HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEC Sept 8 2003MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 8, 2003
SUBJECT: A request for a final review of 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
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 responses to the Commission's
request for additional information. 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 project in anticipation of a final
review of the proposal at the September22, 2003, public hearing of the Planning &
Environmental Commission.
II. 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 listen to a presentation on the responses to the
Commission's request for additional information and to allow the Commission to
engage in a discussion with the staff and applicant and provide their input and
feedback on the proposed project.
III. BACKGROUND
On January 6, 2003, the Community Development Department received the
applicant's 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,
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.
On July 28, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession
to discuss the proposed improvements and development applications associated
"'W with the Vista Bahn Ski and Vail's Front Door project. Specifically, the Commission
2
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.
On August 25, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a
worksession to continue discussions regarding the proposed improvements for Vail's
Front Door Project. The main purposes of the meeting were to present the revised
plans for the skier services building and to visit the proposed development site to
view the staked locations of the improvements. In discussing the proposal in light of
an anticipated final review of the application on September 22nd, the Commission
provided the applicant and staff with a list of additional materials and items that
would be required for review and consideration by the Commission prior to taking a
final vote on the proposed project. The list of additional materials and items are
provided in Section VIII of this memorandum.
On September 2, 2003, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 21, Series of
2003, amending the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail to zone Lots 1 and 2,
Mill Creek Subdivision Ski Base Recreation - 2 District and Lots P3 & J, Block 5A,
Vail Village First Filing Parking District, upon first reading of an amending ordinance.
IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BODIES
V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
VI. ZONING ANALYSIS
Address: 145 Vail Road
Legal
Description: Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision, Tract E, Vail Village First
Filing, and Unplatted
Aw~ Zoning: Commercial Core 1, Ski Base Recreation - 2 (proposed), and
Agricultural & Open Space
Land Use Plan
Designation: Ski Base and Vail Village Master Plan
Hazards: Areas of 40% Slope
Lot Area: 261,685 square feet/6.01 acres
Development
Standards
Allowed
Proposed
Lot Area (min.):
10,000 sq. ft.
of buildable area
Setbacks: As indicated on the
approved development
plan
Building
Height (max.):
Density
Control:
(du's/ac)
(GRFA)
Site Coverage:
Landscaping and
Site Development:
Parking/Loading
Plan and Program
(Parking)
(Loading)
43' and as indicated
on the approved
development plan
(Compliance with the
Vail Village Master Plan
is required)
48 du's or 8 du's/ac
As indicated on the
approved development
plan
As indicated on the
approved development
plan
As indicated on the
approved development
plan
As indicated on the
approved development
plan
261,685 sq. ft.
of buildable area
As indicated on the
approved development
plan
<43' and as indicated
on the approved
development plan
13 du's or 2.2 du's/ac
VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Land Use Zonin
North: Mixed Use Commercial Core 1
4
000, South: Open Space Resource (Eagle County)
East: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary
West: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary
VIII. DISCUSSION ISSUES
Additional Information Required
On August 25"', the Commission requested additional information from the
applicant and staff with regard to the review of the development review
applications. The expressed purpose of the additional information is to aid
the Commission in their review of the applications and their understanding of
the impacts of their decisions. The following list summarizes the additional
information requested by the Commission:
•
Please provide information indicating the proposed height of the land mark
feature (clock tower) and verifying that it is in the appropriate location?
•
Please provide a section drawing through One Vail Place extending to the
south through the Vista Bahn ski yard and the skier services building.
•
Please provide a complete loading/delivery management plan for the
centralized loading and delivery facility.
•
Please provide a traffic circulation plan depicting the flow of vehicular traffic,
including the anticipated route of delivery truck to and from the central
delivery site.
•
Please provide an illustration verifying that the proposed skier services
building will not encroach upon adopted View Corridor #2.
•
Please provide a written summary and plans of the how the proposal
complies with the requirements of Section 12-8E-17, Mitigation of
Development Impacts, Ski Base Recreation - 2 zone district, Vail Town
Code.
•
Please provide a site plan comparing the existing square footage of the Vista
Bahn ski yard to the proposed ski footage of the ski yard, upon completion of
the project.
•
Please provide an intersection analysis (level of service) along Vail Valley
Drive from East Meadow Drive to the entrance to the Gold Peak ski base.
•
Please provide information supporting that the appropriate size and number
of restroom facilities are being provided for this development in the skier
services building.
•
Please provide a lighting plan depicting the proposed lighting of the alleyway
between the International Wing of the Lodge at Vail and One Vail Place.
•
Please provide a written summary addressing the instances of criminal
activity in the alleyway between the International Wing of the Lodge at Vail
and One Vail Place.
•
Please provide a written summary of the meeting with the Vail Chamber and
Business Association regarding the proposed central loading and delivery
facility.
•
Please provide a written summary of the meeting with Town of Vail Design
Review Board regarding the conceptual review of Vail`s Front Door Project,
on September 3, 2003.
5
• Please provide a written schedule outlining the tentative schedule for the
review of Vail's Front Door Project.
IX. 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 22, 2003,
meeting of the Planning & Environmental Commission.
X. ATTACHMENTS
A. Letter from Tom Braun, Braun Associates, Inc., addressing the Commission's
request for additional information, dated September 8, 2003
B. A written summary addressing the instances of criminal activity in the alleyway
between the International Wing of the Lodge at Vail and One Vail Place, dated
September 8, 2003
C. A written summary of the meeting with the Vail Chamber and Business
Association regarding the proposed central loading and delivery facility, dated
September 8, 2003
D. A written summary of the meeting with Town of Vail Design Review Board
regarding the conceptual review of Vail's Front Door Project, on September 3,
2003
E. A written schedule outlining the tentative schedule for the review of Vail's
Front Door Project, dated September 8, 2003
0
6
■ IAAIIABIRAWN ASSOCIATES, IINC.
PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
September 8, 2003
Mr. George Ruther
Chief of Planning
Town of Vail
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Vail's Front Door-PEC 9/8/03 Work Session
Dear George:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to PEC questions and requests for information that
were raised at the August 25th PEC Work Session. Where appropriate, we have attached
exhibits and supplemental information in response to some of the questions that have
been raised.
In addition to the items discussed below, the PEC also requested information on the
Town's loading management plan, police reports regarding the alley between One Vail
Place and the Lodge at Vail, comments from the merchant's meeting, and DRB
comments from their conceptual review. It is our understanding that you will be
providing this information.
We look forward to our upcoming work session with the PEC. Thank you again for your
ongoing assistance with this exciting project.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Braun, AICP
Cc: Jack Hunn
Jay Peterson
Bob Fitzgerald
ATTACHMENT A
Ir- 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
t t 7►
VAIL'S FRONT DOOR
RESPONSE TO PEC QUESTIONS FROM 8/25
View Analysis
This discussion centered around three separate, yet related issues/questions:
Does the skier service building respect the designated view corridor from Seibert
Circle?
The attached photo simulation demonstrates that the skier service building does
not encroach into the designated view corridor. A site plan depicting the view
corridor is also provided. This plan demonstrates how the building is set back to
the west of the view corridor line.
Will the tower element of the building obscure the view of Pepi's face?
The attached photo simulations (taken from the proposed skier plaza and the top
of Bridge Street between the Hill Building and the Bridge Street Lodge)
demonstrates that the tower element of the skier service building does not
adversely impact the view of Pepi's face ski run. The tower will have no effect
on the view of the face from the Los Amigos deck.
Can the tower element serve as a "visual cue" for pedestrians in the Village Core
(i.e. can it provide a landmark to "draw" people to the base of the mountain), and
if so, is the tower located in the best location to do so?
The tower is visible from the top of Bridge Street and therefore will provide a
"visual cue/landmark" for the pedestrian. Due to the existing buildings at the top
of Bridge Street however, the tower will only be visible from a relatively limited
vantage point. The tower would be more visible if moved to the east, but this
change is not possible due to the existing view corridor.
Site Sections
The PEC has requested cross-sections of the project. Attached is a cross-section through
One Vail Place and the skier services building and a cross-section through the Lodge at
Vail and the skier services building. Cross-section of the ski yard through the plaza and
the base of the Vista Bahn are also provided. The ski yard cross-sections depict existing
and proposed grading (summer time condition) and existing and proposed "snow" grades
(winter time condition).
C Vehicular Circulation at Tunnel
VAIL'S FRONT DOOR
Response to PEC Questions from 8/25
Attached are two diagrams of how vehicular circulation in and out of the proposed tunnel
can be managed. Both cars and trucks will enter the tunnel from the west on Vail Road.
The tunnel and Vail Road intersection has been designed to allow for alternative exiting
routes. Cars can either exit to the left on Vail Road or exit to the right on Vail Road to
Willow Circle. Trucks can either exit to the left on Vail Road or exit to the right and
leave the Village via Willow Circle, Willow Bridge Road or Gore Creek Drive.
Ski Yard
A site plan depicting the approximate size of the proposed ski yard has been prepared and
is attached. This diagram provides dimensions and an approximate area calculation of
the ski yard (as roughly defined by the ski plaza on the north, the Vista Bahn on the east,
Mill Creek Road on the south and the skier services building on the west).
Alley between One Vail Place/Lodge at Vail
As requested by the PEC, Vail Resorts will evaluate opportunities for adding lighting to
this alley. Any lighting to be proposed will be done at the time of DRB review.
Vail Valley Drive Analysis
As demonstrated by the previously submitted traffic analysis for P3&J, there is expected
to be a net reduction of traffic. In response to the PEC's request, however, a traffic
analysis of Vail Valley Drive has been prepared and is attached. This analysis utilizes
data from traffic counts taken in February of 2000. These counts are the most recent
wintertime counts for this roadway.
