Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-1010 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TDWN Of VAIL # October 10, 2016, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order Members Present: Chairman Rediker, Brian Gillette, Kirk Hansen, John Ryan Lockman, Henry Pratt, and Brian Stockmar Absent: Ludwig Kurz Adjourned at 1:01 p.m. for a site visit to 1783 North Frontage Road West. Meeting resumed at 1:30 p.m. 2. A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 41 (Marriott Residence Inn), pursuant to Section 12- 9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a limited service lodge and deed restricted employee housing units and a conditional use permit for public or commercial parking facilities or structures, located at 1783 North Frontage Road West/Lot 9, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0030). Applicant: Vail Hotel Owner ESHV, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Matt Panfil Action: Continue to October 24, 2016 Motion: Lockman Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-0 Matt Panfil, Staff Planner, introduced the project and summarized the updates since the last meeting. He discussed the changes to the project since the last meeting, and areas where staff concerns remain. Matt also provided a summary of the proposed deviations from the underlying PA -2 zoning district in accordance with the SDD request. Lockman — Asked staff to confirm site coverage. Hansen — Asked staff to clarify whether an acceleration/deceleration lane would be installed on the frontage road. Dominic Mauriello of Mauriello Planning Group, representing the applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation of the project. Ben Gerdes, Traffic Engineer, representing the applicant — Spoke to traffic and access analysis of the proposed project. Todd Goulding, Goulding Development Advisors, representing the applicant — Spoke to the anticipated construction management plan for the project. Hansen — Asked for an estimated construction timeline. Goulding —Approximately 18 months. Rick Fawell, Project Architect, representing the applicant — Provided a presentation of the views to and from the project utilizing superimposed imaging and height diagrams. Mauriello - resumed the presentation with an overview of the public benefits of the project. There will be a public open house on October 17 at 5:00 PM to be held at the Sonnenalp Hotel. Gillette — Asked for the location of the pool. Mauriello — The pool is inside. Hansen — Asked for information about the ownership group. Mauriello — Provided a recap of the ownership group. Rediker — Asked for clarification as to how the tandem parking would work. Mauriello — There will be a valet available most of the time. Rediker — Asked for clarification of the parking counts dedicated to each use. Mauriello — Reviewed the parking counts and stated that the resident parking will be tightly controlled via apartment lease. Rediker — Asked if there is any employee parking on site. Mauriello — Yes, employee parking spaces are built in to the parking counts. Gillette — Asked whether Lions Ridge is occupied and how parking is working on that site? George Ruther — Staff can provide that information at the next meeting. Hansen — Asked how the two uses would be managed. Mauriello — Discussed the management. Gillette — Asked for clarification on the parking count discrepancy between information in the staff report versus that displayed by the applicant. Panfil — Stated that the information displayed today by the applicant was not presented to staff and will have to be verified. Hansen — Asked whether the project would remain viable if the project was reduced by one or more stories. Mauriello — Provided rationale for the project proposed as is. Rediker — Asked about the site coverage and whether the courtyard was included in the calculation. Mauriello — Feels the calculation provided is close but can go back and make sure. Hansen — Asked about the proposed green roof. Mauriello — Stated that the green roof was incorporated to provide a better aesthetic from above but can be changed if needed. Rediker — Asked about architect renderings provided and heights shown and what the actual building height will be east to west. Panfil — Displayed the roof plan with roof heights shown for discussion. Stockmar — Asked if the heights were shown from finished or existing grade. Gillette — Asked which is a greater difference, existing or finished grades. Rediker — Asked about grades on the northwest side of the project. Ruther — Asked Mauriello to provide an exhibit at the next meeting to better demonstrate the relative building heights so the PEC has a better understanding of the height impact. Lockman — Asked about the front loading/drop off area and how that will function. Mauriello — Displayed the site plan and discussed the frontage area and the associated dimensions. Rediker — Asked about emergency vehicle access if vehicles are temporarily parked out front. Mauriello — Discussed that there is adequate room for emergency vehicle access even if there are cars parked out front. Lockman — Asked whether there is a porte cochere. Mauriello — There is not a porte cochere currently proposed, but it is a possibility they are considering. A porte cochere would have to ensure a fire truck could fit under it. Pratt — Asked about pedestrian connectivity from the building to the sidewalk and then on to the bus stop. Rediker — Asked if the front drive aisle would be heated. Mauriello — Confirmed that the drive aisle will be heated and added comments about snow storage and landscaping. Rediker— Opened the meeting to public comment. Public Comment Molly Murphy, Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) — Spoke in favor of the project, and its impact to address affordable housing goals. Hospital has difficulty filling positions, and this project will help address need not met at Middle Creek and Lions Ridge for professionals. Rediker — Asked if the VLHA has any concerns with the project at this time. Murphy — Every unit of the rental housing will be deed restricted to keep prices in check. Stockmar — Spoke to the unaffordable nature of Vail in regards to affordable housing and cost of living. Deena DiCorpo, 1880 Meadow Ridge Road — Spoke in opposition to the project as currently proposed. Make sure that the employee units can't be changed to non- employee in the future. She is concerned that there is not enough snow storage on Meadow Ridge Road because the increased shadowing will make Meadow Ridge Road very icy. Traffic will be worse than you think. She believes the project involves spot zoning and is inappropriate. Vail should have built taller at Timber Ridge, which would not have affected views. Chris Wombolt, 1860 Meadow Ridge Road — Spoke in opposition to the project as currently proposed. Concern with impacts from garage vents on neighbors. Main concern is density of units. If rents are not limited, 10 people will try to live in one unit. Susie Tjossem, 1630 Buffehr Creek Road — Spoke in opposition to the project as currently proposed. This project and its size will set a precedent. Need W. Vail Master Plan. Project too tall, other sites can accommodate height better. Traffic already bad at 3:00 PM. Last proposal on this site was the right size. Steve Lindstrom, VLHA — Spoke in favor of the project. Discussed that the deed restriction placed on the rental units will be owned and managed by the town. Only 10% of market rate units that are sold stay as local housing. Gillette — Asked about Pitkin Creek Rediker — Asked for clarification as to what is being proposed with regard to the deed restriction and how the units will be offered to people. Lindstrom — Spoke of the deed restrictions at Pitkin Creek, which expired after 7 years. Explained that emphasis will be placed on residents first, but in the event the economy does not do well and there is not enough demand then it can be opened up to others not working full time in vail. Gillette — Asked if there is no escape clause and then a unit would sit empty if there is not enough local demand. Chris Neubecker — Confirmed how the market rate would work. Units could only be occupied by local workers, which limits the market, and should keep prices from going to high. Mauriello — Clarified how the deed restriction will work. If there are no locals demanding housing, then the unit can be occupied and it will not sit empty. However, the rental units will be offered first to locals working at least 30 hours a week in Eagle County. Peter Knobel — The PEC should look at regulations so it does not turn into retirement housing. Lindstrom — Clarified how the deed restriction program works. Rediker —Closed public comment. Neubecker — Clarified that staff is looking for specific feedback so the applicant knows how to proceed and that a final vote is likely anticipated at the next meeting for a recommendation to Town Council. Asked Commission to balance flexibility and creativity with community needs and impacts, by using SDD criteria. Lockman — Still has concerns with the overall building height and possibly there are discrepancies in the plans so would like to see more clarity. He feels the bulk and mass of the building is not compatible with the surrounding area. Hansen — Is likely supportive of the project as currently proposed, though compatibility is somewhat questionable. He feels West Vail is an appropriate area for a project like this. Pratt — Feels the parking is adequate, but the tandem parking will be an issue and valet service should be mandatory. He feels the additional height is warranted at the east end. Views are not protected in Colorado and that does not factor into his judgement. Does believe the project is too high at the west end and the bulk and mass of the building is too much. There is not enough relief along the frontage and should incorporate a gap to better modulate heights. Supports a forty-eight foot (48') maximum height at the west end of building. Gillette — Agrees with Commissioner Pratt. Feels this should be a Special Development District (SDD), but there should also be a West Vail plan. Also agrees that the west end of the building should be forty-eight feet (48') maximum in height. Concerned that the garage vent near existing residences is too close and inappropriate. The building is too high and in too close proximity to the Mustang Condos. Agrees that there is not enough relief along the building frontage. Requested comparisons to other projects to better demonstrate the proposed height. Believes that there should not be any tandem parking for the first year and then reevaluate if needed. Requested additional information from staff regarding the Lions Ridge parking situation. Is against a price cap on the EHUs. Stockmar — Mostly supportive of the project. Bulk and mass is a little too much but does not want that to dictate the design. Feels there are numerous positive aspects of the project. Rediker — Believes that if some parking is leased out, the parking will be inadequate for the hotel and EHUs. Parking should be used for the hotel and EHUs exclusively. Requested staff provide at the next meeting the language of the Type III deed restriction being proposed. Concerned the shadow analysis was not adequate and not realistic. Concerned with venting and suggested that it should be located more to the northeast of the building so it does not impact the adjacent neighbors. Concerned that the project is spot zoning. More detail is needed for the landscaping plan and for the large retaining wall. The bulk and mass is overall too large. Does not meet SDD criteria #1 and #6 in regards to compatibility with surrounding area. He would like to see a lower building height closer to forty-eight feet (48') in height. Favors redevelopment of the property when it is right. Gillette — This is an appropriate site for up -zoning. Pratt — Agrees with Gillette about waiting a year before allowing tandem parking. 3. Approval of Minutes September 26, 2016 PEC Meeting Results Action: Approve Motion: Lockman Second: (Stockmar Abstained) 4. Informational Update — No updates. 5. Adjournment Action: Approve Motion: Stockmar Second: Hansen Vote: 4-0-1 Lockman Vote: 5-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. 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 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN Of VAIO October 10, 2016, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Site Visit: Marriott Residence Inn - 1783 South Frontage Road West 2. A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish 90 min. Special Development District No. 41 (Marriott Residence Inn), pursuant to Section 12- 9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a limited service lodge and deed restricted employee housing units and a conditional use permit for public or commercial parking facilities or structures, located at 1783 North Frontage Road West/Lot 9, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0030). Applicant.Vail Hotel Owner ESHV, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Matt Panfil 3. Approval of Minutes September 26, 2016 PEC Meeting Results 4. Informational Update 5. 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 appro)amate, 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 October 7, 2016 TOWN OF VA110 VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 10, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 41 (Marriott Residence Inn), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a limited service lodge and deed restricted employee housing units and a conditional use permit for public or commercial parking facilities or structures, located at 1783 North Frontage Road West/Lot 9, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0030). ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC16- PEC16-0030 Marriott Residence Inn SDD 0030_SDD_No._41_MarriottResidence Inn_Staff Memo #2.pdf Staff Memo Buffehr_Creek_Lot_9_-_Marriott_Residence_Inn_- Attachment A- Vicinity Map _1783 S_Frontage_Rd_W_- 20161006. pdf PEC16-0030_- Attachment B_-_Project_Narrative.pdf Attachment B - Project Narrative Attachment C_- Transportation_I mpact_Study. pdf Attachment C - Transportation Impact Study Attachment B_-_Revised_Plan_Set (2016-10-04)_-_1_of 4.pdf Attachment D - Plan Set (1 of 4) Attachment B_-_Revised_Plan_Set (2016-10-04)_-_2_of 4.pdf Attachment D - Plan Set (2 of 4) Attachment B_-_Revised_Plan_Set (2016-10-04)_-_3_of 4.pdf Attachment D - Plan Set (3 of 4) Attachment B_-_Revised_Plan_Set (2016-10-04)_-_4_of 4.pdf Attachment D - Plan Set (4 of 4) Attachment E_-_Public_Comments.pdf Attachment E - Public Comments 0 TOWN OF VAIL' Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 10, 2016 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 41 (Marriott Residence Inn), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a limited service lodge and deed restricted employee housing units and a conditional use permit for public or commercial parking facilities or structures, located at 1783 North Frontage Road West/Lot 9, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0030) Applicant: Vail Hotel Owner ESHV, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Matt Panfil I. