Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-0713 PECC PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL TOWN OF VEIL* COMMISSION July 13, 2015, 12:30 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Present: Brian Gillette Webb Martin, Henry Pratt, Hansen, John Ryan Lockman Absent: Dick Cleveland, John Rediker Legal training has been postponed to a date yet to be determined. Training has been replaced with training on Novus Agenda BoardView Software. Mike Griffin, Town of Vail IT Department gave an overview of accessing the Board View software for PEC meetings. 2. Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 12, Sonnenalp (Austria Haus), pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plans to convert twenty -five (25) square feet of existing sitting /circulation area to pantry area to facilitate an improvement to the existing breakfast and bar facility, located at 242 East Meadow Drive, Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150021) Applicant: Austria Haus Condo Association, Inc., represented by Laura Warren Planner: Jonathan Spence Action: No Action Taken Planner Spence delivered a presentation per Staffs memo. Commissioner Pratt explained the process of an administrative action to the board and that there is no action to be taken unless one of the Commissioners did not agree with the action. If they do not agree they may call the application. Commission Pratt asked if anyone had any questions regarding the staff memo and if anyone felt that the approval needed further action. A request for the review of conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7E -4: Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the use of outdoor space for restaurant uses, located at 12 Vail Road Suite 100 (Gateway Building) /Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150020) Applicant: Vintage Vail, represented by Laurance Broderick Planner: Jonathan Spence Action: Approve with conditions Motion: Martin Second: Hansen Vote: 5 -0 Conditions: 1. This Conditional Use approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application prior to September 1, 2015. 2. The outdoor patio shall operate consistent with the approved site plan dated 06/04/2015 and attached to this memorandum. (PEC150020) 3. The required perimeter fence shall be fastened to the ground to prevent movement. 4. As demonstrated on the approved site plan, patron shade will be provided by individual table umbrellas. No awning shall be proposed in conjunction with this conditional use approval. Any proposal for an awning in the future shall require review and approval of an amendment to this conditional use approval. 5. Staff may approve modifications to the location of the proposed fence along the southern facade. Planner Spence delivered a presentation per Staff's memo and clarified that there are not any specific provisions for out -door patios in this zone district. Also noted was that this proposal is entirely on private property and not subject to any town lease. Planner Spence noted that the Town is seeing a push towards awnings in outdoor dining areas. These awnings create a different character to the area, buildings & view corridors compared to umbrella seating. This application would return to the board should the applicant request an awning in the future as we do see this as enough of a substantive change to the applicant. The applicant was invited to present any additional information on this proposal. Laurance Boderick, General Manager of Vintage Restaurant explained that the current goal for this patio was for use during breakfast & lunch through noon and this is why we are requesting the patio area. We may add dinner dining to the patio next summer. Commissioner Hansen inquired about whether any outdoor heating lamps were planned at this time and if not, would that need to come back to the PEC for approval? Broderick indicated that there are not any plans for outdoor heating lamps this summer but that they may be needed during evening hours. Planner Spence indicated that this would not require review by the Commission. Commissioner Pratt noted that the Gateway HOA has always been very active with businesses within its district. Pratt inquired if the HOA was in agreement with this application. Broderick noted that the HOA had initially given full support. However upon further review, member Lipcon is concerned that the width of the sidewalk may not be enough for customers to pass as he does not want people forced to walk on the driveway. Applicant may need to adjust the fence along the southern sidewalk. Commissioner Gillette has no concerns with this application. Commissioner Martin believes this meets the goals and objectives and supports staff recommendation. Commissioner Hanson indicated that he has no issues with the application and supports staff recommendation. Commissioner Lockman concurs with the staff recommendation. Commissioner Pratt indicated that this is something that the Gateway building needs and this will get people up the street. He is concerned about the 2 foot curbstone that separates the sidewalk & driveway and whether this will be a hazard if the sidewalk is being utilized for seating. 4. A request for the review of a variance from Section 11 -6 -4: Business Signs, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 11 -10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for two building identification signs where one is permitted, located at 108 South Frontage Road West/Lot 2 Vail Village Filing 2, a Resubdivision of Lot D, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150022) Applicant: Vail Clinic Inc., represented by Braun Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence Action: Approve with conditions Motion: Martin Second: Lockman Vote: 4 -1 (Gillette opposed) Conditions: 1. At the termination of the existing US Bank lease period, the property shall come into compliance with Section 11 -6 -4 Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code with one (1) Building Identification Sign. Planner Spence delivered a presentation as per the Staff memo. Spence explained that within this sign district only one building id per frontage is allowed and this building has only one frontage and is allowed one sign up to 50 square feet based on the 160 linear feet of building frontage. Believes that Vail Valley Medical Center did not create this condition as they purchased the building with the existing tenant and lease obligation. Commissioner Gillette asked for the number of businesses housed in this building and how they are signed. He also asked for clarification between business id and building id signs. Planner Spence indicated that there are a handful of businesses and they will be signed through a directory system. Spence also explained the difference as a business ids exist where the business has its own entrance. In this case, all businesses within this building do not have individual entrances. The object of the sign is to help inform the public Commissioner Gillette asked if anyone is having trouble locating the businesses in the building. The applicant was then invited to present the request for a sign variance. Tom Braun, Braun and Associates representing the Vail Valley Medical Center. Braun stated that when VVMC purchased this building, there was a mixed use of tenants. Through gradual evolution, the tenants have become almost exclusively medical fields both publicly generated uses as well as hospital generated uses. Through the VVMC master plan moving all patient access to the Frontage Road, beginning this summer, we want to better brand the building as a medical office building for those first time patients who will be accessing this site for the first time. We want to better brand that building as it aligns with the changes that are being made and assist patients in going to where they need to be going. Indicated that this is a temporary sign variance and as the lease concluded, the sign will be going away. Commissioner Hansen asked if the hospital been giving any feedback that the emergency entrance is difficult to find? Braun agreed that we have a current challenge with this. We are going to try to route emergency traffic down to Meadow Drive and general users to use the Frontage Road access. Working with CDOT for bi- directional signage for patients. Commissioner Gillette asked for clarification as to how the majority of patients will access this building. Will they be directed to the South side? Braun stated that most patients will access this building off of the Frontage Road. Commissioner Martin asked if there intention to change the sign at all once the lease is up with US Bank, make it bigger, different location? Braun clarified that when the current lease is up, they recognize that they must then come into compliance with the sign regulations and remove the 2nd Building ID sign. Can't speak to 4 years from now and what the future of the current tenant is. Commissioner Pratt asked for clarification on where patients that are using this building park. Will they be in the structure? Do they use this building's parking? How does someone who knew where CMM was yesterday know where to go today and where to park? Braun indicated that there are now greeters & valet service during clinic hours. When you pull up, greeters will inquire where you are going and direct patients to either park on the 3 d level or to valet park. Most of the structure is currently employee parking but we are working on freeing up spaces for the clinic. The clinic is going to drive a lot more patient activity compared to what we have had up to this point. Commissioner Pratt continued by asking where the greeter will be located? How will someone know which turn to go into out of the three turns within a 50 ft. distance? Braun responded that the greeters & valet service will be located in the front loop or in one of the oversized space. Commissioner Pratt inquired about temporary parking signage for patrons & if this type of signage is different from what is being reviewed today and that it is not tied back into the square footage requirement? Braun agreed that there would be temporary signage to assist with parking and that this has already been addressed with staff. Agreed that this is completely separate from this application. Commissioner Lockman asked for clarity on the 2 signs vs. 1 sign. Once lease is up, will the building have to come back into compliance? Is the sign illuminated? Planner Spence stated that the applicant will have to come back into compliance and that the sign will be shadow lit. Commissioner Hansen concurred with the solution Commissioner Martin agreed with staff and is in agreement that it meets the circumstances to grant the variance add supports the application due to the conditions placed on the application. Commissioner Gillette does not agree that this application meets the criteria of the special circumstances. Verbiage of the code it's obvious that they are talking about a site issue and not a lease issue. Does not believe that the special circumstance of the lease is an issue because the owner of a building created the lease with this tenant. Does not believe that this signage will help. Believes if the public is told to go to an office in the US Bank building they will know exactly where to go but if they are told to go to an office in the VVMC Medical Office Building, they won't really know where they are going. Because of these two issues, I do not believe I can support this application. Commissioner Pratt believes that there is a special circumstance that exists short term that supports this application. There will be an incredible amount of confusion during the next 4 years. This is just another sign on the building and with the trees out there, not sure how visible it is going to be. Understands Commissioner Gillette's position. Believes with the short term problems created with this redevelopment, can support this application. I think the findings do apply. I do not think that a greeter and signage will solve the parking issues. We need a better solution for the next 4 years. 5. A request for final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to construct a permanent skate park at the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 350 South Frontage Road /Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150023) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Jonathan Spence Action: Approve with conditions Motion: Martin Second: Hansen Vote: 5 -0 Conditions: 1. This Conditional Use Permit approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application prior to the start of any construction. 2. Any proposed exterior signage associated with the skatepark shall be reviewed and approved as per Title 11 of the Vail Town Code. The Operations and Management Agreement between the Vail Recreational District and the Town of Vail shall govern the operation of the facility. The provided development parameters included in Section V. of the application narrative for PEC150023 shall complement and be consistent with the agreement. Failure of the facility to develop and operate in accordance with the agreement and the provided development parameters may result in the project being returned to the Planning and Environmental Commission for additional consideration. 4. If the Town Council approves winter use there shall be no loss of parking between November 15 and April 15. Applicant representative Todd Oppenheimer of the Public Works department was requested to give an overview of this Conditional Use Permit application. Todd provided a brief overview of the request and informed the commission that the Council approved the final design at the July 7 meeting. This will replace the temporary park that is installed annually at the Lionshead Parking Structure. They have held multiple public workshops that were very well attended and believe that the community is very much behind this project and design. Commissioner Lockman asked for clarification regarding the possibility of adding snowmelt to the project. Oppenheimer stated that the Council directed staff to look into the possibility of adding snowmelt to the project and he will be taking back specific costs associated with the skatepark. The feeling from the community and the designers is that this could be a year round facility if snowmelt is added to the design. There is not a lot for the 21 & under crowd to do and this may help. They do expect considerable use if available. Commissioner Lockman asked if any other thoughts had been considered. Cover? Oppenheimer stated that because the structure is an open air structure, and that adding a cover would kick in fire suppression & ventilation issues. Because of this the option of a cover is being discouraged. I am looking into the snowmelt at the direction of the council and a decision has not been made. Commissioner Pratt suggested some sort of cover that contained a solar system to create a self sustaining snowmelt system. Oppenheimer: Council is aware of carbon footprint for snowmelt system and he has been directed to look into energy efficient systems Commissioner Hansen commented on the fact that this is a public facility and inquired as to whether or not our Police and Fire departments have any concerns for public safety. Oppenheimer met with Moses Gonzales when design was started. Part of the existing management agreement with the Vail Recreation District has the police department going by there at least three times a day. We will be putting in the necessary infrastructure for cameras if it is deemed necessary in the future. Martin asked if there were any plans for any events at this facility. Oppenheimer: There will be some kind of grand opening, but no spectator events scheduled at this time. Designed for the beginner & intermediate boarder. Not an x -games type of skate park. Designing this park for more advanced users' rules out too many users. Skaters usually find a way to meet their needs in an intermediate /beginner park Commission Martin indicated that he is concerned that spectators will take up all the parking. Oppenheimer indicated that a couple of spaces on each level were being dedicated to spectator viewing areas for a total of 10 spaces. Commissioner Lockman asked what happens to the spaces where the park is located today. Oppenheimer stated that all of those spaces go back to parking for a total of 44 spaces Commissioner Pratt asked what happens to these 10 spaces in the winter. Do they go back to parking? Oppenheimer indicated that if the park is snow melted, the spaces will remain dedicated for spectator observation. If the park is not snow melted, the spaces will return back to parking. Commissioner Gillette stated that it appeared that there was landscaping on either side. Why couldn't this be spread out more throughout the park and within the park and allow for snow removal to be placed in this landscaped area? Oppenheimer clarified that by including landscaping within the park disrupts the flow throughout the space. You don't want breaks from one skating feature to another and because of this, we are able to have more included in this park than you might find in other parks in the country. Commissioner Gillette believes the application is appropriate but does not believe heating the park is appropriate. Commissioner Webb supports the application as well. Commissioner Hansen supports the application Commissioner Lockman supports the application but the town should reconsider snow melting this area. Commissioner Pratt believes this is a very creative solution but does not believe that parking should be eliminated for winter operations. We need this parking for other users in the winter and we should not keep parking aside for so few users. Planner Spence asked the commission how they would like staff to proceed if the Council approves the snowmelt system for this project. Could you authorize staff to work with our Public Works department and the VRD on a managed solution for those ten parking spaces? Commissioner Gillette asked how many parking spaces are required for operations & maintenance or is it just for viewing. Oppenheimer indicated that no spaces are required and they are for viewing, someplace to sit & change their shoes, take a break Planner Spence indicated that a condition could be added that no parking spaces would be allocated for the park during Winter operations. Commissioner Pratt stated that he does not believe that this would need to come back to the board if the snowmelt system is approved so long as the parking spaces are returned to the pool in the winter. Has no issues with winter use but has issues with having to heat that much concrete and that's why he suggested looking into a solar type system that could be self sustaining. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow a revision to the approved development plan for the Cornerstone site to facilitate the construction of a tensioned membrane structure, located at 1300 Westhaven Drive /Unplatted, (Liftside /Cornerstone) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140019) - Table to September 14, 2015 Applicant: Charter Sports, represented by Braun & Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence Action: Table to September 14, 2015 Motion: Martin Second: Lockman Vote: 4 -0 -1 (Pratt recused) Approval of Minutes Approval of June 8, 2015 Results Action: Approve Motion: Gillette Second: Hansen Approval of June 22, 2015 Results Action: Approve Motion: Webb Second: Lockman Informational Update Vote 3 -0 -2 (Pratt, Webb recused) Vote: 4 -0 -1 (Gillette recused) An update to the Planning and Environmental Commission regarding the Plastic Bag Ban, effective August 1, 2015, by Kristen Bertuglia 9. A request for final review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12- 61 -11, Vail Town Code, to allow for the future development of Employee Housing Units on the Chamonix parcel located at 2310 Chamonix Road, Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC150019). Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther Action: Table to July 27, 2015 Motion: Hansen Second: Gillette Vote: 4 -0 -1 (Martin Recused) Martin recused & departed from meeting Community Development Director Ruther clarified that the applicant is not looking for a final recommendation today and this item is being heard as a work session item only. We do expect to be in front of the commission many more times prior to asking for a final recommendation. Ruther clarified that the Chamonix Master Plan is the guiding document for this project. The Town acquired this property with the intent to build a fire station and affordable housing. The Master Plan does take into account the fire station as well as the remaining portion be available for affordable housing. Action plan indicated that the site should be zoned as Housing which did occur shortly after acquiring the site. In 2007 the Town contracted with Stan Clausen and Associates to put the master plan together and initially 3 potential site design alternatives were presented and the neighborhood block scheme was the chosen design. The plan recommends optimizing the site for employee housing, not maximize the site understanding that there is a variety of housing needs. Within the neighborhood block scheme there were fundamental improvements committed to by the town and agreed to with the neighboring properties. Understanding the adjacent context or the residential neighborhood to the north, as well as acknowledging this property immediately adjacent to what is now the fire station, the adjacency to the existing service stations as well as the West Vail commercial area. Design was put in place where pedestrian access was provided, and understating contextually the adjacent uses surrounding this property as well as vehicular access. Since adoption of the plan, we recognized that putting some initial infrastructure & engineering to the site, we realized we were duplicating a lot of the services that were already adjacent to the property because of the way we laid out the design. In the end, in 2009 staff took an amendment to the master plan back to the council after communicating with the neighbors about gaining access to the duplex units directly off of Chamonix Lane. About a year & a half ago we got engaged back into the property & looking at opportunities for potential development. The first thing we did was go back to the Master Plan for direction & guidance. We have been working with 359 Design as well as Martin Martin Engineering to provide some ideas for site access & improvements need for the site. A lot of that work has been done so we now have a fair idea of what work needs to be done and what it's going to take to develop this site. We have asked Council for what goals & objectives the council has by developing affordable housing on this site. A list of goals & guidelines have been affirmed by Town Council we have been using these goals as we move forward with planning for this site. We have also acknowledged that it is would not be in the towns best interest to try to deliver all of the housing product proposed for this site at any one time. We are looking at a phased approach to the development. Phases have not been developed with the exception of access & infrastructure. While this phase is being built, we can move forward with the planning of the development knowing that we are not building this project at any one given time. Two phases will be infrastructure and then vertical construction. We are hoping to build below grade infrastructure this Fall. Housing zone district was created with the express intent to build deed restricted affordable housing in this area. We have also provided some flexibility through the development standards to allow developers to build affordably in the area, but adjacent property owners would have some certainty to what would actually be built in this area. As a result many of the standards proposed for this zone district are proposed by the developer and then approved by the PEC subsequent to an approved development plan. This is very much like a Planned Unit Development in most other areas of the county. This type of development identifies development parameters, permitted & accessory uses are identified & development standards are proposed and approved as part of a binding document. We will be looking for an approved Development Plan by the Planning and Environmental Commission. This will be the guiding document for this site. We have not responded to the criteria yet as it is still too early in the process to provide that information. Will Hentschel with 359 Design was introduced to the board to discuss the initial planning for the site. Throughout this process, we are continually reviewing the goals & guidelines for this site to ensure we are meeting the needs of this housing development. Hentschel reviewed the development plans provided to the Commission. Addressed were the sloping of the site, the balance between multi - family, townhomes & duplexes, as well as pedestrian access & vehicular access to the site. Commissioner Gillette inquired if the road on the south of the property is a private or public roadway and who would be responsible for the maintenance. Ruther commented that this would be a private driveway and that we have not concluded who would be maintaining this. There has been a significant number of discussions about having the town operate & maintain the properties opens pace & roadways and how this could create value for the project. Some would suggest that an HOA be created and have them take over responsibility of all common area and roadways. This project is 100% deed restricted for sale units and none would be available for the rental pool. Commission Hansen inquired as to affordability of the project and whether or not it would be subsidized. Ruther indicated that some subsidy would be provided but that amount has not been determined. Commissioner Gillette inquired as to who would be responsible for creating the HOA documents. Will party wall agreements be provided for all of the duplexes? Does the road have to be maintained when the development isn't in process? There should be some direction for the HOA documents and what appropriate fees would be. Is this being designed for benefits & efficiencies? When is it appropriate to ask these questions? Have we surveyed our current deed restricted property homeowners as to where we fell down in this process, what could we do better? Have we done an energy audit on these properties to see what our baseline is? Ruther stated that the TOV will be writing these agreements. Party wall agreements will also be provided by the Town. A survey has not been done at this time but that is a great suggestion. Hentschel also clarified that we need to take into account sustainable goals, efficiencies. What can we do up front that makes these units affordable now and in the future. Phase plan is important driver. Outdoor access points — outdoor space compartmentalized within their own but feeds into shared open space. Hentschel continued his presentation regarding the size analysis done for the site allows for flexibility. He also recognized that parking will be a very contentious topic. Commissioner Pratt encouraged staff & consultants to work out the parking ASAP. This is one of the most troubling topics for residents and consideration of assigned spaces may be required. Make sure parking divides out correctly to meet resident needs. He also indicated that 1 parking space for a 3 bedroom unit is questionable. Commissioner Gillette indicated that regardless of location to bus or other amenities, residents in our community have cars. Families have cars, we need to make sure there is adequate parking. Commission Gillette indicated that he questioned the garage size. We need to review & assess these sizes as most people use their garage for storage as well as parking. Commissioner Gillette suggested reviewing it as here is the parking you have, this is how many units you can build. Ruther indicated agreement with parking concerns and they will be returning to the commission in the near future to discuss this again. Hentschel discussed the use of development parcels for this project and that within each area there will development standards created. These standards will determine setbacks, height, sight coverage, density, landscape area. How does this begin to stack up? We will define each of these areas and develop standards for each of these areas & development has to comply with the various standards depending on the specific location. Ruther clarified that there would be 3 development areas each within its own development standards. One set for the duplex lots, one set for the Townhomes and one set for the multi - family units. Hentschel continued his presentation with the character of the site. The usable open space, the ease of maintenance, how do we integrate parking & storage within the site. Every unit needs interior item storage as well as exterior item storage. What do we do about trash? What do we do about mail? How can these items be an amenity? Ruther continued discussion on the document version of the development plan. We are beginning the framework for the future content of the plan. There are two pieces of this document. One where we have the narrative guide and the other where the illustrative plans that go along with the plan. Narrative will be come the zoning of this project. Statement & intent provided. Things such as commercial uses would not be allowed. Uses focus specifically on the residential uses within this development. Commissioner Pratt asked if it is appropriate to include some sort of management guidelines that address parking, party walls, etc... r Ruther stated that these are more of a zoning type of document and the specifics should be a different type of document. There is a need, just need to find the best location for this type of document. If it doesn't go in here, where does it go and how does it get its teeth? Commissioner Hansen asked for clarity as to how this is going to proceed. We have engaged Martin /Martin to come up with a utility plan for this project. This allows us the ability to begin installing the infrastructure while we are continuing to proceed to review the development plan, & 1St phase of vertical construction. Hopefully start vertical construction in spring of 2016. Commissioner Pratt inquired if the staff was looking for feedback or was this more of an introduction to the project. Ruther stated that this is more of an introduction to the development so the commission can get their heads around what is expected with the board for the approval of the development plan. Commissioner Pratt indicated an additional comment regarding the internal road that he'd like to remove the road next to the road to allow for open space. If this interior roadway isn't required for emergency access. invited to attend 10. Adjournment the project Motion: Hansen Second: Gillette Vote: 4 -0 orientation and the site visits that precede the The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during WRRar office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is 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. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), for information. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily July 10, 2015 KN? :I PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION T%V�J OF Vi July 13, 2015, 12:30 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Legal Training provided by Matt Mire 30 min. 2. Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action 5 min. approving a request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 12, Sonnenalp (Austria Haus), pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plans to convert twenty -five (25) square feet of existing sitting /circulation area to pantry area to facilitate an improvement to the existing breakfast and bar facility, located at 242 East Meadow Drive, Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150021) Applicant: Austria Haus Condo Association, Inc., represented by Laura Warren Planner: Jonathan Spence 3. A request for the review of conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7E -4: 15 min. Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the use of outdoor space for restaurant uses, located at 12 Vail Road Suite 100 (Gateway Building) /Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150020) Applicant: Vintage Vail, represented by Laurance Broderick Planner: Jonathan Spence 4. A request for the review of a variance from Section 11 -6 -4: Business Signs, Vail Town 15 min. Code, pursuant to Chapter 11 -10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for two building identification signs where one is permitted, located at 108 South Frontage Road West /Lot 2 Vail Village Filing 2, a Resubdivision of Lot D, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 150022) Applicant: Vail Clinic Inc., represented by Braun Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence 5. A request for final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3 30 min. Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, for Outdoor Recreation Areas, Active (Skatepark) at the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 350 South Frontage Road /Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150023) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Jonathan Spence 6. A request for final review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12- 61 -11, Vail Town 60 min. Code, to allow for the future development of Employee Housing Units on the Chamonix parcel located at 2310 Chamonix Road, Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC150019). Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to 5 min. Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow a revision to the approved development plan for the Cornerstone site to facilitate the construction of a tensioned membrane structure, located at 1300 Westhaven Drive /Unplatted, (Liftside /Cornerstone) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140019) - Table to September 14, 2015 Applicant: Charter Sports, represented by Braun & Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence 8. Approval of Minutes Approval of June 8, 2015 Results ADDroval of June 22. 2015 Results 9. Informational Update An update to the Planning and Environmental Commission regarding the Plastic Bag 30 min. Ban, effective August 1, 2015, by Kristen Bertuglia 10. 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. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), for information. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily July 10, 2015 TO6'UPJ OF VAdL. VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 13, 2015 ITEM /TOPIC: Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 12, Sonnenalp (Austria Haus), pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plans to convert twenty -five (25) square feet of existing sitting /circulation area to pantry area to facilitate an improvement to the existing breakfast and bar facility, located at 242 East Meadow Drive, Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150021) ATTACHMENTS: Name l PEC150021 Memo.pdf l PEC150021 Plans.pdf Description: Memorandum Austria Haus Plans Iffi �ilh VA IL 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 vailgov.com June 24, 2015 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Austria Haus Condominium Association, Inc c/o Laura Warren. 242 East Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 Adjacent Property Owners: Community Development Department 970.479.2138 Re: Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 12, Sonnenalp (Austria Haus), pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plans to convert twenty -five (25) square feet of existing sitting /circulation area to pantry area to facilitate an improvement to the existing breakfast and bar facility, located at 242 East Meadow Drive /Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150021) Applicant: Austria Haus Condominium Association, Inc. Represented by Laura Warren Planner: Jonathan Spence Dear PEC members, Ms. Warren, members of the Austria Haus Condominium Association, and adjacent property owners: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that Town of Vail Staff has approved a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 12, Sonnenalp (Austria Haus). The applicant is proposing to expand the existing pantry area by twenty -five (25) square feet to facilitate an improvement to the existing breakfast and bar facility. The proposed expansion will convert twenty -five (25) square feet of existing sitting /circulation area to pantry area supporting the existing breakfast /bar function. The project will also include the refinishing of the existing bar in the same area. The attached plans, dated May 26, 2015, demonstrate the proposed improvements. Staff finds that approval of this minor amendment request meets the criteria in Section 12 -9A -8, Vail Town Code. The amendment does not alter the basic intent and character of Special Development District No. 12, Sonnenalp (Austria Haus). The amendment will continue to be compatible with the neighborhood and other uses. There is no impact to any landscaping or natural features. Traffic will not be impacted. There is no change in the total number of condominiums, no addition in the amount of allowable gross residential floor area. No exterior changes are contemplated with this proposal. Staff's approval of this minor special development district amendment will be reported at a public hearing before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission on Monday, July 13, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. in the Vail Town Council Chambers, located at 75 South Frontage Road. The Planning and Environmental Commission reserves the right to "call up" this staff decision for additional review at this hearing. Pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Vail Town Code, appeals of staff decisions may be filed by adjacent property owners, owners of property within Special Development District No. 12, the applicant, Planning and Environmental Commission members, or members of the Town Council as outlined in Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970 - 479 -2321. Best regards, Jonathan Spence, AICP Planner Attachment: Existing and proposed floor plans, dated 5/26/15 Town of Vail Page 2 / /� /Jt� Y51-9L °�'l :ON 1aago :pana¢cag OZ9 LB Q7'tWAV 6680'646'DL6lal 9lt''•S'P11 Wewgaua� "M Of :a a -S anmsi L4918 00'I ! pA '"J4 MO ROW' ZbZ �apomay 1pg g awed snpH p!jjend d916H 'g10 SObfL :oH qop ro 0 H O N L a ,17 ,6 0 I -erns 1 �3 NOI1DANiSNOD NOJ lON ANVNIIWIINd ,,0-,[ ' 11/1 NVI� N01111OWaO t VNI1SIX3 - N'Vlcl J001 i I I III I III I IP I �I IP I ._J ouVd :ShON N011110WIa NIVW3a 01 80013 3111 ONIISIX3 'u dlnO3 9NUSIX3 3AOW38 OL NIVW38 01 SM00NIM 9NI1SIX3 '6 NIVA38 01 8000 ONI1SIX3 9 03Sn 10N l3NVd NI S30VdS 03Sn lON '9 N3dO 31OV11VAV ONV UOVdVO A3189A - 13NVd 83XV189 01810313 9NUSIX3 '91 '088 'dA9 ONV lOOSNIVM 3111 9NI1SIX3 3AOW38 '9 NIV1138 01 XNIS 80013 9NUSIX3 'LL 9NIO10114 NMO80 ONV 11JJOS 03ddO80 9NUSIX3 3AOW38 b NIVW38 01 N1V80 80013 9NI1SIX3 '91 NIVW3H 01 d01 8V9 M0139 IIVM '3Sn3H 31BISSOd H03 S13NAVO 3Sn3H 3191SSOd 803 3AVS ONV 8000 9NUSIX3 3AOW38 9L H3ddn 39VAIVS 'S13NI9V0 H3ddn ONV SNAMOO 'd01 HV9 9NI1SIX3 3AOW38 'E NVId M3N NO NMOHS SV IlV1SN138 ONV d11003 ONIISIX3 3AOW38 'K '03HIn03H SV 03Sn lON 'CI 9NIGiNnId 80 /ONV IVOI810313 '9NIW083 ' '089 'dA9 'SIIVM 9NI1SIX3 3AOW38 Z NIVW3H 01 13d8VO 9N11SIX3 'Zl NIVW3H 01 IIVM 9NI1SIX3 I :ShON N011110WIa :oN ;aa48 51pan66!ag 0i9t9QJ,uoAy 6690'666'0[6101 9Lr'as'pa'.40.0 A OE L�x91S O'J'leh'�JQ mopPaW "3 ctrl lopowaa jeg y hued en PH BlalmV dal �e w+8�a So4EL :oN qof e v z m ro 0 r� n H z 0 N � N NOUD(INBNOD NOJ lON AWNIIW\1INd o-d = ,/I m3N - N-V1.1 �oo� IHnlonHls IIVM ONIISIX3 01 A1ddV - M0138 1NOHd HV8 13NVd 03SIVd '1nNIVM MIN '9I NOlIV0OI SIHl 01 HV8 HOVE 0NV NOIIVIS 9NIHSVMHSIO IV 'AD] ONIISIX3 ONV MIN ]IV 3dld - XNIS NOON ONIISIX3 'b NIV80 HOOl3 9NI1SIX3 '9l NOIIVOOI SIHl 01 AdINVd dO IIVM 1S3M ONV H1HON NO dInO3 DNIISIX3 ONV MIN 1W 3dld ' XNIIS HOOl3 9NUSIX3 4 NOI10ndISNOD ONIHnO 103108d - NIVW38 01 13d8V0 9NIISIX3 '4I dAl 'S11VM 9NI1SIX3 30 3NI1 'E4 S130800 3NO1S /M dI3HS 3NO1S 031NnoW IIVM ONV d01 3NOIS /M 13NIOV0 1311ne 'l3NVd 03SIVH '1nN1VM MIN Zl 03Sn ION u 38VMSSVI9 H03 S3Al3HS SSVID HV310 H01H1 .@ 'OI S3AIIHS SSVID 0310 .1 E 301AOHd d01 HVB NOVO 3AO8V N011D3S 83MOl 1V 1H011 661S HV3NIl ONV 13NIBVO 10 d01 1V 'S114011 03SS3038 H11M 13NIBV0 don011 1nNIVM '318VNOOI '1NOH3 SSVID MIN 6 I 1 L___y�� ________ J L ------- ________ L- 'NIVW38 01 S3HSIN13 9NI1SIX3 NO 10VdM IDYINIW 01 03O33N SV IOH1N00 1Sn0 0NV N0110310Hd 301AOHd Z SONIMV80 NOH3 SNOlIV18VA NV 30 103IIH08V A3110N 'NOIlOnH1SNOO 80 NOlilIOW3O ANV 01 8018d SNDI110N00 9NI1SIX3 11V A3181A -I :S310N lVHINM 3NIHOVW OSS3HdS3 803 SNO1103NNOO 9NI8Wnld ONV IV01810313 803 d01 831Nn00 NI S13WW089 301A08d 'H3llddnS dInO3 NIH011N HEM '08000 - 180ddnS d01H31Nn00 80d llNn 831000 H000-Z 30 301S HOV3 1V SI3NVd IV01183A 3OIM ., 1301A08d - d01-9nS 'OMAId /M d01 8V8 NOVB BOIS MIN 9 '1NOH3 BVB 0313NVd H01VW 01 S138800 DOOM ONV d01 -9nS 'OMAN /M d01 HVB 3NO1S MIN L M0130 39VdV9 NI HOSSI W00 31VOOI ' An ONINOI110NOD 81V llldS-INIW MIN '9 '9NI1SIX3 HO1VW 01 8000 AADOd MIN '9 OH0 'dAD .X, 3dA1 .� ONV 9N16VV83 0n1S IV13W H11M 1113N1 - NOlIV001 DNIN3dO HOW WIWI '4 DMISIX3 HO1VW 01 HSINI33H - NIVW3H 01 8000 13NOOd ONIISIX3 E 9NI1SIX3 HO1VW - DN180013 3111 AHHVno 9X9 MIN Z SOn1S 1VAIN NO '089 dA9 X 3dA1 .% '(J3dV1 381d HIAO SINA381n03H S,838n10V3nNVW 83d S133HS IIV1SNl 'S1V1831VW HVIIWISSIO AIN S31HOSS300V 383HM ) InVO - S133HS ddd 30 NOlIVIIV1SN1 3H1 313ldHOD 01 S83N800 301S1n0 ONV S83N800 301SNI 'SHVB NOISIAIO 'SdVO (IN] 301AOHd - ONI1130 01 39VO 3111 AHHVno 30 d01 W08d AH1NVd d0 SIIVM IIV NO S113HS 'd'H'3 .060 'IH913H IIn3 I ShON NV Id a001J TO6'UPJ OF VAdL. VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 13, 2015 ITEM /TOPIC: A request for the review of conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7E -4: Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the use of outdoor space for restaurant uses, located at 12 Vail Road Suite 100 (Gateway Building) /Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150020) ATTACHMENTS: ame: PEC150020 Staff Memo.pdf D PEC150020 Attachment A.o d PEC150020 Attachments B.pdf d PEC150020 Attachments C.pdf Description: PEC150020 Staff Memorandum PEC150020 Attachment A PEC150020 Attachment B PEC150020 Attachment C TOWN OF VAIL � Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 13, 2015 SUBJECT: A request for the review of conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12- 7E-4: Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the use of outdoor space for restaurant uses, located at 12 Vail Road Suite 100 (Gateway Building) /Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150020) Applicant: Vintage Vail, represented by Laurance Broderick Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY /REQUEST The operator of the Vintage Vail Restaurant, located at 12 Vail Road, has requested the review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7E -4: Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the use of outdoor space for restaurant uses. Within the Commercial Service Center (CSC) Zone District, any use permitted within a structure requires review as a conditional use if operated outside. The Vintage Vail Restaurant is opening in the space formerly occupied by Kelly Liken it the Gateway Building. To increase the restaurants visibility and seating and to enhance the guest experience, the restaurant operator is proposing exterior seating adjacent to the building along the west and south fagade. All of the proposed seating is to be located on private property and separated from the public sidewalk by a decorative fence. The fence installation, as conditioned, will be required to be fastened to the ground to prevent movement. The applicant is proposing nine tables with seating for approximately 20 patrons. The tables are to utilize umbrellas for sun protection. The total fenced outdoor dining area is approximately 250 square feet. The location of the proposed outdoor use has been reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department. Because of the location on private property, it is not anticipated that the outdoor use will adversely effect provisions for emergency services or snow removal. The applicant is proposing a barrier system (fence) to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. No changes to the existing paver surface are proposed. Please see the site plan included as Attachment C for the location and layout of the proposed outdoor use. BACKGROUND The Gateway Building was constructed in 1990 on the site of the former Amoco gas and service station and provides for retail, restaurant, office and residential uses. According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the Gateway Building parcel is located within the Commercial Service Center (CCS) District. As such, any permitted use which is not conducted entirely within a building requires review and approval of a conditional use permit. A similar proposal for this location was reviewed and approved in 1991 for the Siamese Orchid Restaurant. At that time, the property was located with SDD No. 21 that required a conditional use review for outdoor dining patios. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 Zoning Regulations Section 12 -7E Commercial Service Center (CSC) District (in part) 12 -7E -1: PURPOSE. The commercial service center district is intended to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities serving the town, together with limited multiple- family dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate without interfering with the basic commercial functions of the zone district. The commercial service center district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient shopping center environment for permitted commercial uses. Vail Land Use Plan (in part) The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through Town of Vail Page 2 the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows. 1. General Growth / Development 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2. The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4. The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 3. Commercial 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 4. Village Core/ Lionshead 4.1. Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural settings, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) Vail Village Master Plan (in part) The Vail Village Master Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whole. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and along with the Guide Plan, it underscores the importance of the relationship between the built environment and public spaces. Furthermore, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives Town of Vail Page 3 outlining how the Village will grow in the future. Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. While there is a certain amount of overlap between these six goals, each focuses on a particular aspect of the Village and the community as a whole. A series of objectives outline specific steps that can be taken toward achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision - making in achieving each of the stated objectives. The applicable stated goals, objectives and action steps of the Vail Village Master Plan are as follows: GOAL #1 ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY, REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITYAND IDENTITY. Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. GOAL #2 TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR - AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY ASA WHOLE. Objective 2.1: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 11 sub -areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Objective 2.2: Recognize the importance of Vail Village as a mixed use center of activities for our guests, visitors and residents. Policy 2.2.1: The design criteria in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. Objective 2.4: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. Policy 2.4.2: Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. Objective 2.5: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. GOAL #3 TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF Town of Vail Page 4 1y/ V. VI. THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE Policy 3.1.1. Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. Objective 3.3. Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. Policy 3.3.2. Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in commercial infill or redevelopment projects. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 12 Vail Road, Suite 100 Legal Description: Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing Zoning: Commercial Service Center (CSC) District Land Use Plan Designation: Village Master Plan Current Land Use: Mixed Use Geological Hazards: None SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING REVIEW CRITERIA Zoning District N/A SDD No. 6 VVI (Sebastian) SDD No. 6 VVI (Sebastian) SDD No. 36 Four Seasons Resort Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit or Development Plan application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Staff Analysis: The proposed outdoor restaurant use provides increased activity through outdoor dining; an identified development objective of the Town intended to increase activity in the commercial cores. The proposed outdoor restaurant use will provide an enhancement to the private space that adds energy and vitality to the streetscape, consistent with Development Objective 3.3, cited above in Section III of this report. Town of Vail Page 5 LandUse Designation North: Frontage Road 1 -70 ROW South: Village Master Plan East: Village Master Plan West: Village Master Plan REVIEW CRITERIA Zoning District N/A SDD No. 6 VVI (Sebastian) SDD No. 6 VVI (Sebastian) SDD No. 36 Four Seasons Resort Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit or Development Plan application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Staff Analysis: The proposed outdoor restaurant use provides increased activity through outdoor dining; an identified development objective of the Town intended to increase activity in the commercial cores. The proposed outdoor restaurant use will provide an enhancement to the private space that adds energy and vitality to the streetscape, consistent with Development Objective 3.3, cited above in Section III of this report. Town of Vail Page 5 Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff Analysis: The proposed outdoor restaurant use will have no negative effects on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities and schools. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff Analysis: The outdoor restaurant use will have no adverse effect on congestion or automotive or pedestrian safety. The outdoor dining area is separated from the pedestrian sidewalk along Vail Road by planter boxes and a set of stairs. The dining area itself will be below the grade of this sidewalk. The proposed seating along the southern fagade of the building will be separated from the sidewalk by an ornamental fence. The location of the fence will ensure adequate pedestrian safety through this area. As conditioned, the fence installation will be required to be fastened to the ground to prevent movement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff Analysis: Staff finds the proposed outdoor restaurant use will have a positive effect upon the character of the area, furthering the outdoor dining culture that has been established within Vail Village. The outdoor restaurant use will add livelihood, activity and interest in the area. The applicant is proposing planting boxes to soften the required perimeter fence. The scale and bulk of the proposed patios are minimal and will not negatively impact the surrounding area. The applicant has proposed individual table umbrellas. As conditioned, if the applicant were to propose an awning system, additional review by the PEC would be required. An awning system as opposed to individual umbrellas would have an effect on the scale and bulk of the proposed use, necessitating additional review. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Town of Vail Page 6 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this title. Staff Analysis: An environmental impact report is not required by Chapter 12 -12, Vail Town Code; therefore, this criteria is not applicable. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7E -4: Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the use of outdoor space for restaurant uses, located at 12 Vail Road Suite 100 (Gateway Building) /Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria described in Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7E -4. Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the use of outdoor space for restaurant uses, located at 12 Vail Road Suite 100 (Gateway Building) /Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto with the following conditions. This Conditional Use approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application prior to September 1, 2015. 2. The outdoor patio shall operate consistent with the approved site plan dated 0610412015 and attached to this memorandum. (PEC150020) 3. The required perimeter fence shall be fastened to the ground to prevent movement. 4. As demonstrated on the approved site plan, patron shade will be provided by individual table umbrellas. No awning shall be proposed in conjunction with this conditional use approval. Any proposal for an awning in the future shall require review and approval of an amendment to this conditional use approval. Town of Vail Page 7 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve these Conditional Use Permits requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Sections Vlll of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated July 13, 2015 and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds. 1. The Conditional Use Permits are in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the CSC District; 2. The proposed Conditional Use Permits and the conditions under which they will be operated or maintained are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and, 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permits comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Use Permit, Vail Town Code." VIII. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Site Photos C. Site Plan, 06/04/2015 Town of Vail Page 8 r n 0 a` N 0 LO V W w O � y oa � = o 0 J V� � aC*4 Y.+ W �0 1 - N N - � W a 3 O o 1 � N •" . t l i e' f � r t �r • ! . w LL O O o V N 4 O O O N O ! k Fl AM U I a� I m /M m / m I(/ E N Ln 00 N m r o z C) O z 0 O z D r C Ln m m 3 LA 0 m D r a p 0 m A r z m a SIDEWALK - o - F — PLANTER BOX A ;PLANTER BOX O rn r N J m m A_ O A T C_ z z_ z m _= j D y rn 0 2 z T m* 0 n m A 0 o r c h i t e c i s p c E c PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PLANS m ?� z w I 1 m $ m m A_ O A T C_ z z_ z m _= 11 VAIL RD #100 k h. w e b b o r c h i t e c i s p c E c PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PLANS a PAIL, CO %n 710 WEST LIONSNCAO OKU • UM A I SAIL, COLOMM 1107 970.1771990 AL 1 u : k 11 VAI L RD # 100 7 t R PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PLANS its M s PAIL, CO h. w e b b architects pc 710 WEST LIONSNEAO OAOF - UNIT A 1 PAIL. COLORADO 916S7 1 970.1111990 TO6'UPJ OF VAdL. VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 13, 2015 ITEM /TOPIC: A request for the review of a variance from Section 11 -6 -4: Business Signs, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 11 -10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for two building identification signs where one is permitted, located at 108 South Frontage Road West /Lot 2 Vail Village Filing 2, a Resubdivision of Lot D, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150022) ATTACHMENTS: Name: d PEC150022 Staff Memorandum.pdf D PEC150022 Attachment A.pdf C] PEC150022 Attachment B.pdf D PEC150022 Attachment C.pdf Description: PEC150022 Staff Memorandum PEC150022 Attachment A PEC150022 Attachment B PEC150022 Attachment C TOWN OF VAIL ' Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 13, 2015 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a variance from Section 11 -6 -4: Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 11 -10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for two building identification signs where one is permitted, located at 108 South Frontage Road West /Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 2, a Resubdivision of Lot D, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150022) Applicant: Vail Clinic Inc., represented by Braun Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY The applicant Vail Clinic Inc., represented by Braun Associates, is requesting a variance from Section 11 -6 -3: Business Signs, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 11 -10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for two building identification signs where one is permitted, located at 108 South Frontage Road West. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with a condition, of this application, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. A vicinity map (Attachment A), photographs (Attachment B) and the applicant's request (Attachment C), are attached for review. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Vail Clinic Inc., represented by Braun Associates, is requesting a sign variance to allow for two building identification signs where one is permitted. Specifically, the applicant requests the building be permitted two signs to be located on the building frontage with one sign being a new wall mounted 39 square foot wall sign in addition to the existing 8 square foot "US Bank" building identification sign. The new sign would be consist of pin mounted stainless steel letters mounted on an aluminum raceway that is integrated into the building's architecture. The sign will be halo lit with LED illumination and will be installed no higher than 25' from grade. IV. The total area of both building identification signs proposed is 47 square feet, less than the 50 square feet permitted for one sign for buildings with between 150' and 199' of building frontage, however, per Section 11 -6 -4: Building Identification Signs, buildings with one street frontage are permitted one building identification sign. The subject property is as multi -floor office building with a lot size of approximately 24,156 square feet with 160± feet of linear frontage along South Frontage Road West. Please see the vicinity map and accompanying photos, included as Attachments A and B, respectively. BACKGROUND VVMC purchased the existing office building in 2004. At that time the US Bank was a principal tenant and the building was identified via a building identification sign as the "US Bank Building ". The building has evolved from a mix of general business office uses to an emphasis on medical and health related users. With the construction of the VVMC West Wing Expansion, medical users including Colorado Mountain Medical are relocating to this building. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 11, Sipn Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part) 11 -1 -2: PURPOSE: A. General Purpose. These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town of Vail and to promote the coordinated and harmonious design and placement of signs in the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. B. Specific Purpose. These regulations are intended to achieve the following specific purposes. To describe and enable the fair and consistent enforcement of signs in the town of Vail. 2. To encourage the establishment of well designed, creative signs that enhance the unique character of Vail's village atmosphere. 3. To preserve a successful and high quality business environment that is aided by signs that identify, direct, and inform. Town of Vail Page 2 4. To aid in providing for the growth of an orderly, safe, beautiful, and viable community. 11 -6 -4: BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGNS: A. Description. A building sign indicates the name of a building, which, in some cases (such as a hotel or lodge) may be the same as the primary business and building owner. All building signs shall comply with the regulations listed herein and shall also be subject to review by the design review board, which reviews signage based on the criteria in chapter 5 of this title. The total area allowed for building identification signage in both sign district 1 and sign district 2 includes the total number of its building signs, each measured differently, according to the type of building identification sign, and varies according to building frontage (see following tables). Sign District 1 (SD 1), Allowable Building Identification Sign Area. The linear frontage of a building shall be measured in the same manner as that of a business, except that frontages shall not be delineated by inner divisions between tenant spaces. Building identification signs, unlike business signs, shall be allowed on building frontages without entrances, as long as that frontage parallels a major pedestrian or vehicular way. 3. Sign Districts 1 And 2, Types Of Building Identification Signs. a. Freestanding Signs. (1) Number. One freestanding sign per building frontage on a major pedestrian or vehicular way, with a maximum of two (2) freestanding signs per building. Town of Vail Page 3 I Allowed Total Building Frontage Sign Area FFF 10 feet - 49.99 feet FF1 20 square feet 50 feet - 74.99 feet F F square feet 75 feet - 99.99 feet M 40 square feet 100 feet - 149.99 feet FF 50 square feet 150 feet - 199.99 feet FF 50 square feet 200 feet plus M 60 square feet 3. Sign Districts 1 And 2, Types Of Building Identification Signs. a. Freestanding Signs. (1) Number. One freestanding sign per building frontage on a major pedestrian or vehicular way, with a maximum of two (2) freestanding signs per building. Town of Vail Page 3 (2) Area: Freestanding building identification signs shall be subject to the total sign area requirements of the building frontage tables listed previously and shall be measured according to the total sign area. (3) Height. No part of a freestanding building identification sign shall be higher than eight feet (8) above existing grade. (4) Special Provisions. Freestanding signs shall be placed on two (2) separate building facades facing pedestrian and vehicular ways and shall be subject to design review. A joint directory sign, though a type of freestanding sign, shall not count toward the total quantity of freestanding signs allowed. b. Wall Mounted Signs. (1) Number. One sign per building frontage on a major pedestrian or vehicular way. A maximum of two (2) wall mounted building identification signs shall be allowed if a building has two (2) frontages as defined in these regulations. (2) Area. Wall mounted building identification signs shall be subject to the total sign area requirements of the building frontage tables listed previously, and shall be measured according to the size of the text only. (3) Height. No part of a wall mounted building identification sign shall be higher than twenty five feet (25) above existing grade. (4) Special Provisions. If using two (2) signs, signs shall be placed on two (2) separate frontages, subject to design review. 11 -10 -1: VARIANCES: A. Purpose. A variance from the sign regulations constitutes relief from the strict interpretation of the standards and may be granted by the planning and environmental commission (PEC) in cases where there exists a physical limitation that prevents the existence, placement, or operation of a sign in compliance with the standards of this title. B. Application Procedure. An application for a variance from the sign regulations may be obtained from the community development department. The variance application must include a sign permit application, the applicant's reasons for requesting a variance, and a nonrefundable fee determined by the town council as set forth by town ordinances. The staff shall set a date for a hearing before the planning and environmental commission once the complete application has been received. Town of Vail Page 4 C. Criteria For Approval. 1. Special circumstances or conditions must exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. However, such circumstances must be unique to the subject site. 2. The applicant shall not have created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title. V. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 108 South Frontage Road West Legal Description: Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 2, a Resubdivision of Lot D Zoning: SDD No. 23 (Underlying zoning of Commercial Service Center (CSC) District) Land Use Plan Designation: Resort Accommodations and Services Current Land Use: Professional and Business Offices Geological Hazards: None VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use Zoning District North: Town Municipal Site General Use South: Residential (Skaal Haus) High Density Multi - Family (HDMF) East: Residential (Scorpion) High Density Multi - Family (HDMF) West: VVMC General Use VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Chapter 11 -10 -1, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. Special circumstances or conditions must exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. However, such circumstances must be unique to the subject site. Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC) purchased the subject property in 2004. At that time, the building was recognized by the existing building identification sign as the "US Bank Building ". This sign is approximately 8 square feet in size and is located directly above the main pedestrian entrance to the building. This sign is a component of the US Bank lease and can not be removed at this time. Town of Vail Page 5 With the evolution of the building from general office to an emphasis on medical and health related users, the need to provide additional building identification has necessitated this variance request. An additional building identification sign will assist the public in wayfinding during the relocation of many hospital user groups to this building during the construction of the west wing. Staff and the applicant have researched other signage options including business identification signs and joint directories. Neither of these options will give the public the necessary indication that this building is part of the VVMC campus do to size limitations on business identification signs and the lack of a suitable location for a directory sign. The transition of the building from general office to medical uses together with the existing US Bank lease results in circumstances unique to the site. Therefore, staff finds that special circumstances warranting relief from the provisions of the sign code governing the subject location do exist. As such, this criterion is met. 2. The applicant shall not have created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request. The circumstances that have necessitated the variance request are the evolution of the uses from general office to a concentration of medical uses associated with the adjacent VVMC campus coupled with the existing US Bank lease that prevents the removal of the US Bank building identification sign. The existence of the lease, which predates the purchase of the property by VVMC in 2004, is a circumstance not created by the applicant. Staff has proposed a condition of approval that requires the property to come into conformance with Title 11 of the Vail Town Code with only one building identification sign upon the conclusion of the existing US Bank lease. Therefore, staff finds that this criterion is met. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title. The granting of the requested variance to allow two (2) signs where only one is permitted is in general harmony with the general and specific purposes of Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code. Specifically, the approval would be consistent with the specific purpose to preserve a successful and high quality business environment that is aided by signs that identify, direct, and inform. The reorganization of the VVMC campus during this time of construction and renovation necessitates a heightened degree of directional signage. The total area of both building identification signs proposed is 47 square feet, less than the 50 square feet permitted for one sign for buildings with between 100' and 150' of building frontage. This quantity of signage, coupled with the need for additional public Town of Vail Page 6 wayfinding is in general harmony with the purpose of Title 11, Sign Regulations. Therefore, staff finds that this criterion is met. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with a condition, of a variance from Section 11 -6 -4: Business Signs, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 11 -10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for two building identification signs where one is permitted, located at 108 South Frontage Road West/Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 2, a Resubdivision of Lot D, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with a condition, a variance from Section 11 -6 -4. Business Signs, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 11 -10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for two building identification signs where one is permitted, located at 108 South Frontage Road West/Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 2, a Resubdivision of Lot D, and setting forth details in regard thereto with the following condition. At the termination of the existing US Bank lease period, the property shall come into compliance with Section 11 -6 -4 Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code with one (1) Building Identification Sign. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section Vll of the July 13, 2015 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds. 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. 2. The applicant has not created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title. Town of Vail Page 7 IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity map B. Photographs C. Applicant's narrative and rendering of proposed sign. Town of Vail Page 8 m a O a` U UI D m N CD J � � 00 a N IM c� j0 Ct _ (D 0) � w LL �o LL � a •� m No i co M� O • W � 3 0 z W C7 IQ 2 Is m a N O - C 3 � N - O J rho I N O L.-= 12 wa a u2 a: -"Y Vail Valley Medical Center Sign Variance VVMC Medical Professional Building (formerly known as the US Bank Building) June 15, 2015 Background on Proposal VVMC purchased an existing office building at 108 South Frontage Road in 2004. At that time US Bank was a lessee in the building and the building was identified (via a Building Identification Sign) as the "US Bank Building. The building has commonly been referred to as the US Bank Building. VVMC's has gradually evolved the building from a general office use (with a mixture of business and office tenants) to a building with an emphasis on medical and health care related users. With the completion of current renovation plans later this year all uses within the building with the exception of US Bank will be medical or health care related. Foremost among upcoming changes to the building is the relocation of Colorado Mountain Medical (CMC) from the West Wing of the VVMC Campus. The relocation of CIVIC is a key step in facilitating the redevelopment and expansion of the West Wing. New uses in the US Bank Building will be oriented more towards patient care (than previous uses) and in response to this VVMC's goal is to re -brand the building in a way that will more clearly identify the building as a medical care facility. The building will now be referred to as the VVMC Medical Professional Building (MPB). One of the key steps in establishing this identity is to sign the building as such. Variance Request The MPB has frontage on one major street (South Frontage Road) and as such the building is permitted one "Building Identification Sign ". The property has +/ -160' of frontage and based on the sign code is permitted a Building Identification Sign of up to 50 square feet. Currently a wall mounted "US Bank" sign identifies the building as the US Bank Building. This sign is approximately 8 square feet and is located directly above the main entry to the building. A wall- mounted sign identifying the building as the VVMC Medical Professional Building is proposed. This size is proposed to be 39 square foot in size and would be located on the north elevation of the building at a point between the second and third levels of the building. The US Bank's existing lease gives them the right to have the existing sign above the main entry to the building and as such this sign is to remain. As such two building identification signs are proposed and for this reason a variance to the number of Building Identification Signs is proposed. Note that the total amount of signage (of both the existing sign and the proposed sign) is within the allowable square footage for a wall mounted sign. Variance Criteria Criteria for approval of a sign variance include the following: 1. Special circumstances or conditions must exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. However, such circumstances must be unique to the subject site. Response This situation with signs at the MPB, and the need for two building identification signs are unique for two reasons — an existing lease that establishes the right for an existing sign to remain and the need to re -brand the building to reflect its current use. The MPB plays an integral role in the expansion plans for VVMC. With the increased emphasis on patient care in the MPB it is important to accurately name the building such that patients can readily identify the building (and know where they are to go for appointments, etc.). 2. The applicant shall not have created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request. Response While the applicant (VVMC) is responsible for the master plan expansion to the medical center and the change to uses with the MPB, the lease with US Bank that provides the Bank with the right to the existing Building Identification Sign was executed by the prior owner of the building. As such, the applicant has not created the circumstances that necessitate the variance request. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title. Response The proposed variance request is not a significant departure of the sign code for two reasons — • The existing US Bank sign is only 8 square feet in size and given its location directly over the main entry to the building appears to be more of a Business Identification Sign than a Building Identification Sign. • With approval of the variance request, the total amount of square footage of Building Identification Signs will not exceed the maximum 50 square feet that is permitted by the sign code. � \ \»2 ■ . } s » 9999 � 0 )\ » � j9 \ } , [ .. / © 0\ j\ k� $ 02- .. _ { \ \ \\\\ § jjk �- Cl) E2.§ /G 99999 C » ■ °° \f:= �\ & a LL u \( - �t& /{ \ t/ .. \ \\ _ \\\\\\ \\ , o 0� \ $k� =a:_ \\ \4 \§ j\ k � � � L \� . :D\ o� =T9 . . � o� � 22 ƒ , �2 / \Z \ \7 )) \ u> < \ )\ \ \ \ < El C6 ; ■ . s � 0 )\ )\ k /) } )_ _0 :\)\� } \ \ \ \\ © CL j\ k� ƒ , �2 / \Z \ \7 )) \ u> < \ )\ \ \ \ < El C6 ; )\ k } j\ k� \) \ƒ �- E2.§ /G \\ LL u \( -2 \ \\ ƒ ))Z j � ) L CD N CD N Un LO LO LO C �! m C c N O � � D m 3 a `V ea m ~ J m O O O V L lc7 .. O d — a ai N O NO CTJT N T O 'O D 2 �l a o h .-- N U) N N N Q c) c) V Lo CO Z ci Q E J a 2 2 U d� 0 O i L x 0 0 0 0 0 C O d W 1� m Le — 1 m m m m _ _ m O U a a m m Q m O x x f f� , O OONO 4 4% O+' ° O O CO V V CO - m m m m m - - C O d W ri TO6'UPJ OF VAdL. VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 13, 2015 ITEM /TOPIC: A request for final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, for Outdoor Recreation Areas, Active (Skatepark) at the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 350 South Frontage Road /Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150023) ATTACHMENTS: ame: PEC150023 Staff Memo.pdf D PEC150023 Attachment A.o ❑ PEC150023 Attachment B.pdf ❑ PEC150023 Attachment C -1.pdf ❑ PEC150023 Attachment C -2.pdf Description: PEC150023 Memorandum PEC150023 Attachment A PEC150023 Attachment B PEC150023 Attachment C -1 PEC150023 Attachment C -2 TOWN OF VAIL ' Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 13, 2015 SUBJECT: A request for final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C- 3 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, for Outdoor Recreation Areas, Active (Skatepark) at the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 350 South Frontage Road /Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150023) Applicants: Town of Vail, Todd Oppenheimer, Capital Project Manager Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to 12 -9C -3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, , for Outdoor Recreation Areas, Active (Skatepark) at the Lionshead Parking Structure. The permanent skatepark would be located in the gap between the north and south sides of the structure. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with conditions, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for Outdoor Recreation Areas, Active (Skatepark) at the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 350 South Frontage Road West. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, for Outdoor Recreation Areas, Active (Skatepark) at the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 350 South Frontage Road West Components of this request include: Construct a new, permanent skatepark in the gap between the north and south sides of the parking structure. This area is comprised of three spaces totaling 7,410 square feet. The main stretch of the park is located between the two stair towers and is approximately 25 feet by 230 feet (4,700 square feet). Two smaller areas that are approximately 25 feet by 38 feet (950 square feet) each will house transition elements including a beginner bowl and an intermediate /advanced halfpipe. Bookending the active park spaces are two landscape area that are 15 feet by 27 feet (405 square feet) each. Artistic design elements from artists selected through a RFQ process with the Art in Public Places (AIPP) Board Removal of the seasonal modular skatepark on the top deck of the parking structure. The applicant has included with this application a narrative, dated June 15, 2015 and plan set dated June 12, 2015 (Attachments B and C.) III. BACKGROUND The Town of Vail has sought to identify a location for a permanent skatepark for more than a decade. Due to a scarcity of appropriate locations coupled with existing recreational programming, the Town of Vail has been challenged in finding a permanent location for the desired community amenity. The Town of Vail and the Vail Recreation District have met the growing need for skateboarding facilities by providing a seasonal, modular structure on the top deck of the Lionshead Parking Structure. The existing modular structures are nearing the end of their useable lives and rather than reinvest in a new modular structures and the annual operating costs associated with installation, removal and storage, the Town and District have looked to the unused space within the Lionshead Parking Structure as a site to construct a permanent skate park. The Town has employed the services of a professional skatepark design company, California Skateparks (CSP), to conduct public design workshops and prepare design and construction documents for the perm anent skatepark. Workshops were held on May 13 and 27, 2015 with 36 com m unity members of varying age groups in attendance. The subsequent proposed design prepared by CSP was well accepted by community. On July 7, 2015, the Vail Town Council voted 7 -0, to approve the proposed design for the skatepark and award the construction contract for the permanent skatepark to CSP for a late summer 2015 construction start. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Town Code and are relevant to the review of this proposal: Vail Land Use Plan Chapter 2 Land Use Plan Policies /Goals (in part) The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions Town of Vail Page 2 were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows. 1. General Growth / Development 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2. The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4. The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2. Skier /Tourist Concerns 2.1. The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. 2.4. The community should improve summer recreational options to improve year -round tourism. 2.5. The community should improve non -skier recreational options to improve year -round tourism. Zonin_g Re_gulations (Title 12) Article 12 -9C: General Use District (in part) Section 12 -9C -1: Purpose Town of Vail Page 3 The general use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi - public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12 -1 -2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. The general use district is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi - public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. Section 12 -9C -5. Development Standards A. Prescribed By Planning And Environmental Commission. In the general use district, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as prescribed by the planning and environmental commission. 1. Lot area and site dimensions. 2. Setbacks. 3. Building height. 4. Density control. 5. Site coverage. 6. Landscaping and site development. 7. Parking and loading. B. Reviewed By Planning And Environmental Commission. Development standards shall be proposed by the applicant as a part of a conditional use permit application. Site specific development standards shall then be determined by the planning and environmental commission during the review of the conditional use request in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title. Chapter 12 -16. Conditional Use Permits (in part) Section 12 -16 -1. Purpose, Limitations. In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be Town of Vail Page 4 devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. V. REVIEW CRITERIA Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The proposed improvements to the Lionshead Parking Structure to accommodate a permanent skatepark improve the social and recreational opportunities for Vail citizens and guests in keeping with the Town of Vail's stated vision and mission: "Our Vision - To be the Premier International Mountain Resort Community. Our Mission - We will provide the citizens of Vail and our guests superior services, outstanding environmental stewardship and an abundance of recreational, cultural and educational opportunities." The utilization of opportunities within the existing structure is consistent with the stated goal of developing in an infill fashion. Additionally, the proposal is supported by the development goals of the community which include the enhancement of summer and non -skier related recreational opportunities. Based upon these factors, Staff finds the proposed Conditional Use Permit to be consistent with this review criterion. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Based upon the scope of the applicant's proposal, Staff finds that the proposed amendments to the Conditional Use Permit will have no significant negative impacts on the light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, or other public facilities needs in comparison to existing conditions. The operations and management of the facility will be governed by the Operations Agreement between the Town of Vail and the Vail Recreation District in concert with the development parameters outlined in Section V of the attached narrative. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM daily from mid -April to Thanksgiving. Winter maintenance and snow removal are not proposed at this time. These hours of operation coincide with the noise reduction requirements of the Vail Town Code. Noise generated by the skatepark is anticipated to be between 64dB and 74dB, less than the 80dB permitted. All lighting and exterior signage will meet the town requirements and will be reviewed and approved through the Design Review Process. Town of Vail Page 5 Staff finds that the proposed amendments will have positive impacts on the community's park and recreational, social and cultural facilities. Staff finds the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with this review criterion. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Based upon the scope of the applicant's proposal, Staff finds that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will have no significant negative effects upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Specifically, the skatepark project users arriving via private vehicle will park in the structure as currently occurs for the temporary facility. The replacement of the temporary facility on the upper deck with the permanent skate park will have an effect on the seasonal and permanent displacement of parking spaces. Currently, the top deck skatepark facility displaces 54 vehicles during the summer season. The proposal will return these spaces to the available inventory but will have an impact on ten (10) existing parking spaces spread out over the three levels of the parking structure. Four spaces on Level One will be replaced with the staging areas for the skatepark. In addition, two spaces on Level One will be converted from regular to ADA spaces, assuring accessibility. On Levels 2 and 3, two parking spaces per level will be displaced for spectator viewing. The net result of the proposal is an increase in the available parking inventory in the summer of 46 spaces over existing conditions and a loss of eight parking spaces for the operation of the permanent skate park. Based upon these factors, Staff finds the proposed Conditional Use Permit to be consistent with this review criterion. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The location of the skatepark within the existing parking structure virtually conceals the use from surrounding properties and uses. The park will be designed in such away as to minimize conflicts between the use and the existing parking spaces. Complementary landscaping and an emphasis on public art will make this a welcome aesthetic addition to the structure. A reduction in sound generated by the use is anticipated with the replacement of the wooden ramp s with a concrete system and lighting and exterior signage will be required to meet the Vail Town Code through the design review process. Staff finds that the elements of the proposal are consistent with this criterion. Town of Vail Page 6 VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental approves, with conditions, a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to construct a permanent skatepark at the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 350 South Frontage Road /Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria described in Section V. of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to construct a permanent skatepark at the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 350 South Frontage Road /Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto: 1. This Conditional Use Permit approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application prior to the start of any construction. 2. Any proposed exterior signage associated with the skatepark shall be reviewed and approved as per Title 11 of the Vail Town Code. 3. The Operations and Management Agreement between the Vail Recreational District and the Town of Vail shall govern the operation of the facility. The provided development parameters included in Section V. of the application narrative for PEC150023 shall complement and be consistent with the agreement. Failure of the facility to develop and operate in accordance with the agreement and the provided development parameters may result in the project being returned to the Planning and Environmental Commission for additional consideration. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Sections 111 of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated July 13, 2015, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds. Town of Vail Page 7 1. The Conditional Use Permit is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the General Use District; 2. The proposed Conditional Use Permit and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and, 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit complies with the applicable provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Use Permit, Vail Town Code." VII. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Lionshead Skatepark Applicant Narrative June 15, 2015 C. Lionshead Skate Park, Plan Set June 12, 2015 Town of Vail Page 8 T r O 0 a` i r w N O �a N L aUL O � o y o0 � J � = M O J 7 G r u i v N o rn N N O J - -vw I z m 4x TOWN OF VAIL t Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Department of Public Works Date: June 15, 2015 Subject: PEC /DRB Submittal Narrative: Amendment to existing Conditional Use Permit for Lionshead Skatepark , New Construction DRB Application INTRODUCTION The purpose of this application is to request approval from the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and Design Review Board (DRB) on the amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and new construction of a permanent skatepark in the Lionshead Parking Structure. The existing, temporary wooden skatepark structures included in the existing CUP have reached the end of their useful lives. The Vail Town Council has directed staff to design a permanent skatepark facility in the gap between the north and south sides of the Lionshead Parking Structure. The Town has employed the services of a professional skatepark design company, California Skateparks (CSP), to conduct public design workshops and prepare design and construction documents for the permanent skatepark. Workshops were held on May 13 and 27, 2015 with 36 community members, of varying age groups, in attendance. The subsequent proposed design prepared by CSP is well accepted by community. On July 7, 2015 the Vail Town Council will be requested to approve the proposed design for the skatepark and award the construction contract for the permanent skatepark to CSP for a late summer 2015 construction start. II. SITE SELECTION The Town of Vail has sought to identify a location for a permanent skatepark for a decade or more. Much of the open public land is wetlands and has a zoning designation of Natural Area Preservation. Areas of public park property that can be developed have already been developed and are passionately protected by the neighborhoods in which they exist. The Vail Town Council has the responsibility of making decisions regarding land use on publicly owned property and has been reluctant to displace one recreational activity with another. The Town of Vail and the Vail Recreation District have met the growing need for skateboarding facilities by providing seasonal, modular structures on the top deck of the Lionshead Parking Structure. The existing modular structures are nearing the end of their useable lives. Rather than reinvest in in new modular structures and the annual operating costs associated with installation, removal and storage, the Town and District have looked to the unused space within the Lionshead Parking Structure as a site to construct a permanent skate park. The site for the skate park is located at ground level between the 3 -story tall, north and south decks of the Lionshead Parking Structure located on the South Frontage Road in Vail, CO. The overall dimensions of the area are approximately 25 feet x 230 feet. The site runs roughly east and west and has good sun exposure for most of the day during the summer months. There is a 4 -story tall stair tower located on each end of the space with a smaller ground level space of approximately 25 feet x 38 feet on the opposite side of each stair tower. Both the main area and the two side areas are included in the proposed skate park design. There are two remaining areas that make up the balance of the space between the two sides of the structures. These spaces are located between the vehicular ramps at both ends of the structure. These two 15' x 27' spaces will be landscaped in a visually attractive and appropriate manner for the site and possible viewing angles. III. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Public art is an important element within the skate park and surrounding area of the Lionshead Parking Structure. The AIPP board has issued an RFQ to identify artists interested in participating in the process of designing the overall character and identity of the space. Artistic and design elements will visually enhance the skate park elements designed by CSP and extend to the surrounding walls and spaces of the Lionshead Parking Structure. Responses to the RFQ were submitted to the AIPP board on June 12, 2015. A select group of submitting artists are scheduled on June 17, 2015 to receive a request to submit specific design and cost proposals for the art elements. IV. SKATEPARK DESIGN The design for the Vail skate park is going to be one of the most unique skate spaces in existence. Not only does it take advantage of an otherwise forgotten space, but even within the long, narrow corridor that will house the park, it takes every opportunity by twisting, turning, dipping, and extending around footings, walls, and other existing site conditions. The main stretch of the park, 5700 sq. ft., within the open air space of the Lionshead parking garage, spans 230' and is flanked on either side by vertical walls multiple stories tall where the garage stair circulation exists. The long narrow space allows for a large variety of street and transition style elements and also includes a signature "vert" feature running up the wall that houses the stairs, all of which were directly inspired by, and decided upon, by the local skate community. There are also two additional spaces beyond the stairs, each around 40' in length, that are going to be dedicated to transition elements — one beginner bowl and one more intermediate /advanced halfpipe. These spaces bring the total skate park area to approximately 7700 sq. ft. Images of the overall skate park configuration and details of select features are attached. V. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS DAY Fri Mon Tues Fri Mon Tues Mon Tues A. Skate park usage The intensity of use of the skate park facility is based on number of obstacles and the layout of the obstacles. The following table represents a sampling of existing skate park usage during 2014. These are not the only days the skate park was being utilized, only the particular days the sampling occurred. # KIDS (0- # ADULTS # SPECTATORS DATE TIME 17) (18 +) (i.e. parent or young sibling) 6/6/2014 5:45 p 6/9/2014 1:30p 6/10/2014 12p 6/13/2014 8p 6/16/2014 7:40p 6/24/2014 12:15p 7/14/2014 4p 7/15/2014 12p 9 3 0 2 1 0 6 1 1 0 12 0 0 12 0 7 1 4 4 2 D Town of Vail Page 2 Tues 7/22/2014 11a 7 7/23/2014 5:24p 3 Tues 8/5/2014 10:30a 12 Tues 8/5/2014 12:30p 5 Tues 8/12/2014 8:30a 8 Wed 8/13/2014 8:30a 2 4 2 4 2 2 4 2 3 The current skate park has an overall capacity of approximately 20 users with 8 of those users actively skating at any one time. The projected number of users of the proposed skate park is approximately 24 users with 8 of those users plus w additional in the minibowl and halfpipe, actively skating at any one time. B. Access to facility Access form the parking decks into the skate park area will occur from ground level of the north structure at each of the stair towers. This arrangement is dictated by the layout of the skate park relative to the existing parking structure structural columns and footings. A staging area is proposed at the north side of the west stair tower. Four parking spaces will be surrounded by a temporary fence and include benches and tables for preparing to skate, resting and spectators use. The design of the temporary fence will be consistent with the rails and other metal elements within the skate park. Additional spectator areas are proposed in 2 locations near the west stair tower. One spectator area is proposed on the second level north side and one on the third level south side. Each of these areas will occupy 2 parking spaces and will be blocked off with temporary fencing of the same design as the staging area. C. Operations and Management The responsibility for operation and management of the skate park is shared between the Vail Recreation District and the Town of Vail. A copy of the existing skate park Operations Agreement is attached. The agreement will be modified to accommodate the specific requirements of the permanent skate park facility but will allocate the responsibilities in a similar manner. The hours of operation proposed f or the permanent skate park are 7 am to 11 pm. These times correspond to the noise reductions required by town code. Depending on the weather, the skate park will be open from approximately the close of the mountain to Thanksgiving. Winter maintenance and snow removal are not proposed. D. Parking Parking for the skate park facility will remain at the Lionshead Parking Structure as it currently exists. Users will park in the lower levels rather than on the top level for convenience to the skate park facility. Summer parking in the Lionshead parking Structure is free and, with the exception of some special event days, available. In the event the Town Council decides to proceed with the inclusion of a snowmelt system in the skate park, it is anticipated the users of the park will align their skating sessions with the 2 hour free period. On days when the parking structure is full it is anticipated that users will postpone their skating session for another day. The current temporary skate park displaces 54 parking spaces on the top deck of the Lionshead Parking Structure from approximately Memorial Day through Labor Day. This does not include parking spaces occupied by skate park users. The proposed permanent skate park will displace a total of 10 parking spaces spread out on all 3 levels of the parking structure as follows: Level 1 4 spaces for staging area 2 spaces to create ADA parking spaces Level 2 2 spaces for spectator viewing Town of Vail Page 3 Level 3 2 spaces for spectator viewing The net result is a return of 44 parking spaces for summer time use in the Lionshead Parking Structure. E. Public Transportation The proposed permanent skate park, like the existing temporary skate park, is conveniently located to public transportation nodes. The in -town bus system stops just outside the Lionshead Parking Structure at East Lionshead. The regional transportation system stops at the Lionshead Transit Center on the South Frontage Road. F. Public Restroom Public restrooms are available in the Lionshead Welcome Center approximately 75 feet fro the west entrance to the skate park. Additional restrooms are available on the third level near the top of the stairs. Restrooms are serviced multiple times a day by a town - hired janitorial service. Restrooms are closed at night but will be scheduled to be open to coincide with the operating hours of the skate park. G. Safety Protective safety screen will be installed in the openings between structural columns on both the north and south sides of the skate park area. The screens will be positioned toward the parking side of the spandrel walls to be as far as possible form hands and fingers that may become entangled. Safety screens serve 2 purposes. They protect by- standers and vehicles from errant skate boards and protect participants from people entering the skate park in undesired locations to prevent collisions. H. Lighting Skateboarding is an athletic activity and lighting levels similar or slightly less than other sports are required for safety and performance. Minimum light levels for a skate park are 25 foot candles. Comparisons: NCAA minimum lighting levels for football 50 fc, baseball outfield 75 fc, Hockey 100 fc. All proposed lighting will be compliant with Town of Vail lighting standards for dark sky requirements ands will be energy efficient LED fixtures. A specific lighting layout or light fixture has not yet been selected but will be presented prior to the scheduled meeting date. I. Noise Date provided by Skate Park Association International points out that Skateparks are not inherently noisy. Regular sound levels for in- ground concrete skate parks are between 64 dB and 74 dB. IN comparison wooden ramps, similar to the existing structures, generate noise levels between 75 dB and 78 dB. There will be a net reduction in noise level with the permanent in- ground, concrete skate park. The Town of Vail noise ordinance for Industrial Service Zones allows 80 dB between 7 am and 11 pm. The sound generated by the skating activity is further absorbed by the parking structure itself. J. Aesthetics As previously mentioned, Public Art is an important component of the skate park project. In addition to and coordinated with the public art components, color and design will be carried throughout the skating surfaces and elements. A landscape component ahs also been incorporated into the overall project in the remaining areas between the 2 sides of the parking structures and between the vehicular ramps that connect the parking levels together. These areas will be planted with a variety of shade loving plants which exhibit colorful flowers and /or foliage throughout the summer months. The proposed landscape plan is included in the submitted information. Town of Vail Page 4 K. Snowmelt The possibility of incorporating snowmelt into the skate park area will be presented to the Town Council with the final design and request for funding. The concept of a mountain resort, year -round skate park is unique. While the concept adds additional cost and consumption of fossil fuels the ability to provide a facility to young visitors and athletes who are too young to partake on other activities deserves consideration. V. Timeline Prior to project approval by the DRB and PEC, staff will present the proposed final skate park design to the Town Council on July 7, 2015. The desired construction start date is August 1, 2015 and is scheduled t be completed in mid October 2015. Town of Vail Page 5 -� I�y It E06� tin oir WON- W--T � I fr- T-- an cm ■, err Z. T. LIO Mir MR wl W"l 1 4 . . OW OM F71 trw a, WT- 4w MM fm � WIT Ar-L • On' so rr Ln 0 N ru R-m Ld 0 mil' J W O W � J _o = ❑ V v Z N W 0 v M m 0 c m Ln 1 N N o V > J fU as v c m N l0 +L La- L- r 0 aW W Q a a) W 3 to o t C i I C N �, ❑ Cl) �o c ❑ N m as m c (� L LL O 0 m� W 0 c N U o c W ma _o c_� V J m N [ > X000 � � � L � Q cQ LLo > � o c� } c VU) as c� a J n tae ..................................... wmro611e�rrx�� wg 8m— 1 w— NV-ld 3dVOSONV-1 `� Iland eo puowvetloa I!eA)o urnol ) NVd31b)IS (IVIHSNOII :o _ �1 1 9 a 0 ti 4+o e` w a s � J Y d d Y m =�o wa ,aa=t wg 8m— 1 w— TO6'UPJ OF VAdL. VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 13, 2015 ITEM /TOPIC: A request for final review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12- 61 -11, Vail Town Code, to allow for the future development of Employee Housing Units on the Chamonix parcel located at 2310 Chamonix Road, Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC150019). ATTACHMENTS: Name: Description: d PEC150019 Chamonix Development Plan 071315.pdf Staff Memorandum D Chamonix 062215 PEC MEETING 1 A 1.pdf Chamonix Plan Pgs 1 -8 ❑ Chamonix 062215 PEC MEETING 1 A 2.pdf Chamonix Plan Pgs 9 -12 ❑ Chamonix 062215 PEC MEETING 1 A 3.pdf Chamonix Plan Pgs 13 -16 ❑ Chamonix Master Informational Update 1217- A.pdf Town Council Memorandum ❑ Chamonix 2009 Master Plan.pdf 2009 Chamonix Master Plan TOWN OF � Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 13, 2015 SUBJECT: A request for final review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12- 61 -11, Vail Town Code, to allow for the future development of Employee Housing Units on the Chamonix Parcel located at 2310 Chamonix Road, Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC150019) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Will Hentschel, 359 Design Planner: George Ruther I. SUMMARY The Town of Vail acquired the Chamonix Parcel in West Vail for the expressed purpose of constructing a new West Vail Fire Station and an affordable housing development on the combined area of the site. Since the acquisition, the Town of Vail, in participation with the West Vail neighborhood and the Chamonix Advisory Committee, completed and adopted a master plan for the future development of the site. The Chamonix Master Plan was first adopted by the Vail Town Council in 2005, and the plan was subsequently amended in 2009. The most significant change resulting from the amendment approval was the ability to gain vehicular access to the duplex units from Chamonix Lane. In the end, the "Neighborhood Block Scheme" was selected by the community as the preferred alternative for future development on the site. Developing affordable housing on the Chamonix Parcel is a development objective of the Town of Vail. Determining the potential viability for affordable housing to be built on the Chamonix Parcel and completing a first phase of development on the property has been identified as a key initiative of the Vail Town Council. In the end, this action helps achieve the Town Council's adopted goal of "growing a thriving and balanced community'. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting approval of a development plan to allow for the future development of deed restricted employee housing units on the Town -owned Chamonix Parcel, located at 2310 Chamonix Road. A development plan approval is required, pursuant to Section 12- 61 -11, Development Plan Required, of the Vail Town Code to guide and direct development within the Housing District. Once adopted, an approved development plan, along with any applicable land use regulations contained in the Town's Zoning Regulations, becomes the principal governing document for land use and dimensional requirements and limitations on the property. The development plan shall remain in effect for the life of the development, and may be amended from time to time, as deemed appropriate, as part of an established development review process. A copy of the proposed Approved Development Plan has been attached for reference (Attachment A) III. BACKGROUND The Town of Vail has been exploring options for developing the community's newest residential neighborhood on the Town owned Chamonix parcel located in West Vail. This action helps achieve the Town Council's adopted goal of "growing a thriving and balanced community'. The Town Council affirmed a number of goals for the project. The goals include: • Optimize the use of the site for workforce for -sale housing (15 - 25 du's per acre) • Design a context sensitive design solution (design review guidelines) • Ability to be phased over time (min. two phases) • Deliver desirable, marketable and diverse types of housing products (duplexes; one, two & three bedroom flats; townhomes, etc.) • Maximize the town's limited supply of financial resources • Build responsibly given the existing site configuration, topography and natural features of the site • Develop a diversified cost /sales structure to respond to a wider range of buyers (i.e. pricing structure based upon income) Project Approach Development on the Chamonix site requires two distinct steps: 1) site access and infrastructure improvements, and 2) vertical building construction. For obvious reasons site access and infrastructure work must be completed before vertical building construction. Town staff recommends breaking the project entitlement process down into two steps as well. Due to the presence of the Housing District on the site, this approach can be easily accommodated and is particularly advantageous. Step One - The Housing District provides flexibility in the application of the development standards. According to the Town's Zoning Regulations, the development standards for the District are prescribed by the applicant and reviewed for approval by the PEC. With that in mind, staff recommends that the Town prepares a development plan generally prescribing the applicable development standards (i.e. density, GRFA, setbacks, building locations, site coverage, landscape area, building height, etc.) and seek a development plan approval from the Planning & Environmental Commission. Once a development plan approval prescribing this general development standards are in place, the site access and infrastructure designs can be completed, contracted and permitted (late summer 2015). Approximately $1.5M has been appropriated in the 2015 Budget for this work. Prior to submitting an application to the Planning & Environmental Commission for review and approval of the site access and infrastructure improvements the town staff will return to the Town Council with a detailed probable cost estimate for the work. 2 Step Two - While the site access and infrastructure improvements are being installed and completed, the Town can simultaneously make progress on meeting with prospective home buyers and work towards the design review approvals needed for the vertical building construction. The first phase of vertical building construction could begin as early as spring 2016. The advantage of this approach is it optimizes time, reduces risk, saves cost, creates predictability and allows for phased construction of the housing development. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS 2009 Chamonix Master Plan Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part) V. ZONING ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Lot Area: Buildable Area: Zoning: Land Use Designation VI. SURROUNDING LAND U: Land Use North: Residential South: Commercial East: Commercial West: Residential VII. REVIEW CRITERIA 2310 Chamonix Road Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract D, 3.21 acres/ (139,828 sq. ft.) ? ? ?? acres /( ? ?? sq. ft.) Housing District Medium Density Residential Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 'ES AND ZONING Zoning Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (P /S) Heavy Service District Heavy Service District /Commercial Core III Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (P /S) According to Section 12- 61 -13, Development Standards /Criteria for Evaluation, of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail, the following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria. A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. 3 C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and, when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system is designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. F. Compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans. To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the housing district will meet the intent of the zone district, an approved development plan shall be required. Project Density The 2009 Chamonix Master Plan recommends the Neighborhood Block option aimed at providing residential development on the site oriented towards families. In doing so, an overall project density of 55 - 60 dwelling units ( +/- 16 units per acre) is recommended in a mix of unit types. Town Staff has developed a preliminary option based upon the Neighborhood Block design that nets an overall project density of 65 — 70 dwelling units ( +/ -21 units per acre) of a mix of unit types. A substantial increase or decrease in density significantly changes the character of the development and the unit mix on the site, resulting in a substantially different development. In order to proceed forward with preliminary site work and infrastructure design, an overall project density must be established. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession, the Community Development Department will not be forwarding a recommendation at this time. A formal recommendation will be provided at the time of the final public hearing on this application. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Request C. Proposed Draft Plans 0 Chamonix Master Plan Information Update, dated December 17, 2013 Chamonix Master Plan, dated January 6, 2009 Chamonix Parcel Approved Development Plan "Vail's Newest Residential Development for Families" Adopted July 13, 2015 Resolution No. ? ?, Series of 2015 Table of Contents I. Statement of Intent II. Development Plan Contents III. General Information IV. Definitions V. Development Standards a. Permitted Uses b. Conditional Uses c. Accessory Uses d. Setbacks e. Site Coverage f. Landscaping and Site Development g. Parking and Loading h. Location of Business Activity i. Additional Development Standards VI. Supplemental Regulations VII. Open Space /Recreation VIII. Phased Development IX. Amendment Procedures X. Exhibits A Statement of Intent The purpose of the Chamonix Parcel Approved Development Plan is to facilitate the completion of Vail's newest residential development for families on the town -owned property located at 2310 Chamonix Road/ Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1, in Vail, Colorado. It shall be the intent of this Approved Development Plan to develop for -sale, deed - restricted, employee housing units in a mix of dwelling unit product types consistent with the recommendations of the 2009 Chamonix Master Plan, over a period of time. The Master Plan locates the highest densities of units on the south and east sides of the development site. The northern portion of the site is identified for lesser densities to maintain the greatest compatibility with existing and adjacent neighborhoods. The landscaped areas in and around the buildings and internal driveway system provides open space and recreational opportunities for the site. Development on the parcel is intended to achieve and further the seven (7) goals affirmed by the Vail Town Council in the adopted 2009 Chamonix Site Master Plan. The seven (7) goals of the plan are as follows: Chamonix Master Plan Goals • Optimize the use of the site for workforce for -sale housing (15 - 25 du's per acre) • Design a context sensitive design solution (design review guidelines) • Ability to be phased over time (min. two phases) • Deliver desirable, marketable and diverse types of housing products (duplexes; one, two & three bedroom flats; townhomes, etc.) • Maximize the town's limited supply of financial resources • Build responsibly given the existing site configuration and topography of the site • Develop a diversified cost /sales structure to respond to a wider range of buyers (i.e. pricing structure based upon income) The approved development plan shall remain in effect for the life of the development, and may be amended from time to time, as deemed appropriate, as part of an established development review process. Approved Development Plan Contents To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development on the Chamonix Parcel meets the intent of the 2011 Chamonix Master Plan and development objectives of the Town of Vail, an approved development plan shall be required. The Chamonix Approved Development Plan shall include the following contents and materials: 1. Topographic Survey 9. Phased Development Plan 2. Development Area Plan 10. Approved Development 3. Site and Grading Plan Standards Matrix 4. Landscape Plan 11. Land Use Summary Matrix 5. Architectural Elevations 12. Project Design Guidelines 6. Architectural Floor Plans 13. Open Space and Recreation 7. Outdoor Lighting Plan Plan 8. On Site Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation Plan 7 III. General Information The Chamonix Parcel is to be developed to meet the growing demand for for -sale, deed restricted employee housing in Vail. To that end, a mix of housing product types that are both desirable in the eyes of prospective buyers and marketable to persons and families choosing to make Vail, Colorado their place of primary residency is the intended outcome of the Chamonix Parcel development. Once adopted, an approved development plan, along with any applicable land use regulations contained in the Town's Zoning Regulations, becomes the principal governing document for land use and dimensional requirements and limitations on the property. The development plan shall remain in effect for the life of the development, and may be amended from time to time, as deemed appropriate, as part of an established development review process. The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, in effect at the time, shall prevail in the event that the Approved Development Plan is silent on a particular issue or is otherwise in conflict with a particular development standard or guideline. The total gross land area of the Chamonix Parcel is 3.21 acres/ 139,828 square feet. The R°+ ` eVeI°"' °h'° buildable area is ? ?? acres / ?? ?square feet. The use of the land area shall be as stated on the Land Use Summary Matrix. A total density of 20 - 25 dwelling units per acre is approved for the site. The mix of dwelling unit types should be broken down as follows and further illustrated on the Development Area Plan: • Duplex — five buildings (10 units) • Townhomes — 3 to 4 buildings (9 — 12 units) • Multiple Family — 3 to 4 buildings (48 -50 units) IV. Definitions Approved Development Plan:... Chamonix Parcel:... Project:... Zoning Regulations:... V. Development Standards According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the Chamonix Parcel is zoned Housing (H) District. Development on the Chamonix Parcel shall be governed by the following development standards: A. PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted 'n the H dkst i`++ on the Chamonix Parcel: Bicycle and pedestrian paths. A Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment. Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this the Zoning Regulations. Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space. B. CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in +he H dis+ri` t on the Chamonix Parcel, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of +ham the Zoning Regulations: Oho needs of the residents of the rleVelnnmen4 and deyelnned in nnnii inn4inn With emnln\/ee hni isinn in Whinh nose the fnllnWing i ices may be allewed si it lent to a rnnrlitinnel i 1se Perm t• 4i itnmeterl teller menhines (AT-Ms) evterinr to a hi 1ildinn Q7NLC ;;P;l f0P;;P/+171 INCtltl ItoppsC as f6irther regulated by SeGtOGA 12-16-7 Af this; TITI"�i . ' 9 Di 1blin and private cn.r Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public parks and recreational facilities. Public utilities installations including underground transmission lines and appurtenant equipment. C. ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the u dic+ri`++ on the Chamonix Parcel: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12 -14 -12 of this#+tle the Zoning Regulations. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. D. SETBACKS: The setbacks it +hms dis+ri,.+ on the Chamonix Parcel shall be twenty feet (20') from the perimeter of the z ^n° dic+ri`++ parcel boundary. The distances separation between buildings on the intererior of the int At +h;1 dic`+ro +iGR of the plaRR!R r and onWirnnmon+ -1 ^i +�r , Ir 10 • LT- SSA/ 1: S1tiT. T .SS(�I�LlSS7Cq= 1■MNAFF.W� 1 1Al-T. - I CrMirG E. SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage �shall +not /�exceed 44y sixty five percent (565 %1) of the total site area of the Project 4t t�" 1, 7GTetiGR vefrthe plaRR!Rg d�\/IY�T�Y1T;1 1+ ��� Y1 Site 1+eyerage may be ;r,.ro,�o�l .f as more than seventy five percent G(7c5cn %) of the required parking spaces are underground or enclosed, thus reducing the impacts of surface paving provided within a development, and that the minimum landscape area requirement is met. F. LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least thirty percent (30 %) of the total site area of the Project 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. G. PARKING AND LOADING: A reduction in the need for the total required number of parking spaces has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning and environmental commission. The reduction in need is based upon demonstration that given the proximity and availability of alternative modes of transportation, including free public transit, and the requirement that a limitation shall be placed in the deed restrictions for 11 certain multiple family units in the Project which limits the number of cars for each unit. The parking requirement for the Project shall be as follows: Duplex Units — two (2) enclosed spaces and one (1) surface space per unit. Townhome Units — two (2) enclosed spaces per unit Multiple Family Units — one &'/2 (1.5) enclosed spaces per unit average Guest /Visitor — 12 surface spaces total Enclosed and surface parking spaces and areas shall be constructed in accordance with chapter 10 of the Zoning Regulations. I. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: The following additional development standards shall be approved for the Project: 1. Lot area and site dimensions. Lot area and site dimensions shall be as illustrated on the Approved Development Plan. Any subsequent resubdivision of the Parcel shall adhere to the provisions and procedures of the Title 13, Subdivision Regulations of the Vail Town Code. 2. Building height. The maximum allowable building height with the Project shall be as follows: 12 Duplex Units — For a flat or mansard roof the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30'). For a sloping roof the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty - three (33'). Townhome Units - For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty five feet (35'). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty eight feet (38'). Multiple Family Units - 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'). 3. Density Control Dwelling Units per Acre - A total density of 20 - 25 dwelling units per acre of buildable area is approved for the Project. Gross Residential Floor Area - A total of 75,000 — 85,000 square of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) is approved for the Project. GRFA should generally be allocated as follows: Duplex Units — Townhomes Units — Multiple Family Units — 75,000 — 85,000 square feet total VI. Supplemental Regulations VII. Open Space /Recreation Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces are permitted uses within the Project. Each of these uses are an important element of the Project and critical to ensuring the creation of a desirable neighborhood for families. The open space areas provide opportunities to protect the more steeply sloping hillside on the westerly end of the Project and creates areas to plant landscape buffers between the Project and the adjacent commercial uses. It is, however, important to make the outdoor areas within the Project more than just open /green space. The outdoor areas between the buildings provide opportunities for semi - private outdoor spaces for the owners and the larger outdoor area running through the center portion of the Project is to be used as a shared, passive outdoor recreation area. The open space and recreation areas shall developed consistent with the improvements shown on the Landscape Plan and Open Space and Recreation Plan. VIII. Phased Development Development of the Chamonix Parcel will be completed overtime and in a series of development phases. According to findings of the Market Analysis — Chamonix For -Sale Employee Housing, dated March 30, 2014, completed by Rees Consulting, Inc., 13 phasing of the development from a marketability stand point will likely not be necessary. However, pre -sales conditions, mortgage availability, pricing and sales structure, construction financing options, development approach, market risk tolerance, down valley competition, and absorptions rates, for example, all weigh heavily on the Town's ability to complete the development in a single phase. A phased development approach reduces risk, provides flexibility, is more responsive to a changing market, and allows the development to better target certain segments of the buyer's market in an effort to meet the affordable housing needs of the community. IX. Amendment Procedures Upon adoption, it is recognized that the Approved Development Plan may need to be amended from time to time. As such, amendment procedures are hereby adopted as an element of the Approved Development Plan. Amendments to the Approved Development Plan will be considered in accordance with the provisions of section 12 -9A- 10 of +"tee the Zoning Regulations. X. Exhibits 1. Topographic Survey, dated... 2. Development Area Plan, dated..., 2015 3. Site and Grading Plan, dated..., 2015 4. Landscape Plan, dated..., 2015 5. Architectural Elevations, dated..., 2015 6. Architectural Floor Plans, dated..., 2015 7. Outdoor Lighting Plan, dated..., 2015 8. On Site Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation Plan, dated..., 2015 9. Phased Development Plan, dated..., 2015 10. Approved Development Standards Matrix, dated..., 2015 11. Land Use Summary Matrix, dated..., 2015 12. Project Design Guidelines, dated..., 2015 13. Open Space and Recreation Plan, dated..., 2015 14 Z C7 N W 0 C* Lr) M m M W a a W a ,. O N N N W Z 0 J :* a O z 0 a O cm a W Z W 0 V LU O CL •N a--+ i o i O N a--+ w N ++ N N s c6 a N C6 c- C6 I� _ O •_ •E a) •� 4-j .' ^ > /\ Q vO' O .O R O o 0 0 y M _il v 0 C o a M E i 0 A ` L o W c 6 0 0 0 C U l 0 j T 0 ^O W►.� � n U CL ro / O r V bn W O Z C7 U w 0 . T M ro O C6 O i 4-j CL ro i cu O � 41 O i U ate-+ U 'N 3 bn �+ .c N N N a--+ O � U a--' N O •_ L2 0 0 N N N E O i N W L V W 1 N •� c cm N Q) Cal a 0 0 0 E u u U � � O W O W L L r r O O O V O V _3 � �+ > Q C L • •_ R Ri � � r r cu � �..� y M _il v 0 C o a M E i 0 A ` L o W c 6 0 0 0 C U l 0 j T 0 ^O W►.� � n U CL ro / O r V bn W O Z C7 U w 0 . T M ro O C6 O i 4-j CL ro i cu O � 41 O i U ate-+ U 'N 3 bn �+ .c N N N a--+ O � U a--' N O •_ L2 0 0 N N N E O i N W L V W 1 N •� c cm N Q) Cal a 0 0 0 IT 1177 MF LL I O C-D cz C:) O CD C/) C:) O Cc C4 C.) CV x ro a s0 . 0 owl s as as ti r w 0 0 �i di to A rd 0 0 4w rd Mal w TA go PC0. IN a W�d mm 99 �r wa �o �o ww rd O 02 iii r 0 fa O *+ ar a� rd Q o. .o1 Im o b 0.4 01 .id ray •� H MUM � a Q 0 o aaw ANN rA o0 ,wl mm p rd O a L CL O t V 7 0 3 P- 0 CD N LU Z N C O1 G R 7 �C. 0 0 O O z co LU VJ fir I • I III III o, \` O I \ LL - f /i - i I 2 I, 0 E V 7 O C 3 P- M M O O U c D 0 z w 0 M N w Z N N d 0 s 0 0 ED II i to Y2 Nl YN 5 0 u z\Z o N c LL V J U L cn C� cn cn w U U Q O V 1 7 O 3 P- M V CO M O ca `o 0 U D 0 U O Z C7 U w D M 0 N N N W Z C 2 G R 7 �C. 0 0 to ' \ �~•� ' • �♦ ■ '\ ♦♦ �1 i Y U H N U E O Q E wx a, b.0 -E = N O 0 O > M N N O t c Q U o v M a>i v O > C co .fO cn E v �, w O M v U U U N Q C: CL LU `° Q -o O v i U) U) (1) U U Q VJ O t V 0 3 9 cvi 0 M 0 U 0 0 z CD C/) 0 LO CD N CV W z N C 0 R 7 d 0 \ \ J / '•` i . l •� 1 1 Oco E m T Lo IM IT- O N M L O CIO o A O wwC U 1� �. 0 h C CO O c. O C O CJ W 0 O E N C N LU i Z V � ' N •� O1 i y O R C � 3 gl c 0 O X = O _ Q J � d � O O D H H W W CD CD CD CD CD N cl r N J / '•` i . l •� 1 1 Oco E m T Lo IM IT- O N M L O CIO o A O wwC U 1� �. 0 h C CO O c. O C O CJ W 0 O E N C N LU i Z V � ' N •� O1 i y O R C � 3 gl c 0 Q � O a O O O O O a � � o r r r s 0 O O p CO V c0 O N C7 N N V V Q1 W V W Q V N O N Q Lo � H � J A (3 w w W cDcD X O O H J Z Z cD cD Q Q Q O D O O J J J a m z m m m m m m o J / '•` i . l •� 1 1 Oco E m T Lo IM IT- O N M L O CIO o A O wwC U 1� �. 0 h C CO O c. O C O CJ W 0 O E N C N LU i Z V � ' N •� O1 i y O R C � 3 gl c 0 \ � \ Ka -Fu / © _0 a § E0 { £ E o S \ ai amp \ \ / \ / \ \ -j / t $ \\ < 2 r x ® ^^ # x 0 E .�E© = 7 a ou= / \ § § 2§% 00 }/\ 0 § ƒ0 _ < e o/ \ / \ e 0 tea 5 0 f § a » <e»0 CL LU 0 0 =G±a 2 ± ® o � t > 0777 ± m ° 2 / 04 /\ \ \ f / © S ® d § / > 2 E 0 § G o » — //�0 3 \ » \&Ln Ln a E \ o = /°\ 0 \02 \f � 0 > 7 7 &x- o —�� ) § 2 \ \ / — a § & 0 e J = E 0 2u E J\ E »� i� « 2 z y © « © :\ �• . '� a 70 U) � .� C) � E � v � 0 � P- \ LU � 7 M Y = O O V) W M O C:3) o N _ Y }� U 1 _ L C Q C� N p 0A tO `o CL a- N O U a _ U 00 Q _ O IT Q Cn C N O N 0) L N Q OVA 0b0 u u .� ou � c Q o v \ ( ` � N 7 f0 f0 o N — L1 Q OA OA Q 0 N -0 U � � �L _E a) N 0A N N Q a) E O ro N N � O z w N 7 p bD Y co N O w �v N 0 LL 0. o \\ ` Z J LU J N + a w N a v k e 0 D C7 \ X (/ \ ® N � A °' 1 N \ �F o 0 � N C N \ a t z CS N O1 .� c o R 7 0 O C M 0 O � II N � � Q � o W T Q M O M JO O (n U CC O a O M O O i (� o •� N X• O � N v • O `o o U 0 X ✓\ 1 �•` / - mN O \ • ` M O V M .N � •� • •\ •` •� I � O O O N I O] O O • • ` V N 0 M O � • •� 1 ` O Q M N O C M 0 O � II N W T Q M O M U i (� o `o o U 0 X O V 0 3 P- U O Z C7 CID w 0 M N N N W Z N C 2 D R 7 �C. 0 0 0 ry- 0 z Q z w Cl- OO W LLJ 0 \ \ \ ` • O $ ,• e 'l` II II F� II II i C I E \, 0 0X �rL C7 � Q X (a) CD ` � Q O to 0 O U z 0 0 co 0 0 N Q CD (00 LO N C7 0 N W CO L.L OW p W W (3 Mu <LU Q � f N — A vv , W 2 JWN \ 1 ~ �()UNpUx�_��x� zoZD T LL M J 0 T W O I I z o M 0 w I I z J o CD I I U I z w I0 M I O E N C N z V N 7 a1 O R 3 � U U C ct_- L C7 � Q X (a) CD ` � Q O to 0 O U z 0 0 co 0 0 N Q CD (00 LO N C7 0 N W CO L.L OW p W W (3 Mu <LU Q � Q Q N — W 2 JWN ~ �()UNpUx�_��x� zoZD � mY -D W(A�cnZD�xZUxzw �Cn mcn ACS �cn9 Q T LL M J 0 T W O I I z o M 0 w I I z J o CD I I U I z w I0 M I O E N C N z V N 7 a1 O R 3 � U C/) z Q z w Cl- OO W LLJ 0 ` N \ v 1' \ 1 \ 1 O V 0 3 P- M v 0 M O A U 0 0 z C/) 0 M 0 N W Z N C 2 D R 7 �C. 0 0 II CD Z O O O C) CD W (o ai C U) � C U O to O co (a) U J Q �o O -0-01 O o Q O O N O NI O N W(3 W Co L.L OW p W Mu <LU= Q Q Q N — N W 2 J W CrU)UNpU!!_� � m Y W(A0-co5L: ZUc¢Zw m co C C C C Lu O V 0 3 P- M v 0 M O A U 0 0 z C/) 0 M 0 N W Z N C 2 D R 7 �C. 0 0 II w Z O O O C) W U) : SEE 0 J Q o s° om U_ HmH O V 0 3 P- M v 0 M O A U 0 0 z C/) 0 M 0 N W Z N C 2 D R 7 �C. 0 0 C/:) 0 0 z Q UJ:) z w CL- OO W LU 0 8 O p v N CD pp C C7 LO CD 0 CD O ZD i U O O O -.-0, O O O O T 0 a cn E c C 00 LO O 0 O O 3° L O � N r \ \ W W \ \ \ L.L OW m ® //Z�DG \ W (3 Mu o Q \ \ Z Q Q N — N 2 i \ J W CO �U)U 1 fm ��x� ti U m / , LLJ WU/J0-cn5�xZUxzw C/) < 0- p cn ZD m U) cn � Zcn 0- � 1�1 cc, N a O r\ O H T O (n C/:) 0 0 z Q UJ:) z w CL- OO W LU 0 E O p O C CD pp C C7 LO CD 0 CD O ZD � U O O O -.-0, O O O O T 0 a cn E c C 00 LO O 0 O O 3° L O � N r W W Co L L.L OW m ® //Z�DG p W W (3 Mu o Q w Z Q Q N — N 2 LU J W CO �U)U 0 fm ��x� ti U m Y LLJ WU/J0-cn5�xZUxzw C/) < 0- p cn ZD m U) cn � Zcn 0- E O p O C 00 pp LL N a k. ZD f' T k Z E c C ® � 0 O 0 O O 3° L p' L m m ® //Z�DG cu V m 0 ti U E O p O C 00 pp a k. ill ill ill ill T 00 T N z cfl N z 0 ZD cD z 0 U O V O 3 P- M O V c0 c0 M O O U c 0 U 0 0 0 M 0 N W Z N C G R 7 �C 0 U Z� 01 C � C u U O ro - a O O-� u �O av Z o �o 3� OL u N LL. 0 m 0 mam W X p W v a'a om a N O 3 N 1 V V Q v v � � O O 7 w UJ v u O O UJ Qj v aM M+ Q ros.o Z r i i� o � .� a O -owrno_Om�E S- H o v v2'. E o v 0 Z� ro -� O_U o_E OavU midi, j5; w N -o Y '^ N m 01 '^ v wr�aa°'°v�E> Oo m.s >� tj 3� U Y y N u 'A 'A O .� D Q m V W 0 o rM M �n t�n 0) rn O -� U Nola— p 0 E oa v z os vw ?.3: o v Z O -o V E Q m Qj O a �O 0 y— O 11 f 111 Uu Z � w w s � w H ,� > a Z: 0 p am � 2 O W a LU +O �I c� J m O E V 0 3 9 M 0 `o 0 U 0 x 0 U O Z C7 U w D O M LO N N N W Z N C 2 D R 7 �C. 0 U l v IM Ln W CJ L Q LL W J 0 Z Ln W U Q d Ln Z W n- o Ln Y Q d Ln J Q Ln Q J LL. C� L Q LL J L y 0 O 0 � A O O J CD +� x U O Cz U i Cz C-- o U Z C7 w D M O E N Cc C4 .= Z LU V N 7 a1 N C3 O R 3 � gl C 0 TOWN OF VAIL To: Vail Town Council From: George Ruther, Director of Community Development Date: December 17, 2013 Subject: Chamonix Master Plan Information Update I. Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Vail Town Council with an information update on the Chamonix Master Plan. Over the past several months Town Council members have asked questions about the Chamonix Master Plan. In order to effectively convey the information this memorandum will focus primarily on the Chamonix Master Plan, however a number of other employee housing planning and policy related documents have been included. If there are any questions staff will schedule a work session to address them. II. Chamonix Master Plan 1. Where is the Chamonix Parcel located? • The Chamonix Parcel is located at 2310 Chamonix Road. Adjacent uses include the Shell Station, Vail Fire Station No. 3 and a mix of low and medium density residential developments. 2. When did the Town of Vail purchase the Chamonix Parcel? • The Town of Vail purchased the 3.6 -acre parcel in 2002 for "the purposes of constructing a fire station, employee housing and land banking." • In 2007 the Town acquired the adjacent 1.25 -acre Wendy's parcel as it is a more optimal location, from an emergency services perspective, for the West Vail Fire Station. 3. When was the Chamonix Parcel Land Use Plan adopted? • The Chamonix Parcel Land Use Plan was adopted in 2005 and it outlined development areas for a fire station, employee housing and open space. 4. Has the Chamonix Parcel Land Use Plan been amended? If so, what was the reason for the amendment? • Yes, the Chamonix Parcel Land Use Plan was amended in 2009 following the purchase of the former Wendy's Parcel. The result was the Chamonix Master Plan adopted January 2009. 1 5. What was the objective of the Chamonix Master Plan (2009)? • The ultimate goal was to provide a plan for the Chamonix Master Plan Area that balanced the concepts of density, neighborhood impact, and traffic and parking concerns with aesthetics, sustainability, and value in a way that would address the community need for additional affordable housing in a contextually appropriate way. • The Town Council identified eleven development goals to direct the master planning process. These goals were: • The site is to be used for development of a fire station and employee housing. • Housing for student fire department employees should be considered in the design of the fire station. o An ambulance substation could be an ancillary use on the site. o Energy- efficient and sustainable design and construction techniques are important. Certification by a particular program (Green Globes, LEED) is to be investigated, although not mandatory. 0 100 percent of housing developed should be deed - restricted, for -sale employee housing, with a mix of one -, two -, and three - bedroom units. o The site should be optimized to provide the greatest amount of employee housing. o Re- zoning the site to Housing (H) District is preferred to allow flexibility in design and development. • Additional traffic onto Chamonix Lane should be limited. • One -story of development along Chamonix Lane is acceptable. • All financing and phasing options will be considered. • New pedestrian circulation and access routes should be provided around the site, along Chamonix Road and /or Lane, to ensure connectivity of the surrounding neighborhood to other areas within West Vail. Existing pedestrian paths through the site are to be limited. 6. What role did the community play in the adoption of the master plan? • During a period of six months the consulting team developed three schemes exploring various densities and internal character. Development of the schemes benefited from informal and formal meetings with stakeholders and Town staff and from responses to a survey distributed to potential residents. Revisions to the three schemes were periodically presented to the Advisory Committee for additional input and direction, and these refinements were subsequently presented to the Town Council. Information from the Town department heads was considered in the site planning and design guidelines for the development of the employee housing and fire station at the Chamonix PA Master Plan Area. Information from other sources was balanced with input from the Focus Groups. Vail Town Council Consultant Team Advisory Town Staff �= Committee Employee Emergency Town Neighborhood Infrastructure Housing Focus Services Focus Department Group Group Focus Group Focus Group Heads 7. What is the relationship of the Chamonix Master Plan (2009) to the Employee Housing Strategic Plan (2008)? • In 2008, the Town of Vail adopted an Employee Housing Strategic Plan. The stated goal of the strategic plan is "to ensure there is deed restricted housing for at least 30% of Vail's workforce within the Town of Vail." The strategic plan identifies a series of actions steps the Town should consider, such as developing deed restricted housing on the Chamonix Parcel, in an effort to achieve its adopted housing goal. 8. What is the role of the Chamonix Master Plan in the decision - making process? • Like many of the Town's adopted master planning documents, the role of the Chamonix Master Plan is to illustrate and articulate the community's expectations and public input, and to guide decision - makers on how the Chamonix Parcel should be developed. 9. How can the Chamonix Parcel help the Town achieve its goals for deed restricted housing? • The Town's Employee Housing Strategic Plans identifies Town participation in the development of new deed - restricted employee housing as a "catch up" opportunity. • The 2011 Peel /Langenwalter Architects and Martin /Martin Consulting Engineers plan shows up to 48 units. The plan shows 5 duplexes (10 units) and up to 38 flats. 10. Is the Chamonix Parcel zoned? If so, what is the development potential of the Parcel? • The upper 3.6- acre portion of the Chamonix Parcel is zoned Housing (H) District and the lower (former Wendy's parcel) is zoned General Use (GU). 11. Have development scenarios been proposed for the Chamonix Parcel? If so, what were they and what is the status of the project? • No development scenarios have been proposed for the Chamonix Parcel since the adoption of the Chamonix Master Plan. In 2011 the Town Council discussed preliminary plans for an initial phase of housing development at Chamonix. No further action has been taken. 12. Does the Town of Vail have a policy when it comes to conveying ownership of land underneath town - sponsored, for -sale housing developments? • The Town of Vail has retained ownership of the land under all of the deed - restricted, appreciation- capped units in Town. A 99 -year land lease exists under Vail Commons, North Trail and the Arosa Duplex. • The exception is Red Sandstone. There the Homeowner's Association was given the land under the development because the Town of Vail owned one -third of the land and Eagle River Water & Sanitation District owned two - thirds of the land. 13. To what degree has the Town studied the marketability and suitability of the Chamonix Parcel for development? • The Town completed a market study in 2008 and updated it 2011. • The Town completed an engineering /utility plan to optimize site utilization and the cost of constructing the infrastructure in 2011. 14. How have market conditions changed since the adoption of the master plan? • The Town has a proposal from Economic and Planning Systems to study and update the Chamonix Market Study to understand how market conditions have changed since the completion of the Chamonix Market Study as well as the 2011 Chamonix Market Update. III. Attachments • Chamonix Master Plan, January 2, 2009 • Resolution No. 2, Series of 2009 • Chamonix Parcel Land Use Plan, August 2, 2005 • Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2005 • Phase 1 & 2 Markup from Martin /Martin Consulting Engineers, 2011 • Chamonix Market Update, February 28, 2011 • Chamonix Market Study, 2008 0 Chamonix Master Plan 6 January 2009 Adopted by Resolution No. 2, Series of 2009 Prepared For the Town of Vail by i STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES rc s Drexel, Barrell & Co. a r c n , � e c , S J R r Fi D J J 1 L Ll Chamonix Master Plan Acknowledgements The Chamonix Area Master Plan Amendment is the result of over a year of work on the part of many individuals. Without the effort of the Vail Town Council, the Chamonix Advisory Committee, the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Vail Local Housing Authority, and Town of Vail Staff the Chamonix Area Master Plan would not have been completed. Vail Town Council Planning and Environmental Commission Dick Cleveland, Mayor Bill Pierce, Chair Andy Daly, Mayor Pro -Tem Rollie Kjesbo, Co -Chair Kevin Foley Michael Kurz Mark Gordon Sarah Robinson - Paladino Farrow Hitt Scott Proper Kim Newbury Susie Tjossem Margaret Rogers David Viele Chamonix Advisory Committee Vail Local Housing Authority Bob Armour Mark Ristow, Chair Jack Bergey Sally Jackie Andy Daly Steve Lindstrom Rollie Kjesbo Ethan Moore Ethan Moore Kim Newbury Mark Ristow Margaret Rogers David Viele Town of Vail Staff Consultants Stan Zemler, Town Manager Stan Ciauson Associates, Inc. George Ruther, Community Dev. Director Studio B Architects Mark Miller, Vail Fire Chief Drexel, Barrell & Co. Craig Davis, Vail Fire Department Economic & Planning Systems Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator Scott Hunn, Former Project Planner Chamonix Master Plan Table of Contents 1. Project Scope 1 2. Process 3 A. Overview B. Advisory Committee C. Town Council Hearing D. Refinement of Schemes E. Sustainability 3. Final Recommendations 6 A. Advisory Committee B. Final Town Council Approval 4. Preferred Option 7 5. Procedural Requirements 9 6. Non - Preferred Options 9 7. Recommended Actions 12 8. Appendix 12 I [1 L� Chamonix Master Plan 1. PROJECT SCOPE The proposed design schemes for the Chamonix Master Plan Area were directed by the stated goals and objectives developed early in the community participation process. The consultant team of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., Studio B Architects, and Drexel, Barrell & Co. identified a variety of opportunities and constraints from the unique physical characteristics of the Chamonix site. The inclusion of a fire station and student dormitory further complicated the layout and programmatic elements of the site design. The Master Plan Area is generally south facing and sloped and occupies a highly visible location off of the west Vail exit (Exit No. 173) from I- _ 70. Highway commercial and strip mall commercial development characterizes the uses off of the frontage road and Chamonix Road, with residential neighborhoods characterizing the use patterns off of Chamonix Lane. The Chamonix Master Plan Area is located near to bus stops on both the West Vail Red and Green Loop transit lines. Commercial and employment opportunities are located in the commercial areas within walking distance of the site. The Town Council identified eleven development goals to direct the master planning process. These goals were: • The site is to be used for development of a fire station and employee housing. Housing for student fire department employees should be considered in the design of the fire station. An ambulance substation could be an ancillary use on the site. • Energy- efficient and sustainable design and construction techniques are important. Certification by a particular program (LEED, Green Globes) is to be investigated, although not mandatory. • 100 percent of housing developed should be deed - restricted, for -sale employee Chamonix Master Plan housing, with a mix of one-, two-, and three - bedroom units. • The site should be optimized to provide the greatest amount of employee housing. • Re- zoning the site to Housing (H) District is preferred to allow flexibility in design and development. • Additional traffic onto Chamonix Lane should be limited. • One -story of development along Chamonix Lane is acceptable. • All financing and phasing options will be considered. • New pedestrian circulation and access routes should be provided around the site, along Chamonix Road and /or Lane, to ensure connectivity of the surrounding neighborhood to other areas within West Vail. Existing pedestrian paths through the site are to be limited. The charge made by the Vail Town Council to "optimize the site" required that the planning concepts developed by the design team be evaluated in the context of adjacent uses. The ultimate goal was to provide a plan for the Chamonix Master Plan Area that balanced the concepts of density, neighborhood impact, and traffic and parking concerns with aesthetics, sustainability, and value in a way that would address the community need for additional affordable housing in a contextually appropriate way. The target group for the Chamonix development was families. The target group income was determined to fall within 60 -120% of the Area Median Income (AMI) range for Eagle County, with a possible inclusion of incomes up to 140% of AMI. In current dollars, this equated to a household income range of $47,000 to $94,000, with a possible excursion to $110,000. An important component to the site plan for the Chamonix Master Plan Area was the inclusion of a new fire station. Members of the Town Council recommended the fire station be segregated from the residential use of the Chamonix development for safety and noise reasons. Dedicated access for emergency equipment was requested, as was the incorporation of a community room for public gathering. A student dormitory, to help alleviate the cramped conditions experienced by fire department recruits, was also requested. Finally, provisions for possible Ambulance District participation were to be considered. 2 Chamonix Master Plan 2. PROCESS A. History of Chamonix Master Plan Area The Town of Vail acquired the 3.6 -acre "Chamonix Parcel" in October, 2002, for the purpose of constructing a fire station, employee housing and land banking. To achieve the Town's goals the Town of Vail adopted the Chamonix Master Plan in 2005. The Master Plan outlined development areas for a fire station, employee ' housing and open space. In 2007, the Town of Vail was able to acquire the adjacent former Wendy's Site. It was determined the former Wendy's Site was a more optimal location, from an emergency services perspective, for a future West Vail Fire Station. Based upon the ' acquisition of the new property, the Town of Vail determined it could better utilize the two parcels if a new, comprehensive master plan process was completed. A Request for Proposals to hire a new consultant team was issued in September, 2007. The Team of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., Studio B Architects, and Drexel, Barrell & ' Co. were retained by the Town of Vail to develop this new Chamonix Master Plan. B. Overview ' During a period of six months, the consulting team developed three schemes. The three schemes, titled Neighborhood Block, Neighborhood Cluster, and Village Neighborhood, explored varying densities and internal character. Development of the three schemes benefited from informal and formal meetings with stakeholders and Town staff and from responses to a survey distributed to potential residents. Members the team the Fire Chief Magazine "Station of consultant also attended Style Design Conference" in Phoenix to broaden their understanding of current fire station design trends. Revisions to the three schemes were periodically presented to the Advisory Committee for additional input and direction, and these refinements were subsequently presented to the Town Council. Information from the Town department heads was considered in the site planning and design guidelines for the development of the employee housing and fire station at the Chamonix Master Plan Area. Information from other sources was balanced with the input gained from the Focus Groups. 