Skier Service Building Restrooms
The PEC expressed concern about the number of restrooms proposed for the skier
services building. The existing bathrooms at the base of the Vista Bahn include six stalls
for women and three stalls/four urinals for men. In the course of refining the skier
services building the number of stalls will be increased from what was presented at the
last worksession. Fixtures will be doubled to twelve stalls for women and five stalls/six
urinals for men.
Anticipated Affect of Front Door Project on Skier Visits to Vail Village Portal
The Front Door project is not expected to draw new skier visits to Vail Village. While
the ski plaza, ski yard and skier services building will provide greatly improved skier
VAIL'S FRONT DOOR
Response to PEC Questions from 8/25
oapk~ experience, these improvements will enhance the level of service provided to existing
skiers. The enhancements improve quality and are not an attempt to increase quantity but
an attempt to improve quality. The proposed improvements are not of a magnitude that
would influence a guest to use the Village portal over Golden Peak or Lionshead.
Mitigation of Development Impacts
The Front Door is proposed to be zoned Ski Base/Recreation II (final Town Council
approval of zoning scheduled for Sept. 22). This zone district stipulates that projects
include improvements designed to mitigate the "direct impacts of their development on
public infrastructure." Sections 18-8E-17 states:
Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts
of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear
a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined
based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and
public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment
and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review
of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off site impacts
may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee
housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape
improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art
improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only
require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which
produce substantial off site impacts.
The Front Door (and P3&J) includes a wide range of both on and off-site public
improvements that not only mitigate the direct impact of the proposed development, but
also provide far reaching public benefits well beyond the direct impacts of the proposed
development. The public improvements for the Front Door project include:
• A new public park at P3&J
• Streetscape improvements (pavers, new sidewalks, heated walkways, drainage,
etc.) between P3&J to Seibert Circle
• Heating of the Chute Road at P3&J
• Streetscape improvements between the Vista Bahn ski plaza and Seibert Circle
and between the Vista Bahn ski plaza and Eaton Plaza
• Re-graded ski yard and ski plaza at the base of the Vista Bahn
• Infrastructure improvements (power source and conduit) at the Vista Bahn ski
yard that will create a venue for community events
• A bike path through the Front Door project
• A Fourteen-bay underground central loading facility designed to serve Vail
Village south of Gore Creek
• Streetscape improvements (pavers, heated walkways, crosswalks, drainage, etc
along Vail Road including a new Checkpoint Charlie building
VAIL'S FRONT DOOR
Response to PEC Questions from 8/25
• New public restrooms in the new Checkpoint Charlie building
• Heating of the road between the Lodge at Vail and Check Point Charlie
• Deed-restricted employee housing units (to be provided at the North Day Lot)
• Off-street parking that greatly exceeds code requirements for the proposed
development
• New enlarged public restrooms within the skier service building
The range and extent of public improvements is unprecedented and in many cases go well
beyond the "direct impacts of the development." For example, the direct impact of the
project on loading would be determined by the loading requirements of the zoning code.
In this case, the Front Door project would require five loading bays. Not only will the
fourteen bays be provided at the applicant's expense (all available for public use), there
will be additional expense incurred by the applicant to provide access ways and elevators
to allow the facility to serve the Village core area.
It is also important to understand how the Front Door project will help mitigate Vail's
public parking capacity issue. Based on the Town's zoning code, the Front Door is
required to provide 79 parking spaces. This number of spaces would reflect the "direct
impact of the project." A total of 220 spaces are provided at the Front Door. This results
in a total of 141 "excess" parking spaces. The majority of these excess spaces are the 95
valet-served ski club parking spaces. The use of these spaces will be by people who are
already skiing in Vail and currently parking in the Town's structure or on the Frontage
Road. The indirect result of the ski club is the removal of 95 cars from the Town's
structure or the Frontage Road. The same situation occurs with the new parking structure
at P3&J. In this case, 108 new parking spaces are created. Based on current reservations,
the majority of these spaces will be purchased by property owners in the surrounding
neighborhood who currently do not have on-site parking. Presumably many of these
people currently park their cars in the Town's parking garage. While difficult to
quantify, it can be assumed that this parking garage will also serve to significantly lessen
demands on the Town's parking structure.
EO
VAIL'S FRONT DOOR
Response to PEC Questions from 8/25
f
7A-` dI;
W
~~riri sue
vs.
.
V4, S 1 VA $
3
s
jp~
•8
,a f
EMN
A
6
I•
tr
1 0
0
3
a~
a~
m
m
rn
-a
m
0
CL
0
4-
E
0
L
vJ
L
3
9
0
N
3
m
cu
N
cc
a
L
m
~L
- - N
O
CL
O
L-
a.
E
O
L
7
~
3
m
L
m
3
H
s
Eo
-
L v
bri
-
_
-
1
C
L
C
_
C 1
J
:J
_
s.
L
1!
I
Fes,
r
I
v, M
~Vj C C
C C
j 'u N
C cG
f 1 v s.
` CO U ~
U
1
1
O
J C
N
n c:
n
Z
J
0
r.
'l.
.1.
C
l
T,
rT,
:
C
•J Y
C
n
C
L
V.
I
J JC
u
G'
r
~G
r
v
v. M
C
aCi O
U
.y
.1
v; y
v;
14
O
~~O K
rl
v
a
Z
J
2
J
Es.
W
L N
has
^+J M
N
.=G GC
C
r
L1.
~~-A
J
V:
O
P4
fT
^ 'r
i--1 r
G
x
V]
Q
bD
J
-N
~ W
tt'~
!"1
CC3
O
cli
• ~ O
U
O
01
~l
y
a -
o
~ Q
g
0
a
VJ
~
H
O
Mimi
v ~
~ C
u °
u
H
1~
0
JA A -N.. 3 ~j
0T
0
tzz-zz
0
C
SEP-04-2003 17 17
and Associates, Inc,
4
September 4, 2003
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
13()9 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 analysis
requested as a result of the Planning and Environmental Commission
Public Meeting held on Monday, July 28, 2003. An additional analysis
has been completed by Kimley-Horn to address the comments
received from the Planning and Environmental Commission to
include level of service analysis of two segments of roadway, one
along Vail Valley Drive and one along Hanson Ranch Road.
Peak season, peak hour directional counts and daily traffic counts
were obtained at the key segments along Vail Valley Drive and
Hanson Ranch 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 peak hours. The
highest traffic volume day was found to be Saturday, February 19
along Vail Valley Drive and Sunday, February 20 along Hanson
Ranch Road. These volumes were therefore used in this analysis to
provide a conservative evaluation. These volumes are shown in
Figure 1, attached.
Level-of-service (LOS) analysis was conducted along these two
segments as requested from the Planning and Environmental
Coxraydssion comments. Vail Valley Drive is currently operating with
level of service D during the peak season and Hanson Ranch Road is
currently operating at level of service A during the peak season.
is
TEL 303 228 2300
FAX 303 46 BM
P. 02/10
■
Sidle 1054
950 Seventeenth Sheet
Denver, Colorado
80202
SEP-04-2003 17:17
Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment; September 4, 21)03, Page 2
~ Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Based upon a capacity of 14,900 vehicles per day for roadways
carrying one lane of travel in each direction and 7,450 vehicles per day
for a one-way single lane roadway, Vail Valley Drive is currently
operating at 67% of capacity and Hanson Ranch Road is currently
operating at 22% capacity.
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)
228-2304.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
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; 1•tpto\067867001 Vail ResotUWail VitlagelVail Valley Drive 1xtterllcttcr-D0C
P.03/10
C]
SEP-04-2003 17:18
P. 04/10
NpR"TH
wM MM7M
V14, V l r""
~D.
` ! 1 fl
Study Area Key Segment
XXXX Average Daily Segment Volume
1
VAIL'S FRONT DOOR
TRAFFIC COUNTS ON VAIL VALLEY DRIVE
AND HANSON RANCH ROAD
FEBRUARY 2000
FIGURE 1
SEP-04-2003 17:18
C
!p ,
P.05/10
V- ca
Q
2 a
LL j m
w ~
W
~ LL
CIS
Rf
co
m
E
7
,ra
F' ae
m
x j
(a v
a w
m
~ N
Q
C O
It It
X x
x 1t
yxc X
O
W
C7
3i3C~'" i x
coo
a -
}
o
wa
I~
0
a
0
dillk
~Awl
SEP-04-2003 17:1B
m J LU
ux~
%VMS
+n
P.06/10
N U;
CD ~ O
N
cri
LL j N
U-
cc
C
U)
a
z
w
w
J
E
A
Gi
Y
Y
a
a,
4c
n
x
x
ac
X
m
C1
ti
r
m
a
u
x
~c
x
x
g
Y
D~
SEP-04-2003 17:18
HGS2000' Two-Lane Highways Keiease w. it;
A
'hone: Fax:
Mail:
Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis
analyst
EAG
kgency/Co.