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Hotel Owner ESHV, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 41, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a 170 limited service lodge unit (LSLU) Marriott Residence Inn, 113 employee housing units (EHUs), and a conditional use permit for public or commercial parking facilities or structures at 1783 North Frontage Road West. This item was first heard by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on September 12, 2016. In order to allow the applicant time to respond to questions and comments from the Commissioners and public, the item was continued to the October 10, 2016 meeting. A final vote is not anticipated at this meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to allow the applicant to present revisions to the project since the last PEC meeting and to allow staff and the Commissioners to communicate concerns to be addressed in order for the applicant to move toward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council. The PEC should review the proposed application and plans, and evaluate the merits of the proposed SDD. In doing so, the PEC should weigh the impacts of the proposed SDD with the public benefits proposed. The PEC is asked to provide direction on any changes that may be needed to merit a recommendation of approval. Based upon staff's review of the revised plans and the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the PEC continues PEC16- 0030 to the October 24, 2016 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Vail Hotel Owner ESHV, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is proposing the following as part of this Special Development District (SDD): 170 LSLUs (hotel rooms) within the west side of the structure; 113 EHUs within the east side of the structure; and A two-story, below grade, 329 parking space facility. A vicinity map (Attachment A), a project narrative (Attachment B), a transportation impact study, revised plan set dated October 4, 2016 (Attachment D), and public comments received prior to October 6, 2016 (Attachment E) are attached for review. Due to its complexity, the request has been broken down into the following categories: Limited Service Lodge Units (LSLUs) The proposed LSLUs (hotel rooms) will range in size from approximately 495 square feet to 641 square feet. Proposed amenities for Marriott Residence Inn include: breakfast room, fitness center, hot tubs, swimming pool, meeting room, ski storage, and a "social zone." The LSLUs are served by an elevator for the exclusive use of hotel operations and guests. Employee Housing Units (EHUs) The proposed EHUs will be deed -restricted rental units, limited people working to at least thirty (30) hours per week in Eagle County. If there is not enough demand from locals meeting the criteria, the applicant proposes that the EHUs can be rented to people that do not work at least thirty (30) hours per week in Eagle County. Town of Vail Page 2 The proposed 113 EHUs range in size from approximately 602 square feet to 1,173 square feet. • Sixty-nine (69) one -bedroom units • Forty-four (44) two-bedroom units Proposed amenities for the EHU residents include: bicycle parking and maintenance area, fitness room, great room, lounge area on each floor, outdoor courtyard, and storage lockers. The EHUs and amenities are served by a separate elevator for exclusive use by residents. Parking, Loading, and Vehicular Circulation The total amount of parking has been reduced from 361 parking spaces to 329 parking spaces. The parking spaces are designed as follows: • 205 single -loaded parking spaces • 116 tandem parking spaces (one vehicle parked in front of another vehicle) • 8 accessible parking spaces required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The applicant has indicated that forty-four (44) excess parking spaces will be available to the public for lease. A conditional use permit is required for "public or commercial parking facilities or structures," which is discussed later in this report. Guests and residents will access the below grade parking facility via a garage door entry at the west end of the structure. There is a second access point at the east end of the site that leads to a one-way drive aisle that runs parallel, from east to west, almost the entire length of the front (south side) of the building. Architecture and Building Materials The applicant has provided a palette of building materials and colors as part of the SDD. For the purposes of this meeting, conceptual renderings to demonstrate the intended mass, scale, and architecture have been provided, as shown in Attachment C. Section 12-9A-8, Compatibility, Vail Town Code, requires design compatibility and sensitivity with the neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design. Landscaping Along the property frontage, the proposed landscaping includes shade trees between the sidewalk and front drive aisle; foundation plantings are proposed between the drive aisle and structure. Towards the rear of the building, the landscape plan transitions to native vegetation and grasses as the slope connects to Meadow Ridge Road. Trees and other plantings are depicted in the terraced areas of the retaining walls. Although not considered landscape or open space per the Vail Town Code, a 17,300 square foot green roof is proposed to be incorporated into the structure. Town of Vail Page 3 Signage There is no specific signage included with this application. Signage will be reviewed under a separate permit subsequent to approval of zoning and design review of the structure. Trash & Recycling A trash and recycling area is proposed at the east end of the top floor of the parking facility. According to the applicant, on pickup days, the trash and recycling will be moved to a pad outside the southwest corner of the structure. Guest Shuttle A hotel shuttle program is proposed to improve guest and resident access to the town core. Summary of Changes Since September 12, 2016 PEC Meeting: Parking: Updated parking plans (Sheets LL -1 and LL -2) depict a reduction from 361 parking spaces to 329 parking spaces. The table below depicts the specific changes associated with the updated plans: August 15, 2016 Plans October 4, 2015 Plans Lower Level Single 103 98 Tandem 1 82 82 Upper Level Single 101 83 Tandem 50 34 Ramp Single 25 24 ADA Single 0 8 Total 361 329 The applicant has applied a 7.5% reduction in parking demand based on Section 12-10-12, Vail Town Code. When applied, the total parking demand is 320 parking spaces. If the credit were not applied, the applicant would be below the minimum 345 parking spaces required by Section 12-10-10-13, Vail Town Code. The applicant has further specified a breakdown in the amount of parking spaces between hotel guests and EHU residents: Town of Vail Page 4 The 8 ADA parking spaces will be eligible for use by both hotel guests and EHU residents As proposed, the updated parking ratios are: Minimum Required by Code LSLU Valet EHU Residents Parking Club Lower Level EHU 2.0 spaces per unit (226) 1.4 spaces per unit (158) Single --- 98 --- Tandem 46 36 Upper Level Single 39 --- 44 Tandem 34 --- --- Ramp Single --- 24 --- Tandem --- --- --- Totals 119 158 44 The 8 ADA parking spaces will be eligible for use by both hotel guests and EHU residents As proposed, the updated parking ratios are: Minimum Required by Code October 4, 2016 Plans LSLU 0.7 spaces per unit (119) 0.7 spaces per unit (119) EHU 2.0 spaces per unit (226) 1.4 spaces per unit (158) The applicant has also indicated that the meeting room identified on the floor plans is not intended to bring outside guests to the facility, but rather to serve as work space for hotel guests. As a result, the applicant requests that no additional parking be required for the meeting rooms. 2. Loading: The applicant has identified locations within the parking facility for hotel shuttle parking and four (4) loading zones, two (2) loading zones located near the EHU resident entrance and two (2) loading zones located near the hotel guest entrance. An additional loading zone on the drive aisle has also been identified. 3. Mechanical Equipment: The location of fan rooms, pool dehumidification and mechanical rooms, and pump rooms is identified on LL -1 Garage Floor Plan. The location of rooftop mechanical equipment is identified on the revised Roof Plan. 4. Programming: The west end of the parking facility has been expanded to allow for a larger recycle/trash area as well as expanded storage for the hotel. The east end of the parking facility has been expanded to allow for EHU resident storage. Also newly identified on LL -1 Garage Floor Plan are areas for bicycle storage and maintenance and a car wash station. Town of Vail Page 5 III. BACKGROUND The site is the former location of The Roost Lodge, which was built in the early 1970s. The Roost Lodge featured seventy-two (72) hotel rooms, one (1) dwelling unit, and a paved surface parking lot. All structures associated with The Roost Lodge were demolished in 2015. Dating back to 2006, several different redevelopment scenarios have been proposed or approved for this location. Using the table provided by the applicant on page ten (10) of the project narrative, the different redevelopment scenarios are summarized as follows: Standard 2006 Approval 2012 Approval 2013 Proposal 2016 Proposal Density 49 DUs 28 DUs 0 DUs 0 DUs LSLUs 101 152 176 170 GRFA* 75,842 sq. ft. 75,031 sq. ft. 82,485 sq. ft. 91,198 sq. ft. Building Height 48' 48' 48' 72' Site Coverage– 51% 51% 51% 87% Landscape 44% 44% 44% 31% Setbacks— Front 20' 20' 20' 0' Side (East) 15' 20' 20' 0' Side (West) 20' 20' 20' 0' Rear 20' 20' 20' 0' Parking 128 spaces 169 spaces 165 spaces 329 spaces Loading 1 berth 1 berth 1 berth 5 berths EHUs 3 Type III 1 Type IV 213R, 2 Type IV Dorm, 113 1 Type IV Dorm, and off-site and off-site housing for 6.56 housing for 4.95 employees employees * The EHUs total approximately 95,784 square feet in size; they do not count towards GRFA or density. ** The above grade site coverage is forty-two percent (4291o); the site coverage including the below grade parking facility is eighty-seven percent (8791o). *** The above grade setbacks are all at least twenty feet (20'); the setbacks for the below grade parking facility are zero feet (0'). IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS For applicable planning documents please refer to the September 12, 2016 staff memorandum to the PEC. In regards to this memorandum, specific references to sections of Vail Town Code have been made when necessary. Town of Vail Page 6 V. ZONING / SDD NO. 41 ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use Designation Mapped Geological Hazards: 1783 N Frontage Road W Buffehr Creek Resubdivision Lot 9 Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) Medium Density Residential Steep Slope > 40% Underlying Standard Allowed / Required Proposed Site Area Min. 10,000 sq. ft. 86,597 sq. ft. (1.98 acres) Front — 20' Front — 0'* Setbacks* Side — 20' Side — 0' Rear — 20' Rear — 0' Height Flat or Mansard Roof — 45' Sloping Roof — 72' Sloping Roof — 48' 25 DUs/ per acre of 0 DUs Density buildable site area, but 170 LSLUs LSLUs and EHUs are not 113 EHUs counted towards density. GRFA** Max. 129,896 sq. ft. 91,198 sq. ft. Site Coverage*** Max. 65% of total site area 87% (75,787 sq. ft.) (56,288 sq. ft.) Landscaping Min. 30% of total site area 31% (27,214 sq. ft.) (25,979 sq. ft.) 116 tandem spaces Parking &Loading Min. 345 parking spaces 205 single spaces+ 8 ADA spaces 329 total spaces " The above grade setbacks are all at least twenty feet (20); the setbacks for the below grade parking facility are zero feet (0'). ** The EHUs total approximately 95,784 square feet in size; they do not count towards GRFA or density *** Although the above grade site coverage is forty-two percent (42%), the site coverage including the below grade parking facility is eighty-seven percent (87%). The purpose of an SDD is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use. For the purpose of reviewing the balance between flexibility and creativity and existing Town Code, staff has identified the following deviations from Town Code, areas of concern, or additional information that is required as part of an application for an SDD: Identified Deviations 1. Setbacks: Section 12-7J-6, Vail Town Code, requires minimum front, side, and rear setbacks of twenty feet (20') within the PA -2 zone district. Above Town of Vail Page 7 grade the proposal meets these criteria; however, the below grade parking results in zero foot (0') front, side, and rear setbacks. Section 12-76-J, Vail Town Code, allows the PEC to approve variations to the setback standards subject to applicant demonstrating the proposed setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with the prescribed standards. There are no changes to the proposed setbacks since the September 12, 2016 PEC meeting. The proposed setbacks are zero feet (0'). 2. Building Height: Section 12-7J-7, Vail Town Code, establishes a maximum height of forty-eight feet (48') for buildings with sloping roofs. The height of the proposed building ranges from approximately sixty-two feet (62') to seventy-two feet (72'). There is no change to the proposed building height since the September 12, 2016 PEC meeting. The proposed building height is seventy-two feet (72')• Due to the proposed height, staff requested the following items be addressed: a. A View Study determining the visual impact on the Hillside Condos, located at 1819-1839 Meadow Ridge Road; and b. Additional renderings depicting the context of adjoining residential properties. c. Updates to Sheets R1 and R2 depicting a forty-eight foot (48') plane above existing grade. d. A two-dimensional roof plan depicting the roof ridge elevations over the underlying topography. To date, none of these items have been submitted to staff. 3. Site Coverage: Section 12-7J-9, Vail Town Code, allows a maximum of sixty- five percent (65%) site coverage. The proposed site coverage is eighty- seven percent (87%) due to the below grade parking facility. The above grade site coverage proposed is forty-two percent (42%). Town of Vail Page 8 There is no change to the proposed site coverage since the September 12, 2016 PEC meeting. Staff requests that the applicant verify the above grade site coverage. 4. Loading and Deliveries: Section 12-10-9-A, Vail Town Code, requires that off street loading berths shall not be located within accessways. The loading for the project is proposed primarily within the twenty foot (20') wide drive aisle at the front of the building. The applicant has identified four (4) internal loading berths on the updated Sheet LL -1 Garage Floor Plan; however, the minimum required height for a loading berth, per Section 12-10-9-B, Vail Town Code, is fourteen feet (14'). As proposed, the height of the loading berths is a maximum of eleven feet (11) due to the height of the levels of the parking facility. Section 12-10-9-B allows the PEC to grant variations to the minimum loading berth dimension when they are deemed necessary to prevent negative impact on to the public right of way. 5. Retaining Walls: Section 14-6-7, Vail Town Code, states that retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of six feet (6'). There are multiple sections of the proposed retaining walls that are ten feet (10') and twelve feet (12') tall. Section 14-6-7, Vail Town Code, requires retaining walls to be located a minimum of two feet (2') from adjacent private property boundaries. There are no changes to the proposed retaining walls since the September 12, 2016 PEC meeting. Staff requests that the applicant verify the distance between the retaining walls and adjacent private property boundaries. Staff would also requests the applicant verify that the retaining walls can be constructed without encroaching on the adjacent property, and without requiring soil nails or other structural stabilizers to build the wall. Alternatively, the applicant may be required to obtain an easement from the neighbor for construction of the retaining walls. Town of Vail Page 9 6. Parking: Per Section 12-10-10-B, Vail Town Code, the minimum required parking for is 0.7 spaces per LSLU. Based on the applicant's revised parking plans, this criterion is met. However, the minimum required parking for the multi -family dwelling units with a gross residential floor area (GRFA) greater than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet is two (2) spaces per unit. Based on the applicant's revised parking plans, there are only 1.4 spaces per EHU. The applicant has included information regarding ride -sharing programs and shuttle system which are anticipated to reduce the demand for parking. The project is still subject to Section 12-10-10-B, Vail Town Code and therefore does not meet the parking requirements of the code. Concerns 1. Sign Program: Section 11-8-2, Vail Town Code, requires sign programs for all new multi -family residential or new commercial projects. A separate application for a sign program will be submitted at a later date. 2. Loading and Deliveries: As requested, the applicant identified the location of the loading berths and shuttle system parking and loading locations; however staff maintains the following concerns: a. Applicant shall identify a fire lane on the plans and demonstrate that said fire lane and the proposed location and dimensions of the external loading berth will not impede any valet, check-in, or delivery services. b. Applicant shall incorporate lane markings and directional signage to reduce the potential for conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles within the drive aisle. c. Applicant shall consider a porte-cochere to provide weather protection during guest check-in and drop-off for the lodge. 3. Parking: The necessity for a parking deviation for the EHUs parking supply is explained in the above item Deviation 6. As requested, the applicant identified the location and dimensions of the required ADA parking spaces, identified the dimensions for parking spaces located on the parking facility ramps, and provided a parking management plan identifying how parking is Town of Vail Page 10 allocated to the hotel and EHUs. Requested updates to parking plans include: a. Additional information is needed regarding the 7.5% deduction for multiple use parking facilities. The intent of this credit is to reduce the parking demand based on different uses with different peak parking times. It is staff's interpretation that the proposed LSLUs and EHUs do not have different peak parking periods and therefore the project does not meet the intent for the multiple use deduction. Staff requests that the applicant demonstrate that the peak parking demand these uses will be reduced based on the time of day. 4. Public Art: Section 12-25-2, Vail Town Code, requires SDDs in the PA -2 zone district to have a public art component in the approved development plan. Public art has not been identified. 5. Retaining Walls: The necessity for a deviation from the maximum retaining wall height is explained above in the above Item, Deviation 5. Staff maintains the following concerns: a. The retaining walls will have a significant visual impact on at least the first three (3) floors of the northerly facing EHUs. b. There is concern about the long term survival of the proposed plants and trees located within the retaining wall terraces. 