erickson Shirley stated that this location was viewed in a different light due to the "compelling public interest" behind the plan. He seconded Mr. Cox's concerns about noise and use changes within the building. Arthur Cox expressed further interest that the owners of property in the Village be respected regarding noise level and usage. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners, asked a question about outdoor dining decks and patios. George Ruther said that per previous meetings, outdoor dining decks and patios became conditional uses. Tom Boni, Wells Team, expressed gratitude that continued discourse between the PEC, Vail Resorts, and the homeowners had been encouraged. He commented on the traffic study, mentioning that concerns had arisen that this location would end up as the only location for loading and delivery in the Village. He was interested in seeing what areas of Town were going to be serviced by which delivery locations. Mr. Boni was confused about where the hand truck traffic would be concentrated and how/how often it would be routed through the Village. Concern was expressed over the portal location, commenting that the northwest corner was not the most suitable. He felt it should be in a location that was more "balanced", say in the eastern sides of one of the wings of the building: he proceeded to pass out copies of the aforementioned portal placement. George Ruther left the room to photocopy the handout for the public. Tom Boni continued, stating the "movement" of the building's design was positive and appropriate. He mentioned that the size of the building was always going to be the biggest issue and wanted to make sure that the size of the retail space be critically reviewed for importance. Mr. Boni also expressed interest in seeing the overall design prior to approval by the PEC. John Schofield asked if surface access to One Vail Place should be subterranean, so that the view corridors could remain. Doug Cahill asked about the size of the building. Tom Braun said that overall, the size had shrunk. Lynne Fritzlen asked if the Vail Resorts could share the rationale for the program of the Skier Services Building. She said that the drive aisle area was the area under question. Tom Braun said that the justification for retail space was due to the placement at a prominent place on the mountain. He said that the comparison between Golden Peak and its visitors justified a far larger building at the Village base. Erickson Shirley said that that comparison was not fair due to the number of retail spaces in existence at the base of the Vista Bahn. Jay Peterson said that the drive aisle would not change. He commented that everyone had seemed previously comfortable with the footprint of the plaza. The amount of square footage was by default and that the location must work as a ski yard, first and foremost, and must work for summer use as well. He mentioned that retail was necessary from a skier services standpoint. Andy Littman, Wells Team, stated that because this is the premiere spot in the Town of Vail, this location must be planned correctly. He mentioned that everyone who would like to be involved in the project should have ownership in the final product. Therefore, the merchants, neighbors, and Vail Resorts should all have their needs met. Regarding transportation, would conditions exist that regulated use until other transportation options existed? The plans must be thought out thoroughly before approval and the applicant should convene with the stakeholders to gain perspective. Steve Riden, representing the Smeads and Dreschers, was critical of the design originally but felt that Vail Resorts had responded quite well to his and others' concerns. He mentioned concerns about the corridor near One Vail Place. He asked for some sort of a proposal that might alleviate some of the crime issues that accompanied that corridor. The structure should be significant, he said, but should not necessarily be large. Erickson Shirley asked about what the crime issues were. Steve Riden said that public urination and drug use occurred there occasionally. He expressed that perhaps lighting or some other form of crime mitigation be placed in that area. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners, explained that the large band-aid on his forehead was due to a construction accident that ended up requiring seven stitches and resulted in much questioning. He proceeded to ask about loading and delivery specifics. George Ruther responded that many draft reports were submitted to the business owners, who were primarily concerned with financial issues. They felt that if the loading and delivery facility would alleviate congestion on the streets, then it was a worthwhile facility. The business owners felt that the personal costs of the facility should be kept to a minimum. The circulation and flow of the hand trucks was important to them as well. A centralized facility that would be available from lam to 6pm would be helpful to the truck drivers, especially regarding scheduling needs. John Schofield mentioned that Jim Lamont could probably answer some of Andy Littman's questions regarding loading delivery aspects. Jay Peterson mentioned that the business owners thought that putting some of the trucks underground was a distinct benefit for the Village. Doug Cahill asked if the management plan brought into consideration other areas in the Village. John Schofield didn't think that other areas should be considered seriously at that point. Traffic flow was important though. George Ruther mentioned that the merchants would be the beneficiaries of the loading and delivery facilities. However, residents, guests, and member of the community would also benefit from this facility. John Schofield