Kimley-Horn
)ate Performed
711512003
analysis Time Period Existing
-lighway
Vail Valley Drive
2rom/To
North of Hanson Ranch Road
Jurisdiction
Town of Vail
4nalysis Year
2000
Description 067867001 - Vail's Front Door
Input Bata
Highway class Class 1
Shoulder width 6.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88
Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 %
Segment length 0.5 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 %
Terrain type Level % No-passing zones 0 %
Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 4 /mi
Up/down %
Two-way hourly volume, V 1105 veh/h
Irectional split 60 1 40 %
Average Travel Speed
Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00
PCE for trucks, ET 1.1
PCE for RVs, ER 1.0
Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.998
Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1258 pc/h
Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 755 pc/h
Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:
Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h
Observed volume, Vf - veh/h
Estimated Free-Flow Speed:
Sase free-flow speed. BFFS 65.0 mi/h
Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 0.0 mi/h
Adj. for access points, fA 1.0 mi/h
Free-flow speed, FFS 64.0 mi/h
Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h
Average travel speed, ATS 54.2 milh
Percent Time-Spent-Following
Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00
PCE for trucks, ET 1.0
PCE for RVs. ER 1.0
vy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 1.000
J-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 1256 pc/h
Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 754
Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 66.8 %
P.07/10
SEP-04-2003 17:18 P.08i10
~orcent tune-spent-following, PTSF
Level of Service and Other Performance Measures
revel of service. LOS
ime to capacity ratio, vlc 0 3g
_ak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 157 veh-mi
peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 553 veh-mi
Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 2.9 veh-h
Notes:
1. if vp 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
2. If highest directional split vp a=1700 pc/h, terminate
analysis-the LOS is F.
0
U
SEP-04-2003 17:18
HC52UUU: I wo-Lanu_ nty away, I N-1 -
01
)hone: Fax:
Mail:
Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis
analyst
EAG
kgency/Co.
Kimley-Hom
)ate Performed
7/15/2003
%nalysis Time Period Existing
-lighway
Hanson Ranch Road
-romtTo
West of Vail Valley Drive
Jurisdiction
Town of Vail
4nalysis Year
2000
Description 067867001 - Vail's Front Door
Input Data
Highway class Class 1
Shoulder width 6.0 ft
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88
Lane width 12.0 ft
Segment length 0.5 mi
% Trucks and buses 2 %
% Recreational vehicles 4 %
Terrain type Level
% No-passing zones 0 %
4 /
i
Grade: length mi
m
Access points/mi
Up/down %
Two-way hourly volume,'V 328 veh/h
Directional split 60 / 40 %
Average Travel Speed
Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00
PCE for trucks, ET 1-7
PCE for RVs, ER 1.0
Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.986
Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 378 pc/h
Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 227 pc/h
Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:
Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h
observed volume, Vf - veh/h
Estimated Free-Flow Speed:
Base free-flow speed, BFFS 65.0 mi/h
Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 0.0 mi/h
Adj, for access points, fA 1.0 mi/h
Free-flow speed, FFS 64.0 mi/h
Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mVh
Average travel speed, ATS 61.1 mVh
Percent Time-Spent-Following
Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00
PCE for trucks, ET 1.1
PCE for RVs, ER 1.0
-kvy-vehlcle adjustment factor, fHV 0.998
rway flow rate,(note-1) vp 37 224 c/h
Highest directional split proportion (note-2)
Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 28.0 %
P. 09/10
SEP-04-2003 17:19 P.10i10
29.u 1/0
)wcent time-spent-following, PTSF
Level of Service and Other Performance Measures
Qvel of service, LOS A
ame to capacity ratio, v/c 0.12
jak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 47 veh-mi
meak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 164 veh-mi
Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 0.a veh-h
Notes:
1. If vp 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
2. if highest directional split vp a=1700 pclh, terminate
analysis-the LOS is F.
Is]
0
TOTAL P.10
r
L
ATTACHMENT B
Memorandum
To: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
From: Community Development Department
Date: September 8, 2003
Subject: Instances of Criminal Activity Report
The Community Development Department has investigated the instances of criminal activity, as reported to
the Town of Vail Police Department Dispatch Center, for the alleyway between the Lodge at Vail
International Wing and One Vail Place. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the total number
and nature of incidents to which the Town of Vail Police Department responded to at or near the alleyway.
According to records provided by the Police Department, from January 1, 2001 to present, a total of 21
police response were made to the location in question. The nature of the calls ranged from gas and water
line leaks to vandalism and suspicious occurrence. A summary of the calls is provided below:
Incident#
Date Nature Location
10100121
1/10/01 THEFT ONE VAIL PLACE
LAea
10820083
3/23/01 VAND ONE VAIL PLACE .
. \1A)dDC1.ISrn
10850226
3/26/01 PARK ONE VAIL PLACE
Pppy,1&4 P(ZY161 r=m
10970143
4/7/01 FOLU ONE VAIL PLACE
Fou yu) UP
11860051
7/5/01 ARRS ONE VAIL PLACE
]'-}RRES T
12310166
8/19/01 GAS %KAY-ONE VAIL PLACE ,
C9tflS LER IC
12590363
9/16/01 CST ONE VAIL PLACE
C' ITIZEW ASSISI'
13210332
11/17/01 M ST ONE VAIL PLACE
/Y1oToR.~ST ASStc r
13570015
12/23/01 A F ~~L4v-InONE VAIL PLACE
I= oZE ALA gin
20150082
1/15/02 THE I*Jt ONE VAIL PLACE ,
-(g FT Vp SERVICES
20160232
1116/02 SUSP ONE VAIL PLACE
Suspt Clous Occu2REAxr-
20370149
2/6/02 PARK ONE VAIL PLACE
PARY-wC, PaWsLem
20630167
3/4/02 FOLU ONE VAIL PLACE
Ff)LLc,,, Lkp
21540255
6/3/02 BURG ONE VAIL PLACE
r~uayzAlZ ALAe.m
21550319
6/4/02 WAT Zz'~ ONE VAIL PLACE
W(~iEkua'E }2Ef}1C
21850455
7/4/02 ASTb ONE VAIL PLACE
b
Ai~61 ST DT"Cft- &GF vr-n
30490194
ONE VAIL PLACE
2/18/03 DEC
~~pflOF use 0~ SKI FdOL1 ry
PASS
30790138
3/20/03 ALF ONE VAIL PLACE
El~C ,gLl+i~M SKt
31520206
-
6/1/03 PARK ONE VAIL PLACE
P8P-Y-% `►6 peohLGIn
31740017
6/23/03 FND ONE VAIL PLACE,
'PduND MI)MR 4
32180125
8/6/03 ALF ONE VAIL PLACE
FIRE A
U
ATTACHMENT C
opl~l Memorandum
To: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
From: Community Development Department
Date: September 8, 2003
Subject: A summary of the meeting with the Vail Chamber & Business Association regarding loading and
delivery
On August 12, 2003, Vail Resorts Development Company and the Town of Vail Staff were invited to a
regular meeting of the Vail Chamber & Business Association to discuss the proposed centralized loading
and delivery facility at Vail's Front Door Project. The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the
discussion and comments of the persons in attendance.
• The loading and delivery facility is for the delivery of goods only. It is not intended, nor is it
designed to be a distribution center where the storage of goods and merchandise will occur.
• The proposed facility was modeled after the facility already in operation in Beaver Creek.
• Be mindful of potential conflicts with the pedestrian flow along Bridge Street.
• Deliveries should be able to "scatter" to various points in Vail Village upon exiting the facility.
• Is the "Wildflower Chute" a possible route to Gore Creek Drive?
• Consider the use of electric delivery carts that are provided by the delivery companies, to help cut
down on the number of trips to and from the loading and delivery facility.
• The idea of a centralized facility is good as it will remove a large number of trucks from the
Village Core and reduce the conflicts between delivery trucks, pedestrians, and residential uses.
• The preliminary management plan for the operation of the facility should be presented to the
Association upon its completion.
• Revenue sources for the operation and maintenance of the facility should be considered and
evaluated by the Town. The merchants and restaurant owners are NOT the only beneficiaries of
the facilities. Through the removal of trucks from the streets of Vail, residential owners in the
Village will benefit as well and should share in the costs of operation and management.
• Sales tax, business license fees, and a license fee for the vendors delivering to the facility could be
possible sources of revenue.
• Think ahead to avoid or minimize conflicts between pedestrians and handtrucks; don't simply
create a new problem.
• Was the vacated ticketed office in One Vail Place considered as an option for a delivery exiting
point?
1*1
OW ATTACHMENT D
Memorandum
To: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
From: Community Development Department
Date: September 8, 2003
Subject: A summary of the meeting with the Town of Vail Design Review Board on September 3, 2003
On September 3, 2003, Vail Resorts Development Company appeared before the Town of Vail Design
Review Board for a conceptual review of Vail's Front Door Project. As part of the conceptual review, the
Board visited the proposed development to view the staking provided by the applicant. The purpose of this
memorandum is to summarize the discussion and comments of the Board from the Design Review Board
meeting on the September 3rd.
• The north elevation of the skier services building must be designed to be aesthetically pleasing as
viewed from the adjacent uses. The north elevation should be nicely done and not left as the
`backside" to the building.
• The long, uninterrupted ridgeline atop the skier services building should be broken up vertically.
• Evaluate the proportions of the tower. Perhaps it should be taller in height.
• The window fenestration on the south elevation of the skier services building should be evaluated
to determine if fewer windows panes in the glass wall would improve or enhance the view out of
the great room.
• Evaluate the mixture and types of exterior building materials. Perhaps less wood and more stucco
would allow the building to blend into the theme of the Village.
• Carefully consider the roof design and the roofing materials. The roof of eth buildings will be
very visible from the ski mountain and therefore should not be neglected.
• A more grand front entry into the skier club building should be considered to create a better sense
of arrival.
• The north elevation of the skier club building needs to be evaluated and possibly redesigned to
improve the appearance of the north fagade of the building.
• The new design is far better than the old sod-roofed structure that was built into the hillside.
• The landscape design is wonderful
• The residential buildings blend very well into the hillside.
• Avoid creating a "mirror-iinage" design to the duplexes and triplexes..