6. Landscaping: As no revisions to Sheet L1.1 Preliminary Landscape Plan have been proposed, staff maintains the following concerns and/or requests the following information: a. There is a stand of significant conifer trees along the North Frontage Road. Applicant shall identify if existing trees will be preserved or removed. b. Applicant shall confirm that all areas considered to be landscaping comply with Section 12-7J-10, Vail Town Code, which requires the minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15') with a minimum area not less than 300 square feet. Town of Vail Page 11 c. Applicant shall identify the specific species of evergreen and shade trees proposed on the landscaping plan. d. As the existing vegetation on the hillside is a dry mix of native serviceberry, sage, and chokecherry, the applicant should consider a transition into these species as part of the re -vegetation work. 7. Sidewalks: As no revisions to the sidewalks are proposed, staff maintains that the applicant shall: a. Continue the sidewalk to Buffehr Creek Road. b. Detach the sidewalk from the curb to allow for snow storage for the North Frontage Road. 8. Lots: The property is currently divided into four (4) lots. The applicant shall identify the form of ownership of the requested improvements, and how existing property lines will be vacated or altered. 9. CDOT: Applicant shall provide an update regarding requests to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for access permits or other use of CDOT property. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use North: Medium Density Residential East: Interstate -70 / Park South: Interstate -70 / Med. Dens. Res West: Medium Density Residential Zoning District Two -Family Primary/Secondary Res. & SDD No. 22, Grand Traverse General Use General Use, Res. Cluster, Single - Family Res., & Two -Family Primary / Secondary Res. Res. Cluster & Two -Family Primary / Secondary Res. VII. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA Before acting on an SDD application, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed SDD: Town of Vail Page 12 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff is concerned that the proposed building height will have a negative visual impact on the surrounding residential properties. In addition to the building height, staff finds the mass, scale, and bulk of the proposed building and retaining walls to be inconsistent with the character of its surroundings. While staff finds the architectural design to be generally consistent with its surroundings, additional articulation along the western roofline and architectural relief may help to further break up the visual mass of the building. Staff also believes that reducing the height of the building will improve compatibility with adjacent land uses. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The proposed uses are either permitted by right or conditional uses within the underlying PA -2 zone district. The immediately surrounding uses are also residential in nature. While LSLUs and EHUs do not count towards density within the PA -2 zone district, surrounding properties range from low density single-family homes and duplexes in the Grand Traverse SDD north of the subject property to up to twenty-nine (29) dwelling units per acre in the Buffehr Creek Condos to the immediate west of the subject property. 3. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. The applicant's use of a 1.4 parking space per EHU ratio may be suitable for the proposal; the proposed parking is a deviation from underlying zoning requirements. In this situation the 1.4 parking spaces per EHU is less than the minimum required two (2) parking spaces per EHU required by Section 12-10-10-13, Vail Town Code. Staff requests a parking study or other evidence that 1.4 parking spaces per EHU will be sufficient for the proposed use and location. Staff is still concerned regarding the use of tandem parking for the hotel. Only 39 of the single parking spaces are dedicated for hotel use and the remaining 80 hotel parking spaces are tandem parking. Tandem parking for the hotel will only work if there is full-time valet service available for hotel guests. This valet parking requirement could become an ongoing enforcement issues, and is a concern to staff. The height of the loading berths is not compliant with Vail Town Code. While many types of delivery vehicles may be able to access the internal loading Town of Vail Page 13 berths, staff still has concerns regarding larger deliveries blocking the fire lane and access drive. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. Staff has reviewed the Vail Comprehensive Plan and found the following documents and associated goals, objectives, statements applicable to this proposal: Vail Land Use Plan (in part) 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and use more efficiently. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan (in part) Town of Vail Page 14 Land Use and Development.- Goal evelopment: Goal #4: Provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and public initiated development. Housing-- Goal- ousing: Goal: The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. Actions / Strategies.- Research trategies: Research parking requirements for employee housing and consider reducing requirements for employee housing developments. • Expand the number of employee beds in the Town of Vail. o Consider increasing incentives in performance zoning for property owners who build EHUs. Staff finds that the proposed development of EHUs and limited service lodge units meets several community goals, and will make a significant contribution toward the goals of providing workforce housing and lodging in the town. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. The subject property is not located within any identified natural or geologic hazard zone. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Staff is concerned about the overall height and mass of the structure, parking, loading, and vehicular circulation through the site. The mass and height of the structure are not consistent with the surrounding community and the scale of the retaining walls is not responsive to the natural features of the subject Town of Vail Page 15 property. The scale of the building, reduced setbacks, and additional site coverage indicate that the site may be overdeveloped. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. Staff is concerned about the multiple roles assigned to the drive aisle at the front of the building. The Fire Department requires a minimum twelve foot (12') wide fire lane. Due to the twenty foot (20') wide drive aisle, it will be difficult to guarantee a clear fire lane when the drive aisle is being used for loading zones, food and parcel deliveries, guest check-in, resident pick-ups and drop-offs. Furthermore, without sufficient markings and easy access to the sidewalk to the south, pedestrians will frequently be in conflict with the above listed vehicular activities. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Staff is concerned about the survivability of the proposed landscaping within the retaining wall planting beds. The proposed landscape plan requires further refinement through the identification of specific species to be planted and the incorporation of a transition from the front to the rear of the property to a mixture of native plantings that are commonly found on the existing hillside. 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The proposal is intended to be constructed in one phase. Staging for any construction related activity will be reviewed by staff to ensure impacts to public rights-of-way and adjacent properties are minimized. It is anticipated that the use of the North Frontage Road West right-of-way will be necessary. This right-of-way is controlled by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and will require all appropriate review and permits from CDOT should the project move forward. VIII. CRITERIA FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A conditional use permit is requested for the public or commercial parking facilities or structures in this zone district. The following criteria are specific to the parking club and commercial parking facility: Town of Vail Page 16 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. The Vail Land Use Plan identifies the need for parking and access that should be accommodated through creative solutions and stated a goal that surface parking should be reduced and provided underground where possible. The Vail Land Use Plan also expresses a goal that parking be improved and adequate parking should be provided to accommodate day skier growth. The addition of the commercial parking facility will reduce some of the demand for parking within the town parking structures or along the North Frontage Road. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Effect on the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. As the commercial parking facility will be located below grade there should be minimal impact on light and air. The parking spaces will remove some demand from the town's parking facilities and will have no impact on the distribution of population, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 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 streets and parking areas. The proposed commercial parking facility will result in increased traffic along the North Frontage Road, but the applicant has submitted a Transportation Impact Study that demonstrates the impact from the commercial parking facility portion of the project will be minimal. As the commercial parking facility is located below grade, the proposed facility will not impact the removal of snow from the streets and parking area. 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. As the proposed commercial parking facility will be located below grade the scale and bulk of the facility will have no impact on the character of the area or its surrounding uses. Town of Vail Page 17 Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. An environmental impact report was not requested for the proposed commercial parking facility. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION While the proposed establishment of SDD No. 41 would provide strong assets to the Town in the form of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) and a lodging type with a price level that is in demand within the Town, at this time staff cannot recommend approval of the proposed SDD No. 41, Marriott Residence Inn. Staff finds that bulk and mass of the structure is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and that the structure and retaining walls are not sensitive to the natural features of the site. In order to support the requested establishment of SDD No. 41, staff asks for the following: 1. A reduction in the mass and bulk of the structure, including a reduction in building height and increased articulation of the facades and rooflines to break up the massing of the structure; 2. A reduction in retaining wall height, which may require a loss of lower level EHUs; 3. Provide a more detailed landscape plan for review; 4. A parking management plan that does not rely on twenty-four (24) hours valet service; 5. An improved circulation plan that does not overload the drive aisle at the front of the building; and 6. A parking study or other evidence to demonstrate that 1.4 parking spaces per EHU will be sufficient for this use and location. Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Town of Vail Page 18 Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission continues PEC16-0030 to the October 24, 2016 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Project Narrative C. Transportation Impact Study D. Plan Set E. Public Comments Town of Vail Page 19 tp MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN CREATION OF A NEW SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT APARTMENTS +HOTEL To allow for the construction of a limited service lodge and deed restricted apartments Submitted to the Town of Vail: August 15, 2016 Revised August 31, 2016 - . WRIGHT HEEREMA I ARCHITECTS J I� Mauriello Planning Group the harp group I. Consultant Directory Owner and Applicant Peter Dumon, President The Harp Group 601 Oakmont Lane, Suite 420 Westmont, IL 60559 pgdumon@theharpgroup.com 630-366-2010 Planning and Entitlements Dominic Mauriello, Principal Mauriello Planning Group PO Box 4777 Eagle, CO 81631 dominic@mpgvail.com 970-376-3318 Architecture Richard Fawell Wright Heerema Architects 140 S. Dearborn St. Chicago, IL 60603 312.913.1010 Landscape Architecture Jamie McCluskie MacDesign PO Box 6446 Avon, CO 81620 970.977.0016 Civil Engineering Gary Brooks Alpine Engineering 34510 US 6 No. 9 Edwards, CO 81632 970.926.3373 Traffic Engineering Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE McDowell Engineering P.O. Box 4259 Eagle, CO 81631 kari@mcdowelleng.com 970.623.0788 Fire Protection Deborah Shaner Shaner Life Safety PO Box 1073 Frisco, CO 80443 shanerls@comcast.net 970.409.9082 II. Introduction The applicant, The Harp Group, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting the establishment of a new Special Development District, to allow for a Marriott Residence Inn and employee housing development (rental apartments), located at 1783 N. Frontage Road West / Lots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Subdivision. The Town of Vail has approved a Marriott Residence Inn at the site in various forms in the past. The most recent approval consisted of 176 limited service lodge units and 2 employee housing units. This approval has since lapsed and there are no current valid approvals for the site. In 2016, the Town of Vail Housing Authority members approached the current owners of the property, looking for opportunities for employee housing to be incorporated into the project. As a result of these discussions and meetings with the Town of Vail staff, the current project was conceived, combining the Marriott Residence Inn and a substantial employee apartment project. As currently proposed, the project consists of 170 limited service lodge units and 113 employee housing units. These units are served by 365 parking spaces. Excess parking (100 parking spaces) will be available for lease to the public and to area employers. A hotel shuttle program will also be provided to improve guest and resident access to the Town Core. The project is generally a five story building, with the employee housing units (EHU) on the eastern end of the property, and the limited service lodge units (LSLU) on the western portion of the property, with a flag of the Marriott Residence Inn. A smaller portion of the building is 6 stories placed against the hillside. The Marriott Residence Inn consists of 170 LSLU. A LSLU is generally a hotel room with kitchen facilities, or more specifically, it is defined by Chapter 12-2 of the Vail Town Code as follows: LODGE UNIT, LIMITED SERVICE:Any room or group of rooms with "kitchen facilities", as defined herein, in a limited service lodge which are designed for temporary occupancy by visitors, guests, individuals, or families on a short term rental basis, and accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit, limited service lodge unit, fractional fee club unit or dwelling unit. A limited service lodge unit is not intended for permanent residency and shall not be subdivided into an individual condominium unit, pursuant to title 13, "Subdivision Regulations", of this code. 3 The hotel rooms range from RECENT 495 sq. ft. to 641 sq. ft., for a sidence Inn Warri Beach South Beach, FL Swftle U dArsity District, WA total of approximately 91,000 Opened Me" 2016 Residenc@ Inn sq. ft. of LSLU on-site. The Marriott Residence Inn will • pened Jenu& '! } include a fitness center, hot L. tub, and pool thus providing 'IMP I recreational amenities onsite. There is also a breakfast room and a small meeting room/ JAW - _f overflow breakfast room. The business model for this type of units does not include a full-service restaurant. Marriott Residence Inn is known for the extended stay lodging category, which recognizes the need and are designed for longer stays with separate living, working, and sleeping areas, making it appealing for family leisure travelers as well as business travelers. There are over 700 locations and over 85,000 rooms of Marriott Residence Inns worldwide. They average an occupancy rate of 79.7% and are one of the more affordable upscale offerings of the Marriott portfolio. The project also includes 113 deed -restricted rental apartment units, generally occupying the eastern half of the building. The developer was approached by the Vail Local Housing Authority members and members of town staff with the idea of encouraging private developers to work with both the Town of Vail and the Vail Local Housing Authority to construct employee housing on sites that may be appropriate for additional development. At the time of being approached The Harp Group was in the process of submitting building permit plans to the Town to construct the approved Marriott Residence Inn. The developer recognized the opportunity and the previously approved plans were modified to maximize the potential for rental employee housing. The 113 employee housing units will be the third largest employee housing development in the Town of Vail, behind only Middle Creek and Timber Ridge. The units will be available for rent, with a deed -restriction requiring occupancy by full-time Eagle County residents. The units are a mix of one -bedroom and two- bedroom units, ranging in size - from 602 sq. ft. to 1,173 sq. ft., with a total of approximately 95,000 sq. ft. of employee units. The units include a full kitchen, dining area, living room, and washer/dryer, and each bedroom �� i6IG �• • �� has its own bathroom. Amenities y illi �� Y include a fitness room, theater, lounge area, outdoor courtyard, ` and great room for use of the g _ residents, separate from the facilities offered to hotel guests. The project is served by an underground parking structure. The project maximizes use of the site, with the two levels of underground parking occurring beyond the setbacks. This allows the project to have 132 tandem parking spaces and 233 single -loaded parking spaces. This far exceeds the parking requirements of Chapter 10-12. The parking structure is served by two elevator towers, one serving 4 the hotel uses, and the other serving the apartments. Excess parking will be available to public or area employers for lease, similar to the Town's program of selling seasonal passes for parking such as that in front of Safeway and the West Vail Mall. The design of the project was inspired by the existing architecture of Vail, the predominant picturesque nature of Vail, and its immediate environment. The design of the building is predominantly five stories in height, with a smaller area of six stories, and nestled into the sloping landscape of the neighborhood so that from the South Frontage Road it appears to be stepping downhill. The roof has been designed as a green roof to fit into the landscape and provide visual relief for those looking down on the roof. The design of the facade has been broken down both horizontally and vertically stepping up and down as well as in and out with roof forms developed to give the impression that the building is not one structure but a series of smaller scaled building forms that have grown and been built more organically. The height of the building is broken down with steps in roof design, balconies, materials, along with shifts in the elevation as it ascends. This creates an identity and visual character that is not an imposing straight facade but a rich woven tapestry of movement along the facade. The proposed project has two site access points. The western access point is a full movement access, with two out -bound lanes and one in -bound lane. The in -bound lane directly enters the parking structure below the building. The structure is shared between both uses with the separation of parking for each use occurring within the structure. The eastern access is in -bound only and is used to access the front doors for both uses. Generally, the employee housing units will not use the eastern access, as they will access the parking structure via the western access. Arriving guests of the hotel can check in, valet their cars or self park without returning onto the Frontage Road. This allows the primary circulation for the uses to occur on-site. The site design provides for all required turn lanes, a transit stop, the continuation of the 10 ft. bike path, then separated by a significant landscape area before the internal 20 ft. drive aisle occurs. There is additional landscape area between the drive aisle and the building. The project maintains the previously approved sidewalk connection from Meadow Ridge Road through the property along the western property line allowing for easy transit access to those in the neighborhood. There is an internal 1,950 sq. ft. courtyard with outdoor planting area within the apartment building. Because the site is steep along the north and western property lines, there is a significant retaining wall needed. This has been sensitively designed with 3 walls with area between each wall to allow for landscaping. These walls, though taller than the 6 ft. allowed by the Town, are similar to those that were constructed at the new Lion's Ridge project. The retaining walls are screened from the view of the public by the apartment building itself, those only visually impacting the sites residents. 5 III. Zoning The project is proposed as a Special Development District (SDD), with the existing underlying zoning of Public Accommodation - 2 (PA -2). The PA -2 zone district purpose statement states (I 2-7J-1): The public accommodation -2 district is intended to provide sites for lodges, limited service lodges, and residential accommodations on a short term basis, for visitors and guests, together with such public and semipublic facilities and commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may be appropriately located within the some zone district and compatible with adjacent land uses. This district is intended to provide for lodging sites located outside the periphery of the town's Vail Village and Lionshead commercial core areas. The public accommodation -2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the zone district. The PA -2 zone district allows for the following permitted and conditional uses: 12-7J-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the PA -2 district: Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Limited service lodge, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. 12-7J-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the PA -2 district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Fractional fee club units, as further regulated by subsection 12-16-7A8 of this title. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and occupying between ten percent (10%) and fifteen percent (15%) of the total gross residential floor area of the buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures. Public transportation terminals. 6 Public utility and public service uses. Religious institutions. Theaters and convention facilities. SDDs allow for flexibility from the underlying zoning. The purpose of the SDD is provided as follows ( 12-9A-1): The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. Uses within an SDD are determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the review of the development plan, but are limited to those listed as permitted, conditional and accessory uses of the underlying zone district. The uses included in the proposal include a limited service lodge, employee housing units, and a public/commercial parking facility. The following section provides a general overview of the development plan by providing a zoning analysis and summary of the project. Development standards that deviate from the underlying zoning have been high -lighted in yellow. For reference, a comparison of the previous approvals on the property have been provided. IV. Development Standards Address/Legal Description: 1783 North Frontage Road / Lots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Sub Existing Zoning: PA -2 Proposed Zoning: SDD with underlying zoning of PA -2 Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential Table I: Analysis of Proposed Development Plan Standard Allowed/Required Lot Area Density LSLU EHU G RFA LSLU EHU (EHUs do not count as GRFA) Building Height Site Coverage 10,000 sq. ft. min 49 DU unlimited unlimited 129,896 sq. ft. 45 ft. for flat / 48 ft. for sloping 56,288 sq. ft. (65%) Landscape Area 25,979 sq. ft. (30%) Softscape min of 20,783 sq. ft. Hardscape max of 5,196 sq. ft. / up to 20% of softscape Setbacks* North West East South Loading Employee Housing 0 ft. - 20 ft. 0 ft. - 20 ft. 0 ft. - 20 ft. 0 ft. - 20 ft. 2 berths Housing for 13.72 employees Retaining Walls E6 ft. max height *Variations to setbacks are permitted in the PA -2 zone district Proposed 86,597 sq. ft. / 1.98 acres 0 DU 170 LSLU 113 EHU 91,198 sq. ft. 91,198 sq. ft. (95,784 sq. ft.) 72.03 ft. max 75,787 sq. ft. (87%) - underground 36,479 sq. ft. (42%) - above grade 27,214 sq. ft. 25,012 sq. ft. 2,202 sq. ft. 0 ft. (underground) 20 ft. 0 ft. (underground) 0 ft. (underground) Above grade 20 ft. setbacks maintained 2 berths 113 EHUs 24 ft. (at road easement) 8 Standard Lot Area Density Limited Service Lodge Units (LSLU) G RFA Building Height Site Coverage Landscape Area Setbacks* North West East South Parking Loading Employee Housing Table 2: Analysis of Previous Approvals for Site Allowed/ 2006 Approval 2012 Approval Required 10,000 sq. ft. 86,597 sq. ft. 86,597 sq. ft. min 49 DU 28 du 0 du Unlimited 101 LSLU 152 LSLU 129,896 sq. ft. 48 ft. 56,288 sq. ft. (65%) 25,979 sq. ft. (30%) 0 ft. - 20 ft. 0 ft. - 20 ft. 0 ft. - 20 ft. 0 ft. - 20 ft. 128 spaces I berth Housing for 14.56 employees 75,842 sq. ft. 48 ft. 44,376 sq. ft. (51%) 38,698 sq. ft. (44%) 20 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 169 spaces I berth 3 Type III EHU 75,031 sq. ft. 48 ft. 44,376 sq. ft. (51 %) 2013 Proposal 86,597 sq. ft. 0 du 176 LSLU 82,485 sq. ft. 48 ft. 44,376 sq. ft. (51 %) 38,698 sq. ft. (44%) 38,698 sq. ft. (44%) 20 ft. (above -grade) 20 ft. (above -grade) 20 ft. (above -grade) 20 ft. (above -grade) 165 spaces I berth I Type IV CL 2 - bedroom unit = 2.25 employees I Type IV CL dorm unit = 4 employees Housing for 4.95 additional employees off-site 20 ft. (above -grade) 20 ft. (above -grade) 20 ft. (above -grade) 20 ft. (above -grade) 165 spaces I berth 2 Type IV CL dorm units = 8 employees. Housing for 6.56 additional employees off-site 9 V. Employee Housing Plan Section 12-23-8: Administration, of the Vail Town Code requires the submittal of an Employee Housing Plan for all projects subject to development review. This application is unique in that a significant portion of the project is employee housing. However, for the purposes of meeting the requirement of an Employee Housing Plan, it is provided below: A. Calculation Method: The calculation of employee generation, including credits if applicable, and the mitigation method by which the applicant proposes to meet the requirements of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: The existing Roost Lodge consists of 72 accommodation units and I dwelling unit. Because no new free-market dwelling units are proposed, there are no credits given for the existing unit, nor is there any Inclusionary Zoning requirement. However, this inclusionary credit shall remain with the property should at a future date there be an application to establish a dwelling unit on the property. The proposed Marriott Residence Inn includes 170 limited service lodge units, for a total of 98 net new limited service lodge units (accommodation units and limited service lodge units are treated the same for employee generation rates). Table 3: Commercial Linkage Calculation Use Calculation 1W 14 Total Employees Generated 98 net new limited service lodge units 0.7 employees per new unit 68.6 Mitigation Rate 20% Total Commercial Linkage Requirement 13.72 Therefore, the proposed project will need to provide employee housing for 13.72 employees. The entire requirement will be met on-site. The applicant is proposing a total of 1 13 employee housing units, far in excess of requirements. B. Plans: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan that demonstrates compliance with section 12-23-3, "Size And Building Requirements", of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan has been provided with this submittal. The employee housing units are provided as follows: Table 4: Employees Housed Use Size (Typ) Number Formula from Table 23-2 Number of Employees Housed One -bedroom Units 600 sq. ft. 69 1.75 employees per unit 120.75 Two-bedroom Units 1950 sq. ft. 44 2.25 employees per unit 99 Use Size (Typ) Number Formula from Table 23-2 Total Employees Housed Requirement of LSLU Excess of Requirements Number of Employees Housed 219.75 13.72 206.03 r I � I G1 L - C. Lot Size: The average lot size of the proposed EHUs and the average lot size of other dwelling units in the commercial development or redevelopment, if any, Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. D. Schedules:A time line for the provision of any off site EHUs; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. E. Off Site Units: A proposal for the provision of any off site EHUs shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal, Applicant Analysis: This is no applicable to this application. F. Off f Site Conveyance Request: A request for an off site conveyance shall include a brief statement explaining the basis for the request, Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. G. Fees In Lieu: A proposal to pay fees in lieu shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal, and Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. H. Written Narrative:A written narrative explaining how the employee housing plan meets the purposes of this chapter and complies with the town's comprehensive plan. Applicant Analysis: Section 12-23-1: Purpose and Applicability, of the Vail Town Code provides the purpose of the Commercial Linkage Requirements: The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that new commercial development and redevelopment in the town provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such commercial development and redevelopment. The mitigation rates were established by the Town of Vail Employee Housing Nexus study. These rates are based on a survey of various properties in mountain communities. The Town Vail Land Use Plan offers the following goals with regard to employee housing: 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town o (Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. In 2008, the Town of Vail established the Employee Housing Strategic Plan, which brought together all of the Town's goals on employee housing into a single plan. It provides the following: In 2006, through the Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future process the community established a housing goal. It is as follows: "The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will 12 provide enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development" Based upon the community's work, the Vail Town Council has confirmed the Town of Vail recognizes deed restricted employee housing as basic infrastructure. This type of housing allows employees to live within the town, promoting community, and improving the quality of our local workforce, thereby supporting the local economy, and reducing regional transit needs. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan (EHSP) seeks to meet the expectations established by the community and confirmed by the Town Council and provide enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the community's workforce to live in the Town of Vail through a variety of policies, regulations and publicly initiated development projects. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan then outlines the various objectives and policies for implementing the plan. It provides a list of Town Initiatives, one of which is specifically applicable to this project: Incentive Zoning and Density Bonuses The Town will consider workforce housing objectives in all review processes that permit discretion. This means that the Town will work actively with developers as a part of the Housing District, Special Development District review processes and requested changes in zoning to not only meet the requirements of existing code, but to look for opportunities to go beyond code requirements to encourage additional workforce housing to be created. As a part of these review processes the Town will work actively with developers to create incentives to develop housing that exceeds the minimal requirements contained in the code. Additional density may be granted in selected locations through the appropriate review processes, and fee waivers and subsidies may be considered. The Incentives Zoning and Density Bonuses help Vail to "catch up" with existing deficiencies and add to the overall percent of employees living within the Town o (Vail. As indicated in this submittal, the proposal complies with and furthers the purposes and goals of the Town's employee housing requirements and master plans. The project provides housing for 206 employees beyond the requirements. It should be noted that the applicant is proposing the same deed restriction approved for the Lion's Ridge project, whereby if for some reason there was not enough locals available to fill all of the apartment units, they could be rented to others not working at least 30 hours a week in Eagle County. This is not likely to occur, but in the event that it does, the applicant is protected against leaving units vacant. 13 VI. Criteria for Review Section 12-9A-8: DESIGN CRITERIA AND NECESSARY FINDINGS,Vail Town Code, then provides the criteria for review of the establishment of a Special Development District. These criteria have been provided below, along with an analysis of how this proposal complies with these criteria: I. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Applicant Response: The design of the project was inspired by the existing architecture of Vail and the predominant picturesque nature of Vail and its immediate environment. The design of the building is predominantly five stories in height, with smaller areas of six stories, and nestled into the sloping landscape of the neighborhood so that from the Frontage Road it appears to be stepping downhill. The roof has been designed as a green roof to fit into the landscape. The building is nestled into the site and serves to block significant traffic noise and the view of the frontage road and 1-70. Because of its lower elevation and separation from adjacent condominium units, the views to the mountain are not blocked. The design of the facade has been broken down both horizontally and vertically stepping up and down as well as in and out with roof forms developed to give the impression that the building is not one structure but a series of smaller scaled buildings that have grown and built more organically. The height of the building is broken down with steps in roof design, balconies, materials, along with shifts in the elevation as it ascends. This creates an identity and visual character that is not an imposing straight facade but a rich woven tapestry of movement along the facade. The entry to the employee housing units is more restrained but easy to access from the same entry drive, though it is likely that residents will access their units from the garage. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Applicant Response: The site is surrounded by residential uses to the east, west and north, and 1-70 right-of-way to the south. Buffehr Creek Condominiums are located directly to the west. Hillside Condominiums and Mustang Condominiums are located directly to the north. The Grand Traverse neighborhood is located to the east, with Tract A (Open Space Parcel) directly 14 adjacent to the property. Across 1-70 is Donovan Park, along with a single-family and duplex home. The character of the neighborhood should be viewed in the context of what is currently present on and around the subject site. The Roost Lodge has been in existence since the early 1970s and proven to be compatible with adjacent land uses. Considering the various multi- family buildings in the immediate vicinity of the previous Roost Lodge property, to the west and north, a structure which accommodates multiple -family and limited service lodge units is in keeping with the existing surrounding uses. The size of the proposed building is in direct proportion with the size of the development site, which encompasses approximately two acres. Considering the physical state of the previous Roost Lodge, the proposal will have a significant, positive effect on the character of the neighborhood because it will be a new, state of the art (metal and concrete structural system) aesthetically pleasing structure placed on a well landscaped site. 3. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. Applicant Response: The Marriott Residence Inn complies with the parking requirements of Chapter 12-10. The parking analysis is provided in the tables below: 15 Table 5: Parking as Required by Chapter 12-10 Use Requirement Formula Parking Required Limited Service Lodge .7 spaces per unit .7 spaces * 170 units = 119 Units Employee Housing Units If a dwelling unit's gross residential 2 spaces * 113 units = 226 floor area is more than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces Total Requirement 345 With Multiple Use Parking 301-400 spaces is 7.5% 319.125 Reduction Total Parking Proposed 365 Tandem Spaces 132 Single Spaces 233 In excess of requirements 45.875 Due to the use of the property as rental employee housing units, the location of the transit stop directly in front of the property, and the use of shuttles, the parking requirement for employee housing units is in excess actual demand. Parking will be monitored and controlled, with limitations on the number of cars allowed for each unit. The operator will be allowing one parking space for one -bedroom units and two parking spaces for two-bedroom units, which generates an average parking requirement of 1.4 spaces per unit. This coincides with the parking requirement of multiple -family units in the Core Area parking requirements outlined in Chapter 12-10. This is a more appropriate parking requirement for this use and location, and the applicant is requesting that this parking requirement be applied to the project. The parking demand analysis is provided below: Table 6: Parking Demand Analysis for Employee Housing Units: Use Size (Typ) Number Parking Demand Total Demand One -bedroom 600 sq. ft. 69 1 per unit 69 Units Two-bedroom 950 sq. ft. 44 2 per unit 88 Units Total 157 Average 1.4 spaces per unit The parking requirement for the project using the modification of EHUs assessed at 1.4 spaces per unit yields the following: 16 Table 7: Parking Analysis as Proposed with this SDD: Use Limited Service Lodge Units Employee Housing Units Total Requirement With Multiple Use Parking Reduction Total Parking Proposed In Excess of Requirements Requirement 7 spaces per unit 1.4 spaces per unit 201-300 spaces is 5% Formula 7 spaces * 170 units = 1.4 spaces * 113 units = Parking Required 119 158.2 277.2 263.34 365 As indicated in Table 7, there are 101 excess parking spaces. The applicant is proposing the excess spaces be available to the public, local employers, and tenants for either annual or monthly parking passes. Users of the parking can then utilize the hotel shuttle or the Town's transit system to access other areas of town. The applicant is proposing that a maximum of 100 spaces be available to the public for this use. Because the operator will have control over this use, if parking is ever problematic for either the hotel or the apartments, they can adjust this number to meet the demand. Public use of the parking has been accounted for in the Traffic Report. Loading for the project will primarily occur in the 20 ft. access in front of the building. There is adequate room for two loading areas. Because the hotel does not have a full service restaurant, there is a limited need for loading facilities. This is consistent with the three previous approvals for the hotel project. Table 8: Loading Analysis Use Loading Requirement LSLUs I loading berth for uses up to 75,000 square feet total floor area, plus I additional berth for each 25,000 square feet total floor area in excess of 75,000 square feet EHUs I loading berth for uses up to 100,000 square feet gross residential floor area, plus I additional berth for each 50,000 square feet gross residential floor area in excess of 100,000 square feet Total Credit for Multiple Use Total Requirement Loading Requirement F] 3 Reduction from 3 to 2 berth N As proposed, the project complies with the Loading Requirements outlined in Chapter 12-10. There is a requirement that loading and delivery not occur within the front setback. However, due to the limited need for loading and delivery for the project, the applicant is requesting a deviation from this requirement. Due to the linear nature of the site and the large turning radii 17 needed for large vehicles, it is least impactful to the site to utilize the 20 ft. wide driveway for this use. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. Applicant Response: According to the Official Land Use Plan for the Town of Vail, the development site has a land use designation of Medium Density Residential. Pursuant to the Vail Land Use Plan: The Medium Density Residential land use designation includes sites for housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as churches, fire stations, and parks and open space facilities. The project also complies with the relevant elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan including the following policies: 1.1 - Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 - The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 - Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 3.1 -The hotel bed base should be preserved and use more efficiently. 3.3 - Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 - Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 5.1 - Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 -Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town o f Voil, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 - Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5. - The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. The project is consistent with the Town's stated goal of increasing hotel beds and the provision of employee housing within the Town. The Town of Vail Community Survey of 2016 noted that when asked to list the top two priorities, the most frequently mentioned actions were: 18 • Focus on housing for middle income and service worker households in vital support roles • Economic vitality • Budget and capital management • Actions to protect and enhance Gore Creek • Environmental sustainability Respondents identified housing as their top priority among all of the community issues and also allocated the most funding towards it in a monetary exercise designed to determine top financial priorities. Housing emerged prominently from the open-ended comments as well, many respondents are concerned about the issue and feel it needs to be addressed by the Town. The 2016 Community Survey also states the following with regard to employee housing: Affordable and adequate housing for employees in the Town of Vail was one of the top issues that came up repeatedly throughout the survey results. Respondents identified housing as their top priority among all of the community issues and also allocated the most funding towards it in a monetary exercise designed to determine top financial priorities (discussed below). Housing emerged prominently from the open-ended comments as well, many respondents are concerned about the issue and feel it needs to be addressed by the Town. Techniques to expand workforce housing opportunities were examined thoroughly this year in a new series of questions. Respondents are highly supportive of various techniques to address the housing problems present in Vail. On a scale from I to 4 where I is "not at all supportive" and 4 is "very supportive," respondents rated four proposed techniques to expand workforce housing. Increasing the requirement for contributing to workforce housing among developers (77 percent gave ratings of 3 or 4), permitting required housing to be built down -valley (75 percent), requiring a contribution to workforce housing for residential development (68 percent), and permitting increased density in limited locations or circumstances (57 percent) all received larger shares of supportive respondents than unsupportive respondents. Respondents prioritized employee housing and parking, as further explained by the 2016 Community Survey: Financial Prioritization. A new question this year had respondents prioritize five improvements for the Vail community relative to one another by allocating $100 across the various categories to best reflect their priorities. Housing emerged at the top of the list, with respondents allocating the most on average towards expanded housing opportunities for middle income and service worker households ($2 7). Parking improvements to add capacity at peak times, actions to protect and enhance Gore Creek (each $20), and transportation improvements ($18) followed closely. The creation of a sizable enclosed space to support cultural and community activities and events was the lowest priority, with an average allocation of $1 /.The dominance of housing, parking, and the environment in this financial exercise is consistent with top priorities noted throughout the survey. The 2007 Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan was adopted with the goal to create a clear vision for Vail. It provides the following vision statement: 19 We are the "Premier Mountain Resort Community" by providing high quality of life and experiences for both residents and visitors. This is achieved through environmental stewardship, world-class recreational, cultural and educational opportunities, a strong year-round economy, diversity of housing, and superior infrastructure. The town actively seeks input and cooperation from the community and its neighbors to ensure fulfillment of its vision. It specifically provides goals and action strategies specific to employee housing, with the following: Goal. The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. • Research parking requirements for employee housing and consider reducing requirements for employee housing developments. • Expand the number of employee beds in the Town o (Vail. As indicated in the above analysis, the Town of Vail has continually identified increasing the hotel bed base, the provision of employee housing, and additional parking as top priorities in the Town. These are reoccurring themes throughout various master planning documents, Town surveys, and strategic plans. It is a unique project that can bring all three to the table. As a result, the proposed project complies with the comprehensive plans and Town policies. 5. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect j'ect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Applicant Response: The proposed amendment has has no effect on the above criterion. There are no natural or geologic hazards that affect the property. Soils and geotech reports have been included with the submittal. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Applicant Response: The site design provides for all required turn lanes, a transit stop, the continuation of the 10 ft. bike path, then a significant landscape area before the internal 20 ft. drive aisle. There is additional landscape area between the drive aisle and the building. The project maintains the previously approved (yet nonexistent) sidewalk connection from Meadow Ridge Road through the property along the western property line. There is an internal 1,950 sq. ft. courtyard with outdoor planting area. Because the site is steep along the north and western property lines, there is significant retaining walls needed. This has been sensitively designed with three walls with area between each wall to allow for landscaping. These walls, though taller than the 6 ft. allowed by the Town, are similar to those that were constructed at the new Lion's Ridge project. The walls are not largely visible to the general public being hidden by the apartment building itself. 20 The building has been broken down both horizontally and vertically stepping up and down as well as in and out with roof forms developed to give the impression that the building is not one structure but a series of smaller buildings constructed over time. The building steps down with the natural grade, creating movement of the roof forms along with the slope. The project has been designed to create a functional development, that is responsive to the site, and is sensitive to the natural features of the site. 7. Traffic. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. Applicant Response: The proposed project has two site access points: western access and eastern access. The western access point is a full movement access, with two out -bound lanes and one in -bound lane. The in -bound lane directly enters the parking structure. The structure is shared between both uses (hotel and employee housing units) with the separation of parking for each use occurring within the structure. The eastern access is in -bound only, and is used to access the front doors for both uses. Generally, the employee housing units will not use the eastern access, as they will access the parking structure via the western access. Arriving guests of the hotel can check in, valet their cars or self park without returning onto the Frontage Road. This allows the primary circulation for the uses to occur on-site. A Traffic Study, prepared by McDowell Engineering has been included with this submittal. Working with both the Town of Vail Engineering Department and the Colorado Department of Transportation, McDowell Engineering's report outlines that the project will generate 1,389 average weekday trips prior to a 10% reduction for multi -modal uses. Due to the proximity of the access for the Buffehr Creek Condos, the Traffic Study recognizes that there will be the need for a variance from CDOT for the spacing between accesses. The Traffic Study includes an analysis for the new proposed access to be shared between this project and Buffehr Creek Condos should this be a recommendation from CDOT. Using this information, Alpine Engineering provided the civil plans showing the necessary improvements to the North Frontage Road. The Traffic Report states the following conclusions: As designed, the site is anticipated to operate most effectively with the easternmost access as ingress only and the westernmost access as a full movement. Because the site will include hotel as well as long—term rental housing it is believed that site access would operate most efficiently with this configuration. The easternmost access would be used for hotel check—in, shuttles, and deliveries. The westernmost access would be the primary access for the apartments, parking garage, and hotel guests after check—in. The Town of Vail has indicated that they would support this change from the Access Management Plan if the access points operate adequately as proposed. It is understood that CDOT would need to also support this change and that the Access Management Plan would need to be updated to reflect the change. The circulation system has been design to the Town's specifications and addresses all modes of transportation. 21 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Applicant Response: The site is generally flat along, with the steeper slopes along the north and east property lines. Because it was a previous development site, there is not significant vegetation on the site following the demolition of the Roost Lodge. The current design maximizes the site, with the underground parking structure abutting the property lines. The structure was designed to allow adequate depth and soil for plantings to occur along the building. This creates a design opportunity for the landscape architect, MacDesign. The landscape has been designed to compliment the structure, creating a building, that sits within the landscape. Shade trees are shown between the bike path and the access drive, creating a natural landscape buffer between these uses. Shrubs and ornamental grasses are shown adjacent to the building, creating the more formal landscape along the entries to the building. The following photos show the general concept for the landscaping adjacent to the building: The sidewalk shown from the rear of the building and connecting to the sidewalk connection from Meadow Ridge Road is landscaped with native species and continues some of the more formal landscape from the front entries. The landscape transitions to more native vegetation and grasses as the slope connects to Meadow Ridge Road. Where the property is adjacent to the Grand Traverse open space, the retaining walls are softened with plantings, creating a visually pleasing view for the residents, as these walls are are largely invisible to the general public. 