agreed that the benefits were far-reaching. Jim Lamont continued, commenting that the steetscape plan seemed closer to be finished than previously. He wondered whether or not the "Wells Team" was pleased with the direction in which the project was headed. Regarding traffic, additional intersection information was needed, especially a management plan. He reiterated that the project "cannot afford to fail", greatly heartened that all persons involved in the project were able to communicate. John Schofield asked Jim if his primary interest was in the details. Jim Lamont commented, to Ron Byrne, that special events had already been addressed by the special events coordinator. John Schofield called a five minute break and then asked for the Commissioners' comments. Gary Hartmann stated that he still thought there was a "disconnect" on Siebert Circle. As far as increasing the size of the building, he thought the footprint was as big as it could be while leaving room for other activities in the ski yard. The concept of having so many amenities on one floor was good, he said. He asked how many skiers were going to be attracted to this portal from the other portals on the mountain and would there be adequate skier amenities? Doug Cahill was impressed with the redesign. The view from the hill was better due to the roof design. The Great Room was a fantastic idea, he said, provided its use as such remains the same. Regarding the view corridor, the elevations are hard to imagine, considering existing conditions. He questioned summer usage. Jay Peterson said that Vail Resorts had spoken with special events coordinators regarding summer usage and electrical wiring was proposed to allow for evening functions, etc. He stated that the number of events handled in the area was under the purview of the Town and the Special Events Commission. Doug Cahill suggested that Vail Resorts meet again with its stakeholders. Jay Peterson said that many such meetings had already taken place, and perhaps been too prominent in the location's design and program. Doug Cahill mentioned that the back alley should be lit. Rollie Kjesbo expressed gratitude at the integration of the Great Room for Vail's skiers. He thought that the restroom space was not going to be adequate. The view corridors weren't going to be affected that much, he said. Vail Resorts' address of the parking issue was appropriate, he said. He then asked George if amplified sound was something that would have to be applied for. George Ruther answered in the positive, that amplification would be regulated by the Town. George Lamb had no issue with the 40% slope and was surprised, after seeing the sight, at how low the building would sit into the hill. The Skier Services Building was appropriate due to its articulation. He hoped that no aspect was compromised in the redesign of the building and suggested that lighting be added to the alley to provide for safety. He mentioned that the concerns about trucks and hand carts were perhaps exaggerated. The Town should identify what other delivery and loading locations would exist after the proposed development was built. Regarding Golden Peak, he mentioned that the traffic on Vail Valley Drive was currently horrendous on ski mornings and suggested that collaboration perhaps be made to avoid similar traffic near this area, once it is built. Erickson Shirley asked Tom Braun several questions about the stairs and the view corridor for Pepi's face. He mentioned that the clock tower could be shrunk, therefore maintaining the view from Pepi's face. He thought that certain areas should be used for skier relaxation because, currently, no place existed for skiers to just relax (excepting Los Amigos). He agreed that amplified sound should be kept from the exteriors of buildings. The size of the building was good considering its location. He asked if the streets needed to be heated in order to be accessible to hand carts. Jay Peterson stated that the Town was responsible for keeping the streets clear. Erickson Shirley said that the street heating plan was currently not funded and therefore, possibly problematic. Regarding loading, he asked to hear specifics and appreciated the specific request to move the hand cart outlet, though he did not agree. He also asked why the bathrooms were currently locked - (vandalism). Jay Peterson stated that during the winter, Vail Resorts should maintain the restrooms, but during the other seven months, Vail Resorts was basically inactive and should not be held responsible for keeping the restrooms active. Erickson Shirley stated that more restrooms should exist and pursued the topic of a relaxing eating and drinking place. He asked if the uses allowed this area were more limited than most areas in town. If further expansion occurred, he mentioned that significant public interests would need to be served as a result. John Schofield said that the areas of the building that related to sense-of-entry and location were the most important. He thought the clock tower should be oriented to those coming to the ski yard, though that could affect view corridors. The height of the clock tower would also be an issue. He asked for a section of the building through One Vail Place and the Skier Services Building. The police department should be consulted regarding crime issues and the solution thereof. In terms of delivery, a plan should be devised that shows how other areas of the Village will be served from a loading and delivery standpoint. The final traffic plan should be included in the final plan as should a synopsis of the business community's opinions regarding loading and delivery. Codified view corridors that would potentially be impacted from the plan would need to be submitted as well. What off-site parking mitigation