0
ATTACHMENT E
Memorandum
To: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
From: Community Development Department
Date: September 8, 2003
Subject: A tentative schedule for the review of Vail's Front Door Project
At the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting on August 25~', questions regarding the tentative
schedule for the continued review of Vail's Front Door Project arose. The purpose of this memorandum is
to provide a written schedule for the continued review of Vail's Front Door Project. It is important to note
that this schedule is tentative and subject to change. Interested parties are encouraged to stay apprised of
the review process to ensure that they remain aware of the status of the development review process. The
Town of Vail will make every reasonable effort to publicize the project's status through articles in the
newspaper and posts on the Town of Vail website.
Date
Meetin
Action Requested
September 8th
PEC
Worksession to discuss the
proposed development plan
for the ski yard improvements
September 16t'
Town Council
Second Reading of Ordinance No.
21, Series of 2003, to rezone Lots 1
and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision and
Lots P3 & J, Vail Village First
Filing
September 17th
DRB
Conceptual Review of Vail's Front
Door Project
September 22°d
PEC
Final review of the proposed
development plan for the ski
yard improvements
October 7a'
Town Council
Report to the Council on the status
of the project
TBD
DRB
Final review of Vail's Front Door
Project
TBD
Town Council
Annexation Petition Hearing
TBD
PEC
Annexation and Subdivision Plat
review and recommendation to
Town Council
TBD
Town Council
Annexation Plat and Subdivision
Plat Approval
OW TBD PEC Zoning of Annexed area
recommendation to
Town Council
0
TBD Town Council
Zoning of Annexed area
review
s
6
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
September 4, 2003
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 analysis
requested as a result of the Planning and Environmental Commission
Public Meeting held on Monday, July 28, 2003. An additional 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 two segments of roadway, one
along Vail Valley Drive and one along Hanson Ranch Road.
Peak season, peak hour directional counts and daily traffic counts
were obtained at the key segments along Vail Valley Drive and
Hanson Ranch 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 peak hours. The
highest traffic volume day was found to be Saturday, February 19
along Vail Valley Drive and Sunday, February 20 along Hanson
Ranch Road. These volumes were therefore used in this analysis to
provide a conservative evaluation. These volumes are shown in
Figure 1, attached.
Level-of-service (LOS) analysis was conducted along these two
segments as requested from the Planning and Environmental
Commission comments. Vail Valley Drive is currently operating with
level of service D during the peak season and Hanson Ranch Road is
currently operating at level of service A during the peak season.
■
Suite 1050
950 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado
80202
■
TEL 303 228 2300
FAX 303 446 8678
® F1 Kimley-Horn Vail Resorts' Front Door Redevelopment, September 4, 2003, Page 2
and Associates, Inc.
Based upon a capacity of 14,900 vehicles per day for roadways
carrying one lane of travel in each direction and 7,450 vehicles per day
for a one-way single lane roadway, Vail Valley Drive is currently
operating at 67% of capacity and Hanson Ranch Road is currently
operating at 22% capacity.
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)
228-2304.
Sincerely,
i
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
.a
o•
~v 36355 m'
Curtis D. Rowe, P.E., PTOE
A~ 03:
A • .
Associate '`F•••.....••''~,~~
v
`SZONAL
Attachments
Cc: Mr. Greg Hall, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Mr. George Ruther
Chief of Planning
G:\-tpto\067867001 Vail Resorts\Vail Village\Vail Valley Drive Letter\letter.DOC
I 1W
I
Z--- ~9:m
NORTH
NTS 067867001
C/
r
0
v
V
41Z pZ
LLEy DR
\ \ \ \O I ylSTA
\ _ _ _ _ \ I BARN
LEGEND
Study Area Key Segment
XXXX Average Daily Segment Volume
VAIL'S FRONT DOOR
.RAFFIC COUNTS ON VAIL VALLEY DRIVE
AND HANSON RANCH ROAD
FEBRUARY 2000
FIGURE 1
❑ Kirnley Hom
~ and As:_ociate:~, In,.
JUL 10 '03 09:37 FR FHU
303 721 0632 TO 3034466676
0
~ E Cl
N
~ O CD
> T
U
cB
L
Cc$
L ~
LL
cts
L
w
0
coo
A ~ Ltd
t~z2~
313(39~►
H.ba~/b5
0
7
aJ
W
J
H
07
E
U
~ H
CD
O
=
O
Y
a~ v
tL
coo
~ F-
CL
Q O
11 It
x x
x x
x x
x
rr_
I
~ o
JUL 10 '03 09:3e FR FHU
I
3FJ 5 721 bbs~ I U SO..544bbb (b h-'. U.5/4 z)
+n
N
d
E
O
U
ca
y
L
O
O
m
W
Q) U
n. =
cc
Q
~ C7
O
N ~ ^
N
OS _
jZ O O
N
L
E
L .Q
LL
RS
C
U)
cl
Z;
it II
g
x
X
:s
x
X
N
x
X
8
x
W
0 ~
-jI
D 20
ICS2000: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1c
Fax:
Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis
EAG
Kimley-Horn
A 7/15/2003
Period Existing
Vail Valley Drive
North of Hanson Ranch Road
Town of Vail
2000
37867001 - Vail's Front Door
Class 1
i 6.0 ft
12.0 ft
th 0.5 r
Level
h mi
Input Data
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88
% Trucks and buses 2 %
ni % Recreational vehicles 4 %
% No-passing zones 0 %
Access points/mi 4 /mi
ly volume, V 1105 veh/h
it 60 / 40 %
Average Travel Speed
lent factor, fG 1.00
3, ET 1.1
ER 1.0
adjustment factor, 0.998
rate,(note-1) vp 1258 pc/h
Tonal split proportion (note-2) 755 pc/h
aed from Field Measurement:
A speed, SFM
- mi/h
ime, Vf
- veh/h
!e-Flow Speed:
r speed, BFFS
65.0 mi/h
nd shoulder width, fLS
0.0 mi/h
s points, fA
1.0 mi/h
ed, FFS 64.0 mi/h
r no-passing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h
!I speed, ATS 54.2 mi/h
Percent Time-Spent-Following
nent factor, fG
s, ET
ER
adjustment factor, fHV
rate,(note-1) vp
:ional split proportion (note-2)
time-spent-following, BPTSF
1.00
1.0
1.0
1.000
1256 pc/h
754
66.8 %
i.
is
i
I.
0
Ad}.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 0.0
Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 66.8 %
Level of Service and Other Performance Measures
Level of service, LOS D
Volur^e to capacity ratio, v/c 0.39
Pez -min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 157 veh-mi
Peak-nour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 553 veh-mi
Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 2.9 veh-h
Notes:
1. If vp 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
2. If highest directional split vp 1700 pc/h, terminate
analysis-the LOS is F.
0
00: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1 c
Fax:
_Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis
kG
Kimley-Horn
7/15/2003
i Existing
lanson Ranch Road
Vest of Vail Valley Drive
own of Vail
2000
)01 - Vail's Front Door
Input Data
31
.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88
.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 %
3.5 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 %
/el % No-passing zones 0 %
mi Access points/mi 4 /mi
me, V 328 veh/h
;0 / 40 %
Average Travel Speed
ctor, fG 1.00
1.7
1.0
ment factor, 0.986
ote-1) vp 378 pc/h
At proportion (note-2) 227 pc/h
m Field Measurement:
.d, SFM - mi/h
f - veh/h
Speed:
i, BFFS 65.0 mi/h
ulder width, fLS 0.0 mi/h
fA 1.0 mi/h
3 64.0 mi/h
issing zones, fnp 0.0 mi/h
i, ATS 61.1 mi/h
Percent Time-Spent-Following
-tor, fG 1.00
1.1
1.0
ment factor, fHV 0.998
ote-1) vp 373 pc/h
)lit proportion (note-2) 224
)ent-following, BPTSF 28.0 %
i
Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 1.6
Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 29.6 %
Level of Service and Other Performance Measures
Level of service, LOS A
Vole ne to capacity ratio, v/c 0.12
Pe 5-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 47 veh-mi
Pears-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 164 veh-mi
Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 0.8 veh-h
Notes:
1. If vp 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
2. If highest directional split vp 1700 pc/h, terminate
analysis-the LOS is F.
x
0
E
•
0
planning
services, inc.
Memorandum
To: Karen Romeo, Lynn Fritzlen
From: Tom Boni
Date: September 6, 2003
Re: Front Door Traffic Analysis
f-iWJJ OU+ 4t MC-e-hl
After reviewing the various traffic related studies submitted for the Front Door Project, I
have two categories of comments. The first category concerns specific recommended
changes or further evaluations. The second concerns questions regarding technical
aspects of the studies that should be clarified for the general reader.
Recommended Changes or Further Evaluations
Move the location of the delivery portal to the east side of the Skier
Services Building as conceptually shown on the graphic attached.
Rationale:
A. Most of the deliveries will be bound for businesses along
Bridge Street. The Lodge receives deliveries by new
underground connection from the loading dock. The
eastern side of the building is closer to Bridge Street. This
location can be provided with an underground connection
from the loading docks.
B. The pedestrian plaza is wider on the east side of the
building thereby allowing for an easier mix of hand trucks
with pedestrians.
C. The use of handcarts or small electric vehicles for the
delivery of goods north along Wall Street and on the
box 947 - eagle, co 81631 - 970.328.6299 - fax 970.328.6254
kps®vail.net
~r
&to
pathway on the east side of the Lodge will be impractical
due to the considerable steps that exist along these routes.
D. A location on the east side of the building places the portal
and its impacts further from existing residential buildings.
The Skier Services Building can be designed to minimize
negative impacts.
2. Town of Vail should prepare an overall delivery plan identifying the other
locations for loading and delivery and showing the overlapping areas that
will be served by each of these facilities. The plan should identify interim
loading and delivery methods for these other areas until new facilities are
constructed. Plan should also identify specific delivery paths anticipated
to be used for hand trucks to get goods from the loading docks of the Front
Door Project to the businesses served.
