Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-07 Agenda and Supporting Documentation Town Council Afternoon Regular Meeting AgendaVAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Agenda Town Council Chambers 3:00 PM, November 7, 2017 TOM Of UAJt Notes: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine what time Council will consider an item. Public comment on any agenda item may be solicited by the Town Council. 1. DRB / PEC Update 1.1. DRB / PEC Update 5 min. Presenter(s): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager 2. Presentations / Discussion 2.1. Update on Gore Creek Macroinvertabrate Scores 30 min. Presenter(s): Dave Rees, Timberline Aquatics and Pete Wadden, Watershed Education Coordinator Action Requested of Council: As this in an informational presentation only, there is no action requested of Council at this time. Background: Dave Rees, aquatic entomologist, will provide an overview of his surveys of Gore Creek Macroinvertebrate populations from 2016. Gore Creek has been listed as an "Impaired Waterway" by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment for failing to meet EPA standards for aquatic life since 2012. The town and its partners have undertaken major efforts to reverse the downward trend in insect populations in the creek. In 2016, some improvements in aquatic insect populations were observed in several monitoring locations in the creek, while declines were observed in others. Rees will present the findings from 2016 and offer analysis of what the scores indicate about the current status of Gore Creek. Staff Recommendation: There is no staff recommendation at this time. 2.2. The Vail Valley Foundation will present the opportunity for Vail to host one 30 min. stage of the 2018 Colorado Classic on Friday, August 17, 2018. Presenter(s): Mike Imhof, Vail Valley Foundation Action Requested of Council: No action requested. Informational and discussion purposes only. Background: The Colorado Classic & Velorama Festival is a professional bike race and music festival including an expo and food & beverage offerings. The event producers are currently scheduling their 2018 schedule and stage locations. The VVF is interested in acting as the host organizer for a stage in Vail and partnering it with their Whistle Pig music festival event occurring the same weekend. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends exploring the opportunity of one stage of the Colorado Classic in Vail on Friday, August 17, 2018. November 7, 2017 - Page 1 of 5 2.3. Presentation of the Commission on Special Events (CSE) funding allocations for 2018 Cultural, Recreational and Community Events and Education and Enrichment Programming Presenter(s): Mark Gordon, Commission on Special Events Action Requested of Council: Informational only. No formal action required. Background: The CSE received 49 proposals in response to the RFP for 2018 events/programs that was issued in August. "Special Event Rating Criteria" was used to evaluate all proposals with respect to how they align with a strategic approach to providing a diverse calendar of events that are well matched to the Vail brand and will exceed the expectations of the Vail guest. Staff Recommendation: The CSE believes this is a strong calendar of events aligned with the Town Council's mission of providing our citizens and guests with "an abundance of recreational, cultural and educational opportunities" that will continue to drive increased results and contribute to providing thought provoking educational and life enriching opportunities. 3. Information Update 3.1. VLHA Meeting Results 3.2. September 2017 Sales Tax Report 3.3. August 2017 Vail Business Review 3.4. Revenue Update 4. Matters from Mayor, Council and Committee Reports 5. Executive Session 5.1. Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions Regarding: Topic of which cannot be disclosed without jeopardizing the purpose of the Executive Session. Presenter(s): Matt Mire, Town Attorney 6. Consent Agenda 6.1. Resolution No. 37, Series of 2017, A Resolution Approving an Amended and Restated Reciprocal Hazardous Material Incident Intergovernmental Agreement; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. 6.2. Minutes from October 3, 2017 meeting 6.3. Minutes from October 17, 2017 meeting 6.4. Contract Award to Adcon 7. Town Manager Report 7.1. Town Manager Report 30 min. 15 min. November 7, 2017 - Page 2 of 5 8. Break estimated at 5:15 p.m. 9. Citizen Participation begins at 5:30 p.m. 10. Action Item 10.1. Resolution No. 29, Series of 2017 A Resolution Approving the Town of Vail 30 min. Transportation Impact Fee Schedule, Pursuant to Title 12-26; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto Presenter(s): Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer Action Requested of Council: Approve, modify or deny Resolution No. 29 Series 2017 Background: On July 11, 2017 the Town of Vail adopted an amendment to Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Transportation Impact Fee. In order to implement this fee the Town Council must approve a Transportation Impact Fee Schedule by Resolution. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 29 Series 2017 10.2. Permission to Proceed - Solar Vail Access 10 min. Presenter(s): Justin Lightfield, Planner Action Requested of Council: The Community Development Department requests that the Town Council evaluate the proposal to utilize Town of Vail property for the purposes of improved access for the redevelopment of Solar Vail. This utilization of Town of Vail property would be subject to the terms of an access easement in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney. Background: The proposal includes a modification to this existing access driveway to improve both vehicular and pedestrian safety, and two sidewalks to the west to provide pedestrian access to the existing bus stop. The proposal within Tract A includes a driveway, sidewalks, and lighting. The access improvements impact approximately 2,000 square feet of Tract A. The proposal on Potato Patch, Block 2, Lot 8 (zoned General Use), includes two walkways totaling 280 square feet. The Applicant must obtain approval from the Vail Town Council as the property owner before proceeding through the Town's development review process for any improvements on Town owned property. Staff Recommendation: Instruct Town Staff to sign the development application on behalf of the property owner and permit the project to proceed through the development review process for the proposed improvements. 10.3. First reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series 2017, an ordinance amending 30 min. Title 4 of Vail Town Code by the addition of a new Chapter 14, entitled Short Term Rental Properties, and repealing sections in conflict therewith. Presenter(s): Kathleen Halloran, Finance Director Action Requested of Council: Approve, deny or approve with amendments Ordinance No. 15, Series 2017. Background: Please see the attached memo outlining proposed changes to short term rental regulations based on feedback from Council throughout the year. Staff Recommendation: Approve, deny or approve with amendments Ordinance No. 15, Series 2017. 11. Public Hearing 11.1. Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017, First Reading, An ordinance establishing 90 min. Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), November 7, 2017 - Page 3 of 5 pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), and 15 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. Presenter(s): Jonathan Spence, Senior Planner Action Requested of Council: The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017, upon first reading. Background: The applicant, Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a first reading of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017, an ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), and 15 employee housing units (EHUs), located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. Staff Recommendation: On October 23, 2017 the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a public hearing on the request to establish SDD No. 42, pursuant to the requirement of Section 12-9(A), Vail Town Code. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the PEC voted 5-2 (Kurz and Stockmar opposed) to forward a recommendation of denial to the Vail Town Council. 12. Adjournment 12.1. Adjournment 8:15 p.m. Meeting agendas and materials can be accessed prior to meeting day on the Town of Vail website www.vailgov.com. All town council meetings will be streamed live by High Five Access Media and available for public viewing as the meeting is happening. The meeting videos are also posted to High Five Access Media website the week following meeting day, www.highfivemedia.org. Please call 970-479-2136 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48 hour notification dial 711. November 7, 2017 - Page 4 of 5 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: DRB / PEC Update PRESENTER(S): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS: Description October 18, 2017 DRB Meeting Results October 23, 2017 PEC Meeting Results TOWN IfO November 7, 2017 - Page 5 of 5 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TOWN OF VEIL' October 18, 2017, 3:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order 2. Project Orientation 2.1. 2:00 PM 3. Site Visits 3.1. Public Service Company of Colorado - 2835 Aspen Lane 3.2. Triple Threat NLC LLC - 332 Mill Creek Circle 3.3. Westwind - 548 South Frontage Road West 4. Main Agenda 4.1. DRB17-0289 - La Cantina Final review of an exterior alteration (deck) Address/Legal Description: 241 East Meadow Drive / Tract B & C, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: La Cantina, represented by Dominick Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker Rollie Kjesbo moved to Approve. Doug Cahill seconded the motion and it passed (4-1). Ayes: (4) Cahill, Cope, Forst!, Kjesbo Nays: (1) Pierce 4.2. DRB17-0392 - Proctor Residence Final review of an addition Address/Legal Description: 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5 / Lots 41- 43, Vail Valley West Filing 2 Applicant: Holly Proctor, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker Conditions of approval: 1. Approval of this project applies only to the exterior alterations and additions. This approval does not include approval of the interior conversion or combination of units, which are subject to additional Building Department and Fire Department reviews and codes. 2. Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Town of Vail of a subdivision to vacate the interior lot line between Townhouse Units 5 and 6. The final subdivision plat shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder prior to November 7, 2017 - Page 6 of 5 issuance of a building permit. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a revised floor plan showing the illegally converted garage at Apartment 7 (Unit 5) being converted back to a one car garage. 4. Prior to application for a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a letter from the Hamlet Homeowners Association agreeing to use the new railing design, as approved in this application, as the new railing design standard for all new railings on all units in The Hamlet. Rollie Kjesbo moved to Approve. Doug Cahill seconded the motion and it passed (4-1). Ayes: (4) Cahill, Cope, Forstl, Kjesbo Nays: (1) Pierce 4.3. DRB17-0432 - Westwind Final review of an addition (pool renovation/exercise area/ADA lift) Address/Legal Description: 548 South Frontage Road West/First Westwind Applicant: Westwind at Vail, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence Andrew Forstl moved to table to November 1, 2017. Doug Cahill seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Abstair(1) Pierce 4.4. DRB17-0441 - Public Service Company of Colorado Final review of an exterior alteration (gas regulator station) Address/Legal Description: 2835 Aspen Lane/Block 2, Vail Village Filing 11 Applicant: Public Service Company of Colorado Planner: Jonathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to date uncertain. Doug Cahill seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). 4.5. DRB17-0471 - Triple Threat NLC LLC Conceptual review of a new single family home Address/Legal Description: 332 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 11, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Triple Threat NLC LLC, represented by Berglund Architects Planner: Matt Panfil 5. Staff Approvals 5.1. DRB17-0380 - Sorensen Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (deck/driveway/path) Address/Legal Description: 4595 Bighorn Road Unit C-1/Lot 3-5, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition Applicant: Pamela Sorensen Planner: Jonathan Spence 5.2. DRB17-0394 - Doubletree Hotel November 7, 2017 - Page 7 of 5 Final review of a change to approved plans (extension) Address/Legal Description: 2211 North Frontage Road West/Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3 Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC, represented by Admiral Sign Co. Planner: Chris Neubecker 5.3. DRB17-0396 - Elevated Dental Final review of a sign Address/Legal Description: 953 South Frontage Road West/Unplatted Applicant: Elevated Dental Planner: Jonathan Spence 5.4. DRB17-0406 - Mountain Haus Final review of an exterior alteration (mechanical screen) Address/Legal Description: 292 East Meadow Drive / Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Mountain Haus Homeowner's Association, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker 5.5. DRB17-0429 - Australian Capital Equity (USA) Inc. Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) Address/Legal Description: 621 Forest Place/Lot 2, Forest Place Subdivision Applicant: Australian Capital Equity (USA) Inc., represented by Rocky Mountain Custom Landscapes Planner: Justin Lighttield 5.6. DRB17-0430 - The Valley Condominiums Homeowners Association Final review of a change to approved plans (extension) Address/Legal Description: 1522 Buffehr Creek Road/Parcel A, Lionsridge Filing 2 Applicant: Elizabeth Miller Planner: Chris Neubecker 5.7. DRB17-0435 - Villa Valhalla Homeowners Association Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) Address/Legal Description: 384 Gore Creek Drive/Lot J, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 5 Applicant: Beck Building Company Planner: Chris Neubecker 5.8. DRB17-0440 - Vail Racquet Club Final review of an exterior alteration (doors) Address/Legal Description: 4630 Vail Racquet Club Drive/Unplatted Applicant: Vail Racquet Club, represented by Steve Loftus Planner: Jonathan Spence 5.9. DRB17-0443 - Bishop Park Homeowners Association Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) November 7, 2017 - Page 8 of 5 Address/Legal Description: 63 Willow Place/Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Bishop Park Homeowners Association, represented by Old Growth Tree Service Planner: Justin Lighttield 5.10. DRB17-0444 - Booth Creek Management Corp Final review of an exterior alteration (Condenser) Address/Legal Description: 950 Red Sandstone Road Unit 43/Potato Patch Club Condominiums Applicant: Booth Creek Management Corp, represented by R & H Mechanincal Planner: Matt Panfil 5.11. DRB17-0449 - Sawyer Family Partners LTD Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) Address/Legal Description: 1874 Glacier Court Unit A/Lot 22, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 3 Applicant: Sawyer Family Partners LTD, represented by Ceres Landcare Planner: Matt Panfil 5.12. DRB17-0450 - 1740 Sierra Trail LLC Final review of a change to approved plans (elevations/retaining wall) Address/Legal Description: 1740 Sierra Trail/Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1 Applicant: 1740 Sierra Trail LLC Planner: Chris Neubecker 5.13. DRB17-0454 - Bigsby Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (deck/hot tub) Address/Legal Description: 1180 Casolar Del Norte Drive Unit A/Lot 7, Casolar Del Norte Applicant: Christian Bigsby Planner: Jonathan Spence 5.14. DRB17-0455 - Ski Museum Final review of a change to approved plans (doors) Address/Legal Description: 241 East Meadow Drive/Tract B & c, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Nedbo Construction Planner: Jonathan Spence 5.15. DRB17-0456 - Vail Mountain School Final review of an exterior alteration (slab) Address/Legal Description: 3000 Booth Falls Road/Lot 1, Vail Mountain School Subdivision Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence 5.16. DRB17-0459 - Town of Vail Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) November 7, 2017 - Page 9 of 5 Address/Legal Description: Tract E, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Justin Lightfield 5.17. DRB17-0461 - Galvin Residence Final approval of a change to approved plans (basement/windows) Address/Legal Description: 303 Gore Creek Drive Unit 12/Lot 12, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Michael Galvin, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence 5.18. DRB17-0464 - Chamonix Chalets Final review of an exterior alteration (siding) Address/Legal Description: 2489 Chamonix Lane/Lot 20 & 21, Block C, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 Applicant: Chamonix Chalet Corp. Planner: Jonathan Spence 5.19. DRB17-0465 - Vail Run Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) Address/Legal Description: 1000 Lions Ridge Loop/Lot C10 & C11, Block C, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 1 Applicant: Vail Run Resort Planner: Matt Panfil 5.20. DRB17-0466 - Fisher 7131 Corp Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) Address/Legal Description: 100 Vail Road/Lot 35, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Fisher 7131 Corp., represented by Old Growth Tree Service Planner: Jonathan Spence 5.21. DRB17-0467 - Wiegers Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) Address/Legal Description: 785 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 22, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1 Applicant: Elizabeth Wiegers Planner: Matt Panfil 5.22. B17-0372 - Barry Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (windows) Address/Legal Description: 122 East Meadow Drive Unit 9/Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Dan Barry Planner: Andy Rogers 5.23. B17-0402 - Williams Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (re -roof) Address/Legal Description: 2925 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 11 November 7, 2017 - Page 10 of Applicant: Kit Williams, represented by AD Roofing LLC Planner: Andy Rogers 5.24. B17-0412 - Graves Polsky Residences Final review of an exterior alteration (re -roof) Address/Legal Description: 5104 Grouse Lane A & B/Lot 7, Vail Meadows Filing 1 Applicant: Gordon Graves & Karen Polsky, represented by Incline Roofing Planner: Andy Rogers 5.25. B17-0416 - Roth Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (patio door) Address/Legal Description: 292 East Meadow Drive Unit 217/Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Christian Roth, represented by HMR Construction & Remodeling LLC Planner: Andy Rogers The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Town Council Chambers. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Design Review Board will consider an item. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification, dial 711. November 7, 2017 - Page 11 of TOWN OF 19 1. Call to Order PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 23, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, John Rediker, and Brian Stockmar 2. Main Agenda A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road (Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek) / Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5, formerly known as part of Lot 1, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Denial First: Gillette Second: Perez Vote: 5-2-0 (Kurz and Stockmar Opposed) Spence introduced the item as being similar to the previously submitted application. The item has returned to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) due to a previous error in the notification procedures. A rezoning application requires all owners within the specific property to be notified rather than just the property management group or homeowners association. Letters from the homeowners association and other individuals have been included with the application. Rediker — Asked Spence if there have been any significant changes since the previous submission. Spence stated that there are no significant exterior changes, but the unit mix within the proposed building has been altered. Rediker asked about the nature of the exterior changes. Spence deferred the question to the applicant. Gillette — Asked about the letter of support from the homeowners association of Phase I and how the homeowners association's opinion has changed from the previous review. Spence deferred to the applicant. Perez — Asked about the Phase I homeowners association's letter reference to "conditional support." Spence deferred to the applicant. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation to the PEC. Since the last appearance before the PEC, the applicant has worked with the Phase I homeowners association to address their comments and concerns. The November 7, 2017 - Page 12 of previous submission included 19 hotel rooms which have been eliminated from the proposal. The suggested conditions of approval have also been modified since the previous plan. The noticeable changes in the unit mix include: an increase from 12 to 15 DUs (Dwelling units), an increase from 15 to 20 AAUs (Attached accommodation units / lockoffs), an increase from 10 EHUs to 15 EHUs (employee housing units), and the removal of the previously proposed 19 AUs (accommodation units). The proposed unit mix revisions comply with the Town Code's minimum required parking spaces. Mauriello reviewed the public benefits associated with the proposal, including an increase to the number of EHUs. Other benefits include: increased number of live beds via the increase in lockoff units, public art, roadway easement, and participation in the Green Globes building sustainability program. Referring to the exterior building elevations, Mauriello described the proposed changes. Referring to the site plan, Mauriello described the proposed changes to the size of the outside deck area and the location of the loading area and pedestrian easement. Mauriello then reviewed the proximity of the proposed structure to the surrounding buildings. The columns on the east side of the structure encroach into the side setback, thus requiring a side setback deviation. Referring to the building's floor plans, Mauriello described the location and quantity of the DUs, EHUs, and AAUs. There is one less parking space than on the previous plan due to the need for additional mechanical equipment. Other deviations include: building height, density, GRFA, and site coverage. Density and GRFA have decreased in non -conformity since the previous plan, but still require deviations. Mauriello provided images from a sun -shade analysis for the proposed structure. Mauriello then discussed the project's relationship to the Tyrolean Condominiums to the west of the property. Mauriello listed all of the variances previously granted to the Tyrolean Condominiums and described the changes made to the proposed structure to help mitigate impacts on the Tyrolean Condominiums. Mauriello concluded by reviewing the nine (9) criteria for approving a Special Development District (SDD) and expressed his belief that the proposal fulfills all of the criteria. In regards to earlier questions from the PEC, Mauriello clarified that the previous approval had a letter from the Phase I homeowners association that permitted the project to go forward, but was not necessarily a letter of support. For this submission, the Phase I homeowners association has provided a letter of support. Hopkins — Asked about the nature of the EHU deed restrictions. Mauriello responded that the EHU deed restrictions are in perpetuity. Hopkins asked what happens when a unit is sold, to which Mauriello responded that the Town of Vail tracks all deed restrictions. Perez, Rediker, and Gillette — Asked for clarification of the proposed building height and how it is measured. Rediker — Asked why there is not a formal development plan in place. He expressed concern about the significant change in the character and nature of the project since the November 7, 2017 - Page 13 of previous approval. Mauriello stated that there is a development plan in the submittal materials. Rediker expressed his opinion that a plan set does not constitute a full development plan. Mauriello stated that the development plan includes all of the required documentation. Rediker asked what conditional uses will be allowed within the SDD. Mauriello responded that the conditional uses would be controlled by the underlying zone district. Rediker expressed concern that the uses approved with this submission could be changed in the future without the PEC's approval. Spence stated that he believed the applicant's plan set and narrative fulfill the requirements for a development plan. Rediker asked for more information about the landscape plan. Spence stated that the review of the landscape plan is the purview of the Design Review Board (DRB). It is the PEC's purview to review the requested deviations against the proposed public benefits. Rediker stated that one of the nine (9) criteria for approval of an SDD specifically references landscaping and therefore wants more information from the applicant regarding the proposed landscaping. George Ruther, Director of Community Development, reminded the PEC that they will be making a recommendation to the Town Council and that the SDD is officially established via ordinance. Mauriello referred to an image of the landscape plan and stated that this proposal has more plantings than the previously approved landscape plan. Mauriello suggested that, if believed to be necessary, the PEC make landscape recommendations to the DRB. Rediker suggested more plantings along the west side of the site. Rediker asked for clarification on the changes to the exterior from the previous approval to the current proposal. Mauriello referenced the images of the building elevations to demonstrate the locations of the proposed changes. Rediker expressed concern about the shading of the sidewalk during certain times of the year. He asked if the sidewalk will be heated. Mauriello stated that the sidewalk is to be moved closer to the structure to allow for future lane adjustments on the South Frontage Road and to provide snow storage. As a result, the sidewalk will now be heated. Rediker asked who will be responsible for maintaining the sidewalk considering some is on Town property and some is on private property. Mauriello stated that the applicant will enter into an agreement to be responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk. Perez — Asked for clarification on the location of the loading dock. Rediker asked how vehicles in the loading zone will be able to maneuver around the site. Mauriello explained that there is a cross access agreement between the subject property and the property to the east. Gillette asked if another egress point for a truck was necessary. Lockman — Asked for clarification on the relationship between the Phase I homeowners association and the applicant. Tom Todd, Attorney for Gore Creek Partners — The applicant has been active in discussion with the neighbors at the Phase I homeowners association and the two parties are working on an agreement. Kerry Wallace, Attorney for Mountain View Residences (Phase I) — The group has worked with Mr. Todd to address Phase I homeowners association's comments and concerns and are working on completing an agreement between the two parties. Ms. November 7, 2017 - Page 14 of Wallace explained that the letter of support is conditional based upon executing said agreement. In the future Phase I and Phase II will have separate homeowners associations that will work together on certain items. Rediker — Asked if this would result in a legal subdivision of the property. Ms. Wallace stated that her understanding is that it does not require a legal subdivision. Spence concurred with Ms. Wallace. Perez asked if the condo map will be amended. Ms. Wallace confirmed. Gillette — Asked staff who will be required to approve future changes when there are multiple homeowners associations. Public Comment: Pam Keller — Is an original owner of a unit in Phase I and supports the new proposal. David Foster, attorney representing the Tyrolean homeowners association — Stated that the presentation provided is misleading because the owner of the property developed Phase I under the existing HDMF zone district and essentially maxed out the building height and GRFA. By code, there is only 278 square feet of GRFA available. The proposal is essentially the rezoning of a property where people already live. It was the owner's choice to build to the maximum development standards for Phase I in 2008. He believes it is misleading to label Phase II as infill development. He expressed his concern regarding the proposed building height. He is also concerned that the PEC is predisposed to voting a certain way for the project despite the application being considered a new submission. The Tyrolean Condominiums has not been involved in any of the discussions among the applicant and Phase I homeowners association. Mr. Foster questioned the status of the applicant as it appears to have changed since the previous approval. He stated that he does not believe the proposed structure fulfills the nine (9) review criteria for an SDD. There will still be renters coming in every night due to the AAUs (lockoffs), despite the fact that the hotel units have been removed. Mr. Foster discussed the existing non -conforming site coverage on the subject property and that it never received a variance. Mr. Foster stated that there is no conditional use permit for the leasing of parking on the subject property and there is no record of a license or license renewals for the property owner to be able to lease parking spaces. Mr. Foster concluded by reminding the PEC that there is essentially no available space for Phase II and by reviewing the nine (9) SDD review criteria. Mr. Foster believes that the proposal does not comply with the following criteria: (1) compatibility, (2) relationship of uses and density, (3) parking and loading, and (4) conformity with the Town of Vail Master Plan. Mr. Foster stated that the sun shade analysis is misleading because it assumes a 48' tall building can be built in the proposed location, but as the property is out of developable space, no building of any height can be located there. Gillette — Asked if the Tyrolean Condominiums were notified of the new submission. Spence confirmed. Mauriello — Rebutted several comments made by Mr. Foster. Mr. Mauriello's rebuttals included: the belief that the proposal constitutes infill development, the actual height of the building, and the idea that there was a lack of communication with the Tyrolean November 7, 2017 - Page 15 of Condominiums. Stockmar — Stated that he is treating this item as a brand new application. The PEC is required to review the nine (9) criteria for establishing an SDD. He has reviewed the criteria and staff's analysis of the criteria. He concurs with staff and will support the proposal. Gillette — Agrees with most of Mr. Foster's analysis. The master plan states there should be development on the property, but it does not state what that type of development should be. He does not believe the public benefit outweighs the deviations required and he does not find the building compatible with the surrounding area. There needs to be a much more significant public benefit for a building 70' tall. Lockman — Thanked the Town for providing a corrected process. Is looking at the application as a brand new application. Lockman stated that he is not sure the application is consistent with the master plan and agrees with Gillette that there is not a sufficient public benefit received from the proposal. He is not ready to support the project due to the building height and use of the building. Hopkins — Expressed concern about the height of the building and its overall compatibility with the surrounding properties. She does not support the proposal at this time. Perez — In looking at the application as a brand new application, believes that the project does not meet all of the criteria for an SDD, especially in regards to compatibility, relationship of uses, and parking and loading. She does not believe there is a sufficient public benefit. Kurz — Agrees with Stockmar and staffs analysis of the SDD criteria. Believes the public benefits outweigh the hardships for neighboring properties. Also believes the loss of the 70 leasable parking spaces had to be considered in the original approval. He supports the project. Rediker — Looked at the application as a brand new application. Does not believe the proposal has fulfilled the SDD criteria. In particular, the scale, bulk, and building height are not compatible with the surrounding area; the proposal is not consistent with the Vail Master Plan; and the design features are not responsive and sensitive to the overall aesthetic to the area in general. Rediker expressed his overall concern about the SDD process in general and he believes it is encouraging the over -development of some properties. Recognizes that there is a public benefit to the proposal, but does not believe it is sufficient to ignore the non-compliant criteria. Gillette — Expressed his opposition to the snow -melted sidewalk. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 5, Public Health and Safety, and Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, related to vegetation removal for wildfire mitigation purposes, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC14-0043) Motion: Table to November 13, 2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 16 of First: Kurz Second: Gillette Vote: 7-0-0 3. Approval of Minutes October 9, 2017 PEC Results Motion: Approve First: Kurz Second: Gillette Vote: 5-0-2 (Perez and Rediker Abstained) 4. Adjournment Motion: Adjourn First: Perez Second: Kurz Vote: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hours prior to meeting time. November 7, 2017 - Page 17 of TOWN OF VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Update on Gore Creek Macroinvertabrate Scores PRESENTER(S): Dave Rees, Timberline Aquatics and Pete Wadden, Watershed Education Coordinator ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: As this in an informational presentation only, there is no action requested of Council at this time. BACKGROUND: Dave Rees, aquatic entomologist, will provide an overview of his surveys of Gore Creek Macroinvertebrate populations from 2016. Gore Creek has been listed as an "Impaired Waterway" by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment for failing to meet EPA standards for aquatic life since 2012. The town and its partners have undertaken major efforts to reverse the downward trend in insect populations in the creek. In 2016, some improvements in aquatic insect populations were observed in several monitoring locations in the creek, while declines were observed in others. Rees will present the findings from 2016 and offer analysis of what the scores indicate about the current status of Gore Creek. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There is no staff recommendation at this time. ATTACHMENTS: Description Presentation on Macroinvertebrates November 7, 2017 - Page 18 of 2016 BIOMONITORING RESULTS: GORE CREEK EAGLE RIVER David E. Rees Timberline Aquatics, Inc. November 7, 2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 19 of 532 otexr EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Overview • Sampling methods and analysis • 2016 Results • Comparison with previous years Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 20 of 532 wr EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Gore Creek above Black Gore Creek Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 21 of 532 odorof EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Downstream of Glen Lyon Bridge September 2017 Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 22 of 532 otexr EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 23 of 532 odrof EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Downstream of Glen Lyon Bridge Sam•le September 2017 6 Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 24 of 532 410.1 wr EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT East Vail Sample 7 Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 25 of 532 .410.1 EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Simulium vittatum: Collector-Filterer, Clinger Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 26 of 532 EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Hexatoma: Predator, Burrower 9 Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 27 of 532 EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Pseudodiamesa sp.: Collector -Gatherer S.rawler 10 Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 28 of 532 .410.1 EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Heleniella: Collector -Gatherer, Sprawler Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 29 of 532 Data Analysis 410.1 wr EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT MMI: Multi -Metric Index Measures overall health of aquatic communities in two biotypes EPT: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera Measures sensitive taxa HBI: Hilsenhoff Biotic Index Measures nutrient tolerant taxa Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 30 of 532 0d/wry EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Multi -Metric Index (MMI) • Combines 5-6 equally weighted metric values • Scores based on relative percent comparison to a reference condition • Values range from 0.0 to 100.0 • Higher values indicate better aquatic conditions MMI Biotype 2 50.1 - 100.0 Attainment 42.0 - 50.0 Grey Zone 0.0 - 41.9 Impaired Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 31 of 532 orr EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Gore Creek November 7, 2017 - Page 32 of 532 Woos or EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Gore Creek Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 33 of 532 o EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Gore Creek Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 34 of 532 EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Gore Creek MMI Fall 2009-2016 ►m 1misIn r 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 - 40 - 35 - 30 - 25 - 20 - 15 - 10 - 5 - 0 J (.4" Cease e ``ek - Qm �,a� Q�`k r° ae ce °ice <0'°ta ��°` C,t w `iee°,e��a P ez *17 Ns° recy woe N. 5~e9 sc,°' ■ 2009 ■ 2010 ■ 2011 ■ 2012 ■ 2013 ■ 2014 ■ 2015 2016 Attainment Threshold Impairment Threshold Passing score Failing score Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 35 of 532 wow EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Gore Creek MMI MMI Score 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 MMI Scores (Fall 2016) •Mean ❑2016 • 0 0 • BGC-aGC BOC-aG GC-aBGC GC -BP GC -EV GC -FP GC-aVTP GC-bVTP GC -SP GC-aER 18 Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 36 of 532 orof EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Gore Creek EPT 2009-2016 EPT Value 30.0 - 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 BGC-aGC 2009 ■ 2010 ■ 2011 ■2012 L 2013 ■ 2014 ■ 2015 ■ 2016 BOC-aG GC-aBGC GC -BP GC -EV GC -FP GC-aVTP GC-bVTP GC -SP GC-aER Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 37 of 532 odorof EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Gore Creek EPT Number of EPT Taxa 25 20 15 10 5 0 EPT Index Values (Fall) ❑Sep -16 • Mean 0 BGC-aGC BOC-aG GC-aBGC GC -BP GC -EV GC -FP GC-aVTP GC-bVTP GC -SP GC-aER 20 Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 38 of 532 orof EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Gore Creek HBI 2009-2016 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2009 2010 ■ 2011 2012 2013 ■ 2014 2015 ■ 2016 t BGC -a GC BOC-aG GC-aBGC GC -BP GC -EV GC -FP GC-aVTP GC-bVTP GC -SP GC-aER Q � Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 39 of 532 of EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Gore Creek HBI HBI Value 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 HBI Values (Fall 2016) •Mean 02016 • • • • 0 BGC-aGC BOC-aG GC-aBGC GC -BP GC -EV GC -FP GC-aVTP GC-bVTP GC -SP GC-aER 22 Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 40 of 532 wow EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT 23 Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 41 of 532 0d/wry EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Red Sandstone Creek Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 42 of 532 70 65 60 - 55 50 45 - 40 - 35 30 25 - 20 - 15 - 10 - wow EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Red Sandstone Creek MMI Fall 2009-2016 MMI Score 5 - 0 1 1 1 N▪ N N▪ N NN NN NN NCN\ NN N s. N At U.S. Forest Service Above Sandstone Creek Boundary Club Above 170 Above Gore Creek ■ 2011 ■ 2012 ■ 2013 1.2014 12015 ■ 2016 AttainmentThreshold ---- Impairment Threshold Passing score Failing score Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 43 of 532 odwr EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Red Sandstone Creek EP 2011-2016 EPT Value 25 - 20 15 10 - 5 0 1 ■ 2011 2012 R 2013 ■ 2014 2015 2016 RSC -FB RSC-aSCC RSC -a170 RSC-aGC Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 44 of 532 .410.1 oroprf EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Eagle River Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 45 of 532 istrAr EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Eagle River MMI Fall 2009-2016 MMI Score 80 75 70 - 65 60 - 55 50 45 - 40 - 35 - 30 - 25 - 20 - 15 - 10 - 5 0 1 I ■ Biotype 2 (50) MI Ira MEI PEE MIME _ I MI ■ rWII._Pi Biotype 1 (52) ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ ■ • 1 ■ 1 i ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 , • 1 . ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 i ■ ■ ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 de"- L teems G 2 cr 31GOie ,eQ ."oa 0e\o LoJi�e \C%L$�� `be O 44 \o4. I O�Qgrresay t�, 4 ■ 2009 ■ 2010 ■ 2011 ■ 2012 ■ 2013 ■ 2014 ■ 2015 ■ 2016 --- Attainment Threshold -- Impairment Threshold 11 Passing score Failing score Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 46 of 532 wow EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT • Stress to aquatic life generally increases in areas with greater urban development • Some evidence of improvements in the upper portions of Gore Creek • Most Eagle River MMI scores were near the impairment threshold Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 47 of 532 wr. EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Questions 30 Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 48 of 532 odorof EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Eagle River EPT Number of EPT Taxa 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 EPT Index Values (Fall) T ❑Sep -16 • Mean • 0 0 ER-aGC ER-bGC ER-aATP ER-bATP ER-bAGC ER-bEDWF ER-bLC ER-bETP Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 49 of 532 oroff EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Eagle River HBI HBI Value 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 HBI Values (Fall 2016) ♦ Mean ❑2016 0 0 0 0 • 0 } 0 • • ER-aGC ER-bGC ER-aATP ER-bATP ER-bAGC ER-bEDWF ER-bLC ER-bETP 32 Clean Water. Quality Life.TM November 7, 2017 - Page 50 of 532 TOWN 19F9 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: The Vail Valley Foundation will present the opportunity for Vail to host one stage of the 2018 Colorado Classic on Friday, August 17, 2018. PRESENTER(S): Mike Imhof, Vail Valley Foundation ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: No action requested. Informational and discussion purposes only. BACKGROUND: The Colorado Classic & Velorama Festival is a professional bike race and music festival including an expo and food & beverage offerings. The event producers are currently scheduling their 2018 schedule and stage locations. The VVF is interested in acting as the host organizer for a stage in Vail and partnering it with their Whistle Pig music festival event occurring the same weekend. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends exploring the opportunity of one stage of the Colorado Classic in Vail on Friday, August 17, 2018. ATTACHMENTS: Description Colorado Classic Memo to Council November 7, 2017 - Page 51 of TOWN OFD Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Economic Development Office Date: November 7, 2017 Subject: Colorado Classic & Velorama Festival - Vail Stage 2018 Action Requested: Information and discussion only. No formal action required. Timeline: Since the announcement of the Colorado Classic, staff has had informal conversations with the organizers in an effort to learn more about the event and its future plans. The Vail Valley Foundation (VVF) informed staff the week of October 16th that they had received an RFP from the Colorado Classic for one or two stages to take place in Vail in 2018. The VVF and staff have had multiple meetings and conversations regarding the RFP's logistics, financial considerations, and details over the past two weeks. Staff presented the event concept to the CSE at their regular meeting on Wednesday, November 1, 2017. The CSE was very receptive of the event and offered to support it however needed. Background: Professional cycling returned to the State of Colorado with the Colorado Classic & Velorama Festival taking place over four days in August 2017. The Colorado Classic race included four stages; Colorado Springs, Breckenridge, and two days in Denver. The Velorama Festival in Denver included headliner music acts Wilco and Death Cab for Cutie, a large expo, local breweries, local food, and additional ancillary events. The event returns for its second year in 2018 over four days from August 16 — 19. This weekend in August was identified by a VLMDAC task force as a "need weekend" in terms of increasing occupancy rates in the Town of Vail. The event producers are currently solidifying the 2018 schedule and stage locations. The VVF would act as the host organizer or "local organizing committee" for the event. The VVF and staff have had multiple meetings and it was determined that logistically and financially it makes sense to move forward with the goal of securing one stage as opposed to two. The possibility of two stages was discussed between the VVF and staff but the costs are significant and begin to outweigh the potential return. The VVF is proposing one stage on Friday, August 17th followed by a new music festival at Gerald R Ford Amphitheater titled Whistle Pig in partnership with AEG. The music festival would include opener(s) and a headliner on Friday and Saturday nights. 11/7/2017 Page 1 November 7, 2017 - Page 52 of Event Schedule & Details: The potential Friday stage and weekend schedule of events could be as follows: Friday, August 17, 2018 - Race to start and finish in Vail Village - Race format would be a criterium style race o 6-10 laps on a route that starts in Vail Village and circles the Town of Vail - Village activation to include expo, food & beverage, and ancillary activities - Paid concert at the Gerald R Ford Amphitheater with opener(s) and headliner act Saturday, August 18, 2018 - Potential for amateur cycling and/or professional women races and events - Village activation to include expo, food & beverage, and ancillary activities - Paid concert at the Gerald R Ford Amphitheater with opener(s) and headliner act Future Stages Beyond 2018: Looking beyond 2018 there is potential to secure a long term partnership with the event producers to bring at least one stage of the event to Vail every year or every other year. The VVF and staff are actively pursuing to solidify a long term partnership for this event in Vail. The goal is to avoid the USA Pro Cycling Challenge model of bidding on a stage every year. This would allow the VVF and Town of Vail to build and grow on the event over the long term. Next Steps: The VVF will present to the Council further details regarding the event schedule, economic impacts, costs, and future stages. This presentation is informational and will be open to discussion for Council to learn more about the events. If Council is open to the events, the VVF will return with a formal funding request on November 21, 2017. 11/7/2017 Page 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 53 of TOWN Of9 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Presentation of the Commission on Special Events (CSE) funding allocations for 2018 Cultural, Recreational and Community Events and Education and Enrichment Programming PRESENTER(S): Mark Gordon, Commission on Special Events ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Informational only. No formal action required. BACKGROUND: The CSE received 49 proposals in response to the RFP for 2018 events/programs that was issued in August. "Special Event Rating Criteria" was used to evaluate all proposals with respect to how they align with a strategic approach to providing a diverse calendar of events that are well matched to the Vail brand and will exceed the expectations of the Vail guest. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The CSE believes this is a strong calendar of events aligned with the Town Council's mission of providing our citizens and guests with "an abundance of recreational, cultural and educational opportunities" that will continue to drive increased results and contribute to providing thought provoking educational and life enriching opportunities. ATTACHMENTS: Description CSE Funding Allocations Packet November 7, 2017 - Page 54 of TOWN OF VAIL' Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Commission on Special Events Date: November 7, 2017 Subject: Commission on Special Events (CSE) funding decisions for 2018 Cultural/Recreational/Community (CRC) and Education/Enrichment (EE) proposals. Action Requested: Informational only. No formal action required. Background: The CSE presents the final decisions for 2018 CRC and EE funding allocations. The Town Code allows for an appeal of these decisions by 1) filing an appeal in writing within 10 days following the decisions of CSE (Oct 28); none have been received, or 2) Council has the option of calling up the CSE funding decisions within sixty days of the decision (before December 18, 2017). If neither of these actions occur, the funding decisions will be final. The CSE received 49 proposals in response to the RFP for 2018 events/programs that was issued in August, 41 of these were funded. The "Special Event Rating Criteria" was used to evaluate all proposals with respect to how they align with a strategic approach to providing a diverse calendar of events that are well matched to the Vail brand and will exceed the expectations of the Vail guest. Cultural, Recreational and Community Events are measured primarily with respect to how well they will drive destination overnight visitation. Education and Enrichment Programs are evaluated by how they contribute to life-long learning, a sense of well-being, and enhanced quality of life. The CSE believes this is a strong calendar of events aligned with the Town Council's mission of providing our citizens and guests with "an abundance of recreational, cultural and educational opportunities" that will continue to drive increased results and contribute to providing thought provoking educational and life enriching opportunities. New in the 2018 RFP process was the addition of an innovative, online software tool for both application submitters and CSE reviewers. This first year program roll-out was met with positive responses and experiences from event producers, board and staff. In addition, notable are the continued relationships the CSE holds with the Vail Economic Advisory Council, Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council and Event Review Committee. The CSE recognizes and values the diverse input from these groups and integrates that feedback into planning and decision-making. November 7, 2017 - Page 55 of 2017 Event Successes: • GoPro Mountain Games continues to have the highest level of support from the CSE. After successful expansion into Lionshead in 2017, they plan to move the Dock Dogs competitions there in 2018. In addition, the children's Adventure Village will be moved to Golden Peak. • The Community Art Programs for the Town of Vail program proved to be a winner for both locals and visitors. The program impressively garnered a 91 Net Promoter Score on their survey. • Taste of Vail expanded their brand to a new event "Fall Food & Wine Classic". Despite challenges with the weather, the event succeeded in creating a unique experience at Gerald R. Ford Amphitheatre. • Vail Craft Beer Classic was held for the first time in Vail, with over 30 breweries in attendance. For a new producer, they did well in navigating processes. The event returns for Father's Day weekend 2018 with a focus on increasing Vail business participation. New and Exciting Events/Programs for 2018: Community, Recreation and Cultural Events • Vail Lacrosse Tournament — 6/18-20: National youth lacrosse tournament in its 24th year. Games played over three days. • Vail Mountaineers Hockey Club — 11/2-4, 11/9-11, 11/16-18: VMHC has held the Vail Sportsmanship Hockey Tournament for almost 40 years. • The Steadman Clinic Vail Cup Series — 1/14, 1/28, 2/18, 3/18: Community event open to ages 15 and younger, free of charge as an intro to snow sports competition. • Legacy Fighting Alliance — May: Live Mixed Martial Arts sporting event, shown on AXStv, held at Dobson Arena. Education and Enrichment Events/Programs • TEDxVail — 2/8-11: TEDx was created in the spirit of TED's mission, "ideas worth spreading." It supports independent organizers who want to create a TED -like event in their own community. Overview of Event Effectiveness — Economic Survey Results: All publicly funded events are required to submit a post -event recap summarizing the event's strengths and weaknesses, contributions to the Vail economy and community. In 2017, the CSE chose to fund an independent, third party Economic Impact Survey, setting aside $53,328 out of their events budget. The CSE has determined to fund this initiative again for 2018. The survey results received to date have delivered an excellent picture of the economic benefits that the events program provides. A complete overview will be presented in February 2018 once the final data is compiled. 11/7/2017 CSE 2018 Funding Summary Page 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 56 of Topline 2017 survey data: ✓ $19 million direct economic impact to Vail's businesses generated by 22 events tracked in 2017 ✓ $18 economic impact payback ratio generated by the 22 events evaluated (i.e. $18 in incremental economic impact per dollar of TOV event funding) ✓ $0.61 tax payback ratio generated by the 22 events evaluated (i.e. $0.61 in incremental TOV & VLMD sales taxes per dollar of TOV event funding) The table below shows financial results and other key performance indicators for 22 events that were surveyed in 2017. There are two more events to be included in the 2017 data, Taste of Vail, Fall Food & Wine Classic and Outlier Offroad Festival. The figures below are considered very conservative as not all events were surveyed in this year's program. There are a total of 44 events/programs in the Community, Recreation and Cultural, Education and Enrichment and Council funded categories. The 2017 survey covers half; the quantity of event surveys is based on budgetary constraints. Estimated Economic and Sales Tax Impact of TOV Special Events in 2017 (TO DATE) RRC Associates estimates 11/1/17 2017 Vail Special Events # of Events Evaluated to Date Total Direct Economic Impact Total TOV & LMD Tax Impact Economic Impact Payback Ratio Tax Impact Payback Ratio Attendee Days Direct Econ Impact per Attendee Day Overnight Visitor %* NPS* CATEGORY Budget TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVERAGE TOTAL TOTAL AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE CRC $ 515,500 17 $ 14,813,923 $ 474,496 $28.74 $0.92 92,832 $ 159.58 56% 56 EE $ 118,500 4 $ 529,601 $ 16,211 $4.47 $0.14 7,095 $ 74.64 21% 74 Council $ 404,000 1 $ 3,929,765 $ 142,165 $9.73 $0.35 22,200 $ 177.02 47% 66 Totals: $ 1,038,000 22 $ 19,273,289 $ 632,872 $18.57 $0.61 122,127 $157.81 49% 59 *Calculated as averages across events, with each event is weighted equally. Overview of Event Effectiveness — Measurement Tools: Analytical tools used by the CSE consist of monthly and bi-weekly DestiMetrics reports, sales tax data, on-going event survey program providing both qualitative and quantitative data for individual events, parking data, town of Vail community survey, as well as collecting feedback from the merchant/hotelier/restaurateur community In addition, the event criteria `scorecard' and its support tools such as the `marketing checklist' have proven very effective. Quantitative measures such as brand strength, marketing expertise, media leverage, and community integration continue to be monitored against established objectives. 11/7/2017 CSE 2018 Funding Summary Page 3 November 7, 2017 - Page 57 of 2018 Special Event Allocations -Strategic Overview J J J J J November 7, 20T7DFla Cif32VAIL rJ1'/JP/JJ=�JJ1J JI'J r \JL J� Barry Davis Chair, Commission on Special Events Mark Gordon Vice Chair, Commission on Special Events Samantha Biszantz Rayla Kundolf Marco Valenti Alison Wadey Kim Newbury-Rediker Town of Vail I Commission on Special Events I 11/7/2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 59 of 532 2 2017 CSE Successes • Based on independent third -party survey data, the 2017 to date total direct economic impact is $14,813,923 million on an investment of $515,000 for the Community, Recreation and Cultural category. (17 events surveyed thus far) • That's an average of $28.74 payback ratio per funding dollar. • Diverse board with representation from: lodging, real estate, retail, restaurant and chamber areas offers varied view points and experiential perspectives. • Implemented online RFP process for 2018, saving paper and staff resources. • Identified areas for further cooperation between event producers. (Labor Day weekend) • 2017 surveyed events with Net Promoter Scores over 80: • Community Art Events - 91 • GoPro Mountain Games - 94 • Kids Adventure Games - 87 `' • Gourmet on Gore - 85 • Betty Ford Alpine Gardens - 83 Town of Vail I Commission on Special Events I 11/7/2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 60 of 532 3 2018 Newly Funded Events - Community, Recreation & Cultural Events Vail Lacrosse Tournament Funded: $5,000 Requested Funding: $15,000 Dates: 6/18 - 6/20 Afifr •VAIL• LACROSSE TOURNAMENT Event Description: • National youth lacrosse tournament in it's 24th year. Games played over three days. • Youth lacrosse is one of the fastest growing industries in the U.S. and 50% of the teams travel from outside of Colorado. Attendees: 2,000 athletes, 3,000 visitors Funding Usage: • Provide more onsite activation with staff and promoters of other activities in Vail. • Increase ease of booking reservations and planning other activation and ancillary events in Vail. • Improvement of marketing and brand awareness. Funding Reasons: • Great brand alignment • Strong producer qualifications Town of Vail I Commission on Special Events I 11/7/2017 TOWN OF VAIL November 7, 2017 - Page 61 of 532 4 2018 Newly Funded Events - Community, Recreation & Cultural Events Vail Mountaineers Hockey Club Funded: $7,500 Requested Funding: $20,000 Dates: Vail Sportsmanship Tournament • Bantam & Midget Division - Friday, November 2-4 • Pee Wee Division - Friday, November 9-11 • Squirt Division - Friday, November 16-18 Attendees: 1,200 athletes, 3,500 spectators Event Description: • VMHC has held the Vail Sportsmanship Hockey Tournament for almost 40 years. • Tournament is set up on 3 weekends in Nov. leading up to ski season and Thanksgiving. (Age groups 8-15 years) Funding Usage: • Cover costs for more qualified referees and medical trainers at every event. • Increase children's ice time this year with no fee increase to provide access to as many children as possible. Funding Reasons: • Occupancy need weekends • Bring in destination guests Town of Vail I Commission on Special Events I 11/7/2017 TOWN OF VAIL. November 7, 2017 - Page 62 of 532 5 2018 Newly Funded Events - Community, Recreation & Cultural Events The Steadman Clinic Vail Cup Event Series Funded: $2,500.00 Requested Funding: $5,000 %/d, I SNS VJr6[7nRr•3 t:1 !JR vr.11 Dates: • 1/14 - Slopestyle - Golden Peak Terrain Park & Giant Slalom - Black Forest Race Arena • 1/28 - Halfpipe - Golden Peak Terrain Park & Giant Slalom - Golden Peak Main Arena • 2/18 - Moguls - Black Forest Arena & Giant Slalom - Golden Peak Main Arena • 3/18 - Little Big Mountain - Head First Trail & Giant Slalom - Golden Peak Main Arena Event Description: • Community event open to ages 15 and younger, free of charge as an intro to snow sports competition. • For both local and visiting families to come together to enjoy this community event and compete at Vail. Attendees: 750 athletes, 600 spectators Funding Usage: • Offset the cost of the event as no entry fee is charged. • Bibs, awards, staffing and hill usage. Funding Reasons: • Support local community • Accessible, free event, any child can enter Town of Vail I Commission on Special Events I 11/7/2017 TOWN OF VAIL. November 7, 2017 - Page 63 of 532 6 2018 Newly Funded Events - Community, Recreation & Cultural Events Legacy Fighting Alliance Funded: $17,500 Requested Funding: $25,000 Dates: May Event Description: • Live Mixed Martial Arts sporting event. Start at 5:30 pm, with main card on AXS TV at 7:00 pm. • Event will consist of up to 12 professional sanctioned bouts, held at Dobson Arena. • AXS TV is a tv network dedicated to providing the best in music programming and festivals, comedy performances, current events and mixed martial arts promotions. • AXS TV is a partnership b/n founder Mark Cuban, AEG, Ryan Seacrest Media, Creative Artists Agency (CAA), CBS axso Attendees: 50 athletes, 2800 spectators on site, 300-500K domestic viewers for live event Funding Usage: Talent acquisition Lodging, flights and travel expenses for talent/crew/staff Marketing/Advertising Funding Reasons: • Marketing reach and strength — 45 million homes, 188 PR media outlets, 41K fan emails, 26K Facebook • Activation in the community - local youth martial artists and their families in demonstrations and exhibitions • Benefit from the impact of a nationally televised sporting event from Vail • Bring guests into town at off peak times in May TOWN OF SIA I L Town of Vail I Commission on Special Events I 11/7/2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 64 of 532 7 2018 Newly Funded Events -Education & Enrichment TDXVaiI TEDxVail Funded: $15,000 Requested Funding: $25,000 Dates: 2/8-2/11 X = independently organized TED event Event Description: • TEDx stands for Technology, Entertainment, and Design. • Generate fresh ideas by including speakers in the audience, encourage them to meet the attendees, connect them via app/social media/adventures before/during/after TEDxVail, as well as design social spaces for interactions and new ideas related to Vail Valley. Attendees: 900 attendees, TBD # of post event TEDxTalks video views Funding Usage: • Produce professionally edited videos of our TEDxTalks and upload them to the TED channel on YouTube, the videos will remain up on the internet. • The funds will be used to offset production costs, such as marketing, venue rental, a/v equipment rental, professional editing services and production crew, high definition livestreaming equipment. Funding Reasons: • Event producer was very responsive to CSE requests to move event and ancillary activities to Vail • Strong brand fit with Vail, partnership with well-known educational programming platform Town of Vail I Commission on Special Events I 11/7/2017 TOWN OF VAIL November 7, 2017 - Page 65 of 532 8 Looking Ahead: 2018 Strategies &Actions Review existing event scorecard criteria and event categories for RFP process: ✓ Adapt to economic conditions ✓ Expand categories as needed ✓ Align with new town council strategy/ direction Encourage evolution of successful existing events: ✓ Extend event days — mid week ✓ Increase/diversify programming ✓ Optimize location and footprint Address areas for improvement with event producers: ✓ Require conditions placed on their funding ✓ Ongoing check in with staff about producer performance Remain mindful of event attendance volumes: ✓ Analyze Destimetrics occupancy reports ✓ Study community, intercept and event surveys for insight into guest experience ✓ Review parking counts ✓ Board actively attends events, first-hand experience Continue commitment to fund independent, 3rd party surveys for designated events: ✓ 2018 will be the 3rd year for collecting event survey data. Town of Vail I Commission on Special Events I 11/7/2017 TOWN OF VAIL November 7, 2017 - Page 66 of 532 9 QUESTIONS? THANK YOU November 7, 2017 - Page 67 of 532 Commission on Special Events: 2018 Education & Enrichment Category: $151,500 Event Name Event Start Date Event End Date 2018 Final Funding Allocated (Preliminary until 12/19/17) Vail Centre Programmatic Support 1/1/2018 11/30/2018 $ 45,000.00 Vail Symposium 2018 Season 12/7/2017 8/31/2018 $ 35,000.00 Vail Veterans Winter Family (Jan) & Winter Mountain Adventure (March) 1/21/2018 3/9/2018 $ 18,000.00 Betty Ford Alpine Gardens 11/1/2017 9/30/2018 $ 15,000.00 TEDxVail 2/1/2018 2/4/2018 $ 15,000.00 Community Art Events for the Town of Vail 1/1/2018 12/31/2018 $ 12,500.00 Starting Hearts: 2nd Annual Day of Learning 8/23/2018 8/25/2018 $ 7,000.00 SKI for MS 2018 2/24/2018 2/24/2018 $ 4,000.00 8150 High Altitude Entrepreneurs - VailBiz Challenge 3/4/2018 4/28/2018 $ - Benches on Bridge Street 7/16/2018 8/31/2018 $ - Project Funway 2018 2/10/2018 2/10/2018 $ - Total $ 151,500.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Commission on Special Events: 2018 Community, Recreation & Cultural: $837,290 Event Start Date End Date 2018 Final Funding Allocated (Preliminary until 12/19/17) 2018 GoPro Mountain Games 6/7/2018 6/10/2018 $ 84,790.00 Vail America Days 7/4/2018 7/4/2018 $ 70,000.00 Vail Craft Beer Classic 6/14/2018 6/17/2018 $ 68,000.00 Gourmet on Gore 8/31/2018 9/3/2018 $ 60,000.00 Vail Oktoberfest 9/7/2018 9/17/2018 $ 60,000.00 Vail Summer Bluegrass Series 6/27/2018 7/18/2018 $ 50,000.00 Taste of Vail Spring Wine & Food Classic 4/4/2018 4/8/2018 $ 45,000.00 Kids Adventure Games 8/8/2018 8/12/2018 $ 40,000.00 Vail Farmers' Market & Art Show 6/17/2018 10/7/2018 $ 35,000.00 Spring Back to Vail 3/31/2018 4/15/2018 $ 30,000.00 Vail Snow Days 12/14/2018 12/16/2018 $ 30,000.00 Kick It 3v3 Soccer World Championships 7/27/2018 7/29/2018 $ 30,000.00 Vail Holidays 2018 12/15/2018 12/31/2018 $ 26,000.00 Vail Outlier Offroad Festival 9/21/2018 9/23/2018 $ 25,000.00 Taste of Vail Fall Wine and Food Classic 9/20/2018 9/22/2018 $ 20,000.00 Legacy Fighting Alliance 2/3/2018 12/15/2018 $ 17,500.00 Vail Lacrosse Shootout 6/24/2018 7/4/2018 $ 15,000.00 Vail Family Fun Fest 6/23/2018 8/4/2018 $ 15,000.00 Skate Vail's "Melee in the Mountains" 4/27/2018 4/29/2018 $ 12,000.00 Pink Vail 2018 3/24/2018 3/24/2018 $ 10,000.00 2018 Vail Valley Cup 10/5/2018 10/7/2018 $ 10,000.00 Vail Yeti Hockey Club 1/5/2018 12/29/2018 $ 10,000.00 PBR West Championships 7/12/2018 7/15/2018 $ 10,000.00 Vail Farmers Market Farm to Table Series 6/29/2018 8/10/2018 $ 9,000.00 Vail Arts Festival 6/22/2018 6/24/2018 $ 8,000.00 Vail Mountaineers Hockey Club 8/5/2018 4/19/2019 $ 7,500.00 Vail King of the Mountain Open 6/16/2018 6/17/2018 $ 7,500.00 Vail Beaver Creek Restaurant Week 2018 9/28/2018 10/7/2018 $ 7,500.00 Vail Whitewater Races Series 5/8/2018 6/5/2018 $ 7,000.00 Vail Lacrosse Tournament 6/18/2018 6/20/2018 $ 5,000.00 2018 Colorado Grand 9/14/2018 9/15/2018 $ 5,000.00 Vail Automotive Classic 9/7/2018 9/9/2018 $ 5,000.00 The Steadman Clinic Vail Cup 1/14/2018 3/18/2018 $ 2,500.00 Adaptive Spirit Annual Event 4/4/2018 4/8/2018 $ - World Figure & Fancy Skating Championships & Festival 9/27/2018 9/30/2018 $ - MC Presents art and antiques 8/2/2018 8/4/2018 $ - Slow Fashion Vail 9/22/2018 9/23/2018 $ In the Hearth of the Rockies 5/26/2018 5/27/2018 $ - Total $ 837,290.00 1 of 1 PRELIMINARY Cultural Recreation Community Funding Allocations_10.18.2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 69 of 532 10/19/2017 TOWN OF VAIL Commission on Special Events I RA'7T COMMISSION ON SPECIAL EVENTS MEETING Antlers at Vail, Pronghorn/Caribou/Whitetail Room Monday, October 9, 2017 @ 7:30am AGENDA: Meeting materials can be accessed at the following link: http://bit.ly/2xbkgUO CSE Members Present: TOV Staff Present: Others Present: CSE Minutes Mark Gordon Alison Wadey Barry Davis Rayla Kundolf Samantha Biszantz Kim Newbury Rediker Marco Valenti Laura Waniuk, Event Liaison Specialist Ernest Saeger, Special Events Coordinator Alan Himelfarb, Starting Hearts Amy Lewis, EFEC Eugenia Seyferth Ski and Snowboard Club Vail Anya Strauss, TEDxVail Doug Clayton, 8150 High Altitude Entrepreneurs Stevenson Farnsworth, TEDxVail Casey Parliament, Vail Mountaineers Zach Bloom, Vail Mountaineers Charla Blizzard, Vail Mountaineers Laurie Asmussen, Eagle Valley Events Christine Albertson, Pink Vail Chris Chandler, Taste of Vail Krista DeHerrera, 10th Mountain Roller Dolls Carrie Mae Week, 10th Mountain Roller Dolls Leon Fell, King of the Mountain Volleyball Brian Hall, Vail Family Fun Fest Helene Matteson, Kids Adventure Games Beth Pappas, Vail Rec District / Kids Adventure Games Mike McCormack, Vail Outlier Off-road Festival Karen Courrtland Kelly, World Fancy & Figure Skating Chris Harguth, Prep Baseball Reports October 9, 2017 Page 1 of 7 November 7, 2017 - Page 70 of Richard tenBraak, Vail Automotive Classic Andy Linke, Kids Adventure Games Peter Moore, Prep Baseball Reports Doug Landin, Vail Automotive Classic Bob Ruder, Vail Automotive Classic Helene Mattison, Kids Adventure Games Eddie O'Brien, Colorado Grand Lisa Reeder, Kids Adventure Games James Deighan, Highline Liz James, Vail Centre Colleen Davis, Vail Centre Joel Rabinowitz, Vail Rec District Brittany Zanin, Aspen Chamber Baily Rose, Slow Fashion Vail HoIli Snyder, Colorado Mountain News Network Mark Bricklin, Colorado Mountain News Network Kris Sabel, Vail Symposium Becca Aliber, Vail Veterans Program Lauri O'Brien, Can Do MS Colette Carey, Adaptive Spirit Liz Campbell, Betty Ford Alpine Garden Mac Garnsey, Vail Valley Foundation Sarah Frankie, Vail Valley Foundation Travis Yoakum, Vail Valley Soccer Cup Kerri Thelen, Vail Valley Soccer Cup Kristen Horpedahl, Vail Craft Beer Classic Jason Ornstein, Vail Craft Beer Classic Charles Blair Law III, Slow Fashion Vail Sven Bean, Legacy Fighting Alliance CSE Chair, Barry Davis, called the meeting to order at 7:33am. Administrative Items Approval of the Minutes of the CSE Meeting on September 6, 2017 ➢ Motion to approve the minutes of the CSE Regular Meeting on September 6, 2017 as presented. M/S/P: Kundolf/Biszantz/Unanimous. The motion passed 7-0 Review financials/Survey Results: Waniuk noted that the CSE is on track to pass 2016 economic impact and will know for sure when remaining surveys come in. 2018 Budget: CSE Minutes October 9, 2017 Page 2 of 7 November 7, 2017 - Page 71 of Waniuk noted the same as last year. Meeting Reminders: o September: RFP System Training for CSE, set up appt before 9/20 o September 25: RFP Due by 4:OOpm MST o September 29: RFP + information provided to CSE for scoring o October 3: Work session with Town Council o October 4: NO REGULAR CSE MEETING o October 9: RFP Meeting #1 (The Antlers at Vail) — 7:30am-7:30pm o October 11: RFP Scoring due by 8:OOpm o October 18: RFP Meeting #2 (The Antlers at Vail) — 8:30am-5:OOpm o November 7: Presentation to Council of 2018 funding decisions o November 1: Regular CSE Meeting — 8:30am o November 14: CSE 2018 Allocations to be presented to VEAC — 8:OOam o November 16: CSE 2018 Allocations to be presented to VLMDAC — 8:30am o December 18: Last day for Council call-up for funding decisions Application Deadlines and Interview Dates for CSE applicants: Interviews at Town Council Work Session on Tuesday, December 19. Deadline for letters of interest due to the Town Clerk, Patty McKenny, by Friday, December 8. o CSE members whose terms expire on December 31, 2017 are Rayla Kundolf, Samantha Biszantz and Kim Newbury-Rediker. Event Recap: *motion to release final funding disbursement required Prep Baseball Reports West Championships Please see presentation for further details. Harguth noted they want to expand the all star team program to the tournament. Harguth noted their goal in 2017 is 75 teams. Harguth said they are going to partner with the national Prep Baseball Report organization to increase out of state teams. Harguth said the goal is to have enough rooms booked to only offer host hotels in Vail. Harguth noted negative comments were about parking, lack of shade, and coach's communication. Motion to approve the final funding distribution to Prep Baseball Reports West Championships M/S/P: Wadey/Valenti /Unanimous. The motion passed 7-0 Event Recap: *motion to release final funding disbursement required Vail Automotive Classic Please see presentation for further details. CSE Minutes October 9, 2017 Page 3 of 7 November 7, 2017 - Page 72 of TenBraak noted they did not have their Wheels and Wings event because the jet center was under construction but will have it there in 2018. Landin noted local sponsorship support through Costco and Vail Valley Jet Center. Gordon confirmed there was no down valley component. Gordon asked if the event is coming back in 2018 and if it does, are they keeping the larger footprint in Vail. TenBraak said their footprint is limited in Vail Village due to Oktoberfest and Farmers' Market. Gordon asked if they are having Friday night event in Vail. TenBraak confirmed that they are. Wadey asked how much was raised for charity. TenBraak said $8,000-$9,000 which was for Vail Valley Veterans. ➢ Motion to approve the final funding distribution to Vail Automotive Classic M/S/P: Valenti/Wadey /Unanimous. The motion passed 7-0 Event Recap: *motion to release final funding disbursement required Kids Adventure Games Please see presentation for further details. Mattison noted they grew to about 50 teams in 2017. Mattison noted they sold out in three days in 2017. Mattison noted they changed the expo to Thursday and Friday in 2017 as opposed to Friday and Saturday. Wadey asked if the charity is announced through the Cliff Kid program and that it be included in the recap next year. Davis asked if Toyota is still under contract. Mattison said they will be back but not sure what level yet. Gordon asked how many total events. Mattison said 8 events and 19 total race days. Davis said he thinks they are improving event logistics. Kundolf asked where volunteers come from. Mattison said sports clubs, Battle Mountain High School, SOS, and Boys & Girls Club. Pappas said volunteer recruitment is always a challenge. Reeder added that the older kids who race the first day come back on course and help the next two days. Wadey asked if there is going to be a championship. Mattison said that is her goal and they need to figure out a date in the Town of Vail in September. ➢ Motion to approve the final funding distribution Kids Adventure Games M/S/P: Rediker/Valenti /Unanimous. The motion passed 7-0 Event Recap: *motion to release final funding disbursement required Gourmet on Gore Please see presentation for further details. CSE Minutes October 9, 2017 Page 4 of 7 November 7, 2017 - Page 73 of Deighan noted that attendance was up but Saturday was down which has never happened. Deighan noted that Hurricane Harvey affected the attendance. Deighan noted that Labor Day weekend is challenging to grow due to the limited space and they actually reduced the number of vendors in 2017 to allow more pedestrian space. Deighan suggested having the conversation of Farmers' Market skipping that weekend and Vail Rotary Duck Race moving to another weekend. Davis asked if Gourmet on Gore could be moved to another weekend. Deighan said no, the four day weekend is key and people plan for it. Kundolf noted that the Vail Rotary Duck Race is not a CSE funded event and is a challenge. Wadey added that the Vail Rotary Duck Race is a good complement for kids. Deighan noted they had additional activation on the Gore Creek Promenade and Gourmet, Let's Go! Wadey asked how much they donate to Vail Veterans. Deighan said near $10,000 total through two different donations. Motion to approve the final funding distribution to Gourmet on Gore M/S/P: Kundolf/Biszantz /Unanimous. The motion passed 7-0 Event Recap: *motion to release final funding disbursement required Kick It 3v3 Soccer World Championships Please see presentation for further details. Cramer noted that they were sold to Grand Sports Management in 2017. Gordon asked if the purchase adds staff for preparation. Cramer said yes and Brandon London will be assigned to Vail. London confirmed that they will have more staff and resources to focus on Vail and Colorado. Cramer added that they have a solid financial foundation through their new ownership. Motion to approve the final funding distribution to Kick It 3v3 Soccer World Championships M/S/P: Kundolf/Rediker/Unanimous. The motion passed 7-0 Event Recap: *motion to release final funding disbursement required Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Please see presentation for further details. Campbell said that the CSE funding allows them to expand on their educational programs. Campbell added that they added a three day photography trip. Campbell noted they are only capturing contact information from 10% of visitors. Campbell noted that Betty Ford Alpine Gardens is listed as the #2 place to visit in Vail on TripAdvisor. Waniuk noted their great net promoter score of 83. Waniuk added that the e-mail collection and marketing was much improved. CSE Minutes October 9, 2017 Page 5 of 7 November 7, 2017 - Page 74 of Motion to approve the final funding distribution to Betty Ford Alpine Gardens M/S/P: Valenti/Kundolf/Unanimous. The motion passed 7-0 Event Recap: *motion to release final funding disbursement required Slow Fashion Vail Please see presentation for further details. Rose noted the weather was not very good. Rose said they captured as much media as they could to gain sponsorship traction with Fashion Revolution for 2018. Gordon noted that the public was happy and that it was a positive experience. Gordon added that it would be beneficial for the event to extend to Sunday to capitalize on Farmers' Market traffic. Davis asked if there was any feedback from local retailers. Rose said they had three local retailers and all participated or want to participate in 2018. Waniuk added that she would like to help with marketing at an earlier date. Y Motion to approve the final funding distribution Slow Fashion Vail M/S/P: Rediker/Valenti/Unanimous. The motion passed 7-0 Event Recap: *motion to release final funding disbursement required Vail Centre Programming Please see presentation for further details. Davis noted that they added a new board member, Stephanie Copeland who is in the Governor's Office. Davis said they have improved their partnerships and relationships with organizations like the Colorado Non -Profit Association and the Denver Chamber of Commerce. Davis said they increased their level 100 graduates significantly. Davis said they hosted a webinar with Yale University that had 500 participants from all over the world. Waniuk said the Entrepreneurship class was great. Waniuk asked how they plan to add participants to their university classes. Davis said through increased marketing and utilizing partnerships such as with the Governor's Office. Saeger noted that they did not use all of their granted in-kind days at Grand View and also canceled a lot of them last minute. Saeger added that this needs to be addressed in 2018. Saeger and Waniuk said they apologize for their video not working. Waniuk said she will e-mail it to the CSE for them to view. ➢ Motion to approve the final funding distribution to Vail Centre Programming M/S/P: Wadey/Valenti/Unanimous. The motion passed 7-0. CSE Minutes October 9, 2017 Page 6 of 7 November 7, 2017 - Page 75 of CSE Minutes October 9, 2017 Page 7 of 7 November 7, 2017 - Page 76 of CSE 2018 RFP Presentation and Discussion Schedule Antlers at Vail, Caribou/Pronghorn/Whitetail Room; October 9, 2017 7:30 a.m. — 6:30 p.m. EDUCATION/ENRICHMENT (EE): cf: Colleen Davis Vail Centre Programming Jan 1-Dec 31 Vail Centre $60,000 Biszantz suggested better environmental initiatives at events such as eliminating bottled water and paper print outs. Biszantz asked if there is a better way to hold attendees accountable for their certificate. Davis said many of the courses had pre-work and tasks that attendees were assigned. Davis noted that hopefully the Entrepreneurship program was the first in a series. Waniuk added that the price point of $99-$199 is the right range. Kundolf asked if there are more opportunities for sponsorship. Davis said corporate sponsorship is not a priority to keep the education courses clean and unbiased. Davis added that they are looking into partnerships with Walking Mountains for the Yale University Sustainability class. Davis noted that they do ask for money for events such as the Torch Light Gala. cf: Lauren Merrill Community Art Events for the Town of Jan 1-Dec 31 Alpine Arts Center $18,000 Vail Merrill said they are proposing 20 events that are more activation orientated. Merrill said they want to draw in passerby attendees. Merrill said they plan to have events at Gerald R Ford Amphitheater during Tuesday Hot Summer Nights concerts. Merrill said their funding request would reduce the fee to $20 per person. Merrill said they would encourage attendees to shop in local retailers and have dinner at restaurants afterwards. Davis confirmed that the Gerald R Ford Amphitheater was not funded by CSE in 2017. Merrill said yes. Davis asked where other funding is coming from. Merrill said revenue comes in from class registration. Rediker asked how many participants at each event. Merrill said it would be 40 participants. Merrill said they sold out a number of events in 2017. Biszantz asked if pricing needs to change for the events that are selling out. Merrill said she'd look at it but may lose locals at a higher price. Kundolf suggested finding a sponsor to help with materials supply. Waniuk added that their Net Promoter Score was 91 and the comments were very positive. Rediker asked if not funded at $18,000 does that mean fewer events. Merrill said yes, number of events would decrease and would seek direction on activation events vs. normal events. cf: Kris Sabel Vail Symposium Programming Jan 1-Dec 31 Vail Symposium $45,000 Sabel noted that each of their programs reach a broad audience. Sabel noted that their largest source of fund ng is private donations. Sabel noted that event registration is increasing but does not increase revenue dramatically. Gordon asked how many events are in Vail. Sabel said 80% of 40 events which depends on venue availability. Sabel confirmed that the number of events proposed in Vail is staying the same. Sabel said that 90% of their winter events are in Vail. Rediker added that many of the guests at The Antlers enjoy attending their programs. Rediker asked how they are partnering with other properties to promote this. Sabel said they can do a better job working with concierges to promote their events. Sabel added that they are fine tuning their marketing to capture a larger audience. Rediker said they do a great job aligning with the Vail brand. Sabel said resources are scarce but is a goal to increase attendance. cf: Becca Aliber Vail Veterans Jan 21, March 9 Vail Veterans' $20,000 Program Aliber noted that they are rated a Gold Standard for veterans' therapy because they allow families and partner staff to attend their programs. Aliber added their alumni engagement is very positive. Aliber said that attendees shop, eat, and stay in Vail. Davis asked how much funding they get from other events in the Town of Vail. Aliber said she will get back to the CSE with the actual amount or percentage. Saeger noted that Highline uses them as their non-profit liquor license holder. Wadey asked if they have a strategy for regional and national marketing. Aliber said they focus more on public relations articles as opposed to marketing. cf: Doug Clayton 8150 High Altitude Entrepreneurs — March 4 — April 28 8150 High Altitude $10,000 VailBiz Challenge Entrepreneurs November 7, 2017 - Page 77 of Clayton said they have 150 people on their e-mail list. Clayton said that Summit County has one of these type of events, but it is not very successful. Clayton said he received $4,000 from Avon in the past but canceled the event and refunded the money. Clayton said the funding would be prizes as seed money for participants. Davis asked what didn't work in Avon. Clayton said they wouldn't let them use the word Vail and the Avon brand wasn't going to attract participants. Kundolf asked where this event takes place. Biszantz asked what the dates are. Clayton said dates are flexible and ideally in the Grand View first and then into Donovan during mud season. Wadey asked who would be on judges. Clayton said local entrepreneurs such as High Country Kombucha, Liberty Skis, Moe's BBQ, etc. Rediker asked what the goal is for number of teams. Clayton said 15 teams and most teams are at least 2 people. Wadey asked how to recruit those teams. Clayton said posters in coffee shops and where entrepreneurs work in the Valley including websites that appeal to them. Biszantz asked what the overlap with Vail Centre is. Clayton said there isn't one and are more complimentary. Waniuk added that the new economic development strategic plan will include entrepreneurship. Waniuk asked if $5,000 prize will be attractive enough. Clayton said yes and he will also have in-kind prizes to offer. Wadey suggested making sure they apply the Vail brand to their discussion and planning. cf: Alan Himelfarb 2nd Annual Day of Learning August 23-25 Starting Hearts $12,500 Himelfarb said they plan to add a walk on the Vail Rec Path. Himelfarb said that Phillips Heart Care is going to continue as sponsor. Himelfarb said that they hope to have Drew Logan join them next year as a speaker and to be in the walk. Himelfarb said they want to be the national leader in heart education similar to Susan G Komen for breast cancer. Himelfarb said there are going to be over 30 defibrillators in the Town of Vail in the next two years. Himelfarb said they are asking for more money to fund their national speaker and the walk. Gordon confirmed that the national speaker and the walk is the reasons for increased funding ask. Himelfarb confirmed and noted they are also adding another day to their event. Rediker asked if the speaker will be at Donovan. Himelfarb said yes. cf: Amy Lewis Project Funway February 10 eFec $10,000 Lewis said they want to open it up to designers in Summit County and possibly the Front Range. Lewis said the move to February will help with funding. Lewis said the event will take place at Dobson. Kundolf asked if there is a theme and if the adults and kids actually make the outfits. Lewis said yes they can make the designs with anything but fabric. Kundolf asked if they auction them off. Lewis said no but they use them as displays at the following year's event. Rediker said she is concerned that the funding may be used for operating costs and not the event. Lewis said they have other programs that support their foundation. Lewis said they host events to raise money to support their foundation to then solicit donations. Gordon asked if they paid for Dobson. Lewis said they received a 50% discount from Vail Rec District. Gordon noted that the CSE funds events and does not fund charities. Lewis said the events operating budget is around $40,000 and that the CSE funds would go specifically towards the event operations. Davis asked what attendance would be. Lewis said they had 460 in 2017 and they were competing with the Grand Tasting at Taste of Vail. Lewis said she believes it will be higher with new date in February. cf: Lori O'Brien Ski for MS - A Jimmie Heuga Memorial February 24 Can Do Multiple $5,000 Event Sclerosis O'Brien said they hope to increase participants to 200-250 mainly through additional marketing in the Front Range. O'Brien noted that Tyler Hamilton will be attending again in 2018. O'Brien said the additional money will be used for additional ski team members and Front Range marketing. Davis asked how many participants there were in 2017. Waniuk noted they had 150. Wadey asked where new participants would come from. O'Brien said Front Range. Waniuk asked if they partner with local businesses. O'Brien said yes and hope to improve this. Wadey asked for other locations. O'Brien said they have 6 other locations where they have the event but Vail is the only current Colorado location. cf: Holli Snyder Benches on Bridge Street July 16 — August Colorado Mountain $35,000 31 News Media November 7, 2017 - Page 78 of Snyder said it would be 15 functional art pieces that would be on display mid July through August. Snyder said she is working with Art in Public Places and that it would be an ongoing event. Snyder noted that Vail Daily and Colorado Mountain News Media would help significantly with marketing. Valenti asked if this would displace the current benches. Snyder said she is working with Art in Public Places on locations and probably wouldn't all be on Bridge St. Biszantz noted that in other locations she has seen businesses sponsoring each individual art installation. Snyder said she is open to it and wants to make sure that the non-profits don't have any costs. Wadey asked if Art in Public Places is funding. Snyder said she asked but did not receive any funding. Kundolf noted that Bravo did a similar program with violins and that businesses may support the artists. Snyder said artists are local and the non-profit would be able to choose their artist. Wadey asked if they are providing the benches. Snyder said they are creating them from scratch. Waniuk asked how it is ensured that the designs are on brand with the Town of Vail. Snyder said it would be part of their application with a board that would review a sketch. Rediker asked for clarification of the event. Snyder said they are on display for 4-6 weeks followed by an auction with proceeds going back to non-profits. Kundolf asked if they build off-site. Snyder said yes except for possibly one event in partnership with Alpine Arts Center. Biszantz asked how much full page ad in Vail Daily costs. Bricklin said around $1,200. Kundolf said the art magazine spread is around $2,900. Wadey asked about cross promotion with other events. Snyder said yes and that they would utilize social media. Gordon asked where the funding is going. Snyder said it is going to website, digital branding, application creation, insurance, and security. Waniuk noted that if funding is lower the number of benches may go down. Saeger added that finding 15 spots in the Village may be difficult. Wadey added that Lionshead would be a good option. cf: Liz Campbell Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Programming January 1— Betty Ford Alpine $20,000 September 30 Gardens Campbell said they will host an exhibit on rivers and another on Patrick Dougherty for an art installation in Ford Park through Art in Public Places. Gordon asked what the installation is going to be. Campbell said he uses Willows and creates structures that people enter/exit such as villages. Kundolf asked if Art in Public Places is providing funding. Campbell said Art in Public Places is paying for structure and Betty Ford Alpine Gardens is hosting the photography exhibit, possibly a movie, and a speaking engagement. Waniuk asked why they are asking for more funding in 2018. Campbell said costs are higher for their programs such as virtual reality. Campbell said their goal is to increase quality not quantity. Campbell added that they do have a lot of donors but not a lot of sponsors. Rediker noted that parking challenges at Ford Park negatively affects net promoter scores for many events at Ford Park. cf: Anya Strauss TEDxVail February 1— 4 TEDxVail $25,000 Gordon asked where the event will take place in Vail. Strauss said there will be a rehearsal dinner on Thursday and Friday in Vail. Strauss said the daytime Saturday event would like to be in Vail. Strauss said the Sunday event will take place in Vail once they are confirmed as an official TEDx organization. Strauss said they have a hold on Lion Square Lodge. Strauss said they want to host the entire event in Vail and want feedback from the CSE. Wadey said she would expect the entire event to be in Vail for the request of $25,000. Coughran said there is not a venue in Vail that has theater seating for 500 and that they moved the event to Battle Mountain High School to make it more accessible for the Valley. Coughran said the Vail Mountain School is 40% smaller than Battle Mountain. Strauss said video production is a large percentage of the cost. Gordon asked if attendees are mostly local. Strauss said it is both and hotel partnerships do happen but speakers mainly stay at homes. Strauss said that 30% are destination guests. Kundolf asked if they fill the Vilar Performing Arts Center. Coughran said yes they mostly do. Coughran said Vail Mountain School seats 300. Rediker noted that venues on the Mountain do not contribute to Vail's sales tax. Rediker asked for relationship with Vail Symposium. Coughran said they are a partner only as a 501c3 but do not support financially and this allows them to manage money through their accounts. Wadey suggested utilizing Vail's hotels as much as they can. Coughran said it has to be during ski season. Coughran said Dobson would be too large and too expensive. Total EE Funding $260,500 Requested: CULTURAL/RECREATIONAL/COMMUNITY (CRC) November 7, 2017 - Page 79 of cf: Euginnia Seyferth The Steadman Clinic Vail Cup January 14 — March 18 Ski and Snowboard Club Vail $5,000 Seyferth said this event has been occurring for years and is a way for kids to start their snow sports competition. Seyferth said the series is free for any kid who wants to attend. Seyferth said that they have local lodging partners. Gordon confirmed that they are not submitting another event for funding. Seyferth said that the Junior Championships will not be here for the next two years but they will bid on it for 2019. Seyferth said in years past the funding is for increasing the quality of the event such as bibs for the kids. Seyferth said they have a website called Vailcup.com that is not live yet. cf: Angela Mueller, Taste of Vail: Fall Wine and Food Classic September 20-22 Taste of Vail $30,000 Chris Chantler Mueller said Taste of Vail is scheduled at a time to bring people to town when people usually aren't here. Mueller noted there were lifestyle events including biking, hiking, and yoga. Davis asked what the next level is. Mueller said they want to expand the grand tasting to include more wineries and to increase marketing. Gordon asked if they sold out. Mueller said they did at the number they set it at but there is room to grow. Chantler said they chose a manageable number based on food and beverage asks. Wadey asked if the fear is wineries may not attend if it isn't bigger. Mueller said yes and growth attracts sponsors and more wineries. Chris said they would increase marketing to bring more destination travelers. Rediker asked how much they want to grow. Mueller said they want to grow it 25%. Gordon asked why the funding is going up double. Mueller said that's because this is what they should have asked for in year one. cf: Angela Mueller, Taste of Vail: Spring Wine & Food Classic April 4-8 Taste of Vail $55,000 Chris Chantler Mueller said this event is happening April 4-8, 2018. Gordon asked what reinventing the grand tasting means. Mueller said it will be in a new location and smaller tables to increase attendee experience. Chantler said they are asking wineries to only showcase their very best. Kundolf asked if it is going to be a black tie affair. Mueller said she is discussing this idea. Gordon asked what the extra $15,000 is for. Mueller said for marketing and to have a Denver marketing event to engage the press. Biszantz asked why Rose moved to Arrabelle from The 10th. Mueller said The 10th isn't large enough. Chantler said they looked at the streets of Lionshead but got pushback from businesses. cf: Angela Mueller Vail Farmers' Market and Art Show June 17-October 7 Vail Farmers' Market and Art Show/ $40,000 Meadow Drive Partnership Mueller said she is looking at 17 Sundays in 2018. Mueller said that the estimated attendance in 2017 was 218,000. Mueller said she is going to add a chef series to link the Farm to Table Dinners with the Farmers Market. Davis asked if vendors have to commit to all. Mueller said they have some vendors that share tent space and/or swap weekends. Davis asked for her thoughts on Labor Day Weekend. Mueller said it is prime weekend for farmers and that yes it is very busy. Rediker asked why 17 weeks is needed. Mueller said that farmers have produce from June 17th to minimal amounts left in early October. Mueller added that the Farmers Market brings people into town. Kundolf suggested that craft vendors being eliminated from bigger weekends. Mueller said vendors may be lost if they aren't guaranteed their weekends. Wadey said she believes it is up to the Town of Vail to make a decision about Labor Day Weekend regarding the number of events. Gordon said that more than likely the guests in town are not complaining about the number of people in town. Mueller said they are going to talk to Gourmet on Gore as it relates to working together on a liquor license. cf: Angela Mueller Vail Farmers' Market - Farm to Table June 29th, July Vail Farmers' Market $11,000 Dinners 13th, August 3rd and Art Show/ Meadow Drive Partnership November 7, 2017 - Page 80 of Mueller said her staff drives to Palisade on Wednesday before the event to pick up fresh produce. Davis asked if any restaurants gave her negative feedback. Mueller said no she has not received any. Wadey asked what the feedback is for ticket pricing. Mueller said a small amount have said it is a little expensive but they are increasing to $110. Davis asked where increased funds would go. Mueller said it would go to marketing. Rediker said it is a great event that attracts a lot of out of town visitors. Wadey asked if restaurants are paid. Mueller said they supply product to the chefs who then make the meals and then speak. Waniuk said the guests were 32% overnight and 41% were second homeowners. cf: Angela Mueller Vail Holidays December 15th - REN Productions- $27,500 31 Does not include Fireworks- rqst Mueller noted they are adding an ugly sweater run in 2018 which will include brunches. Mueller said the Kris Kringle market will be over two days; Saturday and Sunday, ice skating at Solaris, and then the tree lighting. Mueller said a low quality ice skating event costs $45,000 minimum. Gordon asked what that is for. Mueller said talent, hotels, travel, and production costs. Kundolf commented that the schedule is early because most travelers don't arrive until the 18th or 19th of December. Waniuk said this schedule was put together by many of the staff at Town of Vail. Rediker said that locals are able to participate with the current schedule. Rediker also said she loves the ugly sweater race and suggested a Santa run similar to Breckenridge. cf: Karen Cortland World Figure & Fancy Skating September 27-30 World Figure & $20,000 Kelly Championships & Festival Fancy Skating Championships & Festival Waniuk said they received two days of in-kind use of Dobson. Kelly said two days at Dobson and two hotel rooms for two nights. Davis asked what the attendance was. Kelly said that they need more help and would like to fill the 600 person capacity. Davis asked where he could learn more about the event. Kelly said it is art that is skated on the ice and similar to National Geographic. Waniuk asked what the results were for the live streaming. Kelly said she will send it over. cf:Laurie Asmussen Vail Arts Festival June 22-24 Eagle Valley Events $16,000 Asmussen said she is in the process of forming a task force or advisory board to help grow and build the event Asmussen is looking at a strategic plan timeline of 3 to 5 years to get it to the end goal. Davis asked what the local gallery feedback is. Asmussen said the goal is to marry the artist and the local gallery. Kundolf said local galleries like the idea of an emerging artist. Wadey said the Lionshead merchants appreciate the activation. Gordon suggested talking to Lauren Merrill at Alpine Arts Center. Asmussen said absolutely and plans on it. cf: Cynthia Brooks MC Presents Art and Antiques August 3-5 MC Presents $10,000 Brooks confirmed dates are the Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Rediker asked how many people they see in a day. Brooks said they would see 1,000-1,500 in a day. Waniuk asked what the breakdown is between art vs antique. Brooks said it is generally 50/50. Davis asked where vendors come from. Brooks said all over the country. Kundolf asked if this is in any other Colorado towns. Brooks said no but in the past it was in Vail and once in Frisco. Davis asked why the event did not come back after 2009. Brooks said it was due to the economy and it wasn't profitable for the vendors. Brooks said they were doing it in Lionshead and that was not the clientele they were looking for. cf: Kristen Vail Craft Beer Classic June 14-17 Team Player $75,000 Horpedahl, Jason Production Ornstein November 7, 2017 - Page 81 of Horpedahl said they are expanding to 4 days with a Thursday dinner. Horpedahl said they will offer a "Shop Vail" program. Horpedahl said hopefully year two it will be easier to grow sponsorship and generate more revenue. Kundolf said not to forget about the Grand Junction market and to cross promote with their Breckenridge event. Horpedahl said they do cross promote with Breckenridge. Waniuk asked if their footprint is going to grow. Horpedahl said maybe a little but not much. Waniuk said how they will expand the tasting. Horpedahl said they are looking at offering flight tastings at the bar. Kundolf said to communicate with the Welcome Center to make sure people know it is happening. Valenti asked if there will be additional food offerings. Horpedahl said yes and Ornstein said they would like to pair the restaurants with the beer offerings. Gordon asked what the extra $7,000 is for. Ornstein said it is going right back into marketing. Saeger said that the Vail Valley Mountain Bike Association was their non-profit liquor license partner and thousands of dollars were donated to them which went directly back into our local trails. Wadey said it was the right time of the year. cf: James Deighan Spring Back to Vail April 14-16 Highline $40,000 Dieghan said pond skimming will take place on the final weekend of the season and Spring Back will take place two weekends prior. Dieghan said that Vail Resorts did get the message from Council and CSE that they want events to be bigger and better. Davis said we do not know Vail Resorts budget. Kundolf asked if the $40,000 is for pond skimming or the concert. Dieghan said it is for both and it adds to the talent budget for the concert. cf: James Deighan Vail America DaysTM 4-Jul Does not include $75,000 Fireworks- rqst $33,500 Deighan said the funding increase is out of necessity for items such as security. Deighan said it is hard to sell sponsorship for a one day two hour event. Kundolf said she would like to see more floats as opposed to trucks with advertisements. Waniuk added that this is a Town of Vail event that Highline manages. Wadey asked why this isn't a signature event and is still in CSE budget. Waniuk said it has been discussed, but not formally proposed to the Council by previous CSE's. Dieghan added that it has been discussed by several councils. cf: James Deighan Gourmet on Gore August 31— Sept 3 $75,000 Deighan said they need money and more space to make this event what it wants to be Davis asked if they can do it on another weekend. Deighan said no because it is a four day event and Memorial Day is needed. Deighan said he would be open to including farmers from the Farmers Market into the event. Kundolf suggested using the Gerald R Ford Amphitheater as an expansion. Deighan said this event needs to take place in the town. Deighan would like the Farmers' Market to be reduced in size and move the Vail Rotary duck race to Monday. Davis asked if there is any possibility to see this event on another weekend. Deighan said they would do a different type of event on another weekend but Gourmet on Gore cannot move. Gordon asked if we could move or extend the event down Meadow Drive since the hospital will have a new entrance. Deighan said why can't the Farmers Market move down there instead. Deighan asked why the Farmers' Market can't take one weekend off. Davis said the key to the Farmers' Market is consistency. Biszantz said the restaurants do well financially at this event which is very special. Wadey suggested having the conversation with Vail Rotary to move the Duck Race to Monday. Davis asked to walk away with three action items; 1. Moving the Vail Rotary Duck Race 2. Partnership with Farmers' Market to extend and include the event 3. Moving the weekend to a stand alone three day event. Deighan said he will have a conversation with his team about a different weekend. Rediker reiterated that the CSE funds have not grown but continue to receive higher asks from new and existing events. Davis asked for communication from Deighan so we can fund accordingly. cf: James Deighan Vail OktoberfestTM Sept. 7 - Sept. 9 $75,000 And Sept. 14 - Sept. 16 November 7, 2017 - Page 82 of Deighan noted that they stepped up their venue looks this year. Deighan noted that the Lionshead merchants love the event. Deighan said they would like to put up a huge tent in Solaris and extend to Gore Creek Dr but cannot because of Farmers' Market. Deighan said next year they would like to extend up l -Bridge on Saturday only. Biszantz asked if the $75,000 would allow them to expand to Solaris. Deighan said yes but it would take help from other partners. Davis asked if they could collaborate with Farmers' Market on Sunday to keep up the Oktoberfest tent. Deighan said there isn't enough space and there are liquor license issues. Davis asked if similar funding gets the same product but more money gets a bigger product. Deighan said yes and confirmed. cf: James Deighan Snow Days December 8 - 9 $40,000 Deighan suggested CSE and or council fund Snow Days as they have Spring Back to Vail in the past. Gordon noted that $64,000 was the highest amount ever funded for Snow Days. Deighan said that the $24,000 difference will not bring Rolling Stones but it does bring the talent level higher and crowd size larger. Kundolf noted that Vail Resorts wanted to move the event closer to Christmas. Waniuk asked if the event will be one concert night in 2018 as it is now scheduled to be in 2017. Deighan said yes. cf: Eddie O'Brien Colorado Grand September 14-15 Colorado Grand $10,000 O'Brien said the event includes about 270 participants. O'Brien said Ski Club Vail provided volunteers in return for a donation. O'Brien said they give out a Colorado Highway Patrol scholarship to each town they drive through of $8,000. Kundolf asked what the $10,000 is for. O'Brien said it is staying in the community and will be used for organizations like Ski Club Vail for volunteers. Waniuk added that per their RFP, the funds will be used for programs, decor, marketing, and finish line announcer. Gordon asked why it wasn't here in 2017. O'Brien said they had an internal conversation and felt they couldn't put it on this past year. Rediker asked that the scholarship recipient be from the Town of Vail. cf: Mac Garnsey GoPro Mountain Games June 7 -10 Vail Valley $85,000 Foundation Garnsey said they are looking at a new speed slacklining event. Garnsey said their big change is hoping to move all dogs over to Lionshead and Adventure Village to Golden Peak. Gordon asked why they asked for less this year. Garnsey said they aren't cutting anything and it is what they said they would do over the years. Gordon asked what events are outside the town. Garnsey said the Enduro due to early season conditions, Steep Creek Kayak in Red Cliff, and part of the disc golf event in Minturn. Wadey asked if they could be consciousness of retailers and the environmental impact of the swag that vendors are giving out. Garnsey said they plan on having one on one conversations with vendors to identify what they are giving out. Garnsey said they will do their best to not locate their vendors near competing retailers. Rediker said to educate where pets can and cannot go in Lionshead. cf: Chris Harguth Prep Baseball Reports (PBR) West July 12 - 15 PBR Colorado and $10,000 Championships 5280 Tournaments Harguth noted that they increased from 32 to 50 teams in 2017. Harguth noted the investment in fencing was a big improvement. Kundolf asked if 2018 dates are July 12-15. Harguth confirmed these are the dates. Waniuk asked if the dates are going to change. Harguth said they will not change as Ford Park is not available otherwise. Wadey asked if the timing was an issue. Harguth said it is a good weekend because it functions as an end of season final tournament. Waniuk suggested they include parking information in their program for 2018. cf: Chris Vail Yeti Hockey Club January 5 — Dec 7 Vail Yeti Hockey $25,000 Huntington Club November 7, 2017 - Page 83 of Huntington said they are going to play in the Black Diamond Hockey League comprised of Bozeman, Jackson, and Sun Valley. Huntington said they will still play in the Mountain West Hockey League. Huntington said they are going to have skating nights in Solaris, more involved with youth hockey players, and have a few family nights with games starting earlier. Huntington added that they will go up to six security guards at their games. Huntington added they would like home and away jerseys and provide bus trips for fans to out of town games. Wadey asked how many family nights. Chris said they plan on one in January and one in February with starting time of 6:30pm. Davis asked why he is asking for a large increase in funding. Huntington said they will use them for activation events, cutting travel and hotel costs, ice time fees, etc. Davis confirmed that the season would still happen if not funded fully. Huntington said yes it would but it would be very hard to be successful. Wadey asked if there is a team fee to players. Huntington said no there is not because they want the best talent they can get. Huntington said he is even looking into picking up player per diem as well. cf: Sven Bean Legacy Fighting Alliance TBD Legacy Fighting $25,000 Alliance Bean said they will have 30 nationally televised events in 2017. Vaughn with AXS TV Fights, Executive Producer, said their network is in over 40 countries and 50 million households. Davis noted that the criticism in the past is that this has not aligned with the Vail Brand. Bean said Vail has always been a place for sports and MMA has become a true sport with professional athletes. Bean said it is mixed martial arts and is about integrity and honesty. Bean said the viewership is very broad. Gordon asked what the date is. Bean said they are flexible to the extent of Dobson being available and can come during the down time in Vail. Gordon asked where the attendees are coming from. Bean said they create these us against them scenario and identify best ticket selling athlete and find the best opponent to compete against them. Davis asked if they receive funding from other markets. Bean said from casinos yes. Davis asked if they can do the event without funding. Bean said it could potentially be a break even at best but cannot give a firm answer because he would need to speak with partners and TV partners before confirming. Wadey asked what the ticket price is. Bean said it is $25-$100. Rediker asked if there is a community outreach component. Bean said yes absolutely and they have done this at other events. cf: Krista DeHerrera Skate Vail's "Melee in the Mountains" 29-Apr The 10th Mountain $12,000 Roller Dolls DeHerrera said the additional money will go towards labor for load-in/out for the skating floor. Gordon asked if they are still going to do the open skate dinner with the public. DeHerrera said yes and that they will move the mix up bout to Friday night instead of Saturday morning. DeHerrera said the Vail Rec District confirmed the dates are available. Kundolf asked what if 25 teams want to come. DeHerrera said the schedule and timing wouldn't allow for it. DeHerrera said the long term goal is to increase the number of teams and to be recognized from Women's' Flat Track Derby Association which would help with marketing support. Kundolf asked where teams would be coming from. DeHerrera said Idaho, Ohio, Utah, Nebraska, New Mexico, Wyoming, etc. cf: Zach Blom, Casey Parliament Vail Mountaineers Hockey Club All Year Vail Mountaineers Hockey Club $20,000 November 7, 2017 - Page 84 of Parliament said their events are to make hockey more affordable for participants. Davis asked what the funds are for. Blom said it helps bring the costs down for greater access for kids. Parliament said it is going towards the ice time over the weekend of the Sportsmanship Tournament. Davis asked if it is at Dobson. Blom said overflow is in Eagle. Davis asked what percentage. Blom confirmed that it is the smaller percentage of the games. Rediker said they bring people into town when we need them. Davis asked if there is in-kind from TOV. Blizzard said the Town of Vail gives 8 sessions. Blom said 8 sessions is about one half day. Kundolf asked if this is the usual timeframe. Blom said yes. cf: Kerri Thelen Vail Valley Cup October 5-7 Vail Valley Soccer $15,000 Club Thelen said there were 2,000 room nights in 13 hotels in Vail alone this past weekend. Thelen said their goal for 2018 is to expand games to being on Friday. Yoakem added that the event is a family affair and most come every year. Waniuk asked if there is room for growth in terms of number of teams. Thelen said they are not in competition with league play and are trying to create more divisions that are showcase level and encourage college coaches to attend. Rediker asked what they would do with the additional $5,000. Thelen said it would be used for staffing and to pay for college coaches to come. cf: Mark Foster Vail Lacrosse Tournament June 18 — 20 Vail Lacrosse $15,000 Tournament Foster noted that 50% of players travel to Vail from outside of Colorado. Foster noted that 90% of revenue is generated through team fees. Davis asked how $15,000 will help the event. Foster said a majority will be used for marketing and there are plenty of opportunities to expand their brand nationally. Foster said there is an opportunity to use Solaris Plaza for event activation. Davis asked if it sells out. Foster said yes. Wadey asked what the age group is. Foster said 11 years old to Juniors in high school. Wadey asked if families come for both lacrosse events. Foster said the gap between the events means a lot of coaches will stay but no direct competition. Wadey asked if they encourage teams to stay in Vail. Foster