3 Chamonix Master Plan C. Advisory Committee On 16 January 2008 a "Kick -Off" meeting was held for the purpose of introducing the Chamonix Site Master Plan project to the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee, which was selected by Town of Vail staff as well as citizens, consisted of representative from the Town Council, the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Housing Authority, the Vail Fire Department, Community Development, and two Citizens at Large. Duties of the Advisory Committee consisted of reviewing previous master planning efforts produced for the Chamonix site, engaging in discussions on new opportunities and changed conditions to be considered during the new master planning effort, and issuing recommendations to the consultant team on the parameters that would guide the process and the creation of alternative development scenarios. D. Town Council Hearing The Town Council received an update on the work to date on 20 May 2008. The consultant team presented three schemes which ranged in total unit counts from 50 to 70 units. Optimizing the density of the site, the Council's charge at the outset of the master planning effort, was not construed to mean that the maximum number of units possible for the site should be sought. Rather, the consultant team sought a balance between number of units and resident population, with special consideration given to the quality of the experience of living in and around the 4 Chamonix Master Plan development. The Town Council instructed the design team to seek a middle path on density, considering internal views and character of the surrounding neighborhoods. There was also a discussion of unit sizes, with the Council inclining toward larger units of two, there and possibly four bedrooms. E. Refinement of Schemes Based on the Council's comments and the request accommodate more family - oriented units, the schemes were refined to concentrate on the creation of two and three bedroom units. Units ranged in size from 768 sq. ft for 1- bedroom units, 1,292 sq. ft. for 2- bedroom flats, 1,333 sq. ft. for 2 bedroom lofts, 1,460 sq. ft. for 3- bedroom units to 1,632 sq. ft. for 3 bedroom duplex units. Because family housing was the stated focus of the development, one bedroom units were incorporated sparingly and generally used as "infill." There was attention to the possibility of providing 4- bedroom units. While these were not included in the final unit mix, some units were designed with expansion potential, where a fourth bedroom could be finished later. F. Sustainability Various construction methods and site design techniques were discussed for the site which conformed to "green" practices. Both traditional on -site building methods as well as the use of offsite, factory built construction were considered for the ultimate construction of the housing structures. Based on discussions with the Advisory Committee, offsite, factory built construction became the preferred method due to the energy efficiencies as well as lower construction costs inherent with this construction method. Site design standards which focused on solar orientation, limits to site disturbance, brown -field development, open space preservation, access to transit, and on -site storm water retention were integrated into the three schemes as providing the basis for certifiably sustainable construction practices. Certification of the project using a third -party certification program, such as the United States Green Building Council LEED certification process, was considered and was included in the cost estimates. The Advisory Committee determined that third - party certification would create potential advantages in the future marketing of the development, would leverage the green techniques used in the development to 5 Chamonix Master Plan encourage or require other private developments to seek the same standards, and foster community pride. As a part of the third party certification process, on -site storm water detention, which would minimize impacts from impermeable surfaces at the Chamonix site to the municipal storm water system, was incorporated in to the design. 3. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS A. Advisory Committee On 17 July 2008, the final Advisory Committee meeting was held. The consultants presented the final versions of the three schemes and, after discussing the schemes, the Advisory Committee members in attendance voted on their preferred scheme for recommendation to the Town Council. The "Village Neighborhood" scheme, which was the most dense scheme that featured an underground parking garage, received six of the ten votes cast, the "Neighborhood Block" plan received four of the ten votes cast, and the "Neighborhood Cluster" received none of the votes cast. While the Village Neighborhood became the elected preference of the Advisory Committee, a subsequent discussion after the vote tended to suggest that there was significant concern regarding the additional cost and maintenance of the sub -grade parking garage. This concern was noted and included in the report to Town Council. B. Final Council Approval On 5 August 2008, a final presentation of the three schemes was made to the Town Council. Following an update on the Advisory Committee recommendations the council voted six to one for the Neighborhood Block scheme as the preferred option. Reasons given for the preference for the Neighborhood Block scheme ranged from the middle density character of the scheme, the inclusion of open space, the mix of units, and the flexibility of unit layout. Council members voiced support for the third party certification of the project as well as for factory, off -site construction. M Chamonix Master Plan 4. PREFERRED OPTION Neighborhood Block -�A A. Overview The Neighborhood Block scheme contains 58 units. The following unit mix was proposed: • No 1- bedroom units; • twenty, 2- bedroom flats; • sixteen, 2 bedroom lofts; • eight, 3- bedroom units; and • fourteen, 3 bedroom duplexes. This unit mix provided for 81,696 sq. ft. of housing with a density of 16 dwelling units per acre. A main access street, which gained access to the site from Chamonix Road, bisected the site, with 3- bedroom duplexes on the north side and multi- family units on the south side. An alley offers secondary access to the multi - family units. The main r j 11 I,. Chamonix Master Plan street passed through the development to the fire station site. While access to the fire station was intended to be limited, this configuration allowed for dual points of access to the site, thus alleviating internal traffic congestion. The landscape plan located potential community gathering spots throughout the scheme. Semi - private, stepped courtyards were located between the duplex units. Turf areas were limited to large open spaces on the east and west ends of the development. The open space on the east end could be utilized for such uses as a dog park. Landscaping on the east end was kept away from the street to preserve sightlines at the Chamonix Road /Chamonix Lane intersection. The open space on the west end would provide a viewing area into the fire station operations. For safety reasons, the viewing area was segregated from the fire station by a series of low, landscaped walls. The landscape palette utilized native trees and shrubs. Aspens were situated along the northern edge of the site and gradually "spilled" through the spaces created by the structures. In these stands of aspen, a native understory of grasses (Thurber's fescue, wheatgrass and blue -wild rye) was punctuated by (orbs such as columbine, common lupine, golden banner, and strawberry. Along the southern portion of the site, where retention ponds were intended to hold and treat storm water runoff, more water- oriented plants took over. Blue spruce was planted densely to act as a screen to the commercial uses to the south and 1 -70 beyond. Shrub thickets of willow and birch filled in among the spruce. B. Fire Station The fire station design shown in the Neighborhood Block scheme was the consensus alternative of Fire District staff and the °i Advisory Committee. The building foundation itself provided retention of I` the steep slopes to the north of the site, 7-1 and thereby offered the most cost- effective site design. 8 t t 1 t Chamonix Master Plan 5. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS Following extensive analysis of both the Chamonix Parcel and the Wendy's Site, staff determined the Official Land Use Map for the Town of Vail should be amended to reflect the new designation of Chamonix Master Plan Area. The designation of Chamonix Master Plan Area is harmonious with the residential and commercial uses in the surrounding neighborhood and achieves the development goals listed above. Both properties were rezoned to reflect the development goals of the Chamonix Master Plan Area. The 3.6 -acre parcel commonly known as the Chamonix Parcel was rezoned from Two - Family Primary/Secondary (P /S) zone district to Housing (H) zone district (Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2008)and the 1.25 -acre former Wendy's Site was rezoned from Commercial Core 3 (CC3) zone district to General Use (GU) zone district (Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2008) on November 18, 2008. Ultimately, the fire station itself will require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) in the General Use (GU) zone district as it is a conditional use rather than a permitted use in all zone districts. The master plan is intended to be used as the development guide for the Chamonix Master Plan Area. The plan identifies the location for the fire station and the employee housing. The plan locates the highest density employee housing to the south of the lower density employee housing. This layout ensures the greatest compatibility with the adjacent neighbors. Locating the fire station on the southern edge of the property also locates this more commercial type use farthest from residential development. 6. NON - PREFERRED OPTIONS A. Neighborhood Cluster Overview The Neighborhood Cluster scheme contained 50 units. Unit mix consisted of: • four, 1- bedroom units; • eight, 2- bedroom flats; • sixteen, 2- bedroom lofts; • fourteen, 3- bedroom units; and • eight, 3- bedroom duplexes. 5 Chamonix Master Plan J F 4i. i The unit mix provided for 68,232 sq. ft. of housing with a density of 14 dwelling units per acre. A main access street, which gained access to the site from Chamonix Road, passed through the site to the fire station, again offering dual points of access. Access to the fire station was limited for safety reasons. Multi- family units were situated off the north and south side of the access road. Drives extend to the north off the main street to duplex units. The landscape plan, similar to the Neighborhood Block scheme, located community gathering spots throughout the design. These community spots utilized terraced courtyards which were located off of internal pedestrian circulation routes. As with the Neighborhood Block scheme, turf areas were provided on the east and west ends of the development, connected by a pedestrian trail. The turf area on the eastern portion could be utilized for an amenity such as a dog park, while the western turf area offered a segregated vantage point of the fire station operations. H B. Village Neighborhood Overview Chamonix Master Plan w. I The Village Neighborhood scheme contained 70 units. This scheme offered a combination of lower density duplex and multifamily units and a multi -story, multi- family structure. Unit mix consisted of: • nine, 1 bedroom units; • thirty -two, 2 bedroom flats; • no 2 bedroom lofts; • sixteen, 3 bedrooms; and • ten, 3 bedroom duplexes. The unit mix provided for 87,936 sq. ft. of housing with a density of 19 dwelling units per acre, the highest density of the three schemes. The main access to the site is via Chamonix Road. The entry road offered a traditional neighborhood lane, with duplex units to the north and multi - family units to the south. The lane terminated in the plaza located in the center courtyard of the multi -story, multi - family structure. The plaza was of a more urban character, with paving that allowed for pedestrian Chamonix Master Plan and occasional vehicular access as needed. A raised landscaped platform in the center offered a green gathering spot for residents. A parking structure was located below the plaza and provided parking for the residents of the multi- storied structure. The parking structure was accessed via a dedicated entrance off of the frontage road. As in the previous schemes, open space was provided on the eastern and western ends of the site, with similar possibilities for programming. 7. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS A. Amend the Vail Land Use Plan. • Planning and Environmental Commission recommendation on December 22, 2008 • Vail Town Council adoption, on first reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2009, scheduled for January 6, 2009 B. Rezone the "Chamonix Parcel" to Housing (H) District. • Occurred on November 18, 2008 (Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2008) C. Rezone the "Wendy's Site" to General Use (GU) District. • Occurred on November 18, 2008 (Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2007) D. Complete the final Chamonix Affordable Housing Development Cost and Revenue Analysis by Economic & Planning Systems. • Draft complete on December 9, 2008 E. Complete a site and unit mix specific market study to determine demand for the development, based on the pre- determined area median income target. • Initiated Phase II of contract with Economic & Planning Systems on December 16, 2008. Anticipated completion by February 15, 2009. 8. APPENDIX A. Neighborhood Block Site Plan B. Chamonix Affordable Housing Development Cost and Revenue Analysis C. Vicinity Map 12 El Li •, 1 I 1 - - -- -- - - - - -- X1 - - - - -- -4 - µ) Lu H W = LL i (&lob ppi LL LI• !Lo o�c� _ 0 m� 1 v 0 ._ ZW N N uo/d Jalsovv xiuoluoyJ c t � Chamonix Master Plan Appendix B CHAMONIX AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS Prepared for: Town of Vail Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. December 9, 2008 14 s i i i t TABLE OF CONTENTS Chamonix Master Plan PAGE I. Introduction .................................................................. ............................... 2 ProjectBackground ........................................................... ............................... 2 Scopeof EPS Analysis ......................................................... ............................... 2 II. Comparative Analysis ................................................. ............................... 3 ComparativeProjects ........................................................ ............................... 3 III. Feasibility Analysis ...................................................... ............................... 10 ProjectCosts ...................................................................... ............................... 10 ProjectRevenues .............................................................. ............................... 11 CostScenerios ................................................................... ............................... 13 IV. Findings ......................................................................... ............................... 0 CostConsiderations ........................................................... ............................... 0 UnitSubsidy .......................................................................... ............................... 1 BuyerLending Issues ........................................................... ............................... 2 Additional Considerations ................................................. ............................... 2 IN LIST OF TABLES Chamonix Master Plan PAGE Table 1 Total Project Costs ........................................... ............................... 11 Table 2 Affordability Calculation ................................. ............................... 12 Table 3 Subsidy at Optimal AMI Levels ....................... ............................... 14 Table 4 AMI Levels for Stick Build & Standard Subsidy ............................ 15 Table 5 AMI Levels for Modular & Standard Subsidy ............................... 16 Table 6 Incomes Required to Cover Costs of Stick Built Construction . 17 Table 7 Incomes Required to Cover Costs of Modular Construction... 18 Table 8 Summary of Findings .......................................... ............................... 1 16 Chamonix Master Plan I. INTRODUCTION The proposed Chamonix affordable housing project site is located on Chamonix Lane in close proximity to the West Vail interchange. The Town purchased the site several years ago for the purpose of constructing housing. The former Wendy's site was purchased more recently for the purpose of constructing a fire station. Collectively, the two sites total 5.5 acres and are slated for housing and the fire station. Surrounding land uses in the area consist of highway oriented commercial development. Further north from the highway along Chamonix Lane, the land use pattern is composed of both single family and multi family residential uses. PROJECT BACKGROUND ' The Town of Vail recently retained Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. to complete a site plan and cost estimation for an affordable housing project on the Chamonix site. As part of the work, Clauson identified three possible development programs with varying levels of density and building types. Clauson's work also estimated costs associated with construction, engineering, and landscaping of the scenarios for both stick built and modular construction. In addition, the report considered additional costs and fees associated with achieving LEED certification. The analysis was completed in the fall of 2008. From this work, the Town Council identified scheme 1, Neighborhood Block, as the favored development program. Included in this program are 58 total units with an overall density of 16 dwelling units per acre. The project cost estimated by Stan Clauson ranges from $16.7 to $23.3 million depending upon the building construction method. As part of the evaluation of the project, the Town seeks to develop a full understanding of any and all costs in addition to land costs that may occur throughout the course of the project's implementation. SCOPE OF EPS ANALYSIS Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) was retained by the Town of Vail to conduct a feasibility study of the project, building on the work done by Stan Clauson Associates. First, EPS researched comparable projects within Summit County, the Roaring Fork Valley, and Eagle County to identify prominent factors influencing the overall economics of a number of projects. Second, EPS modeled potential Chamonix project revenue based on targeted AMI levels. Project revenue was then compared to estimated costs, including additional cost factors identified by EPS, to determine the AMI requirements needed to provide sufficient revenue to make the project feasible. 2 Chamonix Master Plan II. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS EPS compiled comparative cost information for seven projects in the Roaring Fork Valley, Summit County, and Eagle County based on interviews with project representatives. This section discusses the individual projects and then summarizes the relevant findings. COMPARATIVE PROJECTS SUMMIT COUNTY Vies Landing The Vic's Landing project is located in the Town of Breckenridge across from the Breckenridge Golf Course on Tiger Road. The project was spurred by an annexation request by the developer, Tom Silengo, and the corresponding request for water taps. As part of the annexation, the Town's inclusionary housing requirement was triggered. The Town required the developer to construct 24 affordable units in exchange for entitlements for 12 market rate units. Town contribution to the project viability was limited to fee waivers and the entitlement of the 12 market units. The project is evenly split between one- and two- bedroom units with target AMI levels of 80 and 100 percent. The 24 -unit project consists of six four - plexes. One - bedroom units are priced at $185,000 and target income levels at 80 percent of AMI. Two-bedroom units target both 80 and 100 percent of AMI and are priced at $229,500 and $285,000 per unit. Among other standards, the deed restriction limits annual appreciation to three percent or the increase in local AMI, dependant upon whichever measure is higher. In addition, resales of the units are subject to income testing on the part of the buyer with a 10 percent income level tolerance. Closings began in April of 2008. The one - bedroom units in the project are sold out. Approximately half of the two bedroom units are sold. It should be noted that the two bedroom units were completed later and thus have been impacted to a greater degree by current credit restrictions. Federal Housing Administration (FHA) approval of the project was not originally sought, although an effort on the part of the developer is currently being made to receive approval. The approval is expected to broaden market demand as buyer financing will become more available. 3 I� Chamonix Master Plan Valley Brook Valley Brook is a project in the final planning stages also located in the Town of Breckenridge on northeast corner of Airport Road and Valley Brook Street. The proposed project is being developed on a fee basis by Mercy Housing Colorado as a result of a Town issued RFQ in November 2007. As currently proposed, the project includes 42 units targeting income levels at 80 and 100 percent of AMI. The project is composed of two- and three - bedroom units in two -story townhomes. ' Approximately 52 percent of the units are targeted for AMI of 80 percent or less and 48 percent of the units are targeted for AMI of 100 percent or less. Units at 80 percent range in price from $133,000 to $160,000 per unit. Prices at 100 percent range from $200,000 to 1 $250,000. Similar to Vic's Landing, the deed restriction limits annual appreciation to three percent or the percent by which AMI increases. I Hard costs are currently estimated at $184 per square foot with total a total square foot cost of $230 per square foot for hard and soft costs as well as site work. The cost excludes land and off -site costs. Construction prices have increased approximately 10 percent from the time of that the project was initially bid. However, both the developer and representatives from the Town expect to benefit from a downward renegotiation of costs. The developer is charging a one -time fee equivalent to approximately four percent of total costs, although a 10 percent fee is typically used by the developer. The project is being developed with a high level of subsidy with contributions from town, state, and federal sources. In total, if is estimated that grant funding will account for $4.7 million of the project's budget, or approximately 38 percent of total costs, which does not include costs of land (which was contributed to the project by the Town). The subsidy figure does include fee waivers by the Town. In addition, the Town may also contribute an additional subsidy in grant funding. At this time, the subsidy per unit is estimated at $117,000 per unit. Roaring Fork Valley Rodeo Place The Town of Snowmass has recently completed the first homes in Rodeo Place, a 27 -unit affordable housing development located near the Rodeo Grounds. The project is ' located within the Town of Snowmass, approximately half the distance between the base area and Highway 82, and is highly visible to traffic along Brush Creek Drive. The project consists of 20 single family homes, two duplexes, and one triplex. Phase I accounts for 15 of the 27 total units. The Town finished and closed six units in the fall of 4 Chamonix Master Plan 2008 and plans to have the balance of Phase I completed by the spring of 2009. The homes are modular. Town staff noted that there have been problems coordinating the site work and the manufacturer resulting in project delays and cost increases. Nevertheless, the Town staff is pleased with the overall process and the quality of the architectural design. The Town did not established AMI targets for the prospective residents but relied on surveys of interested households to derive home prices. Approximately 50 to 60 households with at least one full -time employee based in Snowmass expressed interest in the project. Most of these households have maintained interest in the project since the surveys were first distributed in mid 2007. The deed restriction, which limits appreciation to three percent per year (among other terms), has caused some prospective purchasers to drop out of the process. However, because housing options are limited (particularly in Snowmass), most households have maintained their participation throughout the development process and the pool of buyers has remained sufficiently large to provide adequate demand. Based on the response to surveys, homes were designed to fall into a price range spanning from $300,000 to $550,000 per unit (which translates to an AMI of approximately 140 to more than 250 percent). The small single family homes and duplexes are priced at $300,000, for 1,400 square feet of finished living area plus 700 square feet of basement floor area ($214 per square foot, finished). Medium sized single family homes are priced from $425,000 to $450,000 for 1,800 square feet, plus 900 square feet of basement area ($229 per finished square foot). The largest are priced at $550,000 for 2,150 square feet plus 950 of basement floor area ($256 per square foot, finished). Basements were not an optional feature, as the Town mandated that they be included in each home. The requirement not only ensures adequate storage, but also creates additional bedroom area to be used for sublets and /or roommates, increasing the number of employees that can be housed locally. The construction costs range from $210 to $225 per square foot and covers only vertical costs. The Town absorbed costs for all on -site infrastructure improvements as well as soft costs related to the site engineering and architectural design. While staff did not have specific costs for these services, they estimate a 25 percent increase for these costs resulting in a total cost of $262 to $281 per square foot. The Town had acquired the land previously and contributed the cost of the land as a form of subsidy. Subsidies range from $33,000 to $80,000 per unit based on an average construction cost of $271 per square foot. The smaller units generate $300,000 of revenue while construction costs total $380,000 (1,400 * 271), resulting in a net subsidy of $80,000. The medium sized units required a subsidy of $50,000 and the largest units were subsidized by $33,000. The average among all three unit types is $54,000. 5 Chamonix Master Plan ' Burlingame Ranch Burlingame Ranch is a 21.5 acre affordable housing development in the Town of Aspen located off Highway 82 to the north of the Bar /X Ranch. The project is entirely dedicated to affordable housing and planned to be developed over three phases and will include a total of 236 units. To date, 91 units have been constructed on the site. Income targets for the project range widely, although the majority of the units accommodate income ' levels that range from approximately 80 to 140 percent of AMI. (Note that the Aspen Housing Office sets its own median income and corresponding AMI levels. The targets shown here are approximate.) IJ The first phase of development includes 15 one bedroom units, 30 two bedroom units, 39 ' three bedroom units, and 7 single - family lots. Most of the units are townhomes. In addition to the identified income limits, residents are also required to earn a minimum of 75 percent of their yearly income within Pitkin County. The units are deed restricted to I three percent annual appreciation or the percent by which the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases. All 91 units included in the first phase have been sold. I An extensive audit of Phase I costs in completed Burlingame Ranch was as a result of a 9 p brochure that was published in 2005 misstating the total cost of the project to the public. The average sales price per unit (including lots) for the project was approximately $230,000. Hard costs for the project averaged $170 per square foot with an average total cost of $202 per square foot of hard and soft costs (which exclude land, off -site, and mitigation costs). Including land and all other costs, such an off -site infrastructure, mitigation, and community benefits, the total project cost $236 per square foot. The project's audit indicates a per unit subsidy of $331,567, or approximately 59 percent of the project's costs. This contrasts with an anticipated subsidy of $184,455 per unit. The increase is largely attributable to programmatic changes made by Council as well as shifting AMI targets to lower levels. The project costs increased by $11.7 million, resulting ' in relatively high per unit subsidies. 