This delivery plan should be distributed to the businesses to be served and
to the larger delivery companies to ensure that as many of the implications
of this plan are understood during the planning phase.
Technical aspects needing clarification.
1. Large truck turning movements into and out of the tunnel leading to the
loading docks uses the full width (both lanes) of Vail Road and in one case
appears to clip the corner of the curb. What will be the safety impact of
these turning movements? Is Vail Road used by pedestrians? What is the
anticipated frequency of these types of movements? Does this condition
exist in other areas of Vail? Does snow storage impact the width of this
road?
2. What is the amount of cargo that can reasonably be transported by each
hand truck? The study was based on an earlier report that the maximum
number of truck deliveries observed in an earlier survey was 108 and that
each truck had 1.5 deliveries. This was observed when a truck could
deliver to the doorway of each business. Is it reasonable to assume that
one handtruck delivery will be sufficient to complete the delivery to that
business? If this is not an assumption of the study, please explain.
3. Does the calculation of the capacity identified for Vail Road at 14,900
vehicles per day consider the narrow width, low speed and multiple
driveway connections to the roadway? This may have been part of the
worksheets attached as Appendix C but was not clearly stated in the report
for the general reader.
1%r
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING
Monday, September 8, 2003
PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT
Gary Hartmann
Doug Cahill
John Schofield
Erickson Shirley
George Lamb
Rollie Kjesbo
Site Visits :
MEMBERS ABSENT
Chas Bernhardt
1. Reske Residence 2319 Chamonix Rd
2. Vista Bahn Building 333 Hanson Ranch Road
3. Gerald R. Ford Park 580 South Frontage Road East/Ford Park
4. Gazioglu Residence 3120 Booth Falls Court/
Driver: Matt
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
A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-10, Landscaping and Site Development,
Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new primary/secondary residence,
located at 2319 Chamonix Rd. / Lot 9, Block A, Vail Das Schone Filing 1.
Applicant: Brian Reske
Planner: Allison Ochs
Allison Ochs introduced the variance request per the memorandum.
Brian Reske, the applicant, passed around several pictures demonstrating home
designs with side-loading rear garages, which he intended to emulate on his own
property. He mentioned that his primary intention was to shield cars from the road and
provide front landscaping.
Gary Hartmann thought that the neighbor's driveway encroaching on this lot is
considered a physical hardship and a unique circumstance.
Doug Cahill agreed with the applicant's desire to keep landscaping close to the road.
Rollie Kjesbo had no additional comments.
iy
Tnwnr n& vA rr.
George Lamb had no additional comments.
Erickson Shirley had no additional comments.
John Schofield summarized the Commission's comments, saying that the neighbor's
driveway did indeed constitute a hardship.
Motion: Gary Hartmann
Second: Rollie Kjesbo
Vote: 6-0-0
Approved with conditions:
1. That prior to final Design Review Board approval, the applicant submits a tree
preservation plan, indicating that the existing landscaping along the eastern
property line of Lot 9 shall be maintained through construction. A landscaping
bond shall also be submitted to the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, guaranteeing the survival or replacement of the trees
for a period of not less than two years.
2. That prior to submittal of a building permit application, the applicant shall
receive final Design Review Board approval of the proposal. This may mean
that slight modifications are required for the driveway which may increase the
amount of landscape area, but in no case shall the modifications decrease the
amount of landscape area.
2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for
the modification and enlargement of existing deck columns, located at 3120 Booth Falls
Court/Lot 7, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing.
Applicant: Halide Gazioglu, represented by Sheppard Resources
Planner: Matt Gennett
Matt Gennett introduced the variance request per the staff memorandum.
Mr. Koll, from Sheppard Resources and the representative of Ms. Gazioglu, stated that
the owner's primary interest was to improve the appearance of the deck and to provide
better support for the existing deck.
No public input was given.
Rollie Kjesbo asked Mr. Koll if all of the problems were worked out with the neighbors.
Mr. Cole answered in the affirmative.
George Lamb mentioned that he was one of the neighbors and had already written a
letter in support of the variance. He suggested that landscaping needs should
eventually be discussed. He stated that he felt comfortable voting on the variance.
Erickson Shirley had no additional comment.
Gary Hartmann had no additional comment.
Doug Cahill suggested that perhaps a condition should be attached to the variance that
would provide landscaping.
George Lamb commented that that condition was instead the responsibility of the
Design Review Board.
Matt Gennett verified George Lamb's comment.
John Schofield mentioned that the hardship was pre-existing, and therefore justified the
variance, but asked if the ILC was necessary.
Matt Gennett answered that is standard procedure.
Motion: Rollie Kiesbo
Second: Doug Cahill
Vote: 5-0-1 (Lamb abstained)
Approved with the condition as provided in the staff memorandum.
3. A request for review of a minor subdivision, re-subdividing a part of Lots L and K, Block
5E, Vail Village First Filing, to create Lots 1 and 2, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing, 20
Vail Road, 62 East Meadow Drive, and 82 East Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, represented by Braun Associates Inc.
Planner: Warren Campbell
Warren Campbell introduced the project per the memorandum.
John Schofield asked Warren Campbell to address the issue of the new plat creating
non-conforming lots as the Swiss Chalet and Sonnenalp would be on separate lots.
Warren Campbell stated that the lots were linked together for zoning purposes by a note
on the plat. Remaining development potential would apply to both as a whole project
regardless of the lot line.
Dominic Mauriello, the applicant's representative, stated that the primary purpose in re-
platting was to "clean up the lots". Originally, there was an error in the Vail Village 1st
Filing plat. It is that error which resulted in portions of the Sonnenalp Hotel being
located on Town owned Tract I. He stated that it was neither a non-conforming nor
unusual situation as the surveying was incorrect.
Russell Forrest mentioned that the project was similar to Vail Village Inn in regards to
development potential for multiple buildings being shared on different lots.
John Schofield asked if it could be assumed that the declarations for the association on
the east lot would require sign off on improvements to the Sonnenalp and vise versa.
Dominic Mauriello answered that as long as the plans conform to zoning, a fee-simple
ownership applied to Lot 1. He mentioned that it was not analogous to a duplex
situation in that two owners was not the same as one hundred forty owners on one side
to one owner on the other side.
Doug Cahill wanted to verify that there was a note linking development rights.
Russell Forrest said that the plat note would link the lots together as a whole.
Gary Hartmann asked if joint applications would be required in the future then.
Dominic Mauriello asked if that applied across the street as well.
Russell Forrest stated that was the case with the Vail Village Inn.
Larry Eskwith, legal counsel for the Talisman Condominiums, mentioned that he would
be entering into a permanent easement with the Sonnenalp and wanted to make sure
that his development rights were going to be maintained.
Warren Campbell stated that no property lines were moving and that the Talsiman's
non-conforming status would remain in place.
Gary Hartmann was glad to see that the sight was being "cleaned up".
Doug Cahill had no further comment.
Rollie Kjesbo stated that it seemed that both lot owners should agree if development
was going to occur.
Russell Forrest answered that if redevelopment occurred, consent would be needed in
situations with possible conflict may arise such as changes in use or square footage
increases.
George Lamb was "comfortable" with the plat note and stated that to have all owners
sign off in a time-share situation would be tricky.
Erickson Shirley had no comments at that time.
John Schofield agreed with the need to re-plat. He asked if it would not be wise to
address the potential conflicts that might arise.
Dominic Mauriello said that a private document verifying consent and protection of and
for the owners would be drafted. He thought the note was adequate as it was currently
drafted.
Doug Cahill said that the Planning and Environmental Commission would not want to
hear about conflicts that arose. Any application for a change should be worked out by
the Swiss Chalet condominium association and the owner the of the Sonnenalp Hotel.
Erickson Shirley asked if anyone's rights were changing.
Russell Forrest said that if conflict between property owners arose, it would only be on
the premise of redevelopment. He said that the Town was reviewing the project as a
single site with the recent proposal for the Sonnenalp Hotel expansion and Swiss Chalet
redevelopment.
John Schofield asked if the Town attorney had reviewed the plat.
Warren Campbell mentioned that the attorney had not reviewed the proposal.
Erickson Shirley wanted to clarify that no person's rights were being changed.
Warren Campbell stated that all development rights remained in place; however, the
owners of Lots 1 and 2 would need to work out any proposal prior to bringing an
application to the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board.
John Schofield mentioned that he was ready to proceed, provided the Town attorney's
input could be gained.
Motion: Doug Cahill
Second: George Lamb
Vote: 6-0-0
Approved with the conditions as provided in the staff memorandum with an
additional condition that the Town Attorney approve of plat note number 11, prior
to Town Council approval of the proposed easement agreements
4. 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
Warren Campbell introduced the project, in George Ruther's absence, according to the
memorandum.
Jay Peterson, from Vail Resorts Development Company, detailed the changes that had
been made since the previous meeting and asked for public input.
John Schofield summarized the issues that were being addressed that day, such as the
40% slope, loading and delivery, etc.
Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowner's, mentioned that he had reviewed the list of
Planning and Environmental Commission requests from the last meeting.
John Schofield commented that the loading and delivery and similar issues were going
to be under the purview of the Town of Vail, not Vail Resorts, and would be determined
in the upcoming year. He mentioned that a final parking analysis would be forthcoming
and that a traffic analysis from the staff was also expected.
Jim Lamont stated that he was attempting to post the pertinent issues on his website.
Warren Campbell reminded that Commission of their request to verify what impacts the
new development would have on the Town as a whole.
John Schofield commented that the Commission would like to finalize the plan in two
weeks.
Rollie Kjesbo asked the applicant how the title of the loading and delivery area was
going to work.