said they use Peak travel and have had Marriot as their host in the past. Rediker asked if the Vail Rec District has approved their dates. Foster said he will get an e-mail from them confirming. Wadey asked if Vail Mountain School is available next year. Foster said they are working on it with Joel Rabinowitz. cf: Beth Pappas Vail Whitewater Series May 8, 15, 22, 29, June 5 Vail Recreation District $8,000 Gordon asked why this event is the only Colorado mid week competition. Pappas said the venue of the I -Bridge is convenient compared to other areas. Pappas said the $2,000 in additional funding is to improve the spectator experience through a DJ and/or band and to buy branded race bibs. Gordon asked if this could be used in conjunction with the GoPro Mountain Games. Pappas said they could have the conversation but their sponsors differ and may conflict. cf: Leon Fell King of the Mountain Volleyball June 16-18 King of the $15,000 Mountain Volleyball Fell said they have an agreement with the AVP pro tour to bring their AVP first program which is a junior program and qualifier for the national championships. Fell said they have an agreement in principle with USA Volleyball to be a partner in their grassroots events. Fell said 2 or 3 of the top beach players will be coming to do the juniors clinic. Fell said they plan to work with the Vail Craft Beer Classic for marketing purposes. Fell said they are going to create a BBQ at the Vail Racquet Club for the families that are in town. Kundolf suggested partnering with the Vail Craft Beer Classic Fathers Day brunch. Fell said it conflicts with their play times. Gordon asked if he has hired someone to do the marketing and/or website. Davis asked if one of his team members left the organization. Fell said no and that he does November 7, 2017 - Page 85 of the operations. Fell said he brought in someone in the last minute that didn't work out well. Waniuk asked if he plans to update the website. Fell said he doesn't plan to update the look and feel. cf: Dan Cramer, Brandon London Kick-It 3v3 National Soccer Championship July 27 - 29 $40,000 Cramer said they added more out of state teams in 2017 including 7 teams from Oklahoma. Gordon asked if the new ownership will help with resources. Cramer said yes it will. Gordon asked what would happen if we went back to a regional level event. Cramer said it is difficult for them to put it on. Waniuk asked how they take the event quality up a notch. Cramer said they have a team in place, have the resources of marketing agencies, and will increase their social media presence. Cramer said they have more events in Colorado. Gordon said it is important that they go back to their survey results and make sure they read the comments from their attendees. cf: Beth Pappas, Helene Mattison, Vail Kids Adventure Games August 8-12 Kids Adventure Games, LLC $40,000 Andy Linke Pappas said they think they can grow race numbers by tweaking some elements of the race. Pappas said they may have clinics for younger kids and work with local organizations to bring in more educational type elements. Gordon asked how many other events. Mattison said nine events. Gordon asked how many of the other provides funding. Mattison said five. Linke added that Vail is the only five day event as opposed to 2-3 days at other events. Waniuk noted the ancillary events will help grow the event. Wadey said it is a sure thing that they are going to knock it out of the park. Gordon noted they are asking for $40,000 but they got $42,000 in 2017. Valenti said that their venue and operational plan changes were great. Rediker suggested partnering with a non-profit and ask them to provide volunteers as a way for them to raise money. cf: Mike Outlier Offroad Festival Sep 21- 23 Uncommon $35,000 McCormack Communications/ Greenspeed Project McCormack noted that they were up against weather and the threat of weather. McCormack said Saturday demo was up, XC race was down, and Enduro was up. McCormack said they would like to have an invite only downhill race, extend the enduro to three days, and add demo passes to all race participants. McCormack would like to look at moving to Lionshead and is in discussion with Vail Mountain. McCormack would like to add cheap tacky cover band music in bars and add pub crawls. Gordon asked where the $10,000 would go. McCormack said it would extend to talent and purse. Gordon said there could be more work down promoting that this event is coming and happening. Davis noted that the website wasn't updated this summer and would like to see it updated earlier. Kundolf added that the marketing and communication for awareness should be increased. McCormack agreed and will do a better job next year. cf: Jim Soran by Vail Lacrosse Shootout June 24-July 4 International $20,000 Lacrosse Promotions Gordon asked what the extra $5,000 in funding request is for. Soran said it is for marketing to try and expand some divisions. Gordon asked if it is for more spectators. Soran said yes. Valenti asked why the dates cannot be changed. Soran said it is the same dates they have been for 40 years and is traditional. Biszantz asked if they are going to expand vendors. Soran said yes and already has at least one new vendor for 2018. Wadey asked if they plan on growing their community involvement. Soran said yes, they plan on getting in touch with the local lacrosse players to participate. November 7, 2017 - Page 86 of cf: Baily Rose Charles Blair Law III Slow Fashion Vail September 22 - 23 Baily Rose & Blair Law $23,600 Law noted that they originally projected for 10 vendors and they had 12 and hopes to increase that by at least 50% in 2018. Law said they would use more resources toward marketing which was a guerilla strategy in 2018. Rose said they would like to help vendors curate their product for the Vail market. Gordon asked how much they asked for last year. Law said $38,000. Gordon said it was very impressive that they pulled it off with the $5,000 that CSE awarded them. Kundolf asked what the sponsorship partnership was. Law said the vendors helped with educational signage and not as much financially. cf: Colette Carey Adaptive Spirit Annual Event April 4 — 8 Adaptive Spirit $40,000 Carey said it is a networking event for the telecommunication industry. Kerry said they are going out to dinners with large groups. Rediker asked if they overlap with Taste of Vail. Carey said yes and also have with Pink Vail. Carey said their home base has been the Cascade. Carey said their major gala is in Cascade. Carey said they are starting to see the importance of having the Vail community involved. Carey said the funding would go specifically to a tent or viewing area on Saturday race day for the public to attend. Wadey asked where the conference attendees are coming from. Carey said predominantly from the US but some International. Gordon asked if it is instructional. Carey said it is mainly a teaching event and have had speakers such as the chairman of the FCC. Gordon asked what the money is going toward and how does it benefit the Town of Vail. Carey said the money would go to a tented or seating area at the race so the public can attend and be involved. Rediker asked if they would still have the event if the funding amount was lower. Carey said they would use what they received and that the $40,000 was specifically from bids to create this viewing area. Kundolf confirmed that this is for one day. Carey said it would be for one day. cf: Loida Alegre In the Hearth of the Rockies October 12th- In the Hearth of the $15,000 October 14 Rockies Alegre said the event will support the Eagle River Youth Coalition. Wadey said this is scheduled as presented on Memorial Day Weekend. Davis asked where participants will come from. Alegre said it will be regional and partner organization MOPS, Mothers of Preschoolers has a large database. Wadey asked who the contestants are. Alegre said this year it would be mothers who love to cook but in the future it could be grandfathers, etc. Wadey asked if she has thought about partnering with local restaurants and chefs. Alegre said yes that is a goal. Rediker asked how this is an attraction beyond the contestants. Alegre said it would be a silent auction with a main event competition and dinner as a charity fundraiser. cf: Ariel Rosemberg Vail Summer Bluegrass Series June 27, July 4, July 11 & July 18 Lakeside Stride $50,000 Rosemberg said his dates are confirmed. Rosemberg said he is looking at continuing partnerships with Bud Light, Antlers, and Never Summer. Rosemberg said they are hoping to enter a float in the Vail America Days parade since they have a concert that night. Rosemberg is proposing to start the 4th of July concert content at 2pm or 3pm to help keep people around after the parade. Rosemberg plans on hosting Bluegrass in the Gardens again except for the 4th of July. Kundolf suggested making the float a quality float. Davis asked what the beer sales were like. Rosemberg said they had about $10,000 in beer sales but a majority of that revenue goes back to the Arrabelle. Gordon asked if they could sell tickets to a VIP area. Rosemberg said they tried it and it resulted in more confusion than anything but won't rule it out. Gordon said maybe its side tables with food. Wadey said they had a VIP area behind the stage for Vail Jazz and may be an option. Rosemberg said he will continue to look at options. Davis asked if not funded at $50,000 what would happen to the event. Rosemberg said the content and talent would decrease and would do his best to have the event at the same level if funding was lowered. November 7, 2017 - Page 87 of cf: Christine Albertson Pink Vail March 24 Vail Valley Medical Center $15,000 Albertson noted that their net promoter score went up to 79 with their move to Golden Peak. Wadey asked how Golden Peak worked. Albertson said it was great and accommodated the crowd. Waniuk asked what the extra $5,000 would be used for. Albertson said they would advertise through social media, digitally and radio. cf: Brian Hall Vail Family Fun Fest June 24, July 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 & Aug. 5 Blue Creek Productions, Inc. $22,400 Hall said they would like to add an entertainment or kid's stage for performances. Kundolf asked what the additional funding request wou d be used for. Hall said it is going to be put it into marketing and promotions. Wadey said Lionshead merchants love the food traffic but he needs to improve marketing and communications. Waniuk said his imagery is great and suggested adding an Instagram account. Hall agreed. cf: Rich TenBraak Vail Automotive Classic September 7 - 9 Vail Valley Concours $7,500 TenBraak noted that they plan to attain more sponsorship in 2018. Davis asked who may be new in 2018. TenBraak said Barret Jackson is coming back and hope to secure more. TenBraak said Slaugh took a full time job but hope to continue to partner with her. TenBraak said they have hired Erin Holden specifically for sponsorship. Gordon said RFP had Friday night BBQ at Vail Valley Jet Center. TenBraak said they haven't confirmed schedule details but hopes to have cocktail reception in Vail on Friday or Thursday. Gordon noted the more events that are done in Vail the better. Ruder added that by starting the event in Vail, people are more likely to book lodging in Vail. Valenti asked if there is going to be an auction in 2018. TenBraak said they are hoping to have one but still needs to confirm the partnership with the third party auctioneer. Total CRC Funding $1,158,000 Requested: ➢ Motion to adjourn the October 9, 2017 CSE special meeting at 6:39pm. M/S/P: Wadey/Valenti/Unanimous. The motion passed 7-0 November 7, 2017 - Page 88 of TOWN OF VAIL Commission on Special Events IRPFT COMMISSION ON SPECIAL EVENTS MEETING Vail Town Council Chambers Wednesday, October 18, 2017 @ 8:30am AGENDA: Meeting materials can be accessed at the following link: http://bit.ly/2z0zufS CSE Members Present: TOV Staff Present: Others Present: Mark Gordon Alison Wadey Barry Davis Rayla Kundolf Samantha Biszantz Kim Newbury Rediker Marco Valenti Laura Waniuk, Event Liaison Specialist Ernest Saeger, Special Events Coordinator Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Angela Mueller, REN Events Joel Rabinowitz, Vail Rec District Danita Dempsey, Fest, LLC CSE Chair, Barry Davis, called the meeting to order at 8:33am. Administrative Items Approval of the Minutes of the CSE Meeting on October 9, 2017 Motion to approve the minutes of the CSE Regular Meeting on October 9, 2017 as presented. M/S/P: Valenti/Rediker/Unanimous. The motion passed 6-0 (Wadey absent) Review financials/Survey Results: Waniuk noted that these have not changed since last week's meeting on October 9th Final 2018 CSE Budget: CSE Minutes October 18, 2017 Page 1 of 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 89 of Waniuk asked that the CSE votes on fireworks funding. ➢ Motion to approve the fireworks funding at the same amounts as 2017. M/S/P: Kundolf/Valenti/Unanimous. The motion passed 6-0 (Wadey absent) Meeting Reminders: o October 18: RFP Meeting #2 (The Antlers at Vail) — 8:30am-5:OOpm o November 7: Presentation to Council of 2018 funding decisions o November 1: Regular CSE Meeting — 8:30am o November 14: CSE 2018 Allocations to be presented to VEAC — 8:00am o November 16: CSE 2018 Allocations to be presented to VLMDAC — 8:30am o December 18: Last day for Council call-up for funding decisions Application Deadlines and Interview Dates for CSE applicants: Interviews at Town Council Work Session on Tuesday, December 19. Deadline for letters of interest due to the Town Clerk, Patty McKenny, by Friday, December 8. o CSE members whose terms expire on December 31, 2017 are Rayla Kundolf, Samantha Biszantz and Kim Newbury-Rediker. Discussion 2018 Funding Allocations (See Below) CSE Minutes October 18, 2017 Page 2 of 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 90 of CSE 2018 RFP Presentation and Discussion Schedule Antlers at Vail, Caribou/Pronghorn/Whitetail Room; October 18, 2017 8:30 a.m. — 6:30 p.m. EDUCATION/ENRICHMENT (EE): cf: Colleen Davis Vail Centre Programming Jan 1 -Dec 31 Vail Centre $45,000 Kundolf said she hears the younger leadership program is good. Saeger said it is not a youth leadership program and had participants of all ages in his leadership class. Biszantz said they need to focus sponsorship to increase revenue. Gordon said they are partnering with impressive universities for their programs. Wadey said they are very mindful of their pricing models which help our locals. Rediker noted that it is rather expensive compared to credit hours at a top 20 college/university. Rediker said they need to bring their costs down. Gordon said it is an important part of education in our community. Gordon said Vail Symposium is leisure learning while Vail Centre is educational. Wadey noted they give out scholarships to locals. Valenti noted that Saeger had mentioned their abuse of in-kind which shows they may be bad stewards. Saeger noted their in-kind ask for use of Donovan and Grand View. Davis asked if they fund at a lower amount than last year due to abuse of in-kind. Waniuk noted that the CSE can designate funding to specific programs. Davis suggested funding at $45,000. Biszantz suggested they reduce their swag and increase their sustainable practices. Gordon asked if they were surveyed. Waniuk said yes it was. Waniuk noted their survey was only through their university programs. cf: Lauren Merrill Community Art Events for the Town of Jan 1 -Dec 31 Alpine Arts Center $12,500 Vail Kundolf said it is an educational experience for both the commun ty and our guests. Davis said it is a fantastic event and pointed that the CSE has a limited budget. Valenti said it is great that she has a willingness to add onto other events. Gordon said they should request she activates at other events. Davis said pencil in at $12,000. Gordon said this might be the only event they are raising. Biszantz said she would like to see activation at other events and to keep the current events. cf: Kris Sabel Vail Symposium Programming Jan 1 -Dec 31 Vail Symposium $35,000 Kundolf said with extra funding they could really improve their programming. Redikers said their programs and reach are much better than the past. Rediker said they continually try to grow and have a great new Executive Director. Valenti said he does support their programming but they need to continue to change. Biszantz said they need to evolve and their current demographic is 50+. Wadey said they are capable of turning it around. Davis suggested they need to close their generation gap and ask that they work on their digital and social media marketing. Waniuk noted that they have had a lot of turnover due to limited resources and funding. Saeger noted that they are asking for $40,000 of in- kind use of Grandview and Donovan. Davis said pencil in $35,000. cf: Becca Aliber Vail Veterans Jan 21, March 9 Vail Veterans' $18,000 Program Davis suggested penciling in $18,000. Valenti said he wants to stay at $20,000 because of what they have done on a national stage. Gordon asked if their event in Florida is called Vail Veterans. Valenti said yes. Rediker said she is at $20,000 and this event does bring people into town and puts heads in beds. Davis said a discussion needs to occur whether this and Pink Vail need to move out of the Education and Enrichment category. Kundolf said she is ok with $18,000 and that a lot of events in town use them as their non-profit. Gordon said he is open to $20,000 but would rather hold the extra $2,000 until their budget shakes out. Wadey said they need to step up their national program and that they have been receiving a lot of money from other for profit events. Biszantz noted that there are many donors such as Larkspur that gives them revenue. Davis asked if they can apply as a CRC event next year. Kundolf agreed and that they need to work on national awareness. Waniuk noted that this event is not open to the public. Valenti said the interaction with veterans in town is the activation. Gordon said they should add a ski with or meet and greet with the vets. Davis said they should add a community event such as a ski down to a reception. Rediker said she does not want to make this required but rather have it as a conversation to see if it makes sense. Biszantz asked that they not have the November 7, 2017 - Page 91 of same dates as Burton. Saeger said Burton's dates are a week later this year due to it being an Olympic year. cf: Doug Clayton 8150 High Altitude Entrepreneurs — March 4 — April 28 8150 High Altitude $0 VailBiz Challenge Entrepreneurs Kundolf said it is a great opportunity for our community. Biszantz said this should be part of Vail Centre and not a stand alone event. Davis said a $5,000 prize would not go far for entrepreneurs. Wadey said there are examples of entrepreneurs being successful in our community and this could only increase. Biszantz said it did not seem like he was very organized. Waniuk suggested asking for a business plan and schedule if funded. Valenti said it is not a good platform to fund someone on the basis that they may have to return it if it doesn't work. Davis said to pencil in at $3,000. Valenti asked to add feedback to promoter. Valenti suggested reducing funding of 8150 High Altitude Entrepreneuers. Saeger said he is asking for Donovan and Grand View in-kind. Biszantz said she does not understand the event and is it for only people in Vail. Wadey said they plan to recruit from Boulder to put heads in beds. Gordon suggested he work on his plan further and reapply in 2018. Biszantz said she does not believe it should be for Boulder businesses. Rediker suggested asking to come back next year with a better plan. Valenti said let him know he made it through the first round with funding but was ultimately cut. cf: Alan Himelfarb 2"d Annual Day of Learning August 23-25 Starting Hearts $7,000 Biszantz asked where the walk is going to take place. Saeger said it starts at Donovan and goes towards Lionshead on the Vail Rec Path. Saeger said their event with their bus is on the International Bridge. Gordon said non-profits and for profits should be funded the same based on their actual event, not on the philosophy that is a non-profit vs. for profit organization. Wadey said the event was packed and had educational sessions with doctors and nutritionists. Wadey said they have a great reach and is a good brand for the Town of Vail to partner with. Kundolf said she attended their gala and there were many stories from attendees who spoke to the education. Rediker asked if it would be a great brand in Edwards or is it a good brand because it is in Vail. Rediker suggested they should go to Vail Health for support. Davis said pencil in at $7,000. Waniuk suggested changing the name of the event and adding Vail to the name. Biszantz said it is a great weekend and could be the summer Pink Vail. cf: Amy Lewis Project Funway February 10 eFec $0 Davis said it is a new event to Vail and it was a fun event at the Westin. Davis said the event encourages sustainable practices. Gordon said it is similar to Pink Vail and they spoke too much about it being a charity. Wadey said it is a straight charity ask, not an ask for event funding. Saeger said they have asked for Dobson in-kind and their date is the same as TEDxVail. Rediker said it felt like a charity ask and not for the event. cf: Lori O'Brien Ski for MS - A Jimmie Heuga Memorial February 24 Can Do Multiple $4,000 Event Sclerosis November 7, 2017 - Page 92 of Davis said it is on brand and the event has deep Vail roots. Wadey said it is a great activation with music and volunteers. Valenti suggested $4,000 in funding. cf: HoIli Snyder Benches on Bridge Street July 16 — August Colorado Mountain $0 31 News Media Wadey said it could be cool but is tough. Davis said he saw the potential for conflict with art galleries and artists. Valenti said the space does not exist for her planned number of benches. Kundolf said they would have to pick good artists. Gordon said this could be submitted as a CRC event in 2019. Waniuk confirmed that Art In Public Places did not fund this event. Kundolf suggested Colorado Mountain News Media sponsor their own event. cf: Liz Campbell Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Programming January 1— Betty Ford Alpine $15,000 September 30 Gardens Kundolf said they have great programming for all. Gordon agreed but said he needs to take into account the CSE budget and suggests keeping the level the same as a true compliment. Valenti said the sculpture would be a great addition. Davis said the CSE needs an umbrella to roll up all educational programs. Davis said it is purely ambient, world class, but a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money they receive from donors and other organizations. cf: Anya Strauss TEDxVail February 1— 4 TEDxVail $15,000 Davis noted they are going to move the event to Vail. Gordon said it is on brand with Vail. Kundolf noted they do hit a lower age demographic. Davis confirmed it is a 3 day event with multiple speakers and multiple locations. Rediker said they have events at the Antlers. Valenti asked if the talks are posted on You Tube and available to all. Waniuk said yes. Wadey said it is unusual that they presented the event as not all being in Vail and then switching to Vail which eludes to their need for revenue. Wadey asked where they receive other funding. Waniuk noted their budget in their RFP. Davis said pencil in $15,000. CULTURAL/RECREATIONAL/COMMUNITY (CRC) cf: Euginnia The Steadman Clinic Vail Cup January 14 — Ski and Snowboard $2,500 Seyferth March 18 Club Vail Davis said this is a cool event because any kid can enter. Davis said the Town of Vail logo will be included on their bib. Davis asked if we fund them less will it happen. Gordon said yes. November 7, 2017 - Page 93 of cf: Angela Mueller, Chris Chantler Taste of Vail: Fall Wine and Food Classic September 20-22 Taste of Vail $20,000 Valenti said this is an opportunity to optimize the calendar. Gordon said he would give more money if he had it. cf: Angela Mueller, Taste of Vail: Spring Wine & Food Classic April 4-8 Taste of Vail $45,000 Chris Chantler Kundolf said she wants to make sure that the Rose event does not change. Gordon said it is a great event but the CSE does not have the budget to increase. Rediker said she increased funding because the event has improved over the past 3-4 years. Wadey asked Mueller if the lamb is donated. Mueller said most of the lamb is donated but not the equipment costs. cf: Angela Mueller Vail Farmers' Market and Art Show June 17 -October 7 Vail Farmers' Market and Art Show/ $35,000 Meadow Drive Partnership Wadey said she receives a lot of phone calls on how people can get on the wait list. Wadey suggested the possibility of increasing their vendor fees to alleviate reduced funding. Biszantz said lower funding level is mainly budgetary. cf: Angela Mueller Vail Farmers' Market - Farm to Table June 29th, July Vail Farmers' Market $9,000 Dinners 13th, August 3rd and Art Show/ Meadow Drive Partnership Davis said it is a great event and there is always great interest from pedestrians. Gordon said he keeps it the same due to budget constraints. Biszantz said the attendee has disposable income and believes that the price could be increased and that guests should have to pay a premium. Waniuk said the social experience of meeting different people is intangible. Rediker said this is a great partner event with other events already going on it town. Gordon noted that flat funding is an endorsement. cf: Angela Mueller Vail Holidays December 15th - REN Productions- $26,000 31 Does not include Fireworks- rqst cf: Karen Cortland World Figure & Fancy Skating September 27-30 World Figure & $0 Kelly Championships & Festival Fancy Skating Championships & Festival November 7, 2017 - Page 94 of November 7, 2017 - Page 95 of cf:Laurie Asmussen Vail Arts Festival June 22-24 Eagle Valley Events $8,000 Kundolf said she wants to see how this event can change and improve. Davis said he is concerned that is has been the same for years. Wadey said she hopes to grow and change it this year. cf: Cynthia Brooks MC Presents Art and Antiques August 3-5 MC Presents $0 cf: Kristen Vail Craft Beer Classic June 14-17 Team Player $68,000 Horpedahl, Jason Production Ornstein Rediker said they had a few bookings for the event which is good since the event is in Vail Village and The Antlers is in Lionshead. Davis said it is on brand and at a good time. Davis said staying flat this year is a compliment. cf: James Deighan Spring Back to Vail April 14-16 Highline $30,000 Biszantz asked what the Council funded. Waniuk said they approved the $100,000 funding earmarked for talent specifically. Davis confirmed that funding is for pond skimming. Biszantz said pond skimming would be the only closing day activity since the concert is two weeks prior. Valenti said it is a good closing day benefit. Gordon asked if pond skimming is needed. Valenti asked if partnership is with Vail Restors. Saeger said yes. Saeger said we would be one of the only mountain towns outside of Beaver Creek without pond skimming. Rediker said this event does not put heads in beds at any of the hotels she has worked at. cf: James Deighan Vail America Days"' 4-Jul Does not include $70,000 Fireworks- rqst $33,500 Kundolf said it is a great event and asks that they have more floats. Rediker confirmed that it was an increase in ask from 2016. Waniuk said insurance costs are part of the increased ask. Biszantz said she believes this ask is out of pure necessity and it is a great day in the Town of Vail. Waniuk said they do work hard for additional sponsorships. Gordon said the CSE budget is tight and would be ok with the same funding as last year. Rediker said she believes that the November 7, 2017 - Page 95 of Council should be funding this event and not CSE. cf: James Deighan Gourmet on Gore August 31— Sept 3 $60,000 Saeger noted that he proposed the idea of moving the duck race to Monday with Vail Rotary, however at this time they are not open to it. Rediker said a move to Monday would help Gourmet on Gore. Wadey said she believes the conversation can be continued. Rediker said the Antlers does not receive any bookings specifically for this event. Davis asked if there were any further conversations about collaboration with the Farmers Market. Saeger said no, not that he is aware of. Waniuk said their survey said 39% reason for coming to Vail. Biszantz noted that there are many events that are similar such as Taste of Vail Spring and Fall. Davis asked if they need to consider funding one of these style events more than other. Rediker said 62% said they come just for Taste of Vail. Waniuk noted that she sees this as a different demographic from Taste of Vail. Gordon suggested continuing working with Vail Rotary to move the duck race to Monday. Gordon suggested that Highline and Vail Rotary collaborate and co -promote the duck race. cf: James Deighan Vail OktoberfestTM Sept. 7 - Sept. 9 And Sept. 14 - Sept. 16 $60,000 Biszantz said it is a great two weekends. Saeger said he spoke with Solaris and they are open to the idea of a large tent over the ice rink. cf: James Deighan Snow Days December 8 - 9 $30,000 Biszantz said she decreased funding because it is now only one night of concerts. Biszantz said there could be more collaboration with Vail Holidays. Waniuk said the demographic is not the same between the two events. Gordon asked if they have announced a band. Saeger said no. Gordon said it is concerning since they have known for a year what their budget was. Rediker said the time has passed for Snow Days and the Antlers is a lodging partner but do not get any reservations. Rediker said snow is the driver at this time of year and not a concert. Biszantz said she would prefer Vail Resorts to support either Spring Back or Snow Days. Wadey said the fun factor of our town continues to decrease year after year and this would be chopping off another one. Gordon asked who the bands were in 2016. Saeger said Michael Franti and Lettuce. Davis asked if funding at $30,000 is worth it. Waniuk pulled up their survey and noted the visitor demographics. Gordon agrees with Wadey that we would be losing the fun aspect of Vail. Wadey asked Valenti how important this is to Vail Resorts. Valenti said he cannot answer that question since he is an agent of Vail Resorts. Waniuk said Vail Resorts marketing dollars are more focused on bringing a destination guest. Waniuk said their marketing strategy is not to put on a concert for in town guests or the community. Valenti asked if it is a full weekend of events. Saeger said they have vendors in Mountain Plaza. Valenti confirmed that strategic partners are on the mountain as well. Waniuk said Vail Resorts may evolve to only have their strategic partners as sponsors of this event and not be an owner of the event. Waniuk noted their history of funding. Waniuk said if funding is lower they would reduce marketing and it would take them longer to load-in/out. Gordon confirmed that the event will take place in Solaris. Wadey said are we funding this because Vail Resorts does not want to. Davis said the CSE does not know their strategy but wishes they did. Mueller said she understands that Vail Resorts budget is going to significantly decrease in 2019. Rediker said she believes it is tired and not interesting anymore. Waniuk suggested imagining how the Council may react if Snow Days is not funded. Biszantz said as a younger person and bar owner that people still get excited about Snow Days. Biszantz said all bars are slammed after all concerts. Davis confirmed that Biszantz funded at $30,000 because it is a one day event. Gordon suggested having a meeting with CSE, Vail Resorts, Staff, and Council to discuss strategy. Biszantz suggested cutting Spring Back and adding it to Snow Days because Spring Back is already receiving $100,000 from Council. Wadey said if fun events go away would it impact Vail Resorts because people would start to go elsewhere. Wadey said that most guests do not see the difference between Vail Resorts and Vail and it is not fair for one to cut and ask the other to support. Biszantz said early December will never draw families and it will be younger November 7, 2017 - Page 96 of people and locals. Rediker asked what the CSE funding percentage contribution is. Waniuk said it is small and Vail Resorts is putting in a lot more. cf: Eddie O'Brien Colorado Grand September 14-15 Colorado Grand $5,000 Davis said he believes that the event would come regardless of funding. Gordon and Wadey said they believe their brand is 100% on brand with the Town of Vail. Wadey said they have hired someone to be their admin and many were disappointed that it did not happen this year. Saeger noted their improved operations in 2017. cf: Mac Garnsey GoPro Mountain Games June 7 - 10 Vail Valley $84,790 Foundation Rediker said it is a great event but feels they are willing and able to find additional funding. Rediker said funding could go to other events. Kundolf agreed. Gordon said he liked that they reduced their funding ask this year and it may influence other events to do the same. Davis said he likes that they are moving dock dogs to Lionshead. Wadey said they did a great job increasing their sustainability but could still do better. Gordon asked how this event affects their businesses. Valenti said they partner with GoPro and it is a benefit but agrees that there are direct competitors in retail, food and beverage. Rediker said she has heard that a lot of attendees are day trippers and that's because hotels are full. Valenti said there are a lot of VIP groups coming into town. Biszantz asked if the decrease is fair. Gordon confirmed this is the first year they have asked for a decrease. Davis said this is a signature event and does not want to nickel and dime them. Davis suggested $85,000. Rediker asked why this isn't in the Council as a signature event. Saeger noted that staff has discussed this but believes that the CSE does a great job pushing this event to improve and grow. Gordon said it might be time to push Council to give money to CSE that is specifically earmarked for events like GoPro Mountain Games. Davis said they may be overstepping their boundary requesting Council funds. Valenti said as the CSE they need to speak with their dollars and agrees with the $85,000. Gordon said CSE should have a discussion with Council about increasing funding. Gordon said this discussion came up at Council on 10/17 and will be a conversation to continue. Davis said they need to be mindful of competition with retailers in town. cf: Chris Harguth Prep Baseball Reports (PBR) West July 12 - 15 PBR Colorado and $10,000 Championships 5280 Tournaments Rabinowitz said they need to do a better job with communications and planning. Wadey said she attended a similar tournament in Steamboat Springs that was light years ahead with live broadcasts. cf: Chris Vail Yeti Hockey Club January 5 — Dec 7 Vail Yeti Hockey $10,000 Huntington Club November 7, 2017 - Page 97 of Davis said it is a good product. Biszantz said it is family friendly and it also gets younger people into the town who go out to restaurants and bars after. Biszantz said they could raise more money through sponsorships. Waniuk said their owner is working very hard to increase their reach and marketing. cf: Sven Bean Legacy Fighting Alliance TBD Legacy Fighting $17,500 Alliance Kundolf said their schedule flexibility and the opportunity to bring it at an off time is great. Davis said this is a financial slam dunk and wishes he could find this $25,000 elsewhere. Davis said the direction the CSE received from Council was about events that fit the Vail brand. Davis asked if the people that would attend this event in May would then come back to town at another time. Rediker said Mixed Martial Arts is evolving and becoming much more mainstream. Biszantz said she watched the Mayweather fight with a room full of young professionals that live in Vail. Davis confirmed that it is $25,000 or nothing. Rediker said this event would not need to be during our peak times. Rediker said it could bring future guests into Vail during off times in May or November. Rabinowitz said it is a sell out and is broadcast on TV to a large market. Rabinowitz said if they bring an upcoming fighter from the Front Range it is going to bring guests. Wadey said the off peak time would bring business to town. Biszantz said this may not be the Vail brand today but it could be in the future. Biszantz said if the Vail brand is arts festivals and the Colorado Grand, the Vail brand is going to die. Rediker asked if the Town of Vail would receive advertising in the broadcast. Davis asked what the Dobson capacity is. Saeger said it would be more than likely 2,000-2,500. Biszantz noted that if funded lower they will pursue additional funding. Davis said roller derby is produced by moms, teachers, and librarians and that's why it is on brand with Vail. Rediker said this hits the health and wellness market. Wadey said this would increase sales tax and business at a very off peak time. Gordon noted that Jenn Bruno said she encourages heads in beds at their meeting with Council. Davis said this event must be in May. cf: Krista DeHerrera Skate Vail's "Melee in the Mountains" 29-Apr The 10th Mountain $12,000 Roller Dolls Wadey said they were expanding from 4 teams to 6 teams and this growth is not a great bang for their buck. cf: Zach Blom, Casey Parliament Vail Mountaineers Hockey Club All Year Vail Mountaineers Hockey Club $7,500 November 7, 2017 - Page 98 of Rediker said this would bring more money to town than Snow Days. Wadey said the families do have money and will spend it. Rabinowitz said they do receive in-kind use of Dobson. Wadey clarified that this money is not going to regular season games and that it is going to events. cf: Kerri Thelen Vail Valley Cup October 5-7 Vail Valley Soccer $10,000 Club Davis said it is a homegrown event and the calendar time is spot on. Rediker said the Antlers was 100% full with soccer teams. Rabinowitz said they are maxed out on teams and they were actually overbooked. Davis asked what they could do with an extra $5,000. Saeger said from the 10/9 minutes it would be for staffing and to pay college coach recruiters to come. Rediker said it improves the event for them but not exactly for the Town of Vail. cf: Mark Foster Vail Lacrosse Tournament June 18 — 20 Vail Lacrosse $5,000 Tournament Rabinowitz said it is a great tournament and they are highly organized. Gordon asked why they are just now asking for funding. Rabinowitz said he believes it gives them an opportunity to expand their reach. Rabinowitz said they find it easier to work from Edwards to Vail instead of all in Vail. Wadey said she would like them to use Vail Mountain School and partner with Vail hotels. Rabinowitz said they have had Vail Mountain School in the past and may again in the future. Waniuk said it is good alignment with VLMDAC mid week marketing. Davis said a small investment could go a long way. cf: Beth Pappas Vail Whitewater Series May 8, 15, 22, 29, June 5 Vail Recreation District $7,000 Saeger noted that with additional funding they would increase spectator experience through a DJ/band and branded race bibs. Rediker asked if she can vote on Vail Whitewater Race Series since she is on the VRD board. McKenny said she does not have to abstain. cf: Leon Fell King of the Mountain Volleyball June 16-18 King of the $7,500 Mountain Volleyball Waniuk asked what the CSE can do to ensure a higher quality experience for event attendees. Waniuk said the funding agreement states that if you do not comply funding can be withheld. Saeger added the ERC policy this year that Leon must contact Saeger directly for requests and not to go directly to different departments. Rabinowitz said he is very hard to work with but he could increase the price to find the additional funding. Rabinowitz said his website is abysmal. Rabinowitz confirmed that his operations director did leave a few weeks before his event. Waniuk noted his event has a very good ROI but his net promoter score was 33. Valenti added that being combative is not a good representation of the Vail brand. Davis said this is still an event worth funding due to the return. Gordon said he is comfortable requiring the event to meet standards prior to checks being cut. Davis said there needs to be a drastic improvement at customer November 7, 2017 - Page 99 of interface, marketing, cooperation with town staff and website quality. cf: Dan Cramer, Brandon London Kick -It 3v3 National Soccer Championship July 27 - 29 $30,000 Kundolf said their new ownership group has a lot of financial backing. Waniuk said their marketing has not been either quality or quantity. Saeger noted their permitting issues such as not responding to questions and submitting their vendors to the sales tax department on time. Rediker said they bring a lot of heads in beds. Biszantz asked why this event receives more funding than other sporting events. Rabinowitz said there is more potential with this event because they don't have the field needs as other tournaments. Rabinowitz said in its glory days it would sell out the entire town. Waniuk noted their high economic payback ratio. Valenti pointed out that the detractors may show that those people may not come back. Gordon confirmed that they said they would move to another town if not funded. Rabinowitz said to take referee complaints with a grain of salt. Rediker asked if they could decrease funding with the message that they need to improve their planning and organization. cf: Beth Pappas, Helene Mattison, Vail Kids Adventure Games August 8-12 Kids Adventure Games, LLC $40,000 Andy Linke Biszantz said they are being successful with sponsorships and they may be able to find additional funding easier than other events. Waniuk said they hired someone new to increase their marketing and promotions. cf: Mike Outlier Offroad Festival Sep 21- 23 Uncommon $25,000 McCormack Communications/ Greenspeed Project Rediker said the Antlers gets a lot of bookings from this event. Waniuk asked to have requirements on website updates by a certain date, survey distribution in a timely manner, communication, and marketing. Wadey asked if we can work with Vail Resorts to move it to Lionshead. Valenti suggested the website be updated 6 months in advance. cf: Jim Soran Vail Lacrosse Shootout June 24 -July 4 International $15,000 Lacrosse Promotions Davis said the bang for the buck is one of the best. Davis said they bring plenty of fami ies and is a great value Rabinowitz said it is a great event that brings teams and families to town. Wadey said they need to integrate with the local lacrosse organizations more. November 7, 2017 - Page 100 0 cf: Baily Rose Charles Blair Law III Slow Fashion Vail September 22 - 23 Baily Rose & Blair Law $0 Valenti said the brand and presentation of the event was not in alignment with Vail. Valenti said they need to be asked to be a world class event. Wadey said retailers had some negative feedback. Gordon said the vendors that were there had quality product. Gordon said he would like it to continue into Sunday. Gordon added that it is the only sustainably focused event that we have. Waniuk said their scope was too large for the first year. Davis questioned whether they are giving them $5,000 to be nice or do they believe this will actually improve the event. Gordon said the vendors that were there were very happy and believes that more will come next year. Rediker asked if they are set on being in Vail Village or could they use Dobson. Gordon said they do have retailers in Vail that are willing to participate. Valenti said that Patagonia is very much aligned with sustainability but still has a long way to go. Gordon said he does not believe only giving them one shot is right. Saeger expressed his concerns that they are not event producers and do not have the time to grow or produce this event. Biszantz suggested they work with the farmers market instead of allocating any funding. cf: Colette Carey Adaptive Spirit Annual Event April 4 — 8 Adaptive Spirit $0 Kundolf said they have a great mission but is ok with low or no funding. Biszantz said she doesn't believe that one set of stands would make it a community event. cf: Loida Alegre In the Hearth of the Rockies October 12th- In the Hearth of the $0 October 14 Rockies cf: Ariel Rosemberg Vail Summer Bluegrass Series June 27, July 4, July 11 & July 18 Lakeside Stride $50,000 Kundolf said they need to keep this at $50,000 due to Arrabelle limitations. Biszantz asked how many years this event has been going on. Waniuk said this is the fourth year and he has been funded the same the past three years. Wadey said she has faith that the Arrabelle and Bluegrass can continue to work out their issues. Davis said the talent change could still bring the same amount of people. Rediker said he had a solid plan on how he was going to grow the event such as the July 4th activation and show. cf: Christine Pink Vail March 24 Vail Valley Medical $10,000 Albertson Center November 7, 2017 - Page 101 0 Rediker said she believes Vail Health should contribute more. Waniuk said this is a strong brand alignment that we get through funding and supporting. Valenti asked if they do not fund would the Town of Vail logo still be used on their marketing. Waniuk said they may or may not use the Town of Vail brand if they aren't funded. cf: Brian Hall Vail Family Fun Fest June 24, July 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 & Aug. 5 Blue Creek Productions, Inc. $15,000 Wadey said he dropped the ball on marketing and communications. Biszantz said she does not see how it is a revenue generator for town. Wadey said revenue generation comes from families coming to town and spending money at restaurants. cf: Rich TenBraak Vail Automotive Classic September 7 - 9 Vail Valley Concours $5,000 Davis said if he had to support one car event it would be this as opposed to Colorado Grand. Gordon asked if they add a condition that they have to have a second event in Vail outside of the Sunday car show. Biszantz asked if they are both funded at the same amount should they both have to put on the same amount of events. Waniuk confirmed they will be required to host an additional Thursday or Friday event in Vail. cf: Brian Nolan Vail Beaver Creek Restaurant Week Group 970 $7,500 Valenti said looking at other towns' restaurant week events; this could be much more of a bigger event. Valenti added there were issues with the website. Wadey said the website crashed two days before the event started. Saeger confirmed that it was up and running prior to the event. Davis asked if they are going to have a team to put it on. Gordon asked why their website isn't vailbeavercreekrestaurantweek.com as opposed to diningataltitude.com. Mueller said it is owned by someone else. Biszantz said the funding should support out of town guests as opposed to taxpayer money being used. Wadey said it generates sales tax. Valenti said there are out of town guests coming into town. Rediker said she asked the guests at the Antlers if they knew about restaurant week and no one she asked did. Wadey said they do plan on adding more activation. Wadey asked if this would bring guests back to town. Rediker said they are not making their decision to come to Vail based on saving money at a restaurant. Gordon asked if the money would be solely for marketing. Wadey said they want to add events with activation. Biszantz asked why the donation goes to the Vail Valley Foundation. Wadey said it is because the Vail Valley Foundation allows them to access to their database. Davis said they need to be put on notice that they pull it back together for 2018. Davis asked if the Vail Valley Foundation database was beneficial and whether they should look at using the 10% in different ways. Waniuk noted that Beaver Creek matches what Vail funds. ➢ Motion to adjourn the October 18, 2017 CSE special meeting at 2:08pm. M/S/P: Wadey/Valenti/Unanimous. The motion passed 6-0 (Kundolf absent). November 7, 2017 - Page 102 0 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: VLHA Meeting Results ATTACHMENTS: Description VLHA October 10, 2017 Meeting Results TOWN Of9 November 7, 2017 - Page 103 0 Vail Local Housing Authority TOWN OF VAIt Meeting Results Tuesday, October 10, 2017 3:00 PM — 5:00 PM Municipal Building Admin Conference Room 75 South Frontage Road West, Vail, Colorado 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT Steve Lindstrom Molly Morales Francisco Meza James Wilkins Staff Greg Clifton Lynne Campbell MEMBERS ABSENT Mary McDougall Lindstrom called the meeting to order at 3:10PM. Present are James Wilkins, Molly Morales, Francisco Meza and Steve Lindstrom. Staff: Lynne Campbell and Town Manager Greg Clifton. Clifton was introduced to attending board members. He looks forward to working with the board and stated his door is open if they would like to speak directly to him. Board reviewed and approved September 26, 2017 meeting results as no changes were noted. Motion Wilkins Second: Morales Vote 4-0 Campbell presented and reviewed the Town of Vail's online interactive map system to the Board, www.maps.vailgov.com. Morales suggested there is a link to maps.vailgov.com on the Vail InDEED webpage, www.vailindeed.com, everyone was in agreement. Campbell will make adjustments. Board asked how often the Town map is updated with EHU information. Campbell thought monthly and will confirm with the GIS department. Next up on the agenda Lindstrom discussed the Board creating Town Council forum questions. The Board reviewed past questions and discussion ensued how to formulate best questions seeking to understand candidate's views on Vail and Eagle County's housing dilemma. Clifton suggested questions be formulated around the new 2027 Housing Plan. Morales wondered if questions should be asked regarding how candidates would get to the goal of sustainable environmental housing. Page 1 November 7, 2017 - Page 104 0 Campbell will reformat questions, verify statistics listed and confirm forum contacts so to forward VLHA's questions. Lindstrom will contact Scott Miller at the Vail Daily find out his involvement. Wilkins motioned to enter executive session according to C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(b)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: three requests for Vail InDEED funding in exchange for a deed restrictions. Motion: Wilkins Second: Morales Vote: 4-0 Motion to exit executive session and return to the regular meeting was made. Motion: Wilkins Second: Morales Vote: 4-0 Any action as a result of the executive session was presented. Wilkins motioned the Board make offers to the three applications presented in executive session, Higgins, Sanseverino and Burns. Motion: Wilkins Second: Meza Vote: 4-0 Motion to adjourn the meeting was made. Motion: Wilkins Second: Morales Next Meeting — October 24, 2017 Future Agenda Items: • Bi Annual VLHA Report • Establish Fair Market Rent Value Page 2 Vote: 4-0 November 7, 2017 - Page 105 0 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: September 2017 Sales Tax Report ATTACHMENTS: Description September 2017 Sales Tax Report TOWN OFCI November 7, 2017 - Page 106 0 MEMORANDUM October 31, 2017 To: Vail Town Council Kathleen Halloran From: Johannah Richards Re: September 2017 Sales Tax Vail will collect an estimated $22,000 in additional September sales tax to bring collections up to $1,385,817. September will be up 2.7% or $35,888 from September 2016 and up 0.1% or $1,898 from budget. Current year to date sales tax collections are down 0.4% or $87,630 from 2016 and up 1.2% or $234,880 from budget. November 7, 2017 - Page 107 0 Month 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Town of Vail Sales Tax Worksheet Estimate 10/31/2017 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Budget 2017 Collections Budget Variance % Change from 2016 % Change from Budget January 2,597,985 2,783,306 2,976,655 2,619,673 2,564,383 2,795,688 2,855,524 3,145,620 3,483,245 3,696,798 3,738,824 3,711,004 3,724,633 13,629 -0.38% 0.37% February 2,527,130 2,718,643 3,071,615 2,588,889 2,577,360 2,803,136 2,994,580 3,267,351 3,477,419 3,593,947 3,746,055 3,677,917 3,692,013 14,096 -1.44% 0.38% March 2,852,954 2,986,446 3,327,304 2,504,567 2,685,004 3,143,418 3,185,859 3,650,157 3,788,185 4,053,961 4,225,921 3,619,002 3,639,497 20,495 -13.88% 0.57% April 1,280,324 1,330,740 1,098,918 1,235,941 1,156,934 1,191,690 1,183,087 1,069,186 1,280,641 1,370,929 1,089,749 1,288,533 1,385,230 96,697 27.11% 7.50% May 449,283 545,874 622,103 516,150 421,925 473,292 487,739 563,602 607,729 584,454 654,462 670,927 658,220 (12,707) 0.57% -1.89% June 805,362 953,017 918,061 717,233 873,765 895,951 963,143 1,023,801 1,153,247 1,242,400 1,318,092 1,351,149 1,387,120 35,971 5.24% 2.66% July 1,255,243 1,265,781 1,397,842 1,121,860 1,228,767 1,481,329 1,573,499 1,654,161 1,829,102 1,937,989 2,053,773 2,105,358 2,209,216 103,858 7.57% 4.93% August 1,055,614 1,162,746 1,349,795 1,068,391 1,147,352 1,310,471 1,380,710 1,507,048 1,674,813 1,702,579 1,849,815 1,896,301 1,857,244 (39,057) 0.40% -2.06% September 832,549 908,318 834,569 753,754 761,425 889,945 978,037 994,135 1,054,015 1,240,277 1,349,929 1,383,919 1,385,817 1,898 2.66% 0.14% Total 13,656,444 14,654,871 15,596,862 13,126,458 13,416,915 14,984,920 15,602,178 16,875,061 18,348,396 19,423,334 20,026,620 19,704,110 19,938,990 234,880 -0.44% 1.19% October 614,396 688,519 662,767 581,033 594,362 623,420 644,577 755,133 752,295 835,649 906,385 931,126 November 799,582 747,877 719,109 651,873 701,075 788,430 825,873 947,627 962,344 997,100 989,320 996,463 December 2,771,258 2,821,871 2,652,628 2,553,974 2,963,763 3,184,645 2,973,826 3,422,178 3,818,096 3,885,849 3,840,919 3,903,301 Total 17,841,680 18,913,138 19,631,366 16,913,338 17,676,115 19,581,415 20,046,454 21,999,999 23,881,131 25,141,932 25,763,244 25,535,000 November 7, 2017 - Page 108 of 532 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: August 2017 Vail Business Review ATTACHMENTS: Description August 2017 Vail Business Review TOWN Of9 November 7, 2017 - Page 109 0 TOWN OFD 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 vailgov.corn Vail Business Review August 2017 October 31, 2017 Finance Department 970.479.2100 970.479.2248 fax The Vail Business Review breaks down the four percent sales tax collected for the month of August 2017. Overall August sales tax increased 0.3% with retail decreasing 4.9%, lodging increased 13.8%, food and beverage decreased 4.5%, and utilities/other decreased by 6.3%. Excluding the out of town category; sales tax for the month of August was up 2.5%. Electronic filing and payment of Vail sales tax is now an option. Please visit www.vailgov.com/epay Town of Vail sales tax forms, the Vail Business Review and sales tax worksheets are available on the internet at www.vailgov.com. You can subscribe to have the Vail Business Review and the sales tax worksheet e-mailed to you automatically from www.vailgov.com. Please remember when reading the Vail Business Review that it is produced from sales tax collections, as opposed to actual gross sales. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to call me at (970) 479-2125 or Kathleen Halloran at (970) 479-2116. Sincerely, Johannah Richards Sales Tax Administrator November 7, 2017 - Page 110 0 0/11August TOWN OF VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW TOWN of VAIL Sales Tax Newsletter August 2017 Sales Tax August 2016 Collections August 2017 Collections August Change VAIL VILLAGE Retail 279,610 280,569 0.34 % Lodging 279,425 352,287 26.08 % F & B 393,999 352,961 -10.42 % Other 11,615 6,363 -45.22 % Total 964,649 992,180 2.85 % LIONSHEAD Retail 73,814 69,241 -6.20 % Lodging 175,034 182,293 4.15 % F&B 102,853 108,132 5.13% Other 6,593 7,096 7.64 % Total 358,293 366,761 2.36 % CASCADE VILLAGE/EAST VAIL/SANDSTONE/WEST VAIL Retail 162,705 164,823 1.30 % Lodging 46,681 37,041 -20.65 % F & B 36,823 46,805 27.11 Other 7,325 7,829 6.88 Total 253,534 256,498 1.17 % OUT OF TOWN Retail 146,749 115,592 -21.23 % Lodging 14,281 15,067 5.50 % F & B 1,082 2,607 140.88 % Utilities & Other 113,035 108,524 -3.99 % Total 275,147 241,790 -12.12 % 11/1/2017 10:26:48 AM RmGovPower Page 1 of 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 111 0 August TOWN OF VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW TOWN OF(VAIL Sales Tax Newsletter August 2017 Sales Tax TOTAL August 2016 Collections August 2017 Collections August Change Retail 662,878 630,224 -4.93 % Lodging And Property Mgmt 515,420 586,688 13.83 Food and Beverage 534,757 510,505 -4.54 % Other 138,568 129,812 -6.32 % Total 1,851,624 1,857,244 0.30 % RETAIL SUMMARY August August August 2016 2017 % Collections Collections Change RETAIL -FOOD 140,996 145,464 3.17 % RETAIL -LIQUOR 42,477 42,828 0.83 RETAIL -APPAREL 144,794 141,341 -2.38 % RETAIL -SPORT 109,429 100,028 -8.59 % RETAIL -JEWELRY 25,793 26,986 4.63 RETAIL -GIFT 6,794 8,404 23.71 RETAIL -GALLERY 3,715 2,486 -33.09 % RETAIL -OTHER 188,845 162,647 -13.87 % RETAIL -HOME OCCUPATION 36 40 12.47 % Total 662,878 630,224 -4.93 % 11/1/2017 10:26:48 AM emGovPower Page 2 of 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 112 0 TOTAL August 2016 Collections August 2017 Collections August Change Retail 662,878 630,224 -4.93 % Lodging And Property Mgmt 515,420 586,688 13.83 Food and Beverage 534,757 510,505 -4.54 % Other 138,568 129,812 -6.32 % Total 1,851,624 1,857,244 0.30 % RETAIL SUMMARY August August August 2016 2017 % Collections Collections Change RETAIL -FOOD 140,996 145,464 3.17 % RETAIL -LIQUOR 42,477 42,828 0.83 RETAIL -APPAREL 144,794 141,341 -2.38 % RETAIL -SPORT 109,429 100,028 -8.59 % RETAIL -JEWELRY 25,793 26,986 4.63 RETAIL -GIFT 6,794 8,404 23.71 RETAIL -GALLERY 3,715 2,486 -33.09 % RETAIL -OTHER 188,845 162,647 -13.87 % RETAIL -HOME OCCUPATION 36 40 12.47 % Total 662,878 630,224 -4.93 % 11/1/2017 10:26:48 AM emGovPower Page 2 of 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 112 0 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Revenue Update ATTACHMENTS: Description REvenue TOWN Of9 November 7, 2017 - Page 113 0 TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE UPDATE November 7, 2017 Sales Tax Upon receipt of all sales tax returns, September collections are estimated to be $1,385,817 up 2.7% from last year and up 0.1% compared to budget. Year to date collections of $19,938,990 are down 0.4% from prior year and up 1.2% from budget. Inflation as measured by the consumer price index was up 2.2% for September. Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) RETT collections through October 31 total $5,225,139 up 19.1% from this time last year. The annual 2017 RETT budget totals $5.85 million. Construction Use Tax Use Tax collections through October 31 total $1,664,202 down 1.6% compared to collections of $1,690,481 from this time last year. The annual budget totals $1,545,000. Summary Across all funds, year-to-date total revenue of $48.2 million is up 2.6% from the amended budget and down 1.2% from prior year. Variances from prior year are the result of decreases in sales tax and construction fees. November 7, 2017 - Page 114 0 TOWN Of9 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions Regarding: Topic of which cannot be disclosed without jeopardizing the purpose of the Executive Session. PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire, Town Attorney November 7, 2017 - Page 115 0 TOWN Of9 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 37, Series of 2017, A Resolution Approving an Amended and Restated Reciprocal Hazardous Material Incident Intergovernmental Agreement; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. ATTACHMENTS: Description Council Memorandum 110717 Resolution No. 37 Series of 2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 116 0 TOWN OF VAIL' Memorandum To: Town Council From: Mark Novak, Fire Chief Date: November 7, 2017 Subject: Resolution No. 37, Series of 2017: Regional Hazardous Materials Association of Eagle County Intergovernmental Agreement I. Background The Town of Vail is a member of the Regional Hazardous Materials Association of Eagle County (RHMAEC). RHMAEC is a cooperative effort between the Eagle County Sheriff's Office, the Town of Vail, Eagle River Fire Protection District, Greater Eagle Fire Protection District and Gypsum Fire Protection District. Participating agencies jointly fund RHMAEC. These funds are used to maintain a complement of hazardous materials response equipment. When hazardous materials incidents occur, RHMAEC participating agencies collaboratively manage the incident since it is not feasible for any single agency to have a sufficient pool of hazardous materials technicians on duty to conduct technician level hazardous materials operations. RHMAEC is governed by a board of directors, with each participating agency being a voting member. II. Current Situation During a recent strategic planning process, the RHMAEC Board of Directors identified the need to make minor changes to the IGA to accurately reflect current practices and to "clean up" the document. The attached intergovernmental agreement (IGA) is a revision of the current IGA which was executed in 2012. The revisions contained within are administrative in nature; there are no changes to the Town of Vail's financial or operational obligations. III. Staff Recommendation Approve on consent Resolution No. 37, Series of 2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 117 0 RESOLUTION NO. 37 Series of 2017 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED AND RESTATED RECIPROCAL HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INCIDENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the "Town"), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter"); WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council") have been duly elected and qualified; WHEREAS, Section 29-22-102(3) (a) and (b), C.R.S., requires that the governing bodies of every town, city and county designate an emergency response authority responsible for hazardous substance incidents occurring within the respective jurisdictions of the governing bodies; WHEREAS, Section 18 (2) (a) and (2) (b) of Article XIV of the Colorado Constitution and Section 29-1-201, C.R.S., permit and encourage governments to enter into contracts to make the most effective use of their resources for the benefit of the public; WHEREAS, hazardous materials incidents may arise in one or more jurisdictions, resulting in response demands that exceed the personnel, equipment and/or expertise of a single response agency; WHEREAS, the Town and other local response agencies entered into a Regional Hazardous Materials Association of Eagle County Establishment and Reciprocal Hazardous Material Incident Intergovernmental Agreement, dated October 9, 2012, (the "Original IGA") for the purpose of establishing a separate governmental entity known as the Regional Hazardous Materials Association of Eagle County for purposes of conducting joint hazardous materials activities including without limitation, planning, information management, initial response, equipment procurement and sharing, personnel procurement and training, reimbursement and financial management as an operational group; and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to enter into an amended and restated Intergovernmental Agreement (the "Amended IGA") with the other local response agencies which shall replace the Original IGA in its entirety. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: 1. The Amended IGA is hereby approved in substantially the same form attached hererto as Exhibit A and in a form approved by the Town Attorney. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. Resolution No. , Series of 2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 118 0 INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail held this 17th day of June, 2017. Dave Chapin, Mayor of the Town of Vail, Colorado ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Resolution No. , Series of 2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 119 0 EXHIBIT A REGIONAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASSOCIATION OF EAGLE COUNTY (RHMAEC) AMENDED AND RESTATED REGIONAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASSOCIATION OF EAGLE COUNTY ESTABLISHMENT AND RECIPROCAL HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INCIDENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ("IGA") This IGA is made and entered into this day of , 201_ by and between the Town of Vail, Eagle River Fire Protection District, Greater Eagle Fire Protection District, Gypsum Fire Protection District, and Eagle County, hereinafter referred to collectively as " Operational Members " or "Parties" and individually as "Operational Member" or "Party." RECITALS WHEREAS, Section 29-22-102(3) (a) and (b), C.R.S., requires that the governing bodies of every town, city and county designate an emergency response authority ("DERA") responsible for hazardous substance incidents occurring within the respective jurisdictions of the governing bodies; and WHEREAS, Section 18 (2) (a) and (2) (b) of Article XIV of the Colorado Constitution and Section 29-1-201, C.R.S., permit and encourage governments to enter into contracts to make the most effective use of their resources for the benefit of the public; and WHEREAS, Section 29-1-203, C.R.S., authorizes the State of Colorado and its political subdivisions to enter into contracts to provide functions or services, including the sharing of costs of such functions or services, which each of the Parties may be authorized to provide; and WHEREAS, Section 29-22-103(3), C.R.S., encourages mutual aid agreements between emergency response authorities for the purpose of enhancing the response to hazardous substance incidents and establishing procedures for, among other things, utilizing equipment, sharing technical assistance and promoting the safe handling of hazardous substance incidents; and WHEREAS, hazardous materials incidents may arise in one or more of the Parties' jurisdictions, resulting in response demands that exceed the personnel, equipment and/or expertise of that particular Party; and WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a Regional Hazardous Materials Association of Eagle County Establishment and Reciprocal Hazardous Material Incident Intergovernmental Agreement, dated October 9, 2012, (the "Original IGA")for the purpose of establishing a {00551983.DOCX/ } November 7, 2017 - Page 120 0 separate governmental entity known as the Regional Hazardous Materials Association of Eagle County ("RHMAEC") for purposes of conducting joint hazardous materials activities including without limitation, planning, information management, initial response, equipment procurement and sharing, personnel procurement and training, reimbursement and financial management as an operational group; and WHEREAS, the Parties wish to enter into this IGA, which shall replace the Original IGA in its entirety; and WHEREAS, the Parties wish to facilitate participation in such joint hazardous materials activities by other agencies and entities with capabilities or responsibilities related to hazardous materials activities, which other agencies and entities, upon joining the RHMAEC as provided herein shall be known as "Advisory Members," and which along with the Operational Members, shall be referred to collectively as "RHMAEC Members"; and WHEREAS, to receive the RHMAEC Members resource(s), it is cost effective for each of the RHMAEC Members to make available during a hazardous materials incident, its own resources to other affected RHMAEC Members; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the public and each RHMAEC Member to have access to hazardous materials response resources of other RHMAEC Members to supplement their own resources during a hazardous materials incident; and WHEREAS, establishment of the RHMAEC will serve a public purpose and will promote the safety, security, and general welfare of the inhabitants within all the participating Parties' jurisdictions; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits that will inure to the public and the Parties, and the mutual covenants by and between each of the Parties, it is agreed as follows: 1. Establishment of RHMAEC. The Regional Hazardous Materials Association of Eagle County ("RHMAEC") is hereby established as a separate governmental entity, in accordance with Section 18 (2) (a) and (2) (b) of Article XIV of the Colorado Constitution and Section 29-1- 201, et seq., C.R.S. 2. Purpose. This IGA is entered into for the express purpose of creating RHMAEC and the mutual cooperation between the RHMAEC Members for hazardous substance response planning, and in the event of the occurrence of hazardous substance incidents it is intended to provide for the planning and initial emergency action necessary to minimize the effects of the hazardous substance incidents under Article 22 of Title 29, C.R.S. (DERA function). The Operational Members have entered into this IGA and agree to participate in RHMAEC in reliance upon the rights, obligations and immunities conferred upon them by these statutes. In pursuing its DERA support functions, RHMAEC shall exist for the purposes of coordinated planning, information management and reporting, training, education, coordination, rapid deployment of qualified personnel and proper equipment for pre- and initial hazardous substance emergency action and {00551983.DOCX/ } November 7, 2017 - Page 121 0 the financial management necessary to achieve the purposes of the IGA and minimize the effects of hazardous substance incidents within Eagle County. This IGA is not intended to, nor shall it be construed to, affect or extend the legal responsibilities of any RHMAEC Member except as expressly provided herein; create or extend any legal rights to any person from any RHMAEC Member that do not otherwise exist in the absence of this IGA; or, to waive any claims which may arise as a result of a hazardous materials incident, including claims for reimbursement from persons responsible for hazardous substance incident or from any emergency response funds created under state or federal law. 3. Definitions. As used herein the terms "hazardous material incident" and "hazardous substance incident" shall be synonymous and shall have the same meaning as provided in Section 29-22-101(2), C.R.S., as amended from time to time. 4. RHMAEC Members. There shall be two categories of membership in RHMAEC. A. Operational Members. Parties to this IGA shall be Operational Members of RHMAEC. Each Operational Member shall name one primary representative as a full voting member of the Board of Directors of RHMAEC. Each Operational Member may also designate an alternate for the purpose of attending meetings and voting in the absence of the designated primary representative. Operational Member representatives shall comprise the RHMAEC Board of Directors. B. Advisory Members. All other members of RHMAEC shall be designated as Advisory Members; RHMAEC shall include representatives ("Advisory Members") from interested or involved groups as such representatives are available. A representative from the Eagle County LEPC can be involved as member at this level. 5. Board of Directors. A Board of Directors consisting of the designated primary representatives of the Operational Members shall govern the business and affairs of RHMAEC (the "RHMAEC Board of Directors"). Officers of RHMAEC shall be elected from among the Operational Members' primary representatives or in the case when no Operational Member is available to fill the role of Secretary a representative of the Advisory Members may be appointed to the position of Secretary by a majority of the Board, as provided in the Bylaws. The elected Treasurer of RHMAEC shall have the primary responsibility of ensuring proper management of the financial resources of RHMAEC with oversight by the RHMAEC Board of Directors as further provided in the Bylaws; 6. Bylaws. The RHMAEC Board of Directors shall, by two-thirds (2/3) vote, enact and from time to time amend bylaws ("Bylaws") to govern the organization and operation of RHMAEC. 8. DERA Responsibilities. Nothing in this IGA shall be deemed to alter the authority of any existing DERA pursuant to Section 29-22-102(3), C.R.S., except for coordination of cost reimbursement as described herein. A response by RHMAEC team(s) and equipment to a hazardous substance incident under this IGA shall be under the operational control of the DERA, and shall not alter the responsibility of the DERA in whose jurisdiction the incident occurs to {00551983.DOCX/ } November 7, 2017 - Page 122 0 command the response. All Parties hereto hereby delegate to RHMAEC their DERA authority to seek cost reimbursement for hazardous substance incidents involving a response by RHMAEC teams or equipment. 9. Cost Reimbursement. Whenever a response to a hazardous substance incident involves RHMAEC team(s) or equipment, the Parties agree that RHMAEC shall function as coordinator of claims for reimbursement of costs incurred by all responding RHMAEC Members (including the DERA). The RHMAEC Board of Directors shall adopt procedures for preparing and submitting requests for cost reimbursement and allocation of reimbursement revenue. In conjunction with these policies RHMAEC Members will use their previously approved Cooperator Resource Rate Forms (CRRF) outlined through the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) for all billing. The RHMAEC shall timely submit the coordinated claim on behalf of itself, the DERA and the responding RHMAEC Members. Should such reimbursement proceeds be less than the total costs of all RHMAEC Members (including the DERA) involved in the incident response, reimbursement to all such RHMAEC Members (including the DERA) shall be reduced in a proportionate manner. Unreimbursed costs incurred by RHMAEC team(s) or equipment shall be absorbed by the RHMAEC Members involved in the incident. Any reimbursement of costs coordinated by RHMAEC shall follow the rules for reimbursement ("Rules") as promulgated by Colorado Department of Public Safety pursuant to Section 29-22- 104 (6)(a), C.R.S. Claims for reimbursement shall be submitted to RHMAEC within 24 days following the date the incident scene is declared safe by the DERA. All Parties to this IGA and all Planning Members, by participating in RHMAEC waive any rights to seek reimbursement for an incident for which RHMAEC has been delegated reimbursement authority, except through RHMAEC, and authorize RHMAEC to settle and compromise any claim for reimbursement following procedures adopted by the RHMAEC Board of Directors. 10. Response Area. It is the intent of the Parties that the primary response area of RHMAEC shall be limited to Eagle County. Upon written agreement signed by two-thirds (2/3) of the RHMAEC Board of Directors, RHMAEC may enter into agreements to provide assistance outside Eagle County upon request. 11. RHMAEC Response. Whenever the DERA determines that a hazardous substance incident within its jurisdiction requires RHMAEC resources, a request for RHMAEC assistance shall be made. Upon receiving a request for assistance, RHMAEC will provide the requested resources to the location of the hazardous substance incident in accordance with RHMAEC Policies and Best Practices. For the duration of the hazardous substance incident, the responding RHMAEC Member personnel shall defer to the DERA for designation of Incident Commander. 12. Funding and Property. Operational Member contributions shall be determined by agreement among the Parties for the initial funding in 2002. For each subsequent year, Operational Membership contributions will be made on an annual basis and shall be proposed by the RHMAEC Board of Directors. All budget proposals are subject to formal approval by the governing body of each individual Operational Member. Operational member contributions will be based upon a percentage of one quarter of one percent of the previous years' operating budget of each Operational member excluding items listed in Exhibit A. The procedures for budgeting, setting contributions and approvals by the governing body of each Operational Member shall be {00551983.DOCX/ } November 7, 2017 - Page 123 0 detailed in the adopted Bylaws. It is the intent of the Parties that financial support of RHMAEC functions and equipment, as well as reliance on RHMAEC equipment and expertise, shall be shared among the Parties. To the extent possible, RHMAEC shall at all times operate as an enterprise pursuant to Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. 13. Insurance. Each Party shall at its own expense, keep in full force and effect, during the term of this IGA, liability insurance on any equipment or rolling stock they own or lease in accordance with the Colorado Revised Statutes. Personal Liability and/or Public Officials insurance will be provided by RHMAEC for all members of the RHMAEC Board of Directors. 14. Hazardous Substance Incident Response. It is anticipated that initial responses to hazardous substance incidents shall be through the resources and equipment of the individual Operational Members responding separately but acting in concert and cooperation. Operational Members may request RHMAEC resources, which resources may consist of individuals from various Operational Members and equipment funded by RHMAEC. 15. Employees of RHMAEC Members. When providing any services pursuant to this IGA, including responding to a hazardous materials incident and providing services in furtherance of the DERA under this IGA, employees of RHMAEC Members shall at all times remain and act as employees of their respective RHMAEC Member, subject to the terms of this IGA. RHMAEC Members shall remain responsible for the compensation, benefits and insurance of such employees at all times. 16. Termination. Any Operational Member may terminate or withdraw from this IGA for any or no reason upon ninety (90) days advance written notice to the RHMAEC Board of Directors. Such written notice shall serve as a formal amendment to this IGAand negate the need for further amendment. Any Operational member choosing to withdraw from RHMAEC shall be responsible for their annual contribution commitment after the start of each fiscal year. Any dues, donations or other contributions owing at the time of withdrawal shall be paid prior to withdrawal. Any Advisory Member may withdraw at any time upon written notice to the RHMAEC Board of Directors, subject to the same reimbursement rights and obligations. Upon withdrawal from RHMAEC, the Operational member shall surrender all critical items such as gas detectors and hazmat suits, unless a written request to retain said equipment has been submitted and approved by the RHMAEC Board of Directors. 17. Additional Operational Members. Agencies desiring to join RHMAEC as Operational Members subsequent to its organization shall execute a copy of this IGA and a separate agreement with the RHMAEC Board of Directors that adheres to the policies and principles herein, and pay accumulated dues, capital contributions or other assessments as determined at the discretion of the RHMAEC Board of Directors. Such agreements related to joining RHMAEC as an Operational Member shall be approved by a majority vote of the RHMAEC Board of Directors. Upon delegation of an Operational Member's DERA authority to another entity, such entity shall become an Operation Member upon executing such agreements and approval by the RHMAEC Board of Directors. {00551983.DOCX/ } November 7, 2017 - Page 124 0 18. Governmental Immunity. Nothing in this IGA shall be construed as a waiver of the limitations on damages, or as a waiver of the privileges, immunities, or defenses provided to, or enjoyed by, any of the RHMAEC Members under common law or pursuant to statute including, but not limited to, the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S. and Sections 24-32-2604, et seq., C.R.S. 19. Worker Compensation and Pension Benefits. Pursuant to Sections 29-5-109, and 29-5- 110, C.R.S., and this IGA, if any personnel of a responding RHMAEC Member is injured, disabled, or dies as a result of performing services within the boundaries of another jurisdiction, said individual shall remain covered by, and eligible for, the workers' compensation and pension benefits, including disability, death, and survivor benefits, to which the individual would otherwise be entitled if the injury, disability, or death had occurred within the jurisdictional boundaries of the responding RHMAEC Member. 20. Prior Agreements. The terms of this IGA shall supersede the terms of any pre-existing agreements between RHMAEC Members regarding responses to hazardous substance incidents and actions or responsibilities, except for incidents that do not require the assistance of other RHMAEC Members or RHMAEC. This IGA shall not affect or supersede any other agreements, including mutual aid agreements between RHMAEC Members. 21. Whole Agreement. This IGA embodies the whole agreement between the Parties regarding responses to hazardous substance incidents and actions or responsibilities under Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act, except for incidents that do not require the assistance of other RHMAEC Members or RHMAEC, and there are no inducements, promises, terms, conditions or other obligations made or entered into by the Parties other than those contained herein. 22. Successors and Assigns. This IGA shall be binding upon the Parties hereto, their respective successors or assigns, but may not be assigned by any Party without the express written consent of the other Parties. 23. Severable. All terms contained in this IGA are severable and in the event that a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any of them invalid, this IGA shall be interpreted as if such invalid term or condition is not contained herein. 24. Authorization. The signatories to this IGA affirm and warrant that they are fully authorized to enter into and execute this IGA, and all necessary actions, notices, meetings and/or hearings pursuant to any law required to authorize their execution of this IGA have been made. 25. Amendment. This IGA may be amended from time to time by written IGA duly authorized by all the Parties to this IGA. No modification or waiver of this IGA or any covenant, condition or provision contained herein shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by all Parties. {00551983.DOCX/ } November 7, 2017 - Page 125 0 26. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This IGA does not and shall not be deemed to confer upon or grant to any third party any right enforceable at law or equity arising out of any term, covenant, or condition herein or the breach thereof. 27. Recording. This IGA, or a memorandum of this IGA, may be recorded in the records of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 28. Effective Date. This IGA shall be effective upon approval by each of the Operational Members named herein, as evidenced by such duly passed resolution, ordinance or other appropriate authorization of each, and the execution of this IGA by the Operational Members' authorized representatives. WHEREFORE, the duly authorized representatives of Operational Members hereto have executed this Reciprocal Hazardous Material Incident Intergovernmental Agreement effective as of the date and year first written above. Vail Fire and Emergency Services Date Eagle River Fire Protection District Date Greater Eagle Fire Protection District Date Gypsum Fire Protection District Date Eagle County Sheriff Date COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, by its Board of County Commissioners By: Chair ATTEST: {00551983.DOCX/ } November 7, 2017 - Page 126 0 Clerk to the Board {00551983.DOCX/ } November 7, 2017 - Page 127 0 EXHIBIT A The following items shall be excluded when determining individual Operational Member contributions to the RHMAEC budget: • HR • Finance • Legal • Payroll Services • Treasurer • Capital • Cash Balance • Board of Director Fees • Elections • Debt Service • Information Technology • Grants {00551983.DOCX/ } November 7, 2017 - Page 128 0 VAIL TOWN COUNCILAGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Minutes from October 3, 2017 meeting ATTACHMENTS: Description 100317 Town Council Meeting Minutes TOWN IfO November 7, 2017 - Page 129 0 Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 3, 2017 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Chapin. Members present: Staff members present: Dave Chapin, Mayor Jenn Bruno, Mayor Pro Tem Dick Cleveland Kevin Foley Kim Langmaid Jen Mason Greg Moffet Greg Clifton, Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Patty McKenny, Town Clerk 1. Citizen Participation Randy Guerriero, resident, inquired about the status of the Marriott project and comments on several related items, 1) don't allow too many dogs, 2) opposed heated walkways, 3) supported left hand turn lanes. He asked the town to consider buying the property for a recreation facility. Jen Mason thanked the Vail community for supporting the recent fundraiser for the Woods family. Kevin Foley noted a council candidates meet & greet would be held at the Ale House for the public. There was a moment of silence in memory of Dr. Tom Steinberg, a pioneer of Vail and elected official serving 19 years. 2. Proclamations 2.1. Proclamation Friends of Libraries Week Presenter(s): Lori Barnes, Library Director The proclamation was read by the town council members. 3. Consent Agenda 3.1. Resolution No. 31 Series of 2017, Resolution approving an intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Vail and Eagle County regarding the Town of Vail recycle drop-off site; and setting forth details in regard thereto Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2017 Page 1 November 7, 2017 - Page 130 c Background: This agreement allows for the Town of Vail to be reimbursed by Eagle County for hauling costs incurred at the community recycling site. The initial IGA was formalized in November of 2010 and has since been extended annually. Bruno moved to approve the IGA; Foley seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.2. Minutes from August 1, 2017 meeting 3.3. Minutes from August 15, 2017 meeting Moffet moved to approve the both sets of minutes; Foley seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.4. Appointment of Regular Municipal Election Judges Memorandum — registered electors of Colorado Moffet moved to appoint the judges for the November 7 Regular Municipal Election; Bruno seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.5. East Lionshead Circle Sidewalk Contract Award Moffet moved to authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, with Icon, Inc. to complete the E Lionshead Circle Sidewalk project in the amount not to exceed $155,000.00; Bruno seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4. Town Manager Report Clifton noted a sample report that he would be producing for the town council in the near future; the report would include such updates on admin matters, projects, staffing, etc. Fire Chief Novak presented an update on the Intermountain logging operations. 5. Public Hearings 5.1. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2017, Second Reading, An Ordinance Approving the Rezoning of Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision, from Two -Family Residential (R) District to Housing (H) District, and the Rezoning of Tract A, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision, from Two- Family Residential to Natural Area Preservation (NAP) District. (PEC17-0039) Presenter(s): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager Action Requested of Council: The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2017, upon second reading. Background: The applicant, The Vail Corporation (aka Vail Resorts), is requesting a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3- 7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of an unplatted parcel of land from Two -Family Residential (R) District to the Housing (H) District on the western portion of the site, and Natural Area Preservation (NAP) District on the eastern portion of the site. On September 11, 2017 the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on this application, and voted 6-0 to recommend approval to the Vail Town Council for this zone district boundary amendment. Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2017 Page 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 131 c Staff Recommendation: The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council hold a public hearing on this item to take testimony, and then vote on the second reading of this ordinance for a zone district boundary amendment. Chapin introduced the East Vail rezoning Ordinance No. 13 and opened the public hearing. Staff made a brief presentation per the packet memo. Chis Jarnot, VRI, thanked the town staff, PEC, Town Council for their time spent with the application. Jarnot noted the development of the 5.4 acre portion of the site can co -exist w/bighorn sheep just like Booth Falls neighborhood and town shops. He requested Council to vote on application tonight, not table, noting the company isn't interested in discussing a land swap. He presented some history about the company's land ownership and confirmed their intent to construct employee deed restricted housing on the site. Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group representing VRI, noted they have nothing further to present but available to answer any questions. The hearing was opened to public comments: Rol Hamelin, East Vail resident, encouraged them to consider quality of life first with this application. Michael Hazard urged council to move forward with this responsible development which will create a more sustainable community. Bill Heicker, Eagle retired district wildlife manager, expressed concern that not enough information has been given and reviewed appropriately. He expressed concern with the current response from Colorado Parks & Wildlife Charlene Canada, resident, expressed concerns about transportation impacts. Terry Meyers, representing Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Society, expressed concerns about the ability to protect the herds and requested the town make this a priority. Chris Romer, VVP, expressed the partnership's support of the development proposal noting that it is a down -zoning which is "right" for the community. Mery Lapin, resident, shared his perspective on the history of employee housing, requesting the council table the matter to allow for more review and a chance to find another location for this development. His concern was that larger development projects did not produce the appropriate housing in the past, thus the problems. Andy Daly, resident and former elected official as well as employee of Vail Resorts, expressed support for the rezoning and the proposal with a request to make a decision now. Alan Braunholtz expressed support for the rezoning and housing project and hopes someday it might produce some kids to play in the park w/ his kids. Jack Stephen, resident and supporter of booth creek cares, expressed a tabling of the item and requested more time is needed to negotiate the details of the project before rezoning the land. Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2017 Page 3 November 7, 2017 - Page 132 c Pati Marsh, resident, expressed concern the application has been fast -tracked with a request the council table the application. Patti Langmaid, resident, expressed concern there has not been enough time to review the application and the topic at large. She expressed concerns about the impacts the project will have on the bighorn sheep Rick Smith, VVMC, expressed support for the rezoning and housing project since there is an enormous demand for housing. The hospital has great difficulty finding housing for employees which makes recruiting very difficult. John Welaj, resident, expressed support and the need for workforce housing as critical to the area. He encouraged council to make a decision tonight. . Roger Cardoza, resident, expressed support for the rezoning application and the project in light of the critical need for employee housing. Bill Eggers, resident, thanked council for their efforts and expressed frustration that there is no development plan to review. He noted there should more time to review the impacts on wildlife in the area. Pam Stenmark, resident, preferred to see the decision delayed and requested the town review other options and location. Mark Zachary, Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, expressed opposition because of the impacts on the sheep as this project will destroy their habitat. Bill Hanlon, resident, noted the critical topics as parking and housing and encouraged the town to be critical in its review of the project. Michael Cacioppo expressed concern for the wildlife yet supports the ski company housing its employees; this is the wrong location. Public input was closed at this time and there were no closing comments from the applicants. Council provided their input at this time. Langmaid was not supportive of the rezoning and preferred the project be constructed at another location. Moffet noted a land trade would not work since the land considered is zoned natural area preservation district; he does not want to up -zone. Mason was concerned that historically the land was considered open space yet now development is slated for the property. Bruno supported the rezoning as rights of the private property owner. Cleveland noted the application as a rezoning only and there would be further review of the development application. Foley supported the property owner taking the opportunities they are allowed for under the code. Chapin noted this as a difficult and challenging topic not only for the community but for the property owners as well. Moffet moved to approve on second reading, Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2017, an ordinance for a zone district boundary amendment for an unplatted parcel of land in the South 1/2, Southeast 1/4, of Section 2, Township 5, Range 80 West 6th Principal Meridian from Two -Family Residential (R) District to the Housing (H) District on the western portion of the site, and Natural Area Preservation (NAP) District on the eastern portion of the site, and setting forth details in regard thereto." He further noted the approval of the Planning and Environmental Commission Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2017 Page 4 November 7, 2017 - Page 133 c recommended findings and that based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Sections VII of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated September 11, 2017, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Vail Town Council finds: 1. That the amendments are consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; 2. That the amendments are compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and, 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." Moffet also recognized the amended Ordinance No. 13 to include a section 7. Foley seconded the motion. Cleveland noted that the zoning does not take place until the final plat is recorded. Moffet amended the motion to accept the outside executed date of Dec 29, 2018; the amendment was seconded by Foley. The motion passed (5-2; Langmaid and Mason opposed). Langmaid opposed because the application didn't meet criteria no 1, 2, 5, and 8. Mason opposed because the application didn't meet criteria no. 2, 5, 7, and 8. A short recess was taken at this time and the meeting reconvenes at 8:10 p.m. 5.2. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2017, Second Reading, an Ordinance Amending Section 12-23-2, Employee Generation and Mitigation Rates, Vail Town Code to Amend Table 23-1, Employee Generation Rates by Type of Construction Use, and to Amend the Definition of Nexus Study in Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code Presenter(s): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager Action Requested of Council: The Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2017, upon second reading. Background: The 2006 Vail Employer Survey Summary of Results (Nexus Study) must be updated regularly to remain effective and relevant to ensure an accurate reflection of the current and future employee housing needs resulting from new development and redevelopment in the town. The Nexus Study is used by the Town of Vail in administering commercial linkage requirements for development within the Town of Vail. Staff Recommendation: The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council open the public hearing and take testimony on the proposed ordinance. Staff noted nothing changed from first reading of the ordinance. Moffet moved to approve Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2017, Second Reading, an Ordinance Amending Section 12-23-2, Employee Generation and Mitigation Rates, Vail Town Code to Amend Table 23-1, Employee Generation Rates by Type of Construction Use, and to Amend the Definition of Nexus Study in Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, with the following findings: That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 1. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the sign regulations; and Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2017 Page 5 November 7, 2017 - Page 134 c 2. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality Bruno seconded the motion. Public comment was invited and there were none. Foley questioned the number of employees required for the eating & drinking establishments; he suggested using Vail's local data. The motion was approved (5-2; Chapin and Foley opposed). 6. Action Items 6.1. Parking and Transportation Task Force Recommended Winter 2017-2018 Parking Program Presenter(s): Greg Hall Director of Public Works and Transportation Action Requested of Council: Approve or approve with modifications the Winter 2017-2018 Parking Program as recommended by the Parking and Transportation Task Force. Background: The Parking & Transportation Task Force was formed in 1999 in an advisory capacity and has been enacted through the years at the direction of the Vail Town Council. In reinstating the Task Force, the role of the 12 -member group is to provide advisory input and recommendations on parking, transit and traffic operations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Town Council approve the Parking and Transportation Task Force recommendations for the Winter 2017-2018 Parking Program. Hall reviewed the materials again and with a review of the memo — included in the packet. The recommendations of the Parking and Transportation Task Force for the Winter 2017-2018 Parking Program are targeted to: ✓ Increase the use of the current underutilized parking supply during peak periods. ✓ Decrease the demand for parking spaces during peak periods to free up spaces. ✓ Encourage the use of carpooling and transit. ✓ Discourage the use of rental cars. ✓ Encourage the use of short-term parking for business opportunities verses free extended parking (looping) and the free 2 hour local ski outing. ✓ Encourage the reduction in Vehicle Miles of Travel VMT as outlined in the Town's Environmental Strategic Plan as a 20% VMT reduction goal. ✓ Task Force also recommends rolling back free period from current 2 hours of free parking to 90 minutes of free parking. It was noted that increases in winter parking rates are being recommended to address supply and demand strategies and a decrease from 2 hours to 90 minutes allotted for free parking, see recommended rate structure and parking pass prices below: Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2017 Page 6 November 7, 2017 - Page 135 c Recommended Rate Structure: Existing Proposed 0 to 30 Free Free 30 to 1 Free Free 1 to 1.5 Free Free 1.5 to 2 Free $5 2to3 515 $10 3 too 520 $20 4 to 15 525 $30 15 to 24 525 $40 Recommended Parking Pass Prices Existing Proposed Gold 53250 $3250 Silver 51800 $2000 Blue 51100 $1500 Green 5 500 $750 Pink 5150 $300 There was further dialogue about the "free parking", a parking validation process, and overnight parking rate, county transit services. There was overall support for the recommendations with a few changes, i.e. pink pass priced at $200; overnight parking at $50 (see changes below). Recommended Parking Pass Prices Existing Proposed Revised Gold $3250 $3250 $3300 Silver $1800 $2000 $2000 Blue $1100 $1500 $1250 Green $500 $750 $625 Pink $150 $300 $150 6.2. Ordinance No. 14, Series 2017, First Reading, an Ordinance adopting a budget and financial plan and making appropriations to pay the costs, expenses and liabilities of the Town of Vail, Colorado for its fiscal year January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 Presenter(s): Kathleen Halloran, Finance Director Action Requested of Council: Approve or approve with amendments Ordinance No. 14, Series 2017 Background: Please see attached memo Staff Recommendation: Approve or approve with amendments Ordinance No. 14, Series 2017 Finance Director Kathleen Halloran presented highlights from the council packet memo as well as responses to the inquiries made during the Sept. 19 meeting. Consideration was given to the following items: • Funding request for Seibert sculpture; there was a request for more information and not to include it in the 2018 budget at this time. • Spring Back To Vail Funding which was reviewed and included in the 2018 budget Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2017 Page 7 November 7, 2017 - Page 136 c ■ Funding history for housing and community building as presented by a summary worksheet; there was further detail presented by the town manager about housing program staffing and strategic planning implementation. Moffet moved to approve Ordinance No. 14, Series 2017, First Reading, an Ordinance adopting a budget and financial plan and making appropriations to pay the costs, expenses and liabilities of the Town of Vail, Colorado for its fiscal year January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. Bruno seconded the motion. Foley asked about the proposed 4% merit increase and requested a five year history summary for consideration at second reading. Public input was heard from Steve Lindstrom, VLHA, who expressed funding support for the housing initiatives. The motion passed (6-1; Foley opposed). There being no further business to come before the council, Moffet moved to adjourn the meeting and Bruno seconded the motion which passed (7-0) and the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Attest: Dave Chapin, Mayor Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2017 Page 8 November 7, 2017 - Page 137 c VAIL TOWN COUNCILAGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Minutes from October 17, 2017 meeting ATTACHMENTS: Description 101717 Town Council Meeting Minutes TOWN Of9 November 7, 2017 - Page 138 0 Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 17, 2017 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Chapin. Members present: Staff members present: Dave Chapin, Mayor Jenn Bruno, Mayor Pro Tem Dick Cleveland Kevin Foley Kim Langmaid Jen Mason Greg Moffet Greg Clifton, Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Patty McKenny, Town Clerk 1. Citizen Participation Mayor Chapin spent a moment recognizing Morrie Shepard, Vail's first ski school director who passed away, who worked with many of the pioneers of Vail. Patti Langmaid, resident, expressed opposition to the patio at the Village Parking structure as an extension of La Cantina. She demonstrated the proposed size of the patio noting that it would ruin the beautifully landscaped area and entrance to Vail Village. Penny Wilson, resident, thanked the town for the berm at their property and expressed support for keeping the two hour timeframe as free parking. Bill Hanlon, resident, thanked council for honoring he and his wife as the July 4th parade grand marshals and also shared his thoughts about Vail as a community moving forward, to sustain it as a recreational mountain community with young & active residents and a continued priority to create more housing. Leah Obrien, resident, read from a draft proclamation from the Vail Rotary Club acknowledging polio days which will be celebrated on Oct. 24. Michael Cacioppo expressed his opposition to reducing the free parking from 2 hours to 90 minutes and his concerns about the county's ballot questions 1A. Kim Langmaid requested council's consideration of the following two topics: 1. Requested support for a feasibility review of the property next to the Middle Creek Housing project to use for more workforce housing. There was not enough council support for this study; it was noted the parcel is already zoned as natural area preservation district. Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 17, 2017 Page 1 November 7, 2017 - Page 139 c 2. Requested staff time to help determine next steps needed to pursue bighorn sheep collaborative regarding East Vail property. There was council support of this request to have staff time dedicated to this topic. 2. Consent Agenda 2.1. Minutes from September 5, 2017 meeting Moffet moved to approve the minutes from Sept. 5; Bruno seconded the motion and it passed (6-0; Mason abstained). 2.2. Minutes from September 19, 2017 meeting Moffet moved to approve the minutes from Sept. 19; Bruno seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.3. Resolution No. 36, Series of 2017, A Resolution Approving the Operating Plan and Budget of the Vail Local Marketing District, for its Fiscal Year January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 Moffet moved to approve Resolution No. 36; Cleveland seconded the motion and it passed (7- 0). It was noted that the VLMD approved the 2018 budget earlier that day. Foley noted that he proposed at that time using some of the VLMD budget to fund iconic events, i.e. music and dance, and using the savings of that in the General Fund for housing efforts. 3. Town Manager Report Presenter(s): Greg Clifton, Town Manager Clifton highlighted his first report as a sample of what he would like to provide moving forward. Council supported this communication report. Greg Hall, Public Works Director, presented an update about the Red Sandstone Elementary school parking structure estimated costs. He noted that the design and construction for the engineering items related to accommodating the building with further upward expansion would create additional costs for the project. There continued to be support for this component of the project. Hall also spoke briefly about the parking rates that were recently adopted. 4. Presentations / Discussion 4.1. Short Term Rental policy discussion Presenter(s): Kathleen Halloran, Finance Director Action Requested of Council: Staff is requesting further clarification from Council on policy direction and will return with an ordinance on November 7th. Background: Over the course of two public input sessions this summer and four Council meetings, staff has received direction on regulations for the short term rental market. There are several other policy considerations that staff would like Council's direction prior to developing an ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff on additional policy changes, if any, prior to a proposed ordinance scheduled for November 7th. Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 17, 2017 Page 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 140 c Finance Director Halloran presented some final components of this short-term rental policy in order to draft the legislation addressing regulations. The items staff is reviewing included: ■ Revise the current ordinance to remove the 14 -day threshold to require a license ■ Create a penalty / fine structure for the unlicensed operation of short-term rentals ■ Require an affidavit to be signed by the licensee to acknowledge trash, noise and parking violations as well as verifying life safety precautions are in place.* Staff has another suggestion based on additional research. Please see below for details on the concept of a third party inspector. ■ Require a local property contact for each rental which must be posted in the interior of the rented unit for renters, as well as documented with the town. Other topics reviewed with public input included: 1. Joint ownership. Specifically this entails a required sign -off by a neighbor sharing a party wall, for example a duplex owner. Does Council wish to include a requirement relating to joint ownership in the ordinance? Public comments were heard from: Stephen Connelly: permission should come with the renewal process ■ Penny Wilson, Leah O'Brien: requested that HOA should become part of the approval process ■ Dennis Linn: supported co-owner consent ■ Michael Cacioppo: doesn't support taking away people's property rights Council requested more info about the joint ownership language in terms of sign off and violation of property rights. 2. Safety: Council has initially approved the town requiring an owner -signed affidavit verifying that the owner has complied with short term rental safety requirements such as CO2 monitors, smoke detectors and occupancy limits. Sample checklists are attached (Attachment A) which provides a lot of detailed considerations. Public comments were heard from: Dennis Linn: requested government involvement for home inspections in an effort to keep a Vail standard for accommodations Stephen Connelly: doesn't support third party inspections Council supported: ✓ a checklist affidavit that was life -safety oriented only ✓ No third parties contractors involved for inspections ✓ No inspections 3. Safety: Based on additional research, staff would like to propose another option for addressing safety concerns. Rather than rely on an affidavit, the owner could be required to obtain an inspection from a third party company as part of the annual licensing process. Staff would suggest that a standard checklist form be used by the inspector and could provide a list of accepted vendors. Does Council wish to require an affidavit or an outside inspection prior to licensing and license renewal? Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 17, 2017 Page 3 November 7, 2017 - Page 141 c 4. Also on the topic of safety, citizens have expressed concerns with snowy/icy exterior walkways and stairs as potential hazards to vacationing guests. Does Council wish to include exterior walkways in the safety requirements? There was not any council support for third party inspections related to numbers 3 and 4. 5. Council previously discussed tracking violations of the town's current noise, trash, and parking ordinances for the purposes of license revocation. Does Council wish to add a regulation to enable the town staff to revoke a business license if a certain number of verified violations occur for a particular rental unit? Staff believes that license revocation may be an effective enforcement tool. It could be structured with a revocation hearing and applicable criteria to ensure a fairly administered process. There was some discussion about the licensing and revocation of licenses as a useful tool for monitoring the STR environment. Staff will continue to research this component keeping it simple and stream -lined in administrative efforts. Stephen Connolly noted the goal as preserving the quality of life for everyone in the neighborhoods. 6. With enforcement in mind, the posting of a rentals license number on the exterior of the unit would greatly improve reporting of complaints or violations that must be verified by police or code enforcement. A call into Dispatch or responding officers may not be able to readily identify if the location is a rental or confirm the exact address and unit number. Without a confirmed location, it will be difficult to prove that a violation has occurred. Other communities such as South Lake Tahoe, Hood River, Oregon, and Santa Cruz County, California have implemented an exterior posting of the license number. South Lake Tahoe for example uses a 12"x12" sign placed near the main doorway and Santa Cruz signs are limited to 216 square inches. Any regulation surrounding exterior signage would have to first be approved by the Design Review Board (DRB). Does Council support exterior posting of license numbers? In general there was not support of posting the exterior of the properties but rather it was suggested using some kind of database that identifies information about the properties used for short term rental. There was support for interior posting of ownership information to be required win 5 feet of the front door 7. Since the last Council discussion on STRs, staff has learned of new legislation passed in San Francisco that is gaining traction with other municipalities. The new regulation requires hosting platforms such as VBRO or Airbnb to verify that a rental is licensed with the municipality prior to listing the advertisement. The hosting platforms are allowed to use multiple methods to verify licensing. Other municipalities pursuing this same regulation include Santa Monica, California and Miami -Dade County, Florida. Does Council wish to pursue requiring hosting platforms to confirm licensing prior to posting a rental online? This item was supported but it was suggested to possibly include it at a later date. Halloran also noted a number of items that are currently active to implementing their program i.e. software research, database updates, identify enforcement practices and how to communicate with owners, drafting educational tools and communications, forms for the str licensing, identify how to track complaints. Legislation would be drafted and presented at the next meeting taking into consideration the input. Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 17, 2017 Page 4 November 7, 2017 - Page 142 c 5. Action Items 5.1. Resolution No. 32, Series of 2017, Resolution supporting Eagle County Ballot Issue 1A — funding mental health and substance abuse services in Eagle County through the taxation of retail marijuana Presenter(s): Dave Chapin, Mayor Action Requested of Council: Council is asked to vote on the resolution. Moffet moved to approve Resolution No. 32, Series of 2017; Langmaid seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). There was no public input on the topic. 5.2. Resolution No. 33, Series of 2017, Resolution of Support for the Vail Park And Recreation District Ballot Issue at the November 7, 2017 Special Election Presenter(s): Dave Chapin, Mayor Action Requested of Council: Council is asked to vote on the resolution. Mike Ortiz, Director of VRD, spoke on behalf of the election and proposed ballot question. Moffet moved to approve Resolution No. 33, Series of 2017; Foley seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). Michael Cacioppo expressed support of this ballot proposal. 5.3. Resolution No. 34, Series of 2017, A Resolution in Support of Ballot Question 1 on the November 7, 2017 Town of Vail Election Ballot; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto Presenter(s): Dave Chapin, Mayor Action Requested of Council: Council is asked to vote on the resolution. Moffet moved to approve Resolution No. 34, Series of 2017; Foley seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). There was no public input on this topic. 