22 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Applicant Response: The proposed amendment has no effect on the above criterion. The project will be constructed in one phase. Construction is estimated to take 18 months to complete. 23 VII. Adjacent Addresses BUFFER CREEK CONDOMINIUM PICKING, HOWARD M., III & ADELLE ASSOCIATION, INC. 100 LONGVIEW LN 1860 MEADOW RIDGE ROAD UNIT 8, VAIL, CO 81658 JOHNSTOWN, PA 15905 TONKIN, ADAM D. & ALYSON L. 1920 S GILPIN ST DENVER, CO 80210-3308 BUFFER CREEK WEST CONDO ASSOC MARKA W. MOSER BOX 902 VAIL, CO 81658 FARQUHAR, JERRY L. & DEBORAH R. 1879 MEADOW RIDGE RD VAIL, CO 81657-4948 SEOANE, JENNIFER 3650 UTICA ST UNIT 8 DENVER, CO 80212-1560 CARNEY, JOHN M. 2001 CROCKER RD STE 420 WESTLAKE, OH 44145-6967 MEADOWRIDGE A LLC 1434 SARRIA AVE MIAMI, FL 33146-1053 KARP, KAREN L. PO BOX 2174 VAIL, CO 81658 GRAND TRAVERSE AT VAIL ASSOCIATION KAREN NULLE & ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 839, EDWARDS, CO 81632 CAPSTONE TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION VISTAR REAL ESTATE 635 N FRONTAGE RD STE 3, VAIL, CO 81657 GRAND TRAVERSE AT VAIL ASSOCIATION 1412A MORAINE DR VAIL, CO 81657-4981 BEMIS, GREGORY PO BOX 3438 VAIL, CO 81658 LAVIN, LOUISE MILLER 2166 RIDGEWOOD RD AKRON, OH 44313 K. DAVID FITE TRUST - ETAL 17 MOCKINGBIRD LN ENGLEWOOD, CO 80113-4813 GUERRIERO, RANDALL GRAND TRAVERSE AT VAIL ASSOCIATION WILLARD, SCOTT E. - REAP, MARILYN 1859 MEADOW RIDGE RD UNIT C MODUNTAIN STREAM MANAGEMENT 17 WHITE OAK LN VAIL, CO 81657-3905 PO BOX 2636 WESTON, CT 06883-1527 VAIL, CO 81658 MERRIMAN, DANNY, JANE & ADAM 1859 MEADOW RIDGE RD A VAIL, CO 81657-3905 ERB, WENDY ELAINE 1819 MEADOW RIDGE RD G VAIL, CO 81657-3903 GUNION, JOHN & MARGARET M.A. 4999 MAIN GORE DR S UNIT A VAIL, CO 81657-5777 Buffer Creek Condo Association Inc. 3162 S. Gaylord St Englewood, CO 80113 HAGERMAN, PHILIP R. & JOCELYN K. 601 S SAGINAW ST STE 500 FLINT, MI 48502-1513 CDOT 4201 E. ARKANSAS AVENUE DENVER, CO 80222 MAURIELLO PLANNING GROUP, LLC POST OFFICE BOX 4777 EAGLE, CO 81631 TOWN OF VAIL 75 S FRONTAGE RD W VAIL, CO 81657-5096 HELMUT REISS TRUST 1401 LAVENDER LN LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 TURNIPSEED, JASON & COLETTE 455 DETROIT ST DENVER , CO 80206-4311 24 Transportation Impact Study for Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Revised September 30, 2016 PREPARED FOR: The Harp Group 601 Oakmont Lane, Suite 420 Westmont, IL 60559 Contact: Peter Dumon, President PREPARED BY: McDowell Engineering, LLC 936 Chambers Court, B4 PO Box 4259 Eagle, CO 81631 970.623.078 Contact: Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE Project Number: M1234 Statement of Engineering Qualifications Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE is a Transportation and Traffic Engineer for McDowell Engineering, LLC. Ms. McDowell Schroeder has over nineteen years of extensive traffic and transportation engineering experience. She has completed numerous transportation studies and roadway design projects throughout the State of Colorado. Ms. McDowell Schroeder is a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado and has her certification as a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 2 Transportation Impact Study for Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment Table of Contents 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 PREVIOUS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................ S 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM................................................................................................7 3.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS..............................................................................................................10 3.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.......................................................................................................................10 3.2 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH.........................................................................................................................10 4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC...................................................................................................................................12 4.1 TRIP GENERATION.............................................................................................................................................12 4.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION...........................................................................................................................................14 4.3 SITE CIRCULATION.............................................................................................................................................14 4.4 TRIP MODE SPLIT AND ASSIGNMENT....................................................................................................................17 5.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS....................................................................................................21 5.1 SITE ACCESS AUXILIARYTURN LANES....................................................................................................................21 5.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................23 5.3 ENTERING SIGHT DISTANCE................................................................................................................................24 5.4 ACCESS PERMITTING.........................................................................................................................................25 5.5 MULTIMODAL PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES................................................................................................25 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................26 7.0 APPENDIX..............................................................................................................................................27 Tables and Figures FIGURE1: AREA MAP......................................................................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 2: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN..................................................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 3: YEAR 2018 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES..................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 4: YEAR 2040 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES....................................................................................11 TABLE 1: TRIP GENERATION...............................................................................................................................13 FIGURE 5: DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION.............................................................................................................16 FIGURE 6: ASSIGNED PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC..........................................................................................18 FIGURE 7: YEAR 2018 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES................................................................................................19 FIGURE 8: YEAR 2040 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES................................................................................................20 TABLE 2: AUXILIARY TURN LANE REQUIREMENTS: ............................................................................................. 22 TABLE 4: TOTAL TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE.......................................................................................................23 M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 3 1.0 Project Description The Vail Marriott Residence Inn, a proposed 1.9 acre redevelopment, is located near the intersection of the Interstate 70 North Frontage Road and Buffehr Creek Road within the Town of Vail. The proposed project will replace the former Roost Lodge that was located on the property. The southern boundary of the property abuts the Frontage Road and starts approximately 250 feet north east of the Buffehr Creek Road intersection with the Frontage Road. The property is also bordered on the north by Meadow Ridge Road, but is does not and is not anticipated to take access from it due to the grade differential. The location of this property in relation to the surrounding area can be seen in Figure 1. This site was previously approved for redevelopment. Figure 1: Area Map SITE 6 0� j, West Vail 173 r � e' � 0 173, tea lie Stephens Park 0 2012 Nokia iD20t2 Mieroaoft Corporation M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 4 The proposed redevelopment is expected to include a Marriott Residence Inn, it's associated support facilities and deed restricted, local employee, long-term rental units. Specifically, the Vail Marriott Residence Inn project is currently anticipated to consist of: • 170 Hotel Rooms • Lobby, Library, Lounge and Associated Guest Facilities • 113 Long -Term Rental Local Employee Housing Units A concept plan of the proposed development can be seen in Figure 2. The site was formerly occupied by the Roost Lodge, which included a 72 -room hotel and 1 employee housing unit. The Roost Lodge was demolished in 2014 and the site is now vacant. The Vail Marriott Residence Inn redevelopment has an assumed build out completion year of 2018. Analysis has been performed for existing conditions, background and total conditions for short-term Year 2018 as well as for the long-range planning Year 2040. 1.1 Previous Traffic Analysis This site has been previously proposed for redevelopment that was not constructed. In 2013, The Vail Marriott Residence Inn was planned to include 176 Hotel Suite Rooms and 2 Employee Housing Units. This development was studied in McDowell Engineering's Transportation Impact Study for Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment dated May 21, 2013. This study was previously approved by CDOT and the Town of Vail. M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 5 3NI ONIJ33NION3xxx Nb' -1d :311S -1-1v�J3no oadro�o0 `�Idn aN e °� wM �� NNI ��NadIS�3U xxx °'a""' xxx cn U 1 SNo�IA3a 311a 3NId7Vd xxx a3N 1— / / / / / ✓/,// /� I f a° I 1 j 1 Figure 2 a / / / -/ /a� / / / /// / fit;: I /�1 ❑ tr 1.I /IIII IIII t / i 1' I I 1 o / •�` ® � j• I I I �' � s � I I/ 1 1 Sia' { II x 9N II I IIII, / IIII I 1 I 9 III 1 % IIII l a 2.0 Existing Conditions 2.1 Description of Existing Transportation System Interstate 70 North Frontage Road: The 1-70 North Frontage Road provides the primary local connection along the north side of Interstate 70 between the West Vail and Vail Village Interchanges. :.. In the vicinity of the project site, this two-lane facility is classified as Access Category F -R, Frontage Road by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. There,w are no existing auxiliary turn lanes at the two accesses to the property. CDOT and the Town of Vail completed an Access Management Plan Map for this roadway as part of their Vail Transportation Master Plan Update in 2009. Buffehr Creek Road: Buffehr Creek Road is a local two-lane roadway providing access to Chamonix Lane and residential development north of the development property. Buffehr Creek Intersects the North Frontage Road 250 feet to the southwest of the development property. The posted speed limit on this roadway is 25 mph. Meadow Ridge Road: Meadow Ridge Road is a short, cul-de-sac roadway that forms the northwest boundary of the proposed redevelopment. The subject property does not take access from Meadow Ridge Road, nor is it expected to do so in the future due to the grade differential between the property and the road. Pedestrian, Transit and Bicycle Facilities: The sole existing bicycle/ pedestrian facility in the vicinity of the Vail Marriott Residence Inn redevelopment is the North Recreation Path, which connects the Vail Village and West Vail Interchanges along the north side of the North Frontage Road. The path is contiguous across the frontage of the site and consists of a widened asphalt shoulder. A concrete path with curb and gutter exists to the east of the project site and west of Buffehr Creek Road. M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 7 Both the Red and Green West Vail bus routes travel along the North Frontage Road adjacent to the redevelopment site. There is a bus stop for the westbound routes at the southwest corner of the property. :1 Year 2018 Background Traffic Volumes: Year 2018 traffic conditions are based on 2013 traffic counts provided by the Town taken at the intersection of the North Frontage Road and Buffehr Creek Road. These 2013 counts were compared to the from Figure 15: Year 2025 Peak Hour Projections of the Vail Transportation Master Plan Update, 2009 at the intersection of the North Frontage Road with Buffehr Creek Road (Intersection Number 22). Refer to the Appendix for this data and correspondence with CDOT and the Town of Vail. The assumed Year 2018 Background Volumes were derived from a linear interpolation between Years 2013 and 2025 as the starting and finishing years, respectively. Per Town staff, there are no other development projects that should impact these volumes. Background evening volume projections for Year 2018 can be seen in Figure 3. M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 8 Fiaure 3: Year 2018 Backaround Traffic -f4 t' ACDOWELL LEGEND: ENGINEERING. L1-CPM Volumes= XX TRANSPORTATION ENri HEERINO CONSULTANTS Project Number: M1234 (NTS) Turning Movements Prepared by: BBG Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2013 Vail, Colorado 3.0 Future Traffic Projections 3.1 Capital Improvement Projects Per the Vail Transportation Master Plan Update, 2009 (Master Plan Update), the North Frontage Road is anticipated to remain a two-lane facility through the longterm planning horizon. However, the Master Plan Update anticipates the construction of an eastbound left turn deceleration lane to Buffehr Creek Road prior to Year 2035. The Town of Vail and CDOT have begun construction on the Simba Run Underpass of 1-70 as anticipated by the Master Plan Update. The project is anticipated to be completed by December 2017. This underpass, is located to the west of the Lionshead Village and will provide an additional connection between the parts of Vail north of I- 70 and those south of the interstate. Per the Master Plan Update, the likely result of this underpass on project -generated traffic would be to increase the portion of traffic headed to or from the east on the North Frontage Road. 3.2 Background Traffic Growth Long-term background growth along the North Frontage Road is based on the Year 2025 volume projections provided in the Master Plan Update. Correspondence with Town staff regarding the anticipated growth rates can be found in the Appendix. Per Town staff, ...these projections represent a build out scenario study with 2025 selected as full build out. This was done during the boom in Vail and a lot of large developments were on the table going thru the process. Many of those have been stopped or delayed. We suggest using the 2025 data with a modest growth rate of 0.5% from 2025 to 2035. This methodology was used for Year 2040 conditions. The resulting projected Year 2040 background traffic volumes with the addition of the Simba Run underpass volumes can be seen in Figure 4. M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 10 Fiaure 4: Year 2040 Backaround Traffic 14W 44 r it ^4% r -f4 t' ACDOWELL LEGEND: ENGINEERING. L1-CPM Volumes= XX TRANSPORTATION ENri HEERINO CONSULTANTS Project Number: M1234 (NTS) Turning Movements Prepared by: BBG Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2013 Vail, Colorado 4.0 Project Traffic 4.1 Trip Generation The proposed Marriott Residence Inn is anticipated to consist of: • 170 Hotel Rooms (all with kitchens) o Lobby, Library, Lounge and Associated Guest Facilities • 113 Long -Term Rental Local Employee Housing Units • 10 Condos located on adjacent parcel • 100 Space Parking Club (leased parking spaces) A trip generation analysis was prepared based on ITE's Trip Generation Manual data for the following land uses: • #310, Hotel • #223, Mid -Rise Apartment • #230, Residential Condo/Townhome The Parking Club use does not fit into an established trip generation land use within the ITE Trip Generation Manual The proposed additional parking spaces are anticipated to generate additional vehicle trips to and from the parking structure. ITE publishes national parking rates and trip generation rates for specific land uses. These rates were used to compare the number of parking spaces to the associated number of additional vehicle trips. Per their 2010 Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition'; a hotel requires 1.54 parking spaces per hotel room. Working backwards from the 85th percentile parking rate, the additional 100 parking spaces would adequately serve 65 hotel rooms. ITE's anticipated trip generation rates (per ITE's 2012 Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition) for 65 rooms is 0.52 trips per room in the morning peak hour, 0.40 trips per room in the evening peak hour, and 0.47 trips per room during the Saturday peak hour. Because it is anticipated that these leased parking spaces would primarily be used for skier parking the Inbound / Outbound distribution from Land Use #466, Snow Ski Area was used for trip distribution. The hotel land use also accounts for ancillary land uses such as the lobby, library and lounge for guests. Based on the Trip Generation Manual and the assumptions made, this site would be expected to generate a total of 228 Saturday peak hour trips, 196 morning peak hour trips, and 200 evening peak hour trips, including all modes of travel. Refer to Table 1 for trip generation calculations and further breakdown of these trips. M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 12 Mss FN N N N F V m V v v m 0 F N ^ m m v F' N m tp 0 'F F 0 F N ^ N N m F v v N F' o 0 o m v 0 EE EE Q m h m vt vt vt 3 a� m h m vt vt vt N w w w � w 4 x o 0 0 0 0 0 o � o d a E E F W o � 4.2 Trip Distribution The distribution of project -generated vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways is influenced by several factors including the following: • The location of the site relative to other commercial facilities and the roadway network. • The configuration of the existing and proposed adjacent roadway network • Relative location of neighboring population centers Based upon the above factors and the current completion date of December 2017 for the Simba Run underpass, it is assumed that approximately fifty percent (50%) of site generated traffic will travel to or from the east on the North Frontage Road and fifty percent (50%) will travel to or from the west on the North Frontage Road under short term conditions. The anticipated directional distribution of project -generated traffic is depicted in Figure 5. Distribution is not anticipated to change from Year 2020 to Year 2040. 