Jay Peterson stated that a perpetual easement for public use would be granted with Vail
Resorts retaining ownership. Vail Resorts would pay for lighting and ventilation, but
aspects such as the elevators, facility maintenance, repairs, etc. would be the Town's
responsibility.
Rollie Kjesbo asked if hours of operation would be implemented for aspects of the skier
services building.
Jack Hunn mentioned that certain areas of the building would be open later at night,
such as the skier drop-off area, so that skiers could get their skis back after eating in the
Village. The coffee shop would have hours as well. Window-tinting for after-hours light
mitigation would also be an option, he said.
Rollie Kjesbo asked if sound amplification would be an issue.
Erickson Shirley asked how the sound issue would be addressed.
Jim Lamont mentioned that this same issue was currently at stake in regard to the Tap
Room. He wanted to make sure that some degree of a management plan be put in
place.
George Lamb asked about the square footage of the yard, as quoted in Exhibit A.
Tom Braun said that the yard had grown to 60,000 square feet.
George Lamb suggested a management plan for loading and delivery and asked about
traffic routing. He thought that the Town should suggest to Vail Resorts what needs
should be met.
Jay Peterson mentioned that loading and delivery was only one aspect of the project.
He stated Vail Resorts' desire to work with other loading and delivery projects within the
Town.
George Lamb asked about the lighting in the alley and the police reports that were
requested in conjunction therewith. He stated that a second view corridor should be
adopted between 1 Vail Place and the building to the east.
Warren Campbell referenced the Commission to the attached police report.
Jay Peterson said that the building was, indeed, far back from the adopted view corridor
at the end of Bridge Street.
Erickson Shirley commented that the Wells Team had arrived and asked when their
input would be heard. He asked Greg Hall how the Town was going to enforce aspects
of the project, especially regarding noise and loading/delivery.
Greg Hall stated that one of the topics focused on and presented to the Town Council
would focus on the improvements being made to the Village streets and the benefits of
the loading and delivery that contribute. Council would need to direct the police
department to strictly enforce the loading/delivery and noise ordinance.
Erickson Shirley asked about the traffic study.
Tom Braun answered that the traffic numbers reflected the "peak of the peak" seasonal
counts.
Erickson Shirley asked how the clock tower was going to affect views of Pepi's face.
Jay Peterson replied that from the plaza, the line of sight was relatively unobstructed,
and that coming south on Bridge Street, there was no obstruction.
Erickson Shirley hoped that the Commission was not over-zealous in thinking that the
neighbors were going to be against any sort of drinking establishment whatsoever. He
continued that what the Town needs is a lively base such as other resorts had.
Gary Hartmann commended Vail Resorts on the progress of the project. From the
Town's perspective, what would the hours of operation of the loading/delivery facility be?
Jay Peterson mentioned that that information would be in the developer agreement
presented to the Town Council. The hours would need to be tweaked as problems or
better ideas arose in the operation of the loading and delivery structure.
Doug Cahill appreciated the diagrams of the view analysis. He agreed with the
implementation of a second view corridor and was glad to see the size of the ski yard
was going to be increased. Loading and delivery would require early morning and
evening lighting in the hallway between 1 Vail Road and the Lodge. He asked about the
traffic counts on Vail Valley Drive.
Curtis Rowe, the applicant's traffic consultant, verified that the traffic counts were based
on daily, not hourly volumes.
Doug Cahill asked about the enlargement of the restrooms. Where was that extra space
coming from?
Jay Peterson mentioned that the size of the restrooms had been doubled. The vestibule
entering the restroom was reduced to give the bathrooms more space.
Doug Cahill mentioned that the Lionshead redevelopment would push a lot of business
to the Front Door site and those impacts should be anticipated. As for the traffic
diagram, the red line on the diagram down Gore Creek Drive should be removed to
clarify that increased traffic in the Village would not result with the loading and delivery
facility.
Andy Littman, a representative of the Wells Team, gave a presentation addressing
several questions and issues that still remained surrounding the project. Should the
Town's main delivery center be at the activity center of the Town? Will the centralized
loading/delivery be a problem for the merchants and/or enforcement? He stated that a
very strong management plan, and perhaps restrictions, would be needed. Obvious
congestion and traffic issues should not be ignored, he said. He stressed the
importance of "doing things right" the first time and questioned the placement of the skier
services building. Why not put the building closer to Bridge Street? Many issues would
need to be clarified with the Town and as many groups as possible should agree to the
plan. He strongly felt the project should be critiqued by a qualified outside consultant.
Would funding be set aside for artwork or "signature improvements"? Pedestrian access
from the east and west should be obvious and visually appealing. The project should be
lasting and enduring.
Tom Boni, Knight Planning Services, apologized for his lateness and handed out a
memo summarizing the comments of other members of the Wells Team. He mentioned
that truck movements which encroached into oncoming traffic needed to be addressed,
as did pedestrian movement and snow storage, as it related to maneuverability. How
much cargo could be transported by each hand truck and how many hand trucks would
be needed for each delivery? More input from delivery companies and the businesses
receiving the delivery was desired, he said. Was the traffic count for Vail Road derived
from highway statistics or the situation of Vail Road as it currently existed?
Gwen Scapello asked about the data for Hanson Ranch Road. She mentioned that the
data seemed to have been based on the traffic of a four way highway.
Ron Byrne apologized for his lateness and expressed the importance of taking time to
critique the project thoroughly. He stated that the building seemed to be undersized for
its function as a skier services building. He wanted the ski yard to expand. The new
building was a greatly improved solution, but the functionality of this piece of property
should be addressed. The tourist should be drawn to the property, regardless of the
season. He thought that ingress and egress for One Vail Road could occur above
ground, though the Lodge at Vail property; however, the Lodge would not want its
guests to cross over a path in order to go to the pool. Another issue would be fire
access. If those two elements were resolved, the skier services building could move
significantly to the east without affecting One Vail Place and could probably increase in
size as well. He mentioned that other projects within the Town which would be
implemented soon should take some responsibility for some of the loading/delivery
issues in the future.
John Schofield announced that the Commission would take a ten minute break.
John Schofield suggested to Andy Littman and Tom Boni that they re-read previous
reports, which would likely answer many/most of their questions regarding traffic
circulation and numbers.
Russell Forrest addressed loading and delivery by saying that the Town had already
improved the Sonnenalp/Swiss Chalet, Vail Village Inn, the Chateau, and perhaps
Crossroads' facilities.
Greg Hall further commented that not every development site is available for loading and
delivery. The sites that have been large enough, the Town has taken advantage of
already.
Russell Forrest reminded the Commission of their trip to Beaver Creek's successful
facility, comparing the impacts of the two projects. The Front Door project would not be
the only opportunity for loading and delivery facilities.
Doug Cahill requested that delivery persons be notified of the distance that the hand
carts would need to travel.
Erickson Shirley asked if the merchants had been notified of the distances and the
loading/delivery location and if any negative feedback had been obtained from that
meeting.
Russell Forrest stated that the merchants felt overall that the facility was positive
addition.
Cr John Schofield asked that the turning movements anticipated by the trucks be
addressed.
Greg Hall stated that heavier trucks would be brought in on collector roadways. Three
types of turning movements were analyzed, he said. Less than two percent of the
vehicles coming into the facility would be oversized and subject to a special delivery
permit from the police department. Greg Hall re-stated that the current design would
adequately handle the loading and delivery traffic.
Russell Forrest mentioned that a transition in the loading and delivery process was
expected and the operation of the facility would be tweaked in order to function most
efficiently.
Erickson Shirley added that the hand truck traffic in Beaver Creek ended up working
better for the truck drivers.
Jay Peterson summed up the public comment by stating that delay was always
preferred, in the public's mind. He felt it was time to move on and stated that all the
questions had been answered. The skier services building has shrunk in size, a
consultant had already given input, and an outside design consultant was not needed
due to the qualified members of staff, Council, Commission, and Design Review Board
etc. The pedestrian and bike paths had already been detailed in the report. One million
dollars had been committed by Vail Resorts for artwork, more than any other project. He
agreed that the skier services building could be larger, but, due to public input (of the
entire neighborhood), the currently proposed size was the result. The building had
already been critiqued by the Design Review Board, who liked the building, aside from
several technical, design aspects.
Curtis Rowe, the traffic analyst, clarified that the capacity of a roadway was based on
headway behind vehicles. The capacity of a two land roadway, therefore, would be
38,000. A two land roadway in a town setting could be 20,000 vehicles. That was
reduced for winter conditions to 15,000. The V to C ratio was 67%.
Rollie Kjesbo had no further comment.
George Lamb wished to reiterate that the hand truck traffic to the businesses farther
from the loading facility could be an issue.
Erickson Shirley asked about the number of bays needed for the Town and what the
Wells Team had an issue with.
Andy Littman suggested that the bays be built in a more logical place that does not
create congestions and "unsightliness". His contention was not with the number of bays.
Erickson Shirley stated that the applicant had already offered the Town a tremendous
amount. To try to extract more from the applicant would be unreasonable. The Town
was getting a great deal of benefit from the applicant. The Town would manage the
loading and delivery and would adjust the plan according to the merchants' needs, etc.,
once the plan was in place.
Gary Hartmann had no additional comments.
I~ Doug Cahill liked the re-design of the skier services building. He continued to think that
the bike path should be moved off of the hard-scape patio in front of the building.
Delivery persons should be informed of the distance they will need to travel with their
handcarts.
Jim Lamont wanted to remind the group that this loading and delivery facility was
originally proposed in a 1992 traffic plan. The site had been studied extensively for its
practicality and effectiveness. It was the best site of seven others that were studied for
the same uses.