5.4. Resolution No. 35, Series of 2017, A Resolution Approving a Development Agreement Between the Town of Vail, The Vail Local Housing Authority and Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Presenter(s): George Ruther, Director of Community Development Action Requested of Council: Approve, Approve with Conditions or Deny Resolution No. 35, Series of 2017. Background: Sonnenalp Properties Inc. owns real property within town limits with a physical address of 501 N. Frontage Rd. W. The owner wishes to develop deed restriction property for employee housing which will consist of 65 residential dwelling units within one building, parking and walkway improvements as well as renewable energy options. In exchange for the Deed Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 17, 2017 Page 5 November 7, 2017 - Page 143 c Restriction, the Town shall pay the Developer $4,225,000 (the "Town Contribution"). The Town Contribution is based on a per Unit price of $65,000 (for 65 Units). Community Development Director George Ruther presented background and noted the town will call upon the new Vail InDEED program to help fund the project. The 65 new Solar Vail rental units would be a combination of studio, one and two bedroom and 16 of the new apartments at Solar Vail would be available for businesses and individuals not associated with Sonnenalp Properties. This involves purchase of 65 deed restrictions on property at $65K per unit for total of $4.225 million. There was Public input heard at this time: Chris Romer, VVP, noted that Eagle County did not license businesses in incorporated Eagle County and expressed support for the project and the public-private partnership. Rick Smith, Chief Administrative Officer for the new Vail Health, expressed support for the project which shows vision and courage. Steve Lindstrom, VLHA, noted their recommendation, thanked Goerge Ruther for working this public-private partnership and noted these kinds of projects will be pursued as a model. Moffet moved to approve Resolution No. 35, Series of 2017, A Resolution Approving a Development Agreement between the Town of Vail, The Vail Local Housing Authority and Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.; Bruno seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 6. Public Hearings 6.1. Second reading of Ordinance No. 14, Series 2017, an Ordinance adopting a budget and financial plan and making appropriations to pay the costs, expenses and liabilities of the Town of Vail, Colorado for its fiscal year January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 Presenter(s): Kathleen Halloran, Finance Director Action Requested of Council: Approve or approve with amendments Ordinance No. 14, Series 2017 Background: Please see attached memo Staff Recommendation: Approve or approve with amendments Ordinance No. 14, Series 2017 Chapin opened the public hearing at this time. There was a review of the memo included in the council packet. There was some discussion about the housing budget, salaries, and transportation items. Cleveland moved to approve on second reading, Ordinance No. 14, Series 2017, an Ordinance adopting a budget and financial plan and making appropriations to pay the costs, expenses and liabilities of the Town of Vail, Colorado for its fiscal year January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. Bruno seconded the motion and it passed (6-1; Foley opposed). Foley expressed concern about the ability to sustain the increases in wages over time. Cleveland noted the town has been an average payer and budget for next year is in line with that philosophy. Public input was invited and Steve Lindstrom spoke about the housing budget and the need to fund it as a program. He also thanked Cleveland for his years of support and actions related to housing. . Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 17, 2017 Page 6 November 7, 2017 - Page 144 c There being no further business to come before the council, Moffet moved to adjourn the meeting and Bruno seconded the motion which passed (7-0) and the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Attest: Dave Chapin, Mayor Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 17, 2017 Page 7 November 7, 2017 - Page 145 c VAIL TOWN COUNCILAGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Contract Award toAdcon ATTACHMENTS: Description Council Memorandum TOWN Of9 November 7, 2017 - Page 146 0 TOWN OF VAILL Memorandum To: Town Council From: Public Works Date: 11/07/2017 Subject: Vail Street Name Sign Contract Award I. ITEM/TOPIC Vail Street Name Sign Contract Award II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with ADCON to provide signs for the Vail Street Name Sign Project. III. BACKGROUND Staff received 4 bids for the Vail Street Name Project. The project is budgeted in the Capital Projects Fund under Vail Wayfinding Project budget and is within the engineer's estimate. The project will be completed next spring. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, with ADCON to provide signs for the Vail Street Name Sign Project in the amount not to exceed $81,779.00. November 7, 2017 - Page 147 0 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager Report ATTACHMENTS: Description Town Manager Report TOWN IfO November 7, 2017 - Page 148 0 TOWN OF511.) 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 vailgov.com TOWN MANAGER REPORT - NOV 7th TOWN COUNCIL MEETING TOPICS • Hotel Talisa & DoubleTree Update • Clubhouse Update • Recognizing Charlie • Eagle County Regional Airport Training Exercise • Intermountain Fire Mitigation • Fire Station #1 • Staff Affairs • IACP Election • CAST • Economic Development Manager Recruitment • Preservation of History • Season Parking Passes Hotel Talisa & DoubleTree Update Town Manager's Office 970.479.2106 970.479.2157 fax The Fire Department and Building Inspection team have been busy assisting the two contractors for these two projects in terms of completing the final punch lists. Hotel Talisa obtained a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy on October 25th. There are a few minor issues to be corrected prior to the permanent Certificate being issued. The hotel is largely ready for occupancy. Fire Marshal Mike Vaughn has informed us that Hotel Talisa may have their team in the building by November 6th As of the time of this writing, the Chief Building Official, CJ Jarecki, is meeting with the DoubleTree group, which has been busy working toward the completion of that facility. The work is progressing and the town is doing what it can to facilitate the process. It is anticipated that approval for occupancy will occur around December 14th. Again, we will keep you updated. Golf & Nordic Clubhouse Update Members of the Vail Rec District, Public Works and I have been meeting with the contractor, Evans Chaffee, the architectural firm, Zehren & Associates, and others related to completing the punch list out at the Clubhouse. Many of the items are small-scale in terms of scope and complexity, although the wood flooring laminate throughout the facility is a central talking point as it is in need of repair or replacement. We will keep you apprised of this issue and its ultimate resolution. Recognizing Charlie The Colorado Chapter of the American Public Works Association honored Charlie Turnbull, our long-time Street Superintendent, as Professional Manager of the Year at its annual awards luncheon last month. A 40 -year veteran of Public Works, Charlie was nominated by his co-workers for top professional in the administrative management in the small community category. During the past 17 years as Street Superintendent, Charlie's leadership has guided the streets division through substantial growth, change and challenges. We are very proud of his achievement of this award, which truly reflects his dedication and service to the Vail community. November 7, 2017 - Page 149 0 Town Manager's Report Eagle County Regional Airport Training Exercise Representatives from our Fire, Police, Vail Public Safety Communications Center/Mobile Command Unit and Public Information/Communications staff joined with other first responders from across the county to take part in a full-scale training exercise at the Eagle County Regional Airport on October 18th. The exercise was used to demonstrate and evaluate the area's capability to respond to a mass casualty incident and to test multi -agency mutual response, communications and overall coordination. An after -action report will be used to assess what worked well and areas for improvement. This exercise is conducted every three years as a requirement of the Federal Aviation Administration. Intermountain Fire Mitigation Project As of October 30th, all helicopter logging operations have been completed. All of the logs have been hauled from the west landing, which is located at the west end of Basingdale Boulevard. The west landing has been rehabilitated and per the requirements of Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the landing and the access road have been left covered with logs and slash to deter recreational use. Log hauling has been occurring on the Matterhorn Road landing site. It is estimated that all the logs will have been hauled away and the site restored by mid-November. The areas that were logged will have additional mitigation work completed during 2018. This work will consist of piling the remaining slash for burning the following winter. Vail Fire Station #1 The East Vail Fire Station renovation has been recognized with the Award of Merit from the Engineering News -Record. The award cited storm water quality improvements, innovative use of space, and sequencing the construction so as to allow continued fire department operations throughout the project. The Engineering News -Record is a weekly publication that provides news related to the construction industry. Staff Affairs It has been a busy period of time lately. On November 1st many employees (and retired employees) attended the celebration of Rudy Sandoval's retirement after 31 years of service with the town. Rudy, who has considerable expertise in providing mechanical services to the many Fire Department trucks and vehicles, drew a packed house and a nice farewell lunch was had by all. He will be missed. Also of note was the celebration of Halloween in Town Hall (and a very good chili cook -off with first place awarded to John King). And the crews have been seen around the community placing holiday decorations (Corey Gonyea and Joe Duran in the lift). The Human Resources Department put together a Biometrics medical screening event that spanned three different days, each of which was well attended. The department also hosted the Open Enrollment and Benefits Fair at the Donovan Pavilion on October 25th After many meetings and contract negotiations, the town has entered into an agreement with GMC regarding the arrival of five pool vehicles that will be utilized exclusively for business purposes by employees. Page 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 150 0 IACP Election As has been properly publicized of late, our Vail Police Chief Dwight Henninger was elected 4th Vice President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police at the IACP Annual Conference held in Philadelphia recently. This remarkable accomplishment positions Dwight to become president of IACP in 2021-2022. Throughout his service on the IACP executive board, Chief Henninger intends to continue to serve the Vail community as Chief of Police. The IACP serves 30,000 members from over 9,000 agencies in the U.S. and from across the globe. CAST Meeting The quarterly CAST meeting was held in Silverton on October 26th & 27th The Town of Vail was represented by Mayor Chapin and me. It was an excellent meeting featuring a nice array of topics and presenters. Notably, there was a presentation by the owner of Silverton Mountain, discussion of the Superfund cleanup of the Gold King mine and others, and a group conversation about municipally -owned recreation amenities. Economic Development Manager The search process is nearing completion. On November 9th, preliminary Interviews will be held with seven candidates. This will involve in-person interviews with the appointed panel, consisting of staff members as well as members from the VEAC, VLMDAC, and CSE. Concurrent interviews will occur with my office, and we will all share notes at the conclusion of the process. The qualifications of the candidates are quite impressive. Preservation of Heritage The town has advanced a donation of $5,000 to cover the video cost associated with the recent Dr. Steinberg Memorial Service, as this seems to be consistent with the stated objective to help preserve and memorialize the those individuals who have helped define Vail's history and heritage. The contribution derived from a contingency fund in the Town Manager's Budget. We will come forward with a more formalized approach to make similar and consistent donations in the future, emphasizing the memorialization of such individuals in the Vail community. Season Parking Passes The town's parking pass sales office opened for the season on Oct. 30th and has seen a steady stream of customers purchasing parking passes throughout the week. As of this writing, staff has handed out 148 free parking coupons as part of the program incentivizing early pass purchases. The last day for this incentive is Friday, November 10th. Staff is also working to implement a new pilot program in partnership with the Vail Chamber & Business Association which will provide a $5 off parking coupon at a discounted $2 price for VCBA members. The coupons will also be available for purchase by other business license holders in Vail for $2.50 each. Our thanks to the VCBA Board for agreeing to take on administration of this pilot program! Town Manager's Report Page 3 November 7, 2017 - Page 151 0 TOWN Of9 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 29, Series of 2017 A Resolution Approving the Town of Vail Transportation Impact Fee Schedule, Pursuant to Title 12-26; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, modify or deny Resolution No. 29 Series 2017 BACKGROUND: On July 11, 2017 the Town of Vail adopted an amendment to Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Transportation Impact Fee. In order to implement this fee the Town Council must approve a Transportation Impact Fee Schedule by Resolution. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 29 Series 2017 ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo Attachment A - Resolution No. 29, Series 2017 Attachment B - Ordinace Attachment C - Transportation Impact Fee Study Attachment D - Presentation November 7, 2017 - Page 152 0 TOWN OF VAIL. Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Public Works Department Date: November 7, 2017 Subject: Resolution No. 29 Series 2017 -Transportation Impact Fee Schedule I. SUMMARY On July 11, 2017 the Town of Vail adopted an amendment to Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Transportation Impact Fee. The proposed transportation impact fee applies to new developments, including creation of any new residential dwelling units, or any new commercial floor area. The fee does not apply to residential remodels where no additional units are added, or to commercial remodels that do not increase square footage or change use. This new fee will be paid by the owner or developer, and will be collected by the Community Development Department at the time of issuance of a building permit. Revenues from this fee will be used by the Town of Vail for new transportation related infrastructure projects that are necessary due to the increased traffic from the incremental new development. 11. BACKGROUND A transportation impact fee is a development fee assessed to offset costs that a jurisdiction will incur to improve transportation infrastructure as a result of increased traffic from new developments. The Town of Vail has collected transportation fees for certain development zone districts, including Public Accommodation(PA), Public Accommodation-2(PA-2), Lionshead Mixed Use-1(LMU-1), and Lionshead Mixed Use- 2(LMU-2), and Special Development Districts (SDD)since 1999. In 2016, the Town of Vail hired the consulting firm TischlerBise to develop an updated transportation impact fee. The adopted impact fee codified the previous traffic mitigation fee to help fund future transportation related projects identified in the Vail Transportation Master Plan. The proposed fee will be applied in all zone districts, and will require developers to pay their proportional share for the necessary transportation infrastructure improvements that are directly related to the impacts created by the new development. Over the past year there have been multiple public discussions regarding the codification of a transportation impact fee. These public discussions were as follows: November 7, 2017 - Page 153 0 Jan. 2016: Town Council: Staff confirmed direction from Council to move forward with an updated Transportation Impact Fee nexus study so that a Transportation Impact Fee could be codified. A Review of the current traffic mitigation fee and the previous effort to codify a traffic impact fee in 2009, along with discussion around the proposed 2009 fees and that it was anticipated that 2017 fees would be much higher. June 2016: Town Council: Discussion with consultant, TischlerBise, regarding: • What is a traffic impact fee? • Why implement a traffic impact fee? • What's wrong with our current mitigation fees? • Can the Town waive fees for certain types of developments? Nov. 2016: Town Council: Review and confirmation of each of the Transportation Master Plan listed capital projects and to what extent (percentage) a transportation impact fee can fund these projects. Jan. 2017: Town Council: Presentation by TischlerBise of the draft schedule of transportation impact fees based on the completed Nexus Study. Feb. 2017 (2): Town Council: Two meetings to have a more detailed review and discussion of the impact fee and the individual capital projects that would be funded and to what extent. Council provided direction to move forward through the process to codify the presented Transportation Impact Fees a the second February meeting. March 2017: Public Open House: Review and discuss the proposed transportation impact fees with attendees. April 2017: PEC: Review and discussion of the impact fee and the capital projects list. May 2017: PEC: Review of an application for a prescribed regulations amendment to Title 12, the Transportation Impact Fee Study, and the proposed ordinance. The recommendation of the PEC to the Town Council was for approval of the transportation impact fee and ordinance as presented by staff (Vote 4-3). June 2017 (2): Town Council: Two meetings to approve on First Reading Ordinance No. 4 Series 2017, for the amendment to Title 12. (Vote 7-0) July 2017: Town Council: Approved on Second Reading Ordinance No. 4 Series 2017, for the amendment of Title 12. (Vote 4-2) Council delayed fee schedule resolution until September. Sept. 2017 (2): Town Council: Two meetings to discuss Public Comments received and to discuss the recommended fee schedule. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS The public comments that were heard during the Town Council adoption of the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance are summarized below along with staff's responses; Town of Vail Page 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 154 0 • Comment: The growth assumed in the Nexus Study and the Vail Transportation Master Plan is unrealistic. The Town should defer these impact fees until an updated Vail Master Plan can be completed to understand where and how the Town will develop in the future. o Response: The growth assumptions are based on future development projects that have already been through the entitlement process and/or have had some level of master plan effort; the growth projections also recognize that most remaining large surface parking lots in the Vail and Lionshead village areas and the west vail commercial area will likely redevelop in the future. The majority of the development, 1813 of the projected 1982 units, and 495,000 of the projected 521,000 SF of commercial are based on the following specific projects; • Ever Vail (573 units / 56,000 SF Comm.) Entitlements approved. • ERWSD Area (26 units / 24,000 SF Comm.) Considered relocation and becoming `part' of Ever Vail at one time, not entitled at this time • LH Parking Structure redevelopment/Lodge at Lionshead/Lionshead Center (203 units / 59,000 SF Comm.) Plans developed at one time, however did not complete entitlement process. • Vail Transportation Center / Evergreen Lodge (95 units / 64,000 SF Comm.) Plans developed at one time, however did complete entitlement process. • Vail Health (140,000 SF Comm.) Currently in entitlement process for 110,000 SF of expansion. Have the potential to increase square footage in the future at both the Hospital site and the US Bank building site. • West Vail Commercial Area (474 units /152,000 SF Comm.) Planning exercise completed in order to understand what a live work commercial area concept could look like within the West Vail Commercial Area. • Timber Ridge (50 units) Assumed density increase at Timber Ridge based on past development efforts. • Marriott Residence Inn (210 units) Entitlements approved. • Chamonix Housing (32 units) Approve. • Other Employee Housing Units (150 units) Assumed additional new construction employee housing units based on the goal of having 1,000 additional EHU's in Vail. o Also to keep in mind; based on the 2010 US census data the number of units in Vail increased by 1841 units in ten years from 2000 to 2010. The current projection is a similar amount of development over a much more extended period of time of 25+ years. o If Vail changes direction, and begins to limit development, the Ordinance and fee schedule will still be applicable; the net result would be collection of less impact fees, and therefore funding less transportation improvement projects. The fee schedule can be and should be updated at least every other year to keep pace with any changing development master plans and change in construction costs. Town of Vail Page 3 November 7, 2017 - Page 155 0 • Comment: In lieu of an impact fee which adds to the burden of development, the Town Council should propose an increase in sales tax to spread the burden to all users. o Response: Council gave staff direction to adopt an impact fee to codify the existing traffic mitigation fees, not to propose an increase in sales tax. The impact fee could generate up to -22% of the anticipated cost of the identified future transportation improvements. The remaining 78% would need to be generated by other means and thus is already spread out amongst all users (i.e. existing sales tax, VRA TIF funding, project level improvements, etc...). However for comparison, an equivalent sales tax increase to offset the recommended impact fees would be approximately 0.13%. • Comment: The proposed capital projects from the Vail Transportation Master Plan are not necessary, and based on inflated traffic projections, and will lead Vail to having 4-9 lane Frontage Roads. o Response: The traffic projections are based on the development projections as described above. The resulting transportation projects have been reviewed in detail with both PEC and Council. None of the projects were perceived as being unnecessary. The effect of the road improvements are; • to continue the 4 lane frontage road median section that exists in front of the Vail Village and extend it west through the future Ever Vail site, • to add a roundabout as a single point main access for a future West Vail commercial redevelopment, • to add left turn lanes along the frontage roads where necessary to access residential roads (i.e. Buffehr Creek Rd., Red Sandstone Rd., etc...), • to increase capacity at the Vail Town Center and West Vail roundabouts as necessary. • Comment: An adopted fee schedule needs to include a start date and an exemption for those projects already in the process. o Response: Staff recommends enacting the fees by January 1, 2018; exempting all projects that are approved or in the process prior to that date. Prior to that date existing regulations and/or developer agreements will still apply. (i.e. PA, LMU & SDD's) • Comment: The Medical Facilities category is targeted to Vail Health, and when based on square footage is not appropriate because Vail Health (VH) is mainly decompressing existing space not adding space or services. o Response: Staff recognizes the intent of the VH redevelopment is to decompress existing square footage, which is why a more in depth traffic study was completed and approved. The traffic study is based on site specific traffic studies, existing and projected employees, and existing and proposed parking space numbers. The traffic study includes an additional reduction in vehicular trips as a result of the robust employee shuttle program, which also provides the reduction in parking space requirements from 707 spaces to 604 spaces. This site specific traffic study projects 118 new net new PM peak hour vehicular trips, 22 more than what is Town of Vail Page 4 November 7, 2017 - Page 156 0 accounted for in the existing developer improvement agreement from 2015. As stated in the existing developer improvement agreement, the traffic mitigation fee shall be based on the final net new PM peak hour trips or the new codified Transportation Impact Fee rate, for comparison; • A fee based on Net New PM Peak Hour Trips at the recommended rate of $11,200, yields $1,321,600. Less the original payment of $624, 000, netting a balance of $697, 600. • A fee based on the recommended Square Foot Impact Fee @ $9.93/SF, yields $963, 000 less the original payment of $624, 000, netting a balance of $339,000 IV. FEE SCHEDULE The recommended fee schedule was initially presented to Council this past January, approved with modifications by the Planning and Environmental Commission in May, and identified within the nexus study that is referenced within the recent adoption of Title 12-26. The recommended fee schedule is based on the allowable fees as determined by the nexus study completed by TischlerBise. The fee schedule can be implemented as presented or reduced by some percentage as long as the reduction is equally applied over all uses. However by reducing the fee, Council recognizes that the shortfall of revenue projection will have to be made up by the Town of Vail. In general, for every 5% reduction in fees, the Town of Vail will need to subsidize an additional $900,000. The recommended fee schedule is as follows along with example reductions; Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees Recommended 5%I 10% 15% 20% Residentail Dwellings (per Unit) Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (In the Core Area) $ 5,960.00 $ 5,662.00 $ 5,364.00 $ 5,066.00 $ 4,768.00 Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (Outside the Core Area) $ 7,450.00 $ 7,077.50 $ 6,705.00 $ 6,332.50 $ 5,960.00 Dwelling, Single Family $ 9,686.00 $ 9,201.70 $ 8,717.40 $ 8,233.10 $ 7,748.80 Employee Housing Unit $0 $ - $ - $ - $ - Accommodation Unit (per Unit) Accommodation Unit (In Core Area) $ 5,960.00 $ 5,662.00 $ 5,364.00 $ 5,066.00 $ 4,768.00 Accommodation Unit (Outside Core Area) $ 7,450.00 $ 7,077.50 $ 6,705.00 $ 6,332.50 $ 5,960.00 Commercial (per square foot of floorarea) Restaurant & Retail Establishments $ 13.90 $ 13.21 $ 12.51 $ 11.82 $ 11.12 Facilities Health Care $ 9.93 $ 9.43 $ 8.94 $ 8.44 $ 7.94 Office & Other Services $ 6.20 $ 5.89 . $ 5.58 $ 5.27 $ 4.96 Total Projected Revenue $ 18,244,320.00 $ 17,332,104.00 $ 16,419,888.00 $ 15,507,672.00 $ 14,595,456.00 Total Additional Amount Subsidized by Town $ 2,553,860.00 $ 3,466,076.00 $ 4,378,292.00 $ 5,290,508.00 $ 6,202,724.00 The concerns members of Council expressed previously were with regards to perception that the fees are too high and that the fees might deter desired developments within the Town. The Town's policies have leaned towards incentivizing the development of Commercial uses and Accommodation Units. Some of these incentives were adopted as a result of the Lionshead Master Plan process -20 years Town of Vail Page 5 November 7, 2017 - Page 157 0 ago. That process significantly increased allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), increased unit density, permitted Accommodation Units to not count towards density, and encouraged first floor retail expansions. However, it also adopted language within the PA and LMU zone districts to require pedestrian and vehicular traffic impact mitigation. The mitigation requirement recognized that incentivizing redevelopment and increasing GRFA/Density would result in additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic which would need to be mitigated in some capacity. The intent of the language was to have the developer pay for the cost of the mitigation. Staff recommends that this consideration continues, where Commercial uses and Accommodation Units can still be incentivized, with the requirement that in exchange for development incentives the developer should pay for the transportation related impacts caused by the development. This policy, which has been in effect for the past 20 years, has not deterred development as exemplified by Vail's Two Billion Dollar Redevelopment phase between 2004 and 2010. During that time the town assessed a total of $3.4 Million in negotiated traffic mitigation fees for Multiple Family, Commercial, and Accommodation Unit developments. The fee assessed during that time beginning in 2005 was $6500 per net PM peak hour traffic trip generated. An equivalent 2016 fee, adjusted for local construction escalation, would be approximately $13,000 to $16,705 per net PM peak hour traffic trip generated. The recommended fee schedule presented above reflects an equivalent amount of only $11,200 per PM peak hour traffic trip generated. Therefore, taking into account local construction cost inflation, the recommended fee schedule is actually 14% to 33% less then the relative cost of traffic mitigation in 2005. In addition, showing that the recommended impact fee is not likely to deter development, this past August, Town Council adopted on first reading a traffic mitigation fee of $11,200 per PM peak hour trip (with an exemption for EHU's) for phase II of the Mountain View SDD development. This past January the Marriott Residence Inn SDD, was approved on first reading to have an impact fee of $11,200 per PM peak hour trip, and it is in the final Developer Improvement Agreement process to further solidify this amount. These two recent approvals are equivalent to the recommended transportation impact fee schedule, and do not include a reduction. V. CREDITS & APPEAL At the previous Council work session on September 5th, Council requested information regarding the ability to waive/credit/negotiate Transportation Impact Fees under special circumstances for unique projects. Staff has discussed the adopted ordinance, specifically section 12-26-4 with the Town Attorney and can identify multiple accommodations for such ability to not waive but provide credits for pending impact fees, during the development review process; • provided for any dedication or conveyance of land • provided for any construction of Town -approved System Level transportation infrastructure or facilities as identified in the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study Town of Vail Page 6 November 7, 2017 - Page 158 0 • provided for any transportation services provided by the applicant at the applicant's cost, that offset the transportation impacts of the project, as approved by the Town • The value of said credits shall be determined by the Town, in its reasonable discretion. The third bullet being the most broad in definition and could apply to such unique developments as the Vail Health redevelopment. VI. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE TOWN COUNCIL In order to implement Title 12-26, Transportation Impact Fee the Town Council should adopt by Resolution a Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adopting Resolution No. 29 Series 2017 with the recommended fee schedule as noted above which is referenced in the Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study, with clarifications as identified in the attached Fee Schedule, with its implementation occurring on January 1, 2018. VIII. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A — Resolution No. 29, 2017 Attachment B — Ordinance No. 4, Series 2017 Attachment C — Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study, March 10, 2017 Attachment D — Presentation Town of Vail Page 7 November 7, 2017 - Page 159 0 RESOLUTION NO. 29 Series of 2017 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TOWN OF VAIL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE, PURSUANT TO TITLE 12-26; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the "Town "), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter "); WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council ") have been duly elected and qualified; WHEREAS, Title 12, Chapter 26 of the Vail Town Code requires the adoption of a Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (the "Fee Schedule"); WHEREAS, the Council finds and determines that the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study dated March 10, 2017 supports the Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Fee Schedule shall be updated from time to time to account for construction cost, inflation and updated Town Master Plans. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. The Council hereby approves the Fee Schedule. Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect on January 1, 2018. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail held this 7h day of November, 2017. Dave Chapin, Town Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk November 7, 2017 - Page 160 0 1 Resolution No. 29 Series 2017 Exhibit A I Vail Transportation Impact Fees Residentail Dwellings (per Unit) Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (In the Core Area) $ 5,960.00 Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (Outside the Core Area) $ 7,450.00 Dwelling, Single Family $ 9,686.00 Employee Housing Unit $0 Accommodation Unit (per Unit) Accommodation Unit (In Core Area) $ 5,960.00 Accommodation Unit (Outside Core Area) $ 7,450.00 Commercial (per square foot of floor area) Restaurant & Retail Establishments $ 13.90 Facilities Health Care $ 9.93 Office & Other Services $ 6.20 Core Area is defined per Figure 1 in the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study. Per Unit is defined as any type of Dwelling Unit, Fractional Fee Unit, Accommodation Unit, Lodge Unit, or Timeshare Unit as listed below. Per Square Foot of Floor Area is defined as, per each net new gross square foot of enclosed floor area constructed, excluding; enclosed vehicular loading and delivery areas, and vehicular parking facilities. The above Trasnportation Impact Fee schedule rates are equivalent to $11,200 per net new PM -Peak hour vehicular trip. The categories within the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule are further defined below, and within Title 12-2-2. Any uses or development types not specifically defined below or within Title 12-2-2 shall be interpreted by the Administrator in accordance with the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study. Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family includes; Dwelling, Two Family Dwelling, Multiple Family Fractional Fee Club Unit Accommodation Unit includes; Accommodation Unit Accommodation Unit, Attached Lodge Dwelling Unit Lodge Unit, Limited Service Timeshare Unit Restaurant and Retail includes; Eating and drinking establishments Retail stores and establishments Theaters Office & Other Services includes; Professional offices, business offices and studios Banks and financial institutions Personal services and repair shops Child Daycare Center Health Clubs / Spa Commercial Ski Storage/Ski Club Religious Institutions November 7, 2017 - Page 161 0 ORDINANCE NO. 4 SERIES 2017 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 26, ENTITLED "TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES" WHEREAS, to ensure the provision of adequate public transportation services and facilities in the Town, the Town Council wishes to condition certain land use approvals on payment of a transportation impact fee; WHEREAS, it is widely recognized that municipalities may impose exactions (impact fees) on the granting of land use approvals, provided that there is an essential nexus between the exaction and a legitimate local government interest, and provided that the exaction is roughly proportional, both in nature and extent, to the impact of the proposed use or development, pursuant to Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994); C.R.S. § 29-20-203 and related case law; WHEREAS, the Town has conducted and adopted a study to provide the basis for the imposition of the transportation impact fee and to determine the appropriate amount of the transportation impact fee, which study was prepared by TischlerBise on March 10, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the public health, safety, and welfare will be served by adopting regulations delineating the Town's procedure for imposing a transportation impact fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Title 12 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 26, which shall read as follows: CHAPTER 26 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES 12-26-1: FINDINGS AND PURPOSE: A. Findings. The Town Council finds and determines as follows: 1. A legitimate, identifiable public purpose is served by requiring a transportation impact fee for new development and redevelopment projects in the Town; 2. There is an essential nexus between the transportation impact fee imposed in this Chapter and the Town's interest in providing transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; 1 11/1/2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 162 0 3. The Town is acting within its power to provide transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; 4. But for new development and redevelopment projects, the Town would not be considering either the provision or expansion of transportation infrastructure, services or facilities; 5. New development and redevelopment projects are contributing causes to the need for new or expanded transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; 6. The Town would be legally justified in denying applications for new development or redevelopment projects unless the transportation impact fee is imposed, because of the burden the new development or redevelopment projects would place on the Town's transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; and 7. The Town has conducted a study to determine the amount of the transportation impact fee, and the study demonstrates that the transportation impact fee will be roughly proportional, both in nature and extent, to the impacts of new development and redevelopment projects. B. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to impose a transportation impact fee on new development and redevelopment projects in the Town, as set forth herein. 12-26-2: APPLICABILITY: A. The transportation impact fee shall be imposed on the following construction, development or redevelopment in the Town: 1. For commercial development (except accommodation units), on any net new square footage to be constructed. 2. For residential development, on each new residential unit to be constructed. 3. For accommodation units, on each new accommodation unit to be constructed. B. The transportation impact fee shall not be imposed on the construction, development or redevelopment of any Employee Housing Unit. 12-26-3: FEE: The transportation impact fee shall be in the amount set by resolution of the Town Council. The fee shall be imposed by the Community 2 11/1/2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 163 0 Development Department, Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council, as part of the last land use approval for the project. The fee shall be payable prior to issuance of the building permit for the project. 12-26-4: CREDIT: A. An applicant may apply for a credit as set forth in this Section, which credit shall be applied to offset the transportation impact fee that would otherwise be imposed for the project. B. Credit shall be provided for any dedication or conveyance of land from the applicant to the Town. The amount of the credit shall be the present, fair market value of the land being dedicated or conveyed, as determined by the Town in its reasonable discretion. C. Credit shall be provided for any construction of Town -approved System Level transportation infrastructure or facilities as identified in the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study, undertaken by the applicant at the applicant's cost that offset the transportation impacts of the project. The transportation infrastructure or facilities may be constructed as part of the project, or in other areas of the Town, as determined by the Town and the applicant. The value of the credit shall be determined by the Town, in its reasonable discretion, considering the total cost of construction and other relevant factors. D. Credit shall be provided for any transportation services provided by the applicant at the applicant's cost,that offset the transportation impacts of the project, as approved by the Town. The value of the credit shall be determined by the Town, in its reasonable discretion, considering actual costs to provide the services and other relevant factors. 12-26-5: REVIEW: A. An applicant aggrieved by the application of this Chapter by the Community Development Department, the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board may apply for review by the Town Council, by filing a written request for review within 10 days of the decision at issue. B. Within 30 days of receipt of the written request, the Town Council shall hold a public hearing. At such hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the applicant to establish that the imposition of the transportation impact fee as assessed would result in an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. C. If the Town Council determines that the application of this Chapter would result in an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, the Town Council may decrease the transportation impact 3 11/1/2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 164 0 fee (or increase any credit) to ensure that there is no unconstitutional taking. The decision of the Town Council shall be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). D. An applicant aggrieved by the application of this Chapter by the Town Council may seek judicial review pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. 4 11/1/2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 165 0 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of , 2017 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the day of 2017, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk 5 Dave Chapin, Mayor 11/1/2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 166 0 TOWN OF VAIL March 10, 2017 Prepared By TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING www.tischlerbise.com November 7, 2017 - Page 167 c Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 2 COLORADO IMPACT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION 2 ADDITIONAL LEGAL GUIDELINES 2 DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE TOWN OF VAIL 4 Figure 1 — Map of Town Boundary and Vail Core Area 5 LOWER FEES IN CORE AREA 5 Lower Residential Trip Generation Rates in Urban Areas 5 Less Auto Dependency in Urban Areas 6 Shorter Trip Lengths in Urban Areas 6 CURRENT AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION FEES 7 Figure 2 — Transportation Impact Fee Comparison 8 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES 9 Figure 3 — Conceptual Impact Fee Formula 9 TRIP GENERATION 10 Vehicle Trips to Development in the Town of Vail 10 Figure 4 — Summary of Projected Travel Demand 11 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 11 Figure 5 — Summary of Transportation Improvements and Growth Share 12 CREDIT FOR OTHER REVENUES 13 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FORMULA AND INPUT VARIABLES 13 Figure 6 — Transportation Impact Fee Input Variables 14 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES 15 Figure 7 — Transportation Impact Fee Schedule 15 FUNDING STRATEGY FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 16 Figure 8 — Impact Fee Revenue Projection 16 APPENDIX A — DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 17 TRIP GENERATION BY TYPE AND SIZE OF HOUSING 17 Figure Al — PM Peak Hour Vehicle Attraction Trips by Size of Detached House 18 TRIP GENERATION BY FLOOR AREA OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING 19 Figure A2 — PM Peak Hour Inbound Trips by Square Feet 20 APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION 21 CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS 21 TOWN -WIDE SERVICE AREA 21 DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES 22 Residential Development 22 Commercial Development 22 APPENDIX C: REFERENCES 24 November 7, 2017 - Page 168 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 INTRODUCTION Although Colorado is a "home -rule" state and home -rule municipalities were already collecting "impact fees" under their home -rule authority granted in the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Legislature passed enabling legislation in 2001, as discussed further below. Colorado Impact Fee Enabling Legislation For local governments, the first step in evaluating funding options for transportation improvements is to determine basic options and requirements established by state law. Some states have more conservative legal parameters that basically restrict local government to specifically authorized actions. In contrast, "home -rule" states grant local governments broader powers that may or may not be precluded or preempted by state statutes depending on the circumstances and on the state's particular laws. Impact fees are one-time payments imposed on new development that must be used solely to fund growth -related capital projects, typically called "system improvements". An impact fee represents new growth's proportionate share of capital facility needs. In contrast to project - level improvements, impact fees fund infrastructure that will benefit multiple development projects, or even the entire service area, as long as there is a reasonable relationship between the new development and the need for the growth -related infrastructure. Project -level improvements, typically specified in a development agreement, are usually limited to transportation improvements near a proposed development, such as ingress/egress lanes. According to Colorado Revised Statute Section 29-20-104.5, impact fees must be legislatively adopted at a level no greater than necessary to defray impacts generally applicable to a broad class of property. The purpose of impact fees is to defray capital costs directly related to proposed development. The statutes of other states allow impact fee schedules to include administrative costs related to impact fees and the preparation of capital improvement plans, but this is not specifically authorized in Colorado's statute. Impact fees do have limitations, and should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure funding. Rather, they are one component of a comprehensive portfolio to ensure adequate provision of public facilities. Because system improvements are larger and more costly, they may require bond financing and/or funding from other revenue sources. To be funded by impact fees, Section 29-20-104.5 requires that the capital improvements must have a useful life of at least five years. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Also, development impact fees cannot be used to repair or correct existing deficiencies in existing infrastructure. Additional Legal Guidelines Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. Land use regulations, development exactions, and impact fees are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without 2 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 169 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 just compensation. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, by ensuring development is not detrimental to the quality of essential public services. The means to this end are also important, requiring both procedural and substantive due process. The process followed to receive community input (i.e. stakeholder meetings, work sessions, and public hearings) provides opportunities for comments and refinements to the impact fees. There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on other types of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the exaction and the interest being protected (see NoIlan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. There are three reasonable relationship requirements for development impact fees that are closely related to "rational nexus" or "reasonable relationship" requirements enunciated by a number of state courts. Although the term "dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the standard by which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U.S. Constitution, TischlerBise prefers a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: "need," "benefit," and "proportionality." The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Development impact fees may be used to cover the cost of development - related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The NoIlan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. That principle likely applies to impact fees. In this study, the impact of development on infrastructure needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on applicable level -of -service standards. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify development -related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. The demand for facilities is measured in 3 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 170 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development (e.g. a typical housing unit's vehicular trip generation rate). A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. The calculation of impact fees should also assume that they will be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the state enabling legislation requires that facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees. In other words, benefit may extend to a general area including multiple real estate developments. Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are discussed near the end of this study. All of these procedural as well as substantive issues are intended to ensure that new development benefits from the impact fees they are required to pay. The authority and procedures to implement impact fees is separate from and complementary to the authority to require improvements as part of subdivision or zoning review. Impact fees must increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system. Capacity projects include, but are not limited to the addition of travel lanes, intersection improvements (i.e., turning lanes, signalization or roundabouts) and "complete street" improvements to provide multimodal infrastructure (e.g. bus stops, bike lanes and sidewalks). Whenever improvements are made to existing roads, non -impact fee funding is typically required to help pay a portion of the cost. Development Pattern in the Town of Vail Vail is a resort community of approximately 5,000 year-round residents that surges to approximately 40,000-45,000 persons during peak tourism season when employees and visitors are present. The occupied bed base of the community swells from 5,000 to 35,000 during these peak periods. Figure 1 delineates the core area of Vail. Actual boundaries of the Town extend six miles to the east and four miles to the west of the core area (see map inset). Given its location in a mountain valley, the Town has a compact development pattern and a multi -modal transportation system that relies on pedestrian, bicycle, transit and vehicular travel. Consistent with this setting, the proposed impact fees will fund multi -modal transportation improvements necessary to accommodate projected development within the Town of Vail. 4 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 171 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 1— Map of Town Boundary and Vail Core Area .325,44:_ ie ;i nshead Village ```"'�� Ai Vail Villoage Lower Fees in Core Area Development of attached housing units and hotels in the core area will facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use, thus requiring less vehicular travel. In recognition of lower vehicular travel demand in the core area, proposed transportation impact fees are lower in the core area. This policy recommendation is consistent with the literature summarized in the three subsections below and a recent analysis of mixed-use developments in six regions of the United States. This study found an average 29% reduction in trip generation as a function of "D" variables, including: density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, distance to transit, demographics, and development scale (see Ewing, Greenwald, Zhang, Walters, Feldman, Cervero, Frank, and Thomas 2011). Lower Residential Trip Generation Rates in Urban Areas Single-family housing is generally located in low-density suburbs where there are few alternatives for travel except by private motor vehicle. On average, urban housing has fewer 5 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 172 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 persons and vehicles available, thus lowering vehicular trip generation rates per unit when compared to housing in the suburban unincorporated area. Currans and Clifton (2015) developed and tested methods for adjusting ITE trip generation rates for urban settings. They recommend mode -share adjustments based on the number of residents and jobs per acre, which serves as a proxy for urban form. Less Auto Dependency in Urban Areas Urban areas have distinct demographic profiles and physical traits that reduce vehicle trips, such as higher internal capture, design characteristics that promote walking and biking, and superior transit service. Urban areas with grid streets and small blocks offer a variety of routes that encourage walking and biking. Interesting streetscapes with human -scale design features encourage people to walk and bike farther in urban areas, while lowering our perception of distance (Jacobs 2001). Urban areas also have more diverse travel options including public transportation and muscle -powered mobility. A study titled "Trip Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California" documented auto trips for infill development averaged approximately 50% of the modal share, compared to 90% or higher auto dependency in most metropolitan areas (Daisa and Parker, 2009). Lower dependency on private vehicles reduces the need for street capacity and supports an impact fee reduction for new development within the core area of Vail. Shorter Trip Lengths in Urban Areas Mixed land use and better job -housing balance reduces average trip length. By balancing the number of jobs with nearby housing units, urban areas have the potential for reducing journey - to -work travel. The magnitude of effect is dependent on matching job and housing locations of individual workers, which can be aided by offering a variety of housing styles and price ranges. Inclusionary policies, such as requiring at least 10% affordable housing units within each development, can foster a better jobs -housing balance and reduce the need for street capacity (Nelson, Dawkins and Sanchez 2007). Mixed-use areas like the center of Vail exhibit lower vehicular trip rates because of "internal capture" (i.e., many daily destinations do not require travel outside the area). For example, a study titled "Internalizing Travel by Mixing Land Uses" examined 20 mixed use communities in South Florida, documenting internal capture rates up to 57 percent with an average of 25 percent. In addition to a percent reduction for the jobs -housing balance, credit can be given for local -serving retail. Urban, transit -oriented development offers coffee shops, restaurants, general retail stores and services that reduce the need for vehicular trips outside the area (Ewing, Dumbaugh and Brown 2003). The report "Driving and the Built Environment" (TRB 2009) found a strong link between development patterns and vehicle miles of travel, encouraging mixing of land uses to reduce vehicle trip rates and reduce trip lengths. Reductions up to 24% for transit service and pedestrian/bicycle friendliness are recommended for nonresidential development in a 2005 6 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 173 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 study titled "Crediting Low -Traffic Developments" (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates 2005). Current and Proposed Transportation Fees Figure 2 provides a comparison of current and proposed transportation fees for new development in the Town of Vail. Current amounts are shown with dark shading and white numbers. Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and reductions given for multi -modal travel. The Town currently assesses transportation -related mitigation fees (see Vail code section in the footnote'). This requirement is specific to certain zone districts and does not provide a codified fee schedule. The current fees are determined and agreed upon by the Town and developers during the development entitlement process. Proposed fees are shown with light shading and black numbers in the table below. For consistency with a national impact fee survey, the fee amount for a detached house assumes construction of an average size unit, which in Vail and Pitkin County is approximately 4,000 square feet (i.e. twice the national average). Fee amounts for commercial development are expressed per thousand square feet of floor area. 1 12-7A,H,I,J: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: 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. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 23(1999) § 1) 7 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 174 c Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 2 - Transportation Impact Fee Comparison 8 Per Housing Unit Single Family Multifamily Per 1,000 Sq Ft Retail Office National Average (1) $3,228 $2,202 $5,685 $3,430 Durango (1) Ft. Collins 2016 Draft (2) Vail current* Incorporated Areas in Colorado $0 _ $2,366 $10,569 $9,685 Proposed in Core Area of Vail (2) Proposed Outside Core Area (2) not applicable $9,686 $5,960 $13,900 $6,200 $7,450 $13,900 $6,200 Counties in Colorado Eagle Co. (1) Jefferson Co. (1) Larimer Co. (2) Pitkin Co. (2) Weld Co. (2) $4,378 $3,034 $9,026 $5,164 $3,276 $2,725 $7,120 $4,790 $3,418 $8,812 $4,726 $9,339 $5,115 $10,910 $5,130 $2,377 $3,296 $2,174 Sources: (1) National Impact Fee Survey by Duncan Associations (2012). Single Family assumes 2,000 square feet. Nonresidential fees per thousand square feet assume a building with 100,000 square feet of floor area. (2) TischlerBise. Single Family in Vail and Pitkin County assumes 4,000 square feet. * Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 175 c Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Basic steps in a conceptual impact fee formula are illustrated below (see Figure 3). The first step (see the left part of the equation) is to determine an appropriate demand indicator, for a particular type of infrastructure. The demand indicator measures the number of demand units for each unit of development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for roads is vehicle trips. The second step in the conceptual impact fee formula is shown in the middle section of the equation. Infrastructure units per demand unit are typically called Level -Of - Service (LOS) or infrastructure standards. Road impact fee studies for suburban communities often establish a relationship between lane miles and vehicle miles of travel (note: a lane mile is a rectangular area of pavement one lane wide and one mile long). Because the Town of Vail has a more compact, urban development pattern, multi -modal transportation improvements were identified in a recently approved Transportation Master Plan. In essence, the Town of Vail has combined the second and third step in the conceptual impact fee formula (see the right side of the equation below). The cost of growth -related transportation improvements was allocated to the expected increase in vehicle trips. Figure 3 — Conceptual Impact Fee Formula Demand Units Infrastructure Units Dollars per X per X per Development Demand Infrastructure Unit Unit Unit When applied to specific types of infrastructure, the conceptual impact -fee formula is customized using three common impact fee methods that focus on different timeframes. The first method is the cost recovery method. To the extent that new growth and development is served by previously constructed improvements, local government may seek reimbursement for the previously incurred public facility costs. This method is used for facilities that have adequate capacity to accommodate new development, at least for the next five years. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life or remaining capacity of an existing facility that was constructed in anticipation of additional development. The second basic approach used to calculate impact fees is the incremental expansion cost method. This method documents the current infrastructure standard for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures. The local government uses impact fee revenue to incrementally expand infrastructure as needed to accommodate new development. A third impact fee approach is the plan -based method. This method is best suited for public facilities that have commonly accepted engineering/planning standards or specific capital improvement plans. Proposed transportation impact fees for the 9 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 176 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Town of Vail are derived using a plan -based method, with one cost recovery item for the recently completed 1-70 underpass. Trip Generation Transportation models and traffic studies for individual development projects typically use average weekday or afternoon (PM), peak -hour trips. The need for transportation improvements in Vail was determined through the Transportation Master Plan process using an extensive engineering analysis. In contrast to the engineering analysis, the impact fee methodology is essentially an accounting exercise whereby the cost of growth -related system improvements is allocated to new development within the Town of Vail. For the purpose of impact fees, trip generation is based on attraction (inbound) trips to development located in the Town of Vail. This approach eliminates the need for adjustments to account for pass- through trips (i.e. external -external travel) and trips to destinations outside Vail (i.e. internal- external travel). One of the major trip destinations in Vail is the base of the ski mountain. In addition to people working in Town and those staying over night, the ski mountain draws thousands of 'day skiers' that typically leave their vehicles in a parking garage while in Town. Because parking structures are ancillary uses, impact fees are typically not imposed on the floor area of a garage, but the floor area of nearby development that actually attracts people to the area. Given this practice, future growth of 'day skiers' will not be directly accounted for in the development projections shown in Figure 4. However, the Town and Vail Resorts have agreed the maximum skiers at one time that can be handled by the Town's infrastructure is 19,900, as specified in the agreement titled "Town of Vail & Vail Associates, Inc. Program to Manage Peak Periods." Therefore, if the maximum -skiers agreement or lift capacity is increased without a significant increase in nonresidential buildings, a traffic impact fee for additional day skiers should be contemplated. Vehicle Trips to Development in the Town of Vail The relationship between the amount of new development anticipated within Vail and the projected increase in vehicle trips is shown in Figure 4. Expected development in Vail is based on trends within the Town, Eagle County, and the state of Colorado. The projected increase in development and afternoon, peak -hour trips are consistent with Appendix E in Vail's Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009) and the development stats database, updated by Town staff. Although the specific year is not important to the analysis, the net increase in development is expected to occur by the year 2040. A faster pace of development would accelerate the collection of impact fees and the construction of planned improvements. Conversely, slower development would reduce fee revenue and delay the construction of capital improvements. As shown in the bottom right corner of the table below, planned development in Vail is expected to generate an additional 838 PM -Peak inbound vehicle trips. 10 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 177 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 4— Summary of Projected Travel Demand Development Type Additional Development Units (2) Inbound Trip Rate per Development Unit (3) Additional PM -Peak Inbound Trips Two Family or Multiple Family Units in Core Area 705 0.24 169 Two Family or Multiple Family Units Outside Core 554 0.30 166 Employee Housing Units in Core Area 41 0.24 10 Employee Housing Units Outside Core 310 0.30 93 Single Family Units 120 0.39 47 Accommodation Units in Core Area 270 0.24 65 Accommodation Units Outside Core 102 0.30 31 Restaurant & Retail KSF (1) 320 0.56 179 Facilities Health Care KSF (1) 140 0.40 56 Office & Other Services KSF (1) 88 0.25 22 TOTAL => 838 (1) KSF = square feet of floor area in thousands. (2) Appendix E, Vail Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009) and Town staff (12/06/16). (3) Trip generation rates are from Appendix E, Vail Transportation Master Plan, except Transportation Impact Fee System Improvements Transportation system improvements to be funded by impact fees are shown in Figure 5. Specific projects were identified in the Transportation Master Plan for the Town of Vail and updated by Town staff. Road sections listed below will be constructed as "complete streets" with bus, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements. Town staff prepared the planning -level cost estimates and identified the growth share of projects that will be funded with impact fees, based on the expected increase in vehicular trips. The total cost of transportation improvements needed to accommodate new development through 2040 is estimated to be approximately $95 million in current dollars (not inflated over time). Impact fees will fund approximately $20.8 million, which is 28% of systems improvements. Funding from non -impact fee sources, such as the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT), and the Town of Vail General Fund will cover the remaining cost of system improvements. As shown in the bottom right corner of the table below, the capacity cost of $24,836 per additional trip is equal to the growth share of transportation improvements divided by the increase in PM -Peak inbound vehicle trips. 11 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 178 c Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 5 - Summary of Transportation Improvements and Growth Share 12 Transportation Improvements Town of Vail, Colorado Estimated Cost (Millions) Project- Level Cost System -Level Improvements Percent Funded By Impact Fee Percent Other Revenue Cost by Impact Fee Cost by Other Revenue ID PROJECT DESCRIPTION A West Vail Commercial Roundabout & Medians $ 6.70 $ 6.70 0% 0% $ $ B Buffehr Creek Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 52% 48% $ 0.62 $ 0.58 C Buffehr Creek NRT connection to Marriott Roost $ 0.50 $ 0.50 0% 0% $ $ D Marriott Roost Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 1.20 0% 0% $ - $ - E Timber Ridge Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 1.20 0% 0% $ - $ - F Lions Ridge Loop Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 35% 65% $ 0.41 $ 0.79 G Red Sandstone Drive Turn lanes $ 1.20 $ - 35% 65% $ 0.41 $ 0.79 H Main Vail North Roundabout Expansion to Two Lanes $ 5.60 $ 35% 65% $ 1.98 $ 3.62 Main Vail Underpass Revesible Lane $ 2.00 $ - 35% 65% $ 0.71 $ 1.29 J Gore Creek Drive Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 14% 86% $ 0.17 $ 1.03 K Underpass (Cost Recovery) $ 9.10 $ - 22% 78% $ 1.96 $ 7.14 L Underpass to Forest Road Imrpovements (5 Lane/Walk) $ 7.00 $ 7.00 0% 0% $ $ - M Vail Spa to ELHC Improvements (5 Lane/Walk) $ 4.50 $ - 46% 54% $ 2.05 $ 2.45 N ELHC to LH Parking Structure Entrance Medians $ 0.75 $ 46% 54% $ 0.34 $ 0.41 O LH Parking Structure Entrance to Municipal Bldg (5 Lane & Rdabt) $ 9.00 $ 2.25 39% 36% $ 3.55 $ 3.20 P Village Ctr Road to Vail Valley Drive (Medians, TC Device, Compact Rdabt) $ 6.50 $ - 29% 71% $ 1.92 $ 4.58 Q PW/WD Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 27% 73% $ 0.33 $ 0.87 R Booth Creek Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 27% 73% $ 0.33 $ 0.87 S GVT Dowd Junction to WV Rdabt $ 8.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 1.83 $ 6.67 T Donovan to Westhaven Drive Walk $ 1.50 $ 22% 78% $ 0.32 $ 1.18 U WLHC walk (Vail Spa to S. Frtge) $ 0.75 $ 0.75 0% 0% $ - $ - V WD Path imrpovements $ 1.20 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.26 $ 0.94 W Vail Rd (Willow Way to Forest Rd) Walk $ 0.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.11 $ 0.39 X ELHC (LHWC to Dobson) Walk $ 1.00 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.22 $ 0.78 Y West Vail Pedestrian Overpass $ 6.00 $ - 22% 78% $ 1.29 $ 4.71 Z VMS to Bighorn Path $ 1.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.32 $ 1.18 AA ELHC (Vantage Point to S. Frontage Road) Walk $ 0.20 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.04 $ 0.16 BB Chamonix (Arosa to Chamonix) $ 1.00 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.22 $ 0.78 CC Chamonix (Chamonix to Buffehr Creek Rd) $ 1.00 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.22 $ 0.78 DD Line Haul Transit Stop Improvement Projects $ 1.60 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.34 $ 1.26 EE Vail Bus Stops (10 Shelters) $ 1.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.32 $ 1.18 FF Arosa Transit Parking $ 2.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.54 $ 1.96 GG Frontage Road Lighting Improvements $ 5.00 $ - 0% 100% $ - $ 5.00 HH Structured Parking Expansion & Buses $ $ 0% 100% $ $ Grand Totals $ 95.00 $19.60 28% 72% $ 20.81 $ 54.59 Net New PM Peak Inbound Trips => 838 Capacity Cost per Additional PM Peak Inbound Trip => $ 24,836 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 179 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Credit for Other Revenues A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from the one-time payment of an impact fee plus other revenue payments that may also fund growth -related capital improvements. The determination of credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis. Vail's transportation impact fees are derived primarily using a plan -based method, with a minor cost recovery component for the recently completed 1-70 underpass. This method is based on future capital improvements needed to accommodate new development. Given the plan -based approach, the credit evaluation focuses on the need for future bonds and revenues that will fund planned capital improvements. Because the Town does not expect to bond finance transportation projects, a revenue credit for future principal payments is not applicable. Some impact fee studies include a credit for gas taxes and/or General Fund revenue. A credit for future revenue generated by new development is only necessary if there is potential double payment for system improvements. In the Town of Vail, transportation impact fees are derived from the growth cost of system improvements, not the total cost of capital improvements. Impact fee revenue will be used exclusively for the growth share of improvements listed in Figure 5. Other, non -impact fee funds, such as the General Fund and gas tax revenue, will be used for maintenance of existing facilities, correcting existing deficiencies and for making improvements not listed in the transportation CIP. Based on expected development in Vail (see Figure 8), future impact fee revenue approximates the growth cost of planned system improvements (approximately $21 million). If elected officials in Vail make a legislative policy decision to fully fund the growth share of system improvements from impact fees, a credit for other revenue sources is unnecessary. Transportation Impact Fee Formula and Input Variables Input variables for the transportation impact fee are shown in Figure 6. Inbound trips by type of development are multiplied by the net capital cost per trip to yield the transportation impact fees. For example, the transportation impact fee formula for a two family or multiple family unit in the core area is 0.24 x $24,836 = $5,960 (truncated) per housing unit. Because the core area of Vail has a walkable, urban development pattern, impact fees for two family or multiple family housing and accommodation units are lower in the core area, as supported by the engineering analysis in the adopted Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009). Trip generation rates are from the Transportation Master Plan, except for single family dwellings, which are only expected outside the core area. Inbound trip rates per detached dwelling are documented in Appendix A. 13 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 180 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 6 — Transportation Impact Fee Input Variables 14 Residentail Dwellings (per Unit) PM -Peak Inbound Vehicle Trips Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (In Core Area) 0.24 Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (Outside Core Area) 0.30 Dwelling, Single Family 0.39 Accommodation Unit (per Unit) Accommodation Unit (In Core Area) 0.24 Accommodation Unit (Outside Core Area) 0.30 Commercial (per 1,000 Sq Ft of floor area) Restaurant & Retail Establishments 0.56 Facilities Health Care 0.40 Office & Other Services 0.25 Infrastructure Standards Cost per Trip => $24,836 Revenue Credit Per Trip => $0 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 181 c Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees The input variables discussed above yield the maximum supportable impact fees shown in Figure 7. Fees for most types of commercial development are listed per square foot of floor area. The impact fee for accommodation is based on the number of units. Figure 7 — Transportation Impact Fee Schedule 15 Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees Residentail Dwellings (per Unit) Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (In the Core Area) $5,960 Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (Outside the Core Area) $7,450 Dwelling, Single Family $9,686 Employee Housing Unit $0 Accommodation Unit (per Unit) Accommodation Unit (In Core Area) $5,960 Accommodation Unit (Outside Core Area) $7,450 Commercial (per square foot of floor area) Restaurant & Retail Establishments $13.90 Facilities Health Care $9.93 Office & Other Services $6.20 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 182 c Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Funding Strategy for Transportation System Improvements Revenue projections shown below assume implementation of the maximum supportable transportation impact fee. Projected revenues essentially match the growth share of the capital improvements plan for transportation (i.e. $20.8 million). Impact fee revenue can be accumulated over several years to construct major projects, but annually completing at least one capital project will ensure benefit to fee payers. The percentage of total impact fee revenue expected from each development type is shown below in the right column. New housing units in Vail will generate approximately 58% of the transportation impact fee revenue. New accommodation will generate approximately 11%, while other types of commercial development will yield approximately 31% of projected revenue. Figure 8 — Impact Fee Revenue Projection Development Type Additional Development Units Fee per Development Unit $5,960 $7,450 $5,960 $7,450 $9,686 $5,960 $7,450 $13,900 $9,930 $6,200 Projected Revenue $4,202,000 $4,127,000 $244,000 $2,310,000 $1,162,000 $1,609,000 $760,000 $4,448,000 $1,390,000 $546,000 Percent of Impact Fees 20% 20% 1% 11% 6% 8% 4% 21% 7% 3% Two Family or Multiple Family Units in Core Area 705 Two Family or Multiple Family Units Outside Core 554 Employee Housing Units in Core Area 41 Employee Housing Units Outside Core 310 Single Family Units 120 Accommodation Units in Core Area 270 Accommodation Units Outside Core 102 Restaurant & Retail KSF 320 Facilities Health Care KSF 140 Office & Other Services KSF 88 16 Total => $20,798,000 100% TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 183 c Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 APPENDIX A - DEMOGRAPHIC DATA In this Appendix, TischlerBise documents the demographic data used to derive trip rates by size of single family housing. In the Town of Vail, the fiscal year begins on January 1st. Impact fees are calibrated using 2016 as the base year and 2017 as the first projection year. Trip Generation by Type and Size of Housing Although the Town of Vail only expects a few single family (detached) housing units to be constructed each year, TischlerBise recommends a fee schedule whereby larger units pay higher transportation impact fees. Benefits of the proposed methodology include: 1) proportionate assessment of infrastructure demand using local demographic data, 2) progressive fee structure (i.e. smaller units pay less and larger units pay more), and 3) more affordable fees for workforce housing. Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey responses provided by the American Community Survey (ACS) published by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS). Because PUMS files are available for areas of roughly 100,000 persons, the Town of Vail is included in Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) 400 that includes Pitkin, Eagle, Summit, Grand and Jackson Counties. At the top of Figure Al, cells with yellow shading indicate the survey results, which yield the unadjusted number of persons and vehicles available per dwelling. These multipliers are adjusted to match the control totals for Vail. According to ACS table B25033 (five-year estimates) Vail had 5,277 year-round residents in 2014 and table B25032 indicates Vail had 2,451 households in 2014, or an average of 2.15 persons per household. TischlerBise used ACS tables B25046 and B25032 to derive the average number of vehicles available per household. In 2014, there were 3,738 aggregate vehicles available and 2,451 households, or an average of 1.53 vehicles available per household. The middle section of Figure Al provides nation-wide data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). VTE is the acronym for Vehicle Trip Ends, which measures vehicles coming and going from a development. Dividing trip ends per household by trip ends per person yields an average of 2.17 persons per occupied condominium/townhouse and 3.78 persons per occupied single dwelling, based on ITE's national survey. Applying Vail's current housing mix of 77.7% condominium/townhouses and 22.3% single-family dwellings yields a weighted average of 2.53 persons per household. In comparison to the national data, Vail only has an average of 2.15 persons per household. Dividing trip ends per household by trip ends per vehicle available yields an average of 1.68 vehicles available per occupied condo/townhouse and 1.52 vehicles available per occupied single dwelling, based on ITE's national survey. Applying Vail's current housing mix yields a nation-wide weighted average of 1.64 vehicles available per household. In comparison to the national data, Vail has fewer vehicles available, with an average of 1.53 per housing unit. 17 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 184 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Rather than rely on one methodology, the recommended trip generation rates shown in the bottom section of Figure Al (see Vail PM -Peak VTE per Household), are an average of trip rates based on persons and vehicles available, for single family housing units by bedroom range. In the Town of Vail, each household in a single family unit is expected to generate an average of 0.57 PM -Peak Vehicle Trip Ends, compared to the national average of 0.63 trip ends per household. Figure Al - PM Peak Hour Vehicle Attraction Trips by Size of Detached House Calibrated to Demographic Control Totals for Vail, Colorado ACS 2013 5 -Year PUMS Data for PUMA 400 (Pitkin, Eagle, Summit, Grand and Jackson Counties) Bedroom Range Persons (1) Vehicles Available (1) Households (1) PUMA 400 Hshld Mix Unadjusted Persons/Hshld Adj Persons per Hshld (2) Unadjusted VehAvl/Hshld Adj Veh Avl per Hshld (2) 0-2 134 156 75 19.7% 1.79 1.62 2.08 1.38 3 409 376 165 43.4% 2.48 2.24 2.28 1.52 4 248 229 97 25.5% 2.56 2.31 2.36 1.57 5+ 114 112 43 11.3% 2.65 2.39 2.60 1.73 Total 905 National Averages According to ITE 873 380 ITE Code PM -Peak VTE per Person PM -Peak VTE per Vehicle Available PM -Peak VTE per Household Vail Hshld Mix 230 Condo / Townhouse 0.24 0.31 0.52 77.7% 210 SFD 0.27 0.67 1.02 22.3% Wgtd Avg 0.25 0.39 Recommended Trip Rate by Bedroom Range 0.63 Bedroom Range PM -Peak VTE per Hshld Based on Persons (3) PM -Peak VTE per Hshld Based on Veh Available (4) Vail PM -Peak VTE per Hshld (5) 0-2 0.41 0.54 0.48 3 0.56 0.59 0.58 4 0.58 0.61 0.60 5+ 0.60 0.67 0.64 Total 18 0.54 0.60 0.57 2.38 2.15 Persons per Household 2.17 3.78 2.53 2.30 1.53 Veh Avl per Household 1.68 1.52 1.64 (1) American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample for CO PUMA 400 (2013 Five -Year unweighted data). (2) Adjusted multipliers are scaled to make the average PUMS values match control totals for Vail (ACS 2014 Five -Year data). (3) Adjusted persons per household multiplied by national weighted average trip rate per person. (4) Adjusted vehicles available per household multiplied by national weighted average trip rate per vehicle available. (5) Average of trip rates based on persons and vehicles available per housing unit. Does not show adjustment to inbound trips (64% entering). TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 185 c Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Trip Generation by Floor Area of Single Family Housing To derive afternoon peak hour inbound trips by square feet of single family housing, TischlerBise combined demographic data from the Census Bureau (discussed above) and single family house size data from the County Assessor's parcel database. The number of bedrooms per housing unit is the common connection between the two databases. In Vail, the average size single family housing unit with two or less bedrooms has 1,594 square feet of heated space. The average three-bedroom unit has 2,667 square feet of floor area. The average size of a four-bedroom unit is 3,698 square feet of floor area. Single family housing units with five or more bedrooms average 5,706 square feet of floor area. Average floor area and number of inbound trips by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A2, with a logarithmic trend line derived from the four actual averages in the Town of Vail. TischlerBise used the trend line formula to derive estimated average PM -Peak, inbound trips by size of single family housing unit, in 300 square feet intervals. Square feet measures heated floor area (excluding porches, garages, unfinished basements, etc.). Based on the size of single family housing units in Vail, TischlerBise recommends limiting transportation impact fees for single family housing to the floor area range shown below. In other words, a single family house with 2,099 or less square feet would pay a transportation impact fee based on 0.33 inbound vehicle trips. Likewise, single family units with 6,300 or more square feet of heated space would pay a maximum transportation impact fee based on 0.42 inbound vehicle trips. 19 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 186 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure A2 — PM Peak Hour Inbound Trips by Square Feet Average dwelling size by bedroom range is from County Assessor parcel database. PM -Peak vehicle trip ends are derived using ACS PUMS data and calibrated to Town of Vail demographics. Inbound trips are 64% of trip ends (ITE LU1L). +.. .c m ao c .17 3 O 1 v Q Q ._ S O c 20 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 Actual Averages per Hsg Unit Fitted -Curve Values Bedrooms Square Feet Inbound Trips Square Feet Inbound Trips 0-2 1,594 0.31 2099 or less 0.33 3 2,667 0.37 2100 to 2599 0.34 4 3,698 0.38 2600 to 3099 0.35 5+ 5,706 0.41 PM -Peak Inbound Vehicle Trips per Detached Dwelling by Size within Vail, CO y = 0.0761n(x) - 0.2431 R2= 0.9513 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Square Feet of Heated Area 3100 to 3599 0.37 3600 to 4099 0.38 4100 to 4599 0.39 4600 to 5099 0.40 5100 to 5599 0.41 5600 to 6099 0.41 6100 or more 0.42 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 187 c Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION Development impact fees should be periodically evaluated and updated to reflect recent data. One approach is to adjust for inflation using an index, such as the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index published by McGraw-Hill Companies. This index could be applied to the adopted impact fee schedule. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly, the Town should redo the fee calculations. Colorado's enabling legislation allows local governments to "waive an impact fee or other similar development charge on the development of low or moderate income housing, or affordable employee housing, as defined by the local government." However, projected impact fee revenue from employee housing accounts for approximately 12% of the growth cost to be funded by impact fees. Given this magnitude, waiving impact fees for workforce housing will create a significant funding gap. Credits and Reimbursements Specific policies and procedures related to site-specific credits or developer reimbursements will be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the transportation impact fees. Project - level improvements, normally required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement (see the impact fee funded improvements listed in Figure 5), it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a site-specific credit. The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. TischlerBise recommends establishing reimbursement agreements with the developers that construct a system improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the Town should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide sufficient documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The Town should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the Town pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient impact fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the Town to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the service area. If the Town collects impact fees for other types of infrastructure, site specific credits or developer reimbursements for one type of system improvement does not negate payment of impact fees for other types of infrastructure. Town -wide Service Area The transportation impact fee service area is defined as the entire incorporated area within the Town of Vail. Even though Colorado's enabling legislation uses the phrase "direct benefit" Vail is a relatively small geographic area with a strong core area. Transportation improvements along the 1-70 corridor will benefit new development throughout the entire Town. 21 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 188 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Development Categories Proposed transportation fees are assessed based on general land use categories. The categories within the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule are further defined within Title 12-2-2 of the Town of Vail Code. Any uses or development types not specifically defined below or within Title 12-2-2 shall be interpreted by the Administrator in accordance with the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study. Residential Development Residential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar characteristics. 1. Single Family includes: • Dwelling, Single -Family 2. Two Family or Multiple Family includes: • Dwelling, Multiple -Family • Dwelling, Two -Family • Fractional Fee Club Unit 3. Accommodation includes: • Accommodation Unit • Accommodation Unit, Attached • Lodge Dwelling Unit • Lodge, Limited Service • Timeshare Unit Commercial Development Commercial development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar characteristics. 1. Facilities Health Care includes: • Healthcare Facilities 2. Office & Other Services includes: • Professional Offices, Business Offices, and Studios • Banks and Financial Institutions • Personal Services and Repair Shops • Child Daycare Center • Health Clubs / Spas • Commercial Ski Storage / Ski Clubs • Religious Institutions 3. Restaurant & Retail includes: • Eating and Drinking Establishments • Retail Stores and Establishments • Theaters 22 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 189 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Even though churches are a common type of development, they do not have a specific impact fee category due to a lack of sufficient data. For churches and any other atypical development, staff must establish a consistent administrative process to reasonably treat similar developments in a similar way. When presented with a development type that does not match one of the development categories in the published fee schedule, the first option is to look in the ITE trip generation book to see if there is land use category with valid trip rates that match the proposed development. The second option is to determine the published category that is most like the proposed development. Churches without daycare or schools are basically an office area (used throughout the week) with a large auditorium and class space (used periodically during the week). Some jurisdictions make a policy decision to impose impact fees on churches based on the fee schedule for warehousing. The rationale for this policy is the finding that churches are large buildings that generate little weekday traffic and only have a few full time employees. A third option is to impose impact fees on churches by breaking down the building floor area into its primary use. For example, a church with 25,000 square feet of floor area may have 2,000 square feet of office space used by employees throughout the week. At a minimum, impact fees could be imposed on the office floor area. An additional impact fee amount could be imposed for the remainder of the building based on the rate for a warehouse. An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators for a particular development. The independent study must be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner and use the same type of input variables as those in the transportation impact fee methodology. The independent fee study will be reviewed by Town staff and can be accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not reasonable, the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to elected officials for their consideration. 23 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 190 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 APPENDIX C: REFERENCES Been, Vicki. 2005. "Impact Fees and Housing Affordability", Cityscape: Journal of Policy Development and Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, 139-185. Blanton, Whit. 2000. "Integrating Land Use and Transportation" Planning Commissioners Journal, Number 40: 9-13. Bochner, Brian, Kevin Hooper, and Benjamin Sperry. 2010. "Improving Estimation of Internal Trip Capture for Mixed -Use Development" ITE Journal 80(8): 24-28, 33. Cherry, Nathan and Kurt Nagle. 2009. Grid /Street/Place: Essential Elements of Sustainable Urban Districts. American Planning Association Planners Press. Currans, Kristina and Kelly Clifton. 2015. "Using Household Travel Surveys to Adjust ITE Trip Generation Rates" Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 85-119. Daisa, James and Terry Parker. 2009. "Trip Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California" ITE Journal. Daisa, James, M. Schmitt, P. Reinhofer, K. Hooper, B. Bochner and L. Schwartz. 2013. "Trip Generation Rates for Transportation Impact Analyses of Infill Developments" Transportation Research Board NCHRP Report 758. Downs, Anthony. 1992. Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak Hour Traffic Congestion. Washington, D.C.: Brooking Institute. Dumbaugh, Eric, and Robert Rae. 2009. "Safe Urban Form: Revisiting the Relationship Between Community Design and Traffic Safety." Journal of the American Planning Association 75(3): 309-329. Ewing, Reid, Eric Dumbaugh and Mike Brown. 2003. "Internalizing Travel by Mixing Land Uses" Transportation Research Record 1780. Ewing, Reid and Robert Cervero. 2010. "Travel and the Built Environment" Journal of the American Planning Association, 76:3, 265-294. Frank, Lawrence and Gary Pivo. 1992. "Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single -Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking" Transportation Research Record 1466. Frank, Lawrence. 1994. Analysis of Relationships Between Urban Form and Travel Behavior. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington. Frank, Lawrence. 2000. "Land Use and Transportation Interaction: Implications on Public Health and Quality of Life" Journal of Planning Education and Research 20, 6-22. 24 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 191 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Giuliano, Genevieve. 1989. "New Directions for Understanding Transportation and Land Use" Environment and Planning A, Volume 21: 145-159. Hanson, Susan, and Genevieve Giuliano, eds. 2004. Geography of Urban Transportation. Guilford Press. Holian, Matthew and Matthew Kahn. 2012. Impact of Center City Economic and Cultural Vibrancy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation. Mineta Transportation Institute, Report 11-13. Jacobs, Allan. 2001. Great Streets (sixth edition). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Jones, David. 1985. Urban Transit Policy: An Economic and Political History. Prentice -Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Layton, Colleen, Tawny Pruitt and Kim Cekola (editors). 2011. Economics of Place: The Value of Building Communities Around People. Michigan Municipal League. Leinberger, Christopher. 2009. The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream. Island Press. Litman, Todd. 2015. Analysis of Public Policies that Unintentionally Encourage and Subsidize Urban Sprawl. Victoria Transportation Policy Institute. Mathur, Shishir and Adam Smith. 2012. Decision -Support Framework for Using Value Capture to Fund Public Transit: Lessons from Project -Specific Analyses. Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business, San Jose State University. Moore, Terry, and Paul Thorsnes. 1994. The Transportation/Land Use Connection. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 448/449. Chicago: American Planning Association. Moore, Terry, Paul Thorsnes and Bruce Appleyard. 2007. The Transportation/Land Use Connection (new edition). PAS Report 546-47. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Myers, Dowell (editor). 1990. Housing Demography: Linking Demographic Structure and Housing Markets. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Nelson, Arthur, ed. 1988. Development Impact Fees. Chicago: Planners Press. Nelson, Arthur, Casey Dawkins and Thomas Sanchez. 2007. Social Impacts of Urban Containment. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Nelson, Arthur, Liza Bowles, Julian Juergensmeyer, and James Nicholas. 2008. A Guide to Impact Fees and Housing Affordability. Island Press. 25 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 192 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Nelson, Arthur. 2013. Reshaping Metropolitan America: Development Trends and Opportunities to 2030. Island Press. Nelson / Nygaard Consulting Associates. 2005. Crediting Low -Traffic Developments. Nicholas, James, Arthur Nelson, and Julian Juergensmeyer. 1991. A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees. Chicago: Planners Press. Pucher, John and Lefevre, Christian. 1996. The Urban Transportation Crisis. London: MacMillan Press. Reconnecting America. 2008. Capturing the Value of Transit. Federal Transit Administration. Reid Ewing, Michael Greenwald, Ming Zhang, Jerry Walters, Mark Feldman, Robert Cervero, Lawrence Frank, and John Thomas. 2011. "Traffic Generated by Mixed -Use Developments: Six - Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures" Journal of Urban Planning and Development 137(3): 248-61. Resource Systems Group, Fehr & Peers, Robert Cervero, Kara Kockelman, and Renaissance Planning Group. 2012. Effect of Smart Growth Policies on Travel Demand. Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Report S2 -C16 -RR -1. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Ross, Catherine and Anne Dunning. 1997. Land Use Transportation Interaction: An Examination of the 1995 NPTS Data. Georgia Institute of Technology. Schiller, P., E. Bruun, and J. Kenworthy. 2010. Introduction to Sustainable Transportation: Policy, Planning, and Implementation. Earthscan. Schneider, Robert, Susan Handy and Kevan Shafizadeh. 2014. "Trip Generation for Smart Growth Projects" Access 45, University of California Transportation Center. Seggerman, Karen, Kristine Williams, Pei -Sung Lin, and Aldo Fabregas. 2009. Evaluation of the Mobility Fee Concept. Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. Shoup, Donald. 2011. High Cost of Free Parking. American Planning Association. Speck, Jeff. 2012. Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Steiner, Ruth, and Siva Srinivasan. 2010. VMT-Based Traffic Impact Assessment: Development of a Trip Length Model. Center for Multimodal Solutions at the University of Florida. Transportation Research Board. 1994. Curbing Gridlock: Peak -Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion. Washington, DC: National Academy Press Special Report 242. 26 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 193 0 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work. National Academy Press Special Report 257. Transportation Research Board. 2009. Driving and the Built Environment. National Academy Press Special Report 298. Urban Land Institute and National Multi Housing Council. 2008. Getting Density Right: Tools for Creating Vibrant Compact Development. Vuchic, Vukan. 2000. Transportation for Livable Cities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research. 27 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING November 7, 2017 - Page 194 0 --AMP Vail Transportation Impact Fee EIN November 7, 2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 195 of 532 .11,1111 Overview Adopted Transportation Impact Fee on July 11, 2017 Applies to new construction only, which adds; New Units or Commercial square footage. EHU's exempt Implementation requires adoption of Fee Schedule by Resolution November 7, 2017 - Page 196 of 532 Comments & Concerns Growth Projections unrealistic; defer fees until updated Town wide Master Plan can be completed No Impact Fees, Increase Sales Tax instead Vail Transportation Master Plan Capital Projects are unnecessary Timing of Implementation Medical Center category is not appropriate because of "decompression" Fees are too high and will deter development Ability for Council to waive/credit/negotiate fees under unique circumstances November 7, 2017 - Page 197 of 532 Growth Projections Based on Vail Transportation Master Plan projections completed by the Town of Vail 2006-2008 Assumes a new "Build -Out" scenario 25+ years out 1982 new units 521, 000 SF commercial Comparison growth; 2000 US Census units: 5389 2010 US Census units: 723o Net new in 10 years: 1841 November 7, 2017 - Page 198 of 532 "ftiorft, Vail Long Term Development Projections (25+ Years) i I. Development Ever Vail ERWSD LH Parking Structure Lodge at Lionshead Lionshead Center Net Newl Net New Units (Commercial 573 26 11 1 -Imo _,a 7E' Vail Transportation Center Evergreen Lodge Vail Health West Vail Commercial Area Timber Ridge Marriott Residence Inn Chamonix Housing Other Employee Housing Other Total 0 474 56,000 24,000 30000 19000 10000 44000 20000 140000 152000 Comment Entitlements Approved 7 Considered relocation and becoming part of Ever Vail at one time not entitled at this time Plan developed at one time, currently not entitled Plan developed at one time, currently not entitled Plan developed at one time, currently not entitled Plan developed at one time, currently not entitled Plan developed at one time, currently not entitled Currently in entitlement process for 110,000 SF IN __AM ml= I= i'M Planning exercise completed in 2005 for Live Work Develop 50 o Assumed increase density based on past development efforts - [ Entitlements Approved 32 1 0 Under Construction 150 0 169 26,000 1982 521,000 ,IN ml Assumed additional new construction EHU's based on 1,000 EHI goal Smaller increases contemplated throughout town. 1 1 November 7, 2017 - Page 199 of 532 Spread the burden with Sales Tax Council direction was to codify existing traffic mitigation fees that have been applied to PA, LMU, and SDD zone districts since 1999. Proposed Impact Fee could generate 22% of future transportation improvement project costs. Remaining 78% would be spread out amongst all users via; Existing sales tax revenue VRA TIF funding Project level improvements Equivalent sales tax increase would be o.13% November 7, 2017 - Page 200 of 532 VTMP Projects Unnecessary Goal of VTMP Road projects; • Continue 4 lane median section from Municipal building west through Ever Vail/Underpass location when necessary • Add single point main access roundabout at the West Vail Commercial Area • Add left turn lanes at residential street intersections; • Buffehr Creek Rd • Lions Ridge Loop • Red Sandstone Rd. • Increase capacity at Vail Town Center and West Vail roundabouts as necessary November 7, 2017 - Page 201 of 532 Timing of Implementation Staff recommends fee begins January 1, 2018. Exempt all projects approved or in approval process prior to that date In the interim existing regulations and/or developer agreements will still apply November 7, 2017 - Page 202 of 532 Medical Center "decompression" Site specific traffic study completed and approved Nets iib new PM peak hour trips Reduction included for employee shuttle program Reduced parking requirement from 707 to 603 spaces DIA requires mitigation at new codified fee Net PM trip based 2005 fee: $6,500 x iib = $767,000 Net PM trip based 2017 fee: $11,200 x iib = $1,321,600 Net new SF based fee: 97,000 SF x $9.93 = $963,000 (excludes Loading Delivery Area &Ambulance Bay Area) Recommend the net new SF based fee. November 7, 2017 - Page 203 of 532 eFoo high & Tf dere development Recent SDD approvals include the recommended Net PM Peak Hour fee of $ii,zoo/trip; this is equivalent to the recommended fee as shown above. Net PM peak hour fee rate & Constrcution Cost Escalation; 2005: $6500/net new PM peak hour trip Cost escalation through 2016: ioo%-157% 2016 fee with escalation: $13,000 - $16,7o5 Recommended fee: $11,200 14%-33% less than the fee in 2005 when construction escalation is taken into account. November 7, 2017 - Page 204 of 532 Ability to Waive/Credit/Negotiate Per Title 12-26, Transportation Impact Fee Credits provided for; any dedication or conveyance of land any construction of Town -approved System Level transportation infrastructure or facilities any transportation services provided by the applicant at the applicant's cost, that offset the transportation impacts of the project, as approved by the Town The value of said credits shall be determined by the Town, in its reasonable discretion. November 7, 2017 - Page 205 of 532 ommedTfFe c Thiiie & Reduction Options Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees Recommended 5%I 10%I 15% 20% Residentail Dwellings (per Unit) Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (In the Core Area) $ 5,960.00 $ 5,662.00 $ 5,364.00 $ 5,066.00 $ 4,76&00 Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (Outside the Core Area) $ 7,450.00 $ 7,077.50 $ 6,705.00 $ 6,332.50 $ 5,960.00 Dwelling, Single Family $ 9,686.00 $ 9,201.70 $ 8,717.40 $ 8,233.10 $ 7,748.80 Employee Housing Unit $0 $ - $ - $ - $ - Accommodation Unit (per Unit) Accommodation Unit (In Core Area) $ 5,960.00 $ 5,662.00 $ 5,364.00 $ 5,066.00 $ 4,768.00 Accommodation Unit (Outside Core Area) $ 7,450.00 $ 7,077.50 $ 6,705.00 $ 6,332.50 $ 5,960.00 Commercial (per square foot of floor area) Restaurant & Retail Establishments $ 13.90 $ 13.21 $ 12.51 $ 11.82 $ 11.12 Facilities Health Care $ 9.93 $ 9.43 $ 8.94 $ 8.44 5 7.94 Office & Other Services $ 6.20 $ 5.89 , $ 5.58 $ 5.27 S 4.96 Total Projected Revenue $ 18,244,320.00 $ 17,332,104.00 $ 16,419,:'::.00 $ 15,507,672.00 $ 14,595,456.00 Total Additional Amount Subsidized by Town $ 2,553,860.00 $ 3,466,076.00 , $ 4,378,292.00 $ 5,290,508.00 $ 6,202,724.00 November 7, 2017 - Page 206 of 532 Vail Transportation Impact Fees Residentail Dwellings (per Unit) Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (In the Core Area) Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (Outside the Core Area) Dwelling, Single Family Employee Housing Unit Accommodation Unit (per Unit) Accommodation Unit (In Core Area) Accommodation Unit (Outside Core Area) Commercial (per square foot of floor area) Restaurant & Retail Establishments Facilities Health Care Office & Other Services $ 5,960.00 $ 7,450.00 $ 9,686.00 so $ 5,960.00 $ 7,450.00 $ 13.90 $ 9.93 $ 6.20 Core Area is defined per Figure 1 in the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study. Per Unit is defined as any type of Dwelling Unit, Fractional Fee Unit, Accommodation Unit, Lodge Unit, or Timeshare Unit as listed below Per Square Foot of Floor Area is defined as, per each net newgross square foot of enclosed floor area constructed, excluding; enclosed vehicular loading and delivery areas, and vehicular parking facilities. The above Trasnportation Impact Fee schedule rates are equivalent to $11,200 per net new PM -Peak hour vehicular trip. November 7, 2017 - Page 207 of 532 The categories within the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule are further defined below, and within Title 12-2-2. Any uses or development types not specifically defined below or within Title 12-2-2 shall be interpreted by the Administrator in accordance with the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study. Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family includes; Dwelling, Two Family Dwelling, Multiple Family Fractional Fee Club Unit Accommodation Unit includes; Accommodation Unit Accommodation Unit, Attached Lodge Dwelling Unit Lodge Unit, Limited Service Timeshare Unit Restaurant and Retail includes; Eating and drinking establishments Retail stores and establishments Theaters Office & Other Services includes; Professional offices, business offices and studios Banks and financial institutions Personal services and repair shops Child Daycare Center Health Clubs / Spa Commercial Ski Storage/Ski Club Religious Institutions November 7, 2017 - Page 208 of 532 TOWN Of9 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Permission to Proceed - Solar Vail Access PRESENTER(S): Justin Lightfield, Planner ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Community Development Department requests that the Town Council evaluate the proposal to utilize Town of Vail property for the purposes of improved access for the redevelopment of Solar Vail. This utilization of Town of Vail property would be subject to the terms of an access easement in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney. BACKGROUND: The proposal includes a modification to this existing access driveway to improve both vehicular and pedestrian safety, and two sidewalks to the west to provide pedestrian access to the existing bus stop. The proposal within Tract A includes a driveway, sidewalks, and lighting. The access improvements impact approximately 2,000 square feet of Tract A. The proposal on Potato Patch, Block 2, Lot 8 (zoned General Use), includes two walkways totaling 280 square feet. The Applicant must obtain approval from the Vail Town Council as the property owner before proceeding through the Town's development review process for any improvements on Town owned property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Instruct Town Staff to sign the development application on behalf of the property owner and permit the project to proceed through the development review process for the proposed improvements. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Memo Attachments November 7, 2017 - Page 209 0 TOWN of vain' Memorandum TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 7, 2017 SUBJECT: Access Improvements for the Redevelopment of Solar Vail, located in the Vicinity of 501 North Frontage Road West, Permission to Proceed I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Sonnenalp Properties Inc., owner of Solar Vail located at 501 North Frontage Road West, requests permission to proceed through the Town's development review process for improvements to the project's driveway access that is located partially on Town of Vail Property (Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision), as well as walkways on the Red Sandstone Elementary Property to the west (Vail Potato Patch, Block 2, Lot 8). Access improvements are proposed in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Solar Vail employee housing project. It should be noted that the Vail Town Council is not being asked to approve the improvements, their location or design, but rather to authorize the applicant to move forward with a planning application that utilizes Town owned property for private purposes. II. BACKGROUND Sonnenalp Properties Inc. is proposing to redevelop the Solar Vail property located at 501 North Frontage Road West for deed restricted employee housing. The existing access driveway, located to the east of the Solar Vail building, encroaches over the southwest corner of Tract A by approximately 600 square feet. Tract A is a parcel of land owned by the Town, zoned Natural Area Preservation. Tract A is not designated Open Space. A similar request was approved by Town Council on October 2, 2007, when the Vail Town Council granted "Permission to Proceed" through the development review process. Additionally, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved the request on March 24, 2008. The proposal includes a modification to this existing access driveway to improve both vehicular and pedestrian safety, and two sidewalks to the west to provide pedestrian access to the existing bus stop. The proposal within Tract A includes a driveway, sidewalks, and lighting. The access improvements impact approximately 2,000 square feet of Tract A. The proposal on Potato Patch, Block 2, Lot 8 (zoned General Use), includes two November 7, 2017 - Page 210 0 walkways totaling 280 square feet. The Applicant must obtain approval from the Vail Town Council as the property owner before proceeding through the Town's development review process for any improvements on Town owned property. The project is anticipated to be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a public hearing on November 13, 2017. III. ACTION REQUESTED The Community Development Department requests that the Town Council evaluate the proposal to utilize Town of Vail property for the purposes of improved access for the redevelopment of Solar Vail. This utilization of Town of Vail property would be subject to the terms of an access easement in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney. The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council instructs Town Staff to: • Sign the development application on behalf of the property owner and permit the project to proceed through the development review process for the proposed improvements. IV. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Site Plan from GPSL Architects dated 10-16-2017 C. Photos Town of Vail Page 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 211 0 Solar Vail Employee Housing 501 N Frontage Road W Block 2, Lot 8, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1 e I U I Feet 0 25 50 100 This map was created by the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Use of this map should be for general purposes only. The Town of Vail does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained herein. (where shown, parcel line work is approximate) November 7, 2017 - Page 212 of 52t Modified: November 1, 2017 TOWN OF VAIL PEA ASPB4 AvetcP, POP we -TYPICAL T LESEND OPrep bided (AepaN (P1 Pps ddry (nc�paJ T d. (b) Nuc O \ j Prepexd Colored. o(oPkao'•�o-oae ptLa�ire-rad pvgenc ko �wmainp�re Trses xisteg Asp& Trees b aasair (stag bra Proposed erode Proposed seed w. PPp%th Tg,t= 16 t( r<1 hoes s -P ncft- GPSL lvch6ects. P.C. 959 S Frontage Rd. West Vali, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.476.1147 ppdarchltects.wrn 1 N0 4 Q w "O < 0 _ J 0)I- > zV IQo6 O 16 OCT NCR�H ��CN�P LANDSCAPE PLAN °LIGHTING PLAN November 7, 2017 - Page 213 of 532 Sheet Number LI 00 LANDSCAPE PLAN & � § November 7, 2017 p Page 214 of 532 TOWN IfO VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series 2017, an ordinance amending Title 4 of Vail Town Code by the addition of a new Chapter 14, entitled Short Term Rental Properties, and repealing sections in conflict therewith. PRESENTER(S): Kathleen Halloran, Finance Director ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, deny or approve with amendments Ordinance No. 15, Series 2017. BACKGROUND: Please see the attached memo outlining proposed changes to short term rental regulations based on feedback from Council throughout the year. STAFF RECOM M ENDATION: Approve, deny or approve with amendments Ordinance No. 15, Series 2017. ATTACHMENTS: Description STR November 7, 2017 - Page 215 0 TOWN OF VIAIL' Memorandum TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Finance Department, Economic Development Department DATE: November 7, 2017 SUBJECT: Short Term Rental Regulations I. SUMMARY Attached is the first reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series 2017, establishing a short term rental license and accompanying regulations. II. BACKGROUND On October 17, Council provided additional feedback to staff for additional regulations of the short term rental market. While this ordinance addresses regulations supported by Council over a series of meetings and public sessions, the evolving landscape of the short term rental market will require that the town continue evaluating and adjusting our process to keep pace. III. DISCUSSION The attached ordinance establishes a unique license for short term rentals which will override the prior regulation requiring issuance of a business license. Short term rental (STR) licenses will be issued beginning January 1, 2018 and will entail a new application process. The ordinance also identifies criteria a homeowner must meet to obtain (and renew) a short term rental license: • STR licenses have an application process and must be renewed each calendar year. STR licenses will be issued to the owner of the property and are not transferrable. • Joint Ownership terms: As a part of the application process, STR applicants must notify a duplex neighbor of their intent to short term rent the adjoining unit. Should a rental's license be later revoked, written consent from a duplex neighbor must be provided in order to re -instate the license after a two year waiting period. • An affidavit for each rented unit must be signed by the licensee to acknowledge trash, noise and parking regulations as well as verifying life safety precautions are in place. The affidavit also includes an agreement to comply with "Good Neighbor Guidelines". November 7, 2017 - Page 216 0 Please see Attachment B for a draft affidavit and Attachment C for a draft of the "Good Neighbor Guidelines". • Each owner shall appoint a local contact or a licensed property manager/agent as a local property contact (within a 30 -minute response time) who has access and authority to assume management of the unit and take remedial measures. The local contact information must be posted in the interior of the rented unit for renters, as well as documented with the town. Initial complaints will be directed to the local contact for an opportunity to respond. The local contact person or property manager shall be available 24 hours a day to respond to tenant and neighborhood questions or concerns. Please see Attachment D for a sample form assigning a local contact. • Require posting of license number within all rental advertisements (this requirement currently exists). Online advertisements must post the license number on the landing page, immediately following the property description. • Require posting of license number, street address and local property contact information within five feet of the entrance to the short term rental unit. • Applicable Health and Safety Standards are outlined within the ordinance, in accordance with town code. Violations of the town's current noise, trash/recycling, building code, fire code, parking, pet and occupancy regulations will be documented and tracked by staff. If an initial complaint is not resolved by the local property contact, a formal complaint may be filed with the town. Owners will then receive written notification from town staff regarding the complaint. • If there are three or more notices of complaints issued for the same short term rental property within a consecutive 12 month period, the town may revoke the STR license upon written notice to the owner. The owner may appeal and request an administrative hearing. The STR license hearing will be informal. Future Topics Council had requested more information on incentives for owners to rent long term rather than short term. Financial incentives could include loans or grants for property improvements, or a "signing bonus" when a long-term rental is contracted. In the realm of housing for lower income renters, staff read about an idea to fund a portion of security deposits or first/last month rents, with those payments going directly to the landlord. Breckenridge currently participates in "Housing Works", a program through the Family & Intercultural Resource Center (FIRC). The program provides property management services to long-term landlords for no cost. They also guarantee rental income for 12 months. Staff will return to Council in the near future with any additional STR related topics, as well as a request for approval to contract with a STR software solution. IV. REQUEST OF COUNCIL Approve, deny or amend the first reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series 2017. -2- November 7, 2017 - Page 217 0 ORDINANCE NO. 15 SERIES 2017 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 14, ENTITLED SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES, AND REPEALING SECTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH NOW BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: Section 1. Title 4 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 14 to read as follows: CHAPTER 14 SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES 4-14-1: PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY: A. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish comprehensive licensing regulations to safeguard the public health, safety and welfare by regulating and controlling the use, occupancy, location and maintenance of short- term rental properties in the Town. B. This Chapter shall apply to short-term rental property only, as defined herein. This Chapter shall not apply to the furnishing of lodging services in hotels, motels, lodges or bed and breakfast establishments, or to properties with long-term leases. C. This Chapter shall not supersede or affect any private conditions, covenants or restrictions applicable to a short-term rental property. 4-14-2: DEFINITIONS: For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings: OWNER: The record owner of a residential dwelling unit in the Town who intends to lease or leases the unit as a short-term rental property. LEASE: An agreement or act by which an owner gives to a tenant, for valuable consideration, possession and use of property or a portion thereof for a definite term, at the end of which term the owner has an absolute right to retake control and use of the property. SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTY: A residential dwelling unit, or any room therein, available for lease for a term of less than thirty (30) 1 11/2/2017 C:IUSERSIKHALLORAN.VAILGOV.0251APPDATAILOCALIMICROSOFTIWINDOWSIINETCACHEICONTENT OUTLOOKIUJNT5K A5I STR-0110217. DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 218 0 consecutive days, excluding any employee housing unit, as defined in Title 12 of this Code, or room therein. 4-14-3: LICENSE REQUIRED: A valid license is required for each short-term rental property in the Town. 4-14-4: APPLICATION: A. At least thirty (30) days prior to any advertising for or lease of a short-term rental property, the owner shall file a written application for a short-term rental license with the Finance Director or designee, on forms supplied by the Town. The application shall not be deemed complete until all required information is submitted. B. The application fee shall be set by resolution of the Town Council. C. If the proposed short-term rental property is located within a duplex, the application shall include a copy of a written notice provided by the owner to the last known address of the record owner of the adjoining residential dwelling unit. The written notice shall include a copy of the completed application, and shall be sent by first-class United States mail at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the application. D. No license shall be issued without an affidavit, signed by the owner under penalty of perjury, certifying that the short-term rental property is in habitable condition and complies with the health and safety standards set forth in Section 4-14-7. E. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a complete application for a short-term rental license, if the Finance Director or designee finds that the application complies with this Chapter, the Finance Director or designee shall issue a short-term rental license. The license shall be issued in the name of the owner, and shall not be transferable. 4-14-5: LICENSE TERM: A. A short-term rental license shall expire on December 31 of each calendar year, or when title of the short-term rental property transfers to a new owner, whichever occurs first. Each change in ownership of a short- term rental property shall require a new license. B. An application for renewal of a short-term rental license shall be submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration of the existing license. 2 11/2/2017 C:IUSERSIKHALLORAN.VAILGOV.0251APPDATAILOCALIMICROSOFTIWINDOWSIINETCACHEICONTENT OUTLOOKIUJNT5K A5I STR-0110217. DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 219 0 4-14-6: LOCAL AGENT REQUIRED: Each owner shall appoint a natural person who remains within a thirty (30) minute response time of the short-term rental property and who is available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, to serve as the local agent for the short-term rental property. The owner shall notify the Finance Director or designee in writing of the appointment of a local agent within five (5) days of such appointment or modification of any such appointment. 4-14-7: HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS: A. Each short-term rental property shall comply with all of the following standards, at a minimum, at all times while the property is being leased: 1. Buildings, structures or rooms shall not be used for purposes other than those for which they were designed or intended. 2. Roofs, floors, walls, foundations, ceilings, stairs, handrails, guardrails, doors, porches, all other structural components and all appurtenances thereto shall be capable of resisting any and all forces and loads to which they may be normally subjected, and shall be kept in sound condition and in good repair. 3. Smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors and fire extinguishers shall be installed and operable, and all wood -burning fireplaces and stoves shall be cleaned on an annual basis. 4. An operable toilet, sink, and either a bathtub or shower shall be located within the same building, and every room containing a toilet or bathtub/shower shall be completely enclosed by walls, doors, or windows that will afford sufficiency privacy. 5. There shall be a sufficient number of trash receptacles to accommodate all trash generated by those occupying the short-term rental property, and all receptacles shall comply with Chapter 9 of Title 5 of this Code. 6. Occupancy of a short-term rental property shall comply with Chapter 2 of Title 12 of this Code. 7. The use of outdoor fire pits is prohibited. 8. Electrical panels shall be clearly labeled. 9. All pets shall be subject to Title 6, Chapter 4 of this Code. B. Acceptance of a short-term rental license issued under this Chapter shall be deemed permission from the owner to allow the Town and its agents to enter the short-term rental property for purposes of a health and 3 11/2/2017 C: I USERSIKHALLORAN. VAILGOV.0251APPDATAILOCALI MICROSOFTIWINDOWSIINETCACHEICONTENT.OUTLOOKI UJNT5K A51 STR-O 110217. DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 220 0 safety inspection at any time upon twenty-four (24) hours prior written notice to the owner; provided that in the case of emergency, the Town and its agents shall be entitled to immediate entry. All written leases of the short-term rental property shall advise the tenant(s) of this right of entry. 4-14-8: PARKING: In addition to all other applicable parking regulations, not more than three (3) vehicles shall be parked outside of an enclosed garage on any short- term rental property at anytime. All written leases of the short-term rental property shall advise the tenant(s) of this parking restriction. 4-14-9: SIGNAGE: An owner shall post a sign conspicuously inside the short-term rental property, within five (5) feet of the entrance. The sign shall include the local agent's current contact information, the street address of the short- term rental property and the short-term rental license number. 4-14-10: ADVERTISING: All advertising for a short-term rental property shall include: 1. The short-term rental license number, immediately following the description of the short-term rental property; 2. An advisement of the occupancy limits of the short-term rental property; and 3. The name and contact information for the local agent. 4-14-11: TAXES: The owner shall collect and remit Town sales and lodging taxes on each short-term rental property. 4-14-12: NOTICE: Any notice required by this Chapter to be given to an owner is sufficient if sent by first-class mail to the address provided by the owner on the most recent license or renewal application. Notice given to the local agent, by first-class mail to the address provided by the owner, shall also be sufficient to satisfy any required notice to the owner under this Chapter. 4-14-13: INITIAL COMPLAINTS: Initial complaints concerning a short-term rental property shall be directed to the local agent. The local agent shall resolve the issue that was the 4 11/2/2017 C: I USERSIKHALLORAN. VAILGOV.0251APPDATAILOCALI MICROSOFTIWINDOWSIINETCACHEICONTENT.OUTLOOKI UJNT5K A51 STR-O 110217. DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 221 0 subject of the complaint within sixty (60) minutes, or within thirty (30) minutes if the problem occurs between 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., including visiting the site if necessary. 4-14-14: FORMAL COMPLAINTS AND REVOCATION: A. If an initial complaint is not resolved, a formal complaint may be filed with the Town Manager or designee, on forms provided by the Town. The formal complaint shall describe in detail the violation(s) of this Chapter alleged to have occurred on the short-term rental property. Within three (3) days of receipt of such a complaint, the Town shall provide a copy of the formal complaint to the owner. B. If there are three (3) or more formal complaints issued for the same short-term rental property within any consecutive twelve-month period, the Town Manager or designee may revoke the license for that short-term rental property upon written notice to the owner. The Town Manager or designee may also revoke any short-term rental license that was issued in error. The Town shall notify an owner, in writing, of any revocation and the reasons therefor. C. The owner may appeal any revocation by filing a written appeal with the Town Manager or designee within ten (10) days of the date of the revocation notice. In the written appeal, the owner shall describe the reason for the appeal, and may request a hearing before the Town Manager or designee. The hearing shall be informal, and may be conducted in person or by telephone, at the discretion of the Town Manager or designee. At the hearing, the owner shall have the opportunity to be heard on the revocation. Within ten (10) days of the hearing, the Town Manager or designee shall either uphold or reverse the revocation, in writing. The decision of the Town Manager or designee shall be final, subject only to review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) by a court of competent jurisdiction. D. For a minimum of two (2) years following revocation of a short-term rental license, the Town shall not accept an application for a new license for the same short-term rental property. Following such two-year period, a new short-term rental license shall only be issued for a short-term rental property within a duplex if the record owner of the adjoining residential dwelling unit consents in writing to the issuance of such license. 4-14-15: VIOLATION AND PENALTY: A. It is unlawful for any owner, local agent or occupant of a short-term rental property to violate any provision of this Chapter or any other applicable provision of this Code. 5 11/2/2017 C:IUSERSIKHALLORAN.VAILGOV.0251APPDATAILOCALIMICROSOFTIWINDOWSIINETCACHEICONTENT OUTLOOKIUJNT5K A5I STR-0110217. DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 222 0 B. In addition to any revocation proceedings pursuant to Section 4-14- 13, violations of this Chapter shall be subject to the penalties set forth in Section 1-4-1 of this Code. Each separate act in violation of this Chapter, and each and every day or portion thereof during which any separate act in violation of this Chapter is committed, continued, or permitted, shall be deemed a separate offense. Any remedies provided for in this Chapter shall be cumulative and not exclusive and shall be in addition to any other remedies provided by law. Section 2. The definition of "short term rental" contained in Section 4-1-2 of the Vail Town Code and Section 4-1-4.B. of the Vail Town Code are hereby repealed in their entirety. Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code, as provided in this ordinance, shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of , 2017 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance is set for the day of , 2017, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk 6 Dave Chapin, Mayor 11/2/2017 C:IUSERSIKHALLORAN.VAILGOV.0251APPDATAILOCALIMICROSOFTIWINDOWSIINETCACHEICONTENT OUTLOOKIUJNT5K A5I STR-0110217. DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 223 0 READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 2017. ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk 7 Dave Chapin, Mayor 11/2/2017 C: I USERSIKHALLORAN. VAILGOV.0251APPDATAILOCALI MICROSOFTIWINDOWSIINETCACHEICONTENT.OUTLOOKI UJNT5K A51 STR-O 110217. DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 224 0 TOWN OF VAIL -- Short-Term Rental (STR) Self -Compliance Affidavit STR Street Address: Parcel ID: Check One: ❑ Existing STR — TOV License Number: ❑ New STR Is this address a Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Unit? ❑ Yes ❑ No Is this address a Duplex Unit? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, has written notice been provided to owner of adjoining residential unit? ❑ Yes (Attach copy of notice sent with proof of mailing) Owner's Name: Mailing Address: City: State/Zip: Preferred Telephone: Email: Occupancy: Occupancy limits of 2 per bedroom, plus 2 will be adhered to and appropriately listed in rental advertisements Number of Bedrooms: Total Overnight Occupancy Advertised: Please Note: All questions listed below must be initialed. Failure to initial any question will delay your license issuance. Life Safety: Street address, license number and local property contact information will be posted conspicuously on the interior of the rental unit within 5 feet of the main entrance. Owner will comply with all town ordinances that apply to a residential dwelling. Smoke detectors are installed outside of each sleeping area, in each room used for sleeping purposes and on each level of living area including basements. Carbon monoxide detectors are installed within twenty feet of sleeping areas, within twenty feet of fuel fired appliances including gas fireplaces and gas powered appliances. A carbon monoxide detector must also be installed within 10 feet of the doorway of an attached garage. Fire extinguisher is located within thirty feet of the kitchen and readily available for immediate use. One extinguisher is required per level of living area as well as in the garage. Wood Burning Fireplaces / Stoves - Fireplaces and flues shall be maintained in accordance with recognized standards and shall be inspected and cleaned on an annual basis. Proof of inspection and cleaning required to be available upon request. Outdoor Fires - Outdoor fires / fire pits are not allowed. November 7, 2017 - Page 225 c Community Impacts: Inform renters that on -street parking is not allowed. Provide adequate parking spaces for renter's use. Spaces identified as available in the short term rental application will remain available for renter use. Not more than 3 vehicles shall be parked outside of an enclosed garage. Inform renters of noise ordinance. No excessive or unreasonable noise is permitted at any time. Inform renters of trash / recycling regulations and scheduled trash pickup times. Night lighting ordinances will be complied with to reduce exterior light usage after dark. If pets are allowed, notify renters of leash laws, pet waste disposal, and barking/noise considerations. Operation of the short-term rental will comply with Good Neighbor Guidelines and the Good Neighbor Guidelines will be provided to tenants in the rental agreement or by posting it in a prominent location within the short-term rental. By completing and signing this affidavit I (we) affirm that, under pains and penalties of perjury, that I have inspected this property and that it complies with all applicable laws, and codes. Owner Signature Printed Name Date Owner Signature Subscribed and affirmed before me in the county of State of Colorado, this day of , 2017. (Notary's official signature) (Commission Expiration) Printed Name Date Notary Seal November 7, 2017 - Page 226 c TOWN OF VAILI Short -Term Rental Good Neighbor Guidelines The Good Neighbor Guidelines were created to educate short-term rental owners and tenants/guests on the of beliefs promoting respect for Vail neighborhoods; dispose of waste properly, leave what you find, respect wildlife and be considerate of others. Local Property Contact Information. If at any time you have concerns about your stay or in regards to your neighbors, please call the 24-hour contact number listed in the unit. In the event of an emergency, please call 911. General Respect for Neighbors. Be friendly, courteous, and treat your neighbors like you want to be treated. Respect your neighbors and their property. Noise. Be considerate of the neighborhood and your neighbor's right to the quiet enjoyment of their home and property, especially after 11 p.m. "5-1-7: NOISE PROHIBITED A. Prohibited Act: The making and creating of an excessive or unusually loud noise at any location in the town heard and measured in a manner hereinafter set forth shall be unlawful except when made under and in compliance with a permit issued ..." Trash & Recycling. Place trash and recycling containers at the appropriate place and time for pickup. Return trash and recycling containers to the designated after pickup. Cigarette butts should be properly extinguished and disposed of properly. "5-9-3: RESIDENTIAL REFUSE DISPOSAL: A. All residential refuse containers which receive "refuse" or attractants as defined by this chapter must be either wildlife resistant refuse containers or wildlife proof refuse containers, or be securely stored within a house, garage or wildlife resistant enclosure at all times. B. Residents with curbside pickup shall place only wildlife resistant refuse containers or wildlife proof refuse containers at the curb, ally, or public right of way at or after six o'clock (6:00) A.M. on the morning of scheduled pick up. After pick up, all containers must be removed from the curb, alley or public right of way by seven o'clock (7:00) P.M. on the same day." November 7, 2017 - Page 227 0 Parking & Traffic Safety. No more than 3 vehicles are allowed. Do not park on lawns or in a manner which blocks driveways, sidewalks, alleys or mailboxes. Drive slowly through neighborhoods and watch for pedestrians and children playing. "7-3A-1: PARKING TO OBSTRUCT TRAFFIC: No person shall park any vehicle upon a street or at any other place within this municipality in such a manner or under such conditions as to interfere with the free movement of vehicular traffic or proper street or highway maintenance." "7-3B-1: RESTRICTIONS: It is unlawful for any person to park or cause to be parked any vehicle upon any private parking lot or any other private property within the town without consent of the owner or the tenant or the person in possession or control of the private parking lot or the private property." Occupancy. Occupancy is limited within zoning regulations to 2 people per bedroom plus 2 additional. "12-2-2: DEFINITIONS (FAMILY): FAMILY: Family shall be deemed to be either subsection A or B of this definition: B. A group of unrelated persons not to exceed two (2) persons per bedroom plus an additional two (2) persons per dwelling unit used as a single housekeeping unit." Pets. Promptly clean-up after your pets. Prevent excessive and prolonged barking, and keep pets from roaming the neighborhood. Control aggressive pets, and be sure to abide by the local leash laws. Store pet food indoors and in a secure container to reduce the likelihood of wildlife issues. Tenant/Guest Responsibility. Approved guests and visitors are expected to follow the Good Neighbor Guidelines. Be sure to read your rental agreement for additional terms and restrictions which may include consequences for violating the Good Neighbor Guidelines. November 7, 2017 - Page 228 0 TOWN ofTL11111) Short -Term Rental (STR) Local Agent Responsibility and Owner Authorization Check One: ❑ New STR ❑ Existing STR — Change of Property Contact — TOV License Number STR Street Address: Owner's Name: Designated Local Agent: Name: Address: Phone Number: Email Address: Owner Declaration: Each owner of a short-term rental property shall designate a local person within a 30 minute response time to serve as a local contact person who has access and authority to assume management of the unit and take remedial measures. The local contact person shall be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to respond to tenant and neighborhood questions or concerns and must have a text -enabled phone. An owner of a short-term rental who resides within a 30 minute response time may designate himself/herself as the local agent. Any change of the local contact person or a modification to their contact information shall be promptly furnished to the town. I am the owner(s) of the subject property and hereby authorize the representative listed above to assume responsibility as the local contact. Owner Signature Local Agent Responsibility: Printed Name Date As the local property contact, and due to the language "assume management of the unit and take remedial measures", you are responsible for contacting the renters when you have been notified of a complaint. You may be contacted by the Town of Vail Police Department to secure the property as needed. Therefore, you phone number will be available to police staff, and will be listed under the short term rental license and posted for renters within the interior of the unit. Local Agent Signature Printed Name Date November 7, 2017 - Page 229 c TOWN Of UAJL VAILTOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017, First Reading, An ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12- 9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), and 15 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. PRESENTER(S): Jonathan Spence, Senior Planner ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017, upon first reading. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a first reading of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017, an ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), and 15 employee housing units (EHUs), located at430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. STAFF RECOM M ENDATION: On October 23, 2017 the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a public hearing on the request to establish SDD No. 42, pursuant to the requirement of Section 12-9(A), Vail Town Code. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the PEC voted 5-2 (Kurz and Stockmar opposed) to forward a recommendation of denial to the Vail Town Council. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Memorandum A. Vicinity Map B. Draft Ordinance C. PEC Staff Memorandum, October 23, 2017, without attachments D. Project Narrative, September 14, 2017 E. Plan Set, September 14, 2017 (part 1) E. Plan Set, September 14, 2017 (part 2) F. Vail Village Master Plan (in part) G. Correspondence received to date H. Draft PEC Results for October 23, 2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 230 0 TOWN OF VAIL ` Memorandum TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 7, 2017 SUBJECT: First reading of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017, an ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (lock -offs) and 15 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence FOREWORD An error was made regarding the notification requirements of the Vail Town Code, specifically Section 12-3-6(C)(2), that requires notification of all individual owners for certain types of applications, including the establishment of Special Development Districts. The Vail Town Code does allow the notification of adjacent properties that are condominiums or are otherwise held under joint ownership to occur via notification of the managing agent, registered agent or any member of the board of directors but all onsite owners must be notified individually. Proper notice has now been mailed to all individual owners within the proposed Special Development District (Mountain View Residences Phase 1) in additional to the re -notification of all adjacent properties. Failure to meet the notification requirement effectively nullifies all previous meetings held in regard to this application. For this reason, staff encourages the Town Council to regard this application as a new application. I. SUMMARY The applicant, Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a first reading of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017, an ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (AAUs / lock -offs) November 7, 2017 - Page 231 0 and 15 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. On October 23, 2017 the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a public hearing on the request to establish SDD No. 42, pursuant to the requirement of Section 12-9(A), Vail Town Code. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the PEC voted 5-2 (Kurz and Stockmar opposed) to forward a recommendation of denial to the Vail Town Council. Staff has received considerable correspondence from groups and individuals concerning this application. Some of this correspondence posed questions concerning process and other elements of the Vail Town Code. In these instances, responses were provided either by the Community Development Department or by the Town Attorney. All correspondence received to date, including responses from town staff, are included as Attachment G. The most recent correspondence received, a letter of support form the Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek Owners' Association, Inc (Phase 1), is included at the beginning of the attachment and a summation of the correspondence received is included as a cover page. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Lunar Vail LLC., represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (lock -offs) and 15 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. The project is composed of the following components: Employee Housing Units (EHUs) The proposed fifteen (15) EHUs will be deed -restricted rental units, limited to residents working at least thirty (30) hours per week in Eagle County. The proposed EHUs range in size from approximately 439 square feet to 1,194 square feet and include eight (8) two-bedroom units, five (5) one -bedroom units and two (2) studios. The EHUs are located on the first and second floors above the parking garage in the proposed structure. The floor area of the fifteen (15) units totals 13,922 square feet. Type III EHUs, per the Vail Town Code, are excluded from the calculation of GRFA and are thus not deducted from a development's available GRFA. In addition, Type III EHUs excluded from the calculation of dwelling units for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. Dwelling Units The applicant is proposing fifteen (15) for sale dwelling units to be located on the third, fourth and fifth (dormer) floors of the structure. The total proposed GRFA of the dwelling units inclusive of the Attached Accommodation Units is 32,687 square feet. Town of Vail Page 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 232 0 Attached Accommodation Units (Lock Offs) The applicant is proposing twenty (20) Attached Accommodation Units or lock -offs attached to all fifteen (15) of the dwelling units. Attached Accommodation Units are a permitted use in the HDMF Zone District and defined by the Vail Town Code as: ACCOMMODATION UNIT, ATTACHED: A room, without kitchen facilities, connected to a dwelling unit within a multiple -family building designed for or adapted to occupancy by guests which is accessible from a common corridor, walk, or balcony without passing through another accommodation unit, attached accommodation unit, or dwelling unit. Five (5) of the dwelling units have two (2) Attached Accommodation Units. These units may be rented separately and have direct access from common areas without necessitating passing through a dwelling unit. These units range in size from 194 square feet to 461 square feet and are located on the third and fourth levels of the proposed structure. The total proposed GRFA for the Attached Accommodation Units is included in the GRFA calculations for the dwelling units. Attached accommodation units do not contribute to the calculation of density for the purposes of calculating allowable units per acre Existing Parking As part of Phase 1 of the Mountain View Residences, discussed in greater detail in the background section below, a 112 space parking structure was built in 2006 along the northern portion of the property. This three level structure, located predominately below grade, provides required parking for the 23 dwelling units located in the Mountain View Residences Phase 1 building and the required parking for the proposed Phase 2 building. No additional parking is proposed. The total number of parking spaces has been reduced from 112 to 111 due to an increase in mechanical equipment. Proposed Deviations Through the Special Development District process, the applicant is requesting deviations from the following required dimensional standards of the underlying High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District: • Setbacks: The applicant proposes a fifteen foot (15') side setback on the east side where twenty feet (20') is required. • Building Height: The applicant is proposing an overall maximum height of 70' where the maximum for a structure with a sloped roof in the HDMF district is 48'. • Density Control: The maximum density in DUs/Acre in the HDMF district is 25 units per acre which equates to an allowable density of 32 units on the subject parcel. The applicant is proposing 38 units or 29.3 DU/acre, 119% of the allowable. Town of Vail Page 3 November 7, 2017 - Page 233 0 • Density Control: Per the HDMF zone district, a maximum of one Attached Accommodation Unit is permitted per DU. As proposed, five (5) of the dwelling units include a second Attached Accommodation Unit. • GRFA: The allowable GRFA in the HDMF district is 76/100 square feet of buildable site area or 42,871 square feet of GRFA for the 56,410 square foot parcel. Phase 1 of the development utilized 42,593 square feet of GRFA, leaving only 278 square feet remaining. The proposed Phase 2 includes an additional 32,687 square feet of GRFA for a total of 75,280 square feet of GRFA for the parcel or 176% of the allowable. • Site Coverage: The applicant is proposing site coverage of 70.07% where the maximum allowable is 55%. Although the application makes a distinction between above and below grade site coverage, Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 amended the Vail Town Code's definition of site coverage to include both above and below ground improvements. Attached for review are the following documents: A. Vicinity Map B. Draft Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017 (SDD No. 42, Vail Mountain View Residences) C. PEC Staff Memorandum, October 23, 2017, without attachments. D. Project Narrative, September 14, 2017 E. Plan Set, September 14, 2017 F. Vail Village Master Plan (in part) G. Correspondence received to date H. Draft Minutes from the October 23, 2017 PEC public hearing III. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PURPOSE AND PROCESS Purpose Per Section 12-9A-1, Vail Town Code, the purpose of a Special Development District (SDD) is (emphasis added): "encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. Town of Vail Page 4 November 7, 2017 - Page 234 0 Process Section 12-9A-4, Development Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, outlines the various steps and procedures for establishing a Special Development District. According to Section 12-9A-4, there are three primary steps in the establishment procedures: 1) Pre -application meeting with the Town staff 2) Planning and Environmental Commission review and recommendation 3) Town Council review Development applications for the establishment of a Special Development District are first reviewed by the Planning & Environmental Commission (PEC) for impacts associated with the proposed uses on the development objectives of the Town and compatibility of any requested deviations from the prescribed development standards (i.e. GRFA, site coverage, building height, etc.) with the Town's adopted design criteria. The review and recommendation of the application by the PEC is based upon a set of prescribed criteria. According to the Section 12-9A-8: in part, "design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved" Please see Section VII of the staff memorandum to the PEC, included as Attachment C. for a review of each of the nine (9) design criteria. IV. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017, upon first reading, to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences). V. BACKGROUND The subject parcel, together with the adjacent Apollo Park parcel to the east, comprised Tract D of Vail Village Fifth Filing, approved by the Eagle County Planning Commission in November of 1965, prior to the incorporation of the Town of Vail in 1966. In the mid 1970s the Apollo Park development was constructed with 89 dwelling units in four buildings. An aerial view of this development can be found on page 5 of the applicant's narrative, included as Attachment B. In 2006, the Town of Vail Design Review Board (DRB) approved the replacement of buildings C and D of the Apollo Park development with a new structure, Mountain View Residences Phase 1, and the associated parking structure. Subsequent to this approval, Tract D was split through the Minor Subdivision Town of Vail Page 5 November 7, 2017 - Page 235 0 process into two parcels. This subdivision was recorded in 2008 with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. The eastern parcel contains the remaining Buildings A and B of the original Apollo Park Development, containing 40 dwelling units functioning predominately as a timeshare development, while the western parcel contains the Mountain View Residences Phase 1 structure, and the associated parking structure. The underground parking constructed as part of Phase 1 not needed to meet its parking requirement (excess parking) has been made available by lease to the general public on a seasonal basis. The owners of the parking applied for and received administrative approval in 2010 for the ongoing leasing of the excess parking. VI. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a public hearing on this application on October 23, 2017. At the October 23, 2017 public hearing, the PEC voted 5-2 (Kurz and Stockmar opposed) to forward a recommendation of denial to the Vail Town Council for the proposed SDD. The recommendation of denial was made on the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards the Vail Town Council a recommendation of denial for an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (lock -offs) and 15 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto." The Commissioners voting in favor of the recommendation for denial cited the following criteria: 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Members of the Commission found that the proposed structure was incompatible with the immediate environment and adjacent properties due to its height, bulk and lack of building stepdowns or upper story building setbacks, specifically as the building relates to the Tyrolean Condominium to the west and the existing Phase I structure. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Town of Vail Page 6 November 7, 2017 - Page 236 0 Members of the Commission found that the density of the project, in terms of allowable GRFA and the resulting building mass, was inconsistent with the surrounding uses, specifically the Tyrolean Condominium property to the west and the existing Phase I structure. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. The Vail Village Master Plan speaks to the height of buildings within this sub -area as being limited so as not to impede view corridors from the Frontage Road and Interstate 70 to Vail Village and Vail Mountain. In addition, the Master Plan speaks to the mass of buildings stepping back from the Frontage Road to prevent sun/shade impacts on the road. Members of the Commission did not find that the project, as proposed, met this criterion. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Members of the Commission found that the building location and open space provisions did not produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to the aesthetic quality of the community because of the building's mass and scale in close proximity to the Frontage Road, the Tyrolean Condominium and the existing Phase I building. In addition to the criteria listed above, Commissioners voting in favor of the recommendation for denial also cited the following (emphasis added): 12-9A-9: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 0 Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the planning and environmental commission. Before the town council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-9A-8 of this article. Commissioners voting for denial of this application found that the proposed public benefit, namely the 15 EHUs, did not outweigh the adverse effects of the proposed deviations, namely the increase in height form 48' to 70' and mass and scale of the structure resulting from the deviation to the GRFA standard. Town of Vail Page 7 November 7, 2017 - Page 237 0 VII. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS The following two draft motions have been prepared as options for the Vail Town Council. Motion No. 1: Planning and Environmental Commission recommendation of denial. If the Town Council chooses to follow the Planning and Environmental Commission recommendation of denial, the following motion is recommended: The Vail Town Council, on first reading, denies Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017 to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code. This denial is based on a finding that the following required criteria have not been met: (Please see Section VII of the staff memorandum to the PEC, included as Attachment C. for the required criteria.) Motion No. 2: Approval with Conditions If the Town Council chooses to approve Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017, on first reading, the following motion is recommended: The Vail Town Council, on first reading, approves Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017, to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code. Should the Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017, on first reading, to establish Special Development District No. 42, Vail Mountain View Residences, the Community Development Department recommends the Council make the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vlll of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated October 23, 2017, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Town Council finds: 1. The SDD complies with the standards listed in Section Vlll of this memorandum, or the applicant has demonstrated that one or more of the standards is not applicable; 2. The SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; Town of Vail Page 8 November 7, 2017 - Page 238 0 3. The SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. The SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. VIII. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017 includes the following conditions of approval that have been crafted jointly by town staff and the applicant. 1. Approval of an associated Design Review Board ("DRB") application. 2. Prior to submittal of the DRB application, the Applicant shall work with Town staff to increase the number and size of the new landscape plantings to meet the recommendations of the Vail Village Master Plan concerning planted buffers. 3. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall execute and record, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, a pedestrian easement on the east side of the applicant's property for the existing paved path and stairs from the South Frontage Road right-of-way to the Town's recreational path. 4. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall design and construct a continuous 10' -wide separated concrete sidewalk along the South Frontage Road from Vail Valley Drive to the easternmost boundary of the Property. All necessary easements for the sidewalk west of the Property shall be acquired by the Town within 11 months of issuance of the first building permit for the project. The sidewalk shall be designed in general accordance plan sheet C1.01 dated September 14, 2017, and shall be submitted to the Town and approved by the Town prior to construction. The Applicant shall grant a pedestrian/roadway easement on the Property to the Town as shown on plan sheet C1.01 dated September 14, 2017. In such sidewalk, the Applicant shall install a snowmelt system, including the heat source and all necessary components, in compliance with Town standards,. The Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of maintenance and operation of the sidewalk and snowmelt system on or adjacent to the Property, and prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall execute the Town's standard snowmelt maintenance agreement. The Town will be responsible for the maintenance and operation of the sidewalk and snowmelt system that is west of the Property, and prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall Town of Vail Page 9 November 7, 2017 - Page 239 0 execute the Town's standard snowmelt operations reimbursement agreement for that portion of the sidewalk and snowmelt system. 5. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall pay the Traffic Mitigation Fees for the net new increase in development traffic, which has been calculated at 14 PM Peak Hour trips, after taking a multi -modal reduction and excluding the EHUs. The Traffic Mitigation Fees shall be $11,200 per net new PM Peak Hour trip, which results in a total fee of $156,800. 6. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall provide a construction staging plan and parking plan to demonstrate that the construction will not impact public parking or adjacent properties. 7. Within 90 days after the issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall engage the Town's Art in Public Places Board on the determination of an acceptable public art installation. The minimum value of the public art installation shall be $50, 000. 8. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall pay the recreational amenities tax as required by Section 12-9A-11 of the Vail Town Code. 9. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall execute and record deed restrictions, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, for the EHUs. 10. Prior to obtaining any building permit application for the project, the Applicant shall obtain approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT') for all proposed work within the CDOT right -of way, and shall submit evidence of such approval to the Town. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017 (SDD No. 42, Vail Mountain View Residences) C. PEC Staff Memorandum, October 23, 2017, without attachments. D. Project Narrative, September 14, 2017 E. Plan Set, September 14, 2017 F. Vail Village Master Plan (in part) G. Correspondence received to date H. Draft Minutes from the October 23, 2017 PEC public hearing Town of Vail Page 10 November 7, 2017 - Page 240 0 Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek 434 S Frontage Road E Lot 1, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village Filing 5 e 0 25 50 I Feet 100 This map was created by the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Use of this map should be for general purposes only. The Town of Vail does not warrant the accuracy of the Information contained herein. (where shown, parcel line work is approximate) November 7, 2017 - Page 241 of 532stModified:Aprii17,2017 TOWN OF VAIL ORDINANCE NO. 9 SERIES 2017 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 42, VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCES, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE A, CHAPTER 9, TITLE 12 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE WHEREAS, Article A, Chapter 9, Title 12 of the Vail Town Code outlines the procedure for establishing a special development district ("SDD"); WHEREAS, Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group (the "Applicant"), is the owner of the property legally described as Vail Village Filing 5, Lot 1, a resubdivision of Tract D (the "Property"); WHEREAS, on March 27, 2017, the Applicant submitted an application to the Town to establish SDD No. 42, Vail Mountain View Residences, on to facilitate the development of a mixed-use project including deed restricted employee housing units, dwelling units and attached accommodation units (the "Application"); WHEREAS, on October 23, 2017, the Planning and Environmental Commission (the "PEC") held a public hearing on the Application; WHEREAS, the PEC forwarded to the Town Council a recommendation of denial of the Application, with conditions, by a vote of 5-2; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing, the comments of Town staff and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Town Council wishes to approve the Application, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Findings. The Town Council hereby finds and determines as follows: a. The Application complies with the standards set forth in Section 12 -9A - 8.A. of the Vail Town Code; b. The Application is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; c. The Application is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and d. The Application promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in 11/1/2017 IITSCLIENTISICOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTBOARDSITOWN COUNCILIORDINANCESI171ORDINANCE NO. 9 SERIES OF 2017, SDD NO. 42 VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCES ( FIRST READING).DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 242 0 a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. Section 2. District Established. Based on the foregoing findings, Special Development District No. 42, Vail Mountain View Residences ("SDD No. 42"), is hereby established, and shall be reflected as such on the Town's Official Zoning Map. The underlying zoning for the Property is High Density Multiple -Family ("HDMF"). Section 3. Development Plan. a. The following plan sheets prepared by 359 Design, entitled "Vail Mountain View Residence Development Plan Set" and dated September 14, 2017 shall constitute the Development Plan for SDD No. 42: Sheet #: Title: A0.0 COVER A1.00 PLAN -ARCHITECTURAL SITE A2.0.01 GARAGE LEVEL 1 A2.0.02 GARAGE LEVEL 2 A2.0.03 GARAGE LEVEL 3 A2.01 OVERALL LEVEL 1 (8226'-0") A2.02 OVERALL LEVEL 2 (8236'-6") A2.03 OVERALL LEVEL 3 (8247'-0") A2.04 OVERALL LEVEL 4 ((8258'-0") A2.05 OVERALL DORMER LEVEL (8269'-0") A2.06 GRFA PLANS - Garage A2.07 GRFA PLANS- Building A2.08 GRFA PLANS - Building A2.10 SITE COVERAGE A2.10B SITE COVERAGE A2.11 LANDSCAPE COVERAGE A2.12 ROOF HEIGHT A2.13 HISTORIC GRADE MAP A4.00 3D MASSING A4.02 OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS A4.03 OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS A4.04 OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS A4.05 OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS A9.11 LIGHTING PLAN A9.16 SITE SECTIONS C1.01 GRADING C1.02 PLAN - UTILITY C1.03 DETAILS C1.04 FIRE STAGING & LADDER TRUCK SIMULATION PLAN L1.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 2 11/1/2017 IITSCLIENTISICOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTIBOARDSITOWN COUNCILIORDINANCESI171ORDINANCE NO. 9 SERIES OF 2017, SDD NO. 42 VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCES ( FIRST READING).DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 243 0 b. The Town Council finds that the Development Plan for SDD No. 42 complies with each of the requirements set forth in Sections 12-9A-5 and 12-9A-6 of the Vail Town Code, and hereby approves the Development Plan, subject to all other provisions of this Ordinance. Section 4. Development Standards. The development standards for SDD No. 42 are as follows: a. Uses: The permitted, conditional, and accessory uses allowed in SDD No. 42 shall be the same as the permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the HDMF District. b. Lot Area: The minimum lot area shall be 56,410 square feet (1.295 acres). c. Setbacks: The minimum setbacks shall be those setbacks shown on the Development Plan approved in Section 3 hereof. d. Height: The maximum allowable building height shall be as indicated on the Development Plan approved in Section 3 hereof. e. Density: The maximum allowable gross residential floor area ("GRFA") shall be 75,280 square feet. The maximum allowable unit count shall be 38 for -sale dwelling units ("Dus"), 15 Type -Ill deed -restricted employee housing units ("EHUs") and 20 attached accommodation units ("AAUs"). f. Site Coverage: The maximum allowable site coverage shall be 71%, or 39,880 square feet of the total lot area. g. Landscaping and Site Development: At least 30% of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be 15', with a minimum area of 300 square feet. The landscaping plan and site development shall be as shown on the Development Plan approved in Section 3 hereof. h. Parking and Loading: Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 10 of the Vail Town Code. At least seventy-five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. No at grade or above grade surface parking or loading shall be located in any required front setback area. The minimum number of loading berths shall be one (1) and shall be indicated on the Development Plan approved in Section 3 hereof. Section 5. Conditions of Approval. The approval of SDD No. 42 is expressly contingent upon the Applicant's satisfaction of all of the following conditions: a. Approval of an associated Design Review Board ("DRB") application. 3 11/1/2017 IITSCLIENTISICOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTIBOARDSITOWN COUNCILIORDINANCESI171ORDINANCE NO. 9 SERIES OF 2017, SDD NO. 42 VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCES ( FIRST READING).DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 244 0 b. Prior to submittal of the DRB application, the Applicant shall work with Town staff to increase the number and size of the new landscape plantings to meet the recommendations of the Vail Village Master Plan concerning planted buffers. c. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall execute and record, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, a pedestrian easement on the east side of the applicant's property for the existing paved path and stairs from the South Frontage Road right-of-way to the Town's recreational path. d. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall design and construct a continuous 10' -wide separated concrete sidewalk along the South Frontage Road from Vail Valley Drive to the easternmost boundary of the Property. All necessary easements for the sidewalk west of the Property shall be acquired by the Town within 11 months of issuance of the first building permit for the project. The sidewalk shall be designed in general accordance with Plan Sheet C1.01 dated September 14, 2017, and shall be approved by the Town prior to construction. The Applicant shall grant a pedestrian/roadway easement on the Property to the Town as shown on plan sheet C1.01 dated September 14, 2017. In such sidewalk, the Applicant shall install a snowmelt system, including the heat source and all necessary components, in compliance with Town standards,. The Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of maintenance and operation of the sidewalk and snowmelt system, and the Applicant shall execute the Town's standard snowmelt maintenance agreement. The Town will be responsible for the maintenance and operation of the sidewalk and snowmelt system that is west of the Property, and the Applicant shall execute the Town's standard snowmelt operations reimbursement agreement for that portion of the sidewalk and snowmelt system. e. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall pay the Traffic Mitigation Fees for the net new increase in development traffic generated by the project, which has been calculated at 14 PM Peak Hour trips, after taking a multi -modal reduction and excluding the EHUs. The Traffic Mitigation Fees shall be $11,200 per net new PM Peak Hour trip, which results in a total fee of $156,800. f. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall provide a construction staging plan and parking plan to demonstrate that the construction will not impact public parking or adjacent properties. g. Within 90 days after the issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall engage the Town's Art in Public Places Board on the determination of an acceptable public art installation. The minimum value of the public art installation shall be $50,000. 4 11/1/2017 IITSCLIENTISICOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTBOARDSITOWN COUNCILIORDINANCES1171ORDINANCE NO. 9 SERIES OF 2017, SDD NO. 42 VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCES ( FIRST READING).DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 245 0 h. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall pay the recreational amenities tax as required by Section 12-9A-11 of the Vail Town Code. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall execute and record deed restrictions, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, for the EHUs. j. Prior to obtaining any building permit for the project, the Applicant shall obtain approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT") for all proposed work within the CDOT right -of way, and shall submit evidence of such approval to the Town. Section 5. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 6. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the inhabitants thereof. Section 7. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 7th day of November, 2017 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 21st day of November, 2017, at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk 5 Dave Chapin, Mayor 11/1/2017 IITSCLIENTISICOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTBOARDSITOWN COUNCILIORDINANCES1171ORDINANCE NO. 9 SERIES OF 2017, SDD NO. 42 VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCES ( FIRST READING).DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 246 0 READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 21st day of November, 2017. ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk 6 Dave Chapin, Mayor 11/1/2017 IITSCLIENTISICOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTBOARDSITOWN COUNCILIORDINANCES1171ORDINANCE NO. 9 SERIES OF 2017, SDD NO. 42 VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCES ( FIRST READING).DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 247 0 TOWN OF VAIL Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 23, 2017 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (lock -offs) and 15 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence FOREWORD The Town of Vail failed to meet the notification requirements of the Vail Town Code, specifically Section 12-3-6(C)(2), that requires notification of all individual owners for certain types of applications, including the establishment of Special Development Districts. The Vail Town Code does allow the notification of adjacent properties that are condominiums or are otherwise held under joint ownership to occur via notification of the managing agent, registered agent or any member of the board of directors but all onsite owners must be notified individually. Proper notice has now been mailed to all individual owners within the proposed Special Development District (Mountain View Residences Phase 1) in additional to the re -notification of all adjacent properties. Failure to meet the notification requirement effectively nullifies all previous meetings held in regard to this application. For this reason, staff encourages the Planning and Environmental Commission to regard this application as a new application. Staff apologizes to the Commission, the applicant and the community for this regretful error. I. SUMMARY The applicant, Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (lock -offs) and 15 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. November 7, 2017 - Page 248 0 The applicant is requesting a final recommendation from the PEC to the Town Council at this meeting. The PEC may recommend the Town Council approve, approve with modifications, or deny the applicant's request. The PEC may also table the item to a future meeting to request additional information or resolution of an identified concern. Per Section 12-9A-1, Vail Town Code, the purpose of a Special Development District (SDD) is: To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. The PEC shall review the proposed application and plans, and evaluate the merits of the proposed SDD based on the criteria in Section VIII of this memo, the impact of the proposal, and the public benefits in regards to furthering overall goals of the community. Based upon staff's review of the plans and the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the PEC forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, of this application subject to the findings in Section VIII of this memorandum. Staff has received considerable correspondence from groups and individuals concerning this application. Some of this correspondence posed questions concerning process and other elements of the Vail Town Code. In these instances, responses were provided either by the Community Development Department or by the Town Attorney. All correspondence received to date, including responses from town staff, are included as Attachment E. The most recent correspondence received, a letter of support form the Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek Owners' Association, Inc (Phase 1)i is included at the beginning of the attachment and a summation of the correspondence received is included as a cover page. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Lunar Vail, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (lock -offs) and 15 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. A vicinity map (Attachment A), the revised project narrative (Attachment B), plan set (Attachment C), relevant selections from the Vail Village Master Plan (Attachment D, and public comments (Attachment E) are attached for review. Town of Vail Page 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 249 0 The project is composed of the following components: Employee Housing Units (EHUs) The proposed fifteen (15) EHUs will be deed -restricted rental units, limited to residents working at least thirty (30) hours per week in Eagle County. The proposed EHUs range in size from approximately 439 square feet to 1,194 square feet and include eight (8) two-bedroom units, five (5) one -bedroom unit and two (2) studio. The EHUs are located on the first and second floors above the parking garage in the proposed structure. The total floor area of the fifteen (15) units totals 13,922 square feet. EHUs, per the Vail Town Code, are not considered Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and are thus not deducted from a development's available GRFA. In addition, Type III EHUs do not contribute to the calculation of dwelling units for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. Dwelling Units The applicant is proposing fifteen (15) for sale dwelling units to be located on the third, fourth and fifth (dormer) floors of the structure. These units range in size from 1,174 square feet to 2,622 square feet, exclusive of the Attached Accommodation Units. The units proposed are a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom layouts. The total proposed GRFA of the dwelling units inclusive of the Attached Accommodation Units is 32,687 square feet. Attached Accommodation Units (Lock Offs) The applicant is proposing twenty (20) Attached Accommodation Units or lock -offs attached to all fifteen (15) of the dwelling units. Five (5) of the dwelling units have two (2) Attached Accommodation Units. These units may be rented separately and have direct access from common areas without necessitating passing through a dwelling unit. These units range in size from 194 square feet to 461 square feet and are located on the third and fourth levels of the proposed structure. The total proposed GRFA for the Attached Accommodation Units is included in the GRFA calculations for the dwelling units. Attached accommodation units do not contribute to the calculation of dwelling units for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. Existing Parking As part of Phase 1 of the Mountain View Residences, discussed in greater detail in the background section below, a 112 space parking structure was built in 2006 along the northern portion of the property. This three level structure, located predominately below grade, provides required parking for the 23 dwelling units located in the Mountain View Residences Phase 1 building and the required parking for the proposed Phase 2 building. No additional parking is proposed. The total number of parking spaces has been reduced from 112 to 111 due to an increase in mechanical equipment. Town of Vail Page 3 November 7, 2017 - Page 250 0 Proposed Deviations Through the Special Development District process, the applicant is requesting deviations from the following required dimensional standards of the underlying High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District: • Setbacks: The applicant proposes a fifteen foot (15') side setback on the east side where twenty feet (20') is required. • Building Height: The applicant is proposing an overall maximum height of 70' where the maximum for a structure with a sloped roof in the HDMF district is 48'. • Density Control: The maximum density in DUs/Acre in the HDMF district is 25 units per acre which equates to an allowable density of 32 units on the subject parcel. The applicant is proposing 38 units or 29.3 DU/acre, 119% of the allowable. • Density Control: Per the HDMF zone district, a maximum of one Attached Accommodation Unit is permitted per DU. As proposed, five (5) of the dwelling units include a second Attached Accommodation Unit. • GRFA: The allowable GRFA in the HDMF district is 76/100 square feet of buildable site area or 42,871 square feet of GRFA for the 56,410 square foot parcel. Phase 1 of the development utilized 42,593 square feet of GRFA, leaving only 278 square feet remaining. The proposed Phase 2 includes an additional 32,687 square feet of GRFA for a total of 75,280 square feet of GRFA for the parcel or 176% of the allowable. • Site Coverage: The applicant is proposing site coverage of 70.07% where the maximum allowable is 55%. Although the application makes a distinction between above and below grade site coverage, Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 amended the Vail Town Code's definition of site coverage to include both above and below ground improvements. III. BACKGROUND The subject parcel, together with the adjacent Apollo Park parcel to the east, comprised Tract D of Vail Village Fifth Filing, approved by the Eagle County Planning Commission in November of 1965, prior to the incorporation of the Town of Vail in 1966. In the mid 1970s the Apollo Park development was constructed with 89 dwelling units in four buildings. An aerial view of this development can be found on page 5 of the applicant's narrative, included as Attachment B. In 2006 the Town of Vail Design Review Board (DRB) approved the replacement of buildings C and D of the Apollo Park development with a new structure, Mountain View Residences Phase 1, and the associated parking structure. Subsequent to this approval, Tract D was split through the Minor Subdivision process into two parcels. This subdivision was recorded in 2008 with the Eagle County Town of Vail Page 4 November 7, 2017 - Page 251 0 Clerk and Recorder. The eastern parcel contains the remaining Buildings A and B of the original Apollo Park Development, containing 40 dwelling units functioning predominately as a timeshare development, while the western parcel contains the Mountain View Residences Phase 1 structure, and the associated parking structure. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal. Please see Attachment D for relevant excerpts from the Vail Village Master Plan. Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 1— Title, Purpose, and Applicability (in part) 12-1-2: PURPOSE: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. Town of Vail Page 5 November 7, 2017 - Page 252 0 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Chapter 6, Article H, High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District 12-6H-1: PURPOSE: The high density multiple -family district is intended to provide sites for multiple -family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The high density multiple -family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the zone district. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 37(1980) § 6: Ord. 30(1977) § 6: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.100) 12-6H-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district: Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments, located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. Multiple -family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and condominium dwellings. (Ord. 1(2008) § 9) 12-6H-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Town of Vail Page 6 November 7, 2017 - Page 253 0 Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment. Dog kennels. Funiculars and other similar conveyances. Home child daycare facilities, as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this title. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations. Private parking structures. Private unstructured parking. Public and private schools. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public park and recreation facilities. Public parking structures. Public transportation terminals. Public unstructured parking. Public utility and public service uses. Religious institutions. Ski lifts and tows. Timeshare units. (Ord. 2(2016) § 6: Ord. 12(2008) § 9) 12-6H-4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential and lodge uses. Town of Vail Page 7 November 7, 2017 - Page 254 0 Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.400) 12-6H-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10, 000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80') on each side within its boundaries. (Ord. 12(1978) § 3) 12-6H-6: SETBACKS: The minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20). (Ord. 50(1978) § 2) 12-6H-7: HEIGHT: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet (45). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty eight feet (48). (Ord. 37(1980) § 2) 12-6H-8: DENSITY CONTROL: Not more than seventy six (76) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. Each accommodation unit shall be counted as one-half (1/2) of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. A dwelling unit in a multiple -family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. (Ord. 14(2004) § 9: Ord. 31(2001) §§ 3, 5: Ord. 50(1978) § 19: Ord. 12(1977) § 2) 12-6H-9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed fifty five percent (55%) of the total site area. (Ord. 17(1991) § 6: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.507) 12-6H-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 19(1976) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.509) Town of Vail Page 8 November 7, 2017 - Page 255 0 12-6H-11: PARKING AND LOADING: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. No parking shall be located in any required front setback area. (Ord. 19(1976) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.510) Chapter 9 — Special and Miscellaneous Districts (in part) 12-9A-1: PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY: A. Purpose: The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. 12-9A-4: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES: A. Approval of Plan Required: Prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within a special development district, there shall be an approved development plan for said district. The approved development plan shall establish requirements regulating development, uses and activity within a special development district. B. Preapplication Conference: Prior to submittal of a formal application for a special development district, the applicant shall hold a preapplication conference with the department of community development. The purpose of this meeting shall be to discuss the goals of the proposed special development district, the relationship of the proposal to applicable elements of the town's comprehensive plan, and the review procedure that will be followed for the application. C. PEC Conducts Initial Review: The initial review of a proposed special development district shall be held by the planning and environmental commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. Prior to this meeting, and at the discretion of the administrator, a work session may be held with the applicant, staff and the planning and environmental commission to discuss special development district. A report of the department of community development staff's findings and recommendations shall be made at the initial formal hearing before the planning and environmental commission. Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed amendment, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the Town of Vail Page 9 November 7, 2017 - Page 256 0 petition or proposal. The commission may recommend approval of the petition or proposal as initiated, may recommend approval with such modifications as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or may recommend denial of the petition or rejection of the proposal. The commission shall transmit its recommendation, together with a report on the public hearing and its deliberations and findings, to the town council. D. Town Council Review: A report of the planning and environmental commission stating its findings and recommendations, and the staff report shall then be transmitted to the town council. Upon receipt of the report and recommendation of the planning and environmental commission, the town council shall set a date for hearing within the following thirty (30) days. Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed SDD, the town council shall act on the petition or proposal. The town council shall consider but shall not be bound by the recommendation of the planning and environmental commission. The town council may cause an ordinance to be introduced to create or amend a special development district, either in accordance with the recommendation of the planning and environmental commission or in modified form, or the council may deny the petition. If the council elects to proceed with an ordinance adopting an SDD, the ordinance shall be considered as prescribed by the Vail town charter. 12-9A-6: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of special development districts. A development plan shall be approved by ordinance by the town council in conjunction with the review and approval of any special development district. The development plan shall be comprised of materials submitted in accordance with section 12-9A-5 of this article. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the special development district shall develop. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking plan, preliminary open space/landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory uses. 12-9A-9: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the planning and environmental commission. Before the town council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-9A-8 of this article. Town of Vail Page 10 November 7, 2017 - Page 257 0 12-9A-11: RECREATION AMENITIES TAX: A recreation amenities tax shall be assessed on all special development districts in accordance with title 2, chapter 5 of this code at a rate to be determined by the town council. This rate shall be based on the rate of the underlying zone district or the rate which most closely resembles the density plan for the zone district, whichever is greater. V. ZONING / SDD NO. 42 ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use Designation: Mapped Geological Hazards: 430 and 434 South Frontage Road E Vail Village Filing 5, Lot 1, a resubdivision of Tract D High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District Vail Village Master Plan Steep Slopes >40% (result of prior development) Standard Allowed / Required HDMF Existing (Phase 1) Proposed Phase 2*** Mountain View Phase 1 and 2*** Site Area Min. 10,000 sq. ft. 56,410 sq. ft. (1.295 acres) No Change 56,410 sq. ft. (1.295 acres) Setbacks Front — 20' Side — 20' Rear — 20' Front — 20' Side(W) — 20' Side(E) — 20' Rear — 20' Front — 20' Side(W) — 20' Side(E) — 15' Rear — 20' Front — 20' Side(W) — 20' Side(E) — 15' Rear — 20' Height Flat or Mansard Roof — 45' Sloping Roof — 48' Sloping Roof — 48' Sloping Roof — 70' Sloping Roof — 70' Density 25 DUs/ per acre of buildable site area, or 32 units on a 1.295 acre parcel. 23 DUs 17.8 DU/acre 15 DUs w/ 20 lock -offs 15 EHUs (not counted towards density) Total=15 DUs 38 DUs 29.3 DU/acre GRFA* Max. 76/100 Buildable Site Area or 42,871 sq. ft. 42,593 sq. ft. 32,687 sq. ft. 75,280 sq. ft. or 176% of allowable GRFA Town of Vail Page 11 November 7, 2017 - Page 258 0 Site Coverage** Max. 55% of total site area (31,026 sq. ft.) 22.35%=12,599 sq. ft. above grade 69.91%=39,424 sq. ft. including below grade 14,511 sq. ft. above grade 102 sq. ft. Below grade 48.06%=27,111 sq. ft. above grade 70.07%=39,880 sq. ft. including below grade Parking/Loading Per Chapter 10 49 Required 112 Provided 1 Loading Space Provided/Required Additional 63 Spaces 109 Required 111 Provided*** 1 Loading Space Provided/Required Landscaping Min. 30% of total site area (16,923 sq. ft.) 63.62% (35,881 sq. ft.) 40.07% (22,996 sq. ft.) Site in Total) 40.07% (22,996 sq. ft.) ** *** Although the EHUs total 13,922 square feet in floor area, they do not count towards GRFA. The existing site coverage became nonconforming with the subdivision of the property in 2006 The reduction from 112 to 111 parking spaces is the result of added mechanical equipment. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use North: 1-70 ROW East: High Density Residential South: Gore Creek Streamtract West: High Density Residential Zoning District None High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District Natural Area Preservation (NAP) High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District VII. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA Before acting on a special development district application, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed special development district. 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff has worked closely with the applicant through a series of revisions that have brought the proposal more in line with the character of the neighborhood and Vail in general. The mass, scale, and bulk of the structure is larger than that of the surrounding structures; however, the proposed architectural treatments such as a variety of roof forms and increased horizontal and vertical articulation serve to visually break up the mass, bulk, and scale of the building and help make the design more compatible with Phase 1. The proposed building material and color palettes may be consistent with the identity and character of Vail as a mountain community. Town of Vail Page 12 November 7, 2017 - Page 259 0 The subject property is located on a development site in the HDMF zone district, which allows for a maximum 48 foot building height. Many of the Town's taller buildings are located along the frontage road, which buffer surrounding area from the noise and aesthetics of the highway. Though the proposed building height is greater than those in the surrounding area, the applicant has demonstrated that the height is consistent, in general, with the recommended heights of the Vail Village Master Plan and is necessary to meet the development objectives of the town. Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The proposed mix of uses, including EHUs, DUs, AUs and AAUs, is an appropriate program for this location. Located along the frontage road on the periphery of Vail Village, the site allows the density and related height necessary to meet the development objectives of the applicant and the town. Although the proposed building is significantly taller than the adjacent Tyrolean, the building's mass steps down in acknowledgment. The applicant professes that it would not be appropriate to lower the building further as the Tyrolean Condominiums is not developed to its potential, under existing zoning. The proposed project is primarily residential in nature, similar to surrounding uses which are also residential, including Apollo Park and the Tyrolean. It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse impacts resulting from the operation of the project. Staff finds that the proposal meets this criterion. 3. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. The parking dimensions and number of parking spaces provided comply with Vail Town Code. In addition, the proposed loading space meets the requirement in terms of size and number. Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. Staff has reviewed the Vail Comprehensive Plan and found the following documents and associated goals, objectives, statements applicable to this proposal: Vail Land Use Plan (in part) Town of Vail Page 13 November 7, 2017 - Page 260 0 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan (in part) Land Use and Development: Goal #4: Provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and public initiated development. Housing: Goal: The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. Actions / Strategies: • Research parking requirements for employee housing and consider reducing requirements for employee housing developments. • Expand the number of employee beds in the Town of Vail. Town of Vail Page 14 November 7, 2017 - Page 261 0 o Consider increasing incentives in performance zoning for property owners who build EHUs. Vail Economic Development Strategic Plan (in part) Policies: Goal #4: Provide support for a quality workforce delivering world-class service to positively impact Vail's economy. Objective 4.1: Work with the business community, Eagle County and other municipalities to address future workforce housing needs. Objective 4.3: Work with the business community and Eagle County to address parking and transportation issues for workers and guests. Chapter VII. Evaluation and Analysis, Weaknesses: Inefficient Facilities: Older lodging accommodations Vail Housing 2027 (in part) Mission: We create, provide, and retain high quality, affordable, and diverse housing opportunities for Vail residents to support a sustainable year round economy and build a vibrant, inclusive and resilient community. We do this through acquiring deed restrictions on homes so that our residents have a place to live in Vail. Policy Statement: We acknowledge that the acquisition of deed restrictions on homes for Vail residents is critical to maintaining community. Therefore, we ensure an adequate supply and availability of homes for residents and recognize housing as infrastructure in the Town of Vail; a community support system not unlike roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, fire, police, and other services of the municipal government. Ten Year Goal: The Town of Vail will acquire 1,000 additional resident housing unit deed restrictions by the year 2027. These new deed restrictions will be acquired for both existing homes as well as for homes that are newly constructed by both the Town of Vail and private sector developers. Town of Vail Page 15 November 7, 2017 - Page 262 0 The proposed development of EHUs realizes several community goals, especially the Vail Housing 2027 Ten Year Goal of acquiring 1,000 deed restrictions. It is important to note that the requirements of inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage are not enough to close the gap in the employee housing deficit in Vail. The proposal to add 15 Type III deed -restricted EHUs will make a contribution toward the goals of providing workforce housing in the town. The significance of providing local workforce housing is critical to reduce the number of employees driving to and parking in town. By doing so, numerous policies of the Vail Economic Development Strategic Plan are realized, such as Goal Number 4, "Provide support for a quality workforce delivering world-class service to positively impact Vail's economy." The proposal specifically addresses Goals 1.1, 1.12, 5.4, and 5.5 in the Vail Land Use Plan in that they speak to the importance of infill redevelopment and meeting employee housing demands. The proposal also speaks to the Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan's statement that the Town recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town. The proposal is representative of a rare infill -development opportunity in Vail that will accommodate a mix of desirable uses consistent with the development objectives of the town. Staff finds that the proposal meets this criterion. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. No natural or geologic hazards are present on the subject site. Staff finds that the proposal meets this criterion. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The architectural approach emblematic of Vail and consistent with Phase 1. While open space is minimal, the applicant has attempted to provide appropriate landscaping. The applicant has provided a high quality design in regards to the site plan and building appearance and has attempted to balance elements such as open space and landscaping with other important community goals that would help improve the overall quality of the community. Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion. Town of Vail Page 16 November 7, 2017 - Page 263 0 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. The provided Traffic Impact Analysis has determined that the existing access point is suitable with no necessary modifications to serve the development. The applicant has worked closely with the Public Works Department to accommodate a replacement sidewalk for not only the property's frontage but continuing to the west to Vail Valley Drive. Along the project's frontage will be a 10' detached heated concrete sidewalk that will allow increased snow storage for the South Frontage Road, an improvement over the existing attached sidewalk condition. The sidewalk continuing to the west will also be detached if the Town of Vail is successful in obtaining an easement form the adjacent properties. If an easement is not granted, the sidewalk will be replaced in its current location with a new, heated 10' concrete sidewalk. In addition to the relocated sidewalk, the applicant is providing the Town an easement for a future sidewalk closer to the building if, and when, the Frontage Road is increased to four lanes. To offset the community impacts of traffic generated by the development, the applicant has agreed to pay the Traffic Mitigation Fees for the net new increase in development traffic, which has been calculated at 14.00 PM Peak Hour trips, after taking a multi -modal reduction and excluding the EHUs. The Traffic Mitigation Fees shall be $11,200 per net new PM Peak Hour trip, which results in a total fee of $156,800. Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. The location of the existing garage and the minimum setbacks proposed limit the area remaining for landscaping. The Vail Village Master Plan has identified the area between the proposed structure and South Frontage Road for robust landscaping. As conditioned, the continued evolution of the landscape plan is encouraged with input and assistance from Town of Vail staff and the Design Review Board. Staff finds the proposal, as conditioned, meets this criterion. 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Town of Vail Page 17 November 7, 2017 - Page 264 0 The proposal is intended to be constructed in one phase. Staging for any construction related activity will be reviewed by staff to ensure impacts to public rights-of-way and adjacent properties are minimized. It is anticipated that the use of the South Frontage Road right-of-way may be necessary. This right-of-way is controlled by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and will require all appropriate review and permits from CDOT prior to the start of construction. Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION SDDs are an opportunity to allow flexibility in design to a property owner while advancing the goals and objectives of the Town comprehensive plan. Balancing the impact of the development on the surrounding area with benefits to the broader community through the achievement of said goals and objectives is an extremely difficult task. Based on the most recent revisions, staff finds that the proposal has successfully balanced these oftentimes competing interests and that the public benefit outweighs the deviations, as conditioned. Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Town Council for the applicant's request to establish Special Development District No. 42, Vail Mountain View Residences. Motion for Approval — Special Development District: Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 42, Vail Mountain View Residences, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission passes the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards the Vail Town Council a recommendation of approval for an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), and 15 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 42, Vail Mountain View Residences, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: Town of Vail Page 18 November 7, 2017 - Page 265 0 1. Approval of an associated Design Review Board ("DRB') application. 2. Prior to submittal of the DRB application, the Applicant shall work with Town staff to increase the number and size of the new landscape plantings. 3. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall execute and record, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, a pedestrian easement on the east side of the applicant's property for the existing paved path and stairs from the South Frontage Road right-of-way to the Town's recreational path. 4. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall design and construct a continuous 10' -wide separated concrete sidewalk along the South Frontage Road from Vail Valley Drive to the easternmost boundary of the Property. All necessary easements for the sidewalk west of the Property shall be acquired by the Town within 11 months of issuance of the first building permit for the project. The sidewalk shall be designed in general accordance plan sheet C1.01 dated September 14, 2017, and shall be submitted to the Town and approved by the Town prior to construction. The Applicant shall grant a pedestrian/roadway easement on the Property to the Town as shown on plan sheet C1.01 dated September 14, 2017. In such sidewalk, the Applicant shall install a snowmelt system, including the heat source and all necessary components, in compliance with Town standards,. The Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of maintenance and operation of the sidewalk and snowmelt system on or adjacent to the Property, and prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall execute the Town's standard snowmelt maintenance agreement. The Town will be responsible for the maintenance and operation of the sidewalk and snowmelt system that is west of the Property, and prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall execute the Town's standard snowmelt operations reimbursement agreement for that portion of the sidewalk and snowmelt system. 5. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall pay the Traffic Mitigation Fees for the net new increase in development traffic, which has been calculated at 14 PM Peak Hour trips, after taking a multi -modal reduction and excluding the EHUs. The Traffic Mitigation Fees shall be $11,200 per net new PM Peak Hour trip, which results in a total fee of $156,800. 6. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall provide a construction staging plan and parking plan to demonstrate that the construction will not impact public parking or adjacent properties. 7. Within 90 days after the issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall engage the Town's Art in Public Places Board on the Town of Vail Page 19 November 7, 2017 - Page 266 0 determination of an acceptable public art installation. The minimum value of the public art installation shall be $50, 000. 8. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall pay the recreational amenities tax as required by Section 12-9A-11 of the Vail Town Code. 9. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall execute and record deed restrictions, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, for the EHUs. 10. Prior to obtaining any building permit application for the project, the Applicant shall obtain approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT') for all proposed work within the CDOT right -of way, and shall submit evidence of such approval to the Town. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 42, Vail Mountain View Residences, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vlll of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated October 23, 2017, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The SDD complies with the standards listed in Section Vlll of this memorandum, or the applicant has demonstrated that one or more of the standards is not applicable; 2. The SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; 3. The SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. The SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Project Narrative, September 14, 2017 C. Plan Set, September, 2017 D. Vail Village Master Plan (in part) E. Correspondence received to date Town of Vail Page 20 November 7, 2017 - Page 267 0 Application for the Establishment of a Special Development District Vail Mountain View Residences Phase 2 Special Development District Mauriello Planning Group Submitted to the Town of Vail: September 27, 2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 268 0 Consultant Directory Peter Carlson Gore Creek Group LLC 285 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 952-210-0095 Dominic Mauriello Mauriello Planning Group PO Box 4777 Eagle, CO 81657 970-376-3318 Will Hentschel 359 Design 3630 Osage St. Denver, CO 80211 720.512.3437 Davia Miselis Watershed Environmental Consultants P.O. Box 3722, Eagle CO 81631 970.471.4547 Ron Byrne and Mary Ann Redmond Ron Byrne & Associates 285 Bridge St Vail, CO 81657 970-476-1987 Skip Hudson, PE TurnKey Consulting LLC 587 1/2 Grand Cascade Way Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-314-4888 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 269 0 Update for September 2017 Gore Creek Group LLC has been working with the owners in Phase 1 and the neighbors to develop a plan that is beneficial to all parties involved. This submittal reflects our analysis of the alternative proposal agreed to by the Phase 1 owners. As a result, there have been some proposed programming changes to Phase 2. The following provides a comparison of the original program (that programming recommended by the PEC in June of 2017) to the program proposed today: Use Original Proposal September 2017 Proposal Change Dwelling Units GRFA Lock Off Units Employee Housing Units GRFA Accommodation Units GRFA 12 du 27,356 sq. ft. 15 du 32,687 sq. ft. +3 du +5,331 sq. ft. 15 lo (attached to 11 20 lo (attached to 15 units) +5 lo dwelling units) 10 ehu 10,544 sq. ft. 19 au 7,344 sq. ft. 15 ehu 13,922 sq. ft. 0 au 0 sq. ft. +5 ehu +3,378 sq. ft. - 19 au - 7,344 sq. ft. This document has been updated to reflect the proposed changes. Introduction Gore Creek Group LLC is requesting an application for the establishment of a new Special Development District (SDD) for Vail Mountain View Residences to facilitate the construction of a new mixed-use building located at 430 S. Frontage Road. The new building is referred to as Phase 2 of Vail Mountain View Residences, which is proposed to be constructed above the existing parking structure. Phase 1, the existing 23 residential condominiums, is proposed to be included in the SDD, but the condominium building will not be modified with this application. The proposed Phase 2 consists of deed -restricted employee housing, residential condominiums and dwelling unit lock -off units. The project furthers three key identified community goals: the provision of employee housing, the provision of live beds, and encouragement of in -fill development. Numerous changes have been made to the scale of the building, the articulation and architecture of the building, and the mix of uses within the building based on comments from the Planning and Environmental Commission, Town staff, Design Review Board, comments from Phase 1 owners, and comments from Tyrolean representatives over the multiple meetings since May of 2017. The result of the changes is a better project overall despite the loss of accommodation units. The existing Phase 1 Building was completed in 2008 under the High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) zone district and included the following uses: 23 for -sale condominiums with approximately 42,593 sq. ft. of GRFA U 112 parking space parking structure 3 November 7, 2017 - Page 270 0 u Conditional use permit to allow for the leasing of excess parking spaces which were constructed in anticipation of Phase 2 The alternative proposed Phase 2 building includes the following: u 15 for -sale dwelling units with approximately 32,687 sq. ft. of GRFA, to be included in a voluntary rental management program LJ 20 lock -offs to all 15 of the dwelling units (five dwelling units have 2 lock -offs) u 15 employee housing units with approximately 13,992 sq. ft. of floor area LJ Parking to accommodate the proposed uses with a total of 111 parking spaces for the entire SDD with 49 spaces designated and controlled by Phase 1 u A dedicated loading and delivery space to serve both phase 1 and 2 To facilitate the development of Phase 2, a Special Development District is proposed to be established, with the underlying zoning of HDMF. The SDD designation will apply to the entirety of Vail Mountain View Residences property, including the already completed Phase 1. A Phase 2 project was always contemplated on the parcel as evidenced in the HOA documents recorded against the project. The only practical method to achieve the Phase 2 project as contemplated in the HOA documents is an SDD or a comprehensive amendment to the zone district affecting properties throughout the Town of Vail due to the fact that nearly all development potential under the HDMF Zoning was exhausted when Phase 1 was constructed. The HOA documents for Phase 1 put all purchasers on notice that a second phase was contemplated and could have densities of up to 300 units, a number that could never be practically reached but to ensure there was clear understanding about the future. Vail Mountain View Residences presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment within Vail Village. It is adjacent to the pedestrian core, but vehicular access is taken from South Frontage Road, allowing for development to occur with minimal impacts to the Village. As an infill site, with the proposed Phase 2 building constructed upon an existing parking structure that was designed to allow for such development, there are minimal impacts to the natural environment. Public Benefits of the Project: LJ Employee housing far in excess of requirements, all on-site and near the major employment center, addressing one of the documented critical needs of the Town (42.7% of the free- market unit floor area is provided for employee housing versus the 10% required by code) with 100% on-site without public subsidy U All EHUs are highly functional and livable dwelling within the core employment center of Vail for single and/or double occupancy U Provision of short-term lodging units (dwelling units in a voluntary rental program and lock - off units) within Vail Village, enhancing revenues and vitality LJ Redevelopment of an infill site within Vail Village as suggested by the Vail Village Master Plan LJ Land being donated to the Town (approximately 878 sq. ft.) as requested by the Public Works Department for future roadway improvements east of Vail Valley Drive 4 November 7, 2017 - Page 271 0 LJ Paved access path and stairs through the property allowing pedestrians to walk from the South Frontage Road to the recreation path along Gore Creek LJ Reconstructing and heating sidewalk to Vail Valley Drive in front of the neighboring Tyrolean and Public Service properties at no cost to the Town or adjacent properties • Pursuing Green Globes Certification, which ensures energy efficiency by exceeding code standards. In addition, the project will exceed the 2015 IECC code and providing two electric car charging stations and energy management system for accommodation units U Public art piece still to be determined of a value up to $50,000 Economic vitality and enhanced public and private revenues to Vail Village as a result of new residential and lodging facilities Example of the two- bedroom EHU layout. There are 8 two-bedroom units, 2 studio units and 5 one - bedroom units. 5 November 7, 2017 - Page 272 0 Background Vail Mountain View Residences was originally part of Apollo Park, an apartment, condominium, and timeshare project. Apollo Park was originally developed on Tract D, Vail Village 5th Filing as one large project. Apollo Park included 89 dwelling units. In 1978, Buildings A & B were condominiumized, creating a property line between A & B and C & D. The A & B buildings were subsequently sold as timeshare units. In 2006, the 49 dwelling units in Buildings C & D of Apollo Park were demolished and Mountain View Phase 1 was constructed on the western portion of Tract D, which was resubdivided to Lot 1, a portion of the original Tract D, following the historical property line. Apollo Park, Buildings A and B, remain on Tract D, with a total 40 units developed on the site. Mountain View Phase 1 was constructed under HDMF zoning, requiring review only by the Design Review Board.. As part of Phase 1, a parking structure of 112 parking spaces was constructed in anticipation of a potential future development phase. Following the completion of the parking structure, the excess parking spaces were leased for public consumption. When the Vail Village Master Plan (VVMP) was adopted in 1990, it recognized that the HDMF zoning was out of sync with the existing development patterns and the potential for future growth. The VVMP recommended that the zoning be updated. However, no substantial modifications to the HDMF zone district have occurred since 1990, therefore causing the need to redevelop this property as a Special Development District. The surrounding properties, the Wren and Apollo Park, are also non- conforming with respect to density and GRFA. The Tyrolean Condominiums does not comply with 2004 Google Earth Image of Apollo Park, Buildings A, B, C, and D. 2015 Google Earth Image of Mountain View Phase 1 and Apollo Park, Buildings A and B. 6 November 7, 2017 - Page 273 0 setbacks, GRFA, and site coverage based on variances granted. The adjoining Tyrolean project exceeds the development standards of the HDMF with limited public benefits provided to offset the variances and deviations provided. 7 November 7, 2017 - Page 274 0 Zoning Analysis Location: Parcel: Lot Size: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: 430 South Frontage Road / Lot 1, A Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village 5th 210108246023 1.295 acres / 56,410.2 sq. ft. High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) Special Development District with underlying zoning of HDMF Development Allowed by HDMF Existing Phase 1 Alternative Proposed Phase 2 Mountain View Standard Phase 1 and 2 Lot Area Setbacks Front Side Rear Building Height (Maximum) Density GRFA 10,000 sq. ft. 1 .295 acres / 56,410 sq. ft. No change 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft.(w) & varies 15 ft. -20 ft.(e) 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 48 ft. for sloping roof 45 ft. for flat roof 48 ft. 25 du/acre = 32 du 23 du 76% of lot area = 42,871 sq. ft. Site Coverage 55% of lot area = Landscape Area 42,593 sq. ft. 69.9 ft. 15 du with 20 lock offs 15 ehu* = 0 Density = 15 units DU: 32,687 sq. ft. EHU*: 13,992 sq. ft. GRFA = 32,687 sq. ft. 22.35% = 12,599 14,753 sq. ft. (above -grade 31,026 sq. ft. sq. ft. (above- only) grade only) 30% of lot area = 16,923 sq. ft. 69.91% = 39,424 sq. ft. (includes below grade) 63.62% = 35,881 sq. ft. NA 1.295 acres / 56,410 sq. ft. 69.9 ft. 38 units 75,280 sq. ft. = 133% of lot area 27,352 sq. ft. = 48.5% (above - grade) 39,880 sq. ft. = 70.07% (includes below grade) 22,996 sq. ft. = 40.07% *EHUs do not count towards density or GRFA. 8 November 7, 2017 - Page 275 0 Deviations from Underlying Zoning Section 12-9A-9, Development Standards, provides the mechanism for deviating from the underlying zone district. It states: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the planning and environmental commission. Before the town council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-9A-8 of this article. The Vail Mountain View Special Development District will deviate from the following development standards: Setbacks: The SDD complies with setbacks on the front, rear, and west side. On the east side, adjacent to the Apollo Park property, the proposed setback complies with the 20 ft. setback except for the two column locations which are 15 ft. to 20 ft. from the property line. At the entry level, the building itself is setback an additional 20 ft., for a total of 40 ft. from the property line. All other levels meet the 20 ft. setback requirement. As a result, the columns are the only encroachment into the 20 ft. setback, which is necessary to allow traffic circulation into the parking facilities. The location of the proposed building is adjacent to surface parking on the adjoining property. r'1 Building Height: The proposed building exceeds the height limitation of 48 ft. The existing Phase 1 building complies with the 48 ft. height limitation. Due to the structured parking below the proposed building, the building exceeds the height limit. The maximum height of the proposed building is 69.9 ft. which reflects a point on the peak of a gable roof form. The building height is necessary to accommodate the two floors + of public benefits in the building including employee housing, small leasable condominiums, and lock -offs (aka attached accommodation units. Density: The SDD will exceed the maximum density of 32 dwelling units. There are 23 dwelling units within the Phase 1 building. As proposed, Phase 2 includes 15 dwelling units and 15 EHUs (which do not count towards density). As a result, Phase 2 is 15 units, for a total of 38 units for the entirety of the project. This is actually a reduction of the previous development on the site that was demolished prior to Phase 1, which contained 49 units. In addition, the density limitation of HDMF includes the limitation of only one attached accommodation unit per dwelling unit. As proposed, 4 of the dwelling units actually include a second lock -off unit, increasing the potential for short-term rentals within the project. GRFA: The allowable GRFA within the HDMF zone district is 42,871 sq. ft. Phase 1 was constructed with approximately 42,593 sq. ft. of GRFA. Phase 2 is proposed at approximately 32,687 sq. ft. of GRFA, for a total of approximately 75,280 sq. ft. for the entirety of the SDD. EHUs do not count towards GRFA. Exceeding GRFA is not uncommon with most SDDs approved by the Town. 9 November 7, 2017 - Page 276 0 r1 Site Coverage: Mountain View Phase 1 currently exceeds allowable site coverage due to the underground parking structure. As a result, there is very little change to the site coverage for the entirety of the project, only an increase of 456 sq. ft., for a total site coverage calculation of approximately 70.07%. The allowable site coverage of HDMF is 55%. The project only exceeds the requirement due to the provision of below -grade parking. Above -grade site coverage actually complies with this restriction, at approximately 48.5% which has been common deviation granted to other projects with below grade parking facilities throughout the Town and Vail Village. 10 November 7, 2017 - Page 277 0 Special Development Districts Deviations such as the proposed are common among Special Development Districts, especially those located within the periphery of Vail Village. Special Development Districts are quite common throughout Vail Village, as indicated on the following map (striped areas indicate SDDs): SDD #37 SDD #2 Below is a chart with an analysis of the more recent SDDs adopted by the Town of Vail in Vail Village. The chart includes the deviations from underlying zoning, along with the public benefits associated with the project. It should be noted that some of these SDDs were adopted prior to the change in the calculation for site coverage, which now includes below grade improvements, like parking, not previously counted as site coverage, and many would now likely deviate from site coverage requirements. SDD Underlying Zoning Deviations from Underlying Public Benefits Zoning Four Seasons (SDD #36) PA Site Coverage - from 65% to 71% Height - from 48 ft. to 89 ft. 34 EHUs on-site (today most of these would have been required versus a benefit), contribution to streetscape, north -south walkway from Frontage Rd., improvements to Mayors Park, heated walk along Frontage Road, public art contribution (now a requirement) 11 November 7, 2017 - Page 278 0 SDD Underlying Deviations from Underlying Zoning Zoning Public Benefits Tivoli Lodge PA (SDD #37) Manor Vail (SDD #38) Solaris (SDD #39) The Willows (SDD #40) HDMF CSC HDMF Height - from 48 ft. to 56 ft. Reduction in landscape area Loading in front setback Height - from 48 ft. to 57.4 ft. Density - from 133 to 141 units GRFA - 24,691 sq. ft. additional Setback reduction Height - from 38 ft. to 99.9 ft. Density - from 47 to 75 units GRFA - 152,808 sq. ft. additional Site Coverage - 75% to 94% Landscape - increase in hardscape allowance Setback reduction GRFA increase Site Coverage - 55% to 67% 1 EHU on-site, streetscape improvements 1 EHU on-site, contribution to streetscape improvements, 430 sq. ft. parcel deeded to Town, stream bank improvements, installation of improved access path across site, sidewalk extension 22 EHUs provided offsite, streetscape improvements including heating public streets, public easement over plaza, public ice skating rink, $1.1 million in public art, bowling alley and movie theater, with deed restriction that requires there operation Public art, streetscape improvements, reduction in density As indicated in the chart, deviations such as those requested for the Vail Mountain View Special Development District are common. The underlying zoning of the SDD also has implications in the deviations sought. Many zone districts have been updated to reflect current building trends and requirements and in recognition of Town objectives and priorities like the provision of live beds. Building height has been a sensitive subject in Vail from the very beginning of Vail's history. In 1990, with the adoption of the Vail Village Master Plan, it was recognized that taller structures were appropriate along the periphery of Vail Village, along the South Frontage Road. Taller buildings along the periphery help frame the context of the urban core area, provide relief from the impacts associated with Interstate 70, and utilize land area often as parking areas, thus removing unsightly views of parking facilities. The other benefit of encouraging additional building height along the South Frontage Road is that impacts to other private properties are substantially reduced. Private views, though not protected in Vail, are generally unaffected by taller buildings in this location due to the presence of the Frontage Road. Of course, there are impacts to the neighboring structures such as the Tyrolean Condominiums and Vail Mountain View Phase 1. There are four examples of structures developed with additional building height along the periphery, all of which are above 71 ft. in height: Four Seasons - SDD #36 (-89 ft.) 12 November 7, 2017 - Page 279 0 Sebastian Hotel (formerly the Vail Plaza Hotel) - SDD #6 (-77.25 ft.) Vail Village Inn Phase 3 - SDD #6 (-71 ft.) r'1 Solaris - SDD #39 (-99.9 ft.) The pattern of taller buildings along the South Frontage Road has been well established with logical breaks to allow views to Vail Mountain at Vail Road, Village Center Road, the Vail Village Parking Structure, Vail Valley Drive (Blue Cow Chute) and Ford Park. Views over theses properties from either direction of Interstate 70 are adequately maintained. With the Town's 2007 adoption of the EHU requirements for Inclusionary Zoning and Commercial Linkage, the Town did not modify the development standards of the HDMF zone district. However, the provision of on-site employee housing units has an impact on development standards such as height, site coverage, parking, and even GRFA (as the cost of providing EHUs is often off -set through increasing the higher profit-making uses). In this case, the majority of the square footage on Levels 1 and 2 is dedicated to employee housing which clearly has an impact on the ability to meet the standards of the HDMF zone district. The provision of employee housing and short term accommodations in the form of condominiums with attached accommodation units clearly outweighs any deviations proposed through this SDD. 13 November 7, 2017 - Page 280 0 Parking Analysis Phase 1 Use Formula Parking Required DU (17) DU (6) Total spaces for Phase 1 If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is more than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces 34 If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 2,000 15 square feet or more: 2.5 spaces 49 Phase 2 Use Formula Parking Required DU (7) DU (8) EHU (13) EHU (2) Total spaces for Phase 2 If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is more than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces 14 If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 2,000 20 square feet or more: 2.5 spaces If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is more than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces 26 If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 500 3 square feet or less: 1.5 spaces 63 Parking Analysis for SDD Parking Requirement for Phase 2 Parking Requirement for Phase 1 Parking Requirement for SDD Multi -Use Reduction of 2.5% Total Parking Requirement for SDD Total Parking Spaces Proposed 63 49 112 -2.936 109.064 111 14 November 7, 2017 - Page 281 0 Employee Housing Plan Section 12-23-8: Administration, of the Vail Town Code requires the submittal of an Employee Housing Plan for all projects subject to development review. The proposed project exceeds both the total requirement and the onsite requirement for employee housing. A. Calculation Method: The calculation of employee generation, including credits if applicable, and the mitigation method by which the applicant proposes to meet the requirements of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: Inclusionary Zoning: Use GRFA Mitigation Rate EHU Sq. Ft. Required DU 32,687 10% 3,268.7 The inclusionary requirement is 3,268 sq. ft. As proposed, there is approximately 13,992 sq. ft. in 15 employee housing units, approximately 10,724 sq. ft. in excess of the requirement or 42% of the free-market dwelling unit floor area. B. Plans: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan that demonstrates compliance with section 12-23-3, "Size And Building Requirements", of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan has been provided with this submittal. Units range from 439 sq. ft. up to 1,191 sq. ft. and consist of 2 studio units, 5 one -bedroom units, and 8 two-bedroom units. C. Lot Size: The average lot size of the proposed EHUs and the average lot size of other dwelling units in the commercial development or redevelopment, if any; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. D. Schedules: A time line for the provision of any off site EHUs; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. E. Off Site Units: A proposal for the provision of any off site EHUs shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. F. Off Site Conveyance Request: A request for an off site conveyance shall include a brief statement explaining the basis for the request; 15 November 7, 2017 - Page 282 0 Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. G. Fees In Lieu: A proposal to pay fees in lieu shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; and Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. H. Written Narrative: A written narrative explaining how the employee housing plan meets the purposes of this chapter and complies with the town's comprehensive plan. Applicant Analysis: Section 12-24-1: Purpose and Applicability, of the Vail Town Code provides the purpose of the Inclusionary Zoning Chapter: The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that new residential development and redevelopment in the town of Vail provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such residential development and redevelopment. The mitigation rates were established by the Town of Vail Employee Housing Nexus study. These rates are based on a survey of various properties in mountain communities. The Town Vail Land Use Plan offers the following goals with regard to employee housing: 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. In 2008, the Town of Vail established the Employee Housing Strategic Plan, which brought together all of the Town's goals on employee housing into a single plan. It provides the following: In 2006, through the Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future process the community established a housing goal. It is as follows: "The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development." 