would be required? The actual size of the ski yard needed to be verified as well. George Ruther stated that the applicant was currently addressing the Town's concerns. Jim Lamont stated that some homeowners felt inadequately informed of the project and its progress. John Schofield stated that the purpose of one more worksession was to allow for the general public's comment on near-final information at the final hearing. He stated that PEC final approval would be followed with a number of different, complicated processes. George Ruther stated that notification had been sent to adjacent property owners. Information was available online and some information (albeit skewed) was published in the paper. He also said that all the information was available in his office for public information. Lynne Fritzlen asked if a set of complete drawings could be obtained four weeks prior to the final meeting. Jay Peterson commented that a set of plans could be obtained that day. Andy Littman stated that a meeting with Vail Resorts would be welcome prior to the final meeting date. The traffic issues had not been addressed, he said. Erickson Shirley said that the approval was not going to happen next week and that there was still time and opportunity to provide comments on the project. Tom Braun commented that the list of concerns had diminished considerably. He promised the traffic circulation diagram, the cross-section, and the other requested items, hoping that the PEC would be ready for a final vote then. Doug Cahill suggested re-directing the bike path so that it would not interfere with the uses on the deck. Erickson Shirley asked for a study illustrating the traffic impacts on Vail Valley Drive. George Ruther responded that some traffic counts could be obtained from the Town. Erickson Shirley wanted to make sure that "the other side of town" was not being unfairly burdened. Motion: Doug Cahill Second: George Lamb Vote: 6-0-0: Tabled until September 8, 2003 2. A request for a final review of a subdivision of the Katsos Ranch property (unplatted), pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code; a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-8B-3: Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a cemetery; and a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of the property from Natural Area Preservation District to Outdoor Recreation District, located on an unplatted parcel of land located in the southeast quarter of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, and setting forth details in regards thereto. (A complete metes and bounds description is on file at the Community Development Department). Applicant: Vail Memorial Park, represented by Merv Lapin Planner: Russell Forrest Russell Forrest introduced the project according to the memorandum, clarifying that this session would remain as a worksession. Sherri Dorwood, the landscape architect for the project, introduced the various members of the task force for the Park. The goal, she said, was to allow the site to remain as natural as possible. The stones would blend in with the existing natural environment, she added, and further elaborated on the details of the project and its history. Services and ceremonies would not be encouraged on the site but in the chapel. Russell Forrest clarified the times and size of average services associated with this type of use. He also stated that the other issue that had been discussed was the placement of flowers and similar memorial tokens around the stones. Merv Lapin said that from an operational standpoint, it will be a 501(C)3 nonprofit corporation. He also clarified the qualifications for being admitted into the park and the tentative pricing schedule for a space. John Schofield asked what a person would get for that price. Merv Lapin gave a description of the sandblasted stone inscriptions that would be provided. Sherri Dorwood stated that inscriptions other than sandblasting could be done. John Schofield asked for public comment. Beverly Trout asked how far away the markers would be from existing homes. Russell Forrest stated that the park would be about 1,000 feet from Lupine Drive and between 4,000 and 5,000 feet from Booth Creek Drive. He also added that 4 residents had contacted him about the project. However, after reviewing the project with them they had no further input to forward to the Town. Beverly Trout also asked why it was being called a cemetery instead of a memorial park in certain places. Russell Forrest clarified that for the purposes of technical land use terminology, the memorial park must be referred to as a cemetery in that it is a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district. All. John Schofield opened the floor to commissioner comments. Rollie Kjesbo stated he was only concerned with the issue of parking. Geroge Lamb stated he thinks the whole thing is great and there is no need for services there, but instead, the site should just be a spiritual connection for the family. He thought the location was terrific for that use, but there was no need to have services in that spot. The ceremony should take place elsewhere, perhaps even make it mandatory. People must be more than encouraged to have services elsewhere: it should be mandatory. Erickson Shirley reiterated George's sentiments regarding the park. He thought the low impact design was good. He stated his concerns about the number and size of services in the park being a problem, both of which must be controlled somehow. He also asked what happens if the park gains a huge response? How many total spaces for remains will there be? Sherri Dorwood answered that about 400-500 spaces would be in the first phase alone with 2-3 phases to come later, each with about the same capacity. Erickson