1 II Iron Bridge Iron Bridge is an affordable housing development located in Garfield County between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. The affordable component of the project is part of the larger 300 home development by Iron Bridge Homes, LLC. The inclusion of affordable units in the development was a requirement of Garfield County's inclusionary housing ordinance triggered by the developer's request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) density increase. A total of 30 deed restricted affordable single family units were required. County representatives expect 24 to be completed on site and another six to be addressed via fees -in -lieu. on Chamonix Master Plan 1 1 Chamonix Master Plan The affordable units are all comprised of 3- bedroom 2 -bath units with an average size of 1,430 square feet. The units are targeted to families earning 80 percent or less of AMI and working in Garfield County. The units are priced at $230,000 as a result of calculation of AMI based on a 6- person family. Garfield County has since amended their ordinance to limit the amount of people able to be included in the AMI calculation and maintain lower price points. The units are deed restricted to three percent annual appreciation or the percent by which the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases (among other requirements). Sales within the affordable component have been slow, as the developer has closed on only four units However, the balance of the project is under contract and the remaining 20 units are awaiting their certificate of occupancy which has been delayed as a result of the involvement of Lehman Brothers in the construction loan. As a result, the completion of the units and release has been delayed several months. No County or other public subsidy was used in the construction of the units. Developer representatives report that their approach was to sell the units at the cost of vertical construction and shift costs related to land, infrastructure, and soft costs to the market rate portion of the development. Vertical construction costs are estimated range from $160 to $175 per square foot. The project is not currently FHA approved, although the developer and County are investigating the measures necessary to become approved. EAGLE COUNTY Stratton Flats Stratton Flats is a 47 -acre housing development located in the Town of Gypsum south of Hwy 6 on the northwest side of the Eagle County Regional Airport. The developer for the project is Meritage Development Group. At build -out the 339 unit project will include 152 single family homes, 118 townhomes, and 69 condominiums of which 226 will include deed restrictions. At this time, a total of seven units have been permitted on the 47.3 acre site. ' The affordable units target income levels at 140 percent of AMI and are evenly divided between Town of Gypsum and Eagle County deed restrictions. The Gypsum restriction ' limits income to 140 percent of AMI and requires that buyers earn 85 percent of their income in Eagle County. The Eagle County deed restriction limits income to 140 percent of AMI and includes a cap on annual appreciation based on the increase to the local I AMI. ' Units with the less restrictive Town of Gypsum deed restriction are priced at approximately $320,000 to $350,000 for townhomes and between $180,000 and $245,000 for condominiums. Units with the Eagle County restriction are priced at $350,000 for single family units, $300,000 to $330,000 units for townhomes, and between $180,000 and 8 Chamonix Master Plan $245,000 for condominiums. Market rate units range from $400,000 to $430,000 for single - family homes and between $340,000 and $380,000 for townhomes. To date, the developer has written 8 contracts for units in the project. The developer reported that approximately 80 people had pursued loans without success. As a result, the developer has pursued and recently received FHA approval, which allows for 97 percent Loan-to- Value buyer financing. The project was completed using modular construction at a total cost of $200 per square foot. From the time of initially ordering the modular units through the current point in the construction process, the developer reported a cost increase of eight percent. Within the Gypsum deed restricted units, there is a per unit subsidy of approximately $23,000 which was provided in the form of fee waivers by the Town. Eagle County units required higher subsidies of approximately $23,000 of waived Town of Gypsum fees plus $40,000 per unit which was provided through a $4.5 million equity investment in the project by Eagle County in the form of a subordinated position. Eagle Ranch Village Eagle Ranch Village is a land development project by East -West Partners located in the Town of Eagle off Grand Avenue on Sylvan Lake Road. The project includes approximately 60 units which were constructed as part of the Town's inclusionary housing ordinance and were constructed approximately five to six years ago. The affordable units within the project are housed in four - plexes within the Sylvan Square development, which is part of a larger development that includes single - family houses, entitled lots, and additional multifamily housing. The affordable units sold for approximately $300,000 per unit as compared to market rate units within the project that sold for approximately $350,000 per unit. Hard costs within the project were approximately $180 per square foot for vertical construction only. Soft costs accounted for approximately 20 percent of hard costs resulting in a total cost to approximately $216 per foot. The developer of the affordable units reported that no profit margin was received on the affordable units. No income restrictions exist on the units. The deed restriction requires that residents must live and work in Eagle County and limits annual appreciation to three percent or CPI, although this provision is waived if the seller cannot find a buyer. The Eagle County Housing Authority has the first right of purchase from the owner. The affordable units were provided a development subsidy through a land donation by East -West Partners as well as a 0.2 percent transfer fee on the market rate units. The fee is allocated by a community housing committee to individual units. Including land and the transfer fee, the total subsidy in Sylvan Square was approximately $50,000 per unit. C s Chamonix Master Plan III. FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS EPS conducted a financial analysis to provide a full indication of the costs the Town of Vail will incur in the development of the Chamonix site. EPS analyzed potential revenues from varying AMI levels and projected the per unit subsidies needed to finance the project. Project Costs Town Council has indicated a preference for Scheme 1 of the Stan Clausen proposals which includes 36 two - bedroom and 22 three - bedroom units for a total of 58 units. EPS compiled the cost information provided by the consultant with line items for a developer's fee and contingency consideration. With these factors added to the original estimate, the total construction cost for the "stick built" Option A is $29,523,540. The cost for the modular built Option B is $21,844,116, as shown on the following page in Table 1. 10 Chamonix Master Plan Table 1 Total Project Costs Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis Sources & Uses Neighborhood Block Option A Option B Total Square Feet 81,696 81,696 Program $848,328 $848,328 1 Bedroom 0 0 2 Bedroom 36 36 3 Bedroom 22 22 Subtotal 58 58 Costs Cost Factor Engineering $848,328 $848,328 Engineering Services 7.0% 59,383 59,383 Construction 23,283,360 16,747,680 Landscaping 748,552 748,552 LEED Certification 135.420 135,420 Subtotal $25,075,043 $18,539,363 Cost per Square Foot $307 $227 Contingency Engineering Contingency 15.0% $127,249 $127,249 Construction Contingency' 10.0% 2,328,336 1,674,768 Landscaping Contingency 15.0% 112,283 112,283 Subtotal $2,567,868 $1,914,300 Fees LEED Certification Fee 0.5% 125,375 92,697 Developer Fee 7.0% $1,755,253 $1,297,755 Subtotal $1,880,628 $1,390,452 Total Costs $29,523,540 $21,844,116 ' EPS additions to Stan Clauson estimate Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clauson Associates Project Revenues EPS estimated appropriate sales prices based upon an Average Median Income (AMI) of $75,000 for a household of three in Eagle County, as shown in Table 2. Target home prices range from approximately $228,000 at 80 percent of AMI to $407,300 at 140 percent AMI. 11 FYI N A c Q d 7 c d c A N N O U c .N c ° o= �v L U� — x 'c N O 0 B O to �QU 0 O T O CO) T 0 O N T 0 O aT- \° O O T 0 O O> e O 00 O U li c a v N d D 00 m0M O Lo ��IO w w co (n O co ° ° O (n (n (O 6Fi (O } —O m M (n (n N t0 P O O di fH M O� 64 64 Y f0 C N N L O C E (n w co O O O ll* 64 N 00 } C O co 00 C14 M n r E 61% M 64 64 �o QH V, m OO NON O �,10 ° ° 00 00 w (n co 00 N d4 O O m O 01 } n m V � r O CD Q H 64 64 CO) M 64 d4 E O O O 0 O° �I O 80, O f� (n N O O cv O r � � 01 N N 00 N m 69. d4 t0 P co M 609 6 4 M M 64 64 O O N 1 O ° O 0.0 N cc I } L6 � 64 64 in M 000 64 64 C4 NN CD O qt 0 m ° ° O (OD (OD lO (A m a I 00 00 (D 64 ICJ N M } _ co 64 64 C4 NN O O 00 0 00 O �I O M M m� O M (Op ai O O d1 CT wi co (OD 64 64 O 60 64 N N 64 64 a d M O C O O c e n N H d V N V (tee in ui a� Y f0 C 4) x° ° d E C E (° d R E c ° y c °° r E c o co E 7 O r — t OS �o QH d > Q E 0 m o Q 03 Em R N M O J y J ° J J O R J 2 2 Z Q H N H Chamonix Master Plan COST SCENERIOS The total amount of revenue available to the project was determined by the number of units within the project dedicated to each income level. Total income was then compared to the total project cost to determine the net difference. This amount provides the basis of the estimate of subsidy per unit for the proposed Chamonix project in three scenarios. For this analysis, the costs are based on the San Clauson report. Stick built construction is assumed to cost $285 per square foot and modular is assumed to cost $205 per square foot. The field research indicates that these may be overly conservative at this time and that a lower cost figure may be reasonable. In the analysis that follows, the original cost figures , have been maintained. It is recommended that the feasibility analysis be rerun with lower figures after the Town has had the opportunity to review them. J The first scenario examined an optimal level of affordability with half of the units targeting households at 80 percent of AMI and half at 100 percent AMI. The second scenario determines the price points necessary to reach a per unit subsidy consistent with the comparative projects in the region. The third scenario examines the per unit prices needed for the project to break even. ' In the tables that follow, Scenario A refers to stick built construction costs and Scenario B , is based on modular costs. 13 J Chamonix Master Plan OPTIMAL AMI TARGET An optimal AMI level of 80 and 100 percent of AMI was used in this analysis. At these levels a stick built project requires a per unit subsidy of approximately $251,000 per unit, as shown in Table 3. Modular construction at these incomes requires a per unit subsidy of $118,000. Table 3 Subsidy at Optimal AMI Levels Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis Neighborhood Block Revenue Sources Option A Option B 2 Bedroom % of Total 80% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 50% 4,111,200 4,111,200 90% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 100% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 50% 5,185,800 5,185,800 110% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 120% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 130% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 140% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 Subtotal 100% 9,297,000 9,297,000 3 Bedroom 80% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 50% 2,512,400 2,512,400 90% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 100% AMI -3 Bdrm. 50% 3,169,100 3,169,100 110% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 120% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 130% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 140% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 Subtotal 100% 5,681,500 5,681,500 Total Revenue $14,978,500 $14,978,500 Project Profit/Loss Square Feet ($178.04) ($84.04) Unit ($250,777) ($118,373) Total ($14,545,040) ($6,865,616) Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clauson Associates x.nme. -w cw�o,a,.�y smrwe.n nwnm�w,eea�. au E.m• �un,.aWa��® 14 Chamonix Master Plan TYPICAL SUBSIDY Based on the research of regional projects, a representative per unit subsidy for stick built construction in a project with only affordable units is approximately $120,000 per unit. A typical subsidy for modular construction is approximately $30,000 per unit. To reach a typical stick built subsidy, the program required units to be evenly split between 130 and 140 percent of AMI, as shown in Table 4. At these income levels, the project could be feasible with a per unit subsidy of approximately $117,000. Table 4 AMI Levels for Stick Build & Standard Subsidy Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis Neighborhood Block Revenue Sources Option A 2 Bedroom % of Total 80% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 90% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 100% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 110% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 120% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 130% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 50% 6,796,800 140% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 500/6 7.331,400 Subtotal 50% 14,128,200 3 Bedroom 80% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 90% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 100% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 110% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 120% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 130% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 50% 4,153,600 140% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 50% 4.480.300 Subtotal 50% 8,633,900 Total Revenue $22,762,100 Project Profit/Loss Square Feet ($82.76) Unit ($116,577) Total ($6,761,440) Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clauson Associates ce.nor —Me i—rarw.wy+em,-- EW,C— ft-dW- 15 11 Chamonix Master Plan Modular construction affords a greater flexibility in the program required to reach typical subsidies. When 50 percent of units are priced for 120 percent AMI and the remaining units are divided between 110 and 130 percent AMI, a per unit subsidy of approximately $33,000 is needed, as shown in Table 5. Table 5 AMI Levels for Modular & Standard Subsidy Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis Total Revenue $19,959,100 Project Profit/Loss Square Feet ($23.07) Unit ($32,500) Total ($1,885,016) Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems, Stan Clauson Associates 16 Neighborhood Block Revenue Sources Option B 2 Bedroom % of Total 80% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 90% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 100% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 110% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 30% 3,496,900 120% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 50% 6,258,600 130% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 20% 2,643,200 140% AMI - 2 Bdrm, 211 0 Subtotal too i $12,398,700 3 Bedroom 80% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 90% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 100% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 110% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 30% 2,225,300 120% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 50% 3,824,700 130% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 20% 1,510,400 140% AMI - 3 Bdrm. of 0 Subtotal 100% $7,560,400 Total Revenue $19,959,100 Project Profit/Loss Square Feet ($23.07) Unit ($32,500) Total ($1,885,016) Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems, Stan Clauson Associates 16 Chamonix Master Plan MINIMAL SUBSIDY The following two tables test hypothetical scenarios in which the Town pays the least amount of subsidy. For stick built construction, the project requires a subsidy of $102,000 per units even if 100 percent of the units are sold at 140 percent of AMI, as shown in Table 6. Table 6 Incomes Required to Cover Costs of Stick Built Construction Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis Project Profit/Loss Square Feet ($72.22) Unit ($101,727) Total ($5,900,140) t I � t Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clauson Associates K „.n -vr -” er F�bft r *d*le -u Ey. Ca. F.+ t Neighborhood Block Revenue Sources Option A 2 Bedroom % of Total 80% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o% 0 90% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o% 0 100% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 110% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o% 0 120% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o% 0 130% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o% 0 140% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 100% 14.662,800 Subtotal 0% 14,662,800 3 Bedroom 80% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o% 0 90% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 100% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o% 0 110% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o% 0 120% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o% 0 130% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 140% AMI - 3 Bdrm. l00% 8.960.600 Subtotal 0% 8,960,600 Total Revenue $23,623,400 Project Profit/Loss Square Feet ($72.22) Unit ($101,727) Total ($5,900,140) t I � t Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clauson Associates K „.n -vr -” er F�bft r *d*le -u Ey. Ca. F.+ t Chamonix Master Plan The Town could hypothetically achieve feasibility with minimal subsides using modular construction costs, as shown in Table 7. The sales modular constructed units are cost neutral when 40 percent and 50 percent of units are targeted for incomes of 130 and 140 percent of AMI, respectively. At these sales prices a small number of units can be devoted to 120 percent of AMI. Table 7 Incomes Required to Cover Costs of Modular Construction Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis Revenue Sources Neighborhood Block Option B 2 Bedroom % of Total 80% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 90% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 100% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 110% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 120% AMI - 2 Bdrm. to% 1,390,800 130% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 50% 6,796,800 140% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 40% 5,702,200 Subtotal 60% $13,889,800 3 Bedroom 80% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 90% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 100% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 110% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 120% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 10% 695,400 130% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 50% 4,153,600 140% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 40% 3,665,700 Subtotal 60% $8,514,700 Total Revenue $22,404,500 Project ProfittLoss Square Feet $6.86 Unit $9,662 Total $560,384 Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clauson Associates H \t000] -VV CNmmi. Xaclnp SM F.m0n0y AmIHeDMCy,BBOi - AMI EeBle C41MY X+P�nws 18 Chamonix Master Plan I u IV. FINDINGS The following analysis summarizes the most prominent issues encountered in the development of the selected affordable housing projects. Issues are organized by cost considerations, subsidy levels, and buyer lending. Cost Considerations Construction costs for the projects under consideration in this report ranged from $200 to $281 per square foot, as shown on the following page in Table 8, which summarizes the costs, revenues, and subsidies for the projects evaluated. The construction cost data shown in the table is exclusive of land, off site mitigation, and other considerations. The figures generally include hard costs, soft costs, and on -site infrastructure. Results indicate frequent instances of construction costs around $200 to $230 per square foot. Developers experienced cost escalations ranging from 8 to 20 percent from the time an initial bid was received to construction. However, project representatives repeatedly indicated that downward pressure in materials costs has fallen 20 percent from 2007 to 2008. Contractors in the planning stages are tending to renegotiate prices in light of weakening demand for construction materials worldwide. G Unit Subsidy Subsidies take many forms in affordable housing development. The research shows a clustering of per unit subsidies in the $20,000 to $50,000 range as well as a cluster on the upper end that spans from $120,000 to $330,000. In all cases, these subsidy levels are on top of land costs. In each of the case studies provided, land was provided at no cost to the affordable units, which is a minimum threshold for pursuing an affordable housing project at this time. Generally, the projects requiring lower subsidies benefit from market rate units that defray the land, soft costs, developer fees, on -site infrastructure, and off -site mitigation. For example, Iron Bridge, Stratton Flats, Vic's Landing, and Eagle Ranch Village all received indirect subsidy through the ability of the developer to build market rate units on -site. In addition, the projects also received fee waivers to help offset the costs of affordable units. The $23,000 to $40,000 subsidy at Stratton Flats includes both fee waivers as well as the benefit of a $4.5 million equity contribution from Eagle County. The $50,000 per unit subsidy at Eagle Ranch Village includes both fee waivers proceeds from a RETA and the value of a land contribution from the master developer. Another way to reduce subsidies is to increase sales prices and target higher AMI levels. The Snowmass project reflects relatively unique approach as virtually all of the units are priced at the upper end of the affordable spectrum, reaching approximate AMI levels near (or above) 140 percent. The Town was able to reduce the subsidy to $54,000 per unit based on sales prices for some units that exceeded $500,000. The project with the lowest required subsidy, Stratton Flats, 1• ' Modular units Majority of units in this range, AMI level based on survey 1 Based on six person household Chamonix Master Plan "Total cost derived by allocating 20% of hard costs to soft costs Table 8 5 Burlingame Ranch and Mercy Housing figure do not include waived fees ' S�umeGEconomic & Planning Systems mM,.rMmtl,eee,. n+R +�vRumvr Summary of Findings Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis Construction Cost Project Planned Built Target AMI Cost Subsidy 5 Escalation Price Range (sq. ft.) (per unit) Summit County Vic's Landing 24 24 80% to 100% -- fee waivers - -- $185,000 - $285,000 ' Mercy Housing 42 80% & 100% $230 $117,000 10% $133,000 - $250,000 Roaring Fork Valley Rodeo Ground 27 9 140%-250% $281 $300,000 - $550,000 Burlingame Ranch 91 91 80% to 140% 2 $202 $332,000 12% avg. $230,000 Iron Bridge 24 24 80% s $202 ° $0 $230,000 Eagle County Stratton Flats' 226 7 140% $200 $23,000 - $40,000 8% $180,000 - $350,000 Eagle Ranch Village 60 60 live /work in Cty. $216 ° $50,000 20% $300,000 Unit Subsidy Subsidies take many forms in affordable housing development. The research shows a clustering of per unit subsidies in the $20,000 to $50,000 range as well as a cluster on the upper end that spans from $120,000 to $330,000. In all cases, these subsidy levels are on top of land costs. In each of the case studies provided, land was provided at no cost to the affordable units, which is a minimum threshold for pursuing an affordable housing project at this time. Generally, the projects requiring lower subsidies benefit from market rate units that defray the land, soft costs, developer fees, on -site infrastructure, and off -site mitigation. For example, Iron Bridge, Stratton Flats, Vic's Landing, and Eagle Ranch Village all received indirect subsidy through the ability of the developer to build market rate units on -site. In addition, the projects also received fee waivers to help offset the costs of affordable units. The $23,000 to $40,000 subsidy at Stratton Flats includes both fee waivers as well as the benefit of a $4.5 million equity contribution from Eagle County. The $50,000 per unit subsidy at Eagle Ranch Village includes both fee waivers proceeds from a RETA and the value of a land contribution from the master developer. Another way to reduce subsidies is to increase sales prices and target higher AMI levels. The Snowmass project reflects relatively unique approach as virtually all of the units are priced at the upper end of the affordable spectrum, reaching approximate AMI levels near (or above) 140 percent. The Town was able to reduce the subsidy to $54,000 per unit based on sales prices for some units that exceeded $500,000. The project with the lowest required subsidy, Stratton Flats, 1• ' Modular units Majority of units in this range, AMI level based on survey 1 Based on six person household "Total cost derived by allocating 20% of hard costs to soft costs 5 Burlingame Ranch and Mercy Housing figure do not include waived fees ' S�umeGEconomic & Planning Systems mM,.rMmtl,eee,. n+R +�vRumvr Unit Subsidy Subsidies take many forms in affordable housing development. The research shows a clustering of per unit subsidies in the $20,000 to $50,000 range as well as a cluster on the upper end that spans from $120,000 to $330,000. In all cases, these subsidy levels are on top of land costs. In each of the case studies provided, land was provided at no cost to the affordable units, which is a minimum threshold for pursuing an affordable housing project at this time. Generally, the projects requiring lower subsidies benefit from market rate units that defray the land, soft costs, developer fees, on -site infrastructure, and off -site mitigation. For example, Iron Bridge, Stratton Flats, Vic's Landing, and Eagle Ranch Village all received indirect subsidy through the ability of the developer to build market rate units on -site. In addition, the projects also received fee waivers to help offset the costs of affordable units. The $23,000 to $40,000 subsidy at Stratton Flats includes both fee waivers as well as the benefit of a $4.5 million equity contribution from Eagle County. The $50,000 per unit subsidy at Eagle Ranch Village includes both fee waivers proceeds from a RETA and the value of a land contribution from the master developer. Another way to reduce subsidies is to increase sales prices and target higher AMI levels. The Snowmass project reflects relatively unique approach as virtually all of the units are priced at the upper end of the affordable spectrum, reaching approximate AMI levels near (or above) 140 percent. The Town was able to reduce the subsidy to $54,000 per unit based on sales prices for some units that exceeded $500,000. The project with the lowest required subsidy, Stratton Flats, 1• Chamonix Master Plan , reflects a combination of benefits, including on -site market rate units, modest deed restriction terms, as well as higher AMI targets. ' In projects without supporting market rate units and conventional AMI targets that reach , households earning as little as 80 percent of AMI, higher subsidies are required to cover project costs. The proposed Valley Brook project anticipates a per unit subsidy of approximately $117,000. Burlingame Ranch requires $332,000 per unit. Moving forward, the Town of Vail should recognize that land subsidy alone will be insufficient for the project unless construction costs drop and /or AMI targets are set high. The Town should carefully consider higher AMI levels and should set them only after completing additional market analysis, as identified below. Generally, the Town should anticipate committing additional levels of subsidy to the project based on the research of comparative projects. Buyer Lending Issues I Project developers repeatedly indicated that underwriting standards for residential borrowers represent the greatest current risk to affordable housing development. Preliminary research shows that mortgage terms require down payments of 10 to 15 percent. Many developers cited the need to secure Federal Housing Administration approval, thus providing 97 percent loan- to-value financing. Project representatives indicated that FHA approval was contingent upon review of the deed covenants and in the case of the modular development (Stratton Flats) approval of building plans, including the unit foundation. Construction loans appear to be less of an issue than individual homebuyer loans. Representatives from the Valley Brook project indicated a willing market for construction loans. In addition, downward pressure on construction costs has also eased restrictions to borrowing. Additional Considerations Based on discussions with developers with active affordable housing projects in the region, there are a number of critical issues that warrant consideration, in addition to the issues of costs, revenues, and feasibility. These include: ■ Competitive Market Position - The Town should understand the market position of the site relative to other projects within the county. Prospective home purchasers have options and can be expected to evaluate several other opportunities before selecting a home at this location. Documenting the market context and determining the competitive advantages provided by this site will shed light on the profiles of buyers likely to purchase here. The analysis will enable the Town to price its units based on the market and improve receptivity among the segment(s) most likely to consider it. 1 Chamonix Master Plan ■ Product Alignment - Once the market position and price banding has been established, the ' Town should revisit the products designed for the site. Aligning the products with the buyer profiles is a critical step to creating a marketable project. It should be noted that most developers attempt to provide as broad a range of products as possible, thus generating interest from across the spectrum of prospective buyers. This approach is recommended for the ' Chamonix site as well; however, the Town should identify the most profitable and saleable product and ensure that the development program is concentrated around this unit type. ' Market Depth by AMI Level - In addition to evaluating the market supply, as noted in the first two bullets, the Town should consider an analysis of market demand. Using recent survey data, the Town could understand the depth of potential demand for units by income level. The data can be cross - tabulated by a range of factors to better understand depth of demand by type ' of resident. ■ Financing Risk Mitigation - The current credit markets are substantially different from the recent past. Accordingly, developers must take action to ensure that financing is as available under the most flexible terms possible for future buyers. At this time, developers are seeking FHA approval to achieve this. The Town should understand the requirements of FHA and ensure that it is addressed from the start of ii Chamonix Master Plan Appendix C 4• TO6'UPJ OF VAdL. VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 13, 2015 ITEM /TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow a revision to the approved development plan for the Cornerstone site to facilitate the construction of a tensioned membrane structure, located at 1300 Westhaven Drive /Unplatted, (Liftside /Cornerstone) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140019) - Table to September 14, 2015 ATTACHMENTS: Name: Description: No Attachments Aviilihk TO6'UPJ OF VAdL. VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM /TOPIC: Approval of June 8, 2015 Results Approval of June 22, 2015 Results ATTACHMENTS: Name Description: C] PEC Results 060815.pdf June 8, 2015 PEC Meetig Results C] PEC Results 062215.pdf June 22, 2015 PEC Meeting Results TOWN OF Vari PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 8, 2015 at 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT John Rediker Henry Pratt Brian Gillette Webb Martin John Ryan Lockman Kirk Hansen Dick Cleveland Site Visit: 1. Galvin Residence — 303 Gore Creek Drive 2. Cascade — 1310 Westhaven Drive 3. Roost Lodge — 1783 North Frontage Road 30 minutes A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the conversion of one dwelling unit to an employee housing unit within the approved Vail Cascade Residences development and a request for an extension of its approval period for an additional three (3) years , located at 1310 Westhaven Drive /Cascade Village, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150014) Applicant: Ultimate Cascade LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Table to July 27, 2015 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 5 -0 -0 Planner Spence delivered a presentation per Staff's memo. Commissioner Rediker questioned whether or not the process is being circumvented as the nature of the request and the language of the notice do not seem to align. Commissioners Cleveland and Gillette concurred. The applicant was then invited to present the amendment request. Dominic Mauriello then presented salient changes within the scope of the amendment request. He spoke to the change in uses and how the bulk and mass would essentially remain the same. The SDD amendment would bring the property into compliance with Town's employee housing requirement. GRFA would decrease since EHU's do not count towards density. Commissioner Gillette asked for clarification on what was being approved and how SDD regulations work. Spence explained the nature of this particular SDD — there is no underlying zoning, so the SDD's ordinance serves as the Code. Commissioner Rediker then encouraged the applicant to continue his presentation. There was further discussion that this application was a new application and not an extension. Mauriello then continued with his presentation, explaining that what was being presented was the same application that was presented in 2007 with the exception of a DU which now would become an EHU. Page 1 Commissioner Hansen asked if Mauriello's client has the ability to develop this project. Mauriello explained that the ownership group is somewhat in flux and that an additional investor would be needed. Commissioner Cleveland: "So if you change the unit count, you would need to return to the PEC ?" Mauriello said they would. Commissioner Gillette asked to see plans showing the bulk and mass. Mauriello went through the plans page -by -page. Commissioner Lockman asked about the change in GRFA. Mauriello explained that it was the result from changing a DU to an EHU. Commissioner Gillette expressed concerns in understanding the scope of what was being approved. Commissioner Cleveland was concerned with the notification process. Discussion ensued regarding the nature of the application and what should be done. Planner Spence suggested re- noticing the SDD amendment and mentioned potential logistical issues. Mauriello was agreeable to tabling the item. Commissioner Cleveland wondered if the item can be tabled because the amendment has expired. Cleveland moved to table after discussion. 