16 November 7, 2017 - Page 283 0 Based upon the community's work, the Vail Town Council has confirmed the Town of Vail recognizes deed restricted employee housing as basic infrastructure. This type of housing allows employees to live within the town, promoting community, and improving the quality of our local workforce, thereby supporting the local economy, and reducing regional transit needs. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan (EHSP) seeks to meet the expectations established by the community and confirmed by the Town Council and provide enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the community's workforce to live in the Town of Vail through a variety of policies, regulations and publicly initiated development projects. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan then outlines the various objectives and policies for implementing the plan. It provides a list of Town Initiatives, one of which is specifically applicable to this project: Incentive Zoning and Density Bonuses The Town will consider workforce housing objectives in all review processes that permit discretion. This means that the Town will work actively with developers as a part of the Housing District, Special Development District review processes and requested changes in zoning to not only meet the requirements of existing code, but to look for opportunities to go beyond code requirements to encourage additional workforce housing to be created. As a part of these review processes the Town will work actively with developers to create incentives to develop housing that exceeds the minimal requirements contained in the code. Additional density may be granted in selected locations through the appropriate review processes, and fee waivers and subsidies may be considered. The Incentives Zoning and Density Bonuses help Vail to "catch up" with existing deficiencies and add to the overall percent of employees living within the Town of Vail. As indicated in this submittal, the proposal complies with and furthers the purposes and goals of the Town's employee housing requirements and master plans. 17 November 7, 2017 - Page 284 0 Criteria for Review 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Applicant Analysis: The architecture is consistent with the high quality found on Phase 1 of Mountain View Residences, and is typical of recent redevelopment projects within Vail Village, such as Solaris, the Four Seasons, and the Sebastian. The concept is to use natural materials, such as stone, wood composite siding, and metal panel or stucco, to create a project that is responsive to the environment and the surrounding neighborhood. Varying roof pitches and forms allow for visual interest. Before the redevelopment of the site, there was significant surface parking. The structured parking now allows the site to be redeveloped to the standards that Vail is accustomed to. The building facades, based on comments from the PEC have been highly articulated as demonstrated by the revised plans. The maximum height of the proposed Phase 2 building is 69.9 ft., which exceeds the underlying zoning HDMF maximum height restriction of 48 ft. and is a requested deviation with the establishment of this SDD. Building height is a common deviation for SDDs in Vail Village, especially those located along the Frontage Road, including the Sebastian, Vail Village Inn Phase 3, Solaris, and the Four Seasons. Many older existing HDMF or PA zoned buildings also exceed the 48 ft. maximum height requirement such as the Mountain Haus building. The proposed Phase 2 building, similar to the Phase 1 building, is generally 4 stories with additional livable space in the roof through the use of dormers. Unlike the Phase 1 building, Phase 2 sits upon a parking structure which sits slightly above natural grade. As a result, the height exceeds 48 ft., but is similar in appearance of height to surrounding properties. When looking at compatibility it is necessary to not only look at the existing buildings on neighboring properties, but the relationship of those properties to current development standards. For example, the Tyrolean building is not developed to the full height that it is entitled to. If it were, the transition in building height would appear even more natural compared to the proposed building. Another aspect that has to be taken into consideration are the other aspects of a neighboring property that create impacts. For instance, the Tyrolean property was developed with variances for building setbacks, GRFA, and site coverage causing impacts without a required or apparent public benefit. The Conceptual Building Height Plan found in the Vail Village Master Plan, shows this property as 4 stories along with the Tyrolean Building. This area is flanked to the east with a bubble suggesting 5-6 stories for The Wren and a portion of the Apollo Park property and a bubble to the west recommending 5 stories at the Village Parking Structure. The height diagram is conceptual in nature as indicated in the Vail Village Master Plan. Further proof of its conceptual nature is how the Town Council has implemented the plan for buildings along the South Frontage Road. Portions of the Sebastian property are shown at 3-4 stories where the 18 November 7, 2017 - Page 285 0 buildings were approved at 5-6 stories. Similarly, the Solaris property, is shown by the plan at 5-6 stories along the S. Frontage Road where it is 6-7 stories today. Significant surface parking lots are a characteristic of the immediate neighborhood, which is not a very efficient use of land. It is likely (and in fact, a requirement of the Vail Village Master Plan) that when these properties redevelop, parking will be located within a below grade structure, similar to the proposed Phase 2 project. These existing surface lots dominate the area: Surface parking lots at The Wren and Apollo Park. Future redevelopment of these sites will likely include below - grade parking, with buildings above. The development of property in this neighborhood provides unique opportunities for buffer zones between developments. There is a path from the Frontage Road down to the Gore Creek path that was constructed as part of the Phase 1 building and which will be partially relocated with the Phase 2 building, which allows for a buffer zone between this project and the existing Apollo Park. Additionally, both the Phase 1 20 ft. buffer to the property line for the Tyrolean. The building has also been stepped back from the Tyrolean, building mass removed, and roof elements lowered to help provide additional setback and buffer to the property. These changes were made in May and June of 2017 during the prior hearing process. Vail Mountain View is compatible with and sensitive to the character of the immediate environment providing a welcome identity to the area, improving the character of the immediate area, improving the visual integrity of the area. The proposed SDD is consistent with this criterion. and Phase 2 projects provide the full Path from Frontage Road down to the Gore Creek path. 19 November 7, 2017 - Page 286 0 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Applicant Analysis: Vail Road corridor to the north. To the south of the property is the Town of Vail stream tract, which is zoned NAPD. Properties further south of Gore Creek are residential developments, typically townhouse development, zoned HDMF. Surrounding properties, including the Tyrolean, Apollo Park, and The Wren are all zoned HDMF. A brief description of the adjacent residential uses is provided below: Mountain View Residences is adjacent to the 1-70 and South Frontage rSF.1F�tj Dorf Village Parking Structure frIF r'1 The Tyrolean: There are 9 wholly owned units in the Tyrolean. The site is 0.368 acres. Parking is located within the building. r'1 Apollo Park, Buildings A & B: There are 40 units within Buildings A & B of Apollo Park. Of the 40 units, 34 units are in interval ownership and the remaining 6 units are wholly owned, and the buildings sit on a ground lease. The site is 1.292 acres. The units were originally constructed in the early 1970s and exceeds the density allowance of the HDMF zone district. There are 42 surface parking spaces. The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding residential uses, which include wholly owned condominiums, short-term rentals, and interval ownership/timeshare, which are similar in character to the uses proposed. The proposed density is similar to that of the surrounding properties and as would be anticipated by the Vail Village Master Plan (VVMP). The VVMP, adopted in 1990, anticipated that the proposed infill development on this site and adjoining properties would be developed above existing zoning limitations (it was recommended as infill with the knowledge that the properties already exceeded existing zoning limitations). As a result, Mountain View is compatible with the surrounding uses and activity and is consistent with this criterion. 20 November 7, 2017 - Page 287 0 3. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. Applicant Analysis: A parking analysis was provided in a previous section of the submittal. As that analysis provided, the entire project, both Phase I and 2 are in compliance with the parking requirements of Chapter 10. The parking being allocated for Phase 1 is shown within the garage plans for the project. The mixed use credit is only being implemented in the Phase 2 portion of the project so that Phase 1 has use of 49 total parking spaces. Mountain View is required one loading berth to comply with Chapter 10 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. The project complies with all loading requirements, including the size and location. Trash and recycle dumpsters will be stored in the garage and pulled out on collection day. Based on the recommendation from Vail Honeywagon, there will be two 3 -yard trash dumpsters and two 3 -yard recycle dumpsters picked up twice a week during low season and three times a week during high season. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. Applicant Analysis: This property is subject to the Vail Village Master Plan. It is not subject to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The Vail Village Master Plan provides both general and specific guidance on the redevelopment of this property. The Vail Village Master Plan provides the following overall goals, objectives, and policies: GOAL #2 TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR - AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. Objective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Policy 2.3.1: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. Objective 2.6: Encourage the development of employee housing units in Vail Village through the efforts of the private sector. Policy 2.6.1: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. Policy 2.6.2: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. Policy 2.6.3: The Town of Vail may facilitate in the development of affordable housing by providing appropriate assistance. Policy 2.6.4: Employee housing shall be developed in the Village when required by the Town's adopted Zoning Regulations. 21 November 7, 2017 - Page 288 0 GOAL #5 INCREASE AND IMPROVE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEMS THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. Objective 5.1: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities Policy 5.1.1: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core I Zone District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning code. Policy 5.1.5: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. The Vail Village Master Plan encourages an increase in the number of residential units, especially for short term overnight accommodation. and 20 lock -off units, all of which will be able to participate in a voluntary short term rental program. The units have been designed to encourage participation for the dwelling units and the lock -offs. With the proposed on-site management, participation in the short term rental program is anticipated to be high. The Vail Village Master Plan recognizes the need for the development of employee housing in Vail Village. Vail Mountain View Phase 2 includes the provision of 15 deed -restricted employee housing units, well in excess of any requirements. An Employee Housing Plan is provided as part of this submittal, but to summarize the plan, he total employee housing requirement equates to 3,268 sq. ft. As proposed, there is approximately 13,992 sq. ft. in 15 employee housing units, approximately 10,654 sq. ft. in excess of the requirement. This level of employee housing as compared to the number of total units proposed is unprecedented in a project in Vail Village. The project includes 15 dwelling units Example of quality of employee housing units proposed in Phase 2 The Vail Village Master Plan also includes recommendations for building heights within Vail Village. The Master Plan states this with regard to the Building Height Plan: BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN Generally speaking, it is the goal of this Plan to maintain -the concentration of low scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the Frontage Road), as depicted in the Building Height Profile Plan. This pattern has already been established and -in some cases these larger structures 22 November 7, 2017 - Page 289 0 along, the Frontage Road serve to frame views over Vail Village to Vail Mountain. The Building Height Plan also strives, in some areas, to preserve major views from public right-of-ways. Building heights greatly influence the character of the built environment in the Village. This is particularly true in the Village Core where typical building heights of three to four stories establish a pleasing human scale. The building heights expressed on this Illustrative Plan are intended to provide general guidelines. Additional study should be made during specific project review relative to a building's height impact and the streetscape and relationship to surrounding structures. Specific design considerations on building heights are found in the Sub -Area section of this -Plan and in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. • 34 CONCEPTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN loon 01 1-1 -n VIEW CORRIDORS IELEVATION FROM FRONTAGE ROADI °` / e BUILDING MASSING IVILLAGE CORE SECTIONI BUILDING HEIGHT PROFILE As indicated in the recommendations regarding building height, generally buildings are to be tallest along the South Frontage Road, then step down to lower heights within the Village Core. Buildings are generally shown to be 5-6 stories along the S. Frontage Road, though the building height shown for the infill of portions of Apollo Park and Vail Mountain View is indicated at 4 stories. The "Conceptual Building Height Plan" further describes a story as 9 ft. of height, not including the roof and indicates varied roof heights are desired. This building 23 November 7, 2017 - Page 290 0 height limitation is challenging as the current description of a story as 9 ft. in height is generally considered outdated and produces undesirable units with very little head height, based on current market preferences. Vail Mountain View Phase 1 complies with the Conceptual Building Height Plan and HDMF zoning height restriction of 48 ft. This was appropriate due to its proximity to Gore Creek. However, Phase 2 is located primarily along the South Frontage Road and is a location where additional height is appropriate, as evidenced by recent SDD projects, including Solaris and the Sebastian. In general, Phase 2 complies with the 4 -story recommendation, but does include a portion of the existing parking structure which is slightly above grade. Along the South Frontage Road, the building generally appears as a 4 -story building, with the 5th story within the roof structure, as a loft or dormer level. On the south elevation, facing Phase 1, the building is a 4 -story building, sitting on top of a partially exposed level of parking. The project generally complies with the Master Plan height recommendation, but exceeds the 48 ft. height limitation of the HDMF zone district. As a result, a deviation from the underlying zoning height restriction of 48 ft. is requested, though the project generally complies with the Building Height recommendations. As mentioned under criterion #1, several projects have been developed along the S. Frontage Road two stories above the conceptual roof height plan of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Vail Village Master Plan also provides an Action Plan, showing potential locations for development projects, as described below: • • a• =rrsaas' ACTION PLAN iYil YLLKt RiY ACTION PLAN The Action Plan indicates potential development and improvement projects that would be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Action Plan is a composite of the Land Use, Open Space, Parking and Circulation and Building Height elements. 24 November 7, 2017 - Page 291 0 Areas identified by the Plan as having potential for additional development have previously received Town approvals or have been recognized as being consistent with the various elements of the Master Plan. However, the Action Plan is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of improvements, which may occur, or an indication of Town approval for any specific development proposals. The review of any development proposal will be based upon compliance with all relative elements of the Village Master Plan. Numerical references found on the Action Plan map refer to more detailed descriptions of proposed improvements, located in the Sub -area section of this Plan. These descriptions provide a detailed account of the goals, objectives, and design considerations relative to each of the development and improvement projects. Graphic representation of improvement projects on the Action Plan are not intended to represent design solutions. Sub -area concepts, applicable goals, objectives, and policies of this Plan, zoning standards and design considerations outlined in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan are the criteria for evaluating any development proposal. Furthermore, private covenants exist in many areas of Vail Village and should be a consideration addressed between a developer and other applicable private property owners. The massive area of surface parking associated with Apollo Park and the Wren are indicted for "Residential/Lodging Infill." This is important to note, especially with regard to Apollo Park, in that the Action plan clearly shows additional residential development beyond what currently existed at Apollo Park, as Apollo Park already exceeded the density limitation of the HDMF zone district. Buildings C and D totaled 49 dwelling units, though only allowed 32 dwelling units by zoning. In fact, as proposed at 38 units (for Phase 1 and 2), the project is more in compliance with the underlying zoning with regard to density, though a deviation from this limitation is still required. The increase in density and GRFA was clearly contemplated by the Vail Village Master Plan and therefore complies with the "Action Plan." Finally, the Vail Village Master Plan provides site specific recommendations for the various sub- areas of the Village. This property is within Sub -Area #9, East Frontage Road. The master plan states: EAST FRONTAGE ROAD SUB -AREA (#9) The East Frontage Road Sub -Area is comprised of condominium and time share residential development. This sub -area is unique in that its access is directly off of the Frontage Road, causing little vehicular impact on other areas of the Village. Large areas of surface parking within the sub -area provide the opportunity for additional residential infill development. Given proper attention to design considerations, this sub -area could provide additional density within close proximity to the Village core. At the present time, the sub -area is separated from the Village core by Gore Creek. This sub -area has a pedestrian connection to the Village and Ford Park -via the Village Streamwalk. A sidewalk along the Frontage Road should be constructed to improve pedestrian safety and further connect the Village parking structure to Ford Park. The area between buildings and Gore Creek must be improved to enhance natural environment. #9-1 Parking Lot Infill 25 November 7, 2017 - Page 292 0 Residential infill over existing surface parking. Height of building to be limited so as to not impede view corridors from the frontage road (and Interstate 70) to the Village and Vail Mountain. Mass of buildings to step back from the Frontage Road to prevent sun/ shade impacts on the road. Satisfying parking demand on site will necessitate structured parking. A substantial landscape buffer shall be provided between any new development and the Frontage Road without jeopardizing future frontage road improvements. Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 3.4, 5.4, 6.1. The Vail Village Master Plan identifies that the large areas of surface parking provide opportunities for additional residential development. It recommends the construction of a sidewalk along the S. Frontage Road, connecting the parking structure with Ford Park, which has been completed by the Town but which the Town now wishes to relocate. The plan also recommends that the height of buildings in this sub -area be limited to not impede view corridors from the Frontage Road to the Village and Vail Mountain. As indicated in these views from google earth, the Village is not visible at all from 1-70 or the Frontage Road. Since 1990 when the Vail Village Master Plan was adopted, significant improvements in technology have Google Earth image street view of site from east -bound 1-70. Google Earth image street view of site from S. Frontage Rd. 26 November 7, 2017 - Page 293 0 allow architects to much more accurately reflect the views effected by proposed buildings. As indicated in the following image, Vail Mountain remains visible with the proposed Phase 2. Proposed Mountain View Phase 2 as viewed from west -bound 1-70 As proposed, there will be a substantial landscape buffer between the edge of the road and the proposed structure. The buffer includes an 8 ft. to 10 ft. strip of green lawn area, a 10 ft. wide pedestrian sidewalk, and a 5 ft. to 15 ft. landscape/hardscape buffer in front of the building. At its greatest, the proposed building is approximately 35 ft. from the edge of the proposed roadway. The buffer would be even greater would it not be for the additional roadway improvements being requested by the Public Works Department to accommodate future traffic lane widening east of Vail Valley Drive. The applicant is agreeable to the provision of the Vail Mountain View property (approximately 878 sq. ft. of land) to accommodate the Town's desired road section. As recommended by the Vail Village Master Plan, all parking for the project is structured. As indicated on the landscape plan, significant landscaping is proposed along the north elevation, and the 20 ft. setback along this property is maintained. The proposed project is consistent with the Vail Housing Strategic Plan as evidenced by the letter of support from the Vail Local Housing Authority. Overall, the proposed project complies and is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Comprehensive Plan, and furthers the goals and objectives recommended by these plans. 27 November 7, 2017 - Page 294 0 5. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Applicant Analysis: There are no natural or geologic hazards that affect the property. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project by Daiva Katieb of Watershed Environmental Consultants. The report addresses all environmental concerns, including climate, hydrology, atmospheric conditions, geology, wildlife, vegetation, wastes, noise, odors, and visual concerns. The report is included as part of this submittal, but to summarize, the report concludes the project is appropriate and without significant impacts to the environment. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Applicant Analysis: The building is sited above the existing parking structure, utilizing generally the same access as currently exists to the structure. As a result, there is little disturbance to the site. While this SDD request includes a deviation from the site coverage limitation as a result of the underground parking structure, the project complies with site coverage requirements for above -grade improvements and landscape area. When possible, existing landscaping is maintained, and none of the existing landscaping associated with Phase 1 will be modified with the construction of Phase 2. A landscape plan, prepared by Jamie McCluskie of MacDesign, has been included with the submittal. The plan focuses the landscaping along the South Frontage Road, providing a landscape buffer between the road and the units located on the first floor. The goal is to use ornamental grasses and brownstone boulders, similar to the landscape treatments at recent projects like First Chair and Solaris. The SDD produces a functional development plan which is sensitive to the existing landscaping and neighborhood. There are no natural features remaining on this portion of the property since its initial development in the 1970s. As a result, the proposed SDD is consistent with this criterion. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. Applicant Analysis: A traffic letter was prepared by Skip Hudson, P.E. of TurnKey Consulting, LLC. According to his analysis, the current CDOT Access Permit allows for more traffic than is generated by the proposed development. This is due to the fact that the leased parking facility will be converted to parking serving the uses onsite. In addition, the proposed use does not generate 20% more traffic Sidewalk along South Frontagfslae@nhber 7, 2017 - Page 295 0 than the current site use. As a result, the proposed Phase 2 does not require an additional CDOT Access Permit. The proposed plan removing the hotel provision from the plan further reduces traffic associated with the plan. The general circulation for vehicles is consistent with how the site functions currently. The site is accessed from the South Frontage Road, with vehicles entering the parking structure at two points, the further south garage entrance for Phase 1 and the north garage entrance beneath the porte cochere for Phase 2. The pedestrian circulation around the buildings includes a sidewalk connection from the S. Frontage Road, connecting down to the Gore Creek path. There is pedestrian circulation around the entirety of the site, allowing for direct access from multiple points to the Gore Creek path. There is also a sidewalk along the South Frontage Road, giving pedestrians access over to Ford Park. Pedestrian connection between the Tyrolean & Phase 1 The proposed plan provides easements and sidewalk improvements that accommodate the future road widening desires of the Town thus improving the Town traffic circulation. A heated sidewalk is also provided in front of the Tyrolean Condominiums and the Public Service facility, a benefit to those properties. The proposed SDD is consistent with this criterion. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Applicant Analysis: The landscape plan was developed by MacDesign with an eye towards functionality, use of native species, and maximizing the areas best suited for planting. Through the use of ornamental grasses and brownstone boulders, the entry is given prominence. Large amounts of sod are proposed along the more formal interface with the S. Frontage Road as requested by the Public Works Department to accommodate snow storage. This will be the only site from the Four Seasons Hotel to Ford Park to provide such a snow storage area. This lawn area transitions to a 10 ft. sidewalk followed by formal landscaped areas in front of the building. This buffer area between the South Frontage Road and the existing parking structure/proposed building varies in width from approximately 35 ft. to 23 ft. optimizing views and buffering of the proposed building. When possible, the existing landscaping is preserved, as most of it was planted with the 2006 Phase 1 development. The existing paver pattern is proposed to be continued, creating cohesion between Phase 1 and Phase 2. The proposed 29 November 7, 2017 - Page 296 0 loading area is also treat with pavers making it feel more like a plaza area than a loading zone since 99% of the time the space will not be used for loading and will site empty. The project complies with the underlying zoning requirements without any need for a deviation to landscape area requirements. There are no natural features to preserve in this area where the proposed building is being located as the area was previously disturb from development that occurred in the 1970s. As a result, the proposed landscape plan is consistent with this criterion. Pedestrian path and buffer zone between Phase 1 & Apollo Park 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Applicant Analysis: The project will be completed in one phase, therefore this criterion is not applicable. 30 November 7, 2017 - Page 297 0 VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW - PHASE 11 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE RD EAST VAIL, COLORADO VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET 9-14-17 PROJECT TEAM LEGEND GENERAL NOTES OWNER GORE CREEK LLC 285 BRIDGE STREET VAIL, COLORADO 81657 952-210-0095 CIVIL ALPINE ENGINEERING, INC. 34510 HIGHWAY 6, UNIT A-9 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 LANDSCAPE MACDESIGN P.O. BOX 6446 AVON, COLORADO 81620 ARCHITECTURE 359 DESIGN, LLC 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80211 INTERIORS OCG COLORADO 970-471-4192 STRUCTURAL MONROE AND NEWELL ENGINEE 1400 GLENARM PLACE, SUITE 101 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 MEP SGM 118 W SIXTH ST, SUITE 200 GLEENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 970-384-9032 GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHAW CONSTRUCTION 300 KALAMATH ST, DENVER 80223 720-582-3535 FIRE & LIFE SAFETY RS, INC. SHANER LIFE SAFETY P.O. BOX 1073 FRISCO, COLORADO 80443 DRAWING ABBREVIATIONS AB ACT AFF ALUM AP APPROX ARCH ASSOC BD BLDG BLK BO BOT BRG BSMT CJ CL CLG CLR CMU COL CONC CONT COVR CP CPT CT CTR DEC DET DEMO DIA DIM DF DGB DR DWG EA EJ ELEC ELEV EQ EQUIP ER EXT FD FDN FE FF EL FIN FRT FLR FS FT FTG FUT GA GC GL GR GYP BD HC HT HM HORIZ INT INSUL JAN JST LAV MAX MECH ANCHOR BOLT ACOUSTICAL TILE CEILING ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ALUMINUM ACCESS PANEL APPROXIMATE ARCHITECTURE ASSOCIATED BOARD BUILDING BLOCK BOTTOM OF BOTTOM BEARING BASEMENT CONTROL JOINT CENTERLINE CEILING CLEAR CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT COLUMN CONCRETE CONTINUOUS COVER CONCRETE PAVER CARPET CERAMIC TILE CENTER DETENTION EQUIPMENT CONTRACTOR DETENTION DEMOLITION DIAMETER DIMENSION DRINKING FOUNTAIN DETENTION GRAB BAR DOOR DRAWING EACH EXPANSION JOINT ELECTRICAL ELEVATOR EQUAL EQUIPMENT EPDXY RESIN EXTERIOR FLOOR DRAIN FOUNDATION FIRE EXTINGUISHER FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION FINISH FIRE RESISTANT TREATED FLOOR FOOD SERVICE FOOT FOOTING FUTURE GUAGE GENERAL CONTRACTOR GLASS GRADE GYPSUM BOARD HOLLOW CORE HEIGHT HOLLOW METAL HORIZONTAL INTERIOR INSULTATION JANITOR JOIST LAVATORY MAXIMUM MECHANICAL MEM MNFR MIN MR MTL NIC NO NOM NTS OA OAM OC OH ORD OS OPG °POI INSTALLED OPCI INSTALLED PC PF PJ PL PLAM PLMG PNL PT PTD REINF REQ REV RD RM RO SAP SC SCHED SEC SECT SHT SHWR SK SPEC SS STL STIFF STRUCT T&G TO TOF TPH TS TYP UNO VAR VB VCT VERT VIF VT VTR VWC W WC WD WDW WP WT WWF MEMBRANE MANUFACTURER MINIMUM MOISTURE RESISTANT METAL NOT IN CONTRACT NUMBER NOMINAL NOT TO SCALE OVERALL OVERALL MASONRY ON CENTER OVERHEAD OVERFLOW ROOF DRAIN OVERFLOW SCUPPER OPENING OWNER PROVIDED OWNER OWNER PROVIDED CONTRACTOR PRECAST PREFINISHED PANEL JOINT PLATE PLASTIC LAMINATE PLUMBING PANEL PRESSURE TREATED PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER REINFORCED REQUIRED REVISED ROOF DRAIN ROOM ROUGH OPENING SECURE PANEL ACCESS SEALED CONCRETE SCHEDULED SECURITY SECTION SHEET SHOWER SINK SPECIFICATIONS STAINLESS STEEL STEEL STIFFENER STRUCTURAL TONGUE AND GROOVE TOP OF TOP OF FOOTING TOILET PAPER HOLDER TUBE STEEL TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE VARIES VAPOR BARRIER VINYL COMPOSITE TILE VERTICAL VERIFY IN FIELD VINYL TILE VENT THROUGH ROOF VINYL WALL COVERING WITH WATER CLOSET WOOD WINDOW WATERPROOF WALL TYPE WELDED WIRE FABRIC MATERIALS SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME GYPSUM BOARD EXTERIOR GYPSUM SHEATHING ROOM NAME/NUMBER EXISTING COLUMN CENTERLINE COLUMN CENTERLINE ACCESSORY NUMBERED NOTES BUILDING WALL SECTION ELEVATIONA SECTION DETAIL ° CONCRETE/ PRECAST CONCRETE t8� (-S) o 'C FLUORESCENT FIXTURE ®® EXIT SIGNS - HATCH INDICATES EXIT TEXT AND ARROW INDICATES DIRECTION ) SMOKE DETECTOR CS D SPEAKER PROJECTOR WALL WASHER PENDANT TYPE LIGHT FIXTURE 2 WALL MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE 0 DOWNLIGHT WS-MAS1 DETAILS C1.04 SUPPLY AIR L1.1 © X O ODEMOLITION 1 01 - PLAN -ARCHITECTURAL SITE SOIL RETURN AIR A2.0.02 GARAGE LEVEL 2 A2.0.03 GARAGE LEVEL 3 SAND, EIFS FINISH COAT, OR CEMENT EXHAUST AIR / / PLASTER ACCESS PANEL OVERALL LEVEL 3 (8247'-0") BRICK FLUORESCENT LIGHT // SUSPENDED LIGHT SUSPENDED FLUORESCENT LIGHT 0 CHANDELIER, STRIP LIGHT +9'-0" A2.08 CMU r L_J AO.X X DETAI PLAN, BLOW-UP AO.X X'' 01 A2.11 LANDSCAPE COVERAGE A2.12 fiy.APAVERS /<FIBERGLASS A2.13 HISTORIC GRADE MAP A4.00 SOUND BATT INSULATION A4.02 OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS CELLULOSE INSULATION OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS A4.04 OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS A4.05 OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS A9.11 LIGHTING PLAN A9.16 SITE SECTION POLYISOCYANURATE INSULATION BOARD ••••••••••• ••*•444 ••••••••••• :44444 CLOSED CELL POLYURETHANE SPRAY INSULATION CEILING SYMBOLS SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME ROOM NAME XXXXX ROOM NAME/NUMBER EXISTING COLUMN CENTERLINE COLUMN CENTERLINE ACCESSORY NUMBERED NOTES BUILDING WALL SECTION ELEVATIONA SECTION DETAIL GYP BD CEILING WALL MOUNTED t8� (-S) o 'C FLUORESCENT FIXTURE ®® EXIT SIGNS - HATCH INDICATES EXIT TEXT AND ARROW INDICATES DIRECTION ) SMOKE DETECTOR CS D SPEAKER PROJECTOR WALL WASHER PENDANT TYPE LIGHT FIXTURE 2 WALL MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE 0 DOWNLIGHT WS-MAS1 DETAILS C1.04 SUPPLY AIR L1.1 © X O ODEMOLITION 1 01 A1.00 PLAN -ARCHITECTURAL SITE ® RETURN AIR A2.0.02 GARAGE LEVEL 2 A2.0.03 GARAGE LEVEL 3 A2.01 EXHAUST AIR / / VA ACCESS PANEL OVERALL LEVEL 3 (8247'-0") AO.X X FLUORESCENT LIGHT // SUSPENDED LIGHT SUSPENDED FLUORESCENT LIGHT 0 CHANDELIER, STRIP LIGHT 1. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. LARGE SCALE DETAILS SHALL GOVERN OVER SMALL SCALE DETAILS. SPECIFICATIONS GOVERN ALL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 2. CONTRACTOR TO ISSUE COMPLETE SET OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS TO EACH OF THE SUBCONTRACTORS FOR COORDINATION OF THEIR WORK AND DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE - ALL DRAWINGS MUST BE REVIEWED BY EACH TRADE AND IF DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND AN RFI IS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE ARCHITECT. 3. THEIR SHALL BE NO SUBSTITUTION OF MATERIALS WHERE A MANUFACTURER IS SPECIFIED. WHERE THE TERM "OR EQUAL" IS USED THE ARCHITECT SHALL DETERMINE EQUALITY BASED ON INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR VIA A DOCUMENTED SUBSTITUTION REQUEST. 4. REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ALL REINFORCING AND STRUCTURAL INFORMATION. 5. ARCHITECTURAL, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND NON- STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS AND ELEMENTS PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO STRUCTURES, INCLUDING SUPPORTING STRUCTURES AND ATTACHMENTS, AND NON - BUILDING STRUCTURES THAT ARE SUPPORTED BY OTHER STRUCTURES SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS PER IBC 2015, CHAPTER 16 AND ASCE 7-02, SECTION 9.6 COORDINATE COMPONENT DESIGN WITH ARCHITECT AND MECHANICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD. 6. WHERE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED DETAILS DIFFER FROM THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO IDENTIFY AND SUBMIT RFI TO ARCHITECT FOR CLARIFICATION. 7. ALL RESTROOM INTERIOR WALL PARTITIONS TO BE INSTALLED WITH SOUND BATT -INSULATION UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE PROJECT LOCATION (I) 1"=400' DRAWING SYMBOLS SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME ROOM NAME XXXXX ROOM NAME/NUMBER EXISTING COLUMN CENTERLINE COLUMN CENTERLINE ACCESSORY NUMBERED NOTES BUILDING WALL SECTION ELEVATIONA SECTION DETAIL SDD COVER C1.01_ PARTITION TYPE EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE IDENTIFIER BUILDING EXPANSION JOINT NEW WALL EXISTING WALL 1 HOUR FIRE WALL 2 HOUR FIRE WALL 2 HOUR SHAFT WALL CEILING HEIGHT A3 © WS-MAS1 DETAILS C1.04 FIRE STAGING & TURNING MOVEMENT SIMULATION L1.1 © X O ODEMOLITION 1 01 A1.00 PLAN -ARCHITECTURAL SITE A2.0.01 GARAGE LEVEL 1 A2.0.02 GARAGE LEVEL 2 A2.0.03 GARAGE LEVEL 3 A2.01 OVERALL LEVEL 1 (8226'-0") / / / A2.03 OVERALL LEVEL 3 (8247'-0") AO.X X // // // OVERALL DORMER LEVEL (8269-0") A2.06 GRFA PLANS - Garage A2.07 +9'-0" A2.08 X .... 01 r L_J AO.X X DETAI PLAN, BLOW-UP AO.X X'' 01 November 7, 2017 - Page 298 of 532 INDEX OF DRAWINGS SDD SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 A0.0 SDD COVER C1.01_ GRADING C1.02 PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN C1.03 DETAILS C1.04 FIRE STAGING & TURNING MOVEMENT SIMULATION L1.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN A1.00 PLAN -ARCHITECTURAL SITE A2.0.01 GARAGE LEVEL 1 A2.0.02 GARAGE LEVEL 2 A2.0.03 GARAGE LEVEL 3 A2.01 OVERALL LEVEL 1 (8226'-0") A2.02 OVERALL LEVEL 2 (8236'-6") A2.03 OVERALL LEVEL 3 (8247'-0") A2.04 OVERALL LEVEL 4 ((8258'-0") A2.05 OVERALL DORMER LEVEL (8269-0") A2.06 GRFA PLANS - Garage A2.07 GRFA PLANS- Building A2.08 GRFA PLANS - Building A2.10 SITE COVERAGE A2.10B SITE COVERAGE A2.11 LANDSCAPE COVERAGE A2.12 ROOF HEIGHT A2.13 HISTORIC GRADE MAP A4.00 3D MASSING A4.02 OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS A4.03 OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS A4.04 OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS A4.05 OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS A9.11 LIGHTING PLAN A9.16 SITE SECTION TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP __ 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE SDD COVER SHEET NO. U RDPER� UNE CO BUILDING SETBACK IuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuI _r��■I_ 11 IIl1Il 22222SSSSSSSSSS,7GCGC-"GCGCGCG i7.-_ I 1111 11 11 INFO M M III Iiiiiiiiiiiii li =- M NMIp_■■■■Ip M—■■■■I= 1■■■I = • i= • I �_ .� I �_ 1■■■■■■■YI IIi■■■■■■■ illi �� r;� 1■■■1 1■■■■■■■■ _� .� �1 • ■■■■1 1■■■■■■■■ ilii =� ■■■■1 1■■■■■■■r _� L��■■■■1 1■■■■■■■1I WENN • L % 1■■■1 1■■■■■■■1 N�'Pr '!IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIV, �i..1u1 ��Ei -A 11111111111111111111111111 Mill _i■■iio■■■Ii• f. ■■■■■ii_� ff .; m __�� _ --__� --___ --__� --__� --_'!� 111 Ill��liil��ll I��III �������� lig il��ll Illl�l►' �������� I' l��ll II���— I16111. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111111111111 .G -- I■■■■■■I■■■■■■�`II '"I■■■■■1 III■■■■■1 1■■■■■MA Ihi■■■■■1 1■■!■■■1 1■■•7■■1 MEM ■■1 1■■ �`. l J ■■1 1■■ _... f 11111111 111111111 =■ III ■..i.■ ri —_ =- ■■=■i��i -..■_ 111171!111!11!11!1I11!11!II,�P"N EM II11111111111111111111111111111U_ r�lllllllllllll ^It _. 1 p Wel -�� 1�Il ■�� \\' ■_ • 1==== 11111111111 I___I1� ■�� 11 ■■� 1.F11 f■\\ ■ 11 ...... \ '� 11 11 ■■■1 filin �� 11 11 ■■■\ _- ' Ili :inii 11 _s Iili, �J■■■■1■■■f. i 11 11 ■■■U � I I Mi ii I / 111111111111111111111 11 y 8232. ..ice.•, . if ACCESS GATE PER PHASE I APPROVAL 1-1-- RC`s jI',s: ALL EGRESS DOORS FROM, ?_-- -- `GARAGE TO BE ALARMED f ,EXIT ONLY DOORS ' , I 5' TALL. PRIVACY WALL Poop RER-( 04. 359 DESIGN • I I .) . 1 BUILDING SETBACK 5' TALL STONE OR EQUIVALENT -PRVACY WALL WITH ACCESS 1 .;;GATE PER PHASE I APPROVAL ----- -.ACCESS GATE PER PHASE I APPROVAL-, • ;fes t !„- . err 3:. 7 7. l -- r November 7, 2017 - Page 299 of 532 _ y^ SITE FDL AN ARCHITECTURAL NOTES 1. REFER TO SHEET A0.01, A0.02 FOR BLDG ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLIES, PARTITIONS TYPES A1.10. 2. ALL ROOFS TO SLOPE MINIMUM 1/4” OVER 3. ELECTRICAL METER AND SERVICE TO BE MOUNTED AT GARAGE LEVEL ?, COORDINATE METER AND PANEL LOCATION WITH OWNER. 4. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DESIGN BUILD SECURITY SYSTEM, CORD. WITH OWNER. 5. SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL BEDROOMS, AND OUTSIDE OF ALL BEDROOMS AND ON EACH FLOOR AS REQUIRED. 6. MECHANICAL SYSTEM SHALL. 7. WATER PIPES RUNNING NEXT TO OR WITHIN EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE INSULATED W/ 2" MIN CLOSED CELL INSULATION. 8. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, GRID LINE, FACE OF MASONRY OR CONCRETE, U.N.O. 9. WHERE "CLEAR" IS CALLED OUT ON A DIMENSION, PROVIDE DIMENSION FROM FACE OF FINISH TO FACE OF FINISH. 10. FURNITURE IS NOT IN CONTRACT, U.N.O. AND SHOWN FOR DIAGRAMATIC PURPOSES. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL MEANS, METHODS, SEQUENCES PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULES OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 12. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING AND COMPLYING WITH ALL PERMITS. 13. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STORAGE, PREPARATION, FABRICATION, INSTALLATION AND CURING OF MATERIALS AND SYSTEMS. 14. DIMENSION FROM EDGE OF DOOR FRAME (HINGE SIDE) TO FACE OF ADJACENT PERPENDICULAR WALL TO BE 4" U.N.O. 15. PROVIDE BLOCKING FOR WALL MOUNTED ELECTRICAL FIXTURES, BATHROOM ACCESSORIES, HANDRAILS, CHAIR RAILS, WAINSCOTING, ARTWORK, ETC. 16. RE: DOOR SCHEDULE AND DOOR HARDWARE SETS. 17. REFER TO BUILDING PLANS, RCP, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR WINDOW LOCATION AND TYPE TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP - - - _ _ w - __ 434 - 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE SITE SHEET NO Al 00 14'-01/8" 16'-8" 28'-2" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 5 28'-2" 6 21'-8" 6'-6" 26'-2" 18'-4" 8.5 11'-2" IM 1 Garage Level 1 1/8" = 1 6°/0 11'-9" 8'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 1 G10 PHASE II OWNER PARKING O 'est 4IMEnt.. — 0 1 - Lu J Lu 0 9'-0" TYP Jil, 9'-0" 11' - 9" 8'-0" t Co 7 TRASH/ RECYCLE 4' - EQ G112 i I (G113) (G114 1 8.5 • • • • • • November 7, 2017 - Page 300 of 532 \0 N 0' 4' 8' 16' ARCHITECTURAL NOTES 1. REFER TO SHEET A0.01, A0.02 FOR BLDG ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLIES, PARTITIONS TYPES A1.10. 2. ALL ROOFS TO SLOPE MINIMUM 1/4" OVER 1'-0". 3. ELECTRICAL METER AND SERVICE TO BE MOUNTED AT GARAGE LEVEL ?, COORDINATE METER AND PANEL LOCATION WITH OWNER. 4. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DESIGN BUILD SECURITY SYSTEM, CORD. WITH OWNER. 5. SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL BEDROOMS, AND OUTSIDE OF ALL BEDROOMS AND ON EACH FLOOR AS REQUIRED. 6. MECHANICAL SYSTEM SHALL. 7. WATER PIPES RUNNING NEXT TO OR WITHIN EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE INSULATED W/ 2" MIN CLOSED CELL INSULATION. 8. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, GRID LINE, FACE OF MASONRY OR CONCRETE, U.N.O. 9. WHERE "CLEAR" IS CALLED OUT ON A DIMENSION, PROVIDE DIMENSION FROM FACE OF FINISH TO FACE OF FINISH. 10. FURNITURE IS NOT IN CONTRACT, U.N.O. AND SHOWN FOR DIAGRAMATIC PURPOSES. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL MEANS, METHODS, SEQUENCES PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULES OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 12. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING AND COMPLYING WITH ALL PERMITS. 13. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STORAGE, PREPARATION, FABRICATION, INSTALLATION AND CURING OF MATERIALS AND SYSTEMS. 14. DIMENSION FROM EDGE OF DOOR FRAME (HINGE SIDE) TO FACE OF ADJACENT PERPENDICULAR WALL TO BE 4" U.N.O. 15. PROVIDE BLOCKING FOR WALL MOUNTED ELECTRICAL FIXTURES, BATHROOM ACCESSORIES, HANDRAILS, CHAIR RAILS, WAINSCOTING, ARTWORK, ETC. 16. RE: DOOR SCHEDULE AND DOOR HARDWARE SETS. 17. REFER TO BUILDING PLANS, RCP, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR WINDOW LOCATION AND TYPE KEYNOTE LEGEND TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP __ 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE GARAGE LEVEL 1 SHEET NO. 14'-01/8" 31 16'-8" 32 33 GARAGE LEVEL 2 S-401 ▪ • ✓ ..11.11. 2 3 28' - 2" 14 4 15 5 28' - 2" 28'-2" FS-CONC-3 GARAGE LEVEL 2 FS-CONC-3 7 k 9'-0" TYP 8 28'-2" 7 OPEN MECH 26'-2" 18'-4" 9 10 11 12 13 21 FIRE SPRINKLER ROOM N C9 11'-2" • •• • • • (0 ARCHITECTURAL NOTES 1. REFER TO SHEET A0.01, A0.02 FOR BLDG ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLIES, PARTITIONS TYPES A1.10. 2. ALL ROOFS TO SLOPE MINIMUM 1/4" OVER 1'-0". 3. ELECTRICAL METER AND SERVICE TO BE MOUNTED AT GARAGE LEVEL ?, COORDINATE METER AND PANEL LOCATION WITH OWNER. 4. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DESIGN BUILD SECURITY SYSTEM, CORD. WITH OWNER. 5. SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL BEDROOMS, AND OUTSIDE OF ALL BEDROOMS AND ON EACH FLOOR AS REQUIRED. 6. MECHANICAL SYSTEM SHALL. 7. WATER PIPES RUNNING NEXT TO OR WITHIN EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE INSULATED W/ 2" MIN CLOSED CELL INSULATION. 8. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, GRID LINE, FACE OF MASONRY OR CONCRETE, U.N.O. 9. WHERE "CLEAR" IS CALLED OUT ON A DIMENSION, PROVIDE DIMENSION FROM FACE OF FINISH TO FACE OF FINISH. 10. FURNITURE IS NOT IN CONTRACT, U.N.O. AND SHOWN FOR DIAGRAMATIC PURPOSES. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL MEANS, METHODS, SEQUENCES PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULES OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 12. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING AND COMPLYING WITH ALL PERMITS. 13. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STORAGE, PREPARATION, FABRICATION, INSTALLATION AND CURING OF MATERIALS AND SYSTEMS. 14. DIMENSION FROM EDGE OF DOOR FRAME (HINGE SIDE) TO FACE OF ADJACENT PERPENDICULAR WALL TO BE 4" U.N.O. 15. PROVIDE BLOCKING FOR WALL MOUNTED ELECTRICAL FIXTURES, BATHROOM ACCESSORIES, HANDRAILS, CHAIR RAILS, WAINSCOTING, ARTWORK, ETC. 16. RE: DOOR SCHEDULE AND DOOR HARDWARE SETS. 17. REFER TO BUILDING PLANS, RCP, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR WINDOW LOCATION AND TYPE KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 Garage Level 2 1/8" = November 7, 2017 - Page 301 of 532 0' 4' 8' O M N D 16' 1D TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP __ 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE GARAGE LEVEL 2 SHEET NO. 14'-01/8" ELECTRICAL METER ROOM PHASE II 6'-0" 4' �••_•• I ■ 16'-8" 9'-0" 28'-2" r fi BOILER ROOM T -_ -,a 5'-0" TYP TYP O • • • ■ 303 :.J O 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 28'-2" 21'-8" BOILER ROOM TRASH/• RECYCLIN i Irl G304 • 11 • 11 • 6'-6" ELEVATOR LOBBY ; 11 • 7 26'-2" 18'-4" 11'-2" 10 DN--- U • ••�• HOTEL & RESIDENTIAL ■ GARAGE LEVEL 3 GARAGE LV 3 PARKING O 10 9'-0" 9'-0" 5'-0" TYP TYP TYP 0 0 N ov •• SKI LOCKERS EG312 F.A.C.P. Am - Mi ..n _. ■� •.in 1 ■.■I ■�■_■�■n ■_Lm■_.■mIENNI■ mi mo Ems n■ ■ n■ ■ ____ ____■_ ��. n■ ■ ■ i�:i_�� ui�_� i�_� iIi_i i iti_ ■■•• ■i ■ ■1■ ■■I i! ■.■V� i■Ui ■� ■■_ ■■■I_ �.■_■ .■_ rukv .��R_:j:riiIii1u!:ii■ i.�n ■,■I■n� ,�■WIM , .■,lI■, ■, • 11Ein ■ ■■■ ■ ■Iia m :■■■ ■■■r ■■■• ■_■■■. _ I®� mism •_ ■� ■_t N ••—••_••_••—••—••_• 1 Garage Level 3 1/8" = 1'-0" �••—••_•• 1 • • L. ••• • al. • • OM • •MI•• 8.5 November 7, 2017 - Page 302 of 532 0' 4' 8' E ■ 16' 1D ARCHITECTURAL NOTES 1. REFER TO SHEET A0.01, A0.02 FOR BLDG ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLIES, PARTITIONS TYPES A1.10. 2. ALL ROOFS TO SLOPE MINIMUM 1/4" OVER 1'-0". 3. ELECTRICAL METER AND SERVICE TO BE MOUNTED AT GARAGE LEVEL ?, COORDINATE METER AND PANEL LOCATION WITH OWNER. 4. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DESIGN BUILD SECURITY SYSTEM, CORD. WITH OWNER. 5. SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL BEDROOMS, AND OUTSIDE OF ALL BEDROOMS AND ON EACH FLOOR AS REQUIRED. 6. MECHANICAL SYSTEM SHALL. 7. WATER PIPES RUNNING NEXT TO OR WITHIN EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE INSULATED W/ 2" MIN CLOSED CELL INSULATION. 8. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, GRID LINE, FACE OF MASONRY OR CONCRETE, U.N.O. 9. WHERE "CLEAR" IS CALLED OUT ON A DIMENSION, PROVIDE DIMENSION FROM FACE OF FINISH TO FACE OF FINISH. 10. FURNITURE IS NOT IN CONTRACT, U.N.O. AND SHOWN FOR DIAGRAMATIC PURPOSES. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL MEANS, METHODS, SEQUENCES PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULES OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 12. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING AND COMPLYING WITH ALL PERMITS. 13. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STORAGE, PREPARATION, FABRICATION, INSTALLATION AND CURING OF MATERIALS AND SYSTEMS. 14. DIMENSION FROM EDGE OF DOOR FRAME (HINGE SIDE) TO FACE OF ADJACENT PERPENDICULAR WALL TO BE 4" U.N.O. 15. PROVIDE BLOCKING FOR WALL MOUNTED ELECTRICAL FIXTURES, BATHROOM ACCESSORIES, HANDRAILS, CHAIR RAILS, WAINSCOTING, ARTWORK, ETC. 16. RE: DOOR SCHEDULE AND DOOR HARDWARE SETS. 17. REFER TO BUILDING PLANS, RCP, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR WINDOW LOCATION AND TYPE KEYNOTE LEGEND TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE GARAGE LEVEL 3 SHEET NO. 224' - 8" �••MO••MO •_••MO••MI•• 11'-31/4" 16'-8" ••—••—•••••_••—••_•• 28' - 2" 28'-2" ••_••4=0••_• 28'-2" ••_••—••—••MI••_••—••MO••— • 28'-2" 21'-95/8" _ 6'-43/8" • 18'-4" 11' - C64 EXTERIOR SITE STAIRS 14 RISERS EXTERIOR SITE STAIRS 11 RISERS 1%DN 1%DN 1% DN CL • SET -A BATH -A t _0_o O 0 LIVING - r L 7.77 r MASTER BEDROOMTC -J La 01 LJ CLOSET LIVING -D 0 1 BEDROOM 1-D • CORRIDOR 11 • 0 LJ F7 7 7 1 MASTER BEDROOM -D I I I L 4 J O 0 L FIRE HYDRANT • DN - Ir. .71 r I�1 1 I IL.- L 112C KITCHEN -A n CORRIDOR KITCH N -C O 0 '0 1 ( 1 MASTER CLOSET -E -r MASTER H -BATH CLOSET -F MAST BATH -C w• o•A MASTER CLOSET -C 11• LAUNDRY -D LOSET D KITCHEN -D BATH -D CLO MASTER BATH -D D G RESTROOM 117 103 U im CORRIDO 110 • CHECK IN 102 0 VEST. 100 REF. LOBBY 101 MASTER CLOSET -G KITCHEN -F KITCH N -J BATH -E BATH -F MASTER BATH -G r MASTER BEDROOM -E r LIVI NG -E 00 LA 1_ --r 111 BEDROOM 1-E O 0 LI ✓ - 11 I BEDROOM 1'LF 771, 1 1 1 II 1 VIII 1 1 11 1 41H 1 1 11 Li! LIVING -F MASTER BEDROOM -G r BEDROOM -J DINING -J LIVING -J L =I••MI••IMO••MO••MI• 1 Level 1 1/8" = L - J MI••MI••MI••MI••1=1••MI••MI L J1 • L. •_•• • • LANDSCAPE ABOVE RAMP FRO • • PLANTER • • • • C64 OUTDOOR DECK 0 Z 0 0 N —6 Z 0 C64 5' TALL PRIVACY WALL 1 • • an • • • • imi7i November 7, 2017 - Page 303 of 532 0' 4' 8' i0 f0 N B 16' ARCHITECTURAL NOTES 1. REFER TO SHEET A0.01, A0.02 FOR BLDG ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLIES, PARTITIONS TYPES A1.10. 2. ALL ROOFS TO SLOPE MINIMUM 1/4" OVER 1'-0". 3. ELECTRICAL METER AND SERVICE TO BE MOUNTED AT GARAGE LEVEL ?, COORDINATE METER AND PANEL LOCATION WITH OWNER. 4. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DESIGN BUILD SECURITY SYSTEM, CORD. WITH OWNER. 5. SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL BEDROOMS, AND OUTSIDE OF ALL BEDROOMS AND ON EACH FLOOR AS REQUIRED. 6. MECHANICAL SYSTEM SHALL. 7. WATER PIPES RUNNING NEXT TO OR WITHIN EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE INSULATED W/ 2" MIN CLOSED CELL INSULATION. 8. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, GRID LINE, FACE OF MASONRY OR CONCRETE, U.N.O. 9. WHERE "CLEAR" IS CALLED OUT ON A DIMENSION, PROVIDE DIMENSION FROM FACE OF FINISH TO FACE OF FINISH. 10. FURNITURE IS NOT IN CONTRACT, U.N.O. AND SHOWN FOR DIAGRAMATIC PURPOSES. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL MEANS, METHODS, SEQUENCES PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULES OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 12. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING AND COMPLYING WITH ALL PERMITS. 13. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STORAGE, PREPARATION, FABRICATION, INSTALLATION AND CURING OF MATERIALS AND SYSTEMS. 14. DIMENSION FROM EDGE OF DOOR FRAME (HINGE SIDE) TO FACE OF ADJACENT PERPENDICULAR WALL TO BE 4" U.N.O. 15. PROVIDE BLOCKING FOR WALL MOUNTED ELECTRICAL FIXTURES, BATHROOM ACCESSORIES, HANDRAILS, CHAIR RAILS, WAINSCOTING, ARTWORK, ETC. 16. RE: DOOR SCHEDULE AND DOOR HARDWARE SETS. 17. REFER TO BUILDING PLANS, RCP, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR WINDOW LOCATION AND TYPE KEYNOTE LEGEND C64 22 : FLOOR DRAIN, FLAT METAL DRAIN COVER, RE: PLUMBING FOR DRAIN ROUTING TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE OVERALL LEVEL 1 (8226'-0") SHEET NO. 11'-31/4" 16'-8" \C64 28'-2" C64 28' - 2" r(C64) 28' - 2" 1% DN 1% DN 1%DN 1°/a DN 1%DN 1%DN DN N 1% DN MASTER BEDROOM -K L J_ 0 1 1 1 LAUNDRY -K CIRCULATION -K UNIT K KITCHEN -K MASTE CLOSET MASTER BATH -K STORAGE - CLOSET -K CLO 219 CORRIDOR 210 1 Level 2 1/8" = 1 1 1 1 1 BATH -L 1 1 1 1 E MASTER CLOSET -N T• LET ASTER ATH N 00 Io KITCHEN -N 7 -L 1 1 i MAS ER1 BEDROOMJN rr_ ro- 1 Hlh 1 lull 1HO 00 LIVING -N 1 hl hl HH L LIVING -L KITCHEN -L 0 0 0 BE .0. If ECH-M KITCHEN -M ATH -M CLOSET -M im T LOSET-N \s, MECH- MASTER11 CLOSET -P REF. 28'-2" 28'-2" 26'-2" 18'-4" 11'-2" 0 0 - - ECH-205 MIP LOCK -OFF BEDROOM -204 LOCK -OFF BEDROOM 1-205 1 1 • POWDE • ,11 -�1 n CLO. L v B H 206 NTRY-204 O BATH -204 MECH-204 0 BATH 1-215 POWDER 205 ENTRY -205 0J n fl KITCHEN -204 11 KITCHEN -205 LO BATH 2 BEDROOM 1-206 A H 1- BATH 2-206 0\ 7 MASTER BATH -204 MASTER BATH -205 0 0 KITCHEN -O BATH -O MASTER BATH -P 0 KITCHEN -P CLOSET -P 1 BEDROOM 2-206 H BATH -P T_f -R BEDROOM -O H DINING -O LIVING -O MASTER BEDROOM -P LIVING -P H H 1 1 DINING -204 MASTER CLOSET -204 MASTE L OSET-205 DINING -205 0 N 0 KITCHEN -206 LOCK -OFF BEDROOM 2-205 LOCK OFF MASTER B: • ROOM -206 L I BEDROOM -P I MASTER BEDROOM -204 MASTER BEDROOM -205 LIVING -305 LIVING -304 i DINING -206 LI I NG -206 L 1I 1 1 I ••-017 ••—••—• -•• 11 • • — • • — • • — • • — • • 1 Ill ltlltlltll 11111111111 11 -c -v) N N 7c1- LL •Ilmo•• • _ r • MIMLI•••• •-1, —••*••OM •M c\1 8.5 November 7, 2017 - Page 304 of 532 0' 4' 8' 16' ARCHITECTURAL NOTES 1. REFER TO SHEET A0.01, A0.02 FOR BLDG ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLIES, PARTITIONS TYPES A1.10. 2. ALL ROOFS TO SLOPE MINIMUM 1/4" OVER 1'-0". 3. ELECTRICAL METER AND SERVICE TO BE MOUNTED AT GARAGE LEVEL ?, COORDINATE METER AND PANEL LOCATION WITH OWNER. 4. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DESIGN BUILD SECURITY SYSTEM, CORD. WITH OWNER. 5. SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL BEDROOMS, AND OUTSIDE OF ALL BEDROOMS AND ON EACH FLOOR AS REQUIRED. 6. MECHANICAL SYSTEM SHALL. 7. WATER PIPES RUNNING NEXT TO OR WITHIN EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE INSULATED W/ 2" MIN CLOSED CELL INSULATION. 8. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, GRID LINE, FACE OF MASONRY OR CONCRETE, U.N.O. 9. WHERE "CLEAR" IS CALLED OUT ON A DIMENSION, PROVIDE DIMENSION FROM FACE OF FINISH TO FACE OF FINISH. 10. FURNITURE IS NOT IN CONTRACT, U.N.O. AND SHOWN FOR DIAGRAMATIC PURPOSES. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL MEANS, METHODS, SEQUENCES PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULES OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 12. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING AND COMPLYING WITH ALL PERMITS. 13. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STORAGE, PREPARATION, FABRICATION, INSTALLATION AND CURING OF MATERIALS AND SYSTEMS. 14. DIMENSION FROM EDGE OF DOOR FRAME (HINGE SIDE) TO FACE OF ADJACENT PERPENDICULAR WALL TO BE 4" U.N.O. 15. PROVIDE BLOCKING FOR WALL MOUNTED ELECTRICAL FIXTURES, BATHROOM ACCESSORIES, HANDRAILS, CHAIR RAILS, WAINSCOTING, ARTWORK, ETC. 16. RE: DOOR SCHEDULE AND DOOR HARDWARE SETS. 17. REFER TO BUILDING PLANS, RCP, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR WINDOW LOCATION AND TYPE KEYNOTE LEGEND C64 22 : FLOOR DRAIN, FLAT METAL DRAIN COVER, RE: PLUMBING FOR DRAIN ROUTING SHEET SHEET TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE DENVER, 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STREET CO 80211 -- ....... - - r z m 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, cn VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET TITLE OVERALL LEVEL 2 (8236'-6") NO. 14'-01/8" 16'-8" 28'-2" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 28'-2" 22' - 1 5/8" 6'-03/8" 26'-2" C64 C64 !I!I E1011:11101 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN 1 MECH-303 LOCK OFF -BEDROOM -301 LOCK OFF BEDROOM 2-302 II I II I II I II I II I LJ LOCK OFF BEDROOM -304 CORRIDO 312 EN Imop ENENE AI '1 mi man MITI MIN NM MIMI NM MIN --� uP ■YI■i■i■IYMM!! �'� 111111111111111 BEDROOM \�1 18'-4" 11'-2" TH-301 CORRIDOR 311 BATH -302 LO -303 ENTRY -304 ENTRY -302 OWDER-302 ENTRY -303 ATH LO- ENTRY -306 DER -303 TH -305 MECH-304 MECH-301 ENTRY -305 r rIr1 riv Ir�'SJLNOUFA ea KITCHEN -301 MASTER BATH -301 KITCHEN -303 KITCHEN -304 KITCHEN -305 KITCHEN -302 MASTER BATH -302 BATH -3 ' 5 MASTE BATH -303 MASTER BATH -304 MASTER BATH -305 rMASTER BATH -306 1 I \ CLOSET -$02_ BEDROOM 2-306 DINING -301 MASTER CLOSET -301 DINING -304 LOCK -OFF BEDROOM 2-305 LOCK -OFF MASTER BEDROOM -306 KITCHEN -306 LIVING -302 77 L ti LIVING -303 MASTER BEDROOM -304 LIVING -305 0 0 N i0 LIVING -304 IVING-306 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN 8'-0" 8 - 0" 8'-0" 1 Level 3 1/8" = =•••17 11 1 cY, N 0 CNI Z_ J 8'-0" 3'-0" w U w 2 0 f` N w Z_ J J w w 0 8' - 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN 8.5 November 7, 2017 - Page 305 of 532 10 0' 4' 8' 16' ARCHITECTURAL NOTES 1. REFER TO SHEET A0.01, A0.02 FOR BLDG ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLIES, PARTITIONS TYPES A1.10. 2. ALL ROOFS TO SLOPE MINIMUM 1/4" OVER 1' - 0". 3. ELECTRICAL METER AND SERVICE TO BE MOUNTED AT GARAGE LEVEL ?, COORDINATE METER AND PANEL LOCATION WITH OWNER. 4. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DESIGN BUILD SECURITY SYSTEM, CORD. WITH OWNER. 5. SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL BEDROOMS, AND OUTSIDE OF ALL BEDROOMS AND ON EACH FLOOR AS REQUIRED. 6. MECHANICAL SYSTEM SHALL. 7. WATER PIPES RUNNING NEXT TO OR WITHIN EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE INSULATED W/ 2" MIN CLOSED CELL INSULATION. 8. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, GRID LINE, FACE OF MASONRY OR CONCRETE, U.N.O. 9. WHERE "CLEAR" IS CALLED OUT ON A DIMENSION, PROVIDE DIMENSION FROM FACE OF FINISH TO FACE OF FINISH. 10. FURNITURE IS NOT IN CONTRACT, U.N.O. AND SHOWN FOR DIAGRAMATIC PURPOSES. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL MEANS, METHODS, SEQUENCES PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULES OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 12. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING AND COMPLYING WITH ALL PERMITS. 13. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STORAGE, PREPARATION, FABRICATION, INSTALLATION AND CURING OF MATERIALS AND SYSTEMS. 14. DIMENSION FROM EDGE OF DOOR FRAME (HINGE SIDE) TO FACE OF ADJACENT PERPENDICULAR WALL TO BE 4" U.N.O. 15. PROVIDE BLOCKING FOR WALL MOUNTED ELECTRICAL FIXTURES, BATHROOM ACCESSORIES, HANDRAILS, CHAIR RAILS, WAINSCOTING, ARTWORK, ETC. 16. RE: DOOR SCHEDULE AND DOOR HARDWARE SETS. 17. REFER TO BUILDING PLANS, RCP, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR WINDOW LOCATION AND TYPE KEYNOTE LEGEND C64 22 : FLOOR DRAIN, FLAT METAL DRAIN COVER, RE: PLUMBING FOR DRAIN ROUTING TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP __ 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE OVERALL LEVEL 3 SHEET NO A2 03 CN N 14'-01/8" 16'-8" 28'-2" C64 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 28'-2" 21'-93/8" 6' - 4 5/8" 26'-2" 18'-4" 11'-2" C64 C64 1% DN 1% DN (C64) 1% DN m N 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN • BEDROOM 1-401 LOCK OFF BA H L02-402 ELEV. ELEV. BATH LO -404 LOCK OFF BEDROOM 1-405 11111 111 TRY -401 CORRIDOR 411 rl ENTRY -403 CLOSET BEDRO CORRIDOR 412 ENTRY -402 I PO UP ENTRY -404 7 411M ENTRY -406 KITCHEN -401 NTRY LO -40 R-403 Rol KITCHEN -402 KITCHEN -403 MASTER BATH -401 MECH-402 MASTER BATH -402 MA BATH -403 awl KITCHEN -404 KITCHEN -405 MASTER BATH -405 BATH L02-406 DINING -401 IC SE 402 ILET im MASTER CLOSET -401 MASTR CLOSET -40 DINING -403 DINING -404 MASTER MASTER OSET-405 GL BA Fa Ltai BEDROOM BEDROOM LIVING -402 LOCK OFF MASTER .1 .1 BEDROOM ECIROOM.40-1-1- -1-442 EA LL MASTER BEDROOM -402 MASTER BEDROOM 1-117 LIVING -403 LIVING -404 I MASTER BEDROOM -404 MASTER BEDROOM -405 7-7 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN C64 4=1 • • ILI • • MO • • 4=1 • 01 Level 4 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN /15111111111 15111111111 11111111111 1111111151 C64 1% DN 1% DN 10,0DN LU b i(."c) L 0 11511111111 11111111111 11111111151 111111111 11111151111 11115111111 151 1151 51 111115 MIML • • • • 1 I , ' \ 8.5 November 7, 2017 - Page 306 of 532 16' ARCHITECTURAL NOTES 1. REFER TO SHEET A0.01, A0.02 FOR BLDG ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLIES, PARTITIONS TYPES A1.10. 2. ALL ROOFS TO SLOPE MINIMUM 1/4" OVER 1' - 0". 3. ELECTRICAL METER AND SERVICE TO BE MOUNTED AT GARAGE LEVEL ?, COORDINATE METER AND PANEL LOCATION WITH OWNER. 4. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DESIGN BUILD SECURITY SYSTEM, CORD. WITH OWNER. 5. SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL BEDROOMS, AND OUTSIDE OF ALL BEDROOMS AND ON EACH FLOOR AS REQUIRED. 6. MECHANICAL SYSTEM SHALL. 7. WATER PIPES RUNNING NEXT TO OR WITHIN EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE INSULATED W/ 2" MIN CLOSED CELL INSULATION. 8. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, GRID LINE, FACE OF MASONRY OR CONCRETE, U.N.O. 9. WHERE "CLEAR" IS CALLED OUT ON A DIMENSION, PROVIDE DIMENSION FROM FACE OF FINISH TO FACE OF FINISH. 10. FURNITURE IS NOT IN CONTRACT, U.N.O. AND SHOWN FOR DIAGRAMATIC PURPOSES. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL MEANS, METHODS, SEQUENCES PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULES OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 12. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING AND COMPLYING WITH ALL PERMITS. 13. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STORAGE, PREPARATION, FABRICATION, INSTALLATION AND CURING OF MATERIALS AND SYSTEMS. 14. DIMENSION FROM EDGE OF DOOR FRAME (HINGE SIDE) TO FACE OF ADJACENT PERPENDICULAR WALL TO BE 4" U.N.O. 15. PROVIDE BLOCKING FOR WALL MOUNTED ELECTRICAL FIXTURES, BATHROOM ACCESSORIES, HANDRAILS, CHAIR RAILS, WAINSCOTING, ARTWORK, ETC. 16. RE: DOOR SCHEDULE AND DOOR HARDWARE SETS. 17. REFER TO BUILDING PLANS, RCP, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR WINDOW LOCATION AND TYPE KEYNOTE LEGEND C64 22 : FLOOR DRAIN, FLAT METAL DRAIN COVER, RE: PLUMBING FOR DRAIN ROUTING TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP __ 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE OVERALL LEVEL 4 SHEET NO A2 04 RE 14' - 0 1/8" 16'-8" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" DN C-401 1 Dormer Level 1/8" = 1'-0" GUEST MASTER -401 DECK -401 z 1KC42 \FSD-CP-1 1%DN " 1%DN z 0 C64 MASTER CLO -402 GUEST MASTER BEDROOM -402 DECK -402 0 FSD-CP-1 POWDER -402 .0 CLOSET 2-403 DORMER LIVING -402 DID 1 • 4 A5.10 28' - 2" BEDROOM 2-403 REC ROOM -402 GUEST MASTER -403 a ROOF ACCESS DORMER LIVING -403 DID lu DORMER LIVING -404 28' - 2" 21'-8" 6'-6" 26' - 2" 18'-4" BEDROOM -404 BEDROOM -405 11'-2" 2O� DID DN DN GUEST MASTER -404 GU - T H-40 GUEST MASTER -405 DECK -40 VANITY -405 BATH -405 1 LIVING- '5 DID DECK -405 z 0� FSD-CP-1 L TOILET MASTER BATH -406 MASTER CLOSET -406 \ z 0 MASTER BEDROOM -406 1 s OPEN -_ TO BELOW_ _ _ C70 DECK -40 1% DN 1% DN 1% DN 2% DN 1% DN ‘ \ ‘ \ \ / 10 r` November 7, 2017 - Page 307 of 532 0' 4' 8' 16' D ARCHITECTURAL NOTES 1. REFER TO SHEET A0.01, A0.02 FOR BLDG DISCIPLINE STAMP ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLIES, PARTITIONS TYPES A1.10. 2. ALL ROOFS TO SLOPE MINIMUM 1/4" OVER 1' - 0". 3. ELECTRICAL METER AND SERVICE TO BE MOUNTED AT GARAGE LEVEL ?, COORDINATE METER AND PANEL LOCATION WITH OWNER. 4. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DESIGN BUILD SECURITY SYSTEM, CORD. WITH OWNER. 5. SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL BEDROOMS, AND OUTSIDE OF ALL BEDROOMS AND ON EACH FLOOR AS REQUIRED. 6. MECHANICAL SYSTEM SHALL. 7. WATER PIPES RUNNING NEXT TO OR WITHIN EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE INSULATED W/ 2" MIN CLOSED CELL INSULATION. 8. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, GRID LINE, FACE OF MASONRY OR CONCRETE, U.N.O. 9. WHERE "CLEAR" IS CALLED OUT ON A DIMENSION, PROVIDE DIMENSION FROM FACE OF FINISH TO FACE OF FINISH. 10. FURNITURE IS NOT IN CONTRACT, U.N.O. ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE OVERALL DORMER LEVEL (8269'-0") SHEET NO. AND SHOWN FOR DIAGRAMATIC PURPOSES. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL MEANS, METHODS, SEQUENCES PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULES OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 12. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING AND COMPLYING WITH ALL PERMITS. 13. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STORAGE, PREPARATION, FABRICATION, INSTALLATION AND CURING OF MATERIALS AND SYSTEMS. 14. DIMENSION FROM EDGE OF DOOR FRAME (HINGE SIDE) TO FACE OF ADJACENT PERPENDICULAR WALL TO BE 4" U.N.O. 15. PROVIDE BLOCKING FOR WALL MOUNTED ELECTRICAL FIXTURES, BATHROOM ACCESSORIES, HANDRAILS, CHAIR RAILS, WAINSCOTING, ARTWORK, ETC. 16. RE: DOOR SCHEDULE AND DOOR HARDWARE SETS. 17. REFER TO BUILDING PLANS, RCP, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR WINDOW LOCATION AND TYPE KEYNOTE LEGEND C42 10 3100: FIREPLACE GAS RE: APPLIANCE PACKAGE C64 22 : FLOOR DRAIN, FLAT METAL DRAIN COVER, RE: PLUMBING FOR DRAIN ROUTING C70 10 3100: FIREPIT GAS RE: APPLIANCE PACKAGE TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE OVERALL DORMER LEVEL (8269'-0") SHEET NO. 3 Garage Level 3 1/16" = 1'-0" 17 6 01 01 TRASH/ RECYCLING 24 PARKING SPACES INCULDING 1 OUT SPACE b 23 6 1D co 30 31 32 33 2 Garage Level 2 1/16" = 1 2 J 14 15 21 FIRE SPRINKLER ROOM 0' 8' 16' 32' 54 PARKING SPACES 3 4 5 1 27.5 6 a. Cec (NOT A PART OF THIS SURVEY) CE MECH. X62 SUPPORT SEAM �z ®`/` 7,VgN' 0 mw/ / / 87 /o/ 4/ 4 �B—'� /�/ / J/ y 0.2' 0.5 PARKING LCE -R (11'7 8-6') LCE -R MECH. LCE -R PHASE 149 SPACES PHASE II 5 SPACES 1 6 FS-CONC-3 7 8 0 9 10 11 0 12 13 '?7 (NO A PARKING PARKING LCE -R (8'x19') / 9.9 ///PCEIRG/ / CCP / \ ` SUP OR / \ \B'4M 9.5'x19') / i / / PARKING R / 0.5' LCE -IR) /PARKING LCE - (9'x19') o 5 9 PARKING (8'x18LCE- /PARK! ` I \� (8'x18') PARK R (8'x18') CEP !g 1 CE \ MECH. ` 8.7 J PART OF 4HI5 SURVEY) / C-)4/ / / q0 / L 4 CEP • 0' 90 / PARK NG 15 LCE (9.5'x 8') PAR LCE (9'x16 ,„24 COP / LCE -R PARKINGI6 (9'x18') /PAR LGE \\_ S(.0 (9'x18') PA LIE -R (9 x16) LCE -R RESIDENCE PARKING GARAGE LCE -R 9.5 MECH_ PARK G LC R (9.: x19') / PARA LCE (9-5') PAR LGL -26 (9.5'x16KI'7 /PARKING LGE -27 (9. Z/p` T a \ \qM\ R18 18') / J _ / / ® /\` / \ /x/ / / \ \ \J /°4/ /e Q 4 /- /PAR LCE • (9.5' K I N 1 9 / Aa MECH. 0 Upp\ (9.47 BFg4fRT \ a 7.8 LCE -R 9.4 AR28 LCE 5 (9'x15') F20-14 (9'x18' P / PP RK''^ L�E21 (10.x18') (8. 0-8' m COO (Mb 0.5' 0.7' 0.5' /PA LC (9 2, (NOT A PART OF THIS SURVEY) /T / \\ LCE -R /q°�/ /,� PARKING \ \ MECH- q ea 2 (95 z19')/ PARKING®l \ / / /t (95'x19') / 8.57.9 6 / ® /'/ 9.d 9 e / h' Qo \ F.F. ELEV. = 8195.1' / 0-5'� PARKING LCE -R (10'x19') 9( ARKI E LCE - (9'x18') 0.7' 0.7' 0.0) PARKING / LCE -IR L10'719') 10 N N n O O O O O O 33 PARKING SPACES O O 1 Garage Level 1 1/16" = // 01 O 10 b 30 Q TRASH/ RECYCLE COMPACT 0' 8' 16' 32' November 7, 2017 - Page 308 of 532 1D 0' 8' 16' 32' • COMMON STORAGE EHU FOR SALE LOCK OFF COMMON STORAGE EHU FOR SALE LOCK OFF Area Schedule (GRFA) G 3 TYPE UNIT Area ' 11111 1 a la ii, ci, . November 7, 2017 - Page 308 of 532 1D 0' 8' 16' 32' • COMMON STORAGE EHU FOR SALE LOCK OFF COMMON STORAGE EHU FOR SALE LOCK OFF Area Schedule (GRFA) G 3 TYPE UNIT Area DISCIPLINE STAMP 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 Garage Level 3 No. Description COMMON STORAGE STR. 1 76 SF COMMON STORAGE STR. 2 76 SF COMMON STORAGE STR. 3 130 SF COMMON STORAGE: 3 283 SF PARKING SPACE LEGEND 1 PHASE I PARKING SPACE PHASE II PARKING SPACE Area Schedule (GRFA) G 2 TYPE UNIT Area DISCIPLINE STAMP 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 Garage Level 2 No. Description COMMON STORAGE STR. 4 76 SF COMMON STORAGE STR. 5 76 SF COMMON STORAGE STR. 6 76 SF COMMON STORAGE: 3 229 SF Area Schedule (GRFA) G 1 TYPE UNIT Area DISCIPLINE STAMP 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 Garage Level 1 No. Description COMMON STORAGE STR. 7 77 SF COMMON STORAGE STR. 8 77 SF COMMON STORAGE STR. 9 77 SF COMMON STORAGE STR. 10 369 SF COMMON STORAGE: 4 600 SF 600 SF TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE GRFA PLANS - Garage SHEET NO. A2■ 3 Level 3 1/16" = 1'-0" 2 Level 2 1/16" = 1'-0" EHU-N 1016 SF UNIT 204 1279 SF ❑ 1 0' a ,IkUNIT 206 II 1329SF1 I I7 1 Level 1 1/16" = 1'-0" November 7, 2017 - Page 309 of 532 8' 16' 32' 0' 8' i 16' 0' 8' 16' 32' COMMON STORAGE EHU FOR SALE LOCK OFF COMMON STORAGE EHU FOR SALE LOCK OFF COMMON STORAGE EHU FOR SALE LOCK OFF 32' Area Schedule (GRFA) Level 3 TYPE UNIT Area Area Comments FOR SALE FOR SALE Level 3 1196 SF Level 2 UNIT 304 - LO EHU FOR SALE UNIT 301 EHU EHU-K 1878 SF FOR SALE UNIT 302 EHU EHU-L 1270 SF FOR SALE UNIT 303 EHU EHU-M 1174 SF FOR SALE UNIT 304 EHU EHU-N 1196 SF FOR SALE UNIT 305 EHU EHU-O 1201 SF FOR SALE UNIT 306 EHU EHU-P 1361 SF FOR SALE: 6 2 BEDROOM EHU: 6 818 SF 8079 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 301 - LO 355 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 302 - LO UNIT 204 461 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 302 - LO 2 275 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 303 - LO UNIT 206 320 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 304 - LO 313 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 305 - LO 368 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 305 - LO - 2 317 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 306 - LO UNIT 205 348 SF LOCK OFF: 8 LOCK OFF UNIT 205 2757 SF Grand total: 14 LOCK OFF UNIT 206 10836 SF Area Schedule (GRFA) Level 2 TYPE UNIT UNIT Area Comments FOR SALE FOR SALE Level 1 1196 SF Level 2 UNIT 304 - LO EHU EHU-A 1185 SF EHU EHU-K EHU-B 1191 SF 2 BEDROOM EHU EHU-L 826 SF 439 SF STUDIO EHU EHU-M 2 BEDROOM 736 SF 1 BEDROOM EHU EHU-N EHU 1016 SF 2 BEDROOM EHU EHU-O EHU-G 835 SF 1 BEDROOM EHU EHU-P 1106 SF 1114 SF 2 BEDROOM EHU: 6 818 SF 1 BEDROOM 5331 SF 1730 SF 8661 SF PROJECT NUMBER 17021 FOR SALE UNIT 204 1279 SF FOR SALE UNIT 205 1174 SF FOR SALE UNIT 206 1329 SF FOR SALE: 3 3782 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 204 - LO 425 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 205 - LO 410 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 205 - LO - 2 415 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 206 - LO 400 SF LOCK OFF: 4 1650 SF Area Schedule (GRFA) Level 1 TYPE UNIT Area Comments DISCIPLINE STAMP FOR SALE FOR SALE Level 1 1196 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 304 - LO EHU EHU-A 1185 SF 2 BEDROOM EHU EHU-B 455 SF STUDIO EHU EHU-C 826 SF 1 BEDROOM EHU EHU-D 1163 SF 2 BEDROOM EHU EHU-E 1194 SF 2 BEDROOM EHU EHU-F 825 SF 1 BEDROOM EHU EHU-G 1089 SF 2 BEDROOM EHU EHU-H 1106 SF 2 BEDROOM EHU EHU-J 818 SF 1 BEDROOM EHU: 9 1730 SF 8661 SF (GRFA) Unit 301 TYPE UNIT Area FOR SALE UNIT 301 1878 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 301 - LO 355 SF 2233 SF (GRFA) Unit 302 TYPE UNIT Area FOR SALE UNIT 302 1270 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 302 - LO 461 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 302 - LO 2 275 SF 2007 SF (GRFA) Unit 303 TYPE UNIT Area FOR SALE UNIT 303 1174 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 303 - LO 320 SF 1493 SF (GRFA) Unit UNIT 304 TYPE Area DISCIPLINE STAMP FOR SALE FOR SALE UNIT 304 1196 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 304 - LO 313 SF Date 1703 SF 1509 SF (GRFA) Unit 305 TYPE UNIT Area FOR SALE UNIT 305 1201 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 305 - LO 368 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 305 - LO - 2 317 SF 1885 SF (GRFA) Unit 306 TYPE UNIT Area FOR SALE UNIT 306 1361 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 306 - LO 348 SF 1709 SF (GRFA) Unit 204 TYPE UNIT Area 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP FOR SALE UNIT 204 1279 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 204 - LO 425 SF Description Date 1703 SF (GRFA) Unit 205 TYPE UNIT Area FOR SALE UNIT 205 1174 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 205 - LO 410 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 205 -LO -2 415 SF 1999 SF (GRFA) Unit 206 TYPE UNIT Area FOR SALE UNIT 206 1329 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 206 - LO 400 SF 1730 SF TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE GRFA PLANS- Building SHEET NO. A2■ TOTAL FOR SALE 32,687 15 UNITS WITH 20 LOCK OFFS EHU 13,992 15 UNITS 2 Dormer Level 1/16" = 1'-0" 1D 1 Level 4 1/16" = November 7, 2017 - Page 310 of 532 0' 8' 16' 32' 0' 8' 16' 32' 1 COMMON STORAGE EHU FOR SALE LOCK OFF COMMON STORAGE EHU FOR SALE LOCK OFF Area Schedule (GRFA) Dormer Level TYPE UNIT Area Area DISCIPLINE STAMP Dormer Level UNIT 401 Level 4 FOR SALE UNIT 401 - DORMER 747 SF FOR SALE UNIT 402 - DORMER 1048 SF FOR SALE UNIT 403 - DORMER 1043 SF FOR SALE UNIT 404 - DORMER 887 SF FOR SALE UNIT 405 - DORMER 968 SF FOR SALE UNIT 406 - DORMER 817 SF FOR SALE: 6 FOR SALE 5509 SF Area Schedule (GRFA) Level 4 TYPE UNIT Area DISCIPLINE STAMP FOR SALE UNIT 401 Level 4 LOCK OFF UNIT 401 - LO 367 SF FOR SALE UNIT 401 747 SF 1875 SF FOR SALE UNIT 402 1354 SF FOR SALE UNIT 403 1228 SF FOR SALE UNIT 404 1257 SF FOR SALE UNIT 405 1265 SF FOR SALE UNIT 406 1336 SF FOR SALE: 6 8315 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 401 - LO 367 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 402 - LO 455 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 402 - LO 2 194 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 403 - LO 272 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 404 - LO 253 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 405 - LO 264 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 406 - LO 423 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 406 - LO -2 363 SF LOCK OFF: 8 2591 SF Grand total: 14 10905 SF (GRFA) Unit 401 TYPE UNIT Area 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP FOR SALE UNIT 401 1875 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 401 - LO 367 SF FOR SALE UNIT 401 - DORMER 747 SF FOR SALE UNIT 402 - DORMER 2989 SF (GRFA) Unit 402 TYPE UNIT Area 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP FOR SALE UNIT 402 1354 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 402 - LO 455 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 402 - LO 2 194 SF FOR SALE UNIT 402 - DORMER 1048 SF 3050 SF (GRFA) Unit 403 TYPE UNIT Area 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP FOR SALE UNIT 403 1228 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 403 - LO 272 SF FOR SALE UNIT 403 - DORMER 1043 SF FOR SALE UNIT 406 - DORMER 2542 SF (GRFA) Unit 404 TYPE UNIT Area 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP FOR SALE UNIT 404 1257 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 404 - LO 253 SF FOR SALE UNIT 404 - DORMER 887 SF FOR SALE UNIT 406 - DORMER 2397 SF (GRFA) Unit 405 TYPE UNIT Area 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP FOR SALE UNIT 405 1265 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 405 - LO 264 SF FOR SALE UNIT 405 - DORMER 968 SF FOR SALE UNIT 406 - DORMER 2497 SF (GRFA) Unit 406 TYPE UNIT Area 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP FOR SALE UNIT 406 1336 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 406 - LO 423 SF LOCK OFF UNIT 406 - LO -2 363 SF FOR SALE UNIT 406 - DORMER 817 SF 2939 SF TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE GRFA PLANS - Building SHEET NO. ABOVE GRADE EXISTING 12,599 SQFT 22.34% COVERAGE ZSITE COVERAGE - E 1" = 20'-0" November 7, 2017 - Page 311 of 532 0' 10' 20' 40' ABOVE GRADE PROPOSED - 27,352 SQFT 48.50% COVERAGE 42 SITE COVERAGE - P 1" = 20'-0" (!) 0' 10' 20' 40' TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE SITE COVERAGE SHEET NO. SOUTH FRONTAGE ERp E • BELOW GRADE EXISTING 39,424 SQFT 69.91% COVERAGE ZSITE COVERAGE SUBGRADE - E 1". 20'-0" • • • November 7, 2017 - Page 312 of 532 11) 0' 10' 20' 40' • • 1 • • • • r • • • • • • • • ftioloo SOUTH FRONTAGE ERp E BELOW GRADE PROPOSED 39,880 SQFT 70.07% COVERAGE 1 SITE COVERAGE SUBGRADE - P 1" = 20'-0" • 0' 10' 20' 40' • 1 • • 1 • • 1 •• 1 • • 1 • • 1 TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP ___ 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE SITE COVERAGE SHEET NO. PROPOSED - 23,094 SQFT 41% COVERAGE PHASE II Total Area: 25,981 SQFT Landscape Coverage: 8,280 SQFT (31.86%) ZLANDSCAPE COVERAGE - P 1" = 20'-0" November 7, 2017 - Page 313 of 532 ,E!) 0' 10' 20' 40' EXISTING 35881 SQFT 63.62% COVERAGE SOUTH FRONTA PHASE II Total Area: 25,975 SQFT Landscape Coverage: 20,774 SQFT (79.85%) 1 LANDSCAPE COVERAGE - E 1" = 20'-0" ic!) 0' 10' 20' 40' TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE LANDSCAPE COVERAGE SHEET NO. 8 216 '62\6 8214 $212 8212 8210 8218 �••_••_••-••-••-••-••-••_• 8247.5 EAVE: JJ +/- 61'-7" 8276. RIDGE: 6 B +1- 5'-4" 8280.6 EAVE: 8220 ••_••_••_••_••_••_••_••_••_••_••_••_••_••_••_••_••_••_••_• _••_••� $220 8268.3 • . PP +1- 55'-3" 1 - - _ o E +/51'-4" r a a \ • 15'-8" 15'-8" EAVE: C +/- .4'-10" 8268.3 8272.1 8280.3 RIDGE: EAVE: F +1- 62'-8" D +/- 52'-4" RIDGE. 8276.6 3=1- 8250.5 A + 35'-8" RIDGE: PARAPET TO SCREEN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT \I/ RIDGE: 8281.9 8281.9 8281.9 8281.9 DD +/- 67' HH +/- 68'-3" GG +1- 68'-0" FF +/- 67-3" RIDGE: RIDGE: 8281.5 8281.1 8280.9 8282.6- 8281.8 NN +/- 68'-11" - EE+/- 6T-8" EAVE: KK +/- 69'-2" LL +/- 68'-2" MM +/- 67'-7" 8268.3 I U +/- 57'-3" RIDGE: RIDGE: 8280.3 4 CC 111+11- 65'-11" 8279.8 V +/- 67'-9" 8279.9 23 : HVAC EQUIPMENT RE. MECHANICAL 8281.9 Y +/- 68'-6" X +/- 67'-0" 23 : HVAC EQUIPMENT RE. MECHANICAL RIDGE: 8279.4 W +/- 67'-5" ID 8276.6 BB+/- 61'-10" 8269 1 E VE: +/- 52'-0" u u 8283.8 ROOF DEC ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ROOF DECK 8273.5 8208 12" / 12" 12" / 12" 12" / 12" 12" / 12" AA +/- 69'-0" RIDGE: 8283.8 K +/- 69'-10" RR + 61'-9" 8280.6 7" / 12" 7" / 12" EAVE: EAVE: EAVE. L +/- 68'-6" ROOF DECK 1 8268.3 RIDGE: 8268 3 1 T +/- 60'-3" 1 • • 1 • • 1 8277.7 01 ROOF HEIGHT PLAN 1/8" = R +/- 59'-7" S +1- 69' 6" November 7, 2017 - Page 314 of 532 RIDGE: 8277.7 8268.3 SS +/- 58'-10" RIDGE: Q +/- 68'-8" ••_••_••_••_•• ••_••_•• 8279.3 1 L • • _ • • emwe P +1- 69'-2" 8269.1 J +/- 56-11" 8220 • • • • • o2\ • • • 8218 8216 • 8214 • • • • • • 8212 • `ii • X8212 • • • • • ••_•• Building Height Calculations Existing Grade Elevation Finished Grade Elevation Historic Grade Elevation Roof Elevation Height from most Restrictive Most Restrictive Grade POINT A 8225 8225 8214.5 8250.2 35.7 8214.5 POINTI3 8224,5 8225 8214.9 8270,2 55.3 8214,9 POINT C 8219.2 8221,9 8215.8 8280.6 64.8 8215,8 POINT D 8225,3 8225.9 8216.1 8268.3 52.2 8216,1 POINT'E 8225.8 8221 8217 8268.3 51.3 8217 POINT E 8224.5 8221 8217.6 8280.3 62.7 8217,6 POINT G 8217.8 8217.8 8216.2 8276.6 60.4 8216.2 POINT H 8217.1 8269.1 52 8217.1 POINT J 8218,4 8218.4 8212.2 8269.1 56.9 8212.2 POINT K 8215.4 8215,4 8214 8283.8 69.8 8214 POINT L 8212.1 8280.6 68.5 8212.1 POINT M 8222.5 8222.5 8210.7 8278.7 68 8210.7 POINT N 8220.6 8220.6 8210.6 8268.3 57.7 8210.6 POINT P 8217 8217 8210,2 8279.3 69.1 8210,2 POINT Q 8213.6 8213.6 8209 8277.7 68.7 8209 POINT R 8213,8 8213.8 8208,7 8268.3 59.6 8208,7 POINT S 8212.9 8212.9 8208.7 8277.7 69.5 8208.2 POINT T 8213.6 8213:6 8208.1 8268.3 60.2 820: 1 POINT U 8226.1 8226.1 8211.1 8268.3 57.2 8217,1 POINT V 8212 8279.8 67.8 8212 POINT W 8212 8279.4 67.4 8212 POINT X 8212.9 8279.9 67 8212,9 POINTY 8213.4 8281.9 68,5 8213,4 POINT Z 8213.2 8276.5 63.3 8213.2 0' 4' 8' 16' Building Height Calculations Existing Grade Elevation Finished Grade Elevation Historic Grade Elevation Roof Elevation Height from most Restrictive Iv1ost Restrictive Grade POINT AA 8214.8 8283.8 69 8214.8 POINT BB 8214.8 8276.6 61,8 8214.8 POINT C0 8214.4 8280.3 65.9 8214.4 POINT DD 8214.9 8281.9 67 8214.9 POINT EE 8214.1 8281.8 67.7 8214.1 POINT EF 8214.7 8281.9 67,2 8214.7 POINT GG 8213.9 8281,9 68 821.9 POINT HH 8213.7 8281.9 68.2 8213.7 POINTJJ 8213.9 8275,5 61.6 8213.9 POINT KK 8212.4 8281,5 69.1 8212A POINT LL 8213 8281.1 68.1 8213 POINT WV 8213.3 8280.9 67.6 8213.3 POINT NN 8213.7 8282.6 68.9 821.3.7 POINT PP 8224.6 8225 8216.9 8272.1 55,2 8216,9 POINT iaa, 8213.8 8213.8 8212.1 8269.1 57 8212,1 POINT RR 8211.7 8273.5 61.8 8211.7 POINT SS 8217 8217 8209.5 8268.3 58.8 8209.5 TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP __ 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE ROOF HEIGHT SHEET NO. 8 216 826 X 0210 r• • • 1 • • 8214 1 821` 8212 8212 \TTYRO LEAN 1 HISTORIC GRADE MAP 1" = 10'-0" 8218 • • MI • • MI • • MO • • MI • • MO • • MO • • 8220 8220 03- • MO • • MI • • MI • • MI • • MI • • MI • • MO • • MO • • MI • • MI • • MI • • MI • • MO • • MO • • MO • 22 •MO••MI••MI••MI••MI••MI••MO••MO••MI••MI••MI••MI••MO••MO••MO• MI•• 8220 • • • • RIDGE: PARAPET TO SCREEN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 8210 • • 8210 8222 8220 8218 •$218216 • • • • 8208 8208 • • • p_.. - .. - ..imp• • • 1 8206 X 8206 • • 1 • 1 • • • '8212 8214 •-••_•• ••�••�••�••-•• 8212 • •• • • • 1 • • 826 1 8204 8202 8202 8200 . 8190 8180 818 1 ••1 • • 1 • r? 8202 8204 0206 8206 8210 8208 November 7, 2017 - Page 315 of 532 0' 5' 10' 20' TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP __ 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE HISTORIC GRADE MAP SHEET NO. A2■ tit in" ,,,,,.„,,„, • 111. m01. p..1111. • 1111111 MINIM ill ' NI11111•11111111111'' [WI WE 41.1.4trr AO= altigiqiliptir. • 111 it, in =PM all/i14/11111 rilt)fl 4IRS OM= r DO. :!!I thi4711.74#111.1S,110a 411111. 1111". NI= Looking North Looking South •'';I• Mil 11 I 111 N EMIL_ 11 LI 11! 1 " 1111 ,,,,,,,,"•-• ...• .'P • • l• • " . "" "77 TIL;: P1•4110-= _ • I,111 111.,111111111111..:..•.••• URN .•, •.• Looking South November 7, 2017 - Page 316 of 532 Note: The colors and textures depicted here are to convey transitions and architectural articulation. Physical material samples will be presented during the design review process. 07 4113 : METAL ROOF PANEL 1 07 4213: EIFS STUCCO 04 2200 ANCHORED STONE MASONRY VENEER 1 07 4600 : COMPOSITE SIDING 07 4213: METAL WALL PANEL 2 06 1323 : TIMBER TRELLIS TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP 1T/1114 i' [6111aLilillIAL_I 11 REVISION No. LIJ 0 0 LO 111 LLI (C) Ci) < H 4 z 0 I=J 0 71- 71 - Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE 3D MASSING SHEET NO. A4.00 November 7, 2017 - Page 317 of 532 84' - 0" 23'-0" 43' - 6" 17'-6" I I 10000111111 211 • J-111111111 I 111111 11111111111M1111 MI 11111 • 1 East Elevation 1/8" = 1'-0" Dormer Level 8269' - 0" Level 4 8258'-0" �T■ Level 3 8247' - 0" Level 2 8236' - 6" Level 1 8226' - 0" �T■ Garage Level 3 8214' - 6" Note: The colors and textures depicted here are to convey transitions and architectural articulation. Physical material samples will be presented during the design review process.... MATERIAL LEGEND Key Value Keynote Text 07 4113: METAL ROOF PANEL 1 07 4213: EIFS STUCCO 04 2200 ; ANCHORED STONE MASONRY VENEER 07 4600 : COMPOSITE SIDING 07 4213: METAL WALL PANEL 2 06 1323 : TIMBER TRELLIS TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW REVISION w 0 oIIIIIIIIIII■ ry i` LO LV w HO zo I=J a■ u_ .7( > No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHEET NO. A4.02 November 7, 2017 - Page 318 of 532 84'-0 17'-6" 43'-6" 23'-0" AMME ---, 11111111111141411111111111111111 ... .... MM MM • 1 West Elevation 1/8" = 1'-0" Dormer Level 8269' - 0" 8 8 Level 4 258'-0" Level 3 247'-0" Level 2 8236'-6" lT■ Level 1 %1 -0" �T■ 8226' Garage Level 3l!li 1 8214' - 6" Note: The colors and textures depicted here are to convey transitions and architectural articulation. Physical material samples will be presented during the design review process. MATERIAL LEGEND Key Value Keynote Text 07 4213: METAL ROOF PANEL 1 07 4213: EIFS STUCCO ANCHORED STONE MASONRY VENEER X 07 4600 : COMPOSITE SIDING 07 4213: METAL WALL PANEL 2 06 1323: TIMBER TRELLIS TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW REVISION No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHEET NO. A4.03 3 213'-2" 16'-8" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 'alt11�1il 16111.1 ""�I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IU IIII UIII „114 l 111111111111111111111111 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 26' - 2" 29' - 6" ■ 1111111111111111111111111111111�I!� Mt -� iIIIII1I1111111111111111111111111iiiil iiii11II1111 IIIIIIII IIIIV- -_ 111111111111111111111111111111 II I LBI I.-!IIIIHI____nml IIiLiL1i Dormer Level 8269' - 0" Level 4 h 8258' lT/ 8247' 0" -Leve0" Level 823366' -6"-6 " lTI 06 1323 : TIMBER TRELLIS 8 Level 1 226'-0" 2 South Elevation 1/8" = 1'-0" November 7, 2017 - Page 319 of 532 Note: The colors and textures depicted here are to convey transitions and architectural articulation. Physical material samples will be presented during the design review process. MATERIAL LEGEND Key Value Keynote Text 06 1063 Al 06 1323: TIMBER TRELLIS 07 4213: METAL ROOF PANEL 1 07 4213: EIFS STUCCO ANCHORED STONE MASONRY VENEER 07 4600 : COMPOSITE SIDING 07 4213: METAL WALL PANEL 2 06 1323: TIMBER TRELLIS TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP MIIIN•1URitilKITI11 41-i REVISION No. w 0 IIIIIIIIIII■ r i` LO W w� a zo (1 I=J u_ 0 (I) Description PROJECT NUMBER ISSUE DATE ISSUE Date 17021 09/14/2017 VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHEET NO. A4.04 10 8.5 213' - 2" 2 29'-6" 26' - 2" 28'-2" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 16'-8" VI k: ! 11...'IS I,,.:1r:Ja _ME Al N14 IHIIIIIUIIIIIlII 1U IP 91 11 11 f1llfl!'e. UMW. Bio =II 11 111 El 1 !1I I1 11 1111111111 III l I iiiiiuu n k► mom' I Ei ■■ J11111 ="cliw; E:1:=itE�•�^�� 11111 lirl Ir If 1 `law 1 North Elevation 1/8" = III 1 ®1 In NM •EN O '11 IPl" P" 1T1 111 1 II 11 I 'WEW_ 1 °°4' r-17 Dormer Level 8269' - 0" Level 4 8258'-0" Level 3 8247' - 0" Level 2 8236'-6" lT■ Level 1 8226' - 0" 111 November 7, 2017 - Page 320 of 532 Note: The colors and textures depicted here are to convey transitions and architectural articulation. Physical material samples will be presented during the design review process. Key Value MATERIAL LEGEND Keynote Text 07 4213: METAL ROOF PANEL 1 07 4213: EIFS STUCCO ANCHORED STONE MASONRY VENEER X 07 4600 : COMPOSITE SIDING 07 4213: METAL WALL PANEL 2 06 1323: TIMBER TRELLIS TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP MIIIN•1URitilKITI11 41-i REVISION No. w 0 oiiiiiiiiiii■ r i` LO W wo� U) 1-O zo 2 0 (I) Description PROJECT NUMBER ISSUE DATE ISSUE Date 17021 09/14/2017 VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHEET NO. A4.05 88556 LEO INEMENE MIMEETE AribMMENNE I `y. 20 5-2-1-054 1111 \!JMUJr/MM..MiiiiiMidEMEM ( 0 ■■■•■■■■■■■■• ■■■• ��■� ,Illllli- ,VIII!!= " ■ ■■■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■■■ II:■■■ ■ ■■: ■■■1 ■■■1 ■■■1 ■P ■■■I �■■■-■■.�■■._■■••_■■11 �■■■ ■h_j_j••_j••___1I•I1,__j•!L ■■ .0■■�■■!■■�■■!_ ■11!•1■I! ■ ■1 ■■■1 ■II .■■1 �__■I ■ ■■■ .■■I■ ■ ■ ��_ �.■_. • ■_ •• ■■■_ .■ I■ ■ !.I! ipp \ I LIGHTING PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" ••_••- •_••_••_••�••�••�••�••�••�••�••� • 1- ••�•• 4NE • • ant ••_•• November 7, 2017 - Page 321 of 532 Civic 1 54365FTABZ 17 uantlly: Cor)hrlerlt - 13.75" 13.5" 15.75" Measurements: Height 13.75" BP Height 12.25" Hanging Weight 6.00 Ib Lamping: LED PCB LED 1.00 11W PCB LED 11 total watt Width 13.50" BP Width 5.75" Dimmable ; Electronic Low Voltage (ELV) Dimmer Shipping: Carton Weight 7.32 Ib Master Pack Qty 1.0000 Carton Width 15.50" UPC 783209134034 Extension 4.00" HCO 4.00000" 900 Rated Lumens 3000 Color Temperature 90+ CRI Carton Height Carton Length 16.75" 18.50" UPS Yes Finish: Architectural Bronze ABZ Glass: Frosted FT Material: Aluminum Certification: Wet Location CA Title 24 Additional: PCB LED (Included) Mir 253 NORTH VINELAND AVE 1 CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91 746 r 626.956.4200 1 F 626 956 4225 eMmislichong Always consult a qualified, licensed electrician before installation of any products... 48.16. Technical amendments reserved 0' 4' 8' Product data sheet Surface washer DEGA Lichttechnische Speziafabrik DCA A 1 lennenbusch • D - 58708 Menden 1:1C1tio1H 88556 IP 65E,10 of Project • Reference number Date I I www.bega.com Application LED surface washer with flat beam bio....ad Spread light distribution for ill'Imination of paths and crit1C111 uco The used LED technique offers 111,I -ability and optimal light output with low power consumption at 1111e same 11111e. U....1....+ descri..ri.... I I Iminaire matte of all:minil lm alloy, ail lminil Im and stainless steel l.Iatt safety glass Silicone gasket Reflector Tilade of dire anodised aluminium Swivel . n^yam .... i 1lminaire with mounting plate for bolting onto a foundation or an a11UIo1acie unit 11 c :ming plate w h two pitch circles: Oi 711 mm, :3 PJongated holes 7 mm wide 0 100 1 i n i, 3 eiol IIUated holes g 1111wide I uminaire n be dinned on the m ,r.+6.., plate. around 380° M c:tinting bracket with connection hnv and 5 -pole terminal 4° for connection of mains Supply cable max. 5 x 2—pole p1.' connection for analogue dimming LED power supply unit »n -tan V 01501-80 600 DC 176-276 V Dimmable 1-10 V A basic isolation exists between power cable and control line Luminaire: e: Protectioln class IP 65 Dust -tight and g ro ptection against water t watjets Safety class i r h , Impact strength ti I i l<` 0 Protection against mechanical impacts < 10 joule ‹glodi — Safety mark C E - Conformity mark Weight: 7.0 kg Light distribution Montageplatte MountiN plata eontre-plaque 0 70 -1 1--0100-4 Lamp I I Iminalfe connected wattage Rated temperature Ambient temperature JJV 0o 556 VV MortIle designation Colour temperature rendering index dIl MoColour le 1im Rni Is fl v i uminaire luminous nux 1_�1I III loll0 TUI I III IVUO 01111 101 IL 88 556 KA Module designatio n Colotemperature Color rendering index Module nous flux Luminaire - lu 11mino Is flux Lifetime of the LED Ambient temperature t_= 15 "i. _-_----- at 5011, ,000 : ono 10 - — at 118 01111 h: L 1x11=2 4,0 Ambient temperature ta— 25 °C — at +,r1 01111h: 1 9013111 — at 350,00011: L70ts50 25.3 W 2`1 VY ta_=25 °C iarnax —AIS a1. LED 0260/830 31))lA) i[ rl CILJ 2950 lm 1:-545 im 67,1 1m AV LED -0260/840 4000 11 Ra> tnl) 3165 im 2068 Ira 72 im AAI tux. ambient temperat.IIre t — 40 °C — at 50,0000: L00ts 10 — n. 240,000h: L70R50 inrush current Inrush current: 21 A118.2 jis Maximum ni imher of i1 lminaires of this type per miniature circuit breaker: 01011- 50 luminaires 11 16A. 50 luminaires C1OA: 50 luminaires n 1 8A: 50 luminaires ArTICle tan. RR!1ttF5 LCD WI01Jr temperature optionally 300011 or 4000 V 3n11111 K — Article number 4000 K — Article number + n4 Colour graphite or elver graphite — article number silver— article number + A 709. ,Anchorage unit Anchorage unit with mounting flange made oalvanised steel. Total lenoth 400 mm. 3 stainless steel flzinu screws M a. Pitch circle,? 100mm. See the separate instructions for use. 16 FIXTURES Bollard Wall Accent TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE LIGHTING PLAN SHEET NO. A9■ MEM EINsminft PROPOSED PHASE 11 BUILDING i EMIMIS ENEEP 8220.9 -1a SITE SECTION fallaINENE CONDO B„o Li CONDO EHU AND CONDO EHU 27' MaginaIND alIMME IMEmeme 95' 69'-11” ABOVE HISTORIC GRADE Ilmemem PHASE 1 BUILDING 48' ABOVE HISTORIC GRADE— d GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE LOBBY 0 90' 73' Dormer Level 8269' - 0" C) RAMP PRIVACY WALL 8209.6 MI MN 8206 GARAGE CONDO CONDO CONDO CONDO Level 4 8258' - 0" Level 3 8247' - 0" Level 2 8236' - 6" Level 1 8226' - 0" Garage Level 3 8214' - 6" Garage Level 2 8203' - 0" Garage Level 1 8191' - 6" Elevator Pit November 7, 2017 - Page 322 of 532 8187'-6" TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 DISCIPLINE STAMP 434 SOUTI- No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET SHEET TITLE SITE SECTION SHEET NO. 0:1Vai11Mountain View-20171dwg1Master\Grading.dwg,10/5/2017 5:12:42 PM, Leininger INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70 S. FRONTAGE ROAD (CDOT) (R.O.W. VARIES) EXISTING GAS UNE (HIGH PRESSURE PER PHASE 1 PLANS). POTHOLE EXISTING ELECTRIC AND PHONE TO VERIFY ELEVATIONS. RELOCATE OR LOWER IN THIS AREA AS REQUIRED. EXISTING CONCRETE WALK, TO BE REMOVED BETWEEN WEST PROPERTY UNE AND THE EXISTING ENTRY DRIVE. THOLE EXISTING ELECTRIC TO RIFY ELEVATION. RELOCATE OR WER IN THIS AREA AS REQUIRE 'ADJUST •XISTINg ELEC.3'2%. MH TO Fl ISHED .'GRADE, 4't UR 4 4.0% I 11 a I p 211EPN • 1.75_� MATCH EXIS . _DRIVEWAY SLOPES_ EXISTING HEATED CONCRETE DRIVE TO REMAIN ,'� FUTURE WALK EXTENSION TO \VAIL VALLEY \ DRIVE, 9OLF± \ ADJUST EXISTING ELEC. \ MH TO FINISHED GRADE, 19"± DO\WN. 0 SOUTH OUTH EDGE OF FULL // �\ \\LANE''S/EASEMENT \ \\ \\ DO�Oj\N01T G \ \ \v40J \ PR MATCH NEW CURB IN 0 EXISTING DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE CURB NORTH OF THIS POINT. 9-7" RISERS GRADE UP FROM BA OF CURB TO WALL 0 2% UNDER STAIRS PRIV /EG d ■ it ■ ■■11 ■-i■ iii■■ ■ I\1i* ■■ .�■ :■- '����. ■1imEiiiiimillo ■�.■I ' 1.11■ - ,� alitwilihmill �2 LOADIN r SPA6:+!*4 ■i'1:■■:■.■■■■JIM!■.■t■■■ -\c) lh /, 1 ,,' I,■0�!■■_6!■■101 !18 i.;11.111 �1 aff, Il_mplujiiiramiria ■■■ -■ - ,• ► ..• _ �I -iitto00.11iFiliii.ii■■■- ■■- I■lllI!►.,.tefil ' •i sal• ■rte ■II: `�: ii�i■R 41 11 NY/aeg11.1. 16 ,■■■■ .■■WIWIWq agi A d A A 4 A ■I■,�■■ imet='If' a tI ,1. 3111 A d 4 • A d 4 Al .4 r r PROPERTY UNE EXIST. EASEMENT PROPOSED 1' CONTOUR PROPOSED 5' CONTOUR EXISTING 2' CONTOUR EXISTING 5' CONTOUR PROPOSED SLOPE OR GRADE PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED BOTTOM OF EXPOSED WALL PROPOSED TOP OF WALL PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT 0 7n NOTES: 1. CONTACT AEI PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF TREES, SHRUBS, IRRIGATION OR OTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES TO REVIEW FINISHED GRADE. 2. PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (H -P GEOTECHNICAL, JOB No 106-0297), A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 20H:1V AWAY FROM PROPOSED BUILDINGS IS REQUIRED IN LANDSCAPED AREAS FOR THE FIRST 10' FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES. HARDSCAPE SHOULD DRAIN AWAY AT A MINIMUM OF 2% WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING. 3. BW ON THESE PLANS REPRESENTS THE BOTTOM OF THE EXPOSED WALL, NOT BOTTOM OF FOOTER OR FOUNDATION. WALL MAY NEED TO BE EXTENDED FARTHER BELOW FINISHED GRADE FOR FROST PROTECTION, LEDGE, ETC. 4. COMPACTION OF BACKFILL SHALL FOLLOW THE GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS. 4') o� 1•-:A\ \ 4i 44/ i — --- a. 4 4 November 7, 2017 - Page 323 of 532 PRELIMINARY SEPTEMBER, 2017 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCES ON GORE CREEK A 4 SHEET SHEET 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW PHASE 11 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAIL, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 26030 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET TITLE GRADING NO. s.dwg, 10/5/2017 5:13:21 PM, Leininger 0:1Vai11Mountain View-20171dwg1Master1Util 4 i �' ANSFORMER AND AUI TRANSFORMER O B LN SIZED FOR gXIS-gtIG4 4. 6 PROPOSED L+AD . 4 \ \SOUTH EDGE OF FULL \ \\ LANES/EASEMENT POTHOLE EXISTING UTILITIES IN THIS AREA TO DETERMINE DEPTH & LOCATION. LOWER UNES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY GRADING TO PROVIDE MINIMUM COVER. \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / `\` \\ \\ \/ \ \ \ \ \ / \RELOCA EXISTING \ \ \ \ PHONE IFR IRED BY \ \\ `\ \\ I,T/ INET ELATION. \ \\\\\ \ \ / 1 `\\ \/ W /. / / rn \\\i/ `� /. /)\ UTILITY EASEMENT RECEPTION No. 2006261 69 W EW EW q' 6 6 4 EG �H c'LIIIts iUEG FYILEVA11ON. I�ELOCA OR LOW IN THIS AREA AS REQUIRED4'. T6 PR0VIDE4MINIMUM COVE'. EW EW EG EW EW EW EW INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70 S. FRONTAGE ROAD (CDOT) (R.O.W. VARIES) EXISTING GAS UNE (HIGH PRESSURE PER PHASE 1 PLANS•)._ EG'; // . • .Q '6 . 6 4. EW EW EW 4 4 EW EW EW m t!4- \ �L PROPOSED SEC & NUMBER OF ELECTRICAL. C TRANSFORMER TRANSFORMER TO SERVE B EXISTING DARY : CTRIC, ONDUIT PER ACITY OF EXISTING BE CONFIRMED. AY REQUIRE UPSIZI PHASE 1 & PHAS EXISTING GAS METER PIPING IS IN PLACE ADDITIONAL METER PHASE 2 GAS SERVIC TYROLEAN CONDOMINIUMS m rn m N c \coco\ r•10 orn D m I I I ---- ---- ------------------- ------ 17: [77 \ Y 1 � / F,, November 7, 2017 - Page 324 of 532 PRELIMINARY SEPTEMBER, 2017 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 4 EW m EW m m R L.CA EXISTING FIRE HYPIRANIALLATkpiA (OR INSTALL NEW). REMOVE XISTING FH UNE & TEE & A S•! S -EVE. • 4 EE EW 6' 4 4. 1: EW EW 4 EW EE 6 4 . 4 EW 6 4 . • 6 • 6 4 4 EW 6D. 6 4 4 ""-- . . 64. 6 4 EW 4' 6 4.• . 64 6 4 4 . L EW 4 '6 1-7i11%,14r �■—■ aanim���,I:■ig Ill: whir idiEL- mi F:AFI..11 ' .,, 4,.. ,rml...E1.....m........t.m..., Tifiummiriv.wdr?,0„„:„ ..A''.a..LF,',iim— •�r iii1���� ��■�■III=:i ■��to � �_�I1.�I IiI _� 03..".t.41. , -•mi.imMm4■■•7■■•moMMEN�\1►.:�EM111.6.101.111011110Fat ��•-I %, mi.11: REV •M :I■■•!■■•R■■I!Tinh. i7„ -I I .! Il■■N.■■mt.111►IMM1i ► - rI �� 1-IIvlU■:-1ii r : ;V%.A, ! � 6.. _ 1751 ra mbal ;ill pliii II . I 4 11' 1 ---- 1111 ►��s- 6 a 4 A � M GRAPHIC SCALE 0 5 10 20 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 10 ft. VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCES ON GORE CREEK O ST x1 Q GM SEWER MANHOLE STORM MANHOLE WATER MANHOLE TELEPHONE MANHOLE CLEAN OUT WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT GAS METER LEGEND PE PE PE PES PES PES EE EE EG EG EPH ES ES EW EW ETV EPH T E/ ETV PROPOSED WATERLINE W/ FH & GV PROPOSED PRIMARY ELECTRIC PROPOSED SECONDARY ELEC. PROPOSED TRANSFORMER LOCATION EXIST. BURIED ELEC. LINE EXIST. GAS LINE EXIST. PHONE LINE EXIST. SEWER MAIN EXIST. WATER MAIN EXIST. CABLE TV EXIST. ELECTRIC VAULT EXIST. PHONE PEDESTAL EXIST. TRANSFORMER EXISTING 6" SEWER SERVICE, INV=8199.0 PER 2006 PLANS 03 -1":\ \03 10 44, iris* k=r PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT E PRIVAT APOLLOvAPILARK AT CONDOMINIUMS too 4 4 SHEET SHEET 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW PHASE 11 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAIL, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 26031 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET TITLE PLAN -UTILITY NO C 1. 02 0:1Vail1Mountain View-20171dwg1Master1Details.dwg, 811512017 3:07:47 PM, Leininger November 7, 2017 - Page 325 of 532 PRELIMINARY AUGUST, 2017 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET SHEET DISPERSE LARGE RDCKS IN THIS ZONE PROVIDED RDCKS DO NOT INTERFERE WITH BACKFILL COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS BOULDERS GREATER THAN 18' TO BE REMOVED FROM BACKFILL AND DISPOSED DF AS APPROPRIATE. NOTE: TRENCH BACKFILL WITHIN ROW IS TO BE FULL DEPTH TO ( OF ABC/HBP SECTION) FLOWFILL. NO ROCK ALLOWED GREATER THAN 6' HWY 6 BOTTOM THE USE OF P❑LYETHELENE WRAP FOR C❑RR❑SIVE S❑ILS APPROVED BEDDING mar/i [r, __ ____ __ 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 TO BE DETERMINED BY ENGINEER ,� �•'% `• '11-1i=: "• I -I1, ��j� +: ^ := NOTE: VALVES SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED IN BAR DITCHES. PROPOSED LOCATIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. FLAG ON HYDRANT TO LOCATE IN WINTER WHEN HYDRANT IS COVERED IN SNOW PIPE POLYETHYLENE TUBE Oil 1 ) 0 D STEP 1 =11-11=111,_ `: /` :`;t'' 5' t..-.•.»:=11-11 _ ;=:. ���•,� ; "'s' ,i=11 -p- =11=11-=,, = :?•%��"„=11=11=11=' ". 4-11=11=11.=' INSULATED 10 GAUGE COPPER TRACER WIRE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE WATER MAIN TRENCH, SURFACING OUTSIDE THE MAINLINE VALVE 4" PUMP NOZZLE BOXES AND NEXT TO ALL FIRE HYDRANTS. CAD -WELDS SHALL BE WELDED AT ALL (FACE TO TRAVELED WAY) WATER MAIN JOINTS AND FITTINGS AND PRO- TECTED WITH COAL TAR. THE CONTRACTOR INSTALL MUELLER SHALL TEST CONDUCTIVITY OF THE PIPE AND MOUNTAIN HYDRANTS (2'\�:\� TRACER WIRE. GUARD VALVE WILL ADDITIONAL SPOOL / OCATED ON' THE SECTION) FORTHIS PROJECT I BE LOFF N o I o/`� \ I �/ =11=11-11- 11-11-11.=11` =11=11-111,- /, -11"1111.=11=11=111111=111=11=111' 'l 1 BOND BREAKER 4 MIL \ BOND BREAKER 4 MIL . ' -"=11:=11'.=11:-1L 11=" POLYETHYLENE " POLYETHYLENE SEE VERTICAL THRUST •� + '<:� '' PLASTIC (TYP) PLASTIC (TYP) BLOCK DETAIL FOR SIZING ' �'"ij✓� UNDISTURBED DOUBLE 45 BENDS TO VERTICAL THRUST BLOCK -SECTION EARTH COMPLETE A 90 I URN PARALLEL BENDS - PLAN , SEE PARALLEL BENDS DETAIL FDR SIZING \ 3/8' PLYWOOD FORMS DISTRICT let-+.t+.t&&���A \'\�/\ / 12' // VARIES / SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR /�//�/% TRENCH / BACKFILL APPROVED BEDDING THESE DETAILS ARE TO BE �% // FOLLOWED FOR. EVERY FITTING IN ,� .�i j o.' TEE THE IN 4'-0" - COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 MARKING TAPE TO BE PLACED 24" MINIMUM 36" FROM ABOVE PIPE OR FINISHED GRADE TO ANY PROTRUSION STEAMER NUT :�■ I Qi 2-1/2" CONNECTION �`O� '"' /\ POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC TUBE TAPE PIPE A 12' THE INSTALLATION �� •` \\\ Z �' I •'•" �:;: • • . UNDISTURBED IIs �1• •'',* , NO ROCK ALLOWED GREATER THAN 6' i\ .:' /\\\ \/\\/ PIPE SUB -GRADE, STABILIZATION \: BEDDING SEE BELOW i /\ � / ZONE d : :,�ti EARTH ti: .: �Il BOND BREAKER 4 MIL �'>7 POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC (TYP) MINIMUM BEARING ..',. •: '•... . •�., % //v- /� .\�/�/,��/T� \� WATER MAINS TO :E / �/�C\/�C\/C\/�\/�\�/� I SEE W-7 FOR DETAIL `/`//``% .< tC FLANGE 6BRMAX MB M DISTANCE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE \ < \: .LE \ BRING 10 GAUGE INSULATED /�//\/ MATERIAL IF REQUIRED /.>'/X//\/\/ MARKING TAPE PLACED 24' THE TOP DF HIGHEST PROTRUSION TRENCH ZONES TO BE ABOVE PIPE OR \BURIED AT 7'-9' 50' MAX / COPPER WIRE TO SURFACE PLYWOOD FORMS - MINIMUM 3/8' SURFACE AREA - OR DISTRICT APPROVED EQUIVALENT SQ. FT BEND - PLAN DEAD END - PLAN \\'' MINIMUM COVER, VALVE BOX AND GATE , 7'-9i' COVER I AT ALL FIRE HYDRANTS \' SEE SPECIFICATION • VALVE AND CONNECT TO MAIN LINE TRACER WIRE MINIMUM BEARING SURFACE MARKING TAPE TO AREA - SQ. FT r� BE PLACED 24" ,7 V. Y' I4 ' ,\ WATER MAIN i•: MEGALUG I� t •o TRACER ° WIRE 12' MIN BEDDING ON TOP OF HYDRANT SHOE p 0 0 0 0 p ° 0 0 0 pop o 0 0 ° p o 0 0 o 0 0 p p p o ° ° . \ viiv. - t333iiZrti / PROVIDE MIRAFI 140NNI AROUND GRANULAR BEDDING MATERIAL PER ^ j i f Q ! wi ABOVE TOP OF PIPE OR ANY PROTRUSION t- : ' / / / , STEP 2 `w• BOND BREAKER 4 MIL ,s I: ,*'*,.4* e**: G '� I 4 ,• • 11 II ' 111,p •: CONCRETE f'�. / POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC (TYP) Yr fr • e • • ;' a '. .. ° ` =•ae' '= to 0 0 0\ o p o : o ° p .:. o ° oo2,-0" 0 0 0 0 0 op 0 ° 0 •' ` •• '� THRUST BLOCK \ �� / / fa IVO •:�`�MINIMUM SURFAC: • °•_ /, q „. SQ. FT ' 2/3 BEARING O.D. PIPE AREA - v, �������"������� .!.:. �. y ... •; '; fr /� �/�A/� \�\\ \ � � p 0 0 0 p o� o o p o °o 0 ° ° i .. . . // // DO NOT BLOCK FIRE CONCRETE HYDRANT DRAIN WITH PLASTIC TAPE POLYETHYLENE PIPE TUBE GEOTECH REPORT \ \ \ TRENCH BACKFILL �� i\� /// \/�/ i\\/\\ SEE CONCRETE THRUST SPECIFICATIONS /, �jv BLOCK -./� BLOCK BASE OR THRUST BASE BLOCK /. :- . ;' //A \ Y y :' VY y Y Y Y Y Y Yj 'i VA�v7.---••-`7=;{/ \// e p `©; .,• `' : •::. ...,- DISTRICT APPROVED .`.:; _ • '' ' °_ " COMPACTED /\//1111 N \ / i,/' BEDDING UNDISTURBED MATERIAL EARTH PLYWOOD FORMS - MINIMUM 3/8' UNDISTURBED OR DISTRICT APPROVED EQUIVALENT EARTH TYPICAL CROSS SECTION GUARD VALVES FOR FIRE HYDRANTS1 3' 6" HYDRANT DRAIN PIT, SHALL BE RESTRAINED WITH MINIMUM --SQUARE 27 CUBIC FT. OF MEGALUGS TO THE WATER MAIN. FIRE 1-1 2" OR 3/4"WASHED ROCK / / HYDRANT LATERALS SHALL BE WITH MEGALUGS TO THEGUARD VALVE. MEGALUG RESTRAINTS; USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THRUST BLOCKS. HYDRANT CLEARANCE DIAGRAM . BEDDING /\/ '"',' . D ` O MATERIAL i/ O \/ "" : ° \� • UNDISTURBED �• �; • •- : ,•-: `. ` ,.�FOR ' . • > \ / \/ �\BZONEG �\\ /OF ; \\ //\( MINIMUM BEARING SURFACE (SF)RESTRAINED ( ) MINIMUM BEARING SURFACE SF FOR 201 TO 250 PSI_ARE , MP `'� 11�� �1 ■"�1i - - - f EXERCISE CARE TO PREVENT PENETRATION STEP 3 200 PSI AND LESS SIZE BENDS SIZE BENDS TEE OR PIPE o 11-1/4° 22-1/2° 45090 o DEAD END OF PIPE 11-1/4° 22-1/2° 45o 90o DEAD END 4" 1.6 3.1 4 4 8.0 SOIL /,� \< Cs • .;• Q �.• . ,..:•,.,... \% • p�.; z.: :El'• •. :. .SJ .-0,. , / //\ / THERE ARE NO ABOVE GROUND ii OBSTRUCTIONS ALLOWED IN THESE AREAS FRONT ---10 FEET OF CLEARANCE 4" 1.3 2.5 2.5 4 6.4 6" 1.6 3.1 6.2 11.4 8.0 OF POLYETHYLENE WRAP WITH GRAVEL, ROCKS, ETC. FIELD INSTALLATION - POLYETHYLENE WRAP \\\//i\�/%�/\\///\//%//A�/i /\ \\//, /�/ PIPE SUB -GRADE PIPE BEDDING ZONE 1/4 O.D., 6" MIN 6" 1.3 2.5 5.0 9.0 6.4 8" 1.6 3.1 6.2 11.4 8.0 8" 1"3 2.5 5.0 9.0 6.4 10" 2"4 4"7 9.25 17"1 12.0 10" 1.9 3.8 7.4 13.7 9.7 12" 3.4 6.7 13.1 24.2 17.1 CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL POLYETHYLENE WRAP ON WATER LINES STEP 1 - PLACE TUBE OF POLYETHYLENE MATERIAL ON PIPE PRIOR TO LOWERING IT INTO PLACE. STEP 2 - PULL THE TUBE OVER THE LENGTH OF THE PIPE. TAPE TUBE TO PIPE AT JOINT. FOLD MATERIAL AROUND THE ADJACENT SPIGOT END AND WRAP WITH TAPE TO HOLD THE PLASTIC TUBE IN PLACE. STEP 3 - OVERLAP FIRST TUBE WITH ADJACENT TUBE AND SECURE WITH PLASTIC ADHESIVE TAPE. THE POLYETHYLENE TUBE MATERIAL COVERING THE PIPE SHALL BE LOOSE. EXCESS MATERIAL SHALL BE NEATLY DRAWN UP AROUND THE PIPE BARREL, FOLDED ON TOP OF PIPE AND TAPED IN PLACE. NTS 12" 2.7 5.4 10.5 19.3 13.7 16" 5.8 11.6 22.7 42.0 29.7 16" 4.7 9.3 19.1 33.6 23.8 20" 9.0 17.9 35.0 64.8 45.8 20" 7.2 14.3 28,0 51.8 36.6 NTS GENERAL NOTES NTS 10' �_`� 11 SIDES ---7 FEET OF CLEARANCE REAR ---4 FEET OF CLEARANCE ABOVE ---20 FEET OF CLEARANCE 1. MEGALUG RESTRAINTS SHALL BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THRUSTBLDCKS. 2. MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED WILL BE THAT OF AN 8 INCH MAIN 3. ALL THRUST BLOCKS SHALL BE FORMED. THE MINIMUM THICKNESS FORM MATERIAL SHALL BE 3/8' PLYWOOD OR DISTRICT APPROVED EQUIVALENT. 4. BEARING AREA BASED ON SDIL BEARING PRESSURE OF 2000 LB/SF. NTS A FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY B WATER AND SEWER PIPE BEDDING DETAIL G CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKS D POLYETHYLENE WRAP VARIES 6" CONCRETE CONCRETE PAVERS OVER 2"f OF S/ AND TUBING. RE: LANDSCAPE OR AF FOR PAVER SIZE, TYPE, SPECS, MANUFACTURER & PATTERN. SEE PLANS FOR SLOPE FINISHED GRADE BACKFILL WITH APPROVED a ° a a ° ° a ° 4 d. _ ° ° a .., •ErbinurLcitrlooff 4' MIN. FOR PRIMARY 2' MIN. FOR SECONDARY 7, SUITABLE ONSITE MATERIAL /OR 3/4" SCREENED ROCK. OOI�.j00I0100I0100I0100I�0 OOI�.j00I0100I0100I�.j00I�.0 OOO�.j000�.j000O1000�.j000 jONOjONOjONOj00I0100 0100010001000100'000 PROVIDE 2' OF 3 4" ROADBASE OR• / 3/4" SCREENED ROCK OR SCREENED ON-SITE 9 ,, ,) *A C 40 = �/- �► �- ^ --)4( , •/ \/ \/ \/ �/ \/ \/ \/ / \/ \/ \/\\/�\� i��/\�/��/% N.j�'\l \ /,�,, j� j�/ j� �� \�/\�/� /��/ / " /, \ / / � � j\�\%\ 6" AGGREGRATE BASE !/\ COURSE COMPACTED PER SNOWMELT TUBING (APPROX. 7/8' DIA") RE: MECH. TIE TO SPECIFICATIONS. WELDED WIRE FABRIC (6 X 6 W1.4 X W1.4) AT BOTTOM OF CONCRETE. STAPLE WWF TO BASE AS NEEDED TO PREVENT ALL CONCRETE SHALL FABRIC AND TUBING FROM "FLOATING" DURING CONCRETE POUR. BE CDOT CLASS P SAND BEDDING PER PAVER & X TUBING MANUFACTURERS . •e e e • e� � k��� �� .�'07l� • `� V 7. 4/ 4/ 0 0 0 o ��.AI.AI.��. • • • • ,i�fa�fa�• 1-1/2" MINUS MATERIAL AS APPROVED BY ENGINEER. WARNING TAPE SECONDARY ELECTRIC CONDUIT FROM fi�i` if�i�i'�i�i`% ��i��i`i�i��ii ����%t'�i�%��%. I '� '1 11� I� I� I� /� !� !� !• I� I� �� !� �I� t� �t� �t� , -,.4-,.4-,-.4�' ��.���.4�'.4�..��,.4�'..4��.4�,.4�,,.4�,.4�,.4�,.4�,.4 \\� \\/� \ \�&/�/�� \ 6" COMPACTED CLASS �/ � //�/�/�/�/ N , / A / /,/ /�/ / 6 BASE COURSE '` /\ //\/ '` ////,\//.� ' �,` SUITABLE COMPACTED SUBGRADE (SEE SOILS ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATIONS) NTS 2020=. -pie-Tie--1 �.. TRANSFORMER TO BUILDING. SIZE & NUMBER PER MECHANICAL. NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT SNOWMELT TUBING AT ALL JOINTS IN CONCRETE PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. NOTE: PROVIDE CLAY CHECK DAMS © 100' INTERVALS IN AREAS OF HIGH GROUND WATER. SNOWMELT DESIGN AND LAYOUT SHALL BE PER MECHANICAL & MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. SNOWMELT PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. NOTE: ANY CONSTRUCTION JOINT SHALL BE TIED WITH 30" LONG #4 BARS, 18" O.C. NTS E F ELECTRIC TRENCH G HEATED CONCRETE SIDEWALK H HEATED PAVER WALK t 3 „ _ / © \ 24" E- -IIIc IIIIII- © 24„ 111=4 /7 ` 25„ () JI \ 6'' ECTION84" 4 SECTION --.41 84" I I I I I I 84" . ' PAD CENTERED ON VAULT TRANSFORMER ON PAD ' i NOTES 1. TYPICAL TRANSFORMER OUTLINE 2. LIFTING HANDLES (2) PER VAULT SECTION 84" 1 1 1 1 1 1 3. LIFTING HOLES - - 4. BACKFILL TO BE WELL COMPACTED 5. SOIL UNDER BASE TO BE UNDISTURBED OR WELL COMPACTED 6. (6) KNOCKOUTS 8"X12" PER VAULT SECTION 7. CONDUIT(S) INSTALLED THROUGH KNOCKOUTS SHALL BE GROUTED 8. BOND #2 COPPER INTO GROUND SYSTEM - WITH ROD AND NEUTRAL 1 / VAULT CENTERED ON BASE THREE PHASE TRANS. VAULT (500 KVA & Larger) 1 - 40200 Large Base -3,600 Ibs. 2 - 40800 Vault, 6'x2'H -3,000 Ibs. Each 1 - 40500 Pad, 3Phase -3,400 Ibs. DOLY CROSS ENERGY 3 PHASE (500 IKVA OR LARGER) TRANSFORMER VAULT SPECIFICATION APPENDIX UM1 -1 1 S November 7, 2017 - Page 325 of 532 PRELIMINARY AUGUST, 2017 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET SHEET 3 5 9 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 __ ____ __ 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAI L, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET TITLE DETAILS NO. C 1 ■ 0:1Vai11Mountain View-20171dwg1Master\Fire Staging.dwg, 10/5/2017 5:14:27 PM, Leininger INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70 S. FRONTAGE ROAD (CDOT) (R.O.W. VARIES) 45.00 6.00 18.00 VAIL 431 LA3 D E feet : 8.50 : 8.00 : 6.00 : 28.70 Width Track Lock to Lock Time Steering Angle VEHICLE SWEPT PATH (TYP) FRONT WHEEL PATH (TYP) A 4 14 4 '4 4 . • A 4.-A 4 A 4 A 4 r— RELOCATE EXISTING SIGN 4 NO SNOW STORAGE IN THIS AREA. PROVIDE CLEAR AREA FOR FIRE STAGING. OBT PERMISSION FOR WORK PARK PROPERTY. 4 RESS%EGRES MAY BE RVQUIRED A 9LLO ARK `PROPERTY. PRIVATE INGRESS /EGRESS EASEME T EXISTING HETED CONCRETEDI TC REMAIN \M: At.4 rar--3 30.0' CLEAR t SUBURBAN EXITING GARAGE 4 4 m O rn i / / / / J 0 w N EpN in rn (f) PRIVATE ACCESS _ NQS v1ENT °I A / APOLLO PARK AT VAIL CONDOMINIUMS I rai rua ASSUMPTIONS AND GENERAL NOTES: GRAPHIC SCALE 1. THIS SIMULATION DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR DRIVER VARIABILITY OR DRIVER SKILL. 0 5 10 20 PRELIMINARY SEPTEMBER, 2017 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 10 ft. November 7, 2017 - Page 326 of 532 4/ 011 L_ t• N N J \ 7 1—� / "44141-11" 41,41 trr SHEET SHEET 359 DESIGN 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW PHASE 11 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD EAST, VAIL, CO 81657 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 26030 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET TITLE FIRE STAGING & LADDER TRUCK SIMULATION PLAN NO. LARGE DECIDUOUS SHRUB (TYP). — SPRUCE TREE (TYP.) ACCENT EVERSREEN SHRUB (TYP). SOUTH BROWNSTONE BOULDER OUTCROPPING (TYP.) LOW SPREADING DECIDUOUS SHRUB (TYP.) ASPEN TREE (TYP.) PERENNIAL FLOWERS (TYP.) HEATED PAVER WALK AND DRIVEWAY ORNAMENTAL GRASSES (TYP.) POTENTIAL PUBLIC ART FEATURE + ;� fr * * 4'\ : ,b 4' 4,`m ) )/4' 1* I / 4, 4, 4, */ I 4, w w 4, 4, w 4, 4, w w EXISTING SHRUBS TO REMAIN (TYP.) 7 / BROWNSTONE BOULDER OUTCROPPING (TYP.) HEATED PAVER SIDEWALK EXISTING LANDSCAPE ON EAST SIDE OF PAVER WALK TO REMAIN SMALL DECIDUOUS SHRUB (TYP.) i I I I I • / 4 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" November 7, 2017 - Page 327 of 532 LARSE DECIDUOUS SHRUB (TYP). SPRUCE TREE (TYP.) G ,4k c -NE) SYMBOL OT -4°. DES RFTION SIZE 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 macDesign 1 ■ LANDSCAPE 1, ■ ARCHITECTURE l ■ SITE PLANNING P.O. BOX 6446, AVON, CO 81620 970.513.9345 DISCIPLINE STAMP W 1 SPRUCE TREE 8' 545 M N. Ar' 4` 011/1/ _ + _SMALL /�/ \\\� EVERGREEN TREE 6' 545 M N. 2 7 ASPEN TREE MIN. 1111 cl LARGE DEO I DUOUS SHRU5 #5 0 54 SMALL DEO I DUOUS SHRUE #5 O 26 IOW SPREAD I NG DEO DUOUS SHRUE 5 _ .'Y.