Shirley also asked if there were any issues with pedestrian trails or cross- country skiers? Merv Lapin said there would be no problem with that; that, in fact, they were even encouraged because the park would be open to the public. He also clarified that if parking became a problem, they will be forced to deal with that issue, as a public entity, when it comes up. Erickson Shirley further stated that if the memorial park is to occur, the gravel shoulders along the bike path should be made walk-able, so there are no issues with bikers when small services occur. Gary Hartman believed the idea was much needed and long overdue. He stated that his only comments concerned the potential conflicts with bikers that Erickson Shirley had already articulated. Gary Hartman suggested delineating the hallowed ground from just public open space with a feature such as a bridge. Doug Cahill agreed with the comments of the other commissioners and also asked for clarification on when the wetlands were delineated and the mitigation accomplished. Merv Lapin stated that "they weren't going anywhere near any of the wetlands". Doug Cahill also asked if there were going to be benches and what they would look like. He also asked for clarification on where the cross-country ski trail goes. Sherri Dorwood provided details on where the track is in relation to the proposed park. Doug Cahill also felt parking could be an issue and suggested that it may need to be addressed in the future. John Schofield agreed with everything said so far and summarized the comments and concerns of the commission. He said that a plat would need to be done to avoid any legal complications. Mr. Schofield then asked for clarification on motor vehicles and where the line is to be drawn on what constitutes a motor vehicle (i.e.: electric carts to ferry elderly people to and from the site). He also mentioned the wetlands and the need for the water district to show where they plan to do any wetland mitigation. Russell Forrest clarified the Army Corp.'s approval process in regard to wetland mitigation. John Schofield also voiced concern about access and viability of the current proposal's plan. A management plan would be needed and traffic management plans tend not to work. He thought the park would be more popular than anyone is anticipating. John Schofield said he would like to see the discrepancies reconciled regarding the capacity per phase. He did not think a shuttle system for parking will likely not work, given past experiences. He finished by saying that he thought there was total support, though some details remained to be worked out. Russell Forrest summarized the concerns voiced during the hearing and asked for clarification on the parameters of service sizes and how to control them. Diana Donovan stated that they had worked with the local churches and enumerated on that in the current management plan. Erickson Shirley mentioned that if 30 people are going to attend a service, the bike path would need to be widened. Diana Donovan said that because the site was a conditional use, it could be called up at anytime by the PEC to rectify any problems. "We don't have any of the answers now and we can come back with the conditional use permits", she added. John Schofield asked if two weeks was enough time? Motion: Erickson Shirley Second: Gary Hartmann Vote: 4-1-0: Tabled until September 8, 2003 (Doug Cahill opposed) 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 14, Section 10, Development Standards Handbook, Chapter 8, Architectural Design Guidelines, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, and Vail Village Design Considerations, Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, to allow for the use of temporary enclosures of outdoor dining decks, and setting for details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett Matt Gennett presented an overview of the staff memorandum and gave details of the proposal to allow temporary enclosures for eating and drinking establishments' use of them on a seasonal, intermittent basis. There were no public comments. Raleigh Kjesbo: No additional comments Erickson Shirley: Ok with the proposal as written. Gary Hartman: No additional comments. Doug Cahill: Asked about winter usage and whether establishments can keep the curtains down all winter long. Matt Gennett: Answered that no, establishments would not be able to keep the sidewalls unrolled all winter. Doug Cahill: Stated a concern about the difficulties enforcement. John Schofield: Asked about whether we need to modify the DRB regulations. He also asked about the need to make the sides translucent. John disagreed with Council that temporary covers should not be allowed. Raleigh Kjesbo made a motion to approve the request per the staff memo and the conditions on pages 6&7. Erickson Shirley seconded the motion. MOTION: Raleigh Kjesbo SECOND: Erickson Shirley The motion passed 3-2, with John Schofield and Doug Cahill opposed. 4. A request for a request for a variance from Section 12-713-15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for awnings over existing second floor deck, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 5. 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" Filing. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 6. Approval of July 28, and August 11, 2003 meeting minutes July 28th approved by PEC unanimously August 11th: John did not attend the pre-meeting and the motion was not accurate. PEC actually moved to require DRB and joint signature. Erickson Shirleyindicated that he had specific comments Page 16: Streetscape should be maintained not the plan. 7. Information Update Lionshead Building Height Ordinance 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 22, 2003 in the Vail Daily. N 0