John Schofield summed up by encouraging the Wells Team to read all the information
that the Commission had read over the past nine months. He said that Jeff Winston's
input, a design professional, was included in that information. Regarding getting to a
final vote, the staff would need to provide resolution of the loading and delivery
operation, since Vail Resorts would not be operating that facility. Some type of licensing
agreement would need to be concluded specifying operation of the facility. A lighting
plan for the alley near One Vail Place would be subject to Design Review Board review.
In that review, the Design Review Board should take into account the police report
submitted to the Commission. He thought that an additional view corridor, though good,
was not necessarily a proposal that should be submitted through this project; it could be
added later. Prior to a final vote, all studies and input should be available for the
Commission and public.
Jay Peterson stated that the radius for the loading and delivery in Beaver Creek was
1000 ft., which was the same as the area proposed for this facility. He commented that
Vail Resorts would be ready for a vote from the Commission on September 22.
John Schofield responded that the submittal of an operational management plan would
be a condition of approval.
Motion: Rollie Kjesbo
Second: George Lamb
Vote: 6-0-0
Tabled until September 22, 2003
5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed amendment to
the FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN - An Amendment to the Gerald R.
Ford/Donovan Park Master Plan, to allow for the construction of a public parking facility
and structure, a request for a variance from Title 14, Chapter 5, Parking Lot and Parking
Structure Design Standards for All Uses, to allow for a deviation from the minimum
landscape area requirement and to construct an unpaved, gravel parking surface, and a
request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a public parking facility
and structure atop the athletic fields at the Gerald R. Ford Park, located at 580 South
Frontage Road East/Ford Park
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall
Planner: Warren Campbell
Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the memorandum.
Greg Hall elaborated in greater details on the operation of the parking facility.
r. Jonathan Stauffer mentioned that the length of time for which the "temporary solution"
would be laid out had never been mentioned. He stated that the parking task force had
only looked at parking, nothing else. Due to the bus system in Vail, the need for more
parking should be reduced. He suggested solutions from as far as Boulder to help
lessen our need for parking. The costs associated with this parking solution were
prohibitive as well, he commented. The money being spent on this proposal would be
far better off utilized to establish a permanent solution.
Helen Fritch, from Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, wanted to make sure that the gardens
would be protected and commented that people liked to take shortcuts. She suggested
that some sort of fencing be put up to protect the gardens.
Joe Stauffer said that due to his and John Donovan's input, Ford Park was currently a
park, and not 1800 condominiums. He asked the Commission to think of the massive
number of development proposals that were presented to New York City in relation to
the Central Park site. He was upset that Vail Resorts wanted to use Town Of Vail open
space for their own profit through parking. He thought that the parking problem was the
responsibility of Vail Resorts and any solution should be constructed and paid for by Vail
Resorts.
Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowner's, mentioned that he was on the task force for the
Ford Park master plan. He was confused about the staff's interpretation of the goals.
John Schofield clarified that in 1997, the Town recommended to the Council that
structured parking be an allowed use. Eventually, that recommendation was removed
from the plan at its final adoption by Council.
Russell Forrest clarified that under the General Use district, "public parking facilities and
structures" are a conditional use. Keeping the same wording is important, he said. If the
proposed development plan were approved, that blueprint would be allowed, nothing
else.
Gwen Scapello was concerned about the proposal due to the number of tourist visits
that are generated during the summer for large sports events, which may be lessened
due to the restoration of the field from the winter parking needs.
Greg Hall commented that the Town had met with turf specialists to determine the best
way of re-sodding, etc. The Vail Recreation District had been consulted as well. A
meeting was going to be convened the following day to further discuss these issues.
Rollie Kjesbo mentioned that his comments were related to financial aspects of the plan.
The money gained from charging for parking was nowhere near the amount of money
that the Town was going to put out to implement the plan. He would not mind the plan
for one year, however.
George Lamb suggested that the parking lot be open seven days a week. Cars should
be kept off of the Frontage Road at all costs, he said, and mentioned that parking was a
Town issue as well, not just Vail Resorts.
Erickson Shirley mentioned that this was not a "world class solution" to the parking
problem. He knew that the task force had tried to solve the problem, and could not
understand why the Council had not been able to secure funding from Vail Resorts. He,
too, could agree with the plan for one year, but no more. He thought that Town property
should not be used to solve a non-Town problem.
Gary Hartmann mentioned that he hated to see Ford Park used as something that it was
never intended to be. As a temporary solution, it should be in place only one year, with
a long-term solution directly following.
Doug Cahill felt that the parking problem on the streets was a serious safety problem.
He was interested in seeing how the proposal would work for one year only. He thought
that Vail Resorts should pay for the cost/restoration of the proposal.
Greg Hall said that on June 7, softball season starts and the field would need to be
playable on that date.
Doug Cahill wanted to make sure that the surface was safe, regardless.
John Schofield mentioned that if a private developer were applying for the same
proposal, he would unequivocally be denied. The hazard of delays on South Frontage
road due to a pay lot was also a safety issue, he said. He asked what thought had been
given to increased bus service in the morning and afternoon hours.
Greg Hall responded that the frequency of bus pick-ups has increased during those
hours in the past.
Rollie Kjesbo mentioned that the East Vail bus was usually full well before reaching the
mountain.
John Schofield reiterated that this proposal was a "band-aid". What planning had been
given to holiday operation?
Greg Hall responded that the West Day lot was going to be a public lot this year, open
seven days a week.
John Schofield commented that a variance was only awarded to exceptional conditions
that were applicable to the site. Regarding a conditional use permit, that would not help
in finding a permanent solution. The parking lot should be available any time the parking
structures became full.
Greg Hall said that the west day lot held 200 spaces. The intent would be for this lot to
be open during the week. The valet parking would be eliminated (-25 spaces).
Doug Cahill asked what the average number of cars was on the Frontage Road.
Greg Hall said that about 462 cars were parked on the road on 30-45 days a year
(estimations). Currently, between 400 and 500 spaces were calculated to be needed to
relieve that problem.
Russell Forrest said that financial issues were being discussed regarding long-term
solutions.
Variance:
Motion: Doug Cahill
Second: George Lamb
Vote: 4-2-0 (Schofield and Shirley opposed)
Variance - Approved with the conditions as provided in the staff memorandum
George Lamb said that he struggled with the timing of the conditional use permit. He
was apparent that with no permanent solution in the works that it was likely that the
Parking Task Force would request the same proposal next season.
Greg Hall responded that he was partially directed by the Council to get approval on a
year-to-year basis. Also, before investing $12-15 million, the right number of spaces
needed would have to be determined. This proposal gave the Town opportunity to
deliver a long-term solution, he said. It would take at least two years for a structure to
be completed.
John Schofield asked Rollie Kjesbo to clarify the conditions.
Doug Cahill asked what other options were pursued.
Greg Hall answered that the bus system was critiqued but that the number of cars that
needed spaces was too many to solve any other way.
Erickson Shirley commented that he was surprised that no Commission members were
present on the task force.
John Schofield commented that the field parking should only be in place for one year.
He mentioned concerns over the amount of time that might elapse before a solution is
achieved if one year is allowed. He continued by stating that a conditional use permit to
extend the temporary facility past one year should not come before the Commission if no
action had been taken to develop a permanent solution.
Motion: Rollie Kjesbo
Second: George Lamb
Vote: 5-1-0 (Shirley opposed)
Conditional Use Permit - Approved with the conditions as provided in the staff
memorandum with the additional conditions that the public parking facility be
operated 7 days per week, as needed for overflow, and a minimum of a 10-car
stacking lane for vehicles entering the facility off of the Frontage Road be
provided.
6. 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 12-813-3: 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 three applications according to the memorandum.
Sherry Dorward, landscape architect, stated that the flood plain would not be affected by
the proposal. Regarding wetland mitigation, no impacts would occur. The
boardwalks/bridges that cross the swale for Phase I would not hold construction
vehicles. However, phases 11 and III would cross the swale via a bridge for construction
and regular use.
John Schofield asked if a wetland area currently existed.
Sherry responded that wetlands do no exist currently where the memorial park is
located. However, the Eagle River and Water District do want to create wetlands on the
site. The only conflict is in the swale that would need to be bridged with a boardwalk
into phase 1 of the project. To create wetlands the Dsitrict will need to divert more water
onto the site. The topography would not change much, though the water augmentation
plan might be amended to get more water during the summer.
Doug Cahill asked if a permanent crossing could be established on non-wetlands.
Sherri responded that Corps of Engineers permission would have to be obtained for a
dry crossing. The water district was struggling to get enough wetlands square footage,
she added. She commented that the path would be placed in respect of the wetland
boundaries.
Regarding intensity-of-use, the average number of yearly deaths in the county is -60 or
70, many of whom are not Vail residents. Fewer than half are Vail residents, and fewer
than half of that number would choose to be buried here. She mentioned that, regarding
capacity, many educational materials would be provided to convey the message that the
site was for intimate services only. A paid director would be responsible for such
communication. She realized that safety on the bike path was an issue.
Gary Hartmann asked about the permanence of the proposed signage.
Sherry responded that signage had not been talked about in too much detail. However,
flags/banners would be placed at the time of the service for directional help.
Gary Hartmann suggested that all signage be temporary in nature in order to guarantee
the attention of regular cyclists and pedestrians.
Erickson Shirley asked if there was a limit as to the number of people allowed to attend
a service.
Sherry responded that no limit was currently in place since it was impossible to say how
many people might attend a ceremony.
Erickson Shirley said that it was going to be difficult to have large numbers of people on
the path without causing congestion with the bicyclists.
Russell Forrest mentioned that Staff was recommending that ceremonies of over 25
people could warrant a shuttle system in order to help alleviate the parking problem.
Erickson Shirley even suggested that the Town could widen the path to help alleviate
congestion.