- -;,,,,,\4- /II,\f 14 ACCENT EVERGREEN S RU5 #& 111 =27 ORNAMENTAL GRASSES TESD PERENN AL FLOWERS LAWN i%►-� �� ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 BROWNSTONE E�OULDER OUTOROPF NG Z uJ 0 0 SHEET SHEET - _ _ w 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE F VAIL, CO 8165 TOWN STAMP 3630 OSAGE STREET DENVER, CO 80211 720.512.3437 macDesign 1 ■ LANDSCAPE 1, ■ ARCHITECTURE l ■ SITE PLANNING P.O. BOX 6446, AVON, CO 81620 970.513.9345 DISCIPLINE STAMP W 1 Z uJ 0 0 SHEET SHEET - _ _ w 434 SOUTH FRONTAGE F VAIL, CO 8165 No. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 17021 ISSUE DATE 09/14/2017 ISSUE VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET TITLE LANDSCAPE PLAN NO. Vail Village Master Plan VI. ILLUSTRATIVE PLANS The Illustrative Plans provide an overview of the long range goals and objectives for future development of the Village. Each plan depicts a key element that contributes to the character and function of Vail Village. These elements include land use, open space, circulation and building heights. Together these plans reflect the Master Plan's goals, objectives and policy statements. They provide the criteria for evaluating development proposals and planning for future public improvements. A summary plan, referred to as the Action Plan, is a composite of the identified changes end improvements from each of the Illustrative Plans. The Action Plan graphically summarizes proposed public and private sector changes for Vail Village. LAND USE PLAN There is a well-defined overall pattern of land use throughout the Village that establishes one of its more pleasant characteristics. The greatest variety and intensity of uses are found within the Village Core Area and along the pedestrian ways of East Meadow Drive. The mixed use character of these areas make significant contributions to the vitality of the pedestrian experience in the Village. Land uses surrounding these areas are predominantly residential with a mixture of lodging, condominium, and low density residential development. Other land use designations in the Village include heavy service, public facility/parking, and ski base/recreation. Maintaining the general pattern of existing land uses is a stated goal for Vail Village. While some changes in land use are indicated by this Plan, they respect the existing character that has been established throughout the Village. Changes to existing land uses have been recommended in response to other goals of The Village Plan. Specific improvements and developments associated with these changes in land use are expressed in greater detail on the Action Plan and in the Sub -Area section of this Plan. Land use categories in Vail Village include the following: Low Density Residential: The Mill Creek Circle area was the initial subdivision of Vail and is the only neighborhood in the Village made up of exclusively low density residential development. Development in this land use category is limited to two units per lot. There are a total of 19 duplex zoned lots comprising approximately 6.5 acres in this land use category. Medium/High Density Residential: The overwhelming majority of the Village's lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. Approximately 1,100 units have been developed on the 27 acres of private land in this category. In addition, another 110 units are approved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail". Mixed Use: This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount of office use -are found in this category. With nearly 270,000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. Ski Base/Recreation: Located at the base of Vail Mountain in the Golden Peak area and immediately adjacent to Vail Village, this designation is intended to provide for the facilities and services inherent to the operation of a ski area. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient, and aesthetically -pleasing transition between the ski mountain and surrounding land use categories. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Ski Base/Recreation land use category may include skier and resort services, ski lifts, ski trails, base facilities, public restrooms, ticket sales, clubs, public plazas, outdoor cultural/art events and sports venue, open spaces, parking and loading/delivery facilities, and residential, retail, and restaurant uses. Public Facility/Parkinq: The only property in this category is the Town -owned parking structure and adjacent surface parking lot. Existing uses include: public and charter bus parking, transportation 16 November 7, 2017 - Page 328 0 Vail Village Master Plan facilities and a limited amount of office and retail activity. Potential changes to the character of these uses would be the introduction of other public purpose activities such as a visitor center, performing arts center, etc. OPEN SPACE PLAN Four different classifications of open space are indicated on the Open Space Plan. The types of open space vary from greenbelt natural open space to the more urbanized open space created by the Village's numerous public plazas. While the role of each of these forms of open space varies, they all contribute to the recreational, aesthetic, and environmental features of the Village. For the purposes of this Plan, open space is defined as conditions at the existing natural grade of the land. The following further defines each of these four types of open space: Greenbelt Natural Open Space: Greenbelt Natural Open space is designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas from the development of structures and to preserve open space in its natural state. Areas designated as Greenbelt Natural Open Space are dominated on the south by undeveloped portions of Vail Mountain adjacent to the Village. Stream tracts in the Village are also designated as Greenbelt Natural Open Space. Development in these areas is limited to recreation related amenities such as ski base facilities, pedestrian walkways, bikeways, and passive recreation areas. Parks: Parks occur on publicly owned or leased land and are developed to varying degrees. A. Ford Park is a major park facility located at the easterly edge of the Village. It provides recreational activity for the entire community with a variety of developed improvements, including structures, and less developed open areas. B. Active Recreation areas such as tennis courts and tot lots provide opportunities for specific recreational activity on sites with developed improvements. C. A number of pocket parks are either existing or planned throughout Vail Village. Pocket parks provide valuable open space for both active and passive recreation as well as contrast from the built environment. Planted Buffers: Planted buffers provide visual relief from roadways and surface parking areas and establish entry ways into the Village. Buffers indicated on this Plan are important landscape features and should generally be preserved. Plazas with Greenspace: Plazas with greenspace are "urban open space." They contribute significantly to the streetscape fabric of the Village. Formed in large part by the buildings and spaces around them, plazas with greenspace provide relief from the built environment, a place for people to gather or relax, areas for special entertainment or other activities and possible location for landscaping, water features, benches and public art. PARKING AND CIRCULATION PLAN The Parking and Circulation Plan recognizes the established pattern of parking and circulation throughout Vail Village. The parking and circulation system is an important element in maintaining the pedestrianized character of the Village. This is accomplished by limiting vehicular access at strategic points, while allowing for necessary operations such as bus service, loading/delivery and emergency vehicle access. The Town's bus system is crucial to controlling and limiting vehicular access to Vail Village. The bus system greatly reduces the reliance on private automobiles, resulting in a reduction of vehicular traffic in the Village's pedestrianized areas. 17 November 7, 2017 - Page 329 0 Vail Village Master Plan Aesthetic, as well as functional considerations are important to the Village's circulation system. A long standing goal for the Village has been to improve the pedestrian experience through the development of a continuous network of paths and walkways. As a result, the irregular street pattern in the Village has been enhanced with, numerous pedestrian connections linking "plazas with greenspace" and other forms of open space. Located in and along this network are most of the Village's retail and entertainment activities. While the majority of the circulation system within the Village is in place, a number of major improvements are proposed to reinforce and increase existing pedestrian connections, facilitate access to public land along stream tracts, and further reduce vehicular activity in the core area. BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN Generally speaking, it is the goal of this Plan to maintain -the concentration of low scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the Frontage Road), as depicted in the Building Height Profile Plan. This pattern has already been established and -in some cases these larger structures along, the Frontage Road serve to frame views over Vail Village to Vail Mountain. The Building Height Plan also strives, in some areas, to preserve major views from public right-of-ways. Building heights greatly influence the character of the built environment in the Village. This is particularly true in the Village Core where typical building heights of three to four stories establish a pleasing human scale. The building heights expressed on this Illustrative Plan are intended to provide general guidelines. Additional study should be made during specific project review relative to a building's height impact and the streetscape and relationship to surrounding structures. Specific design considerations on building heights are found in the Sub -Area section of this -Plan and in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. ACTION PLAN The Action Plan indicates potential development and improvement projects that would be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Action Plan is a composite of the Land Use, Open Space, Parking and Circulation and Building Height elements. Areas identified by the Plan as having potential for additional development have previously received Town approvals or have been recognized as being consistent with the various elements of the Master Plan. However, the Action Plan is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of improvements, which may occur, or an indication of Town approval for any specific development proposals. The review of any development proposal will be based upon compliance with all relative elements of the Village Master Plan. Numerical references found on the Action Plan map refer to more detailed descriptions of proposed improvements, located in the Sub -area section of this Plan. These descriptions provide a detailed account of the goals, objectives, and design considerations relative to each of the development and improvement projects. Graphic representation of improvement projects on the Action Plan are not intended to represent design solutions. Sub -area concepts, applicable goals, objectives, and policies of this Plan, zoning standards and design considerations outlined in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan are the criteria for evaluating any development proposal. Furthermore, private covenants exist in many areas of Vail Village and should be a consideration addressed between a developer and other applicable private property owners. 18 November 7, 2017 - Page 330 0 Vail Village Master Plan 19 November 7, 2017 - Page 331 0 Vail Village Master Plan 20 November 7, 2017 - Page 332 o Vail Village Master Plan 21 November 7, 2017 - Page 333 0 Vail Village Master Plan } gt.7 3 1.61Z 2 0.422 - it, i' ;hie #{-p r t1 . , i 1 7/41, i' ii• 1, ++rfil 11..s .r 1• 22 November 7, 2017 - Page 334 0 Vail Village Master Plan 410 CC FRONTA 2 0 LR, z 0 Lk� LLJ VIEW CORRIDORS 23 z 0 1- 0 Lu C L1J cc 0 C Ci) Cli 2 0 ca November 7, 2017 - Page 335 0 Vail Village Master Plan 24 November 7, 2017 - Page 336 o Vail Village Master Plan VII. VAIL VILLAGE SUB -AREAS A major goal of this Plan is to address the Village as a whole and at the same time be sensitive to the opportunities and constraints that may exist on a site specific basis. To facilitate long range planning unique to each area of the Village, ten different sub -areas are delineated in this Plan. Sub -areas were determined based on a number of different considerations. Foremost among these were: • design and site characteristics • geographic or physical boundaries • land uses and ownership patterns Each of the ten sub -areas have been evaluated relative to the overall goals, objectives, and policies outlined for Vail Village. The potential improvement projects, referred to as sub -area concepts, which have emerged from this evaluation are graphically represented on the Action Plan. These sub -area concepts are physical improvements intended to reinforce the desired physical form of the Village as outlined in the various elements of the Master Plan. The 10 sub -areas (which follow), provide detailed descriptions of each sub -area concept and express the relationship between the specific sub -area concepts and the overall Plan. The applicable goals and objectives are cited for each of the sub area concepts at the end of each description under "special emphasis." The sub -area concepts described in this Section are meant to serve as advisory guidelines for future land use decisions by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council. Compliance with the sub -area concepts does not assure development approval by the Town. It is important to note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for those proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Plan. The Urban Design Guide Plan includes additional design detail that is to be used in conjunction with the Vail Village Master Plan sub -area concepts. 25 November 7, 2017 - Page 337 0 Vail Village Master Plan EAST FRONTAGE ROAD SUB -AREA (#9) 0 `°~c1-- The East Frontage Road Sub -Area is comprised of condominium and time share residential development. This sub -area is unique in that its access is directly off of the Frontage Road, causing little vehicular impact on other areas of the Village. Large areas of surface parking within the sub- area provide the opportunity for additional residential infill development. Given proper attention to design oonoidermtionm, this sub -area could provide additional density within close proximity to the Village core. At the present time, the sub -area is separated from the Village core by Gore Creek. This sub -area has a pedestrian connection with the Village and Ford Park -vin the Village Stmyornxva|k. Asidewalk along the Frontage Road should be constructed to improve pedestrian safety and further connect the Village parking structure to Ford Park. The area between buildings and Gore Creek must be improved to enhance natural environment. #9-1 Parking Lot Infill Residential infill over existing surface parking. Height of building to be limited so as to not impede view corridors from the frontage road (and Interstate 70) to the Village and Vail Mountain. Mass of buildings to step back from the Frontage Road to prevent sun/shade impacts on the road. Satisfying parking demand on site will necessitate structured parking. A substantial landscape buffer shall be provided between any new development and the Frontage Road without jeopardizing future frontage road improvements. Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 3.4, 5.4, 6.1. 51 November 7, 2017 - Page 338 01 Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Policy 1.2.1: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Policy 1.2.2: Development and improvement projects shall be coordinated to minimize the unintended negative consequences associated with construction activity in a pedestrianized, commercial area. For instance, the noise abatement, project completion guarantees, temporary parking, traffic control, etc. Obiective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available for short term ovemight accommodations. Policy 2.3.1: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. Objective 2.6: Encourage the development of employee housing units in Vail Village through the efforts of the private sector. Policy 2.6.1: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. Policy 2.6.2: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. Policy 2.6.3: The Town of Vail may facilitate in the development of affordable housing by providing appropriate assistance. Policy 2.6.4: Employee housing shall be developed in the Village when required by the Town's adopted Zoning Regulations. Obiective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Policy 3.1.1: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. Policy 3.1.2: Public art and other similar landmark features shall be encouraged at appropriate locations throughout the Town. Policy 3.1.3: Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. Qbiective 3.4: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and November 7, 2017 - Page 339 accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. Policy 3.4.1: Physical improvements to property adjacent to stream tracts shall not further restrict public access. Policy 3.4.2: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. Policy 3.4.3: The "privatization" of the town -owned Gore Creek stream tract shall be strongly discouraged. Policy 3.4.4: Encroachment of private improvements on the town -owned Gore Creek stream tract shall be prohibited. Policy 3.4.5: The Town shall require the removal of existing improvements constructed without the Town's consent within the town -owned Gore Creek stream tract. Objective 5.4: Improve the streetscape circulation corridors throughout the Village. Policy 5.4.1: The Town shall work with the Colorado Division of Highways toward the implementation of a landscaped boulevard and parkway along the South Frontage Road. Policy 5.4.2: Medians and right -of -ways shall be landscaped. Obiective 6.1', Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. November 7, 2017 - Page 3401o1 Summation of Correspondence Received Related to Proposed Mountain View Special Development District Letters of support 1. Vail Mountain View Residences Phase 1, 10-03-2017 2. Tim Thompson, member of Eagle County Workforce Housing Coalition, Undated 3. Jeff Morgan with Ron Byrne and Associates and member of housing coalition (3 letters, 5-15-2017, 7-26-2017 and 10-17-2017 ) 4. Derek Schmidt, General Manager of The Wren at Vail, 5-15-2017 5. Chris Romer, President and CEO, Vail Valley Partnership, 5-15-2017 6. Rick Smith, CAO, VVMC, 4-11-2017 7. Dan Godec, Citizen of Edwards, 6-06-2017 8. Michael Connolly, General Manager, Triumph Development, (2 letters, 6-07-2017 and 10-18- 2017) 9. Stan Cope, Gemini Resort Management, 5-15-2017 10. David Charles, owner, Mountain View Phase 1, 7-28-2017 11. Adrian Fernandez, owner of Unit #305, Mountain View Phase 1, 7-26-2017 12. Tom Talbot, Vail resident, 7-28-2017 13. Alison Wadey, VCBA, 7-07-2017 14. David Cross, 8-09-2017 15. Michael Rootberg, owner Unit #301, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-11-2017 16. Kim Bell Williams, Housing Director, Eagle County, 10-18-2017 Letter of Opposition 1. Argos Vail, LLC, owner of Unit #6, Tyrolean Condominiums, 6-09-2017 and 10-20-2017 2. Jay Levine and Mary Ann Childers, owners of Unit #403, Mountain View Phase 1, 7-11-2017 3. Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP, representing the Tyrolean Condominium Association, 7-11-2017 4. Dan and Carol Wolfe, owners of Unit #303, Mountain View Phase 1, 7-19-2017 5. Don Cameron and Marie Harrison, owners of Unit #3, Tyrolean Condominiums, 7-24-2017 6. Wizenburg, Leff, Purvis and Payne, LLP, representing the Tyrolean Condominium Association, 05-17-2017 7. Herbert Tobin, owner and HOA president, Tyrolean Condominiums, 7-26-2017 8. Goodman and Wallace P.C., representing a collation on Mountain View Phase 1 owners, 7- 31-2017 9. Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP, representing the Tyrolean Condominium Association, 7-31-2017, notice regarding inability to attend. 10. Eileen Jolly, Mountain View Phase 1 visitor November 7, 2017 - Page 341 0 11. Eduardo Flores Alonso and Jose Alejandro Ortega Aguayo, owners Unit #304, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-14-2017 12. Paul Nigrelli, owner Unit #104, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-14-2017 13. Mark Caplan, owner Unit #306, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-14-2017 14. Cindy Biondi, owner Unit #404, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-14-2017 15. Todd Randall, Mountain View Phase 1 visitor, 8-13-2017 16. Mike and Alice Widmier, Mountain View Phase 1 visitor, 8-13-2017 17. Lisa Widmier, owner Unit #302, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-12-2017 18. Dan and Carol Wolfe, owners Unit #303, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-09-2017 19. Michael and Jill Dardick, owners Unit #205, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-10-2017 20. Scott Herndon, owner Unit #204, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-10-2017 Letter of No Opposition: 1. David Zessin, President Apollo Park at Vail HOA, 5-15-2017 2. David Zessin, President Apollo Park at Vail HOA, 10-16-2017 Letters from Town Attorney 1. Response to Jay Levine and Mary Ann Childers, owners of Unit #403, Mountain View Phase 1, 7-17-2017 3. Response to Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP, representing the Tyrolean Condominium Association, 7-21-2017 Letter from Staff 1. Response to Dan and Carol Wolfe, owners of Unit #303, Mountain View Phase 1, 7-21-2017 Letter from Holland & Hart representing the applicant concerning the rights of Phase 1 owners, 5-17- 2017, with attachments Letter from Ron Byrne to Phase 1 owners, 7-26-2017 and responses Letter from Dominic Mauriello, MPG concerning letter from Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP, representing the Tyrolean Condominium Association, 7-13-2017, with attachments November 7, 2017 - Page 342 0 Oct 03 17 05:02p October 3 , , 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 p.2 Re: Vail Mountain View Residences Proposed Special Development District Dear Commissioners:: I am writing to you as President of the Board of Directors for Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek Owners' Association, Inc., the governing body for and the representative of the owners within the first phase of the Vail Mountain View Residences (VMVR), the overwhelming majority of whom have previously expressed concerns about the proposed VMVR. Special Development District (SDD). While VMVR has just been provided the revised plans and has not as yet been able to review them in detail to ascertain agreement with all aspects, VMVR now conditionally supports the revised alternative project based upon the removal of the hotel component and execution of a binding agreement between VMVR and the developer on issues specific to the inter -relationship between Phase 1 and Phase 2. Over the last several weeks, VMVR expressed concerns about the SDD and the proposed building with specific demands for the hotel component to be removed due to compatibility and other related concerns. The VMVR Board of Directors has met on numerous occasions with the proposed developer of the project, Gore Creek, LLC., whose representative Peter Carlson and his team, have worked with VMVR to address many of VMVR's concerns about the project. The developer has been very responsive to VMVR's requests and demands and will be formally introducing his design plan revision at the October 9, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. November 7, 2017 - Page 343 0 Oct 03 1705:02p P.3 As we understand it, the design plan revisions will illustrate a project consisting of 15 free-market condominiums with 20 total lock -off units and 15 employee housing units. We believe this proposed design plan revision will be more compatible with the Phase 1 development and the neighborhood in general. The proposal still maintains significant public benefit with the addition of employee housing units, small condominium units, and lock -off units. The Town will still receive the benefit of short-term rentals given the plan to operate a voluntary rental management program within the facility. We believe the design plan revisions will result in a project that strikes an appropriate balance of public benefits in exchange for the deviations being sought from the underlying zoning including the building height, bulk, and mass proposed. We are also working with the developer on an agreement that will confirm a number of reciprocal easements and restrictive covenants between and among all owners within the SDD which will address construction management activities and reciprocal easements for the project, as well as future operational details, most of which have to do with parking, construction and maintenance access, reciprocal enforcement issues and the operation and management of the garage facility. It also will entail the withdrawal of Phase 11 from Phase 1 via an amendment to the Condominium Map. We expect this agreement to be finalized and executed prior to the PEC meeting October 23, 2017. We believe the project, as modified by the design plan revisions and in conjunction with the anticipated agreement between VMVR and developer, will then comply with the nine review criteria for establishing the SDD. Subject to the Town's approval of the design plan revisions outlined in this letter, and the formal agreement between VMVR and the developer, our Board of Directors has voted unanimously to support the revised project and encourage the Planning and Environmental Commission to approve this revised alternative project without further delay. Sincerely, November 7, 2017 - Page 344 0 Oct 03 1705:03p p.4 VAIL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCES ON GORE CREEK OWNERS' ASSOCIATIONC. By: Levine, President November 7, 2017 - Page 345 0 Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Vail Town Council c/o Jonathan Spence,AICP Senior Planner, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear PEC and Town Council members: New workforce housing in Vail Village? A resounding YES from members of the newly formed Eagle County Workforce Housing Coalition! We are very pleased to support the Mountain View Residence Phase II project and the developer's application for a Special Development District in Vail. It is clear that our workforce housing crisis requires a multi -pronged approach. We are very much in favor of the 10 livable workforce housing units proposed with this project, recognizing that the town of Vail will reach its ambitious goal of 1,000 deed restricted housing units by taking small bites out of a very large apple. Further, locating these units on the east end of Vail Village and on the in -town bus route will help reduce traffic and parking, making them highly desirable and more environmentally sustainable. We believe demand for these units,that also include dedicated parking, will be tremendous. Finally, a public-private partnership such as this that requires no financial investment from taxpayers is a win for everyone. Seeking creative solutions to the housing problem that plagues every municipality and business owner in Eagle County is the way we will collectively solve it. We must look for ways to increase the number of workforce housing units at every opportunity. We urge you to approve this well -considered plan in a timely fashion so that construction can begin this fall. Respectfully, j PE 3 S e DP.� CC)81620 November 7, 2017 - Page 346 0 May 15, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission Town Council c/o Jonathan Spence, AICP Senior Planner, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Spence, PEC and Town Council Members: As a member of the Workforce Housing Coalition, I am writing you today to ask for your approval on the Mountain View Residences Phase II SDD application. The Workforce Housing Coalition is a very large group of engaged business owners, employees, elected officials and other concerned Eagle County residents who are looking for ways to address our housing crisis. One of our recent topics of discussion was the value of public-private partnerships in addressing this crisis. I believe this project with its 10 workforce housing apartments paid for completely by the developer is a perfect example of a public-private partnership. We must be prepared to make some accommodations for developers to be successful if we want them to build more than the required square footage of EHUs. I support this project 100% and see it beautifying our view of Vail from the highway. Sincerely, 2/7/ Jeff Morgan Associate Broker Ron Byrne & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street Vail CO 81657 November 7, 2017 - Page 347 0 WINZENBURG LEFF PURV PANE:ti Attorneys at Law May 17, 2017 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 WENDY E. WEIGLER wweigler@wlpplaw com www cohoalaw.com Re: Tyrolean Condominium Association Special Development District for Vail Mountain View Residences Dear Members of the Commission: Winzenburg, Leff, Purvis & Payne, LLP represents the Tyrolean Condominium Association ("Tyrolean"). I had the opportunity to attend the April 24, 2017 Commission meeting, along with Tom Saalfeld of Ptarmigan Management, who briefly addressed the Commission. We appreciated the thoughtful consideration given by the Commission and we share many of the concerns raised by the Commission. The proposed development of Phase II of Vail Mountain View Residences ("Phase IP"), in our opinion, has the greatest impact on the Tyrolean building, as the neighboring property. The Tyrolean and its owners formally object to the application of Gore Creek Group, LLC for a Special Development District ("SDD"), submitted on March 27, 2017 (the "Application"). Tyrolean is the condominium association for the Tyrolean Condominiums, consisting of nine (9) residential units and four (4) parking space units, which was originally developed in 1981. When Phase I of Vail Mountain View Residences was developed in 2008, Tyrolean was not notified and had no opportunity to be heard or object to the parking structure constructed directly next to the Tyrolean. Although the permitted design requirement for the garage was a "subterranean" parking structure, the parking structure actually looms 25 feet above ground on the west side that borders the Tyrolean, as reflected in Pictures 1 and 2. Focused on Communities 8020 Shaffer Parkway, Suite 300 Littleton„ Colorado 80127 303.863.1870 Fax 303.863.1872 November 7, 2017 - Page 348 0 ... ■•■ Winzenburg Leff Purvis & Payne, LLP ■■ May 17, 2017 Page 2 of 7 Picture 1 — 1" Floor Deck November 7, 2017 - Page 349 0 ... ■•■ Winzenburg Leff Purvis & Payne, LLP ■■ May 17, 2017 Page 3 of 7 Picture 2 — 2nd Floor Deck It is our understanding that the parking structure was constructed in such a manner that would support an additional building above it, again, without notice to Tyrolean or any opportunity to be heard. The approval of the parking structure alone, let alone Phase II, substantially impaired the Tyrolean owners' use and enjoyment of their property, constituting a de facto taking of property. The Application includes a letter from Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek Owners' Association ("Phase I"), stating that, pursuant to its governing documents, the consent of the Association is not required for the proposed expansion and development. However, the Town of Vail Code (the "Code"), at November 7, 2017 - Page 350 0 . IN. ■•■ Winzenburg Leff Purvis & Payne, LLP ■ ■ May 17, 2017 Page 4 of 7 Chapter 9, Article A, Section 12-9A-3, requires that the Application include "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the special development district, or their agents or authorized representatives." Despite what the governing documents of Phase I say, written consent of the owners within Phase I is a requirement under the Code. The Application fails to meet this requirement. Because the proposed development is located within the High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District, the Application is required to comply with the underlying HDMF zoning, as set forth in Chapter 6, Article H of the Code, in addition to the design criteria for an SDD, as set forth in Chapter 9, Article A. The SDD criteria requires conformity with the Vail Village Master Plan. These three standards — HDMF, SDD and Master Plan — are addressed in turn. A. UNDERLYING HDMF ZONING 1. Building Height. The most significant deviation requested in the Application, and that most affects Tyrolean, is the increase in building height from the Code requirement of 48 feet for a sloping roof, to 71.9 feet. A building almost 24 feet above the maximum height would wall in several units in Tyrolean, block views and create significant shade onto Tyrolean. Picture 3 — 3rd Floor Deck November 7, 2017 - Page 351 0 ... ■•■ Winzenburg Leff Purvis & Payne, LLP ■■ May 17, 2017 Page 5 of 7 2. Density. The next significant deviation in the Application is the increase from the Code maximum of 32 dwelling units to 45.5 dwelling units for the combined Phase I and Phase II, which does not include the proposed 9 Employee Housing Units (EHU). Although the EHU are not counted in the Code's density calculations, the reality is that they certainly will impact the quality of life for Tyrolean owners. The proposal to have all of the EHU and hotel units on the first and second floors, which are the floors closest to Tyrolean, will have a dramatic impact on Tyrolean, in terms of noise level and foot traffic. Similarly, the deviation in gross residential floor area (GRFA) from the Code's maximum of 42,871 square feet to 79,548 square feet — almost twice the Code maximum — will have an irrevocable impact on Tyrolean for the same reasons. B. SDD DESIGN CRITERIA 1. Compatibility. The Application does not reflect design compatibility and sensitivity to the Tyrolean, as the adjacent property. The Application fails to comply with this standard, and simply seeks approval based on the argument that there have been similar deviations approved in the Town of Vail. 2. Relationship. The Application fails to establish that the proposed uses, activity and density are compatible with the surrounding uses and activity, namely the Tyrolean. Tyrolean's 9 wholly owned units would not have a workable relationship with Phase II's 12 for -sale units, with 6 lock -offs, 9 EHU and 21 hotel rooms. The proposed density is not at all similar to the Tyrolean, as represented in the Application. C. CONFORMITY WITH MASTER PLAN 1. Goal #2. The Application cites Objective 2.3 of Goal #2 and states that Phase II will increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. However, the Application shows that participation in a short term rental program is voluntary for the 12 dwelling units. There is no way to predict whether the owners of those units would participate in the rental program. Additionally, the Application fails to explain whether the hotel units will be deed -restricted, to guarantee availability for short term rental. The Application, therefore, is not necessarily consistent with Objective 2.3. 2. Goal #5. The Application cites Objective 5.1 of Goal #5, which is to meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. The existing parking structure has 112 parking spaces, the excess of which have been available for lease to the public. The parking requirements for Phase II will use up all of the excess parking spaces, resulting in no available parking for the public. Therefore, Phase II is not consistent with Objective 5.1 and November 7, 2017 - Page 352 0 ... ■•■ Winzenburg Leff Purvis & Payne, LLP ■■ May 17, 2017 Page 6 of 7 may actually create more demand for parking, if the parking spaces being leased are no longer available. 3. Building Height Plan. The Application is inconsistent with the Building Height Plan, which anticipated a limit of 4 stories for this property. Phase II will be 5 stories, with the ground floor already elevated at least 10 feet. If mechanical components are located on the roof, it will be even higher. The result will be an inordinately tall building that is not consistent with the Building Height Plan. Picture 4 — Ground Level November 7, 2017 - Page 353 0 ... ■•■ Winzenburg Leff Purvis & Payne, LLP ■■ May 17, 2017 Page 7 of 7 In summary, the Application seeks such significant deviations that it all but ignores the standards set forth for HDMF, SDD and in the Master Plan. As pointed out by the Commission, the existing zoning is in place for a reason. The applicant's suggestions that the zoning is inappropriate and should be changed, and that other developments had deviations so this one should as well, do not further the Master Plan or the development objectives of the Town. The negatives of Phase II clearly outweigh the potential public benefits. As such, Tyrolean respectfully requests that the Commission decline to approve the Application. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, WINZENBURG, LEFF, PURVIS & PAYNE, LLP WENDY E. WEIGLER cc: Jonathan Spence, Senior Planner Tyrolean Condominium Association c/o Ptarmigan Management November 7, 2017 - Page 354 0 May 15, 2017 The Vail Town Council Vail Planning & Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mayor Chapin, Council Members and PEC members: I'm writing to voice my support for the proposed Mountain View Residences Phase II development. I believe the project brings a good balance of hot beds and employee housing units along with the additional new condominiums. Also, Vail and all of Eagle County continue to desperately need livable workforce housing , especially located close to our largest employment centers. Having the proposed 2 -bedroom apartments for rent in Vail Village and on the in -town bus route will be a positive addition to our town and will help to fill a crucial need. It is my opinion that this project brings numerous public benefits to the east end of Vail Village and I urge you to approve it. Thank you for your time, and for your dedication to the town of Vail. Sincerely, Stan Cope Gemini Resort Management Lodge Tower Vail Mountain Lodge Residences at Solaris November 7, 2017 - Page 355 0 APOLLO PARK AT VAIL HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION 8547 E. Arapahoe Road, #J542 Greenwood Village, CO 80112-1436 303-690-6038 - 303-690-6511 FAX May 15, 2017 Jonathan Spence, AICP Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Via e mail: jspence@vailgov.corn Dear Mr. Spence: As President of the Apollo Park at Vail Homeowners' Association, I write to notify you that our Board of Directors has reviewed the plans for Mountain View Residences Phase II. We will not oppose the plans as presented. Sincerely, --13ew;d j?e-S-C-okInAl David J. Zessin, President Apollo Park at Vail DJZ:an November 7, 2017 - Page 356 0 East West Destination Hospitality May 15, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission Town Council c/o Jonathan Spence, AICP Senior Planner, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear PEC and Town Council Members: I am in favor of Phase II of the Mountain View Residences currently before the town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. As the general manager of a neighboring property, I believe this project will go a long way toward enhancing the Golden Peak area. In addition to the workforce housing units, I am excited to see new and modern hotel and condominium inventory proposed for this location. It will bring much needed activity and vibrancy to our end of the village. Please approve this project. Thank you, Derek Schmidt General Manager, The Wren ,‹ 500 South Frontage Road 1 Vail, Colorado 81657 Phone: 970.476.0052 1 Fax: 970.476.4103 November 7, 2017 - Page 357 0 April 11, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission Town Council c/o Jonathan Spence, AICP Senior Planner, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear PEC and Town Council Members: Vail Valley Medical Center www.vvmc.com 181 West Meadow Drive, Vail, CO 81657 PO Box 40,000, Vail, CO 81658 On behalf of Vail Valley Medical Center, I am writing to you to voice our support for the proposed Mountain View Residences Phase 2 project. As you are Iikely aware, it is a challenge for VVMC and most all employers to find available housing in the Vail Valley, especially in Vail. We were encouraged to see the plans for the second phase of the Mountain View Residences include nine functional and livable EHUs, on the periphery of Vail Village and on the in -town bus route. A project like this and other projects of its kind are important for employers' staff, particularly mid to upper level managers and professionals so they have the opportunity to both work and live in Vail. More projects like this are seriously needed in Vail and will help assist employers in hiring and retaining quality staff who will continue to provide critical services to residents and guests of Vail. We view this project as yet another step forward in Vail's plan to acquire 1,000 deed -restricted workforce -housing units, without spending a dime of taxpayer dollars. We hope you'll consider this critical public benefit as the Mountain View project moves through the town's approval process. We urge you to approve this project in as timely a manner as your schedules and processes allows. Respectfully, k Smith Chief Administrative Officer Vail Valley Medical Center November 7, 2017 - Page 358 of .stx tia++ E .)% nr ECcie tete Ext€,rrrs 20 16 Chamber Wan 1011E11 41111kuin., of the Year May 15, 2017 Vail Planning & Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear PEC members: Vail Valley Partnership (VVP) is the regional chamber of commerce representing Eagle County, Colorado. Our organization has over 840 member organizations, representing over 80% of the local workforce within the valley. As you are aware, the Mountain View project proposes both a mid-range hotel product and much needed workforce housing, both of which are aligned our list of community priorities. As such, the Vail Valley Partnership encourages your committee to move forward with the proposed Mountain View project and we look forward to continuing discussions to give our full and enthusiastic endorsement. We feel this project addresses several critical issues facing Vail and Eagle County: 1. The dire need for deed -restricted workforce housing with 10 deed restricted apartments 2. Mid -priced, or entry-level, lodging options with 19 units Through our lens of economic vitality and business success, this project is exactly what is needed in Eagle County. The project's location within the town of Vail and in close proximity to the Vail Village commercial core is another plus. We believe it is important to provide housing within developed areas and within easy access to transit and close to jobs. This is a good example of appropriate in -fill and is similar to other projects along the Frontage Road. Additionally, we believe now is the time to take bold steps to address the needs of the Vail community, both business and residential, relative to both workforce housing and addressing entry-level lodging options. This project checks every box and does so with a thoughtful and impressive design, careful consideration of the surrounding neighborhood, and located in the highly desirable town of Vail. This type of project is a win for Vail as far as the Vail Valley Partnership is concerned.. We strongly and respectfully urge the members of town council to consider the many public benefits of this project as it moves through the approval process. Best regards, Chris Romer President & CEO Vail Valley Partnership PO Box 1130, Vail, CO 81658 VailValleyPartnership.com / VisitVailValley.com / VailValleyMeansBusiness.com / VailonSale.com November 7, 2017 - Page 359 c Dan E. Gelder P.O. Box 292 Edwards, CO 81632 June 6, 2017 Mr. Jonathan Spence Vail Planning Board Vail, CO Mr. Spence: I am writing in support of Mountain View Residences in Vail. The project addresses housing needs as defined by the Town of Vail. There are 10 employee housing units representing over 30% of the project. It is unusual that a project contains this amount of affordable housing. The need for housing is well documented with the project target audience being mid-level professional residents, the group who will be tomorrow's leaders in the community. The Town supports hot beds; this project includes 19 hotel rooms which helps events at the Amphitheater. I am past Chairman of BravoVail Board of Trustees. Having rooms available close to our venue helps our visitors. We have abundant hotel rooms in the Village and West Vail but fewer units on the east side of Town. EDU's and hotel rooms make up 50% of the project. Mountain View Residences clearly meet the essential project criteria desired by the Town. The parking garage was built in 2008; it provides all parking onsite and underground. The site was designed for a later project. The garage was appropriately suited for a building over the top; this project is effective use of space. This is an infill project located on the South Frontage Road. There are several examples of height management and density to the west. Where better to place the units? Impact is minimal on surrounding buildings and overall benefit outweighs negative effect. This project appears to fill several needs for the Town of Vail. It brings EDU's and hotel rooms to an underserved location. It creates a barrier between the highway and town and the development team seem to understand what it takes to build a project in Vail unlike other proposed additions. Thank you for your consideration Dan E. Godec 970-390-6630 November 7, 2017 - Page 360 TRIUMPH 7 June 2017 Jonathan Spence Planning Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Jonathan: Triumph Mountain Properties I am submitting this letter today in advocacy for the approval of the Vail Mountain View Residences Phase 2 development project. For the better part of the last 18 years I have been engaged in the business of managing residential resort property in the geographic area from East Vail to Cordillera, though always with a high concentration of properties within the Town of Vail. A good number of those properties (currently including 4 units in Phase 1 of the Vail Mountain View Residences) are part of our vacation rental program. Additionally, until 2006, Peak Properties, the forerunner of Triumph Mountain Properties, built and re- modeled numerous residential properties in the Town of Vail, a few of which incorporated the requirement of EHUs. Given my background and experience in Vail! am in favor of the proposed project for two main reasons. First, there can be no doubt that our valley is in need of more housing of a standard that works for professional individuals, including those with families. The Town has already demonstrated a willingness to help address this need through a variety of recent housing initiatives. This project is dedicating 30% of the square footage it intends to build to employee housing - in my time here I am unaware of another project that has dedicated such a large portion of space for this purpose. By approving this project the Town can help set a standard for future similar development projects and take credit for another successful addition to the stock of housing that expands the year round population of the Town. Second, the mix of rentable accommodations (i.e. hot beds) available within the proposed building can also be construed as a public good. The planned hotel rooms will certainly be of a high standard from a finish quality level but can occupy a more moderate price point in the marketplace thus making them an attractive lodging option on a year round basis. November 7, 2017 - Page 361 0 For sale condo units with rooms that can be locked off contribute to both the hotel bed base and the bed base of vacation rental condos. My experience working with owners of luxury resort property is that the flexibility of being able to generate rent revenues from a lock off unit will be highly attractive. Many owners of these types of properties are hesitant to commit their entire property to being available for rent, though they would like to have the revenues to offset the costs of ownership (maintenance, property taxes, etc.). They often perceive the wear and tear risk to outweigh the rent rewards. The opportunity to generate rent revenues without having to commit the entirety of their unit to a rental program should be enticing to those more risk averse owners, thereby increasing the number of available short term beds. Having represented some of the Phase 1 Mountain View units for short term rental since they came out of construction at the very end of 2008 I can personally attest to their popularity. The location allows guests to quickly access Vail Mountain in the winter either via Gondola 1 or Chair 6. Similarly, within a 5-6 minute walk one can be at the center of Vail Village to access shopping and dining. Understanding that available inventory in these units is governed by the usage patterns of owners, over the past 8 + years the units we have managed for vacation rentals have generated approximately $2.5 million in taxable rents, contributing nearly $100K in sales tax revenues to the Town and another $35K in revenues to the Vail Marketing District. Given the planned mix of hotel rooms, lock offs, and potentially rentable condos that are included in the current plan it is not unreasonable in my view that the new building could generate at least $2 million per year in taxable rents which would be a nice addition to the Town's sales tax collections. I welcome the opportunity to discuss my perspective on this project with the Commission. Regards, General Manager November 7, 2017 - Page 362 0 June 9, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Attn: Johnathan Spence, A ICP Re: Vail Mountain View Residences Phase!! Dear Members (Attie Planning and Environmental Contnttssion: We are writing to inform you and the Town of Vail that as owner of the upper residential unit in the Tyrolctnt Condominiums, Unit 6, we oppose the plans submitted for the development of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase 11 and encourage you to recommend denial of the proposed Special Development District, Our Unit 116 is by fl{ the most affected unit in the Tyrolean building by Phase, II of the Vail Mountain View Residences. We nie concerned about increased density, building height, setbacks, site, coverage, and product this. We etre concerned about the impact on sun, light turd views for our unit. We are also very concerned about the impact on the value of our unit If ike District is approved. We do not believe the approval of this project by the Town of Vail would comply with the overall goals of the Vail Master plan to provide more employee housing, additional Lock-offt, and arid -priced hotel rooms to provide additional revenues to the Town of Vail. Please accept this letter as our disapproval of the Vail Mountain View Residences Phase 11. Sitteercly . 4l` Argos Vail, & t► November 7, 2017 - Page 363 Jay Levine and Mary Ann Childers 434 South Frontage Road East, Unit 403 Vail, CO 81657 July 11, 2017 Town Council Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Subject: Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017, Special Development District No. 42 Dear Council Members: My wife and I are owners of Vail Mountain View Residences #403. It has just come to our attention that Lunar Vail LLC has filed an application for establishment of a special development district that includes our property, and, much to our surprise, that a first reading of the ordinance was scheduled for today, July 11, 2017, before being postponed until next week. Given that we were not informed of the application and timetable for this significant project just a few steps from our residence, we write to voice our strong objection to the Town Council's approval of the proposed SDD at this time. Our first concern is with the application itself. It wasn't until March 10th of this year that we first learned in an email from Ron Byrne, that the project, on hold for many years, would be going forward. An email asking for more details, was met with "We are still working on the entitlement process for phase II." In his email, Mr. Byrne promised: "We will continue to keep you informed as Phase II progresses." After that, not a word from Mr. Byrne. Therefore, we were shocked and dismayed to recently read in the July 3rd Vail Daily about its current status and apparent fast track toward approval. Prompted by this surprising news, we did some research and November 7, 2017 - Page 364 0 discovered an application for approval of a special development district requires the written consent of owners of all property to be included in the special development district. According to Section 12-9A-3 of the Town Code: "An application for approval of a special development district...shall include: a legal description of the property, a list of names and mailing addresses of all adjacent property owners and written consent of owners of all property to be included in the special development district, or their agents or authorized representatives." We have not consented to the application for approval of Special Development District No. 42. And have not given our Homeowners Association or any individual the authority to indicate otherwise. Indeed, the developer did not even inform us that the application had been made, much less seek our consent. We can only conclude that the secretive nature with which the developers have proceeded suggests that they are attempting an end -run around the rights of property owners while simultaneously flouting the Town Code. Our second concern is with the potential impact of granting the application for a Special Developement District which includes our home. We have serious concerns about this unprecedented development of "low frills hotel rooms and employee housing" shoe -horned into a complex where owners have made significant investments in Vail and its future. We recognize Vail's need for hotel tax revenue and EHUs. The question is where they are placed, and how they will affect existing homeowners. Our choice of where to invest; where we'd want to be as we move toward spending more and more time in the Vail Valley was predicated on what kind of neighborhood and neighbors we wanted to have. We find as disingenuous the claims made by developers that they could and would insulate them new residents from the old with separate garages, the lack of balconies and/or sliding doors. To us, this appears to be their recognition of the problems they'd create; itself an argument against approval of the SDD. We are also concerned about the "slippery slope" such an SDD would have November 7, 2017 - Page 365 0 on neighboring properties, like Apollo Park. Is our entire neighborhood destined to become a hotel and EHU heaven? In conclusion, we are appalled by the apparent attempt to rush through the approval of a Special Developement District without our consent. We suspect that other owners would share these concerns if they too were aware of the facts. Therefore, please regard this letter as our objection to the Town Council's approval of Special Development District No. 42. Given the short notice, we are unfortunately unable to attend the Town Council meeting. However, we are reachable by email at airlevine 1 @gmail.com or cellphone (312-501-4000). Respectfully, Jay Levine Mary Ann Childers cc: George Ruther, Community Development Jonathan Spence, Community Development Matt Mire, Town Attorney November 7, 2017 - Page 366 0 HP, Hoffmann Parker Wr Wilson & Carberry 1 P.C. Corey Y. Hoffmann Kendra L. Carberry Jefferson H. Parker M. Patrick Wilson Denver Office 511 16t1i Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202-4260 (303) 825-6444 Of Counsel Vail Office J. Matthew Mire P.O. Box 2616 Hilary M. Graham Vail, CO 81658 (970) 390-4941 July 18, 2017 Jay Levine and Mary Ann Childers 434 South Frontage Road East, Unit 403 Vail, CO 81657 via email to: jjlevine@cbs.com Re: Letter dated July 11, 2017 to Vail Town Council Dear Mr. Levine and Ms. Childers: Kathryn M. Sellars M. Keith Martin Andrew J. Gomez Daniel P. Harvey I write on behalf of the Town of Vail in response to the above -referenced letter. In that letter, you state your personal objection to Ordinance No. 9, Series 2017, which concerns an application for Special Development District No. 42, Mountain View Residences. The Town appreciates your interest in this ordinance, but your consent to the application was already given, pursuant to the attached Written Approval Letter executed by your homeowners' association. In addition, the applicant's counsel provided an explanation of the written approval, a copy of which is also attached for your convenience. The consent given by your homeowners' association cannot be revoked by one property owner, so the Town must proceed to consider the application under the consent already provided. If you wish to dispute the authorization provided by your homeowners' association on your behalf, please take this matter up directly with your homeowners' association. The Town is not in a position to arbitrate these issues. If you have any questions, please let me know. c: Jonathan Spence, Town Planner, via email Very truly yours, 016(A4-6-4/tAi Kendra L. Carberry klc@hpwclaw.com 7/18/2017 Q: I USERSI VAILIMVRI CORRILEVINE-L071817.DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 367 0 TOWN OF VAIL JOINT PROPERTY OWNER WRITTEN APPROVAL LETTER The applicant must submit written joint property owner approval for applications affecting shared ownership properties such as duplex, condominium, and multi -tenant buildings. This form, or similar written correspondence, must be com- pleted by the adjoining duplex unit owner or the authorized agent of the home owner's association in the case of a con- dominium or multi -tenant building. All completed forms must be submitted with the applicants completed application. I, (print name) Mary Anne Redmond , a joint owner, or authority of the association, of property located at 434 S. Frontage Road Mountainview Residences on Gore Creek , provide this letter as written approval of the plans dated March 27, 2017 which have been submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the proposed improvements to be completed at the address not- ed above. I understand that the proposed improvements include: Application of an SDD overlay zone district which allows the construction of new dwelling units, accommodation units, and employee housing units generally above the current parking structure and related applications and improvements. I understand that modifications may be made to the plans over the course of the review process to ensure compliance with the Town's applicable codes and regulations; and that it is the sole responsibility of the applicant to keep the joint property owner apprised of any changes and ensure that the changes are acceptable and appropriate. Submittal of an application results in the applicant agreeing to this statement. Signature m 4 i1 i hfl-e. J1 hi 42- Print Name 3/c7/1; Date Pfe S ; dei V fi-r Title/Position I/We authorize any and all changes submitted to the Town in reference to the above mentioned project. (Initials) I/We waive all rights to notification and review of submitted changes. I/We do not authorize any changes submitted to the Town in reference to the above mentioned project (Initials) I/We wish to receive notifications and reviews of submitted changes November 7, 2017 - Page 368 0 FOSTER GRAHAM MILSTEIN & CALISHER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW July 11, 2017 Matthew Mire, Esq. Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 mmire@vailgov.com jmm@hpclaw.com Via E -Mail and U.S. Mail 360 South Garfield Street 6th Floor Denver, CO 80209 T 303-333-9810 F 303-333-9786 DENVER — BOULDER fostergraham.com Re: Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017; Proposed Ordinance Establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences). Dear Mr. Mire: This firm represents the Tyrolean Condominium Association ("Tyrolean") in the above - referenced matter (the "Proposal"). Vail Town Council ("Town Council") has set this matter for a continued "first reading" on July 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. Town Council's agenda has listed the matter as a "public hearing." Due to the lack of sufficient notice, we will not be able to attend the meeting. As I have conveyed to the town's counsel, due to the lack of proper notice to our client, and the procedural errors that have occurred in presenting the Proposal, I strongly urge Town Council to re -start the review process for the Proposal by providing the proper notice required to protect our client's due process rights and as required by the Vail Town Charter and Code. It is my understanding that the relevant sequence of events leading up to the continued first reading are as follows: • Planning and Environmental Commission ("PEC") began hearing the proposal in March 2017, culminating in a formal hearing. Tyrolean's HOA's Counsel, Ms. Weigler attended two meetings at PEC and submitted a letter of opposition to the PEC, dated May 17, 2017. The matter was continued to June 12, 2017, "...in order to respond to questions raised by staff and for the applicant to provide detailed responses to anticipated questions from Commissioners and the general public." Community Development Department Memorandum to the PEC, May 22, 2017, p. 14. • No prior notice was provided to Tyrolean or Ms. Weigler regarding the June 12th meeting. At that meeting, the PEC recommended approval of the Proposal to the Town Council. {00440013.DOCX / 1 } November 7, 2017 - Page 369 0 Matthew Mire, Esq. July 11, 2017 Page 2 • On June 20, 2017, eight days after the PEC's recommendation, Town Council took the matter up for a "first reading" of the Proposal. No notice of this consideration of the Proposal by Town Council was provided to Ms. Weigler or Tyrolean. The applicant and the town's counsel requested that the first reading be continued to July 11, 2017. However, at the same time, the June 20th session "is the public hearing" for the Proposal and the floor was opened up to the public for comment; one individual spoke about the Proposal. • At some point in time prior to the June 20th session, council members participated in an on-site visit along with the applicant. Although Ms. Weigler had appeared in this matter on behalf of Tyrolean, Ms. Weigler was not provided notice of the on-site visit; nor was the public invited. • Tyrolean and its counsel only recently learned of the Town Council's hearing on June 20, 2017, and the continued first reading set for July 11, 2017. My client has serious concerns about how the Proposal has been handled. First and foremost, the PEC and Town Council have ignored my client's fundamental due process rights. As property owners who reside adjacent to the Proposal, our client's members have the requisite standing to oppose the Proposal. See, Condiotti v. Board of County Com'rs of County of La Plata, 983 P.2d 184, 187 (Colo. App. 1999). With respect to zoning changes, "` ....notice should unambiguously set forth the information which would give adequate warning to all persons whose rights could be adversely affected by any action of the zoning entity, so they may appear and have an opportunity to be heard."' Jafay v. Board of County Comm'rs of Boulder County, 848 P.2d 892, 889 (Colo. 1993) (quoting Sundance Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. Board of County Comm'rs, 534 P.2d 1212, 1214 (1975)). In spite of the fact that Tyrolean, through its counsel, had objected to the Proposal, no notice was given to prior to the June 12th meeting or the June 20th meeting. This is especially concerning in light of the fact that the June 20th hearing was apparently intended to be the "public hearing" for the Proposal, and in fact, was opened to the public to comment. Compounding the lack of notice with respect to the June 12th and June 20th hearings, an on- site visit with Town Council members and the applicant occurred prior to the June 20th hearing. Again, no notice was provided to Tyrolean or its counsel so that it could participate in the on-site visit. This ex parte meeting with council members was not only professionally discourteous, it undermines the fundamental fairness of the process, and raises questions as to whether undue influence was brought to bear upon Town Council. Finally, the sequence of events in presenting the Proposal does not conform with the Vail Town Code (the "Code") or the Vail Town Charter (the "Charter"). Pursuant to Section 12-3-6 of the Code: "[u]pon the filing of an application, petition or appeal, the disposition of which requires a hearing before either the planning and environmental commission or the town council or both....a date for the hearing shall be set which shall not be more than thirty (30) days from the date of filing of the application or receipt of the document." The PEC recommended approval {00440013.DOCX / 1 } November 7, 2017 - Page 370 0 Matthew Mire, Esq. July 11, 2017 Page 3 of the Proposal on June 12, 2017, thereby triggering a hearing requirement by Town Council. The procedures set forth in the Charter relating to the enactment of ordinances state, in pertinent part: If the ordinance is approved on first reading, it shall be published once in full unless otherwise provided herein. The council shall set a day, hour, and place at which council shall hold a public hearing on the ordinance and notice of said day, hour, and place shall be included in the first publication. Charter, ¶4.10 (d)(emphasis added). Therefore, the Charter also clearly contemplates a public hearing, and that the public hearing shall occur after the first reading. It appears that Town Council and the PEC have tried to meet the thirty -day hearing requirement set forth in Section 12-3-6 of the Code by categorizing the June 20th meeting as the "public hearing." At the same time, however, the first reading did not actually occur, as it was continued to July 11th. All of this has been done without sufficient notice to all interested parties. My client desires to work with Town Council, the PEC, and the applicant to allow all interested parties an opportunity to be heard regarding the Proposal, and to participate in the process (including any site visits with the applicant). Based upon the procedural and due process concerns I have expressed in this letter, I respectfully request that the Town Council re -start the review process by providing the proper and sufficient notice to all interested parties as required to protect our client's due process rights and to comply with the Vail Town Charter and Code. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, FOSTER GRAHAM MILSTEIN & CALISHER, LLP David Wm. Foster cc: Ms. Wendy Weigler Mr. Herb Tobin Mr. Tom Saalfeld Mayor and Town Council {00440013.DOCX / 1 } November 7, 2017 - Page 371 0 HP, Hoffmann Parker Wr Wilson & Carberry 1 P.C. Corey Y. Hoffmann Kendra L. Carberry Jefferson H. Parker M. Patrick Wilson Denver Office 511 16`t' Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202-4260 (303) 825-6444 Of Counsel Vail Office J. Matthew Mire P.O. Box 2616 Hilary M. Graham Vail, CO 81658 (970) 390-4941 July 21, 2017 David Foster, Esq. Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP 360 South Garfield Street, 6th Floor Denver, CO 80209 via email to: david@fostergraham.com Re: Vail Mountain View Residences Dear David: Kathryn M. Sellars M. Keith Martin Andrew J. Gomez Daniel P. Harvey I write on behalf of the Town of Vail (the "Town") in response to your letter dated July 11, 2017 concerning Ordinance No. 9, Series 2017. First and foremost, I disagree with your assertion that the Town has ignored your client's fundamental due process rights. While I am not convinced that your client, a homeowners' association, even has such rights, your client received notice of the April 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission hearing, in full compliance with the Vail Town Code. In addition, Ordinance No. 9 was properly listed as an agenda item for the Town Council meetings on both June 12, 2017 and June 20, 2017, and the agenda was properly posted according to the Colorado Open Meetings Law, C.R.S. § 24-6-401, et seq. Moreover, no action was taken on Ordinance No. 9 at either meeting — instead, the matter was continued to July 11, 2017. And you and I first spoke about this matter on Friday, July 7, 2017, so you had actual notice of the July 11th hearing, but you and your client chose not to appear at that hearing. Second, your argument that the Town Council may only have one public hearing under the Vail Town Code and Charter is without merit. It also completely undermines your argument that your client's due process rights are being ignored. Having two public hearings provides more due process, not less, because the public has additional opportunities to be heard. Finally, as you may have heard, the public hearing and consideration of Ordinance No. 9 was continued again, this time to August 1, 2017. Though not legally required, the Town provided your client with a courtesy notice of the August 1st hearing, a copy of which is attached hereto. The Town looks forward to hearing from your client at the August 1st hearing. 7/21/2017 Q: I USERSI VAIL IMVRI CORRIFOSTER-L072117.DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 372 0 July 21, 2017 Page 2 Should you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know. c: Jonathan Spence, Senior Planner Very truly yours, 010(Azz*A-iiwzi Kendra L. Carberry klc@hpwclaw.com 7/21/17 Q: I USERSI VAIL IMVRI CORRIFOSTER-L072117.DOCX November 7, 2017 - Page 373 0 From: Dan Wolfe [mailto:wolfdogOsaunders-therapy.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:59 PM To: Info Subject: Vail Mountain View Residences Proposed Phase II/Special Development District To Whom it may concern - We are the owners of the Phase I Vail Mountain View Residences, condo - #303. We are the second owners of the condo, although we are the first ones to actually have inhabited it. We knew from the onset that a Phase II was possibility in the future; however, we have just for the first time seen the plans that will be now be discussed at the August 1st, Town Council meeting. We have some comments/questions: 1. In the information we received regarding Phase II development at Vail Mountain View Residences, there are references to comments made early on in the planning process from residents of the Tyrolean, who are our next door neighbors to the west. As owners in Phase I of Vail Mountain Residences, we were never included in the comment process in the early planning phase. While I'm sure the next door neighbors are interested in what may be developed next door, I would argue that those of us who purchased in Phase I of the project would have more interest and input from the start than anyone else. This is the first time we have been informed of the plans for Phase II and we are upset at the timing and lack of involvement of those of us in Phase I. 2. We were given no indication that Phase II would actually be larger than Phase I. The foot print of the existing garage, on which Phase II is to be built, is smaller than what is now being proposed. The claim is that EHU's do not count. Is that actually the case at this point in time? We are shocked to find out, at this late stage in the planning process, that the size of the proposed Phase II is so large. We were not made aware of this at the time we purchased in Phase I 3. The graphic representation of the view looking north (page 7 of the application) is misleading. It shows the pool oriented perpendicular to the actual orientation. Also, they show a fairly large green space in front (south side of Phase II, as if looking from Phase I). This is a false representation. There is a sidewalk and small planting area between Phase I and the wall of the garage, which would be the start of Phase II. 4. Our understanding when we purchased our unit in Phase I, was that Phase II would not be taller than Phase I. Because Phase II starts at an elevation above Phase I, and has 4 above ground levels, Phase II is taller than the peak height of Phase I. The proposal states that the maximum height exceeds the height limitation. They offer that the Tyrolean does not reach the height maximum, but if it did, the height difference would not appear as great. This argument is ridiculous. The report also states that the setback requirements are not within specifications. Why would you approve a building that does not meet height and setback requirements. They offer other exceptions as a reason that this should be accepted now. This November 7, 2017 - Page 374 0 includes the statement that, " EHU's do not count towards GRFA. Exceeding GRFA is not uncommon with most SDDs approved by the Town, especially where the underlying zoning has not been updated to reflect current town goals for in -fill development." We disagree. Multiple exceptions to a rule or policy do not make it a viable policy, and because a policy has not been updated is not an excuse for ignoring it. It appears that the planning commission has made too many exceptions to existing policies and therefore is not fulfilling their obligation to uphold those policies. While the proposed project appears to meet some of the stated goals related to Vail development, it does so by ignoring several regulations set forth to responsibly manage that development. 5. It is our understanding that the resident units, employee units and hotel units will not have access to the Phase I pool/hot tub. Is that the understanding of the Planning Commission? The owners of Phase I should have been involved earlier. I am wondering what rights we have in this process and how we can be more involved going forward? What is the timeline for approval of the proposed plan? Please let us know how this will proceed and if there is an opportunity to be involved from a remote sight, in the Town Council meeting on Aug 1st? I'd also be interested in the Council's feelings about governance and their responsibility to uphold current policies/regulations vs. making multiple exceptions to those current policy/regulations the norm. Thank you Dan & Carol Wolfe Vail Mountain View Residences - #303 November 7, 2017 - Page 375 0 From: Jonathan Spence To: "wolfdog(asaunders-therapy.com" Cc: George Ruther; Matt Panfil; Patty McKenny Subject: Re: Vail Mountain View Residences Proposed Phase II/Special Development District Date: Friday, July 21, 2017 10:07:16 AM Attachments: imaae001.ioq image002.jpq Joint Property Owner MV.pdf Good Morning My name is Jonathan Spence and I am the Town of Vail planner working on the Vail Mountain View Residences application. Please accept my responses below to some of the questions you have raised in your email received July 19, 2017. I am also available by phone to discuss the application in greater detail. 1. In the information we received regarding Phase II development at Vail Mountain View Residences, there are references to comments made early on in the planning process from residents of the Tyrolean, who are our next door neighbors to the west. As owners in Phase I of Vail Mountain Residences, we were never included in the comment process in the early planning phase. While I'm sure the next door neighbors are interested in what may be developed next door, I would argue that those of us who purchased in Phase I of the project would have more interest and input from the start than anyone else. This is the first time we have been informed of the plans for Phase II and we are upset at the timing and lack of involvement of those of us in Phase I. Phase 1 of Mountain View Residences are considered by the Town of Vail to be an applicant for the new Special Development District (SDD) that will include Phase 2. The Vail Town Code requires all owners or their authorized representatives to consent to an application for new SDD. The homeowners association for Phase 1 has consented to this application speaking on your behalf. I have attached the letter provided to the town. If you wish to dispute the authorization provided by your homeowner's association, please take up this matter directly with the association as unfortunately the town is not in a position to arbitrate these issues. That being said, the Town of Vail welcomes comments from all affected parties and citizens of the community in regard to planning applications. I apologize that we were unable to receive your comments earlier in the process. 2. We were given no indication that Phase II would actually be larger than Phase I. The foot print of the existing garage, on which Phase II is to be built, is smaller than what is now being proposed. The claim is that EHU's do not count. Is that actually the case at this point in time? We are shocked to find out, at this late stage in the planning process, that the size of the proposed Phase II is so large. We were not made aware of this at the time we purchased in Phase I The Town of Vail has a number of different standards used to evaluate proposed projects. Two of these standards related to density are Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and number of dwelling units per acre. Per the Vail Town Code, EHUs are not considered for either of these standards as to not dis-incentivize their use. All of the dimensional standards relative to this application are reviewed in the staff report. Please find a link below to the staff report and its attachments. It is the second to the last item on the agenda. November 7, 2017 - Page 376 0 https://vail.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/DisplayAgendaPDF.ashx?MeetinglD=663 3. The graphic representation of the view looking north (page 7 of the application) is misleading. It shows the pool oriented perpendicular to the actual orientation. Also, they show a fairly large green space in front (south side of Phase II, as if looking from Phase I). This is a false representation. There is a sidewalk and small planting area between Phase I and the wall of the garage, which would be the start of Phase II. I would agree that the artist rendering included in the application referenced above took a certain amount of artistic liberty and is not an accurate representation. 4. Our understanding when we purchased our unit in Phase I, was that Phase II would not be taller than Phase I. Because Phase II starts at an elevation above Phase I, and has 4 above ground levels, Phase II is taller than the peak height of Phase I. The proposal states that the maximum height exceeds the height limitation. They offer that the Tyrolean does not reach the height maximum, but if it did, the height difference would not appear as great. This argument is ridiculous. The report also states that the setback requirements are not within specifications. Why would you approve a building that does not meet height and setback requirements. They offer other exceptions as a reason that this should be accepted now. This includes the statement that, " EHU's do not count towards GRFA. Exceeding GRFA is not uncommon with most SDDs approved by the Town, especially where the underlying zoning has not been updated to reflect current town goals for in -fill development." We disagree. Multiple exceptions to a rule or policy do not make it a viable policy, and because a policy has not been updated is not an excuse for ignoring it. It appears that the planning commission has made too many exceptions to existing policies and therefore is not fulfilling their obligation to uphold those policies. While the proposed project appears to meet some of the stated goals related to Vail development, it does so by ignoring several regulations set forth to responsibly manage that development. The SDD process allows an application to request deviations from required standards, including height, setbacks, GRFA etc. The decision makers (The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council) are tasked with determining if such deviations provide benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviations. In addition, the Town Council must also determine that the SDD meets the required standards and findings for approval. These standards and findings are included in the staff report. A link to the SDD portion of the Vail Town Code can be found below: http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?bookid=560&chapterid=34607 5. It is our understanding that the resident units, employee units and hotel units will not have access to the Phase I pool/hot tub. Is that the understanding of the Planning Commission? The Town of Vail is unaware of what the internal relationship between Phase 1 and Phase 2 is proposed to be regarding access to amenities. The owners of Phase I should have been involved earlier. I am wondering what rights we have in this process and how we can be more involved going forward? What is the timeline for approval of the proposed plan? Please let us know how this will proceed and if there is an opportunity to be involved from a remote sight, in the Town Council meeting on Aug 1st? I'd also be interested in the Council's feelings about governance and their responsibility to uphold November 7, 2017 - Page 377 0 current policies/regulations vs. making multiple exceptions to those current policy/regulations the norm. The application received a recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission for approval by a vote of 4-3 on June 12th of this year. The proposal requires two readings of an ordinance before the Vail Town Council. First reading is scheduled for August 1st with a second reading tentatively scheduled for August 15th. Unfortunately, the Town Council meetings are not set up for remote participation but can be viewed online through the town's website, www.vailgov.com All correspondence received, both in support and opposition to the project, is forwarded to the Town Council members. Your email of the 19th will be forwarded prior to the August 1st meeting. If you would like to provide any additional information/correspondence, please forward directly to me prior to Wednesday, July 26 so I can include it in the packet. As I mentioned previously, I am available to discuss this application further. Sincerely, Jonathan Spence, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Department TOV-email-logo ®❑ 970.479-2321 vailgov.com twitter.com/vailgov Love -Vail -email November 7, 2017 - Page 378 0 Don Cameron Marie Harrison Tyrolean #3 Mailing Address; - 3000 E 5th Ave Denver, CO 80206 camy3000@msn.com 303 564 4491 July 24, 17 Ron Byrne: Ron Byrne Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge St, Vail, CO. ron@ronbyrne.com Dear Ron: It has been brought to my attention that in a city planning and environmental meeting you, inaccurately, said you had an agreement with me concerning the approval of your Mountain View project (this is not correct). I do not approve of the project and was lead to believe that the Town Planner was not going to support it prior to the hearing. We are absentee owners, therefore, I may not have seen if the property was properly posted. However, we did not receive an official notice of the hearing as required in most other communities. I was surprised that it was approved by vote by the planning and environmental commission. If it was approved based on the perception that Herb Tobin, the Julius Roja's family, and I, the owners that were totally impacted, were in support, based on the presentation, this perception was totally false and misleading. Although you mentioned the potential of phase 2, Mountain View, when I purchased the property, my due diligence revealed that you had exceeded a number of the zoning criteria to get your initial approval, and I didn't think the Town would allow any greater deviation from the Town Plan than they already had. I can't speak for the Mr. Rojas or Mr. Tobin, but we are being damaged by a diminution of value by our loss of view and privacy, with potential adjacent owners/occupants having a view into our units, along with a loss of natural light. November 7, 2017 - Page 379 0 It's unrealistic to ask us to accept a footprint based on an existing parking structure that was built at an elevation contrary to normally accepted zoning principles without any consideration for elevation and property line setbacks. It is my understanding that our HOA has hired counsel to object to this project, and to pursue any other remedies available to us. Sincerely, Donald Cameron Marie Harrison cc: - Town Clerk City of Vail; Patty McKenny Town Manager of Vail: Patty McKenny Town Attorney Vail; Matt Mire Mayor Town of Vail; Dave Chapin City Planner Vail; Chris Neubecker Town Council Vail; David Foster Tyrolean HOA - Tom Saalfeld Herbert A. Tobin Luis Rojas c/o Wendal Porterfield pmckenny@vailgov.com, pmckenny@vailgov.com, mmire@vailgov.com, dchapin@vailgov.com, cneubecker@vailgov.com, david@fostergraham.com, ptarmmgt@vail.net, HTobin@tobinprop.com, wporterfield@opa-law.com, November 7, 2017 - Page 380 0 From: Patty McKenny To: Jonathan Spence Subject: FW: Support of Mountain View Residences Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 9:43:31 AM here is another public record! Patty McKenny Acting Town Manager Town of Vail pmckenny@vailgov.com 970-479-2136 From: Jeff Morgan [mailto:jeff@ronbyrne.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 5:45 PM To: Council Dist List Subject: Support of Mountain View Residences Town Council, I am a member for VVP Workforce Housing Coalition, and I fully support the Mountain View Residences Project. Vail Valley Partnership's board has supported this project as I do, and we believe it is appropriate density along the frontage road and adds much needed rental housing in the village core. I believe it is incumbent that the town council hear from business owners/managers, residents, and citizens in support of appropriate developments that add deed -restricted rentals. Thank you for the support of a worthy project Jeff Morgan Associate Broker Ron Byrne & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street 1 Vail CO 81657 0: 970-476-1987 C: 720-314-0023 November 7, 2017 - Page 381 0 E: jeff@ronbyrne.com www.ronbyrne.com Ron Byrne & Associates 2016 Luxury Property Collection November 7, 2017 - Page 382 0 From: Dominic Mauriello To: Patty McKenny; Jonathan Spence; Matt Mire Subject: Fwd: Vail Mountain View Phase 2 Date: Monday, July 31, 2017 7:39:33 AM Hi Patty and Jonathan: David Charles, an owner in Phase 1, asked that this email he sent to the owners in phase 1 be shared with the Vail Town Council. Thank you. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mpgvail.com From: David Charles <daviddcharles@mac.com> Subject: Phase 2 Date: July 28, 2017 5:09:31 PM MDT To: rbyrne a@ronbyrne.com Greeting neighbors; I understand the concerns of our fellow residences regarding the construction of phase two. It does come as no surprise, however, that the developer is doing exactly what he said he would do, albeit maybe a little different from each of our own preconceived ideas of what the end project would look like. We knew when we bought our unit that the HOA Board were cronies of the developer and we knew that they had the largest financial interest and we knew that they intended to build a phase 2. We also knew that we would not be a part of the design team, and that we would not have a seat on the HOA Board because of how the bylaws were written. It is, as a rule, and common practice for a developer to keep control of the HOA until the project is complete. So, it should be no surprise that the builder/developer has kept control of the HOA so that he could proceed with his original plans. It was right there in our closing documents. The developer does have the best interest in the quality and care of our project. It does him no good to undermanage or damage his own interests in the property. The building is November 7, 2017 - Page 383 0 maintained well, and so far, any requests we have made of management have been promptly handled. Our property is managed very well financially. It is our experience that HOA's managed by home owners themselves are frustrating and often inefficient. So we are glad to have Mary Ann handle this for us and believe the HOA has acted in our interest as well as the developer. In the end, the new phase should appreciate our property values not hurt them. Lawsuits and litigation over unwinnable issues will however, damage the marketability of our units. An issue I really believe we should stand firm on is the pool and common area usage. In a letter to homeowners on March 10th of this year, Ron said that there would be no joint use of the pool and common areas. It would be an overwhelming temptation for hotel guests and permanent residents to use these facilities and we would hate to see a future compromise on the use of common areas and the pool. Please note that my new email is dave@look4dave.com -dave and Joyce charles unit 204 November 7, 2017 - Page 384 0 • TOBIN PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 To the Honorable Mayor Dave Chapin: My wife Francine and I have owned our unit in the Tyrolean since the early 1990's. We love the Town of Vail and have enjoyed many wonderful times here with our family over the years and have made many friends. By way of background, I am the President of the Tyrolean Condo Association which is located immediately to the West of the proposed Phase 2, Vail Mountain View Residence. Since 1926, my company, Tobin Properties, based in a suburb of Miami, have been active owners and developers of real estate with holdings in the Southeast, Mountain and the Pacific Northwest. I also served for 10 years as Mayor of the Town of Golden Beach in Miami Dade County, where I have resided with my family since 1978. I have been on both sides of the table and understand each side with great clarity. Today, I am writing to you representing our association and as an individual unit owner to encourage you to deny the application before you. As I see it, the case to deny is clear. In 2007, the original Mountain View development was approved without any notice to us as a neighbor. There was no consulting or discussion on the part of the developer and we all know that notice is a fundamental part of our laws in this country. The Town also permitted a "subterranean" garage to be constructed using the crown of Frontage Road as the standard. The Mountain View property is substantially below that road, resulting in a garage that is at least two stories above the ground and that is what we look at and again, no consideration for the Tyrolean. In addition, the Town knowingly permitted the developer to beef up this so called subterranean garage's foundations to support a future development, which they were not entitled to build at that time. Frankly, if this had not been allowed by the Town, we would not be here today! In all zoning cases, the rules are set and must be followed. The Town should be more thoughtful about its approach to solving its biggest problem workforce housing. All of this should take into account the developers' rights, but also, the rights and quiet enjoyment of the neighbors. This is not what the developer has done in this proposal. What we have here is a building site that is 100% built out according to your ordinances. Yet, the Town has created special development district zoning that allows a developer to have a "second bite" at the apple. In the matter before you, the fundamental incentive to the Town, is to end up with workforce housing. The deep question to you is why you would permit that at the expense of the Tyrolean, or anyone else who has relied on the existing zoning regulations. In all of the critical categories, they dramatically exceed your codes all in the name of 10 workforce housing units. You not only set a dangerous precedent for future developers to feel they can get just about anything in the name of workforce housing. The main issue is that we are irreparably damaged and it will only be worse if you approve. I remember when the Town of Vail's "hot button" was parking (coincidentally around 2006). Tobin Properties recently completed a lengthy entitlement process on 5 acres that we own on the ocean in Grassy Key near Marathon in the Florida Keys. Workforce housing is a critical issue there as development has replaced all of the places where people who work in the stores, restaurants, hotels and homes would live in and now have to address phone fax internet 1101 Ben Tobin Drive Hollywood, FL 33021 954.989.3000 954.985.1116 www.tobinprop.com November 7, 2017 - Page 385 c address • TOBIN PROPERTIES travel from a far place to work and public transportation is nonexistent there. The City of Marathon stuck to their rules and came forth with a balanced outcome good for all. There were no special zone districts as there is here. In my opinion, there is no way that any approving authority should give their blessings to an entitlement process that would affect a neighbor gravely. Neighbors should have to sign off or at least be notified in every category. The Town should know that they lay themselves open to serious legal repercussions; some of which are not pleasant. The SDD zoning is not balanced and not a solid defensible concept. This proposed development is just not going to work. Reducing the size makes this development unfeasible and the developers know that so that is why they asked for so much. You must stop this here and now. The Tyrolean appeals to your common sense and hope that you will deny this unnecessary development. Sincerely, Herbert Tobin Tyrolean HOA, Board President cc: Town Clerk City of Vail - Patty McKenny Town Manager of Vail - Patty McKenny Town Attorney Vail - Matt Mire City Planner Vail - Chris Neubecker Tyrolean HOA Attorney - David Foster Tyrolean HOA — Manager Tom Saalfeld Tyrolean HOA — President Herbert A. Tobin Tyrolean HOA — Member Don Cameron Tyrolean HOA — Member Marjorie Davidoff Tyrolean HOA — Member Peter Clarke Luis Rojas c/o Wendal Porterfield Town of Vail City Council — Mayor Pro Tem Jenn Bruno Town of Vail City Council — Member Dick Cleveland Town of Vail City Council — Member Kevin Foley Town of Vail City Council — Member Kim Langmaid Town of Vail City Council — Member Jen Mason Town of Vail City Council — Member Greg Moffet phone 1101 Ben Tobin Drive Hollywood, FL 33021 954.989.3000 pmckenny@vailgov.com pmckenny@vailgov.com mmire@vailgov.com cneubecker@vailgov.com david @fostergra ha m.com ptarmmgt@vail.net htobin@tobinprop.com marieh3000@yahoo.com margie.davidoff@gmail.com peter@brattles.com wporterfield@opa-law.com jbruno@vailgov.com dcleveland@vailgov.com kfoley@vailgov.com klangmaid@vailgov.com jmason@vailgov.com gmoffet@vailgov.com fax internet 954.985.1116 www.tobinprop.com November 7, 2017 - Page 386 c From: Dominic Mauriello dominic@mpgvail.com Subject: Fwd: Vail Mountain View Phase 11 Information Date: July 28, 2017 at 2:13 PM To: From: Ron Byrne Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 6:52 PM Subject: Vail Mountain View Phase II Information Dear Michael & Linda, We would like to provide some additional information on the future development of what we are calling "Phase II" of the Vail Mountain View Residences ("VMVR"). When we developed the existing units at VMVR, we envisioned and designed the project to accommodate an additional building on top of the parking garage, anticipated to be even larger than the currently proposed Phase II building. The upper garage, with its own entrance, was designed with potential commercial uses such as hotel, employee housing, fractional time shares, and a host of other commercial uses in mind. The lower garage, with its separate entrance, was dedicated for current and future owner residential use, and will continue to be used, maintained and kept in the same clean service condition as in the past. It was important to us, in the original HOA documents, to make all purchasers of units in the initial VMVR building ("Phase I") and future Phase I buyers aware of the Phase II development potential. The recorded title documents, provided to all buyers of interests in VMVR, clearly disclose the existence of reserved development rights and, consequently, future development potential. A copy of the "Notice Regarding Disclosures", recorded on May 17, 2009, at Reception No. 200906994 of the Eagle County real property records, which states, among other things, that reserved rights include "the right to build a new building on the Unbounded Condominium Unit" is enclosed for your reference. The Condominium Declaration for the Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek, recorded on December 5, 2008, at Reception No. 200825629, and provided to all buyers at VMVR, likewise describes in Article 15 the reservation of development rights. Phase I is one of our proudest developments and was done with care and thought with the future planning of Phase II. Phase II will have a separate HOA and will not affect the existing operation of Phase I. The pool will continue to be for Phase I only and will not be shared with the Phase II development. The first two floors of Phase II are dedicated to 19 hotel units and 10 Employee Housing Units (EHU). The high quality, boutique hotel units are designed to have minimal impact on the Phase I owners. The entrance to the hotel is located on the north (Frontage Road) side of the building. The lobby has a front desk with full time management and security. The hotel units are modeled November 7, 2017 - Page 387 c alter the successful Limelight Hotel concept in Aspen and Ketchum, Idaho, winch incorporate modern, high-end finishes. In addition, they do not have balconies on the south side (courtyard area), which was specifically designed to minimize noise impact on Phase I. The entrances to the 10 Employee Housing Units are from the north side (Frontage Road) of the Building and all units are designed without balconies to minimize traffic and noise impact. The interior of each unit is designed with high-end finishes and amenities to serve the needs of professional, medical, business owner, and successful full-time workers of Vail. These are not low-end housing units, but instead, ideal for the professional work -force housing market. The space plan for majority of the units incorporates 2 master bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The 12 For -Sale residential units will be developed with the same eye towards quality as the Phase I building and units, which we are extremely proud of. In addition, we believe the development of the Phase II Building will be a noise barrier to the traffic on Interstate 70 and the Frontage Road since it is located to the north of the Phase I building (between Phase I and the interstate). The developer, Peter Carlson, is a very experienced residential, multi -family, and commercial developer. The project will be on a shortened construction schedule of approximately 14 months, due to the existing garage and foundation, which was completed in 2008. I would be happy to meet with you to answer any of your questions and invite you to go to the Town of Vail Website (http://www.vailgov.com/planning), which has the entire development progress and drawings. Additionally, there are two upcoming hearings with the Town Council on the proposed Phase II project currently scheduled for August 1 and August 15. We look forward to a quality, high-end project that will be a benefit to all. Warmest regards, Ron Byrne Lunar Vail, LLC Adobe vmvr condo declara...08.pdf 7 Adobe VMVR Packag...017.pdf Adobe Notice of Disclos...cs.pdf November 7, 2017 - Page 388 0 Mauriello Planning Group July 13, 2017 Vail Town Council % Jonathan Spence, AICP 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Response to Letter from David Wm. Foster on behalf of the Tyrolean Condominium Association Dear Town Council: A copy of the letter from Mr. Foster was provided to the applicant for the Vail Mountain View SDD. We were surprised to hear that the Tyrolean representatives were unaware of the meeting schedule for the project. Below is a list of events and related notice and information provided to Tyrolean representatives. Where applicable, I have attached copies of meeting minutes, portions of staff reports, and copies of deck slides from presentations made at the meetings on the project. Events: • On or about March 6, I sent a letter to the Tyrolean's manager Tom Saalfeld, informing the Tyrolean that a potential development project was being designed on the Mountain View property and the plan would be shared with the Tyrolean. This letter was acknowledged by Wendy Weigler on March 21 in an email to me. • On March 23, I sent an email to Wendy Weigler and Tom Saalfeld alerting them that the applicant plans to file an application with the Town of Vail on March 27, 2017. I also indicated that the first hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission was anticipated on April 24, 2017. • On March 27, I sent an email with a Dropbox link to Wendy Weigler and Tom Saalfeld indicating that the applicant had submitted an application to the Town of Vail. The Dropbox link included our entire submittal to the Town. I also indicated that the first Planning and Environmental Commission was scheduled for April 24 at approximately 1:00 pm. • On April 7, I sent an email to Wendy Weigler and Tom Saalfeld inviting them to an open house on the Mountain View project scheduled for April 12, 2017. • On April 12, an open house was held from 5:15 - 6:15 pm at the Grand View conference room at the Lionshead Welcome Center. Tom Saalfeld attended the open house and participated in an overview of the project. • On April 24, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the Vail Mountain View proposed SDD. Wendy Weigler and Tom Saalfeld were both in attendance at the hearing and Tom Saalfeld spoke on the record at the hearing (meeting minutes attached). The staff memorandum (first two pages attached) on the proposal dated April 24, 2017 includes a projected comprehensive review schedule for the project, which includes Planning Commission hearings on May 22 and June 12 and a Town Council hearing on June 20, 2017. The hearing was formally continued to May 22. PO Box 4777 Eagle, Colorado 81631 1 Mauriello Planning Group 970.376.3318 www.mpgvail.com November 7, 2017 - Page 389 0 • On May 17, Wendy Weigler submitted an objection letter to the Town acknowledging she attended the hearing on April 24. • On May 22, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the Vail Mountain View proposed SDD. Wendy Weigler and Tom Saalfeld were both in attendance at the hearing and Wendy Weigler spoke on the record at the hearing (meeting minutes attached). The staff memorandum (first two pages attached) on the proposal dated May 22, 2017 includes a projected comprehensive review schedule for the project, which includes a final Planning Commission hearing on June 12 and a Town Council hearing on June 20, 2017. Also, during the presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission, discussion of the proposed review schedule occurred (slide from presentation attached), wherein it was noted that a final Planning Commission hearing would be held on June 12 and a Town Council hearing on June 20, 2017. The hearing was formally continued to June 12. • On June 12, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the Vail Mountain View proposed SDD. Tom Saalfeld was in attendance at the hearing and spoke on the record at the hearing (meeting minutes attached). During the presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission, discussion of the proposed review schedule occurred (slide from presentation attached), wherein it was noted that a Town Council hearing would be held on June 20. The Planning and Environmental Commission took its final action on June 12. • On June 20, the Town Council held a public hearing and site visit on the proposal. The Town Council formally continued that hearing to its July 11, 2017 meeting. • On July 10, I sent an email to Wendy Weigler and Tom Saalfeld letting them know that the applicant was requesting the application be continued to the July 18, 2017 Town Council meeting and that the second reading was anticipated for August 1, 2017. • On July 11, the Town Council opened the public hearing on the proposal and continued the hearing to August 1, 2017. • On July 14, I sent an email to Wendy Weigler and Tom Saalfeld indicating that the Vail Mountain View SDD had been continued to the August 1, 2017 meeting of the Town Council and with an anticipated August 15 hearing for second reading of the ordinance as well. It should be noted that all of the agendas for the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council are posted online by the Town of Vail and at Town Hall for every hearing that was held. Notice of the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing on April 24 was mailed to the Tyrolean and published in the Vail Daily newspaper. Sincerely, Dominic E Mauriello, AICP Principal c: George Ruther, Community Development Director Matt Mire, Town Attorney 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 390 0 TOWN OFUAJL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 24, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order Members Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, John Rediker, and Brian Stockmar Members Absent: Ludwig Kurz Legal Update and Training - Matt Mire, Town Attorney — Matt Mire provided general legal training on the topics of liability, legislative and quasi-judicial reviews, conflicts of interest, and ex -parte contact. He indicated that for conflicts of interest, PEC members should consider if they, their spouse, family or company would receive any financial benefit from any decision that they make as a voting member of the PEC. If so, then there is a conflict of interest. Mire discussed the roles and responsibilities of the Planning and Environmental Commission, the requirements to take minutes, voting procedures, and conduct during site visits. Election of Chair - Commissioner Gillette, seconded by Brian Stockmar, made a motion to nominate John Rediker as Chairman of the Planning and Environmental Commission. The motion was approved 5-0-1 (Rediker Recused). Election of Vice -Chair - Commissioner Gillette, seconded by Brian Stockmar, made a motion to nominate Ludwig Kurz as Vice -Chairman of the Planning and Environmental Commission. The motion was approved 6-0-0. Site Visit — Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek — 434 South Frontage Road 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) — 60 min. Applicant: Lunar Vail, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence MOTION:Continue to May 22, 2017 FIRST: Perez SECOND: Lockman VOTE: 6-0-0 Spence introduced the project to the PEC. Spence outlined the process for the review of a November 7, 2017 - Page 391 0 request for a new Special Development District (SDD). The PEC will be asked to make a recommendation to the Town Council. Spence then summarized the project details, including the number and type of the proposed units. The structure will be constructed atop the existing parking facility. Deviations associated with the request include: the east side setback, building height, density, gross residential floor area (GRFA), site coverage, and loading dock width. Spence identified an error in the staff memo regarding attached accommodation units (AUs) and how they apply to density. Spence then discussed the history of the subject property as well as adjacent parcels. In 2006 the property was subdivided, creating nonconformities in regards to site coverage and limited the future available GRFA. Gillette asked about the purpose of the 2006 subdivision. Spence deferred to the applicant to answer during their presentation. Rediker asked Spence for clarification of the existing zoning of the subject property and adjacent parcels. Rediker then asked about the criteria for establishing an SDD. Spence summarized the nine (9) standards that are to be considered during the review of an SDD. Spence added that consideration is to be given to the public benefit versus the amount of relief requested. Gillette asked about the process involved in the previous subdivision. Spence responded that it was reviewed and approved by the PEC. Stockmar stated a concern about the relationship between the previous subdivision and the relief being requested. Gillette and Rediker asked that the minutes of the PEC meeting that approved the subdivision be provided before the next meeting. Gillette asked about the amount of relief that would be required if the subdivision did not occur. Spence replied density, height, and possibly GRFA. Hopkins asked if parking would be compliant to which Spence replied in the affirmative. Perez asked about the status of the Apollo Park lease and if there were any plans for its redevelopment. Spence replied that there are no requests at this time. Hopkins asked for clarification of the property lines. Dominic Mauriello, representative of the applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation. Mauriello introduced the development team and then discussed the characteristics of the area surrounding the subject property. Mauriello discussed the proposed site plan including circulation and the building footprint. Phase One of the development included 112 parking spaces that also accommodated parking needs for Phase Two. Mauriello summarized the number and type of units proposed. He emphasized that the proposed employee housing units (EHUs) are a public benefit. Mauriello introduced Will Hentschel of 359 Design to discuss the elevations and architectural design of the proposal. Referencing the elevations, Hentschel stated that the north elevation design took into account the surrounding context and other architecture along the 1-70 corridor. The south elevation maintains a base -middle -top design approach. November 7, 2017 - Page 392 0 Materials include stone veneer base, wood siding where allowed, metal panels, and glass. Hentschel then reviewed the floor plans for each level. Mauriello continued his presentation by outlining the approval process. He then discussed the public benefits of the project including the provision of EHUs, short term AUs, and public art. Gillette suggested that the applicant consider placing the public art near the creek. Mauriello discussed the history of the subject property and its relation to Apollo Park to the east. Gillette asked for clarification on the existing building and if it encroaches into the side yard setback. Mauriello summarized the requested deviations from the underlying High Density Multi - Family (HDMF) Residential zone district and compared them to other previously established SDDs. Mauriello stated that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been provided. The report did not find any significant impacts to the environment. A traffic study has also been provided. CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation) will not require any new improvements. Mauriello then identified the pedestrian connections. A video of a sun/shade analysis was provided. Mauriello provided more details regarding the layout, size, and location of the EHUs. He then did the same for the AUs and for sale dwelling units (DUs). Gillette asked if anyone knew how many hotel rooms were in the Vail Mountain Lodge. Brian Johnson, property manager of the Vail Mountain Lodge, was in attendance and responded that there are twenty (20) AUs within Vail Mountain Lodge. Hopkins asked about the separation distance between Phase One and Phase Two. Hentschel stated that at its closest point it is approximately 22' between structures. Mauriello discussed the project in relation to the goals, objectives, and action plan located within the Vail Village Master Plan. Mauriello concluded his presentation by discussing the public outreach the applicant has conducted to date. Spence asked Mauriello to discuss why the application to amend the Vail Village Master Plan was withdrawn. Rediker asked for commissioner comment. Stockmar stated his concern about the previous subdivision and what might be anticipated for the subject and adjacent properties. Rediker asked what the sun/shade impact will be to the frontage road. Mauriello explained November 7, 2017 - Page 393 0 that there will be some impact and has already discussed with Public Works the necessity for heated sidewalks. Rediker asked about impacts on the road itself. Mauriello stated that measures similar to those taken by Solaris may be required. Rediker asked about the impact on the parking lot to the east. Mauriello replied that the impact tends to occur during summer afternoons but will provide more information at the next meeting. Rediker asked for clarification in regards to the setbacks. He stated that the Vail Village Master Plan references extensive landscape buffering if the subject property were to be redeveloped and asked about any proposed landscaping. Hopkins asked if CDOT regulated the size of the vegetation in the right-of-way. Mauriello responded that there is no proposed vegetation within the right-of-way. Perez asked if there are any noise impact studies in consideration of the proximity of the units. Hentschel replied that no studies have been conducted, but they will meet the Vail Town Code noise requirements. Gillette asked staff if there were design guidelines by which the proposal should be evaluated. Spence stated that there are basic guidelines located within the Vail Village Master Plan, but the property is not located within the Vail Village Urban Design Guideline document. Rediker asked staff if there are other items located within the Vail Village Master Plan that are of concern due to a lack of compliance. Lockman asked about specific details of different zone districts. Perez asked if there is concern about creating SDDs instead of maintaining consistent zone districts. Spence outlined concerns that have been mentioned about SDDs, including a lack of predictability. Lockman asked about the proposed setback deviation. Mauriello stated that the applicant is looking at adjusting the zero foot (0') setback. Gillette stated that in order to address the setback issue, the lot could be re -subdivided. Mauriello stated that this would not be likely. Hopkins commented about the lack of visual interest on the north side of the property and suggested additional pockets of landscape. Rediker opened the meeting for public comment. Chris Romer, President, Vail Valley Partnership (VVP), stated the VVP supports the proposal. The VVP finds the bulk and mass is appropriate and meets a need for mid-range hotel rooms and EHUs. Tom Saalfeld., manager of the Tyrolean building, requested sun/shade analysis on the Tyrolean. He stated that there are owners within the Tyrolean concerned about the height and density of the proposed structure. Brian Johnson, manager of Vail Mountain Lodge, stated his support for the project and that November 7, 2017 - Page 394 0 he did not feel the proposed hotel units would compete with Vail Mountain Lodge. He does not object to the height of the proposed structure. He does agree that the sidewalk should be heated. Commissioner Comment: Stockmar: Expressed his concern about the proposed height of the structure, especially in relation to the existing building and the Tyrolean building. He is also concerned that the proposed setback is too small. He also suggested the lengthy EHU hallway should be broken up. Hentschel clarified that it was the hallway for the AUs. Stockmar clarified that said hallway should be broken up. Gillette: Expressed concern about the bulk and mass of the structure, including the uniform roofline and facades. Expressed support for SDDs and adding GRFA and bulk if there is sufficient public benefit. He suggested the structure meet code height toward the west in proximity of the Tyrolean. In regards to public benefit, he would like to see more EHU and less AU floor space. He also believes the setback requirements should be met. Lockman: Concerned about the setback encroachment. Also concerned about the amount of GRFA proposed, which is connected to concerns about the building height and mass. Acknowledges the benefits of adding GRFA in proximity to the commercial core, but believes the Vail Village Master Plan specifically addresses a limit to mass and height. Hopkins: The project creates a tunnel effect on the south side of the structure. Is concerned about the sidewalk and believes it should be heated. Concern about building height as the existing garage is already above grade. She asked for locations of mechanical equipment. Hentschel replied that there will be spaces created within the parapet areas, but they will provide more information at the next meeting. She is also concerned with the lack of animation on the north facade. Perez: Concerned about the proposed building height. Rediker: The Vail Village Master plan recommends four stories, which is an issue especially in consideration of the sloping nature of the property. He is concerned about the height and believes people driving along the frontage roads and 1-70 should be able to see Vail Village and Vail Mountain. He commented on zoning in general and the use of SDDs. Though he is not necessarily against the use of an SDD, he stated the property was designated as HDMF for a reason. Agreed that the north facade needs additional architectural character and buffering from the frontage road. Also has concerns regarding installation of heated sidewalks due to their environmental impact. In regards to neighboring properties, he finds it helpful to have written comment either in favor of or in opposition to the project. Stated that there are some benefits to the proposal, including the addition of hot beds. Concluded with his belief that the project might be helped by the elimination of some of the EHUs as the project as proposed is too Targe. 