30 minutes 2. A request for a review of an exemption request from Title 5, Chapter 12, Recycling Requirements, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 5- 12 -8E, Exemption, Vail Town Code, to allow for a 24 -month exemption located 2014 West Gore Creek Drive (Hamlet Chalet) /Lots 41- 43, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150016) Applicant: Hamlet Homeowners Association, represented by BOLD Property Management Planner: Kristen Bertuglia ACTION: Approve with Conditions MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 5 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1) Approval is for a three month extension. 2) Within seven days of finalizing an approval, Bold Property Management shall identify those not in compliance and meet with those owners to educate them about the steps necessary to comply with the Town Code regarding recycling and screening containers. 3) During the extension period, owners shall use the Town of Vail's recycling facility at 75 s frontage road and no recyclables may be found in trash. Environmental Sustainability Coordinator, Mark Hoblitzell, presented Staff's findings as noted in the memo. Commissioner Rediker asked if the PEC is being called upon to require the applicant to screen their trash and recycling. Mark replied yes, they would need to fully comply with the Town Code. Page 2 Commissioner Cleveland pointed out the issue of enforcement —that it would present a challenge to Code Enforcement. He then pointed to the ownership parameter —that each unit on- site is individually platted. Commissioner Cleveland suggested a better approach would be for staff to work with the property owners to reach a practical solution. Commissioner Gillette echoed Commissioner Cleveland's statement wondering if Bold Property Management has standing to submit on behalf of the HOA. Commissioner Rediker asked for the applicant present and the public to comment. No one came forward. Commissioner Lockman expressed desire for a workable solution but would vote for Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Hansen agreed. Commissioner Cleveland felt there was no reason to grant an extension but would support a tabling. Commissioner Gillette agreed. Commissioner Rediker expressed support for 3 months but not 2 years as requested to work towards a plan. Commissioner Rediker asked what are the ramifications of the applicant hauling recycling to the the town site. Environmental Sustainability Manager, Kristen Burtuglia, responded that the interim hauling was acceptable. Commissioner Rediker spoke that it might be better to give the applicant three months to come into compliance versus tabling. In addition he recommended a condition requiring the property management company to speak with the individual tenant. Commissioner Lockman agreed with the proposed condition. Commissioner Cleveland made a motion to approve with the following conditions 1. Homeowners and tenants must haul all recyclables to 75 s frontage road and no recyclables may be found in trash. 2. See staff memo 3. The management company shall identify those individual units in compliance and those not in compliance Commissioner Lockman second. 45 minutes 3. A request for a final review of a variance from Sections 12 -6J -6, Setbacks, and 12 -6J -7, Height, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a six foot high wall within the front setback area, and to allow for roof height to exceed the maximum thirty eight feet (38'), located at 303 Gore Creek Drive Units 9 & 10 /Lot 9, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150017) Applicant: Christopher Galvin, represented by Shepherd Resources Planner: Joe Batcheller ACTION: Deny (setback) MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Hansen VOTE: 5 -0 -0 ACTION: Deny (height) MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Lockman VOTE: 5 -0 -0 Page 3 Planner Batcheller introduced the project and walked the commission through the report. Batcheller spoke to the applicant's request, the existing nonconformities, and the criteria for approval. Joe provided background information on the Vail Village Townhome District including the height requirement and the design standards that have been incorporated into the Vail Village Master Plan. Joe concluded with the recommended motion. Commissioner Gillette asked if the applicant was involved in the formation of the VVT district. Joe responded yes and discussed the purpose of the creation of the district. Commissioner Gillette asked if it was fair to say that unlimited GRFA was a tradeoff for the height limit and the design standards. Joe responded that yes that is true. The idea was to try to limit the unwanted effects of unlimited GRFA with a height limit and design standards. Ryan Wolf representing the applicant asked where removing the walls from the front setback was alluded to. Joe responded pointing to the item J in the design standards and the meeting minutes. Wolf provided the board with his feelings related to the walls in the front setback. Commissioner Gillette asked what the situation was with the adjacent property owner wall. Joe responded and clarified that it wasn't a variance but rather a nonconforming situation. Wolf continued his presentation and rationale for the variance request. He feels that the height limit is not a hardship and would like to focus on the wall. Commissioner Gillette asked where the front of the building will be located in respect to the front property line? Wolf responded that the building is proposed at the 20' setback line. Commissioner Gillette pointed out that you could push the building back so the wall would be ok and not in the setback. Wolf replied that yes but that would change what the applicant would like to do and not be compatible with other properties existing walls. Commissioner Hansen asked if other factors were in play beside the headlights, such as security. Wolf replied no. Commissioner Rediker asked about blinds. Wolf said maybe. Commissioner Hansen spoke to the existing walls, his dislike and his desire that they go away at some point. Commissioner Rediker opened up the hearing for public comment. There was none. Commissioner Lockman spoke to the perceived hardship and feels that it could be handled differently and talked about the vision which would be not to have walls. Page 4 Commissioner Hansen commended the applicant on the building design and asked that it not be hidden by walls. Commissioner Cleveland spoke to his involvement with the VVT process and the potential impacts of redevelopment. He expressed his disappointed in the request and spoke to the reason for no walls and the need to enhance the pedestrian experience. Commissioner Cleveland found no justification for the variance requests. Commissioner Gillette agrees with the other commissioners. Commissioner Rediker also stated he agrees with the other commissioners. He then recalled his experience with the formation of the WT, and believed the height requirement is what it is. Commissioner Rediker felt the headlights could possibly be seen as a hardship but it can be mitigated by other measures. 20 minutes 4. A request for review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7D -2, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of public or commercial parking facilities or structures (parking lot) located at 1783 North Frontage Road West, Lots 9 -12 Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150018) Applicant: Vail Hotel Owner ESHV LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Table to June 22, 2015 MOTION: Hansen SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 4 -0 -1 (Cleveland Recused) Community Development Director George Ruther presented the proposal and pointed out critical factors in the review. This included the inclusion of parking in this zone district as a conditional use. George spoke to conditional uses, how this request came about and what is involved including the use of the lot for parking related to the VVMC project. George spoke to staff's proposed conditions and that the conditions assist in meeting the criteria. Emails from adjacent properties were provided to the commission. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, spoke to the reason for the proposal, and his feeling that the temporary nature of the request combined with the proposal itself is compatible with the neighboring properties. Mauriello brought up ideas discussed with neighbors including trash receptacles, portable restrooms and the length of approval. Commissioner Hansen asked about the motivation for the ownership group. Mauriello spoke to the same contractor on both the hospital site and the future build on this site. Mauriello spoke of those that might park there including employees as well as workers. Commissioner Hansen asked if money was changing hands. Mauriello said most likely. Commissioner Lockman asked about parking count. Mauriello spoke to 30 -40 parking spaces. Commissioner Cleveland realized a perception of conflict of interest and asked to recuse himself. Commissioner Cleveland left the meeting. Commissioner Rediker asked about the agreement with the hospital and who the parking would be for. Mauriello clarified and spoke to the proposed conditions. Page 5 Commissioner Rediker asked what vehicles are allowed overnight and if the applicant was ok with the conditions of approval. Mauriello spoke to shuttle vans only and his agreement with the conditions but is open to any other items the neighbors may bring up. Commissioner Rediker inquired to the condition of the paving and if it would stand up to use. Mauriello believed it would and offered to work with staff on areas that may need improvements. He then spoke to the proposed entry treatment. Commissioner Gillette asked staff about the depression existing on site. Ruther said that the hole will stay and be used as detention although it won't be a hole but a smaller depression. Commissioner Gillette expressed his concern that a temporary parking lot is onerous on the neighborhood and that it should be made more presentable. He proposed a condition requiring seal coating and a further refinement of the plan. Commissioner Lockman asked for clarification on the extent of the parking proposed. Mauriello clarified the parking area. John Rediker opened up the hearing for public comment Randy Guerrero, adjacent property owner, commended staff on its analysis and conditions. Randy spoke to the criteria associated with the proposal and the need, in addition to seal coating, for striping. He expressed concern with conflicts with the bike path. He spoke to the need for a gate (not a chain) and an attendant for improved safety. He then proposed the need for an excel and decel lanes for the future development. Deana DeCorpeau expressed concern with 40 cars coming into the lot early in the morning. She asked about people parking on her property. She felt like this is a done deal. Mrs. DeCorpeau liked Randy's ideas. She was concerned that users are not familiar with the neighborhood and may not be respectful of the residents. Chris Burns spoke to the availability of frontage road parking and how it would be less impactful if that was used only during ski season. He voiced concerns related to the condition of the site, both now into the future. Andy Gunnion hoped we are not exporting a parking problem into a residential neighborhood. He is concerned about the approval stretching into the future. Mr. Gunnion supports strong conditions and changes to the look of the site. Greg Bemis spoke of signage and how poachers were going to be monitored and controlled. He asked if a business license is necessary. He brought up the idea of an electric gate. He expressed concern with the proposed hole. He asked who the residents would call if there were problems. Lastly, he asked about re- vegetation, sprinkler systems and erosion. Commissioner Rediker closed public comment. Commissioner Gillette spoke to the balance that needs to be struck. He agreed that a gate may be appropriate and commented on the lot's aesthetic deficiencies. Resurfacing, striping, re- vegetation, etc. are needed Page 6 Commissioner Hansen stated he could not support the application because it would change the character of the neighborhood too much. The aesthetic deficiencies and safety concerns are hard to address. Commissioner Lockman thanked the public for their comments and agreed with previous comments. John Ryan appreciated Staff's work thus far but would like for additional steps to be considered. Commissioner Gillette asked what would occur if the CUP is not approved. George Ruther explained how the re- vegetation would work. Commissioner Rediker would like to some things addressed. How to control access? How to make the parking lot aesthetically pleasing? Where will snow storage occur? Trash mitigation? Noise? Pavement repairs? These are questions that need to be answered. Dominic Mauriello expressed his understanding and open to drafting a management plan. Tabling would be acceptable. George Ruther stated the practical concerns with tabling. Mauriello suggested making a parking plan part of a DRB application in order to get a conditional approval from the PEC. Commissioner Rediker asked what the DIA bond issue is. George Ruther stated all work needed to be done by June 30th. Rediker expressed concerns with approving without seeing a management plan. The PEC discussed allowing for an extension to the DIA and tabling the application to the next PEC meeting. Commissioner Hansen asked what the benefit to the Town would be. Mauriello said that it would divert construction traffic from public parking facilities. Commissioner Hansen stated he was unconvinced. George Ruther proposed amending the DIA by Thursday of this week (6- 11 -15) so that all the other issues could be addressed at the next PEC meeting (6- 22 -15) without compromising the bond money. Commissioner Rediker summarized. 5 minutes 5. Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a request of a minor amendment to SDD No. 2, Northwoods, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plans to amend setbacks by less than 5 feet and increase site coverage to facilitate a spa remodel, located at 600 Vail Valley Drive, Building B/ Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150015) Applicant: Northwoods Condominium Association, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Joe Batcheller ACTION: No Action Required Planner Batcheller presented per Staff's memo. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Detailed Plan Recommendations for Page 7 the Evergreen Lodge at Vail, located at 250 South Frontage Road West /Lot 2W, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140044) Applicant: Evergreen Lodge at Vail, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Table to August 10, 2015 MOTION: Hansen SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 4 -0 -0 (Cleveland had left the meeting) 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow a revision to the approved development plan for the Cornerstone site to facilitate the construction of a tensioned membrane structure, located at 1300 Westhaven Drive /Unplatted, (Liftside /Cornerstone) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140019) Applicant: Charter Sports, represented by Braun & Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Table to July 13, 2015 MOTION: Gillette SECOND: Lockman VOTE: 4 -0 -0 (Cleveland had left the meeting) 8. A request for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to amend the approved development plan for the private school to establish the appropriate dimensional standards for a proposed employee housing unit (Headmasters House), a permitted use in the General Use (GU) Zone District, located at 3000 Booth Falls Road /Lot 1, Vail Mountain School, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150011) Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Table to August 10, 2015 MOTION: Hansen SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 4 -0 -0 (Cleveland had left the meeting) 9. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, to allow for the construction of a garage within the front setback within the Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential zone district, located at 1755 West Gore Creek Drive /Lot 6, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC150013). Applicant: Hill Run Limited, represented by Beth Levine Architect Planner: Joe Batcheller ACTION: Withdrawn 10. Approval of May 11, 2015 minutes MOTION: Gillette SECOND: Lockman VOTE: 4 -0 -0 (Cleveland had left the meeting) 11. Information Update Stream Setback Discussion: Feasibility of increasing stream setback, per Mery Lapin. George Ruther gave an overview of what is being proposed —that a new methodology might be considered for applying watercourse setbacks. 12. Adjournment Page 8 MOTION: Hansen SECOND: Gillette had left the meeting) VOTE: 4 -0 -0 (Cleveland 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. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published June 5, 2015 in the Vail Daily. Page 9 TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 22, 2015 at 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road W. - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT John Rediker John Ryan Lockman Kirk Hansen Dick Cleveland Webb Martin Henry Pratt Site Visit: None MEMBERS ABSENT Brian Gillette A request for final review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12- 61 -11, Vail Town Code, to allow for the future development of Employee Housing Units on the Chamonix parcel located at 2310 Chamonix Road, Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC150019). Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Table to 07 -13 -2015 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 6 -0 -0 2. A request for review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7D -2, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of public or commercial parking facilities or structures (parking lot) located at 1783 North Frontage Road West, Lots 9 -12 Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150018) Applicant: Vail Hotel Owner ESHV LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Withdrawn 3. Approval of June 8, 2015 minutes ACTION: Table to 07 -13 -2015 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Martin VOTE: 6 -0 -0 4. Information Update Legal Training (12:30 -1:00) July 13, 2015 — Matt Mire 5. Adjournment MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Martin VOTE: 6 -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 Page 1 information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published June 19, 2015 in the Vail Daily. Page 2 TO6'UPJ OF VAdL. VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM /TOPIC: An update to the Planning and Environmental Commission regarding the Plastic Bag Ban, effective August 1, 2015, by Kristen Bertuglia ATTACHMENTS: NamE No Attachments Available Description: Ad Name: 11352125A Customer: TOWN OF VAIL /PLAN DEPT /COMM Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33 vail Daily PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } }SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE } I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty -two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of I consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 7/10/2015 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 7/10/2015 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 07/10/2015. General Man ager/Publisher/Editor Vail Daily Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 07/10/2015. � 2M 4,& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 �pRY PUe/ ' PAMELA J. SCHULTZ 9�� COt -ARP$ My Commission Expires 11/0112015 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 13, 2015, 12:30 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order Legal Training provided by Matt Mire 30 min. represented by Laura Warren Planner: Jonathan Spence 3. A request for the review of conditional use per- mit, pursuant to Section ac 12 -7E -4: Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in cordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses. Vail Town Cod e. to allow for the use of outdoor space for restaurant uses, located at 12 Vail Road Suite 100 (Gateway Building) /Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Villaae Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150020) Applicant: Vintage Vail, represented by Laurance Broderick Planner: Jonathan Spence 4. A request for the review of a variance from Sec- tion 11 -6 -4: Business Signs, Vail Town Code, pur- suant to Chapter 11 -10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for two building identification signs L r g here one is permitted, located at 108 South Fonta e Road West/Lot 2 Vail Village Filing 2, a Re subdivision of Lot D, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150022) Applicant: Vail Clinic Inc., represented by Braun Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence 5. A request for final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to construct a permanent skate park at the Lionshead Parkin" Structure, located at 350 South Frontage Road /Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150023) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Jonathan Spence 6. A request for final review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12- 61 -11, Vail Town Code, to allow for the future development of Employee Housing Units on the Chamonix parcel located at 2310 Chamonix Road, Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Des Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC150019). Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures. Vail Town Code. to allow a revision to the approved development plan for the Cornerstone site to facilitate the construction of a tensioned membrane structure, located at 1300 Westhaven Drive/Unplatted, (Liftside /Cornerstone) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140019) - Table to September 14, 2015 Applicant: Charter Sports, represented by Braun & Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence 8. Approval of Minutes Approval of June 8, 2015 Results Approval of June 22, 2015 Results 9. Informational Update An update to the Planning and Environmental Commission regarding the Plastic Bag Ban, effective August 1, 2015, by Kristen Bertu"lia 10. 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. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telecom- munication Device for the Deaf (TDD), for information. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily July 10, 2015 (11352125) Ad Name: 11305495A Customer: TOWN OF VAIL /PLAN DEPT /COMM Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33 Vail Daily PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } }SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE } I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty -two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of I consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 6/26/2015 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 6/26/2015 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 07/02/2015. General Man ager/Publisher/Editor Vail Daily Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 07/02/2015. � 2M 4,& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 �pRY PUe/ ' PAMELA J. SCHULTZ 9�� COt -ARP$ My Commismn Expires 1110112015 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12 -3 -6, Vail Town Code, on July 13, 2015 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request for the review of conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7E -4: Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the use of outdoor space for restaurant uses, located at 12 Vail Road Suite 100 (Gateway Building) /Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150020) Applicant: Vintage Vail, represented by Laurance Broderick Planner: Jonathan Spence Report to the Planning and Environmental Com- mission of an administrative action approving a re- quest for a minor amendment to SDD No. 12, Son - nenalp (Austria Haus), pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plans to convert twenty -five (25) square feet of existing sitting /circulation area to pantry area to facilitate an improvement to the ex- isting breakfast and bar facility, located at 242 East Meadow Drive /Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village Fil- ing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150021) Applicant: Austria Haus Condo Association, Inc., represented by Laura Warren Planner: Jonathan Spence A request for the review of a variance from Section 11 -6 -4: Business Signs, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 11 -10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for two building identification signs where one is permitted, located at 108 South Frontage Road West/Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 2, a Resubdivision of Lot D, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150022) Applicant: Vail Clinic Inc., represented by Braun Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence A request for final review of a conditional use per- mit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to construct a permanent skate park at the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 350 South Frontage Road /Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Fil- ing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150023) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Op- penheimer Planner: Jonathan Spence The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970 - 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon re- quest, with 24 -hour notification. Please call 970 - 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Im- paired, for information. Published June 26, 2015 in the Vail Daily. (11305495)