Rick Sackbouer from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District commended Sherri's
work in the field.
Gary Hartmann suggested a condition that allowed only for temporary signage.
Doug Cahill added that perhaps a permanent structure with hinges could be an option
for signage. He thought that this had the potential to be a popular area. He wanted to
clarify whether or not the urns could be placed outside of the flood plain.
Sherry responded that the urns were biodegradable and that the entire site was in a
flood plain.
Rollie Kjesbo thought it was a great idea and commended the efforts of the applicants.
George Lamb seconded Rollie's comments. He added that some pathway congestion
and signage issues would need to be worked out, however.
Erickson Shirley hoped that a more direct route to the site could be thought out. The
trail system in Town was already lacking, and he hoped this could be an exception to the
rule. Parking issues would also need to be worked out, he said.
John Schofield reiterated general support of the plan, commenting that three different
motions would be needed for approval, however. He suggested approval of Phase I
only. Possible future needs for alternative access would need to be assessed. He
suggested approval of the site after a full season, not a full year.
Erickson asked if the phases were covered in the conditional use section.
Motion: Doug Cahill, to approve subdivision
Second: George Lamb
Vote: 6-0-0
Approval of subdivision
Russell Forrest asked if the applicant for the DRIB could be changed to the Vail Memorial
Foundation. He also asked if the condition of staff-approved, temporary signage should
be added, as well. Also, he suggested the PEC clarify which phases were being
approved.
Sherri was worried about approval in sections, as opposed to one Phase at a time.
Diana Donovan agreed, saying that people would not want to be "buried next to a
duplex", in the event that future phases were not approved.
Russell Forrest suggested that the PEC approve the site for a conditional use permit, but
that each Phase be reviewed for environmental impacts, etc.
Erickson Shirley added that the PEC should have the ability to remedy any problems,
should they arise along the way.
Doug Cahill wanted to clarify that all future developments should be reviewed by the
PEC.
Motion: Doug Cahill, to approve the conditional use permit per the
conditions listed by Russell Forrest
1. All future phases (2-4) of the Vail Memorial Park must be reviewed by the US
Army Corps of Engineers prior to construction as appropriate.
2. The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District has taken responsibility for the
review of a raised boardwalk to span the 20-25 foot wide swale into phase 1.
The proposed raised boardwalk will require review by the Army Corps of
Engineers and the Town of Vail Design review Board. A Design Review
application shall be submitted by Vail Memorial Park Foundation for review and
approval of the Design Review Board prior to construction.
3. The applicant shall submit a Design Review application for review and approval
by the Design Review Board for all site disturbance and any future phases
(phases 2-4) prior to the construction of any future phases.
4. The applicant shall require all groups over 25 people to use a shuttle system to
the site. The applicant shall obtain the owners approval for the use of any
remote parking used for inurnment services.
5. The applicant shall provide signage approved by Town staff during memorial
events to clearly indicate that a memorial service is in progress and that cyclists
should use caution. These signs should be located at the east trail head to
Katsos Ranch and 50 feet to the west of the Vail Memorial Park entrance on the
Katsos Ranch recreational trail.
6. The applicant shall pay for additional no parking signs along the Frontage Road
at the Katsos Ranch Trailhead at specific locations approved by the Public
Works Department.
7. The applicant shall receive approval for a staging plan from the Town of Vail prior
to construction being initiated on the Vail Memorial Park.
8. The applicant shall return to the Planning and Environmental Commission in one
years time from the date of approval so that the Conditional Use Permit can be
reviewed to evaluate the impacts on circulation along the Frontage Road and to
the use of the recreational trail.
9. The applicant shall submit future phases to the Planning and Environmental
Commission for review by the Commission to ensure that environmental impacts
are adequately addressed in future phases.
10. There shall be no maintenance, snow plowing, or inscriptions of memorial signs
in the Vail Memorial Park between December 1 St and May 1St
11. The operation and maintenance of the Vail Memorial Park shall not inhibit the
public use of Lot 1, Katsos Ranch Minor Subdivsion for currently existing passive
recreational uses.
Second: George Lamb
Vote: 6-0-0
Approval of conditional use
Motion: Rollie Kjesbo, to forward a recommendation to the Vail Town
Council to approve of the re-zoning of Lot 1, Katsos Ranch Minor Subdivision to
Outdoor Recreation as per the criteria and findings in Section IX of the staff
memorandum.
Second: Gary Hartmann
Vote: 6-0-0
Approval of re-zoning
7. 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
Bill Gibson introduced the proposal per the staff memorandum.
Larry Eskwith described his concerns and his areas of support for the proposed
amendment. He thought that people would still abuse the system. He thought the
proposal would make it a better regulation. Larry liked that we were getting rid of the
arbitrary aspects of the current interior conversion and 250 GRFA policies.
John Schofield stated that the PEC reviewed volumetric controls and found that it could
not be effectively implemented.
Vicky Pearson commented on the proposed policy and said this is a huge step forward.
It still is more complicated that eliminating GRFA. She thought that a volumetric control
would be the best but may not be practical at this time.
There was no other public comment.
John Schofield closed public input and commented on the one year process that has
lead us to this point. He commented that the PEC has taken a considerable amount of
time to understand the implications of this policy. John thanked Bill Gibson for his hard
work.
Gary Hartmann asked Bill to describe the basement methodology.
Bill Gibson described the methodology for excluding basement space. He stated that it
is a similar methodology as used in Aspen.
Gary Hartmann commented on the parking and stated that Rollie had a good suggestion
that a simple standard be created for parking at larger homes. Gary generally liked the
final formulas and charts, and believed that with the work that has occurred on the
charts and data that homes should not get much bigger.
Doug Cahill thanked staff and commented that parking should be increased on larger
homes. He liked basement definition and the graphs that were used and that
demonstrated that home would not get bigger.
Rollie Kjesbo originally believed the Town should eliminate GRFA entirely, but is now
convinced we must keep some for of floor area regulation. He believes the proposed
text is simpler and easier to understand. He felt that home will not be bigger. He felt the
parking requirement should change so that homes over 5,500 square including
basements should be 5 parking spaces.
George Lamb believes we have come along way. He asked about how we would
account for duplexes and basements, and Bill Gibson answered his question.
Erickson Shirley hoped that in the future technology will be available to create a
volumetric control. He commented on the need to bring residents back to Vail. He felt
that not counting basements as GRFA will allow residents to make reasonable
improvements to their homes. He also felt that staff needed to add an amnesty clause.
Bill Gibson reviewed the non-conforming section of the Town Code.
Erickson Shirley asked about how staff can address the need to assure people that
homes will not get bigger.
Bill discussed the assumptions that were made in developing the new formulas.
Erickson Shirley again asked about what we would do in term of creating a
nonconforming clause.
John Schofield stated that we may need an amnesty clause that is clearer.
John Schofield had questions about attachment A concerning EHUs, vaulted spaces,
and basements for houses with steep lots. Bill Gibson clarified the proposed text.
John Schofield also asked additional questions about amnesty and whether the Town
should err on the side of not creating non-conforming structures or increasing the
formulas.
John Schofield thought the Town should not increase bulk and mass, and there should
be a transition by creating GRFA. John liked Rollie Kjesbo's idea on increasing parking
requirements. He also asked to change the vaulted space plate height from 14 feet to
15 feet. John also asked about rounding up the GRFA equations.
Bill Gibson explained the rational in the formulas.
John Schofield indicated that the difference between proposed and the existing have a
1 % difference.
John Schofield passed the chair to Erickson Shirley.
John Schofield recommended that that the PEC recommends approval for amending
GRFA in the zone districts outlined in the staff memo in accordance with the findings in
the staff memo with the specific changes. John asked that staff fax the changes to the
PEC prior to forwarding the recommendation to Council.
Motion: John Schofield
Second: Rollie Kjesbo
Vote: 6-0-0
Recommending approval of the request, per the staff memorandum, with the
following modifications:
q
1) Page 1 of Attachment A should be amended such that the parking
standards are increased to 3.5 spaces for dwelling units with floor area
of over 4,000 and less than 5,500 sq. ft., and to 4.5 spaces for dwelling
units with more than 5,500 sq. ft.
2) Page 6 of Attachment A should be amended such that vaulted areas
with a ceiling plate height greater than 15 ft. should counted on multiple
levels.
3) Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations for the residential
zone districts shall be repealed and be replaced with Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) regulations.
4) An amnesty clause should be adopted in conjunction with the adoption
of the Floor Area Ration (FAR) regulations. The amnesty clause should
have no time limit, waive Town of Vail application fees, and prevent the
creation of non-conforming properties in regard to Floor Area Ratio
(FAR).
5) Any loss of development potential currently allowed by the existing
Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations that is caused by the
adoption of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) regulations shall be considered
justification for a variance from the Floor Area Ration (FAR) regulations.
8. A request for a variance from Section 12-14-17, Setback from Watercourse, Vail Town
Code, to allow for a residential addition in the Gore Creek setback, located at 4444
Streamside Circle / Lot 11, Bighorn 4th Addition.
Applicant: Thomas O'Dorisio, represented by John Perkins.
Planner: Allison Ochs
TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 22, 2003
9. 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 1St Filing.
Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services
Planner: Matt Gennett
TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 22, 2003
10. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an outdoor dining deck, in accordance
with Section 12-713-4B, 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
Planner: Bill Gibson
WITHDRAWN
11. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of 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
TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 22, 2003
12. Approval of August 25, 2003, meeting minutes
13. Information Update
Sign Code Ordinance
Outdoor Display Text Amendment
Rezoning of Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision and Lots P3 & J, Vail Village First Filing
Results of the Economic Impact Study on Guest Accommodations
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 September 5, 2003, in the Vail Daily.
0
U