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zoning text amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Traffic Impact Fee, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0008) — 45 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel Planner: Chris Neubecker November 7, 2017 - Page 395 0 TOWN OF VAIL ` Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2017 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC,represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicant, Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units (EHUs), located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. Process The process to establish a new special development district (SDD) begins with a pre - application meeting with staff to discuss the goals of the proposed SDD and the relationship of the proposal to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Next, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) conducts an initial review of the proposed development in which they can recommend approval of the proposal as requested, recommend approval with modifications, or may recommend denial of the proposal. Finally, the Town Council (TC) reviews the PEC's findings and recommendation. The Town Council shall consider the PEC's recommendation, but is not bound by the recommendation in reaching their decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny the proposal. November 7, 2017 - Page 396 0 Timeline The applicant has submitted a project review timeline indicating their preference that this meeting functions as an introduction to the project for the PEC. The applicant's projected timeline* is as follows: • 4/24 PEC Worksession • 5/3 Design Review Board (DRB) Conceptual Review • 5/22 PEC Public Hearing (recommendation to TC) • 6/7 DRB Conceptual Review • 6/12 PEC (Back-up final public hearing if necessary) • 6/20 TC First Reading/Worksession • 7/18 TC First Reading or Second Reading • 7/19 DRB conceptual • 8/1 TC Final Hearing/Second Reading • 8/16 DRB Final Approval * The above timeline is only an estimate by the applicant and is subject to change. Based upon the applicant's submitted timeline and the preliminary nature of this meeting, the Community Development Department recommends the PEC continues PEC17-0006 to the May 22, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting in order to address concerns raised by staff and for the applicant to provide detailed responses to anticipated questions from Commissioners and the general public. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Lunar Vail, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. A vicinity map (Attachment A), a project narrative (Attachment B) and plan set (Attachment C) are attached for review. The project is composed of the following components: Employee Housing Units (EHUs) The proposed nine (9) EHUs will be deed -restricted rental units, limited to residents working at least thirty (30) hours per week in Eagle County. The proposed EHUs range in size from approximately 1,015 square feet to 1,309 square feet and all are two- bedroom units. The EHUs are located on the first and second floors above the parking garage in the proposed structure. The total square footage of the nine (9) units totals 11,153 square feet. EHUs, per the Vail Town Code, are not considered Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and are thus not deducted from a development's Town of Vail Page 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 397 0 FQWfJ OF9 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 22, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order Members Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, John Rediker, and Brian Stockmar Members Absent: Karen Perez Site Visits: 1. Gasthof Gramshammer - 231 Gore Creek Drive 2. Hill Building - 254 & 311 Bridge Street 3. Vail Mountain View Residences - 430 & 434 South Frontage Road 4. Sharon M Bernardo Trust Residence, 4718 Meadow Drive 2. A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a renovation, and a request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council on an application for encroachments into an existing view corridor, pursuant to section 12-22-6, Encroachments Into Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for encroachments into View Point #1 for modifications to the Hill Building, located at 254 and 311 Bridge Street (Hill Building)/Lots C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 17-0010/PEC 17-0012) Applicant: Mt. Belvedere 45 LLC and 43-45 Riva Ridge LLC, represented by Braun Associates Planner: George Ruther Motion: Approve, with condition First: Kurz Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-0 1. Approval of this exterior alteration request (PEC17-0010) is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application and view corridor encroachment application. 2. The applicant shall be required to meet the Commercial Linkage obligations at time of building permit issuance. The applicant shall remit a fee in lieu payment of $6,483.70 to the Town of Vail. 3. The applicant and the Town of Vail shall review all existing pedestrian easements to verify compliance with existing and proposed uses. Any changes to the easements required shall be mutually agreed upon and recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office, prior to the issue of a building permit for the proposed renovation. November 7, 2017 - Page 398 0 4. The applicant shall submit a stamped Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) to the Town of Vail, prior to issuance of the building permit indicating the existing conditions of the Hill Building relative to View Corridor #'s 1, 2, and 4. Then, prior to requesting any certificate of occupancy for the building, the applicant shall submit a second ILC to the Town verifying that the building has been constructed in compliance with the approved building permit set of plans. 5. The applicant shall cause a covenant or similar form of restriction to be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office against the Hill Building property (Lots C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1) prohibiting vehicle parking from occurring on town -owned land or otherwise outside the enclosed parking space within the Hill Building. Further, the garage door to the enclosed parking space shall remain closed when not in use for immediate ingress or egress. The restriction shall be in a form reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. Said restriction shall be recorded by the applicant prior to any request for a certificate of occupancy for the Hill Building. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a report from a qualified roofing consultant that verifies which verifies that the appropriate mitigation measures are proposed for implementation during construction to ensure protection of the pedestrians and the public right-of- way from snow shedding onto any immediate or adjacent pedestrian area. George Ruther, Director of Community Development, provided a summary of the requested encroachments into existing View Corridor No. 1 and reviewed the proposed exterior alterations to the structure. The increases in gross residential floor area and ground floor commercial are minimal. The building slightly increases in height. There is also a slight increase in on-site landscaping. Ruther reviewed the approval criteria. Commercial linkage will be required for the additional 76 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The maintained use of the existing garage space was discussed. Rediker: Asked Ruther for clarification of non -conforming encroachments into view corridors, particularly in regard to View Corridor No. 4. Ruther stated that encroachments are allowed to remain, provided the level of encroachment is not increased. Tom Braun, the applicant's representative, provided a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation highlighted changes that have occurred since the previous PEC meeting on May 8, 2017. Braun provided detailed view corridor exhibits and discussed the reduction of the existing view encroachment into View Corridor No. 4. There are elements of the proposal, particularly the chimneys, which will encroach into View Corridor No. 1. Braun stated his belief that the proposed encroachments do not diminish the view corridor and that they comply with the approval criteria. Braun reviewed the proposed versus existing landscaping, identifying the trees to be removed and replaced as well as the areas where new landscaping is proposed. Referencing multiple images, Braun discussed the sun/shade analysis and the changes between the existing and proposed structure. November 7, 2017 - Page 399 0 Braun introduced Louis Bieker of 4240 Architecture to discuss the architectural details of the proposal. Gillette: Asked Bieker to provide more information regarding the sun/shade analysis. Bieker then addressed previous commissioner comments regarding the use of stucco as a hand railing at the second floor. The changes that have been made include a shortened railing and the introduction of a planter area at the southwest corner and a wooden rail cap on the west elevation. The stucco over the proposed storefront on the north side of the structure has also been removed and replaced with a parapet cap that is consistent with the storefront design. Changes to the color palette were also made based on previous commissioner comments. Bay windows were added to the ground floor commercial space in response to previous commissioner comments. Coursing and belting have been added to the new northwest storefront to provide more architectural detail at the ground level. Additional architectural relief is also provided to create a stone base to the building and window setbacks. The roof material will be flat seam copper. The roof will have a shingled appearance rather than a flat seam roof appearance. In response to previous commissioner comments, snow fences and other measures have been provided to avoid snow falling into pedestrian paths. Bieker stated that the proposed stone will have a natural color and varying relief. The stucco will be a "parchment" white, similar to the Sonnenalp and Gorsuch buildings, with a textured finish. Rediker: Asked about the changes at the southeast portion of the structure. Bieker identified an area of the east side, just north of the garage door, of the ground floor commercial that has been altered to provide additional storefront windows. Asked Bieker for more information about snow shedding. Bieker reviewed the snow management plan. Hopkins: Asked how far the doors were recessed into the building. Bieker stated approximately six to eight inches. Stockmar: Asked if heat tape will be used on the roof. Bieker affirmed. The heat tape will be clad in copper and will not be noticeable to the public. Public Comment - Ron Byrne stated his support for the proposed design. He is not concerned about the view corridor encroachments. Lockman: Stated that he felt the applicant has addressed commissioner comments from the previous meeting. He feels that the decrease in encroachment of View Corridor No. 4 helps offset the proposed increased encroachment in View Corridor No. 1. Hopkins: Agreed with Commissioner Lockman that the changes are beneficial to the project. Expressed her continued concern with snow shedding. Kurz: Agreed that the applicant has addressed previously stated concerns and feels that the changes are positive. Expressed his concern about the encroachment into View November 7, 2017 - Page 400 0 Corridor No. 1. Emphasized that addressing all the criteria for a view corridor encroachment is necessary. Rediker: Asked for clarification as to the nature and degree of the encroachments into View Corridor No. 1. Ruther stated that the increase in roof height is due to added insulation required by building code and also the flues and spark arrestors are required by code. The proposed chimney caps are an aesthetic solution to exposed flues. Ruther also discussed the purpose and three-dimensional nature of view corridors. Kurz: He feels more comfortable with the encroachment into View Corridor No. 1. Supports the proposal to remove the on -street parking. Gillette: Suggested the applicant could replace the wood burning fireplaces with gas fireplaces and thus not have to increase chimney height. Expressed concern about the sun/shade analysis and the proposal's impact on the vertical walls of adjacent properties. Stockmar: Agreed that the previous commissioner comments have been sufficiently addressed. Expressed his concern about the view corridor encroachments. While view corridors are sacred, there are changes that occur that no one has control over such as the growth of trees. Rediker: Agreed that previous commissioner comments have been addressed. Reviewed the criteria for approval of a view corridor encroachment and stated his belief that the proposal complies with all criteria. Expressed his concern about snow shedding and suggested a condition regarding changes to the snow management plan. Ruther: Suggested a condition that the snow management plan be further reviewed by a professional to ensure protection of the public right-of-way in the areas of concern noted by commissioners. 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to June 12, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 6-0-0 Jonathan Spence summarized the process of approval for a Special Development District (SDD) and the changes the applicant has made since the previous meeting on April 24(?), 2017. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation. Mauriello began by reviewing the anticipated project timeline and discussed the formulation of the proposal. Mauriello emphasized that the proposal will be 38% employee housing units and will provided "mid -price hot beds." Mauriello referred to November 7, 2017 - Page 401 0 the Vail Village Master Plan and stated that it anticipated that the redevelopment of the property would require exceeding zoning regulations. Gillette: Asked for clarification what the Vail Village Master Plan stated for the property. Spence: Stated that the Master Plan anticipated redevelopment exceeding density, but not building height. Mauriello continued by reviewing the changes in design since the last PEC meeting. The east setback has been increased from 0' to 15', the building height has been reduced by 2', and the tower feature has been eliminated. Mauriello introduced Will Hentschel, architect of 359 Design, to discuss the architecture of the structure. Hentschel discussed the proposed location of mechanical equipment. The mechanical equipment will be located in the existing parking garage and in a roof trough. Hentschel stated that the separation between the existing (Phase I) and proposed building ranges from 26' to 85'. Referencing a series of elevations, Hentschel summarized the architectural changes that have occurred. The building stepped down in height on the west end near the Tyrolean building. The top floors of the west end of the structure also step back from the base approximately 3'. Hentschel stated that the team will be looking at Phase I for cues for additional design changes. He then reviewed the level of articulation of the structure's facades. Hentschel then discussed the floor plans and identified the location and type of the various dwelling and accommodation units. Based on previous commissioner comments, there is now undulation of the interior corridors. Mauriello then continued his presentation by discussing the public benefits of surplus on-site employee housing units and the provisions of "mid -price hot beds." Referencing a series of slides, Mauriello provided responses to questions that were raised at the previous PEC meeting. Topics included: the history of Apollo Park, the Mountain View plat, the history and characteristics of the Tyrolean. Mauriello discussed private views and stated there is no regulatory protection of private views in Vail. He cited a previous court case that supported this statement. He reviewed the building height exhibit. The maximum proposed height is approximately 70 feet. He compared the proposed height to the height of other buildings in Vail. Mauriello then presented a sun/shade analysis. Mauriello identified individuals, agencies, and companies that have provided letters of support for the proposal. He stated that the Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) voted unanimously to support the project. Mauriello stated his belief that the proposal complies with the intent of the Vail Village Master Plan. He discussed SDDs and stated it does not matter if they are an effective tool or not, as that is a policy matter for Town Council. Mauriello concluded by asking for additional feedback in preparation for a recommendation vote at the next PEC meeting on June 12, 2017. Hentschel provided a graphic that depicted the amount of relief and articulation throughout the structure's north facade. November 7, 2017 - Page 402 0 Rediker: Referencing the review criteria, he asked if the applicant will argue that any of the criteria are not applicable to the proposal. Mauriello stated that he does not anticipate any such requests, except in regards to phasing and workable plan because the project will be built in one phase. Rediker asked for clarification as to the number of stories above the parking garage. Mauriello stated that it is 4.5 stories above the existing parking garage. Hopkins: Asked the height of the existing garage above the existing sidewalk. Hentschel responded that it is approximately 6.5'. Hopkins asked if this was consistent throughout the project. Hentschel stated that they will provide the information at the next meeting. Gillette: Asked to see where the 48' maximum building height line would be located on the building. Rediker: Asked for the elevation of the highest point of the building. Mauriello stated that it is 8,281.9'. Asked for comparison of the absolute elevations of other tall buildings in Vail. Gillette: Asked to see the elevations that compare the previous submission to the current submission. Stockmar: Asked for views from the eastbound side of the highway. Rediker: Asked if the applicant has had contact with Public Works regarding the impact of the sun/shade analysis on the sidewalk and South Frontage Road. Mauriello stated that Public Works has asked that the sidewalk be heated. Asked about the proposed loading and delivery areas. Mauriello responded that at the request of the Fire Department, the area at the northeast section of the site that was previously identified as a fire staging area will now be used as a loading zone and the fire staging area will be located elsewhere. Spence added that Public Works has requested that the sidewalk be relocated and that the Vail Village Master Plan calls for landscaping in the front setback where the proposed loading zone is located. Gillette: Asked where the trash receptacles will be located. Mauriello stated that trash storage will be interior. Rediker: Asked for more information about the easement located at the northeast corner of the site. Hopkins: Asked for clarification on the proposed parking. Mauriello stated that the proposed parking spaces comply with Town Code. Kurz asked if this accounts for the locating of mechanical equipment within the garage. Mauriello affirmed. Rediker: Asked about the applicant's level of correspondence with owners of units 4 and 7 of the Tyrolean. Mauriello stated that he did not know. November 7, 2017 - Page 403 0 Asked about the landscape plan for the site. Mauriello stated that there will be extensive landscaping along the front setback as well as the other edges of the building. Kurz: Asked staff about the public benefits and if there are mechanics in place to ensure that what may be approved is what is built and that it comply with the established regulations. Ruther stated that there will be incentive for the properties to be rented, and that processes are in place to verify proper occupancy of the EHUs. Gillette: Asked how many square feet would be lost if the top two levels were removed. Mauriello stated approximately 10,000 square feet. Public Comment Steve Lindstrom: Representing VLHA, stated his support for the project and finds that it meets the goals of the housing plan. Wendy Weigler: As the attorney for the Tyrolean Condominium Association, wanted to ensure that the PEC received a letter she sent and made herself available for questions. Rediker: Asked about the applicant's statement that a deal was being made with one of the condo owners. Weigler stated that the opinion of one owner does not constitute the opinion of the entire HOA board. Ron Byrne: Attempted to provide public comment. Spence pointed out that Byrne is a member of the applicant team. Byrne was allowed to proceed with his comment. He stated that he is not biased regarding this project. He provided a history of the existing parking garage and stated that a lot of thought about the future redevelopment of the site was considered at the time of construction. Rediker asked Byrne's relation to the development team. Byrne stated he is not a member of the team, but owns the underlying property. Stockmar: Stated that the interior corridor still requires changes. Stated that he understands the economic argument and that the proposal addresses some of the Town's needs, but stated that the proposal would work in other parts of the Town, but not in this particular location. He feels there are still issues to be addressed. Gillette: Stated that he has not changed his opinion since the last meeting. He would like to see more variation in the roof, more reduction in height near the Tyrolean, and would like to see additional information and exhibits regarding the proposed height versus the maximum allowed height in the underlying zoning district. Added that he values EHUs more than hot beds. Kurz: Stated he does not have an issue with the height and massing of the building, but hopes the design of the roofline can be approved. He feels the mix of uses is appropriate and will benefit the Town. He feels that there is an obligation to be as fair as possible to the Tyrolean and that they can reach consent. November 7, 2017 - Page 404 0 Hopkins: Concerned about the height and mass of the structure. The structure is blocky and will be visually dominant when arriving in Vail Village from the east. Believes that there needs to be more variety in roofline and other elements. Added that she believes the EHUs can be reduced in size and still be desirable. A major problem with the building height is that it is being added to an existing platform. Lockman: Agreed with Commissioner Gillette's comments that more accurate and detailed building height exhibits are necessary. Stated that the building height is the biggest challenge towards approval and more information is necessary. Is concerned about the criteria regarding compatibility with adjacent properties. Disagrees with the suggestion to snowmelt the sidewalk. Rediker: Agrees with Commissioners Hopkins and Lockman that the building height is a concern. Is concerned with the overall bulk and mass of the building, especially in relation to the existing building on the property. Emphasized the need to address the compatibility regarding design features, compatibility, landscaping, and parking and loading. Agrees with Commissioner Lockman that the sidewalk should not be snow melted. Is most concerned with the compatibility to adjacent neighbors. Agrees with Commissioner Hopkins that the style may not be consistent with Vail's character. Gillette: Pointed out that the Vail Village Master Plan discussed the redevelopment of the parking lot area with a four story building. 4. A request for the review of two (2) variances in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. These variances include: (1) a variance from Section 12-6F-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of an addition with a fourteen foot (14') rear setback where twenty feet (20') is required; and (2) a request for the review of a variance from Section 14-10-4-B Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, to allow a deck within five feet (5') of grade with a three foot, nine inch (3',9") setback where ten feet (10') is required, located at 4718 Meadow Drive Unit B-4, Bighorn Townhouses Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0011) Applicant: Sharon M Bernardo Trust, represented by GPSLArchitects Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Approve, with Two Conditions First: Lockman Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-0 1. The applicant shall revise the plans prior to building permit submittal to demonstrate a five foot (5') setback for all proposed improvements including, but not limited to, the deck stairs and hot tub. 2. Approval of these variances is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. Spence introduced the project and described the nature and degree of the requested variances. The building was originally constructed under Eagle County jurisdiction. Spence pointed out the unique property line that was established as part of the original approval. Staff requests that the hot tub be setback 5' from the property line so that the property is not receiving a special privilege. November 7, 2017 - Page 405 0 Henry Pratt, owner's representative, stated that the applicant agrees to the requested 5' setback for the hot tub and made himself available for questions. Stockmar: Is familiar with platting issues that were brought in during annexation of many parts of East Vail. The remaining commissioners concurred with staff's recommendations and did not provide additional comments or concerns. Rediker: Stated that he feels all criteria for a variance have been satisfied. 5. A request for review of a Variance, pursuant to Section 12-7B-16,Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in landscape area, located at 231 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0009) Applicant: Gasthof Gramshammer Inc, represented by Gies Architects Planner: Matt Panfil Motion: Table to June 12, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-0 Panfil introduced the application. Code requires no net reduction in landscaping. He displayed the previously approved plans that showed the approved location of landscaping. Applicant is proposing to remove some of the landscaping planters as previously approved. Applicant would like to add some landscaping planters and vertical planters on the building walls, instead of approved planters. Also, near the beer tent, some additional landscaping is proposed where existing stairs are located (stairs are not used.) Hopkins — Can planters be added on Town of Vail property? Panfil indicated that it might be possible, but preference is to be on applicant's property. Not sure if Public Works would entertain the idea of off site landscaping. Rediker — In 2016, was there a reduction in landscaping? (Panfil indicated no.) There was some increase in landscaping, and should be built per the approved plan. Rediker — Was it 23 sq. ft. of net new landscaping originally proposed? (Panfil indicated it was approximately that amount.) Rediker — The net reduction is about 70 sq. ft. from what was approved in 2016, is that right? Gillette- What is the net reduction from what was previously there? (Panfil — 26 sq. ft. net reduction.) Stockmar — What is a vertical planter? Russell Geis, Geis Architects — Vertical planters are a series of planters along the wall, fixed to the building. Flowers would be planted in these. Stockmar — Seems like a trivial compromise. November 7, 2017 - Page 406 0 Geis — We are trying to add landscaping without impacting functionality of the site. Before we did the remodel work, there was an 8x10 planter with a scraggly tree near the new exit door. That planter never enhanced anything. It was a cigarette butt disposal place. We are not reducing the quality of the look on Bridge Street by removing that planter. Amount of flowers planted by Mrs. Gramshammer is not shown in these plans. This is one of the most photographed corners in Vail. Planter in front of the sliding doors does not line up with anything. Piece (of landscaping) near Pepi's Sports is just enough to meet what is needed. We still want to create a beautiful look on the Bridge Street side. Gillette — How big is the planter by the slider doors? Geis — about 18 inches deep. Hopkins — I have worked in the Village for years. Sheika does the most beautiful flowers. Why not add some removable planters along the slider doors? Sheika Gramshammer — When I received a permit to expand the bar, it makes the bar more open. To get the permit, I had to compromise with DRB to put in the planter. Previously we did not have a good emergency exit. Flowers would not grow under the tree that was removed. We can't put in the planters because in winter we have ski racks and in summer we have bicycle racks. A compromise is moveable planters, instead of permanent planters. Trust me, it will be beautiful. Gillette — Will the flower boxes be on the railings? Sheika Gramshammer — This past summer, the flower boxes on the railings were abused. In 1964 we were the first to have flower boxes. It costs me a lot of money each year to plant the flowers. Don't want a permanent planter. Rediker — Why did you agree to a permanent planter a year ago? Gramshammer — My daughter wanted to update the bar. It was hard for Pepi to see the bar changed. We did not think much about the planters. Rediker — Is that the problem, having ski racks that narrow Bridge Street? Gramshammer — Not only our customers use the ski racks. Everybody uses the ski racks. Rediker — You knew before we approved the plans that the planter boxes needed to be there, right? Gramshammer — No. We did not take it seriously. Rediker — Agree that your flowers are beautiful. We were trying to make this area beautiful too. Is there a compromise? Gramshammer — We would have to put the ski racks and bike racks on Town of Vail property. They said no, due to emergency access. Panfil displayed images of the approved plans. November 7, 2017 - Page 407 0 Rediker — Can bike racks be located between the approved planter (at Pepi's Sports) and the entrance? Gillette — Landscaping benefits everyone. If you walk down the street, not everyone has landscaping in front of their building. Let's talk to Town of Vail to find places to increase landscaping off site. Stockmar — Significant difference between stone planters and moveable planters. Gramshammer — I will work with you if you work with me. I don't like the permanent planters. If I have something that can move, the only thing you will miss is the yellow flowers. If I can make an assortment of planters Rediker — How many ski racks in the winter are in front of the business? Gramshammer — Three ski racks Rediker — If planters are installed where they were approved, would the ski racks be pushed more toward the Town right-of-way? Panfil — Don't want to speak for Public Works. Hopkins — Town of Vail has huge planter pots all over Vail. Gillette — We should explore a Developer Improvement Agreement to require planters to be installed with flowers for a certain number of years. Gramshammer handed out a photo of Gorsuch Building, showing some planters that are no longer there. Public Comment — None Lockman — I feel this issue should have been addressed when the application was approved last year. We approved this application with landscaping, and that needs to be provided. I see no practical hardship. Hopkins — Think there are a lot of moving parts to the Village. There are all sorts of ways to create the same effect. This calls for something more mobile. There are lots of options in the Village. Pots help accomplish this in one way. Kurz — Split between staying with the decision made when this project was approved. Would like to consider approval of the planters for a year, to get some planters on that side of the building. Gillette — I understand why we do not want a reduction of landscaping in the core. Burden is on owners that have on site landscaping to keep it. Not sure why landscaping has to be on private property. If we can get landscaping back to what was there before the remodel, let's work with Town to find a place to put it on the south side, on Town property. November 7, 2017 - Page 408 0 Stockmar — The street is so narrow in winter. If we add something permanent, it's more of a problem. Give us a chance to see what works for the first year, and then come back to us for review. This is an opportunity to add landscaping. Memorialize somehow and review in a year or two; something that can be adjusted and changed. Rediker — Could applicant request moveable, temporary planters? Neubecker — Raised planters are not landscaping per the code. PEC could approve a site plan that shows planters, and that could be enforceable. Planters in pots would also need to be approved by the DRB. Rediker — Will not put off potential ways to make a compromise. Options are to approve, deny or continue. Is the applicant willing to come back at the next meeting with a site plan showing location of the planters? 6. Approval of Minutes May 8, 2017 PEC Meeting Results Motion: Approve First: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0-0 7. Informational Update A Brief presentation and discussion by Carly Rietmann, Healthy Aging Program Supervisor on Eagle County's Aging Well Community Planning Initiative. Carly Rietmann, of Eagle County, provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the County's Aging Well Community Planning Initiative. Eagle County has the fastest growing population of adults 65+ in Colorado's Rural Resort Region. The number of adults 65+ in Eagle County will quadruple by 2050. Meghan King, of Eagle County, discussed the priority areas for the initiative. Priorities that prompted the creation of action teams include healthcare, connection to resources, housing, and social and community engagement. King also discussed the Plan4Health project's relation to the aging initiative. Rietmann reviewed the next steps for the initiative, which include working the initiative into community projects. Lori Barnes discussed coordinated events planned in the future. 8. Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. November 7, 2017 - Page 409 0 TOWN OF VAIL Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 22, 2017 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 7 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 19 accommodation units and 10 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC,represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY This is the second worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). The applicant has submitted revised plans that alter the proposed unit mix and include modifications to the building. These revisions are described in detail in the attached memo from the applicant, dated May 15, 2017 and included as Attachment B. The information in this memo has been updated to reflect these changes. It is the applicant's intent to submit a second revision prior to the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting, where a request for a recommendation to the Town Council will be made. The discussion items included in Section VIII have been modified as a result of the Commission's feedback at the first worksession and the revised submittal to encourage dialogue on key issues. The applicant, Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 7 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 19 accommodation units and 10 employee housing units (EHUs), located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. Staff has received correspondence from members or groups within the community related to this application. This correspondence has been included as Attachment F. November 7, 2017 - Page 410 0 Process The process to establish a new special development district (SDD) begins with a pre - application meeting with staff to discuss the goals of the proposed SDD and the relationship of the proposal to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Next, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) conducts an initial review of the proposed development in which they can recommend approval of the proposal as requested, recommend approval with modifications, or may recommend denial of the proposal. Finally, the Town Council (TC) reviews the PEC's findings and recommendation. The Town Council shall consider the PEC's recommendation, but is not bound by the recommendation in reaching their decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny the proposal. Timeline The applicant has submitted a project review timeline indicating their preference that this meeting functions as follow-up worksession to the project for the PEC. The applicant's projected timeline* is as follows: • 4/24 PEC Worksession • 5/17 DRB Conceptual Review • 5/22 PEC Worksession • 6/7 DRB Conceptual Review • 6/12 PEC Public Hearing (recommendation to TC) • 6/20 TC First Reading/Worksession • 7/18 TC First Reading or Second Reading • 7/19 DRB conceptual • 8/1 TC Final Hearing/Second Reading • 8/16 DRB Final Approval * The above timeline is only an estimate by the applicant and is subject to change. Based upon the applicant's submitted timeline and the preliminary nature of this meeting, the Community Development Department recommends the PEC continues PEC17-0006 to the June 12, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting in order to address concerns raised by staff and for the applicant to provide detailed responses to anticipated questions from Commissioners and the general public. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Lunar Vail, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 7 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 19 accommodation units and 10 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. Town of Vail Page 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 411 0 Schedule • PEC Meeting April 24th - worksession • DRB Meeting May 17th - conceptual • PEC Meeting May 22nd - worksession • PEC Meeting June 12th - final recommendation November 7, 2017 - Page 412 of 532 TOWN Of UAIL 1. Call to Order PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June12,2017, 11:00AM Vail Town Council Chambers 75S. FrontageRoad-Vail, Colorado, 81657 Members Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, John Rediker, Karen Perez and Brian Stockmar Members Absent: None Site Visits: a. Jackson Residence — 2475 Garmisch Drive b. Manchester Residence — 2794 Snowberry Drive c. Mellgren Residence — 4112 Spruce Way 2. A request for review of a Variance, pursuant to Section 12-7B-16, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in landscape area, located at 231 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0009) Applicant: Gasthof Gramshammer Inc., represented by Gies Architects Planner: Matt Panfil Motion: Table to June 26, 2017 First: Gillette Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-2-0 (Rediker/Perez opposed) Planner Panfil relayed to the board the applicant's desire for this item to be continued to the next meeting. Russel Geis, representing the applicant, explained the process and timing for the project and the plan moving forward, necessitating the request for a continuance. Commissioner Stockmar requested clarification in regard to the recently installed bike racks. Stockmar reiterated his earlier concerns. Gillette would prefer permanent planters but is ok with moveable containers. Kurz agrees with Gillette Perez agrees with Gillette Hopkins voiced her support of the temporary planters. Lockman would prefer to see what was originally proposed, but is open to alternatives. Rediker is disappointed with applicants desire not to do what was originally proposed. Would support going forward today but recognizes others may support a continuance. 3. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 14-10-4-B, Architectural November 7, 2017 - Page 413 0 Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, etc., Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the replacement of a nonconforming deck with a proposed side setback of one foot, nine inches (1'9") where a fifteen foot (15') setback is required and a proposed rear setback of twelve feet (12') where fifteen feet (15') setback is also required, located at 4112 Spruce Way/Lot 2, Block 8, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0013) Applicant: Anders Folke & Anna Maria Mellgren Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Approve, with Conditions First: Kurz Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 Conditions: 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. 2. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate to planning staff prior to requesting a final planning inspection that the improvement has been constructed per plan. Spence introduced the project to the PEC. The existing deck is a safety hazard. The proposed deck will be one foot (1') from the side property line and will maintain a twelve foot (12') rear setback. The size of the lot essentially requires a variance for any improvement. Gillette: Have the neighbors been notified? Spence confirmed in the affirmative. Mike Connolley, representing the applicant, described the need the replace the deck. There was no public comment. Stockmar: Based on the site visit and photographs, this is clearly a safety issue. Supports the requested variance. All the remaining Commissioners agreed with Stockmar's comments. 4. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 14-10-4-B, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow a deck more than five feet (5') above ground level a four and six -tenths foot (4.6') setback where a ten foot (10') setback is required, located at 2475 Garmisch Drive, Unit 1 / Lot 5 & 6, Block H, Vail Das Schone Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 17-0014) Applicant: Dominique & Christiane J ackson Planner: Matt Panfil Motion: Approve with Conditions First: Lockman Second: Kurz Conditions: Vote: 7-0-0 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal; and November 7, 2017 - Page 414 0 2. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate to planning staff prior to requesting a final planning inspection that the improvement has been constructed per plan. Planner Panfil introduced the project and the requested variance. Dominique Jackson, applicant, provided a rationale for the requested proposal. Existing deck is too small, a safety issue at the top of the stairs. Stockmar asked if the deck is proposed to be used as a BBQ deck. Jackson explained that gas grills are permitted at the property. Stockmar asked if would be cantilevered or supported with posts. Panfil showed that the deck with be cantilevered. Lockman asked why the existing stairs are so narrow. Jackson said that was what was built. Panfil explained that wider stairs would also be permitted. Panfil explained that if cantilever is not possible then posts would be needed. Jackson further explained the plan. Public Comment - None Commissioner Comment Lockman -Recognizes the practical difficulty and supports the request, pointing to the safety concern. Hopkins -Agrees with Lockman Perez - Agrees with Lockman Kurz also agrees and supports the staff memorandum Gillette agrees Stockmar agrees Rediker agrees with staff's analysis. 5. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 7, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for retaining walls with height in excess of three feet (3') within the twenty foot (20') front setback, located at 2794 Snowberry Drive/Lot 16, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0020) Applicant: Gary & Jeane Manchester Planner: Jonathan Spence November 7, 2017 - Page 415 0 Motion: Approve, with Conditions First: Lockman Second: Kurz Vote: 7-0-0 Conditions: 1. No proposed retaining wall shall exceed a height of six feet (6). 2. The applicant shall obtain a right-of-way (ROW) permit prior to commencing work and a Revocable ROW permit for all private improvements located on public property. 3. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. Spence introduced the project and described the requested variance. Due to the steep slope of the lot, if the applicant were to propose a garage within the front setback, the variance would not be required. However, due to the unique topography of the site, it would be inappropriate to locate the garage in the front setback. Staff supports the requested variance. Seth Bossung of Intention Architecture provided a presentation and summarized the site plan design. Kurz: Asked if the retaining walls were boulders or concrete. Bossung responded that all walls are engineered boulder retaining walls. Lockman: Believes it is a creative site plan that addresses complex grading issues. All other Commissioners agreed. Rediker added that it is a unique site and relief is necessary. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 15 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 19 accommodation units and 10 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Approve, with Conditions First: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 4-3-0 (Rediker, Gillette, and Perez Opposed) Conditions: 1. Approval of Special Development District No. 42, Vail Mountain View Residences, is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. Although building mass and scale and relationship to adjacent properties is largely determined through the PEC review, the DRB shall have the flexibility to require changes to the buildings articulation, building stepbacks and stepdowns that will not affect overall November 7, 2017 - Page 416 0 height but may result in changes to the building's perceived mass and scale, in order to create an architecturally unified structure, with unified site development, that is compatible with existing structures and its surroundings; 2. The applicant shall work with Town of Vail staff to increase the robustness of the proposed landscaping, including an increase in the number and size of the new plantings, prior to submittal of an application for review before the Design Review Board;; 3. Prior to submittal of a Design Review Board application, the applicant shall provide Town of Vail staff with information for review and approval concerning the proposed operation and configuration of the loading space. If it is determined by staff that the operation poses too great a conflict with the adjacent pedestrian walkway, an alternative location/operation shall be proposed for review and approval by staff; 4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall cause to be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk, in a format approved by the Town attorney, a pedestrian easement for the paved path and stairs from the South Frontage Road right-of-way to the Town of Vail recreational path; 5. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct a continuous 10' wide separated concrete sidewalk along the South Frontage Road from Vail Valley Drive to the easternmost driveway that is shared by Mountain View and Apollo Park. The walk alignment, Option A or 8, shall be approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department prior to its construction, and shall be designed in conjunction with the ongoing conceptual design of the South Frontage Road improvements in this area as a part of the Vail Transportation Master Plan Update; 6. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install a snowmelt system within the above mentioned sidewalk along South Frontage Road and shall enter into the standard snowmelt agreement with the Town of Vail. The applicant shall be responsible for providing the heat source, and the on-going maintenance of the sidewalk and snowmelt system; 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall update the Traffic study (March 14, 2017) and Turn lane study April 19, 2017) to include any change of units and/or density. This study shall include the net new development PM peak hour generated trips. The applicant shall implement any changes required as a result of the updated studies as approved by the Town of Vail; November 7, 2017 - Page 417 0 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the Town of Vail Traffic Mitigation Fees for the net new increase in development traffic. The total fee shall be updated based on the updated traffic study. This fee was $6500 in 2005; this fee shall be appropriately increased due to construction cost inflation, and in coordination with the on-going Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study, and for this approval be set at $11,200 per net new development PM peak hour trip, based on the net new 12 Dwelling Units, 15 Lock -Offs, 10 EHU's, and 19 Accommodation Units; 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a construction staging plan and parking plan showing how the construction of this site will not impact town parking or adjacent properties; 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall engage Art in Public Places Board on the determination of an acceptable public art installation with a minimum value of $50, 000.00; 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the recreational amenities tax, as required by Section 12-9A-11 of the Vail Town Code; 12. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall record deed restrictions with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, in a format approved by the Town Attorney, for the Type 111 Employee Housing Units; and 13. Prior to submitting any building permit application, the applicant shall submit approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) related to all proposed work within the CDOT right -of way. Spence summarized the previous two meetings and the proposed changes that have occurred since the last presentation to the PEC on May 22, 2017. Most of the previous comments were related to the building's bulk, height, mass, public benefit, and relationship to Phase I of the development. The applicant has included a revised north elevation. Staff has provided conditions that would make the project compliant with the approval criteria. The applicant, represented by Dominic Mauriello, MPG Inc., provided a PowerPoint presentation to the PEC. Mauriello reviewed the project timeline. He described the changes in unit count that have occurred through the PEC review process. He summarized the aspects of the project which the applicant believes are public benefits. The deviations from the code associated with the project include: east side setback, building height, density, site coverage, and loading in the front setback. Will Hentschel, Architect of 359 Design, discussed the architectural design changes that have occurred throughout the PEC review process. Hentschel discussed the compatibility of the proposed elevations with Phase I. Similar features between the two phases include: top floor dormers, exposed timber and other parts of the structure, battered columns, and railings. Other changes include the replacement of the previously proposed metal panels with a stucco finish. The building follows the traditional base -middle -top composition. November 7, 2017 - Page 418 0 Hentschel introduced an elevation of the south fa9ade. Mauriello continued his presentation by discussing the impact of the structure and side setback encroachment on the adjacent Tyrolean building. He then described the changes that have been made to the north elevation. Mauriello then provided responses to each of the SDD approval criteria. Referencing images of the adjacent properties, he emphasized that the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area. He then discussed the relationship between uses and programming of the proposal and adjacent uses. The density of the proposal and adjacent properties was compared. Mauriello stated that the proposal complies with the Town's parking requirements. He discussed the two possibilities for a loading space. Gillette asked for clarification as to the Town's loading space requirements. Mauriello summarized the ways in which the applicant believes the proposal complies with the Town's comprehensive plan and other planning documents. There are no natural or geological hazards on the site. The plan complies with minimum landscape requirements. The proposal is not generating additional traffic and there are no improvements required. Mauriello discussed the two different options available for the location of the proposed sidewalk. He stated that the project will be completed in one phase with an anticipated short construction time. He concluded his presentation by referencing a slide that depicted increased hallway undulation. Spence indicated that Tom Kassmel of Public Works was available for questions and stated that there are two letters distributed at the beginning of the meeting that were received after the PEC packets were distributed. Perez: Asked for clarification regarding the number of employee housing units (EHUs) associated with the project. Spence clarified that there are 10 EHUs proposed, not 9 as stated on page 11 of the Staff Memo. Hopkins: Asked Mauriello for further explanation of the height exhibits. Rediker: Asked Spence if there was concern in approving the SDD without specific terms for height and other standards. Spence indicated that the data in the table on pages 11 and 12 of the staff report are the maximums that will be reviewed by the Town Council. Lockman:Asked Spence for clarification on one of the recommended conditions of approval regarding heating the sidewalk. Spence stated that the applicant has agreed to purchase renewable energy credits to offset the cost of heating the sidewalk. Kassmel: Stated that common practice has been to provide heated sidewalks where tall buildings shade the sidewalks, and cited Four Seasons and The Sebastian as examples. Perez: Asked Kassmel about the impact of the loading zone in its proposed location. Kassmel stated that it is not an ideal location and they do not typically allow loading on a public walkway. Lockman:Asked for clarification on the traffic impact fee. Kassmel stated that CDOT has agreed that there is no net new traffic generated by the project. However, proposed uses on the site will generate additional traffic which may have some broader impact on the system. November 7, 2017 - Page 419 0 Rediker: Asked how the sidewalk Options A or B will be determined. Kassmel stated that his team is conducting an ongoing review of both options. Option B may be further off in terms of time, but they want to ensure that it is a viable option for the future. Kassmel stated his preference that the sidewalk be located in order to accommodate Option B in the future. Public Comment - Chris Romer, President and CEO of Vail Valley Partnership (VVP), stated WP supports the project and feels that the height, density, and other deviations are worth the public benefits. Rick Smith, Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC), stated that his group supports the project because it contains EHUs and VVMC anticipates a strong demand for housing. The project will be a recruiting tool for VVMC. Stan Cope, management of Vail Valley Lodge, stated his support for the project. He believes the tradeoff between height and public benefits is worth it. Molly Murphy, Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA), stated the group's support of the project. They believe the lockoffs are an asset to the project. Steve Lindstrom, VLHA, restated that the group supports the project. The applicant is not asking for financial assistance from the community. Believes it is a good location for resident housing. Tom Saalfeld, managing agent of the Tyrolean, stated his opposition to the project. Concerns include: impact on their view and the height of the building. Stockmar asked Tom Saalfeld if there would be any difference if the building were only 48' tall. Tom Saalfeld responded that the overall size of the building is too big and far exceeds the amount of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) allowed. The owners of the Tyrolean were aware of the surrounding zoning, but did not anticipate an SDD. Tom Saalfeld asked if the EHUs were going to be truly affordable. Jeff Morgan stated his support for the project. He stated he works with Chris Romer and they both agree that the building will provide an aesthetic buffer from the highway. Stockmar: The project seems to comply with the SDD review criteria. While understanding the view of those who oppose the project, he believes there is a large public benefit to this project and therefore supports the project. Gillette: Believes the Tyrolean will lose their view regardless of a building height deviation, but does believe that as proposed, the structure negatively impacts the Tyrolean's access to light and air and would like to see that problem addressed. Lockman: Believes that deviations should not be granted strictly based on the provision of EHUs, even though they are very important to the Town. All criteria must be reviewed based on the context of the site. He has an issue with the overall compatibility based on scale, but it is consistent with the Town's various planning documents. He feels there have been improvements to the design over the course of the review and can support the project. Hopkins: Agreed with Lockman. Asked if there was a way to guarantee a price range for EHUs and lockoffs. Spence responded that the limitation is based on occupancy restrictions only. Hopkins stated that she feels the design has improved, but is also worried about the impact on the Tyrolean's access to light and air. November 7, 2017 - Page 420 0 Perez: Stated that she does not believe the proposal meets the compatibility criteria. Does not believe the benefit of the EHUs offsets the deviations requested. Feels the design has improved throughout the process, but is not ready to support the project. Kurz: Stated that while the building is large in regards to bulk and mass, it is located in an area which can accommodate its size. Design changes have helped address the perceived bulk and mass concerns. The public benefits outweigh any negative impacts. Lockman:Suggested the traffic impact study be reexamined. Also, he believes that a heated sidewalk should not be required due to its negative impact on the environment. Gillette: Agreed with Lockman regarding the heated sidewalk. Rediker: Acknowledged that there are a lot of positives associated with the proposal, including the EHUs and additional "hot beds." Disagrees with some of the applicant's arguments regarding compatibility of the project with surrounding area. The project does comply with some objectives of the comprehensive plan, but feels the bulk and mass is far beyond anything anticipated for the site. Also believes the project does not comply with Criteria #2 based on the excessive density of the site. Finally, believes that Criteria #3 has not been met and that the building does not complement the design of the surrounding area or Vail in general. 7. A request for final review of an amendment to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 16, Vail Town Code, for an existing healthcare facility, amending the development plan to allow for the reconstruction of the east wing, including healthcare facilities, ambulance district facilities, heliport building and associated structured parking located at 180 South Frontage Road West (Vail Valley Medical Center)/Lots E, F and 2E, Vail Village Second Filing, and Lot 2E-1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1. (PEC17-0022) Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Continue to July 10, 2017 First: Perez Second: Stockmar Vote: 7-0-0 Spence introduced the topic. This presentation will include an introduction and overview of the master plan for VVMC. Tom Braun will describe the approach that staff and the applicant will be taking for this project. Tom Braun, Braun Associates, representing the VVMC — Introduced some members of the design and applicant team The East Wing is the east end of the campus, near the current parking structure. New medical facilities and heliport will be included. At least 4 members of the PEC were not on this board or Council when the VVMC master plan was approved. We anticipate four more PEC meetings on this topic. Three applications (including Conditional Use for medical care facility and heliport), a rezoning application and subdivision application as well. Medical Professional Building (US Bank building) is also in the master plan boundary. Braun reviewed the parcels, including the land that will be acquired from the Evergreen Lodge. Future meetings with PEC are anticipated June 26, July 10, July 24 and August 10 or 24 of 2017. Master plan in 2014 and 2015 laid the groundwork for this development. Major goal was to keep medical center in Vail. Plan considers internal drivers (hospital needs) and external drivers (Town and community goals). Decompression, finding more space for existing uses, is one goal; relieve crowded conditions. Intention is not to increase number of patients, but to improve operations and comfort. He described the programming November 7, 2017 - Page 421 0 in the East Wing. Net gain 110,000 sq. ft. is proposed. Minimizing traffic on West Meadow Drive was a major goal, by relocating front entry to S. Frontage Road. Rediker — Is parking access changed from the original plan? Braun — Yes, it has changed. Gillette — Was there shared access planned with Evergreen Lodge? Braun — Yes, but that is not in this plan. Stockmar — Has the Stedman Clinic moved? Braun — Yes, to the West Wing. Braun continued to describe the new medical center, arrival experience, and heliport. New heliport location will reduce time and distance between emergency room and heliport. He discussed the parking needs, and general transportation management, including employees taking buses and shuttles to bring workers to medical center. About 197 additional on-site parking spaces are planned. About 605 total parking spaces planned on-site. Loading and delivery was discussed; all will be enclosed. Pedestrian circulation will include a north -south connection along east side of new building. He discussed the land exchange with Evergreen Lodge. Future needs and expansion space will be provided in the helipad building. This space is not programmed. Extra space may allow a location for uses in the medical professional building (US Bank) during redevelopment. Rediker — Is a roundabout planned near the Municipal Centre and VVMC? Spence — On July 10, Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, will attend the PEC meting to describe future road improvements. Nate Savage, Davis Partnership, Architect — Showed 3D images of the architecture. Materials and design elements will be similar to the central wing. Lobby will be open with mountain views. Public pedestrian access will be available from Meadow Drive. Loading bays will allow trucks to drive in, turn -around inside, and pull out of separate garage door. Gillette — Is the elevator tower two stories above the main building? Savage — That is the elevator tower overrun that you are seeing. Helipad tower needs to be at a set height, based on flight patterns and safety. Braun — Described the flight pattern for helicopter flights. Gillette — What design guidelines are used to review the helipad? Braun — The site is not in the Village, and not in Lionshead, so the Town's standard design review process will be used. Savage - Level 2 will have sleeping quarters; level 3 will have internal conference space. Rediker — It will be helpful to see the presentation on flight paths. Last year there was a Flight For Life accident in Frisco. What designs are provided to plan for accidents? Braun — Defer a response until the helicopter expert is here. November 7, 2017 - Page 422 0 Kurz — Please show secondary entrance on Meadow Drive. There is no parking associated with that? Savage — The south entry is design for pedestrians and bus users. Hopkins — Can that entry be design to look more like an entry? Savage — Yes, but we have limits with the property line. Rediker — Please plan to discuss what happens if the Evergreen Lodge redevelopment does not more forward, and impacts to Evergreen guests. Braun — An aviation easement is planned for a small area over the Evergreen Lodge. Rest of the Evergreen site could be built to maximum allowed height. Rediker — Any connection planned to the medical office building? Braun — That was discussed, but too expensive to build an elevated walkway. Kurz — What happens if land exchange does not happen? Braun — This plan depends on the land exchange to happen. Stockmar — How are you financing this project? Are you protected from an economic downturn? Doris Kirchner, VVMC President and CEO — Over past 10 years we have had savings and $75 million capital campaign, We have raised $42 million so far. Kurz — Are you accelerating the schedule? Kirchner- We are on schedule. Our plan is to finish by Fall 2020 Chris Knight, Project One, Project Manager — Goal is Fall 2020 for parking structure occupancy. Kurz — Have used the facility more that I want to over past several months. Congratulations on how you have managed traffic and circulation during construction. Thank you for your efforts. 8. A request for review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a resubdivision of Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing and the creation of Lot F-1, Vail Village Second Filing, located at 180 South Frontage Road West/ Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0016) Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to June 26, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 7-0 9. A request for review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a resubdivision of Lot 2W, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing, and the creation of Lot 2E-1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing, located at 250 South Frontage Road West/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing, and November 7, 2017 - Page 423 0 setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0018) Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to June 26, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 7-0 10. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of Lot 2E, Vail Village Second Filing and Lot 2E-1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing, from Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District to the General Use (GU) District, and a rezoning of Lot F-1, Vail Village Second Filing from General Use (GU) District to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District, located at 180 and 250 South Frontage Road West/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing and Vail Village Second Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0015) Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to June 26, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 7-0 11. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to Section 12-10-19 Core Areas Identified, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to include Lot F-1 in the Commercial Core Area for parking regulations purposes, located at 250 South Frontage Road West/Lot F-1, Vail Village Second Filing, and setting for the details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0023) Applicant: Evergreen Hotel Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to June 26, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Stockmar 12. Approval of Minutes May 22, 2017 PEC Meeting Results Motion: Approve First: Kurz Abstain) Vote: 7-0 Second: Stockmar Vote: 6-0-1 (Perez — 13. Informational Update 14. Adjournment Motion: Adjourn First: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 7-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hours prior to November 7, 2017 - Page 424 0 IIeuewSchedule Process has created a better project Thankful for staff, public, PEC, and DRB input Excited to continue to work with the Town Council and DRB November 7, 2017 - Page 425 of 532 • APRIL 24: PEC WORKSESSION MAY 22: PEC WORKSESSION JUNE 12: PEC FINAL RECOMMENDATION JUNE 20 TOWN COUNCIL WORKSESSION JULY 18: TOWN COUNCIL 1ST READING AUGUST 1: TOWN COUNCIL 2ND READING From: Adrian Fernandez To: Jonathan Spence Subject: Maintain View Residences Phase II Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 8:02:31 PM Dear Vail Town Council: I am writing as an owner in Mountain View Residences (Phase 1) to support the proposed Mountain View Phase 2 project (a Special Development District). It was clear to me from the onset when I purchased my unit (Unit #305), it was recorded on the title that there would be a phase 2 project built on top of the existing garage. I am supportive of the project, the proposed building is well designed, high quality and fits nicely with the site. I encourage you to approve this project. Sincerely. Adrian Fernandez (Owner unit 305) November 7, 2017 - Page 426 0 Mary Anne Redmond From: Brooke Thompson Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 8:37 AM To: Mary Anne Redmond Subject: Fwd: Announcing VMVR Phase II Get Outlook for iOS From Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 7:49 AM Subject: Re: Announcing VMVR Phase!! To: Ron Byrne <ron@ronbyrne.com> Mark Kaplan Very nice, just back in Vail as of last night, good luck to you Sent from my iPad On Mar 10, 2017, at 4:49 PM, Ron Byrne <ronronb. rne.com> wrote: Dear Mark & Linda, I hope you've had the opportunity to come to Vail this winter as it has been a fabulous season. !wanted to let you know that we are currently in the planning stage of the development of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase 11. When we originally purchased the land that Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I sits on, it was always intended to be a part of a multi -phase project. The parking garage which is located to the north of your building was designed specifically for that purpose. It currently has the infrastructure to accommodate a new building above it, which was originally designed in 2007. After the downturn in the economy, the development was put on hold and we have redesigned it this year. Since the foundation already exists, this new phase can be built very quickly and with minimal impact to you. We take a great deal of pride in Vail Mountain View Residences Phase 1. In my opinion, it is one of the best projects in Vail in terms of luxury, privacy and exclusivity. We plan to develop Phase II in the same manner. The new building will be located over the north garage and will act as a large buffer for noise coming from 1-70 and the Frontage Road. It will have no impact of your views towards the ski slopes or Gore Creek. The new building has been designed to have no common areas with your building. The first and second floors will be comprised of 20 hotel suites which are across from your 3rd & 4th floors. 1 believe this will be a great benefit to you should you ever need any additional space for your guests. Each suite will include a small kitchenette, master bath with double vanities and will be graciously decorated. On the north side of the building, which is out of view to you, we will have a few high-end employee housing units. All developments in Vail now require employee housing, and our goal is to build extremely high-end housing units that will cater to working professionals. On the 3rd and 4th floors of the new building, we will have 12 new luxury residences which will be a combination of two, three and four-bedroom penthouse units. These units will be almost identical to Phase 1 in terms of layout and design. 1 November 7, 2017 - Page 427 c My partner in this endeavor is developer Peter Carlson out of Minnesota. He has extensive development experience and I have known him for over 30 years, purchasing a home from his father on Forest Road twenty years ago. Peter brings great knowledge of construction and development to the project and I think he is a great asset. Every aspect of this development, as well as the continued operation of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I, is incredibly important to us. There will be no use of the current pool and hot tub area of Phase I by Phase II. The parking is designed with the upper garage (north door) being used for hotel suites and employee housing units with only the 12 luxury condominiums using the lower portions of the garage. Mary Anne Redmond, the Association President, has done an excellent job ensuring that the building is kept in excellent shape. We are very proud that the building consistently operates within its budgets, and has in fact built up a substantial reserve. Please feel free to contact myself or Mary Anne if you would like more details on Phase II. We will continue to keep you informed as phase II progresses. Warmest personal regards, Ron Ron Byrne, President & CEO Ron Byrne & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street 1 Vail CO 81657 970-476-1987 office 970-331-8500 cell www.ronbyrne.com Ron Byrne & Associates 2016 Luxury Property Collection 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 428 0 Mary Anne Redmond From: Brooke Thompson Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 12:20 PM To: Mary Anne Redmond Subject: Fwd: Announcing VMVR Phase 11 Get Outlook for iOS From: Dave Keller Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 11:43 AM Subject: FW: Announcing VMVR Phase II To: Ron Byrne <ron@ronbyrne.com> Ron, Pam and I are excited about this news and wish you continued success. Best regards, Dave and Pam David A. Keller President Built to Last 1 Since 536 Chapel Hills Drive, Ste 150 Colorado Springs, CO 80920 Office 719.528.6977 keller#tnmes corn Click to join us on Pinterest, Facebook and Houzz! This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Dave Keller Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 10:48 AM To: Dave Keller Subject: Fwd: Announcing VMVR Phase II Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: 1 November 7, 2017 - Page 429 c From: Ron Byrne <ron[Q7ronbyrne.com> Date: March 10, 2017 at 3:45:48 PM MST To: Subject: Announcing VMVR Phase 11 Dear Dave & Pam, I hope you've had the opportunity to come to Vail this winter as it has been a fabulous season. I wanted to let you know that we are currently in the planning stage of the development of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II. When we originally purchased the land that Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I sits on, it was always intended to be a part of a multi -phase project. The parking garage which is located to the north of your building was designed specifically for that purpose. It currently has the infrastructure to accommodate a new building above it, which was originally designed in 2007. After the downturn in the economy, the development was put on hold and we have redesigned it this year. Since the foundation already exists, this new phase can be built very quickly and with minimal impact to you. We take a great deal of pride in Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I. In my opinion, it is one of the best projects in Vail in terms of luxury, privacy and exclusivity. We plan to develop Phase II in the same manner. The new building will be located over the north garage and will act as a large buffer for noise coming from I-70 and the Frontage Road. It will have no impact of your views towards the ski slopes or Gore Creek. The new building has been designed to have no common areas with your building. The first and second floors will be comprised of 20 hotel suites which are across from your 3rd & 4th floors. I believe this will be a great benefit to you should you ever need any additional space for your guests. Each suite will include a small kitchenette, master bath with double vanities and will be graciously decorated. On the north side of the building, which is out of view to you, we will have a few high-end employee housing units. All developments in Vail now require employee housing, and our goal is to build extremely high-end housing units that will cater to working professionals. On the 3rd and 4th floors of the new building, we will have 12 new luxury residences which will be a combination of two, three and four-bedroom penthouse units. These units will be almost identical to Phase I in terms of layout and design. My partner in this endeavor is developer Peter Carlson out of Minnesota. He has extensive development experience and I have known him for over 30 years, purchasing a home from his father on Forest Road twenty years ago. Peter brings great knowledge of construction and development to the project and I think he is a great asset. Every aspect of this development, as well as the continued operation of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I, is incredibly important to us. There will be no use of the current pool and hot tub area of Phase I by Phase II. The parking is designed with the upper garage (north door) being used for hotel suites and employee housing units with only the 12 luxury condominiums using the lower portions of the garage. Mary Anne Redmond, the Association President, has done an excellent job ensuring that the building is kept in excellent shape. We are very proud that the building consistently operates within its budgets, and has in fact built up a substantial reserve. Please feel free to contact myself or Mary Anne if you would like more details on Phase II. We will continue to keep you informed as phase II progresses. 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 430 0 Warmest personal regards, Ron Ron Byrne, President & CEO Ron Byrne & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street 1 Vail CO 81657 970-476-1987 office 970-331-8500 cell www.ronbyrne,com Ron Byrne & Associates 2016 Luxury Property Collection 3 November 7, 2017 - Page 431 0 Mary Anne Redmond From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Thomas Monday, March 13, 2017 8:58 AM Mary Anne Redmond FW: Announcing VMVR Phase II From: Pamela Keller Sent: Sunday, March 1z, zuii i:'rs rm To: Ron Byrne Subject: RE: Announcing VMVR Phase II Ron, This is very exciting news. So glad that you are able to start this next project. It seems excellent. On another matter, would you happen to know a good finish carpenter? We would like and the one we used last has sadly retired. Best always, Pam Pam Keller Executive Vice President 1 Sales and Marketing Keller Homes, Inc. Built to Last 1 Since 1983 536 Chapel Hills Drive, Ste 150 1 Colorado Springs, CO 8092o Office: 719.528.6977 like your timing will be to do a small remodel This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Ron Byrne [mailto:ron@ ronbyrne.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 3:46 PM To: Pamela Keller; Dave Keller Subject: Announcing VMVR Phase II Dear Dave & Pam, I hope you've had the opportunity to come to Vail this winter as it has been a fabulous season. I wanted to let you know that we are currently in the planning stage of the development of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II. When we originally purchased the land that Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I sits on, it was always intended to be a part of a multi -phase project. The parking garage which is located to the north of your building 1 November 7, 2017 - Page 432 0 was designed specifically for that purpose. It currently has the infrastructure to accommodate a new building above it, which was originally designed in 2007. After the downturn in the economy, the development was put on hold and we have redesigned it this year. Since the foundation already exists, this new phase can be built very quickly and with minimal impact to you. We take a great deal of pride in Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I. In my opinion, it is one of the best projects in Vail in terms of luxury, privacy and exclusivity. We plan to develop Phase II in the same manner. The new building will be located over the north garage and will act as a large buffer for noise coming from I-70 and the Frontage Road. It will have no impact of your views towards the ski slopes or Gore Creek. The new building has been designed to have no common areas with your building. The first and second floors will be comprised of 20 hotel suites which are across from your 3r1 & 4th floors. I believe this will be a great benefit to you should you ever need any additional space for your guests. Each suite will include a small kitchenette, master bath with double vanities and will be graciously decorated. On the north side of the building, which is out of view to you, we will have a few high-end employee housing units. All developments in Vail now require employee housing, and our goal is to build extremely high-end housing units that will cater to working professionals. On the 3rd and 4th floors of the new building, we will have 12 new luxury residences which will be a combination of two, three and four-bedroom penthouse units. These units will be almost identical to Phase I in terms of layout and design. My partner in this endeavor is developer Peter Carlson out of Minnesota. He has extensive development experience and I have known him for over 30 years, purchasing a home from his father on Forest Road twenty years ago. Peter brings great knowledge of construction and development to the project and I think he is a great asset. Every aspect of this development, as well as the continued operation of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I, is incredibly important to us. There will be no use of the current pool and hot tub area of Phase I by Phase II. The parking is designed with the upper garage (north door) being used for hotel suites and employee housing units with only the 12 luxury condominiums using the lower portions of the garage. Mary Anne Redmond, the Association President, has done an excellent job ensuring that the building is kept in excellent shape. We are very proud that the building consistently operates within its budgets, and has in fact built up a substantial reserve. Please feel free to contact myself or Mary Anne if you would like more details on Phase II. We will continue to keep you informed as phase II progresses. Warmest personal regards, Ron Ron Byrne, President & CEO Ron Byrne & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street 1 Vail CO 81657 970-476-1987 office 970-331-8500 cell www.ronbyrne.com Ron Byrne & Associates 2016 Luxury Property Collection 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 433 0 Mary Anne Redmond From: Teresa Thomas Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 9:24 AM To: Mary Anne Redmond Subject: FW: Announcing VMVR Phase 11 From: Adrian Fernandez Sent: Monday, March 13, zuii i:Ub AM To: Ron Byrne Subject: Re: Announcing VMVR Phase II Thank you Ron for the Update, we will be coming on the summer. On Mar 10, 2017, at 6:48 PM, Ron Byrne <ron@ronbyrne.com> wrote: Dear Adrian, I hope you've had the opportunity to come to Vail this winter as it has been a fabulous season. I wanted to let you know that we are currently in the planning stage of the development of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II. When we originally purchased the land that Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I sits on, it was always intended to be a part of a multi -phase project. The parking garage which is located to the north of your building was designed specifically for that purpose. It currently has the infrastructure to accommodate a new building above it, which was originally designed in 2007. After the downturn in the economy, the development was put on hold and we have redesigned it this year. Since the foundation already exists, this new phase can be built very quickly and with minimal impact to you. We take a great deal of pride in Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I. In my opinion, it is one of the best projects in Vail in terms of luxury, privacy and exclusivity. We plan to develop Phase 11 in the same manner. The new building will be located over the north garage and will act as a large buffer for noise coming from 1-70 and the Frontage Road. It will have no impact of your views towards the ski slopes or Gore Creek. The new building has been designed to have no common areas with your building. The first and second floors will be comprised of 20 hotel suites which are across from your 3rd & 4th floors. I believe this will be a great benefit to you should you ever need any additional space for your guests. Each suite will include a small kitchenette, master bath with double vanities and will be graciously decorated. On the north side of the building, which is out of view to you, we will have a few high-end employee housing units. All developments in Vail now require employee housing, and our goal is to build extremely high-end housing units that will cater to working professionals. On the 3rd and 4th floors of the new building, we will have 12 new luxury residences which will be a combination of two, three and four-bedroom penthouse units. These units will be almost identical to Phase 1 in terms of layout and design. My partner in this endeavor is developer Peter Carlson out of Minnesota. He has extensive development experience and I have known him for over 30 years, purchasing a home from his father on Forest Road twenty years ago. Peter brings great knowledge of construction and development to the project and I think he is a great asset. 1 November 7, 2017 - Page 434 0 Every aspect of this development, as well as the continued operation of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase!, is incredibly important to us. There will be no use of the current pool and hot tub area of Phase I by Phase II. The parking is designed with the upper garage (north door) being used for hotel suites and employee housing units with only the 12 luxury condominiums using the lower portions of the garage. Mary Anne Redmond, the Association President, has done an excellent job ensuring that the building is kept in excellent shape. We are very proud that the building consistently operates within its budgets, and has in fact built up a substantial reserve. Please feel free to contact myself or Mary Anne if you would like more details on Phase II. We will continue to keep you informed as phase II progresses. Warmest personal regards, Ron Ron Byrne, President & CEO Ron Byrne & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street 1 Vail CO 81657 970-476-1987 office 970-331-8500 cell www.ronbyrne.com Ron Byrne & Associates 2016 Luxury Property Collection 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 435 0 July 28, 2017 Mayor Dave Chapin, Members of the Vail Town Council I would like to take this opportunity share with you my support of the proposed Vail View Mountain Residences Phase II. As all of you know one of Vail's original employee housing projects Apollo Park was build across the same site as this new proposed project. In its day this was a place that employees from many different employers could reside and be with in the Town of Vail. Now as then employee housing and parking were challenging. This project would bring affordable employee housing back into Vail Village. These would be long term rental units that employees who work in our local businesses, keeping our guest happy and supporting the infrastructure that made Vail what it is today. Not deed restricted housing but affordable rental units for those who are working on the front lines of Vail. In 1967 my family came to Vail for the first time. After that my skiing career brought me back to Vail many times each year. Then in 1974 I was able to make Vail my home. In that year I met the Seibert family and Mr. Pete Seibert. I was lucky enough to hear his vision as to how Vail was to become successful. In his vision he saw a place that guests and employees shared many of the same experiences on the slopes and off. This led to a stronger sense of inclusion in the "Vail Experience" which enhanced a vision of sharing our community with the world. I hope you can support this project in its effort to combine employee housing with the modern development that Vail needs. It's only a small number in the needs of our employees but it is a start. Sincerely, Tom Talbot November 7, 2017 - Page 436 0 November 7, 2017 - Page 437 0 From: Ashley Garton [mailto:Ashley@goodmanwallace.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 6:25 PM To: Kendra Carberry Cc: Kerry Wallace Subject: Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek - Objection to the SDD Application Dear Ms. Carberry, This office has been retained by a coalition of owners at Vail Mountain View Residences on the Gore Creek. We are currently preparing an objection to the SDD Application filed by Lunar Vail, LLC [Item No. 6 on the August 1, 2017 Agenda]. We believe there are a number of serious issues regarding the alleged "Written Approval Letter" by the Association as referenced in your July 18, 2017 correspondence. We would respectfully request that the Town of Vail table the issue to allow the Association and its owners to address the matter amongst themselves. A brief summary of the issues we believe exist are as follows: 1. Because Declarant control expired in 2010 Ms. Redmond, who is appointed by the Declarant, did not have the authority to sign the Joint Property Owner Written Approval Letter on behalf of the Association. 2. The Town Code requires that the consent of such Agent or Authorized Representative be given only after compliance with applicable provisions of the Declaration. There has been a complete lack of transparency in the provision of information and notice to Association Members. 3. In addition to the two foregoing points the coalition of Unit Owners objects to multiple criteria required to be demonstrated by the applicant per the Town Code. Additionally, in your July 18, 2017 correspondence you refer to an attached explanation provided by the applicant's counsel as to the Written Approval Letter; however said explanation is not attached. Could you please provide the alleged explanation, it would be greatly appreciated? Again, we respectfully request the Town consider tabling the matter to allow the Unit Owners to have a meaningful dialogue with the applicant. We realize this request comes on short notice; however, out of respect for the time constraints on the August 1St Agenda we feel that 90 minutes may be an insufficient amount of time to address the Unit Owners' concerns. As mentioned above, we are currently working on a detailed objection which you will have in hand tomorrow and which we will be discussing with the HOA. If possible, would you have time tomorrow for a phone call with attorney Kerry Wallace to further discuss this matter? We hope to work cooperatively with the Town of Vail to address this matter in an efficient manner. Thank you, Ashley Garton Ashley(a�goodmanwallace.com November 7, 2017 - Page 438 0 GOODMAN AND WALLACE P.C. The Peak in Valley Law 4•wit', oodrnanirall ,ice.com Vail Office 105 Edwards Village Blvd Suite D-201 P.O. Box 1$86 Edwards, CO 81632 *please reply to this address Telephone 970,926,4447 Facsimile 970.926.5009 Aspen Office Telephone 970,925.2050 PRIVILEGE AM) CoNnorsTTALITY NOTICE: ICE: THIS EECIRO\1CiR_ANSM1SSIO (ANDOR DOCLNIEMACCOMPA rcia1T}MAYCONTAiN conn TIAL I TOT -MATZO( Rao:4o C 'MIRE SEDER WHICH IS PRDTICTED BY THE ArrortNre- CLIENTPRIVILEGE. THE INFOR.i1AT1ON IS MENDED FOR THE L'SE OF THE LNDIV JAL OR ENT1TY TO WUTCH IT IE ADDP.E SSE!) 1F VOL' IRE NOT THE L\TESVED RECIPtE,\T. YOu ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DtSCLOSLRE. COPYING_ DESTRIBL7IOX, ELECTRONIC STORING OR THE TAKING OE ANT ACTION NRELIANCE ON DIE CON'TEN'TS OF TICS TN -FORMATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. F YOU HAVERECEIVED MIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR. PLEASE L L 1ED1ATFLYNOTIFY me SE.\DE.R BY REPLY E-MAIL AND L UD/ATEil'DE:LLETE MS RECORD FROM YOUR COMPLIER SYSTEIL November 7, 2017 - Page 439 0 HOLLAND &HART Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Attention: Mr. Jonathan Spence Dear Mr. Spence: Thomas J. Todd Phone (970) 925-3476 Fax (970) 925-9367 ttodd@hollandhart.com May 17, 2017 Re: Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II Holland & Hart LLP represents Gore Creek Group LLC, the applicant for the pending land use application for the expansion and development of the existing commercial units in the Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek condominium project (the "Project"). The pending land use application seeks approval for the construction of a second phase ("Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II") consisting of a new mixed-use residential and commercial building in the area above the Project's existing parking garage. I am writing to you in reference to a recent question raised relative to the involvement of Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek Owner's Association (the "Association") as well as the existing residential condominium unit owners whose condominium units are located in the first phase ("Phase I") of Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek. Under the Project's governing documents, the development of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II with a new building was specifically contemplated, and the right to develop Vail Mountain View Phase II was expressly reserved by the Project's Declarant, Lunar Vail LLC. In this regard, under Article 15 of the Project's Condominium Declaration (the "Declaration"), the separate consent of the existing residential unit owners in Phase I of the Project is not required for this expansion and development. Also, a separate Notice Regarding Disclosures (the "Notice") in reference to these matters was also recorded. Lunar Vail LLC has expressly authorized Gore Creek Group LLC to submit and pursue this land use application, as has the Association. Based on the foregoing, we deem consent of the owners in Phase I as being already given, and in existence. As such, the application complies with the submittal requirements of Section 12-9A-3 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Letters from the Project's Declarant as well as from the Association confirming these arrangements are included in the land use application materials. A copy of the Notice, recorded April 4, 2009 under Reception No. 200906994, along with Article 15 of the Declaration are enclosed with this letter. Holland & Hart LLP Attorneys at Law Phone (970) 925-3476 Fax (970) 925-9367 www.hollandhart.com 600 East Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611-1991 Aspen Billings Boise Boulder Carson City Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson Hole Las Vegas Reno Salt Lake City Santa Fe Washington, D.C. November 7, 2017 - Page 440 c HOLLAND&HART pp, Mr. Jonathan Spence, May 17, 2017 Page 2 The land use application contemplates the inclusion of the Project in a proposed special improvement district (the "SDD") which will include both Phase I and Phase II of the Project. All the uses and dimensional requirements included in land use application as well as the proposed SDD were specifically contemplated in the Declaration and the Notice, and all residential unit owners in Phase I of the Project took title to their condominium units subject to these reserved expansion rights, so no separate or additional consents or approvals are needed from the residential unit owners in Phase I. In summary, while Gore Creek Group LLC, has full legal authority under the Project's governing documents to submit and pursue the pending land use application, Gore Creek Group LLC nevertheless obtained the Association's acknowledgement of these rights as part of its submission of the application. The Gore Creek Group LLC is keeping the Association as well as the individual unit owners in Phase I informed as the application proceeds with the Town of Vail. Sincerely, Thomas J. Todd of Holland & Hart LLP TJT Enclosures 9644997_2 November 7, 2017 - Page 441 0 EAGLE COUNTY. CO TEAK J SIMONTON Pge: 4 11:39:43AM REC: $21.00 DOC $ JR I iI [11 1111 11 After Recording Return to: 14►1 tea 2t5- n dr St.. ,�►rd Ilan CQ If 5? NOTICE REGARDING DISCLOSURES 1]I 111 200906994 04/17/2009 it This Notice Regarding Disclosures is made and given this ,34 #day of , 2009 by Lunar Vail, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (the "Declarant"). Declarant is the owner of the Commercial Unit as defined in and created pursuant to that certain Condominium Declaration for the Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek as recorded in the records of Eagle County, Colorado on December 5, 2008 at Reception No. 200825629 (the "Declaration") and that certain Condominium Plat recorded in the records of Eagle County, Colorado on December 5, 2008 at Reception No. 200825628 (the "Map"). Capitalized terms used but undefined herein have the meanings given them in the Declaration. Declarant has certain Reserved Declarant Rights as described in the Declaration and Map which include, without limitation the right to build a new building on the Unbounded Portion of the Condominium Unit. If permitted by Applicable Law, such a new building at the Project could include retail space and/or space sold as part of a fractional or interval interest regime. Declarant is recording this Notice against the Commercial Unit as a reminder for all potential buyers of Units at the Project to review the Declaration and, in particular, to understand the Reserved Declarant Rights. In addition, in order to ensure that Owners acquiring title to Units other than through an initial Deed from Declarant have the benefit of the same knowledge as the initial purchasers from Declarant, the Declarant is including the following disclosures from its own sales contracts in this Notice: Mountain Activities. The Project is located in an area with skiing facilities and other all -season recreational areas (the "Mountain Recreational Areas"). The Mountain Recreational Areas are expected to generate an unpredictable amount of visible, audible and odorous impacts and disturbances from activities relating to the construction, operation, use and maintenance of the DMWEST #6801289 v1 200906994 1 of 4 1 I I November 7, 2017 - Page 442 0 200906994 2 of 4 Mountain Recreational Areas (the "Mountain Activities"). The Mountain Activities include, without limitation: (i) movement and operation of passenger vehicles (including, without limitation, buses, vans, and other vehicles transporting passengers over adjacent streets and over, around and through the Mountain Recreational Areas), commercial vehicles, and construction vehicles and equipment; (ii) activities relating to the construction, operation and maintenance of roads, trails, ski trails, skiways and other facilities relating to the Mountain Recreational Areas (including, without limitation, tree cutting and clearing, grading and earth moving and other construction activities, construction, operation and maintenance of access roads, snow -making equipment, chairlifts, gondolas, busses or other transportation systems, operation of vehicles and equipment relating to trash removal, snow removal, snow grooming, and over - the -snow or over -the -terrain transportation purposes, and operation of safety and supervision vehicles); (iii) activities relating to the use of the Mountain Recreational Areas (including, without limitation, skiing, snow -boarding, ski - patrol activities, and other over -the- snow activities, hiking, horseback riding, bicycling and other recreational activities); (iv) ski racing and organized events and competitions relating to the activities described in clause (iii) above; (v) concerts, fireworks displays, and other performances and special events; (vi) restaurants, clubs, restrooms and other public use facilities; (vii) public access to adjacent U.S. Forest Service lands; (viii) public parking facilities and the traffic related thereto; (ix) and other activities permitted by law. The Mountain Activities may occur 365 days a year, during daytime and nighttime. The Project is located in a geologically sensitive area that may be subject to rock slides. Construction Activities. The Unit is located in an area that is subject to or near ongoing construction activities (collectively, the "Construction Activities"). The Construction Activities are expected to generate an unpredictable amount of visible, audible and odorous impacts and disturbances. The Construction Activities may include, without limitation: (i) construction traffic (including, without limitation, construction vehicles, equipment and vehicles used or owned by Seller, adjacent landowners, and the employees, agents and contractors of either of them); and (ii) construction activities (including, without limitation, grading, excavation, clearing, site work and construction of indoor and outdoor improvements) relating to the Project, nearby properties, or the Mountain Recreational Areas. Commercial Activities. A variety of commercial activities may or will be conducted on, or in the area near, the Project (the "Commercial Activities"). The Commercial Activities are expected to generate an unpredictable amount of visible, audible and odorous impacts and disturbances. The Commercial Activities may (but will not necessarily) include, without limitation: (i) operation DM/VEST #6801289 v1 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 443 0 200906994 3 of 4 of full-service hotel(s) and health spa(s) with associated swimming pool(s), other outdoor recreational facilities and parking facilities; (ii) meetings, conferences, banquets and other group events; (iii) sales and rentals of clothing, skis, ski - related equipment, other over -the -snow equipment, bicycles, and other recreational equipment; (iv) sales of tickcts for chairlifts, gondolas, other transportation systems, and other activities and events conducted on the Mountain Recreational Areas; (v) indoor and outdoor restaurant and bar operations (including, without limitation, the sale of food and alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages for consumption on and immediately adjacent to the Project and at other locations) and preparation of hot and cold food (through the use of barbecue grills, fire pits and other smoke and/or odor producing means) and beverages at indoor and outdoor facilities on and immediately adjacent to the Project; (vi) sales of services relating to skiing, other over -the -snow activities, and other recreational activities (including, without limitation, tuning, waxing, repairing, mounting of bindings on, renting, storing and transporting skis, snowboards and similar equipment, ski schools and other forms of individual and group lessons, tours and excursions); (vii) vehicle passenger drop-off and pick-up, locker room, changing room, rest room and lounge purposes in designated areas, and short-term clothing and equipment storage; (viii) parking activities (including, without limitation, activities relating to valet parking or parking relating to adjacent properties); (ix) the installation, operation and maintenance of illuminated and non -illuminated signage; (x) concerts and other outdoor and indoor entertainment, performances and special events, including, without limitation, Octoberfest and similar festivals, and art fairs; and (xi) any other uses or activities permitted by law. The Commercial Activities may occur 365 days a year, during daytime and nighttime. No View Easement. There is no easement or other right, express or implied, for the benefit of any Owner or Unit for light, view or air. Other Properties. Other properties are located adjacent to and nearby the Project (the "Other Properties") and the Other Properties may be developed or redeveloped by Declarant or other parties pursuant to the land uses permitted by the Town's zoning resolutions and other codes and ordinances. DMWEST #6801289 v1 3 November 7, 2017 - Page 444 0 Executed as of the date first written above. STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF LUNAR VAI co a Colorado limited liability By: Nam Title: ) SS. =rrv�z rf�.1 The foregoing instrument was cknowled ed before me this ,, �sfday of /+ ; w .:...... 2009 by , as of Lunar Vail, LLC Colorado limited liability,,,,,,,, �15Dp , company. " Witness my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: 030 3320/ Z. DMWEST #6801289 v1 4 200906994 4 of 4 l� Sy i 16110 Z� �% `"�l� = P11,44:::::C: November 7, 2017 - Page 445 0 �Il:ai.(, ..,,I...al l]. r,:... ...:►��. _ _.__..l f P►_i_.__I. I._ Il__ _. _..I e 4 CA. w _ Association takes any such action, or is the losing party in any proceeding related is .coon, then (in addition to all other remedies of Declarant) such Owner, such CIa • ssociation shall be responsible for Declarant's costs, including reasonable - 's fees, and shall also be responsible for any and all consequential damagesg damages as the result of any delay, related to such action. Section 14.5. _ ransferable. Any Special Declarant Rights or Additional Reserved Right create - . erved under this ARTICLE 14 for the benefit of Declarant may be transferred to a n by an instrument expressly describing the rights transferred and recorded in the Records. e. ARTICLE 15 RESERVATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Section 15.1. Expansion Rights. Declarant expressly reserves the right to subject all or any part of the Real Estate described in Exhibit D attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference (the "Expansion Property`') to the provisions of this Declaration upon the substantial completion of Improvements on the Expansion Property. The consent of the existing Owners, First Mortgagees or other holders of Security Interests shall not be required for any such expansion, and Declarant may proceed with such expansion without limitation at its sole option. In addition, Declarant also expressly reserves the right to add unspecified Real Estate to the Project as allowed by the Act. Section 15.2. Development and Withdrawal Rights. Declarant expressly reserves the right to create Units and/or Common Elements (expressly including Limited Common Elements), to combine Units, to subdivide Units, to convert Units into Common Elements (expressly including Limited Common Elements), to convert Common Elements into Units, to allocate Common Elements as Limited Common Elements and to allocate Real Estate as Limited Common Elements on all or any portion of the Real Estate reserved for future development in this Declaration or pursuant to the Map, expressly and specifically including, without limitation, any Commercial Unit (expressly including, without limitation, any part of the same that is not within the Bounded Portion), any Residential Unit owned by Declarant, and the Expansion Property. Any improvements created, constructed or installed pursuant to the previous sentence may be referred to herein as "Additional Improvements.- Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Declarant expressly reserves the right (a) to subject Units owned by Declarant, or other portions of the Project that are subject to Development Rights, to a plan of fractional or vacation ownership; (b) to convert all or a portion of any Commercial Unit into Residential Units and/or to create new Residential Units, which may be of a different type than and/or may form a different Class than the Residential Units existing as of the datc hereof; (c) to subdivide, combine, or relocate boundaries between any Units owned by Declarant and any adjacent Limited Common Elements appurtenant thereto, including the addition, removal or relocation of any Common Elements therein, provided the same does not impair the structural soundness of or the operation of building systems in such Common Elements; (d) to subdivide any Commercial Unit within the parking garage into individual parking units (which parking units would be deemed to be Commercial Units hereunder), and/or (e) to subject any Commercial Unit that is all or part of a parking garage to a club, membership, or similar program through which owners or members thereof, which may or may not be Owners, are granted a right to use and access certain Common Elements. In the event that Declarant exercises any Reserved 33 200825629 40 of 65 November 7, 2017 - Page 446 c "Declarant Rights in a manner that causes the creation of Units which are to be used or restricted•as employee housing units pursuant to the ordinances or regulations of the Town of Vail, then Declarant may elect to designate such employee housing units as either Commercial Units or Residential Units, and in either case the employee housing units may be excluded from certain Limited Common Elements appurtenant to other Units in the relevant Class (and from payment of the costs associated therewith) and/or from voting on certain Class issues otherwise associated with the relevant Class, all as determined and designated by Declarant. Declarant may exercise any or all of the Development Rights so reserved at any time within the period described in Section 15.9 with respect to all or any of the Real Estate identified as subject to Development Rights in the Declaration or pursuant to the Map. No assurances are made with respect to the boundaries of any parcels that may be developed or the order in which the parcels may be developed. Exercise of a Development Right with respect to any one parcel does not require exercise of a Development Right on any other parcel of Real Estate subject to Development Rights. No assurances are made that any further development will occur. If all or any part of the Expansion Property is submitted to this Declaration, this right to reserve property for future development shall apply to such property as well. Declarant expressly reserves the right to withdraw all or any portion of the Property that is designated as subject to withdrawal in this Declaration from the Project by recording a document evidencing such withdrawal in the Records. The Commercial Unit, or any portion(s) thereof retained by Declarant atter any subdivision thereof, is hereby designated as being subject to withdrawal rights. The Real Estatc withdrawn from the Project shall be subject to whatever easements, if any. are reasonably necessary for access to or operation of the Project. Declarant shall prepare and record in the Records whatever documents are necessary to evidence such easements and shall amend Exhibit C to this Declaration to include reference to the recorded easements. Declarant alone is liable for all expenses in connection with Real Estate subject to Development Rights for as long as the same remains subject to Developrnent Rights. Section 15.3. Amendment of Declaration. If Declarant elects to submit the Expansion Property, or any part thereof, or Additional Improvements, to this Declaration, or to subdivide or to convert Units or Common Elements, then at such time as a certificate of completion executed by an independent licensed or registered engineer, surveyor, or architect stating that all structural components of the Improvements on the Expansion Property or the Additional Improvements are substantially completed is obtained, Declarant shall record an amendment to this Declaration reallocating the Allocated Interests so that the Allocated Interests appurtenant to each Unit will be apportioned according to the total number of Units submitted to this Declaration. The Allocated Interests apportioned to each Unit in the Project shall be based on the formulae set forth in Section 4.2. Mere subdivision of a Unit shall not change the Allocated Interests of any Unit not included in such subdivision, except as expressly set forth in Section 4.2. The amendment to this Declaration shall contain, at a minimum, the legal description of the Expansion Property, or a part thereof, or a description of the Real Estate on which the Additional Improvements being submitted to this Declaration are located and a revised schedule of the Allocated Interests appurtenant to the Units in the Project. Section 15.4. Supplement to the Map. Declarant shall, contemporaneously with the amendment of this Declaration, file a supplement to the Map showing the location of the Additional Improvements constructed on the Expansion Property or the construction, combination, subdivision, 34 200825629 41 of 65 November 7, 2017 - Page 447 0 conversion or allocation of Units or Common Elements allowed by this Article. The supplement to the Map shall substantially conform to the requirements contained in this Declaration. Section 15.5. Interpretation. Recording of amendments to this Declaration, and supplements to the Map, in the Records shall automatically: (a) vest in each existing Unit the reallocated Allocated Interests appurtenant to such Unit; and (b) vest in each existing holder of a Security Interest a perfected Security Interest in the reallocated Allocated Interests appurtenant to the encumbered Unit. Upon the recording of an amendment to this Declaration, the definitions used in this Declaration shall automatically be extended to encompass and to refer to the Property as expanded. The Expansion Property, or any part thereof, or the Additional Improvements constructed on the Property as expanded shall be added to and become a part of the Project for all purposes. All conveyances of Units after such expansion shall be effective to transfer rights in all Common Elements as expanded, whether or not reference is made to any amendment to this Declaration or supplement to the Map. Reference to this Declaration and Map in any instrument shall be deemed to include all amendments to this Declaration and supplements to the Map without specific reference thereto. Section 15.6. Maximum Number of Units. The maximum number of Units in the Project shall not exceed 300 Units, or, if allowed by the Act, the maximum number of Units allowed by any governmental entity having jurisdiction over the Property, pursuant to any development plan or approvals for the Property and the Expansion Property. Declarant shall not be obligated to expand the Project beyond the number of Units initially submitted to this Declaration. Section 15.7. Construction Easement. Declarant reserves an easement through, over and across the Common EIements and Units as may be reasonably necessary for the purpose of discharging Declarant's obligations and exercising Declarant's reserved rights in this Declaration without consent of any party. Such easement includes the right to construct underground utility lines, pipes. wires, ducts, conduits, and other facilities across the Property not designated as reserved for future development in this Declaration or on the Map for the purpose of furnishing utility and other services to buildings and Improvements to be constructed on any of the Property reserved for future development. Declarant's reserved construction easement includes the right to grant easements to public utility companies and to convey improvements within those easements anywhere in the Common Elements not occupied by an Improvement containing Units. If Declarant grants any such easements, Exhibit C to this Declaration will be amended to include reference to the recorded easement. Section 15.8. Reciprocal Easements. If property is withdrawn from the Project ("Withdrawn Property"): (a) the owner(s) of the Withdrawn Property shall have whatever easements are necessary or appropriate, if any, for access, utility service, repair, maintenance and emergencies over and across the Project: and 35 200825629 42 of 65 November 7, 2017 - Page 448 c (b) the Ovvner(s) in the Project shall have whatever easements are necessary or appropriate, if any, for access, utility service, repair, maintenance, and emergencies over and across the Withdrawn Property. Declarant shall prepare and record in the Records whatever documents are necessary to evidence such easements and shall amend Exhibit C to this Declaration to include reference to the recorded easement(s). Such recorded easement(s) shall specify that the owner(s) of the Expansion Property and the Withdrawn Property and the Owners in the Project shall be obligated to pay a proportionate share of the cost of the operation and maintenance of any easements utilized by either one of them on the other's property upon such reasonable basis as Declarant shall establish in the easement(s). Preparation and recordation by Declarant of an easement pursuant to this Section 15.8 shall conclusively determine the existence, location and extent of the reciprocal easements that are necessary or desirable as contemplated by this Section 15.8. Section 15.9. Termination of Development Rights. The Development Rights reserved to Declarant, for itself, its successors and assigns, shall expire thirty (30) years after the date of recording this Declaration in the Records, unless the Development Rights are reinstated or extended by the Association as provided in the Act, subject to whatever terms, conditions, and limitations the Board of Directors may impose on the subsequent exercise of Development Rights by Declarant. Declarant may at any time release and relinquish some or all ofthe Development Rights with respect to all or any part of the Real Estate subject to such rights by instrument executed by Declarant and effective when recorded in the Records. Upon the expiration or other termination of the Development Rights, any Real Estate then subject to such rights shall become Common Elements or Units. as applicable. Section 15.10. Interference With Development Rights. Neither the Association nor any Owner nor any Class may take any action or adopt any rule or regulation that will interfere with or diminish any Development Rights reserved by this ARTICLE 15 without the prior written consent of Declarant. In the event an Owner, a Class or the Association takes any such action, or is the losing party in any proceeding related to such action, then (in addition to all other remedies of Declarant) such Owner. such Class. or the Association shall be responsible for Declarant's costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and shall also be responsible for any and all consequential damages. including damages as the result of any delay, related to such action. Section 15.11. Transfer of Development Rights. Any Development Rights created or reserved under this ARTICLE 15 for the benefit of Declarant may be transferred, in whole or in part to any Person by an instrument expressly describing the rights transferred and recorded in the Records. Such instrument shall be executed by the transferor Declarant and the transferee. Section 16.1. Coverage. Commencing not later th r • - . nveyance of a Unit to a purchaser and to the extent reasonably avail • r . elation shall obtain and maintain insurance coverage as set forth in this - • ' . e ssociation shall have the power and authority to obtain additional . overages not specified herein in the Board's discretion. If such insurance is 36 200825629 43 of 65 November 7, 2017 - Page 449 0 FOSTER GRAHAM MILSTEIN & CALISHER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW July 31, 2017 Vail Town Council Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Via Hand -Delivery 360 South Garfield Street 6th Floor Denver, CO 80209 T 303-333-9810 F 303-333-9786 DENVER — BOULDER fostergraham.com Re: Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017; First Reading, Proposed Ordinance Establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences). Dear Council Members: This firm represents the Tyrolean Condominium Association ("Tyrolean") in the above - referenced matter (the "Proposal"). The Proposal is set for a first reading and public hearing on August 1, 2017. Tyrolean objects to the Proposal as it does not comply with the applicable review criteria. As such, Tyrolean requests that the Proposal be denied. Unfortunately, the undersigned counsel will be out of the country on August 1, and the Property Manager for Tyrolean will also be unavailable. Further, Tyrolean has submitted requests for documents pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. § 24-72-201, et seq., and has been advised that the Town of Vail needs additional time to comply with the request. The documents Tyrolean has requested are relevant to its opposition to the Proposal. Through the Town of Vail's counsel, Kendra Carberry, I have been advised that a second public hearing will take place at the second reading of the Proposal, at which time Tyrolean will be afforded an opportunity to present its opposition to the Proposal. We look forward to the opportunity to address you at that time. Ms. Carberry has graciously agreed to submit this letter for the record at the hearing on August 1St Sincerely, FOSTER GRAHAM MILSTEIN & CALISHER, LLP David Wm. Foster {00440013.DOCX / 1 } November 7, 2017 - Page 450 0 Mayor Chapin, Mr. Mire, and Members of the Commission July 31, 2017 Page 2 cc: Ms. Wendy Weigler Mr. Herb Tobin Mr. Tom Saalfield Mayor and Town Council {00440013.DOCX / 1 } November 7, 2017 - Page 451 0 VCBA The Vail Chamber & Business Association 241 South Frontage Road East, Suite 2 Vail, Colorado, 81657 970-477-0075 www.vailchamber.org July 7,2017 Town of Vail Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear PEC & Town Council Members: Members of the Vail Chamber and Business Association board of directors attended a presentation by Mauriello Planning Group of the Mountain View Residences Phase II project proposed for the east end of Vail Village. We are writing to voice our support for this project for the following reasons: 1. We are in favor of the proposed deed -restricted, workforce housing apartments, especially their livability, their location in Vail Village on the in -town bus route, and the fact that they also include dedicated parking. 2. We believe the hotel rooms and lock -off units, as well as the potential for short term condominium rentals, will bring added vitality to the east end of Vail Village, in addition to generating additional sales tax revenue. 3. We feel the proposed height and mass of the building is appropriate for its location on the South Frontage Road. On behalf of our board of directors, I urge you to consider the public benefits of this project as it moves through the town of Vail approval process. A timely yes vote will ensure that efforts to address the workforce housing crisis in Vail continue to move forward. Respectfully, Alison Wadey Executive Director Vail Chamber and Business Association November 7, 2017 - Page 452 0 From: dwc1946@aol.com [mailto:dwc1946@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 10:35 AM To: Council Dist List; Info Subject: Vail Mountain View Phase II Dear Mr. Mayor and Town Council Members, My name is David Cross and I own a home at 126 Forest Road. Previously my wife and I owned a condominium at the Tyrolean for approximately five years prior to moving to Forest Road. As a result, we are long term Vail residents with a vested interest in the orderly and beneficial development within our community. I'm writing in SUPPORT of the Vail Mountain View Phase II Development Project. I believe I have first hand insight as to the benefits this project will provide for the project site, surrounding areas, and for our community. PROJECT SITE I was advised prior to purchasing our Tyrolean unit of the potential future development of the Vail Mountain View Phase II site, as were the people to whom we sold. Assuming the quality of the complex design, construction, landscaping, and property management are equal to the Vail Mountain View Phase I site, the proposed project will be an major upgrade to the existing property. The renderings of the proposed project are very attractive and will bring vitality to the area. I understand Ron Byrne will be the project manager and will have an economic interest in the project which will provide the same incentive to him to do a great job, as did the Vail Mountain View Phase I project. That project turned out to be very successful for both the area and community. The proposed project will also help buffer the Highway noise which is a common complaint of residents at both the Tyrolean and the Vail Mountain View Phase I complex. SURROUNDING AREAS this side of town is showing its age and this project will upgrade the area and increase property values and the tax base. COMMUNITY BENEFITS this project will provide much needed employee housing in an area of town where these resources are scarce. Additionally, where else in the Village area can we increase affordable hotel bed capacity which is currently underserved? The financial impact to our community is obvious, the increased tax revenues will go a long way to underwriting the cost of other much needed community services. I would be there in person to present my views but I will be out of town at the next scheduled Town Council Meeting which will discuss the Vail Mountain View Phase II Project. November 7, 2017 - Page 453 0 I'd be most appreciative if this letter would be given due consideration for the approval of the Vail Mountain View Phase II project. Thank you, David Cross Sent from my iPhone November 7, 2017 - Page 454 0 Dan &Carol Wolfe 611581.5373 dan.wolfdogcgmail.com cfreywolfe@gmail.com 6520 Indian Hills Road, Edina, MN 55439 August 9, 2017 Town of Vail Council Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail - Planning Department Tammy Nagel Town of Vail - Clerk RE: Objection by Owner at Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. (VMVR) to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42. Dear Town of Vail Council Members: My wife Carol and I are the owners of #303 in Vail Mountain View Residences. We have been coming to Vail for over 30 years. When we decided to buy in Vail, we explored many options including the Arabelle, Solaris and others. We chose VMVR because of the neighborhood, the less dense feeling and proximity to the creek, as well as the knowledge that there would not be additional development east of The Wren, due to the park. We are not anti -development and we are not anti -employee housing. We are for thoughtful development. We bought in Phase 1 of the VMVR project knowing that a second building would be built. That having been said, we were told at the time that Phase 11 would not be taller than our building. The current proposal is almost 22 ft higher than code allows. We were also told that the building would be built on the additional existing parking structure, using it as the foundation, not cantilevered out over the existing driveway, exceeding the setback to the east. As you know, these are two of the five variations requested in the SDD. You are aware that there are a number of owners in Phase 1 of VMVR who are contesting the validity of the VMVR Board approval of the SDD, there has also been a lack of transparency, time and ability to have input in the process. At the last council meeting, the City Attorney opined that he felt this dispute was not within the jurisdiction of the City Council, but that it is an issue between the owners and the Board. I disagree, but in any case the fact that there is a dispute, now know by the council, cannot be ignored as part of November 7, 2017 - Page 455 c the process. At a minimum there should be more time given to address what we, as owners of Phase 1, feel is an improper authorization. As far as the SDD goes, the first Criterion for Review is Compatibility. This has to do with neighborhood and environment . We think that we have a very unique neighborhood, bounded by Gore Creek to the south, the frontage road and highway on the north, Ford Park on the east and Vail Valley Drive on the west. There is one single family home, the Tyrolean, VMVR, Apollo Park and The Wren. We are at least a quarter of a mile from Solaris and don't consider VMVR part of that neighborhood. If the SDD is approved, Phase ll at VMVR would be the tallest building east of Solaris. One argument given by the developer has to do with the City approving a number of other taller buildings along the frontage road, Le.) Solaris, the Four Seasons, etc. They argue since other major projects have been allowed to build above the 48 ft code, that in essence, taller buildings along the frontage road are now the norm. If that's true, the code should be changed to reflect that new norm. That way those who purchase property in the area will know what to expect if there is further development on the frontage road, and you could eliminate SDD's related to the 48 ft height restriction. On the other hand, 48 ft is the current code and the council has to take that into consideration with this SDD. I understand that the developer is obligated to try to push the envelope as much as possible in order to maximize return on investment. That does not mean that the city/council is not obligated to take a hard look at Compatibility. The developer has added the incentive of 7 more EHIJ's than are required. I understand this is a very attractive offer, since creating EHU's is a priority in the city's master plan. I would actually prefer more EHU's and no hotel rooms, to be honest. However, there needs to be some balance of the neighborhood, height, mass and density of buildings and the benefits. In the developer's presentation, at the last meeting, there was a slide with the following points: 1) "Compatibility should not only consider existing buildings but future conditions." 2) That, "Compatibility does not mean "consistency" or being "same" or even reflecting similar character." November 7, 2017 - Page 456 0 THOUGHTS REGARDING #1 The developer said in that same slide that this will "set a new standard for the neighborhood." The presenter again mentioned this in his concluding remarks, stating that perhaps this plan can be used as a template for further development. It is understandable that the developer would like to set the precedent in our neighborhood that is in his/her favor. Any developer at Apollo Park and The Wren, which we know will eventually will be redeveloped, would expect that they would be allowed to develop similar height and density properties if this SSD is approved. We do not wish to set that standard. On the other hand, if in the future you were to deny Apollo Park and The Wren to develop something similar after approving this SDD, you will have created a situation that we will not be happy with either. REGARDING #2 While using the argument that "compatibility does not mean "consistency" or being "same" or even reflecting similar character, the developer turns around and argues that the reason to deviate from the current 48 ft code is that the current plan is consistent with other taller buildings that have recently been built. The next issue is density. We were told at the time we purchased #303, that Phase II would be a similar condo project. The addition of multiple hotel rooms (34 hotel rooms and lock offs), which only count 1/2 in your calculations, will in reality increases the number of people using the same area beyond what which would be experienced with owned condos only. There would be significantly more coming and going with theses units. Even with your counting method, 44.5 units (proposed in Phase II) plus the 24 condos in Phase I, would mean 64.5 units, where 49 originally existed on our site prior to Phase 1. The proposed GRFA is 80`YA greater than allowed. This is not a minor deviation. Finally, The current Phase II plan has a patio/common area that is literally on top of the wall for the Phase I pool. I wonder about the vetting of the planning commission and the council with regard to sensitivity to the neighborhood. We respectfully request that the Application for SDD #42 be denied Dan Wolfe Carol Wolfe /J November 7, 2017 - Page 457 0 Town of Vail Council towncouncil@vailgov.com Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail - Planning Department jspence@vailgov.com Tammy Nagel - Town of Vail Clerk tnagel@vailgov.com Re: Objection by Owner at Vail Mountain Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: I own Unit 204 at VMVR which will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 was approved. I object to the Application as follows: 1. Lack of Notice and Failure of the Applicant to meet the requirement under the Town of Vail Code to procure "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." No notification of this public process was provided at any time to the Residential Owners at VMVR. The Residential Owners at VMVR have been denied the right to meaningfully address the Application through this public process though our property rights are most impacted by the Application. Mary Anne Redmond, the Applicant's employee, did not have apparent or actual authority to submit an Approval Letter for the SDD Application as the authorized representative of VMVR. (See below for more detail). November 7, 2017 - Page 4581 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact air, Tight, privacy and the residential feel of VMVR. Phase 2 of VMVR as proposed under the SDD will be a 700 foot tall, high density, mostly transient -occupied building with 34 hotel rooms and lock offs in addition to 22 condos and employee housing units. Phase 2 will be cantilevered over the Phase 1 parking garage entrance blocking access to the parking garage by delivery trucks and taller vehicles. A 2,000 square foot Lobby Deck will overhang the Pool. There has been no proposal provided to date to the Phase 1 Owners on how Phase 2 will interrelate with Phase 1 in terms of assessments, maintenance and use. When I purchased my Unit at VMVR I relied upon zoning restrictions applying to the Declarant's future Development Rights in relation to Phase 2 which Declarant represented to me would be applicable thereby protecting my investment. My awareness of the SDD Application occurred recently when a fellow Owner saw an article in the Vail Daily and reached out to me and other Owners. There has been no effort to vet the SDD Application through the Phase I Owners and in fact there has been a disturbing lack of transparency about it from the Applicant whom is also the Commercial Owner at VMVR. Most disturbing is that on March 27, 2017 Mary Ann Redmond - employee of the Commercial Owner and Applicant for this SDD - signed an "Approval Form" that was submitted to the Town of Vail November 7, 2017 - Page 459 c stating that the Association had approved the SDD. This occurred without an Association Meeting or any notification of the Residential Owners at Phase 1. This "Approval Letter" does not meet the Town Code requirements for such approval and the Application should fail as a threshold requirement of the Application has not been met. As a result of the failure to meet Code and notice requirements, the SDD Application has progressed through the Town of Vail administrative processes without objection or involvement of the Phase 1 Residential Owners despite the great impact the SDD Application will have upon our homes. These actions do not meet the requirements of the Town Code or the spirit of the public process. I also object to the SDD Application as it fails to meet the 9 Criteria for an SDD as follows: 1. Compatibility: This criteria is not met for the following reasons: i. This is small residential project with a parking garage located in an area of the Town of Vail that does not have large buildings around it. The proposed SDD and related plans will allow a taller building than Phase I to overshadow and overpower the Phase I building. This will adversely impact light, air, heat energy created by sun and privacy. November 7, 2017 - Page 4601 ii. A hotel facility coupled with Units that can in essence be used as hotel like rooms (i.e. lock offs) creates a high use that is not consistent with the residential area in which the project is located and adversely impacts Phase I and neighboring properties. This high use creates an adverse carbon footprint for a Town that is moving toward Green certification. iii. Parking is already a major issue and problem for the Phase I portion of the VMVR. Creating a large, dense additional project subject to use by a large volume of people at the same time will highly exacerbate this problem. iv. The Phase II parking garage is proposed to be cantilevered over the current entrance to the Phase I garages making it impossible for trucks and delivery vehicles to even pull into the garage entrance area. A separate loading area is needed for Phase I but is not proposed. v. Pedestrian access is compromised. vi. A 2,000 square foot "lobby deck" is proposed for Phase II which will overhang the pool area for Phase I. This November 7, 2017 - Page 4611 creates an incredible invasion of privacy and impact on light and air around this important Phase 1 amenity. It also creates a life safety hazard as it creates an attractive nuisance for persons to jump off the Phase II Deck and into the Phase I pool. vii. Abuse of SDD - It was represented to the Owners of Phase I and said Owners relied upon the scope of the original project and Town zoning restrictions when they purchased Units at Phase 1. To allow GRFA, height, use and density restrictions to be simply circumvented by an SDD undermines the entire zoning process or ability of any purchaser of property in the Vail Village to rely upon what may or may not be built around them. 2. Relationship: The planned uses, activity or density for Phase II are not compatible with existing Phase I. See above. 3. Parking and Loading: a. The planned location for the loading zone atop a public walkway is not just atypical, it is unsafe and certain to interfere with surrounding uses and activity. November 7, 2017 - Page 4621 b. Parking is already major issue at VMVR and this will substantially aggravate that issue; c. Delivery trucks and tall vehicles will not be able to access the parking garage or even the parking garage entry area; d. The design will lead to guests at Phase II to park in the Phase I garage entry area blocking Phase I Owner access. This creates an emergency vehicle access issue as well. e. There is no ability to separate the Phase I parking and portions of the Phase II parking leading to major enforcement issues for Phase I on parking abuses and poaching as well as allocation of maintenance responsibilities. 4. Comprehensive Plan: a. The deviations from the code associated with the project include: east side setback, building height, density, site coverage, and loading in the front setback. Each of these proposed deviations directly and negatively impacts existing usage and value of the neighboring Phase I development. b. The proposed deviations concerning height, density, mass, and bulk must all be weighed against the perceived public benefit of the Application. Public comment offered in support of the November 7, 2017 - Page 4631 Application during the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting focused exclusively on the addition of Employee Housing Units ("EHUs"). However, the proposed deviations are certain to exceed permissible Gross Residential Floor Area. As the PEC pointed out, such deviations should not be granted strictly based upon provision of EHUs. The benefit of EHUs does not offset the requested deviations and neighboring owners have not been adequately informed of the extent of the proposed bulk and mass are far beyond anything anticipated for the site. Thus, the Application is not compatible with the surrounding area. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: None known except creation of shadows, cold pockets and lack of air and Tight to Phase I. 6. Design Features: See above in relation to this criteria not being met. 7. Traffic: a. The Application would increase density in relation to the Phase I development and is therefore practically certain to generate additional traffic. In fact, Tom Kassmel of Public Works noted in the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting that proposed uses on the November 7, 2017 - Page 464 c site will generate additional traffic which may have some broader impact on the system 8. Landscaping: The landscaping is very limited and artistic license was made in the submitted plans in this regard. 9. Workable Plan: There has been no proposal on how Phase II is to integrate with Phase I. The 2 Phases are very different uses, different Common Areas and maintenance responsibilities. Section 12-9A-8 requires the Town Council to make the following findings with respect to the proposed SDD: 1. That the SDD complies with the nine (9) criteria, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 2. That the SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 3. That the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. That the SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and November 7, 2017 - Page 4651 harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. I object to a finding by the Town Council that any of the foregoing matters have been established per what I stated above. I respectfully request that the Application be delayed. Respectfully, Scott Herndon Unit 204 November 7, 2017 - Page 4661 From: CommDev To: Jonathan Spence Cc: Chris Neubecker Subject: FW: Vail Mountain View Residences Date: Monday, August 14, 2017 7:51:35 AM Original Message From: Michael [mailto:bigrooty@aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:37 PM To: CommDev Subject: Vail Mountain View Residences Dear Town of Vail Town Council, My name is Michael Rootberg, owner of unit #301 in Vail Mountain View Residences. When I purchased my unit in 2009, I was well aware that there would be a future Phase II Development. My unit was purchased directly from Ron Byrne, who was a gentleman then and still is now. He has always taken the time to listen to any cares or concerns regarding our building or his proposed future building. The Phase I building that I am in was well constructed and has been well maintained, resulting in a comfortable place to live, with increasing value. Regarding other projects that Ron has handled, since ours, there have been similar positive results. Furthermore, I am writing in support of the current VMVR HOA Board of Directors. The board has always acted in the best interest of the owners, providing timely responses to any issues as well as substantial savings to the owners. Mary Anne Redmond, Board President, has always acted effectively on behalf of the owners, resulting in an Association that has been run extremely efficiently and at a low cost to owners. Ron loves this valley deeply and I believe that any project that he's involved with, will be of high quality and create increased values for both Phase I, as well as, Phase II owners. Therefore, it is my hope that you will recommend the approval of the Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II project. Sincerely, Michael Rootberg Sent from Mike's iPad November 7, 2017 - Page 467 c Town of Vail Council towncouncil@vailgov.com Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail — Planning Department j spence@vailgov.com Tammy Nagel — Town of Vail Clerk tnagel@a,vailgov.com Re: Objection by Owner at Vail Mountain Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: I own Unit #205 at VMVR which will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 was approved. I object to the Application as follows: 1. Lack of Notice and Failure of the Applicant to meet the requirement under the Town of Vail Code to procure "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." No notification of this public process was provided at any time to the Residential Owners at VMVR. The Residential Owners at VMVR have been denied the right to meaningfully address the Application through this public process though our property rights are most impacted by the Application. Mary Anne Redmond, the Applicant's employee, did not have apparent or actual authority to submit an Approval Letter for the SDD Application as the authorized representative of VMVR. (See below for more detail). November 7, 2017 - Page 468 0 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact air, light, privacy and the residential feel of VMVR. Phase 2 of VMVR as proposed under the SDD will be a 700 foot tall, high density, mostly transient -occupied building with 34 hotel rooms and lock offs in addition to 22 condos and employee housing units. Phase 2 will be cantilevered over the Phase 1 parking garage entrance potentially blocking access to the parking garage by delivery trucks and taller vehicles. A 2,000 square foot Lobby Deck will abut and overlook the Phase I Private Pool. There has been no proposal provided to date to the Phase 1 Owners on how Phase 2 will interrelate with Phase 1 in terms of assessments, maintenance and use. When I purchased my home at VMVR, it was reasonable for me to rely upon zoning restrictions applying to the Declarant's future Development Rights in relation to Phase 2 thereby protecting my investment. My awareness of the SDD Application occurred recently when a fellow Owner saw an article in the Vail Daily and reached out to me and other Owners. There has been no effort to vet the SDD Application through the Phase I Owners and in fact there has been a disturbing lack of transparency about it from the Applicant whom is also the Commercial Owner at VMVR. The only correspondence I received about Phase 2 at VMVR from the Applicant was in March 2017 through a letter which merely described Phase 2 Plans, while there was no mention or disclosure of the SDD Application. Most disturbing is that on March 27, 2017 Mary Ann Redmond — employee of the Commercial Owner and Applicant for this SDD — signed an "Approval Form" that was submitted to the November 7, 2017 - Page 469 0 Town of Vail stating that the Association had approved the SDD. This occurred without proper Meeting requirements or any notification of the Residential Owners at Phase 1. This "Approval Letter" does not meet the Town Code requirements for such approval and the Application should fail as a threshold requirement of the Application has not been met. As a result of the failure to meet Code and notice requirements, the SDD Application has progressed through the Town of Vail administrative processes without objection or involvement of the Phase 1 Residential Owners despite the great impact the SDD Application will have upon our homes. These actions do not meet the requirements of the Town Code or the spirit of the public process. I also object to the SDD Application as it fails to meet the 9 Criteria for an SDD as follows: 1. Compatibility: This criteria is not met for the following reasons: i. VMVR is small residential project with an underground parking garage located in an area of the Town of Vail that does not have large buildings around it. The proposed SDD and related plans will allow a taller building than Phase I to overshadow and overpower the Phase I building. This will adversely impact light, air, heat energy created by sun and privacy. November 7, 2017 - Page 470 0 ii. A hotel facility coupled with Units that can in essence be used as hotel like rooms (i.e. lock offs) creates a high use that is not consistent with the residential area in which the project is located and adversely impacts Phase I and neighboring properties. This high use creates an adverse carbon footprint for a Town that is moving toward Green certification. iii. Parking is already a major issue and problem for the Phase I portion of the VMVR. Creating a large, dense additional project subject to use by a large volume of people at the same time could highly exacerbate this problem. iv. The Phase II project is proposed to be cantilevered over the current entrance to the Phase I garages making it improbable for trucks and delivery vehicles to pull into the garage entrance area. A separate loading area is needed for Phase I but is not proposed. The cantilevered entrance will change the existing open air aesthetic approach for residents. v. Pedestrian access is compromised. vi. A 2,000 square foot "lobby deck" is proposed for Phase II which will abut and overlook the pool area for Phase I. This creates an incredible invasion of privacy and impact on light, November 7, 2017 - Page 471 0 air and noise around this important Phase I amenity. It also creates a life safety hazard as it creates an attractive nuisance for persons to consider jumping off the Phase II Deck and into the Phase I pool. vii. Abuse of SDD — It was represented to the Owners of Phase I and said Owners relied upon the scope of the original project and Town zoning restrictions when they purchased Units at Phase I. To allow GRFA, height, use and density restrictions to be simply circumvented by an SDD undermines the entire zoning process or ability of any purchaser of property in the Vail Village to rely upon what may or may not be built around them and the protection of their long term value preservation. 2. Relationship: The planned uses, activity or density for Phase II are not compatible with existing Phase I. See above. 3. Parking and Loading: a. The planned location for the loading zone atop a public walkway is not just atypical, it is unsafe and certain to interfere with surrounding uses and activity. b. Parking is already major issue at VMVR and this will substantially aggravate that issue; November 7, 2017 - Page 472 0 c. Delivery trucks and tall vehicles will not be able to access the parking garage or even the parking garage entry area; d. The design will lead to hotel/lock off guests at Phase II to likely park in the Phase I garage entry area at times blocking Phase I Owner access. This creates an emergency vehicle access issue as well. e. To the extent Phase II parking will utilize the Phase I garage it can lead to major enforcement issues for Phase I on parking abuses and poaching as well as allocation of maintenance responsibilities. 4. Comprehensive Plan: a. The deviations from the code associated with the project include: east side setback, building height, density, site coverage, and loading in the front setback. Each of these proposed deviations directly and negatively impacts existing usage and value of the neighboring Phase I development. b. The proposed deviations concerning height, density, mass, and bulk must all be weighed against the perceived public benefit of the Application. Public comment offered in support of the Application during the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting focused exclusively on the addition of Employee Housing Units ("EHUs"). However, the proposed deviations are certain to exceed permissible Gross November 7, 2017 - Page 473 0 Residential Floor Area. As the PEC pointed out, such deviations should not be granted strictly based upon provision of EHUs. The benefit of EHUs does not offset the requested deviations and neighboring owners have not been adequately informed of the extent of the proposed bulk and mass are far beyond anything anticipated for the site when we purchased our units. Thus, the Application is not compatible with the surrounding area. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: None known except creation of shadows, cold pockets and lack of air and light to Phase I. 6. Design Features: See above in relation to this criteria not being met. 7. Traffic: a. The Application would increase density in relation to the Phase I development and is therefore practically certain to generate additional traffic. In fact, Tom Kassmel of Public Works noted in the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting that proposed uses on the site will generate additional traffic which may have some broader impact on the system 8. Landscaping: The landscaping is very limited and artistic license was made in the submitted plans in this regard. November 7, 2017 - Page 474 0 9. Workable Plan: There has been no proposal on how Phase II is to integrate with Phase I. The 2 Phases are very different uses, different Common Areas and maintenance responsibilities. Section 12-9A-8 requires the Town Council to make the following findings with respect to the proposed SDD: 1. That the SDD complies with the nine (9) criteria, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 2. That the SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 3. That the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. That the SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. November 7, 2017 - Page 475 0 I object to a finding by the Town Council that any of the foregoing matters have been established per what I stated above. I respectfully request that the Application be denied. November 7, 2017 - Page 476 0 Mark M. Caplan 6 Cotswold Road Baltimore, Maryland 21210 410.435.1546 1 Fax 410.435.1553 August 14,2017 Town of Vail Council Members 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail — Planning Department 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Tammy Nagel Town of Vail Clerk 75 6. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Objection by owner at Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 43 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: We own Unit 306 at VMVR which will be part of special development district No. 42 ("SDD") if the application for SDD No. 42 was approved. We suggest that you not approve this application at this point in time. Our reasoning is fairly simple. The most affected group (the unit owners of Phase 1) have not been allowed the opportunity for input in any material way. The developer must have been concerned that we might have opinions contrary to his request and therefore did not formally notice the other association owners of -this application, did not formally send us plans or specifications of the proposed development, and unilaterally, (without a formal vote) had his designee, (Mary Ann Redmond) send to planning a notice of approval by the association. Had the first two occurred, we would have engaged in conversation, suggested changes, and hopefully compromised which would have enabled a non -conflicted notice of approval from the association, which is now not the Case_ Defer your decision, give us the time to review, so all have the opportunity to thoughtful and ultimately proud of the result. There are certainly beneficial aspects to the new project but there are also some unaddressed challenges. By allowing this application to move forward at this point, you have allowed yourselves to become complicit in the developer's overt attempt to circumvent the cleat intent of Town of Vail requirements for such approval. Thank you for your consideration. Lind d Mark Caplan MMC:kec cc: Kerry Wallace November 7, 2017 - Page 477 From: Cindy Biondi To: Tammy Nagel; Council Dist List; Jonathan Spence Subject: Objection to Application for TOV SDD #42 Date: Monday, August 14, 2017 9:42:23 AM As owner of Unit 404 at Vail Mountain View Residences (Phase I), I object strongly to the application for SDD #42, which would allow the development of a large, dense building (Phase II) that would strain the resources of our community and be inconsistent with the quiet, residential character of our sweet neighborhood on Gore Creek. I, and my fellow owners at VMVR Phase I, at least deserve a delay of vote so that we all can converse with the project developer about the design of the new building. Issues with inadequate parking, handicap parking access, pedestrian access, building height, setbacks, loading/delivery access, deck overhang on our pool area, remain to be resolved by the developer. Your quick approval of yet another SDD in Vail would throw zoning regulations out the window and allow the developer (outsider Pete Carlson) to bypass our carefully thought-out local town rules in order to increase his profitability. The precedent that this sets, so close to our beautiful Ford Park, is alarming. What's next? While I wholeheartedly approve of the inclusion of employee housing units in the new phase, I am concerned that the density and size of a new building that dwarfs the Phase I structure is not compatible with our Gore Creek community. Why not require the developer to work within existing town regulations to create a lovely, appropriate space that combines employee housing, boutique hotel, and residential condos to fit within the existing charming neighborhood? When I purchased at VMVR Phase I, I knew there would be an additional building built some day, but assumed that it would follow the TOV zoning rules. Wouldn't you? I appreciate your consideration, and urge you, respectfully, to consider the ramifications of approving another SDD in Vail, and the dangerous precedent that it sets, or continues. Please, let's allow more time to tailor the project to suit the neighborhood, the existing zoning rules, and our beautiful town of Vail. Thank you! Cynthia G. Biondi Owner VMVR #404 November 7, 2017 - Page 478 0 Town of Vail Council towncouncil@vailgov.com Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail — Planning Department j spence(a7vailgov.com Tammy Nagel — Town of Vail Clerk tnagelgvailgov.com Re: Objection by Owner at Vail Mountain Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: I am a frequent guest at Unit 302 at VMVR which will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 was approved. I object to the Application as follows: 1. Lack of Notice and Failure of the Applicant to meet the requirement under the Town of Vail Code to procure "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." No notification of this public process was provided at any time to the Residential Owners at VMVR. The Residential Owners at VMVR have been denied the right to meaningfully address the Application through this public process though their property rights are most impacted by the Application. Mary Anne Redmond, the Applicant's employee, did not have apparent or actual authority to submit an Approval Letter for the SDD Application as the authorized representative of VMVR. (See below for more detail). November 7, 2017 - Page 479 c 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact air, light, privacy and the residential feel of VMVR. As a frequent guest of this property, I am aware that the purchase of this unit was painstakingly made considering all the current zoning expectations, and also the expectation that normal legal processes would allow for reconsideration should the community change materially. There has been no proposal provided to date to the Phase 1 Owners on how Phase 2 will interrelate with Phase 1 in terms of assessments, maintenance and use. I also object to the SDD Application as it fails to meet the 9 Criteria for an SDD as follows: 1. Compatibility: This criteria is not met for the following reasons: i. VMVR is small residential project with an underground parking garage located in an area of the Town of Vail that does not have large buildings around it. The proposed SDD and related plans will allow a taller budding than Phase I to overshadow and overpower the Phase I building. This will adversely impact light, air, heat energy created by sun and privacy. ii. A hotel facility coupled with Units that can in essence be used as hotel like rooms (i.e. lock offs) creates a high use that is not November 7, 2017 - Page 480 c consistent with the residential area in which the project is located and adversely impacts Phase I and neighboring properties. This high use creates an adverse carbon footprint for a Town that is moving toward Green certification. iii. Parking is already a major issue and problem for the Phase I portion of the VMVR. Creating a large, dense additional project subject to use by a large volume of people at the same time could highly exacerbate this problem. iv. The Phase II project is proposed to be cantilevered over the current entrance to the Phase I garages making it improbable for trucks and delivery vehicles to pull into the garage entrance area. A separate loading area is needed for Phase I but is not proposed. v. Pedestrian access is compromised. vi. A 2,000 square foot "lobby deck" is proposed for Phase II which will abuts and overlooks the pool area for Phase I. This creates an incredible invasion of privacy and impact on light, air and noise around this important Phase I amenity. It also creates a life safety hazard as it creates an attractive nuisance November 7, 2017 - Page 481 c for persons to jump off the Phase II Deck and into the Phase I pool. vii. Abuse of SDD — It was represented to the Owners of Phase I and said Owners relied upon the scope of the original project and Town zoning restrictions when they purchased Units at Phase I. To allow GRFA, height, use and density restrictions to be simply circumvented by an SDD undermines the entire zoning process or ability of any purchaser of property in the Vail Village to rely upon what may or may not be built around them. 2. Relationship: The planned uses, activity or density for Phase II are not compatible with existing Phase I. See above. 3. Parking and Loading: a. The planned location for the loading zone atop a public walkway is not just atypical, it is unsafe and certain to interfere with surrounding uses and activity. b. Parking is already major issue at VMVR and this will substantially aggravate that issue; c. Delivery trucks and tall vehicles will not be able to access the parking garage or even the parking garage entry area; November 7, 2017 - Page 482 c d. The design will lead to guests at Phase II to park in the Phase I garage entry area blocking Phase I Owner access. This creates an emergency vehicle access issue as well. e. To the extent Phase II parking will utilize the Phase I garage it can lead to major enforcement issues for Phase 1 on parking abuses and poaching as well as allocation of maintenance responsibilities. 4. Comprehensive Plan: a. The deviations from the code associated with the project include: east side setback, building height, density, site coverage, and loading in the front setback. Each of these proposed deviations directly and negatively impacts existing usage and value of the neighboring Phase I development. b. The proposed deviations concerning height, density, mass, and bulk must all be weighed against the perceived public benefit of the Application. Public comment offered in support of the Application during the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting focused exclusively on the addition of Employee Housing Units ("EHUs"). However, the proposed deviations are certain to exceed permissible Gross Residential Floor Area. As the PEC pointed out, such deviations should not be granted strictly based upon provision of EHUs. The November 7, 2017 - Page 483 c benefit of EHUs does not offset the requested deviations and neighboring owners have not been adequately informed of the extent of the proposed bulk and mass are far beyond anything anticipated for the site. Thus, the Application is not compatible with the surrounding area. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: None known except creation of shadows, cold pockets and lack of air and light to Phase I. 6. Design Features: See above in relation to this criteria not being met. 7. Traffic: a. The Application would increase density in relation to the Phase I development and is therefore practically certain to generate additional traffic. In fact, Tom Kassmel of Public Works noted in the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting that proposed uses on the site will generate additional traffic which may have some broader impact on the system 8. Landscaping: The landscaping is very limited and artistic license was made in the submitted plans in this regard. 9. Workable Plan: There has been no proposal on how Phase II is to integrate with Phase I. The 2 Phases are very different uses, different Common Areas and maintenance responsibilities. November 7, 2017 - Page 484 c Section 12-9A-8 requires the Town Council to make the following findings with respect to the proposed SDD: 1. That the SDD complies with the nine (9) criteria, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 2. That the SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 3. That the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. That the SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. November 7, 2017 - Page 485 c My travel to Vail is blessed with a beautiful place to stay, one that we cherish as a group of friends. In fact one of the reasons for travel to Vail is this unique setting. I object to a finding by the Town Council that any of the foregoing matters have been established per what I stated above. I respectfully request that the Application be denied. Sincerely, Todd Randall 5042 Wilshire Blvd, #36058 Los Angeles, CA 90036 November 7, 2017 - Page 486 c From: Jolly, Eileen To: Jonathan Spence Subject: Objection to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Date: Monday, August 14, 2017 5:57:40 PM Mr. Spence and Town of Vail Council Members: I am a frequent visitor to Vail Mountain Residence on Gore Creek, Inc. (VMVR) which will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 was approved. I object to the Application as follows: 1. Lack of Notice and Failure of the Applicant to meet the requirement under the Town of Vail Code to procure "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." No notification of this public process was provided at any time to the Residential Owners at VMVR. The Residential Owners at VMVR have been denied the right to meaningfully address the Application through this public process though our property rights are most impacted by the Application. Mary Anne Redmond, the Applicant's employee, did not have apparent or actual authority to submit an Approval Letter for the SDD Application as the authorized representative of VMVR. (See below for more detail). 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact air, Tight, privacy and the residential feel of VMVR. When I purchased my Unit at VMVR I relied upon zoning restrictions applying to the Declarant's future Development Rights in relation to Phase 2 which Declarant represented to me would be applicable thereby protecting my investment. Phase 2 of VMVR as proposed under the SDD will be a 700 foot tall, high density, mostly transient -occupied building with 34 hotel rooms and lock offs in addition to 22 condos and employee housing units. Phase 2 will be cantilevered over the Phase 1 parking garage entrance potentially blocking access to the parking garage by delivery trucks and taller vehicles. A 2,000 square foot Lobby Deck will overhang the Pool. There has been no proposal provided to date to the Phase 1 Owners on how Phase 2 will interrelate with Phase 1 in terms of assessments, maintenance and use. My awareness of the SDD Application occurred recently when a fellow Owner saw an article in the Vail Daily and reached out to me and other Owners. There has been no effort to vet the SDD Application through the Phase I Owners and in fact there has been a disturbing lack of transparency about it from the Applicant whom is also the Commercial Owner at VMVR. The only correspondence I received about Phase 2 at VMVR from the Applicant was in March 2017 which merely stated that Phase 2 as initially planned in 2007 was going forward. There was no mention or disclosure of the SDD Application. Most disturbing is that on March 27, 2017 Mary Ann Redmond — employee of the Commercial Owner and Applicant for this SDD — signed an "Approval Form" that was submitted to the Town of Vail stating that the Association had approved the SDD. This occurred without proper Meeting requirements or any notification of the Residential Owners at Phase 1. This "Approval Letter" does not meet the Town Code requirements for such approval and the Application should fail as a threshold requirement of the Application has not been met. As a result of the failure to meet Code and notice requirements, the SDD Application has November 7, 2017 - Page 487 0 progressed through the Town of Vail administrative processes without objection or involvement of the Phase 1 Residential Owners despite the great impact the SDD Application will have upon our homes. These actions do not meet the requirements of the Town Code or the spirit of the public process. I also object to the SDD Application as it fails to meet the 9 Criteria for an SDD as follows: 1. Compatibility: This criteria is not met for the following reasons: i. VMVR is small residential project with an underground parking garage located in an area of the Town of Vail that does not have large buildings around it. The proposed SDD and related plans will allow a taller building than Phase I to overshadow and overpower the Phase I building. This will adversely impact light, air, heat energy created by sun and privacy. ii. A hotel facility coupled with Units that can in essence be used as hotel like rooms (i.e. lock offs) creates a high use that is not consistent with the residential area in which the project is located and adversely impacts Phase I and neighboring properties. This high use creates an adverse carbon footprint for a Town that is moving toward Green certification. iii. Parking is already a major issue and problem for the Phase I portion of the VMVR. Creating a large, dense additional project subject to use by a large volume of people at the same time could highly exacerbate this problem. iv. The Phase II project is proposed to be cantilevered over the current entrance to the Phase I garages making it improbable for trucks and delivery vehicles to pull into the garage entrance area. A separate loading area is needed for Phase I but is not proposed. v. Pedestrian access is compromised. vi. A 2,000 square foot "lobby deck" is proposed for Phase 11 which will abuts and overlooks the pool area for Phase 1. This creates an incredible invasion of privacy and impact on Tight, air and noise around this important Phase 1 amenity. It also creates a life safety hazard as it creates an attractive nuisance for persons to jump off the Phase 11 Deck and into the Phase I pool. vii. Abuse of SDD — It was represented to the Owners of Phase 1 and said Owners relied upon the scope of the original project and Town zoning restrictions when they purchased Units at Phase I. To allow GRFA, height, use and density restrictions to be simply circumvented by an SDD undermines the entire zoning process or ability of any purchaser of property in the Vail Village to rely upon what may or may not be built around them. 2. Relationship: The planned uses, activity or density for Phase 11 are not compatible with existing November 7, 2017 - Page 488 0 Phase I. See above. 3. Parking and Loading: a. The planned location for the loading zone atop a public walkway is not just atypical, it is unsafe and certain to interfere with surrounding uses and activity. b. Parking is already major issue at VMVR and this will substantially aggravate that issue; c. Delivery trucks and tall vehicles will not be able to access the parking garage or even the parking garage entry area; d. The design will lead to guests at Phase II to park in the Phase I garage entry area blocking Phase I Owner access. This creates an emergency vehicle access issue as well. e. To the extent Phase II parking will utilize the Phase I garage it can lead to major enforcement issues for Phase I on parking abuses and poaching as well as allocation of maintenance responsibilities. 4. Comprehensive Plan: a. The deviations from the code associated with the project include: east side setback, building height, density, site coverage, and loading in the front setback. Each of these proposed deviations directly and negatively impacts existing usage and value of the neighboring Phase I development. b. The proposed deviations concerning height, density, mass, and bulk must all be weighed against the perceived public benefit of the Application. Public comment offered in support of the Application during the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting focused exclusively on the addition of Employee Housing Units ("EHUs"). However, the proposed deviations are certain to exceed permissible Gross Residential Floor Area. As the PEC pointed out, such deviations should not be granted strictly based upon provision of EHUs. The benefit of EHUs does not offset the requested deviations and neighboring owners have not been adequately informed of the extent of the proposed bulk and mass are far beyond anything anticipated for the site. Thus, the Application is not compatible with the surrounding area. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: None known except creation of shadows, cold pockets and lack of air and light to Phase I. 6. Design Features: See above in relation to this criteria not being met. 7. Traffic: November 7, 2017 - Page 489 0 a. The Application would increase density in relation to the Phase I development and is therefore practically certain to generate additional traffic. In fact, Tom Kassmel of Public Works noted in the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting that proposed uses on the site will generate additional traffic which may have some broader impact on the system 8. Landscaping: The landscaping is very limited and artistic license was made in the submitted plans in this regard. 9. Workable Plan: There has been no proposal on how Phase II is to integrate with Phase I. The 2 Phases are very different uses, different Common Areas and maintenance responsibilities. Section 12-9A-8 requires the Town Council to make the following findings with respect to the proposed SDD: 1. That the SDD complies with the nine (9) criteria, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 2. That the SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 3. That the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. That the SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. I object to a finding by the Town Council that any of the foregoing matters have been established per what I stated above. I respectfully request that the Application be denied. Sincerely, Eileen Eileen O'Neill Jolly, CPCU Sr. Vice President RT ProExec Professional & Executive Liability cell: 619-823-7739 email: ejolly©a rtspecialty.com November 7, 2017 - Page 490 0 EIProEXOC RT ProExec is a division of R-T Specialty, LLC, in California: R-T Specialty Insurance Services, LLC, License #0G97516 November 7, 2017 - Page 491 0 Town of Vail Council towncouncil@vailgov.com Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail — Planning Department jspence©vailgov.com Tammy Nagel — Town of Vail Clerk tnagel@vailgov.com Re: Objection by a frequent visitor to Vail Mountain Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: My wife and I frequently come visit our daughter - Owner of Unit 302 at VMVR that will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 were approved. Our comments and abhorrence of Phase Two as proposed are from the viewpoint of those who greatly enjoy staying at VMVR as well as Vail and it's environment. We simply can't envision a tall high-rise crowding so close to VMVR such that parking for the new structure cantilevers over the current parking entrance and that a lobby will directly overlook the pool we enjoy so privately. The thought of the high-rise overlooking, within a few feet, of the windows of the bedrooms we use and obscuring the lovely view of the mountain slopes is devastating. We can only imagine how this will damage the quality of the air and light breezes that have been a joy on our visits. Parking is already a huge issue even amongst Phase 1 Owners. Phase 1 has 68 bedrooms and less than 30 designated spaces unless the Owners have purchased an additional space. My wife is disabled and there is no handicap parking available at all — a violation of the American With November 7, 2017 - Page 492 0 Disabilities Act and making access difficult as there are only three visitor spots and only one is large enough for her to get in and out of the car properly. That spot is hardly ever available. While we are not permanent residents or owners in Vail, we have generally have been impressed with Vail governance and how development has been carefully controlled. As we read through the following protest letter, it does appear that the process for the Phase 2 has truly been underhanded and shady. It is hard to believe how the owners and residents of VMVR have been deliberately excluded from communication and input on Phase 2. We would hope that the entire community at Vail would carefully follow the actions of Town of Vail Council regarding this proposal and hold the Council to the highest standards of governance and honest judgment. Ultimately, the Council's actions will be observed and assessed far beyond the bounds of Vail and it's surrounding area. As regular Tourists/Visitors to Vail, we object along with VMVR Unit Owners to the Application as follows: 1. Lack of Notice and Failure of the Applicant to meet the requirement under the Town of Vail Code to procure "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." No notification of this public process was provided at any time to the Residential Owners at VMVR. The Residential Owners at VMVR have been denied the right to meaningfully address the Application through this public process though our property rights are most impacted by the Application. Mary Anne Redmond, the Applicant's November 7, 2017 - Page 493 0 employee, did not have apparent or actual authority to submit an Approval Letter for the SDD Application as the authorized representative of VMVR. (See below for more detail). 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact air, light, privacy and the residential feel of VMVR. When most owners purchased their residences at VMVR I, they relied upon zoning restrictions applying to the Declarant's future Development Rights in relation to Phase 2 which Declarant represented to them would be applicable thereby protecting their investments. Phase 2 of VMVR as proposed under the SDD will be a 70 -foot -tall, (90 to 100 feet tall from the front door of Phase 2 LEVEL TWO exterior front door) high density, mostly transient - occupied building with 34 hotel rooms and lock offs in addition to 22 condos and employee housing units. There has been no proposal provided to date to the Phase 1 Owners on how Phase 2 will interrelate with Phase 1 in terms of assessments, maintenance, and use. My awareness of the SDD Application occurred recently when a fellow Owner saw an article in the Vail Daily and reached out to me and other Owners. There has been no effort to vet the SDD Application through the Phase I Owners and in fact there has been a disturbing lack of transparency about it from the Applicant whom is also the Commercial Owner at VMVR. The only correspondence that Owners received about Phase 2 at VMVR from the Applicant was in March 2017 which merely November 7, 2017 - Page 494 0 stated that Phase 2 as initially planned in 2007 was going forward. There was no mention or disclosure of the SDD Application. Most disturbing is that on March 27, 2017 Mary Ann Redmond — employee of the Commercial Owner and Applicant for this SDD — signed an "Approval Form" that was submitted to the Town of Vail stating that the Association had approved the SDD. This occurred without proper Meeting requirements or any notification of the Residential Owners at Phase 1. This "Approval Letter" does not meet the Town Code requirements for such approval and the Application should fail as a threshold requirement of the Application has not been met. As a result of the failure to meet Code and notice requirements, the SDD Application has progressed through the Town of Vail administrative processes without objection or involvement of the Phase 1 Residential Owners despite the great impact the SDD Application will have upon our homes. These actions do not meet the requirements of the Town Code or the spirit of the public process. also object to the SDD Application as it fails to meet the 9 Criteria for an SDD as follows: 1. Compatibility: This criteria is not met for the following reasons: i. VMVR is small residential project with an underground parking garage located in an area of the Town of Vail that does not have large buildings around it. The proposed SDD and related plans will allow a taller November 7, 2017 - Page 495 0 building than Phase I to overshadow and overpower the Phase I building. This will adversely impact light, air, heat energy created by sun and privacy. ii. A hotel facility coupled with Units that can in essence be used as hotel like rooms (i.e. lock offs) creates a high use that is not consistent with the residential area in which the project is located and adversely impacts Phase I and neighboring properties. This high use creates an adverse carbon footprint for a Town that is moving toward Green certification. iii. Parking is already a major issue and problem for the Phase I portion of the VMVR. Creating a large, dense additional project subject to use by a large volume of people at the same time could highly exacerbate this problem. iv. The Phase II project is proposed to be cantilevered over the current entrance to the Phase I garages making it improbable for trucks and delivery vehicles to pull into the garage entrance area. A separate loading area is needed for Phase I but is not proposed. November 7, 2017 - Page 496 0 v. Pedestrian access is compromised. vi. A 2,000 square foot "lobby deck" is proposed for Phase II which will abuts and overlooks the pool area for Phase I. This creates an incredible invasion of privacy and impact on light, air and noise around this important Phase I amenity. It also creates a life safety hazard as it creates an attractive nuisance for persons to jump off the Phase II Deck and into the Phase I pool. vii. Abuse of SDD — It was represented to the Owners of Phase I and said Owners relied upon the scope of the original project and Town zoning restrictions when they purchased Units at Phase I. To allow GRFA, height, use and density restrictions to be simply circumvented by an SDD undermines the entire zoning process or ability of any purchaser of property in the Vail Village to rely upon what may or may not be built around them. 2. Relationship: The planned uses, activity or density for Phase II are not compatible with existing Phase I. See above. 3. Parking and Loading: November 7, 2017 - Page 497 0 a. The planned location for the loading zone atop a public walkway is not just atypical, it is unsafe and certain to interfere with surrounding uses and activity. b. Parking is already major issue at VMVR and this will substantially aggravate that issue; c. Delivery trucks and tall vehicles will not be able to access the parking garage or even the parking garage entry area; d. The design will lead to guests at Phase II to park in the Phase garage entry area blocking Phase I Owner access. This creates an emergency vehicle access issue as well. e. To the extent Phase II parking will utilize the Phase I garage it can lead to major enforcement issues for Phase I on parking abuses and poaching as well as allocation of maintenance responsibilities. 4. Comprehensive Plan: a. The deviations from the code associated with the project include: east side setback, building height, density, site coverage, and loading in the front setback. Each of these proposed deviations directly and negatively impacts existing usage and value of the neighboring Phase I development. November 7, 2017 - Page 498 0 b. The proposed deviations concerning height, density, mass, and bulk must all be weighed against the perceived public benefit of the Application. Public comment offered in support of the Application during the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting focused exclusively on the addition of Employee Housing Units ("EHUs"). However, the proposed deviations are certain to exceed permissible Gross Residential Floor Area. As the PEC pointed out, such deviations should not be granted strictly based upon provision of EHUs. The benefit of EHUs does not offset the requested deviations and neighboring owners have not been adequately informed of the extent of the proposed bulk and mass are far beyond anything anticipated for the site. Thus, the Application is not compatible with the surrounding area. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: None known except creation of shadows, cold pockets and lack of air and light to Phase I. 6. Design Features: See above in relation to this criteria not being met. 7. Traffic: a. The Application would increase density in relation to the Phase development and is therefore practically certain to generate November 7, 2017 - Page 499 0 additional traffic. In fact, Tom Kassmel of Public Works noted in the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting that proposed uses on the site will generate additional traffic which may have some broader impact on the system 8. Landscaping: The landscaping is very limited and artistic license was made in the submitted plans in this regard. 9. Workable Plan: There has been no proposal on how Phase 11 is to integrate with Phase I. The 2 Phases are very different uses, different Common Areas and maintenance responsibilities. Section 12-9A-8 requires the Town Council to make the following findings with respect to the proposed SDD: 1. That the SDD complies with the nine (9) criteria, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 2. That the SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 3. That the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and November 7, 2017 - Page 500 0 4. That the SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. object to a finding by the Town Council that any of the foregoing matters have been established per what I stated above. I respectfully request that the Application be denied. Sincerely, Mike and Alice Widmier November 7, 2017 - Page 501 0 Town of Vail Council towncouncil@vailgov.com Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail — Planning Department j spence(@vailgov.com Tammy Nagel — Town of Vail Clerk tnagel@vailgov.com Re: Objection by Owner at Vail Mountain Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: I own Unit 104 at VMVR which will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 is approved. By now you will have received a number of similar letters from my fellow homeowners. Not living in Vail full time, I do not have the same perspective as my neighbors who spend more of their time at VMVR. However, I have been quite taken aback by the emotion and concern that they have shown throughout the past several weeks. The only explanation I have for that type of concern is either when someone feels they have been misled, or when someone feels they have not been fully represented. Unfortunately, both of these have occurred with regard to this SDD Application process. I do not know Ron Byrne nor Pete Carlson. I am, however, a strong supporter of private enterprise, in particular private development I appreciate that even a small, well established village like Vail needs to grow over time. As such, I am willing to sacrifice some personal enjoyment/interests for that to happen, as all November 7, 2017 - Page 502 0 villagers should to some extent. That being said, homeowners in the neighborhoods where this development occurs need to have a voice and have their opinions and ideas heard about that growth and development. It does not appear this has been allowed to happen, certainly in any reasonable time frame and with any reasonable notice. The legalities stated below by our counsel clarify this point. However, I find it strange that the current and future developer of this property would attempt to avoid communication with the current homeowners, the most recent communication this past week notwithstanding. It is such an easy thing to do and would have been in the spirit of "the neighborhood". I do suppose that if I were in their shoes trying to get this project off the ground, and to make money doing it, I would want minimal distractions and would rely on my legal protections as much as possible to accomplish that. I ask that the Town Council strongly encourage the developers to properly engage current homeowners and allow reasonable time for our perceived issues to be addressed. We may realize, or may eventually be told that, the greater good trumps the interests of a few, but at least we will have had a voice. Without that, the neighbors and neighborhood will become resentful of each other, until either those negatively affected leave, or the developers are proven right over time. Below please find the primary concerns that I have. I have chosen not to include our association's analysis of the 9 SDD criteria as I am sure you have received it from other VMVR homeowners. My primary concerns are the lack of communication and transparency by the Applicant, and the potentially negative impact on our HOA fees and general enjoyment of our homes, as we understood it to be when we purchased them. I object to the Application as follows: November 7, 2017 - Page 503 0 1. Lack of Notice and Failure of the Applicant to meet the requirement under the Town of Vail Code to procure "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." No notification of this public process was provided at any time to the Residential Owners at VMVR. The Residential Owners at VMVR have been denied the right to meaningfully address the Application through this public process though our property rights are most impacted by the Application. Mary Anne Redmond, the Applicant's employee, did not have apparent or actual authority to submit an Approval Letter for the SDD Application as the authorized representative of VMVR. (See below for more detail). 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact air, light, privacy and the residential feel of VMVR. When I purchased my Unit at VMVR I relied upon zoning restrictions applying to the Declarant's future Development Rights in relation to Phase 2 which Declarant represented to me would be applicable thereby protecting my investment. Phase 2 of VMVR as proposed under the SDD will be a 700 foot tall, high density, mostly transient -occupied building with 34 hotel rooms and lock offs in addition to 22 condos and employee housing units. Phase 2 will be cantilevered over the Phase 1 parking garage entrance potentially blocking access to the parking garage by delivery trucks and taller vehicles. A 2,000 square foot Lobby Deck will overhang the Pool. There has been no proposal provided to date to the Phase 1 Owners on how Phase 2 will interrelate with Phase 1 in terms of assessments, maintenance and use. November 7, 2017 - Page 504 0 My awareness of the SDD Application occurred recently when a fellow Owner saw an article in the Vail Daily and reached out to me and other Owners. There has been no effort to vet the SDD Application through the Phase I Owners and in fact there has been a disturbing lack of transparency about it from the Applicant whom is also the Commercial Owner at VMVR. The only correspondence I received about Phase 2 at VMVR from the Applicant was in March 2017 which merely stated that Phase 2 as initially planned in 2007 was going forward. There was no mention or disclosure of the SDD Application. Most disturbing is that on March 27, 2017 Mary Ann Redmond — employee of the Commercial Owner and Applicant for this SDD — signed an "Approval Form" that was submitted to the Town of Vail stating that the Association had approved the SDD. This occurred without proper Meeting requirements or any notification of the Residential Owners at Phase 1. This "Approval Letter" does not meet the Town Code requirements for such approval and the Application should fail as a threshold requirement of the Application has not been met. As a result of the failure to meet Code and notice requirements, the SDD Application has progressed through the Town of Vail administrative processes without objection or involvement of the Phase 1 Residential Owners despite the great impact the SDD Application will have upon our homes. These actions do not meet the requirements of the Town Code or the spirit of the public process. I object to a finding by the Town Council that any of the foregoing matters have been established per what I stated above. I respectfully request that the Application be denied, or that the Application be delayed to allow property owners such as myself the minimal amount of time to understand the true impact on our homes. PSL November 7, 2017 - Page 505 0 Town of Vail Council towncouncil@vailgov.com Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail — Planning Department jspence@vailgov.com Tammy Nagel — Town of Vail Clerk tnagel@vailgov.com Re: Objection by Owner at Vail Mountain Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: VMVR 304, Inc. owns Unit 304 at VMVR which will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 was approved. We object to the Application for the following general reasons: 1. Lack of Notice and Failure to procure "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." We were not informed of this public process to discuss a new SDD at any time (we basically found out through unrelated articles and comments), we have not had an opportunity to express our concerns and input with regard to the proposed Phase II. 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact Phase 1 and the surrounding area. When we bought our unit we knew that a Phase II could eventually be developed, but we always thought that the proposed building would be a residential building similar November 7, 2017 - Page 506 0 to that of Phase I, and that the issue will be brought to the owner's association and that our comments and suggestions would be heard. As mentioned in point one above, we were never informed of the zoning change request and we never thought a project would require a SDD ruling (nor that an application was filed). We did not know this would be an extremely high building (almost seven stories when you consider the two levels of the foundation already built adjacent to Phase I). We never expected that the project would have such high density and would include 34 hotel rooms and lock offs in addition to 22 condos and employee housing units. We are deeply concerned that the area destined for Phase II will not withstand a project of such magnitude and that the whole area and adjacent buildings will be extremely negatively affected. The planned uses, activity or density for Phase II are just not compatible with existing Phase I and the area as a whole. We are aware that there is a need in Vail to build more employee units, but we feel this is being used to deviate from the existing code and logic of a project in that space and that area. Such deviations (density, height, air, landscaping, traffic, loading) directly and negatively impact existing usage and value of the neighboring Phase I development. Council members: Put yourselves in our position for a minute. What would you think and do if you recently found out (less than 3 weeks ago), that the President of the Board of the Condominium you Iive in supported an application for a Special Development District that changes the density and zoning as this November 7, 2017 - Page 507 0 proposal does without following any governance procedures or notifying the owners in any way? What would you like the Council members vote for? 1. Approve the change without the owners' consent. 2. Deny the change unless owners are heard and taken into consideration. Based on the above we respectfully request that the Application be denied, that the concerns of Phase I owners are heard, and more importantly that whatever ends up being built in the existing foundation of Phase II meets the logic of the limited area and what we want in Vail. Kind Regards, Eduardo Flores Alonso - Dir tor Jose Alejandro Ortega Aguayo - Director November 7, 2017 - Page 508 0 Town of Vail Council towncouncil@vailgov.com Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail — Planning Department j spence@vailgov.com Tammy Nagel — Town of Vail Clerk tnagel@vailgov.com Re: Objection by Owner at Vail Mountain Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: I own Unit 302 at VMVR which will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 was approved. I object to the Application as follows: 1 1. Lack of Notice and Failure of the Applicant to meet the requirement under the Town of Vail Code to procure "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." No notification of this public process was provided at any time to the Residential Owners at VMVR. The Residential Owners at VMVR have been denied the right to meaningfully address the Application through this public process though our property rights are most impacted by the Application. Mary Anne Redmond, the Applicant's employee, did not have apparent or actual authority to submit an Approval Letter for the SDD Application as the authorized representative of VMVR. (See below for more detail). November 7, 2017 - Page 509 0 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact air, light, privacy and the residential feel of VMVR. When I purchased my Unit at VMVR I relied upon zoning restrictions applying to the Declarant's future Development Rights in relation to Phase 2 which Declarant represented to me would be applicable thereby protecting my investment. Phase 2 of VMVR as proposed under the SDD will be a 700 foot tall, high density, mostly transient -occupied building with 34 hotel rooms and lock offs in addition to 22 condos and employee housing units. Phase 2 will be cantilevered over the Phase 1 parking garage entrance potentially blocking access to the parking garage by delivery trucks and taller vehicles. A 2,000 square foot Lobby Deck will overhang the Pool. There has been no proposal provided to date to the Phase 1 Owners on how Phase 2 will interrelate with Phase 1 in terms of assessments, maintenance and use. My awareness of the SDD Application occurred recently when a fellow Owner saw an article in the Vail Daily and reached out to me and other Owners. There has been no effort to vet the SDD Application through the Phase I Owners and in fact there has been a disturbing lack of transparency about it from the Applicant whom is also the Commercial Owner at VMVR. The only correspondence I received about Phase 2 at VMVR from the Applicant was in March 2017 which merely stated that Phase 2 as initially planned in 2007 was going forward. There was no mention or disclosure of the SDD Application. Most disturbing is that on March 27, 2017 Mary Ann Redmond — employee of the Commercial Owner and Applicant for this SDD — signed an "Approval Form" that was submitted to the Town of Vail stating that the Association had approved the 2 November 7, 2017 - Page 510 0 SDD. This occurred without proper Meeting requirements or any notification of the Residential Owners at Phase 1. This "Approval Letter" does not meet the Town Code requirements for such approval and the Application should fail as a threshold requirement of the Application has not been met. As a result of the failure to meet Code and notice requirements, the SDD Application has progressed through the Town of Vail administrative processes without objection or involvement of the Phase 1 Residential Owners despite the great impact the SDD Application will have upon our homes. These actions do not meet the requirements of the Town Code or the spirit of the public process. I also object to the SDD Application as it fails to meet the 9 Criteria for an SDD as follows: 1. Compatibility: This criteria is not met for the following reasons: i. VMVR is small residential project with an underground parking garage located in an area of the Town of Vail that does not have large buildings around it. The proposed SDD and related plans will allow a taller building than Phase I to overshadow and overpower the Phase I building. This will adversely impact light, air, heat energy created by sun and privacy. ii. A hotel facility coupled with Units that can in essence be used as hotel like rooms (i.e. lock offs) creates a high use that is not 3 November 7, 2017 - Page 511 0 4 consistent with the residential area in which the project is located and adversely impacts Phase I and neighboring properties. This high use creates an adverse carbon footprint for a Town that is moving toward Green certification. iii. Parking is already a major issue and problem for the Phase I portion of the VMVR. Creating a large, dense additional project subject to use by a large volume of people at the same time could highly exacerbate this problem. There is currently no handicap parking spaces at all and the plans do not indicate any are being considered. This is violation of the Americans With Disability Act. The current parking only provides 3 guests spaces and this is not sufficient, particularly when our primarily 3 plus bedroom residences are provided with only one and a fraction of a space on average. iv. The Phase II project is proposed to be cantilevered over the current entrance to the Phase I garages making it improbable for trucks and delivery vehicles to pull into the garage entrance area. A separate loading area is needed for Phase I but is not proposed. November 7, 2017 - Page 512 0 5 v. Pedestrian access is compromised. vi. A 2,000 square foot "lobby deck" is proposed for Phase II which will abuts and overlooks the pool area for Phase I. This creates an incredible invasion of privacy and impact on light, air and noise around this important Phase I amenity. It also creates a life safety hazard as it creates an attractive nuisance for persons to jump off the Phase II Deck and into the Phase I pool. vii. Abuse of SDD — It was represented to the Owners of Phase I and said Owners relied upon the scope of the original project and Town zoning restrictions when they purchased Units at Phase I. To allow GRFA, height, use and density restrictions to be simply circumvented by an SDD undermines the entire zoning process or ability of any purchaser of property in the Vail Village to rely upon what may or may not be built around them. It is my understanding that Ron Byrne has utilized all his allowed square footage per the current zoning (save for less than 300 square feet). 2. Relationship: The planned uses, activity or density for Phase II are not compatible with existing Phase I. See above. November 7, 2017 - Page 513 0 6 3. Parking and Loading: a. The planned location for the loading zone atop a public walkway is not just atypical, it is unsafe and certain to interfere with surrounding uses and activity. b. Parking is already major issue at VMVR and this will substantially aggravate that issue; c. Delivery trucks and tall vehicles will not be able to access the parking garage or even the parking garage entry area; d. The design will lead to guests at Phase II to park in the Phase I garage entry area blocking Phase I Owner access. This creates an emergency vehicle access issue as well. e. To the extent Phase II parking will utilize the Phase I garage it can lead to major enforcement issues for Phase I on parking abuses and poaching as well as allocation of maintenance responsibilities. 4. Comprehensive Plan: a. The deviations from the code associated with the project include: east side setback, building height, density, site coverage, and loading in the front setback. Each of these proposed deviations directly and negatively impacts existing usage and value of the neighboring Phase I development. November 7, 2017 - Page 514 0 7 b. The proposed deviations concerning height, density, mass, and bulk must all be weighed against the perceived public benefit of the Application. Public comment offered in support of the Application during the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting focused exclusively on the addition of Employee Housing Units ("EHUs"). However, the proposed deviations are certain to exceed permissible Gross Residential Floor Area. As the PEC pointed out, such deviations should not be granted strictly based upon provision of EHUs. The benefit of EHUs does not offset the requested deviations and neighboring owners have not been adequately informed of the extent of the proposed bulk and mass are far beyond anything anticipated for the site. Thus, the Application is not compatible with the surrounding area. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: None known except creation of shadows, cold pockets and lack of air and light to Phase I. 6. Design Features: See above in relation to this criteria not being met. 7. Traffic: a. The Application would increase density in relation to the Phase I development and is therefore practically certain to generate additional traffic. In fact, Tom Kassmel of Public Works noted in the June 12, November 7, 2017 - Page 515 0 2017 PEC meeting that proposed uses on the site will generate additional traffic which may have some broader impact on the system 8. Landscaping: The landscaping is very limited and artistic license was made in the submitted plans in this regard. 9. Workable Plan: There has been no proposal on how Phase II is to integrate with Phase I. The 2 Phases are very different uses, different Common Areas and maintenance responsibilities. Section 12-9A-8 requires the Town Council to make the following findings with respect to the proposed SDD: 1. That the SDD complies with the nine (9) criteria, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 2. That the SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 3. That the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. That the SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment 8 November 7, 2017 - Page 516 0 and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. I object to a finding by the Town Council that any of the foregoing matters have been established per what I stated above. I respectfully request that the Application be denied. I will be shocked if the Town Council approves this rezone given the deviate why that Ron Bryne has handled this. I will truly be disappointed in the government of the Town of Vail. The Town needs to remember that it takes an economy in order to employ a workforce and to pay the necessary taxes to maintain the Town. The two largest contributor to the economy of the Town of Vail are: Tourism and Real Estate. By allowing this rezoning to be approved even when you know of the unethical methods that were employed, you are voting against the interests of Tourism and Real Estate. I think that if word gets out that this is how property owners are going to be treated by the Town — there will be imploding consequences in the economy of Vail long term. Word will get out. Sincerely, dt LULCiz-r_ Lisa Widmier, VMVR Residence #302 9 November 7, 2017 - Page 517 0 APOLLO PARK AT VAIL HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION 8547 E. Arapahoe Road, #J542 Greenwood Village, CO 85112-1436 303-690-6038 - 303-690-6511 FAX October 16, 2017 Jonathan Spence, AICP Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Via e mail: jspence@vailgov.com Dear Mr. Spence: As President of the Apollo Park at Vail Homeowners' Association, 1 write to notify you that our Board of Directors has reviewed the Mountain View Residences Phase 2 plans amended and submitted to the Town of Vail for the PEC meeting on October 23, 2017. We will not oppose the amended plans as presented. Sincerely, David J. Zn, President Apollo Park at Vail DJZ:an November 7, 2017 - Page 5' From: Jeff Morgan To: Jonathan Spence Subject: Supporting Vail Mountain View Residence Phase II project Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:42:06 AM October 17, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission Town Council c/o Jonathan Spence, AICP Senior Planner, Town of Vail Dear Mr. Spence, PEC and Town Council Members: As a member of the Vail Valley Partnership Workforce Housing Coalition, and concerned citizen of the Vail Valley; I am writing you today to ask for your approval on the Mountain View Residences Phase 11 SDD application. Now that the team has made revisions deleting the Hotel aspect of the project and adding more EHUs, we can see the shift in focus towards caring for our workforce. This is 50% of the units onsite and 43% of the free-market GFRA, totaling nearly 14,000 sq ft. The VVP Workforce Housing Coalition is a very large group of engaged business owners, employees, elected officials and other concerned Eagle County residents who are looking for ways to address our housing crisis and provide top level service to our worldwide customers that support Vail. Our continued topics of discussion on the value of public-private partnerships providing Employee Housing and the opportunity for individuals and families to move to the Valley has taken shape with the Vail Mountain View Project. Vail is a blend of a demographics, with an world wide audience, providing world class skiing and summer events/ activities for all to enjoy. We want our guests November 7, 2017 - Page 519 0 and locals to live as one in our Valley. If the housing crisis continues in our Valley we will continue to produce unhappy, overworked and segregated employees, that will not give the magical experience we want all of our guests, locals and employee to feel. An over stressed employee will NOT provide top level service to anyone. The TOV has been approached by new EHU project up and down the Valley, there is a strong need that needs to be addressed. Discontent from a few disgruntled citizens, that see no value in the projects, should not take away from the rest of the world's experience coming to Vail. I believe the Vail Mountain View project with its 15 workforce housing apartments paid for completely by the developer is a perfect example of a public-private partnership. The 23 acre project in East Vail is another perfect example of Vail providing it's employees, and the face of Vail, a way to enjoy life in the Valley. We must be prepared to make some accommodations for developers to be successful if we want them to build more than the required square footage of EHUs. I support this project 100% and see it benefiting Vail's missions and goals. Sincerely, till Jeff Morgan Associate Broker November 7, 2017 - Page 520 0 Ron Byrne & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street 1 Vail CO 81657 0: 970-476-1987 C: 720-314-0023 E: jeff@ronbyrne.com www.ronbyrne.com Ron Byrne & Associates 2016 Luxury Property Collection November 7, 2017 - Page 521 0 From: Kim Bell Williams To: Jonathan Spence Subject: Support for Mountain View Project in Vail Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 2:03:42 PM Jonathan, I am writing in support of Mountain View project's increase of 5 deed restricted units to total 15 deed restricted EHU's onsite. As you know, successful workforce housing includes ease of transportation and community preservation. This project would provide both of these important characteristics for the local workforce. These 15 additional workforce housing units will help to maintain the character of Vail that we all have a vested interest in. Thank you for your time. Kim Kim Bell Williams Housing Director Eagle County (970)328-8773 or 328-8776 www.eaglecounty.us/housing www.valleyhomestore.org November 7, 2017 - Page 522 0 October 20, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Attn: Johnathan Spence, AICP Re: Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II Dear Members of the Planning and Environmental Commission: We are writing to inform you and the Town of Vail that as owner of the upper residential unit in the Tyrolean Condominiums, Unit 6, we oppose the revised plans submitted on or about September 27, 2017, for the development of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II and encourage you to recommend denial of the proposed Special Development District. Our Unit #6 is by far the most affected unit in the Tyrolean building by Phase II of the Vail Mountain View Residences. We understand that Tyrolean Condominium Association has engaged counsel who will file a more detailed objection on behalf of all owners. We also have been told that the Town does not take into consideration the protection of views. Although we understand that the Town cannot guarantee views, view impact should be considered in the context of Special Development District approval. An owner invests in property for, among other things, the views, and relies upon existing zoning and density. If zoning and density can be changed and views can be destroyed because a landowner can "give" the Town something, there will be no certainty. The use of the Special Development District process allows a property owner to buy a zoning and density change. We are concerned about increased density, building height, setbacks, site coverage, and product mix. We are concerned about the impact on sun, light and views for our unit. We are also very concerned about the impact on the value of our unit if the Special Development District is approved. We do not believe the approval of this project by the Town of Vail would comply with the overall goals of the Vail Master plan to provide more employee housing, additional lock -offs, and mid -priced hotel rooms to provide additional revenues to the Town of Vail. November 7, 2017 - Page 523 o Please accept this letter as our disapproval of the Vail Mountain View Residences Phase IL Sincerely, /2 JJiI Argos Vail, LLC. November 7, 2017 - Page 524 Jonathan Spence From: Michael O'Connor <michael@triumphdev.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 1:58 PM To: Jonathan Spence Subject: Mountain View Phase 2 Support Hello Jonathan. I understand that Mountain View is going back to PEC next week. I also understand that the Mountain View HOA no longer opposes the project - which is key to my support. As a local employer, Triumph believes we need to prioritize opportunities like this for locals' housing. An in -town location with parking and infrastructure already installed, with minimal impacts to views, is the perfect spot. This is a one -of - kind opportunity that we should all say yes to. moc Michael O'Connor Triumph Development w: 970.688.5057 m: 240.793.6405 12 Vail Road - Suite 700 - Vail, CO - 81657 michael@triumphdev.com www.triumphdev.com 1 November 7, 2017 - Page 525 c TOWN Ore) 1. Call to Order PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 23, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, John Rediker, and Brian Stockmar 2. Main Agenda A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road (Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek) / Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5, formerly known as part of Lot 1, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Denial First: Gillette Second: Perez Vote: 5-2-0 (Kurz and Stockmar Opposed) Spence introduced the item as being similar to the previously submitted application. The item has returned to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) due to a previous error in the notification procedures. A rezoning application requires all owners within the specific property to be notified rather than just the property management group or homeowners association. Letters from the homeowners association and other individuals have been included with the application. Rediker — Asked Spence if there have been any significant changes since the previous submission. Spence stated that there are no significant exterior changes, but the unit mix within the proposed building has been altered. Rediker asked about the nature of the exterior changes. Spence deferred the question to the applicant. Gillette — Asked about the letter of support from the homeowners association of Phase I and how the homeowners association's opinion has changed from the previous review. Spence deferred to the applicant. Perez — Asked about the Phase I homeowners association's letter reference to "conditional support." Spence deferred to the applicant. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation to the PEC. Since the last appearance before the PEC, the applicant has worked with the Phase I homeowners association to address their comments and concerns. The November 7, 2017 - Page 526 0 previous submission included 19 hotel rooms which have been eliminated from the proposal. The suggested conditions of approval have also been modified since the previous plan. The noticeable changes in the unit mix include: an increase from 12 to 15 DUs (Dwelling units), an increase from 15 to 20 AAUs (Attached accommodation units / lockoffs), an increase from 10 EHUs to 15 EHUs (employee housing units), and the removal of the previously proposed 19 AUs (accommodation units). The proposed unit mix revisions comply with the Town Code's minimum required parking spaces. Mauriello reviewed the public benefits associated with the proposal, including an increase to the number of EHUs. Other benefits include: increased number of live beds via the increase in lockoff units, public art, roadway easement, and participation in the Green Globes building sustainability program. Referring to the exterior building elevations, Mauriello described the proposed changes. Referring to the site plan, Mauriello described the proposed changes to the size of the outside deck area and the location of the loading area and pedestrian easement. Mauriello then reviewed the proximity of the proposed structure to the surrounding buildings. The columns on the east side of the structure encroach into the side setback, thus requiring a side setback deviation. Referring to the building's floor plans, Mauriello described the location and quantity of the DUs, EHUs, and AAUs. There is one less parking space than on the previous plan due to the need for additional mechanical equipment. Other deviations include: building height, density, GRFA, and site coverage. Density and GRFA have decreased in non -conformity since the previous plan, but still require deviations. Mauriello provided images from a sun -shade analysis for the proposed structure. Mauriello then discussed the project's relationship to the Tyrolean Condominiums to the west of the property. Mauriello listed all of the variances previously granted to the Tyrolean Condominiums and described the changes made to the proposed structure to help mitigate impacts on the Tyrolean Condominiums. Mauriello concluded by reviewing the nine (9) criteria for approving a Special Development District (SDD) and expressed his belief that the proposal fulfills all of the criteria. In regards to earlier questions from the PEC, Mauriello clarified that the previous approval had a letter from the Phase I homeowners association that permitted the project to go forward, but was not necessarily a letter of support. For this submission, the Phase I homeowners association has provided a letter of support. Hopkins — Asked about the nature of the EHU deed restrictions. Mauriello responded that the EHU deed restrictions are in perpetuity. Hopkins asked what happens when a unit is sold, to which Mauriello responded that the Town of Vail tracks all deed restrictions. Perez, Rediker, and Gillette — Asked for clarification of the proposed building height and how it is measured. Rediker — Asked why there is not a formal development plan in place. He expressed concern about the significant change in the character and nature of the project since the November 7, 2017 - Page 527 0 previous approval. Mauriello stated that there is a development plan in the submittal materials. Rediker expressed his opinion that a plan set does not constitute a full development plan. Mauriello stated that the development plan includes all of the required documentation. Rediker asked what conditional uses will be allowed within the SDD. Mauriello responded that the conditional uses would be controlled by the underlying zone district. Rediker expressed concern that the uses approved with this submission could be changed in the future without the PEC's approval. Spence stated that he believed the applicant's plan set and narrative fulfill the requirements for a development plan. Rediker asked for more information about the landscape plan. Spence stated that the review of the landscape plan is the purview of the Design Review Board (DRB). It is the PEC's purview to review the requested deviations against the proposed public benefits. Rediker stated that one of the nine (9) criteria for approval of an SDD specifically references landscaping and therefore wants more information from the applicant regarding the proposed landscaping. George Ruther, Director of Community Development, reminded the PEC that they will be making a recommendation to the Town Council and that the SDD is officially established via ordinance. Mauriello referred to an image of the landscape plan and stated that this proposal has more plantings than the previously approved landscape plan. Mauriello suggested that, if believed to be necessary, the PEC make landscape recommendations to the DRB. Rediker suggested more plantings along the west side of the site. Rediker asked for clarification on the changes to the exterior from the previous approval to the current proposal. Mauriello referenced the images of the building elevations to demonstrate the locations of the proposed changes. Rediker expressed concern about the shading of the sidewalk during certain times of the year. He asked if the sidewalk will be heated. Mauriello stated that the sidewalk is to be moved closer to the structure to allow for future lane adjustments on the South Frontage Road and to provide snow storage. As a result, the sidewalk will now be heated. Rediker asked who will be responsible for maintaining the sidewalk considering some is on Town property and some is on private property. Mauriello stated that the applicant will enter into an agreement to be responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk. Perez — Asked for clarification on the location of the loading dock. Rediker asked how vehicles in the loading zone will be able to maneuver around the site. Mauriello explained that there is a cross access agreement between the subject property and the property to the east. Gillette asked if another egress point for a truck was necessary. Lockman — Asked for clarification on the relationship between the Phase I homeowners association and the applicant. Tom Todd, Attorney for Gore Creek Partners — The applicant has been active in discussion with the neighbors at the Phase I homeowners association and the two parties are working on an agreement. Kerry Wallace, Attorney for Mountain View Residences (Phase I) — The group has worked with Mr. Todd to address Phase I homeowners association's comments and concerns and are working on completing an agreement between the two parties. Ms. November 7, 2017 - Page 528 0 Wallace explained that the letter of support is conditional based upon executing said agreement. In the future Phase I and Phase II will have separate homeowners associations that will work together on certain items. Rediker — Asked if this would result in a legal subdivision of the property. Ms. Wallace stated that her understanding is that it does not require a legal subdivision. Spence concurred with Ms. Wallace. Perez asked if the condo map will be amended. Ms. Wallace confirmed. Gillette — Asked staff who will be required to approve future changes when there are multiple homeowners associations. Public Comment: Pam Keller — Is an original owner of a unit in Phase I and supports the new proposal. David Foster, attorney representing the Tyrolean homeowners association — Stated that the presentation provided is misleading because the owner of the property developed Phase I under the existing HDMF zone district and essentially maxed out the building height and GRFA. By code, there is only 278 square feet of GRFA available. The proposal is essentially the rezoning of a property where people already live. It was the owner's choice to build to the maximum development standards for Phase I in 2008. He believes it is misleading to label Phase II as infill development. He expressed his concern regarding the proposed building height. He is also concerned that the PEC is predisposed to voting a certain way for the project despite the application being considered a new submission. The Tyrolean Condominiums has not been involved in any of the discussions among the applicant and Phase I homeowners association. Mr. Foster questioned the status of the applicant as it appears to have changed since the previous approval. He stated that he does not believe the proposed structure fulfills the nine (9) review criteria for an SDD. There will still be renters coming in every night due to the AAUs (lockoffs), despite the fact that the hotel units have been removed. Mr. Foster discussed the existing non -conforming site coverage on the subject property and that it never received a variance. Mr. Foster stated that there is no conditional use permit for the leasing of parking on the subject property and there is no record of a license or license renewals for the property owner to be able to lease parking spaces. Mr. Foster concluded by reminding the PEC that there is essentially no available space for Phase II and by reviewing the nine (9) SDD review criteria. Mr. Foster believes that the proposal does not comply with the following criteria: (1) compatibility, (2) relationship of uses and density, (3) parking and loading, and (4) conformity with the Town of Vail Master Plan. Mr. Foster stated that the sun shade analysis is misleading because it assumes a 48' tall building can be built in the proposed location, but as the property is out of developable space, no building of any height can be located there. Gillette — Asked if the Tyrolean Condominiums were notified of the new submission. Spence confirmed. Mauriello — Rebutted several comments made by Mr. Foster. Mr. Mauriello's rebuttals included: the belief that the proposal constitutes infill development, the actual height of the building, and the idea that there was a lack of communication with the Tyrolean November 7, 2017 - Page 529 0 Condominiums. Stockmar — Stated that he is treating this item as a brand new application. The PEC is required to review the nine (9) criteria for establishing an SDD. He has reviewed the criteria and staff's analysis of the criteria. He concurs with staff and will support the proposal. Gillette — Agrees with most of Mr. Foster's analysis. The master plan states there should be development on the property, but it does not state what that type of development should be. He does not believe the public benefit outweighs the deviations required and he does not find the building compatible with the surrounding area. There needs to be a much more significant public benefit for a building 70' tall. Lockman — Thanked the Town for providing a corrected process. Is looking at the application as a brand new application. Lockman stated that he is not sure the application is consistent with the master plan and agrees with Gillette that there is not a sufficient public benefit received from the proposal. He is not ready to support the project due to the building height and use of the building. Hopkins — Expressed concern about the height of the building and its overall compatibility with the surrounding properties. She does not support the proposal at this time. Perez — In looking at the application as a brand new application, believes that the project does not meet all of the criteria for an SDD, especially in regards to compatibility, relationship of uses, and parking and loading. She does not believe there is a sufficient public benefit. Kurz — Agrees with Stockmar and staffs analysis of the SDD criteria. Believes the public benefits outweigh the hardships for neighboring properties. Also believes the loss of the 70 leasable parking spaces had to be considered in the original approval. He supports the project. Rediker — Looked at the application as a brand new application. Does not believe the proposal has fulfilled the SDD criteria. In particular, the scale, bulk, and building height are not compatible with the surrounding area; the proposal is not consistent with the Vail Master Plan; and the design features are not responsive and sensitive to the overall aesthetic to the area in general. Rediker expressed his overall concern about the SDD process in general and he believes it is encouraging the over -development of some properties. Recognizes that there is a public benefit to the proposal, but does not believe it is sufficient to ignore the non-compliant criteria. Gillette — Expressed his opposition to the snow -melted sidewalk. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 5, Public Health and Safety, and Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, related to vegetation removal for wildfire mitigation purposes, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC14-0043) Motion: Table to November 13, 2017 November 7, 2017 - Page 530 0 First: Kurz Second: Gillette Vote: 7-0-0 3. Approval of Minutes October 9, 2017 PEC Results Motion: Approve First: Kurz Second: Gillette Vote: 5-0-2 (Perez and Rediker Abstained) 4. Adjournment Motion: Adjourn First: Perez Second: Kurz Vote: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hours prior to meeting time. November 7, 2017 - Page 531 0 VAILTOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment 8:15 p.m. TOWN Of UAJL November 7, 2017 - Page 532 0