4.3 Site Circulation The Transportation Master Plan and Access Management Plan Map provide guidance for the access points to the subject property. These documents specify that the easternmost access will be ingress only and the westernmost access will be egress only. As designed, the site is anticipated to operate most effectively with the easternmost access as ingress only and the westernmost access as a full movement. Because the site will include hotel as well as long-term rental housing it is believed that site access would operate most efficiently with this configuration. The easternmost access would be used for hotel check-in, shuttles, and deliveries. The westernmost access would be the primary access for the apartments, parking garage, and hotel guests after check-in. The Town of Vail has indicated that they would support this change from the Access Management Plan if the access points operate adequately as proposed. It is understood that CDOT would need to also support this change and that the Access Management Plan would need to be updated to reflect the change. Per Section 4.4(1) of the State Highway Access Code, 2002, (Access Code) the minimum distance between access points should be at a minimum equal to the design sight distance along the highway. Given a 35 mph posted speed limit on the North Frontage Road, the access points should be a minimum of 250 feet apart. Access to the adjacent parcel is approximately 120 -feet west of the proposed westernmost access to the site. The Access Management Plan anticipates that the adjacent access to the North Frontage Road would be closed when this parcel is redeveloped in the future and access would be from Meadow Ridge Road. Alternately, if acceptable the adjacent property owners, access to the site could be M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 14 from the westernmost access to the Vail Marriott site allowing closure of the existing access. If the accesses are not combined, a CDOT Design Waiver would be required for the Access Spacing. M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 15 Figure 5: Directional Distribution of Project Generated Traffic r' r a�4e � •. — 4W ! � At -�-Ve i 40 • q4 '_;moi • � t ,�s � • IN, A CDOWELL ENGINEERING.u.c T n.•HUPonT'.T—N E—H—PHO C—MUL—TO Project Number: M1234 Prepared by: BBG Date: 8/5/2016 (NTS) Vail Marriott Residence Inn Vail, Colorado "Itr 4.4 Trip Mode Split and Assignment Given the available bicycle/pedestrian routes and adjacent transit stop for the local bus system, it can be assumed that a portion of site generated trips will be made by modes other than passenger car. The limited parking in Vail also encourages people to use alternative modes of transportation. An assumed multimodal reduction of ten percent (10%) would result in the reduction of the volume automobile trips by 18 trips during the Saturday peak hour, 14 trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 16 trips during the weekday evening peak hour. The multi -modal reduction was not applied to the trips generated by the parking club. Following the removal of non -vehicular trips from the project generated traffic, the anticipated volume of vehicular trips at each site access can be calculated. The anticipated assignment of trips on the roadway system is determined by applying the external trip generation expected for this site and its corresponding mode split to the estimated trip distribution. The resulting projections of site generated traffic with the Simba Run underpass can be seen in Figure 6. The Year 2018 total traffic anticipated at each intersection in question is the sum of the estimated Year 2018 background traffic (Figure 3) traffic with Figure 6, and can be seen in Figure 7. Similarly, Year 2040 total traffic is the sum of Year 2018 background traffic (Figure 3) traffic with Figure 4, and can be seen in Figure 8. As only evening peak hour data was available from the Master Plan Update, all volumes in Figures 7 and 8 only represent the evening peak hour. M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 17 Figure 6: Assianed Proiect Generated Traffic 48/40/41 21/17/18 y f 21/17/18 36/34/33 EMO `'fir-�_� �� _ } - L yi *'!Ti ..-- -- {• F -, a I +".. ■ A +� �r t :ice ' f itis _ a S w Aft - 1 1 i ` r i 42 f C D OW E L L LEGEND: -.LE N G I N E E RI N G.SAT/AM/PM Volumes = XX/XX/XX y TRn.NB PaR TATION ENa1NEE RIND CON9u LT ANTE Project Number: M1234 (NTS) Turning Movements "I I ro Prepared by: BBG Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21, 2013 Vail, Colorado Fiaure 7: Year 2018 Total Traffic -f4 t' ACDOWELL LEGEND: ENGINEERING.L1-C PM Volumes= XX TRANSPORTATION ENBINEERIN CI CONSULTANTS "I I ro Project Number: M1234 (NTS) Turning Movements Prepared by: BBG Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2013 Vail, Colorado Fiaure 8: Year 2040 Total Traffic 14W 44 r _ { ^4% r -f4 t' ACDOWELL LEGEND: ENGINEERING.L1-C PM Volumes= XX TRANSPORTATION ENBINEERIN CI CONSULTANTS "I I ro Project Number: M1234 (NTS) Turning Movements Prepared by: BBG Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Vail, Colorado 5.0 Transportation Impact Analysis 5.1 Site Access Auxiliary Turn Lanes As the North Frontage Road is a State Highway facility of Access Category F -R, Frontage Road (Speed Limit 35 mph), the need for auxiliary turn lanes to and from the site should be addressed. Per Section 3.13(4)(c -d) of the State Highway Access Code, 2002 (Access Code), as the North Frontage road has a posted speed less than 45 mph, acceleration lanes are generally not required and were not assessed further. At the proposed eastern and western site accesses there is the potential for two auxiliary deceleration lanes, the eastbound left and westbound right movements. Neither lane currently exists at either access location. Right Turn Deceleration: A westbound right turn deceleration lane is required on a facility of this type when the anticipated peak hour volumes exceed 50vph. Anticipated right turn volumes entering the eastern and western site accesses range from 17-21vph and 40-48vph respectively. The volume range is given because the traffic volume is expected to vary over the morning, evening and Saturday peak hour traffic. The Saturday peak hour volume for the western site access is on the threshold of the CDOT warrant but does not exceed the requirement. The AM and PM peak hour volumes do not CDOT's threshold at either location. Based on these volumes no westbound right turn lane should be required at either site access. Left Turn Deceleration: An eastbound left turn deceleration lane would be required if peak hour volumes expected to use this movement exceed 25vph. Anticipated left turn volumes entering the eastern and western site accesses range from 17-21vph and 40-48vph respectively. Peak hour volumes for the AM, PM, and Saturday are projected to exceed the CDOT threshold and at the eastbound left ingress movement at the western site access. Adeceleration lane will be required at this location. RefertoTable 2, Auxiliary Turn Lane Requirements for a breakdown of expected conditions. M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 21 Table 2: Auxiliary Turn Lane Requirements: The Access Code also details the required auxiliary turn lane lengths. Per Section 4, the auxiliary eastbound left lane should consist of a 10:1 taper and 48 feet of storage, for a total distance of 168 feet. M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 22 Maximum Peak Hour Turning Turning Volume Lane Turn Lane Length Movement Required? (from Figure 6) Eastern Site Access No Westbound Right 21 vph <50vph N/A turning No Eastbound Left 10 vph >25vph N/A turning Western Site Access No Westbound Right 48 vph <50vph N/A turning Yes 48' Storage, 10:1 Eastbound Left 48 vph >25vph Taper turning The Access Code also details the required auxiliary turn lane lengths. Per Section 4, the auxiliary eastbound left lane should consist of a 10:1 taper and 48 feet of storage, for a total distance of 168 feet. M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 22 5.2 Level of Service Analysis An HCM 2010 site access analysis was performed for both short term Year 2018 and long term Year 2040 conditions. This analysis assumes that the single deceleration lane explored as part of Section 5.1 will be constructed. The western full -movement access was anticipated to have both left and right turn lanes. Table 4 summarizes the total level of service (LOS) and delays. Table 4: Total Traffic Level of Service As can be seen in Table 4, the eastern site access is anticipated to operate satisfactorily following the completion of the redevelopment through the long term planning horizon. The western site access is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS through the Year 2018. By Year 2040 evening peak hour traffic volumes will deteriorate to unacceptable levels of service for the southbound left turn movement due to high volumes on the North Frontage Road. This condition will occur for all accesses along the Frontage Road with or without the Vail Marriott Residence Inn project. Delays at stop control side street accesses with arterials is normal and expected in peak hours. However, even underthese conditions, the ninety-five percentile queues at the access are anticipated to remain less than three vehicles in length. M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 23 Intersection Control Movement PM Level of Service (Seconds of Delay) 2018 2040 West Site Access and N Frontage Road (Full Movement) No Control EBL EBT A (9) B (11) A (0) A (0) No Control WBR/T A (0) A (0) SB Stop SB SBL SBR C (23) F (96) D (33) F (163) B (14) C (21) East Site Access and (Ingress Only) No Control EBL/T A (0) A (0) No Control WBR/T A (0) A (0) As can be seen in Table 4, the eastern site access is anticipated to operate satisfactorily following the completion of the redevelopment through the long term planning horizon. The western site access is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS through the Year 2018. By Year 2040 evening peak hour traffic volumes will deteriorate to unacceptable levels of service for the southbound left turn movement due to high volumes on the North Frontage Road. This condition will occur for all accesses along the Frontage Road with or without the Vail Marriott Residence Inn project. Delays at stop control side street accesses with arterials is normal and expected in peak hours. However, even underthese conditions, the ninety-five percentile queues at the access are anticipated to remain less than three vehicles in length. M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 23 5.3 Entering Sight Distance As the redeveloped site is expected to be a commercial facility with minimal multi- unit truck trips, Per Table 4-3 of the Access Code, the appropriate design vehicle for entering sight distance is a single -unit truck. Per Table 4-2 of the Access Code, the entering sight distance at the western access should be greater than 455 feet. From the existing western access there appears to be in excess of 500 feet to the west of the access and in excess of 700 feet east of the access. Entering sight distance exceeds Access Code requirements. r Eastbound sight distance at the western site (egress) access Westbound sight distance at the western site (egress) access M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 24 5.4 Access Permitting Given that estimated traffic volumes at the site are expected to increase in excess of twenty percent over the existing volumes and the existing accesses will be reconstructed, revised State Highway Access Permits will be required for the two site accesses. 5.5 Multimodal Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The applicant shall incorporate multimodal facilities in the site design as the project progresses in the Town's review and entitlement process. These plans shall be coordinated for connectivity with the North Frontage Road bicycle and pedestrian route, as well as the transit system. M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 25 6.0 Recommendations and Conclusions The Marriott Residence Inn redevelopment anticipates replacing the existing Roost Lodge, adjacent to the Interstate 70 North Frontage Road in Vail, with a 170 -room hotel; 113 long-term, local employee, rental apartments; and 100 leased parking spaces. As part of this effort, it is expected that the two existing site accesses will be reconstructed and reconfigured. The Transportation Master Plan and Access Management Plan Map provide guidance for the access points to the subject property. These documents specify that the easternmost access will be ingress only and the westernmost access will be egress only. As designed, the site is anticipated to operate most effectively with the easternmost access as ingress only and the westernmost access as a full movement. Because the site will include hotel as well as long-term rental housing it is believed that site access would operate most efficiently with this configuration. The easternmost access would be used for hotel check-in, shuttles, and deliveries. The westernmost access would be the primary access for the apartments, parking garage, and hotel guests after check-in. The Town of Vail has indicated that they would support this change from the Access Management Plan if the access points operate adequately as proposed. It is understood that CDOT would need to also support this change and that the Access Management Plan would need to be updated to reflect the change. The proposed access spacing between the western site access and the adjacent property access is approximately 120 -feet. The Access Management Plan Map anticipates that the adjacent access will be closed and the property will gain access from Meadow Ridge Road at the time of redevelopment. Per the Access Code, A minimum distance of 250 feet between access points is required by the Access Code along the Frontage Road. The anticipated volumes turning left into the site are projected to exceed the requirements set forth by the Access Code for the construction of an eastbound left turn deceleration lane at the eastern site access. This lane should have 48 feet of storage space and a 120 foot, 10:1 transition taper. The expected increase in vehicular demand upon the two site accesses as well as the proposed change in access design will necessitate the need for revised State Highway Access Permits at both site accesses. Pedestrian/bicycle connectivity via the North Recreation Path, as well as transit access, should be maintained or enhanced in conformance with Town of Vail criteria. M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 26 7.0 Appendix Reference Documents 1. 8t" Edition Trip Generation Manual. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008. 2. Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2001. 3. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2009. 4. Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board, 2010. 5. Vail Transportation Master Plan Update and Access Management Map. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig and Town of Vail, 2009 6. State of Colorado State Highway Access Code. CDOT, Rev. 2002 7. 4111 Edition Parking Generation Manual. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010. Included Documents 1.TIS Assumptions - Correspondence with Town of Vail and CDOT 2.Vail Transportation Master Plan Update Volume Projections 3.HCM 2010 Level of Service Calculations i. West Site Access ii. East Site Access M1234 Vail Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment August 5, 2016 Page 27 ININIiN1111 G(mail Vail Marriott McDowell Engineering Mail - Vail Marriott Tom Kassmel <TKassmel@vailgov.com> To: Ben Gerdes <ben@mcdowelleng.com> Cc: Kari McDowell Schroeder <kari@mcdowelleng.com> Tom Kassmel Town Engineer Public Works Department TOWN OF VAIL 970.479.2235 vailgov.com twitter.com/vailgov From: Ben Gerdes [mailto:ben@mcdowelleng.com] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 1:59 PM To: Tom Kassmel Cc: Kari McDowell Schroeder Subject: Vail Marriott Tom, Ben Gerdes <ben@mcdowelleng.com> Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:08 AM I am working on updating the traffic study for the Vail Marriott project and had a few questions for you: 1. The previous study assumed that the directional distribution with the Simba Run underpass would be 50% west / 50% east. Does this distribution still seem reasonable or should it be adjusted? This seems to be a reasonable distribution 2. A 10% multi -modal reduction was applied previously. The project as now proposed would include a significant amount of long-term rental housing that will be deed restricted to local employees. Do you think 10% still applies or could the reduction be increased slightly to account for the employee housing? We would recommend maintaining the 10% reduction. We have only used a larger reduction in the Vail and Lionshead Village areas that are on the High Frequency In Town Route. 3. A 0.5% growth rate was used to project the 2025 Master Plan traffic volumes to 2035 volumes. Should the 0.5% https://mai 1.googl e.com/mai 1/u/1 /?ui=2&i k=fc4c29c5l 7&view= pt&search=i nbox&m sg=15627cO5cd79fcc8&si m 1=15627cO5cd79fcc8 1/2 7/26/2016 McDowell Engineering Mail - Vail Marriott be used to project 2025 Master Plan volumes to 2040? Yes, though we are in the process of updating our VTMP. The numbers we will be using come from the 1-70 Underpass Traffic Study. See attached. 4. Do you have updated traffic counts for this location? We previously used 2013 counts provided. The 2012/13 counts are the latest we have. Thanks, Ben Ben Gerdes, PE Traffic / Transportation Engineer CDOWELL ENGINEERING.LtiC Eagle • Broomfield • Grand Junction Phone: 970.366.9502 email: ben@mcdowelleng.com www,mcdowelleng.com 13-164 Traffic Report FINAL Stamped 08.11.15.pdf 1696K https://m ai l.googl e.com/m ai I/u/1 /?ui=2&i k=fc4c29c5l 7&view= pt&search=i nbox&m sg= l5627cO5cd79fcc8&si m l=15627cO5cd79fcc8 2/2 Kari McDowell Schroeder From: Tom Kassmel Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:45 PM To: 'Kari McDowell Schroeder'; Babler, Alisa Subject: RE: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) Thanks, that works for the Town. From: Kari McDowell Schroeder [mailto:kari@mcdowelleng.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:10 PM To: Tom Kassmel; Babler, Alisa Subject: RE: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) a-�ue Alisa is out of the office until the 16th. Therefore, we went ahead and included two alternatives in the traffic report — with and without the Simba Run underpass. Hopefully this satisfies both CDOT and the Town's requests. Thanks! Kari From: Tom Kassmel [mailto:TKassmel(a)vailaov.com] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 1:15 PM To: 'Babler, Alisa'; Kari McDowell Schroeder (kari(a)mcdowellena.com) Subject: RE: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) It may seem counterintuitive, but the more conservative approach would be to use the numbers with Simba Run. Simba Run actually pushes more traffic to this particular section of Frontage Rd. 2025 Peak Hr PM with Simba at the Roost: 905 (WB) 795 (EB) 2025 Peak Hr PM no Simba: 555 (WB) 630 (EB) The Town would agree with the conservative approach and ask for volumes with Simba Run. Sorry to keep batting this back and forth, I just now looked as the numbers. From: Babler, Alisa[ma ilto:Alisa.Babler(a)DOT. STATE.CO.US] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 11:17 AM To: Tom Kassmel Subject: RE: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) I'd say we stick to not assuming Simba Run is funded for the study. It's the more conservative approach. Otherwise, I don't have any other comments. Alisa Babler Permit Unit Engineer Please note, effective October 8, 2012, 1 will have a new email address: alisa. babler0state. co. us CDOT, Region 3 Traffic & Safety Section 970-683-6287 970-683-6290 (fax) Alisa.babler@dot.state.co.us From: Tom Kassmel fmailto:TKassmel(a)vailgov.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:47 AM To: Babler, Alisa Subject: FW: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) From: Tom Kassmel Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:44 AM To: 'Babler, Alisa'; Kari McDowell Schroeder; alisa.babler(a)state.co.us Cc: Blender, Emmalee Subject: RE: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) Few comments below in red. From: Babler, Alisa fmailto:Alisa.Babler(a)DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 8:30 AM To: Kari McDowell Schroeder; alisa.babler(a)state.co.us Cc: Tom Kassmel; Blender, Emmalee Subject: RE: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) Kari, I'm good with this approach. I would not include Simba Run in the study. I don't think it is funded, in which case it shouldn't be included in the study. Thanks Alisa Alisa Babler Permit Unit Engineer Please note, effective October 8, 2012, 1 will have a new email address: alisa. babler0state. co. us CDOT, Region 3 Traffic & Safety Section 970-683-6287 970-683-6290 (fax) Alisa.babler@dot.state.co.us From: Kari McDowell Schroeder fmailto:kari(a)mcdowellena.coml Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 1:26 PM To: alisa.babler(a)state.co.us; Babler, Alisa Cc: Tom Kassmel Subject: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) Alisa, The Roost Lodge is looking to redevelop in Vail. The site currently has a 72 -room hotel with one employee housing unit. The site is to remain generally the same, but be remodeled to an Marriott Residence Inn with 152 all -suite hotel rooms and four on-site employee housing apartments. This yields almost 1,000 vpd and 80+/- vph. These volumes will require a CDOT Level 2 Traffic Study on the 1-70 Frontage Road. I do not have a proposed site plan to share with you yet. The site was previously studied in 2006 by Fox Higgins. Per conversations with Dan Roussin, I believe that an access permit was issued. The project was not constructed. I am proposing the following methodology for this analysis: Traffic counts and projections: • Vail's 2009 Access Management Plan (AMP) and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) have traffic volumes for the frontage road and projections to Year 2025. 1 would like to use these volumes for the study, as the project - generated traffic is going to determine the need for auxiliary lane improvements, not the through traffic on the frontage road. • The Town of Vail is going to be obtaining new traffic counts in January 2013. We would propose to do a quick comparison of the frontage road traffic volumes at that time to determine if there have been major impacts to the transportation system. • The traffic growth rate for the frontage road is not available on CDOT's website. I would propose that we use the growth rate from the TMP and apply it forward to Year 2035. The growth rate from 2009 to 2025 is very high since the study was developed as a build out scenario study with 2025 selected as full build out. This was done during the boom in Vail and a lot of large developments were on the table going thru the process. Many of those have been stopped or delayed. We suggest using the 2025 data with a modest growth rate of 0.5% from 2025 to 2035. Once we have updated traffic numbers over this winter we can re assess the projection as needed. Background infrastructure improvements and future development: • The Town of Vail has identified the Simba Run underpass as a future $20 Million infrastructure project. Their 2011 CIP classifies this project as a low priority. I would like to know if we should include this connection under I-70 in our long term analysis. Tom — Do you have input on this issue? Simba Run is moving forward (slowly), CDOT and the Town are about to release a joint RFP for a PEL within the next couple months for completion next year. • There are no know developments that are going to impact the Roost Lodge site. Trip generation: • We are proposing to use ITE Land Use Code #311— All Suites Hotel for the weekday/am/pm analysis. This land use does not have Saturday data. Therefore, we are proposing to use #310 — Hotel for the weekend analysis. In addition, the four employee units would be analyzed as #220 — Apartments. Can you confirm what Hotel and EHU rates were used in the approved Fox Higgins study, we should be consistent with those. Trip distribution: • The previous study identified approximately 60% of traffic from the west and 40% of traffic from the east. We would propose to use the same trip distribution for our analysis. • The AMP identifies that the site's eastern access is a one-way in and the western access is a one-way out. See attached. • We are anticipating that the site traffic will trigger the need for an eastbound left deceleration lane at the eastern site access. Please confirm that this approach looks acceptable. I would appreciate any feedback before we start the analysis. Thanks! Kari Kari I McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE Transportation / Traffic Engineer WELL CDO a ERNSOOOINGINFEF ING.�.I.C. TAPfITATdN ENM£ER040 GGNMI.iLTANi$ Eagle • Broomfield • Grand Junction 970.623.0788 0 303.949.4748 0 303.845.9541 fax kari@mcdowelleng.com www.mcdowelieng.com 0 Please consider the environment before printing this email. P,oj 7 6w�red �� / e Py aa7Ua� asa/¢n a ©PH IIUA PaaSa�aS o�aPa. S o $ C�� j 6, 0e o 0 O �2 °E,�e alo,iG Pea4 suoil'3 y 55 o�o S 0 Je��c Oast' � 0� a e ai U ®Pa o ew oo m O 1p SO ad a Rqq �S� O 0,'9�� \d h o ",p 5a{0 55 e o ss -16' °mss 00 I 41 GO oc°fociLooe06bh IOE/j00911911 a 01 [06]O m m � °� N E N E _ 0 U 0 U a N N a aoa ca F > ca F m jrn U m o > _ =ca m U C Y N Y U o N N O (6 F a ¢R 0 N v C3 Z W W J u X X u X X u u 55 o�o S 0 Je��c Oast' � 0� a e ai U ®Pa o ew oo m O 1p SO ad a Rqq �S� O 0,'9�� \d h o ",p 5a{0 55 e o ss -16' °mss 00 I 41 GO oc°fociLooe06bh IOE/j00911911 a 01 [06]O N U 7 Oi � LL a C ca 0 cn C,5 d I, C .n w N 1Go V,��1O _pNp� °� a aoa wx� K;. N U 7 Oi � LL a C ca 0 cn C,5 d I, C .n w N n � d � 0 O1 U LL ,� O CL U cC H cz O x cz 0 m CL Lo N O N 00 ro SO L0L �� .BOLL OEC r OEZ Sal .r mm \b 71� s s�6s ����o 00 1 S SSS!\ rS! 2��� Soar 01 p��+� S 25 s�! °! U C7 \ 3 p�'p! pSS S Cb 2�0 /O 9 y S2 PCO �y .a wx� s s�6s ����o 00 1 S SSS!\ rS! 2��� Soar 01 p��+� S 25 s�! °! U C7 \ 3 p�'p! pSS S Cb /O \yam y S2 PCO �y IfJ fA C N Ccu e� N N LL J E _ U J _ N OJ > U LL 0 a C U or d OJ O W 6 9 U C-) E L 099 F E s E fr, N cC O ® a z > o CL) n = m o 0 o� t m O L mm 0 F- a- w N m n N u W � sA CL A—ObA u u u u � } N ®R��,: Z X OW X X . J Xczcz P,oj 4/1"l lte^ 5w,,'cl S6� 6 SSO op O S'os� I e Py aa7Ua� ase/¢n e\ �PFi I!eA PoaSa�aSto�oPd. I O SSS S 20 SSS R/ 0 r ghOh r'm .j.,.0 Pea4 suoil'3 'Y5 O O W o OS ® G`oo� 'oS 411 S r peaysuoil'M 1 OS /PSTN %N� 6 h 'ph (S) o x-088 (06L) n N 0 �SL8 (098) �� LSBb l—OAZ �a � � 2 (OS) �5L (55) (go')SLZ � X90 L (58) (S8L)SBL� 0 90,(5o[) (OSE) SSE �r %5L (OW Pa Fot05t � �O 0O{ s� e oys Spry ® S, S O 00,s, p5 srO{ �S 2 01 ,00t yde5 OSS eQ•a' e S U m S6, ® acY`ot °s SS S o 95 Z�l ok, 190 00 ^Opp inoin in —rm S 20 SSS R/ 0 r ghOh r'm y o� s°(o �� .-1 W wx� 95 Z�l ok, 190 c^/ SSSS, y o� s°(o SZ��SJL) ,Awe } r HATCHLINE SEE SHT. 3 U% F� w �20 .I� ..1 �~r� RM 1 :r: tl • K�ou 1 X jsh " IL T '1HS 33S 3NI-IH31dW -0 9 ra.klomu rrr Et+,1 2018 Total PM.syn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR Vol, veh/h 0 0 18 529 600 18 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 20 575 652 20 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1276 662 672 0 0 Stage 1 662 - - - - Stage 2 614 - - Follow-up Headway 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Capacity -1 Maneuver 184 462 919 Stage 1 513 - - Stage 2 540 - - Time blocked -Platoon, % Mov Capacity -1 Maneuver 178 462 919 Mov Capacity -2 Maneuver 178 - - Stage 1 513 Stage 2 523 Approach SE NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NEL NET SEW SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h) 919 0 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - + HCM Control Delay (s) 9.002 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.065 + Notes : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined Vail Marriott Residence Inn McDowell Engineering Vail, CO Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2040 Total PM.syn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR Vol, veh/h 0 0 18 890 975 18 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 20 967 1060 20 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2077 1070 1079 0 0 Stage 1 1070 - - - - Stage 2 1007 - - Follow-up Headway 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Capacity -1 Maneuver 59 269 646 Stage 1 329 - - Stage 2 353 - - Time blocked -Platoon, % Mov Capacity -1 Maneuver 55 269 646 Mov Capacity -2 Maneuver 55 - - Stage 1 329 Stage 2 329 Approach SE NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h) 646 0 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - + HCM Control Delay (s) 10.747 0 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.094 + Notes : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined Vail Marriott Residence Inn McDowell Engineering Vail, CO Page 1 2018 Total PM.syn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR Vol, veh/h 33 33 42 514 600 42 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None None Storage Length 0 0 47 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 36 36 46 559 652 46 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1325 675 698 0 0 Stage 1 675 - - - - Stage 2 650 - - Follow-up Headway 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Capacity -1 Maneuver 172 454 898 Stage 1 506 - - Stage 2 520 - - Time blocked -Platoon, % Mov Capacity -1 Maneuver 163 454 898 Mov Capacity -2 Maneuver 163 - - Stage 1 506 Stage 2 493 Approach SE NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 23 1 0 Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NEL NET SEW SELn2 SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h) 898 163 454 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.051 0.22 0.079 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.224 33.2 13.6 HCM Lane LOS A D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.16 0.806 0.256 Notes : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined Vail Marriott Residence Inn McDowell Engineering Vail, CO Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2040 Total PM.syn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR Vol, veh/h 33 33 42 875 975 42 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None None Storage Length 0 0 47 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 36 36 46 951 1060 46 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2125 1083 1105 0 0 Stage 1 1083 - - - - Stage 2 1042 - - Follow-up Headway 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Capacity -1 Maneuver 55 264 632 Stage 1 325 - - Stage 2 340 - - Time blocked -Platoon, % Mov Capacity -1 Maneuver 51 264 632 Mov Capacity -2 Maneuver 51 - - Stage 1 325 Stage 2 315 Approach SE NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 97 0 0 Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SELn2 SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h) 632 51 264 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.072 0.703 0.136 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.139 172.5 20.8 HCM Lane LOS B F C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.233 2.842 0.464 Notes : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined Vail Marriott Residence Inn McDowell Engineering Vail, CO Page 1 L� Aff, L� I 1 1 I I I I I I I o_ I I I I I � I I I � I I I I I I � I I � I I � I I I I I I I I I I � I � I V I I II T I E rd Iml C r C Ci H Z� W �2U d � 0 N W J d � Q p � w O W Q U H Q j W � Z L W Z Oi CL E Im d CL Q LL I 50 om I LL I L- I y�T z W x IL O J W W Q J a z W Qo LLI ry o J W O 2 Q W O a O w IL LL I xa omm LL I xa omm LL I xa omm LL I xa omm LL I xa omm I A m m m m m m m 9 LlEfff] 0 CD ID ID -0 0 E Co Q - Ca (3) CO C: LU 8 r -I r -I El I 0 m O O V Z� W �2U d � O� J N W () J d � Q p � w O W Q U � Q W Z Q H W Z In W0 CL L� cz d CL Q DIM z o 0 w �m O O EDz w � LL K � Q N a o J O Q� Lei 0 M. ti w Z W D �2U CL D O� J N W () J d -00 O W Q U °a> W z Z Q W Z Oi d� 0� � Q O Z� W �2U d � O� J N W () J d -00 aQe w O W Q U � Q W Q Z Q H W Z d 0� � Q ,4, . I bpFffjjr- 11=1 it ijA i w Now 0 7 OEM'm LF I bpFffjjr- 11=1 it ijA i w 77�ml-llll I�rrllllfllll•- i ................... m mnmuu°'N'i1' illllllllllllllllll - � i -� — r ae• g.aTi t tee° *�� ... u.. ........... ... . ,:.•aawmmurmnnn 'mIIIlI1llllr111 - `:-- -- . Ifni 4.4 3%1soloss ar,„aaluunlm molmmArk nrihl .., �.�,«� 1l�Irr eerllllllilr•-..... .,...,.,. Y ' 'kt�j i _ JjrmnurlemnramrY i �� , Jiilj!l Y t .........�....R• 8I •,ylonueannamli _•� �- ._ i {� �;�' y�n� s .��-, nn+ .rrunrml._—if/ ........_ ..__ .nunnmerm .� r ,h....... .......... = d '- I ..A.r I +�un11M1 -- tt IIINIIIAIIINIIIII — -- - satllll@ ���+ _ � r i MEN O7 !� IIT, f ��■ vm Elm;, risisaP�9 ® ISA v�lp n�MIN 77�ml-llll I�rrllllfllll•- i ................... m mnmuu°'N'i1' illllllllllllllllll - � i -� — r ae• g.aTi t tee° *�� ... u.. ........... ... . ,:.•aawmmurmnnn 'mIIIlI1llllr111 - `:-- -- . Ifni 4.4 3%1soloss ar,„aaluunlm molmmArk nrihl .., �.�,«� 1l�Irr eerllllllilr•-..... .,...,.,. Y ' 'kt�j i _ JjrmnurlemnramrY i �� , Jiilj!l Y t .........�....R• 8I •,ylonueannamli _•� �- ._ i {� �;�' y�n� s .��-, nn+ .rrunrml._—if/ ........_ ..__ .nunnmerm .� r ,h....... .......... = d '- I ..A.r I +�un11M1 -- tt IIINIIIAIIINIIIII — -- - satllll@ ���+ _ � r 0 -- v m y =ad ILI e ny -MORN ��•! y • pkv ,���� ��. �� o gift V": =L 6ML1NINl"4� yd Sam 5 _ !VI a® - > 1 1 1 - 1 f? r r r� 1. 1- IL II" r „A t gg U JjLk N Irk- lwKT Mai"INK arrrrnrrri riurrnrmrrurrnrr rrnrrrer+rry� 'd Imp ' y 7 kL _. 'dllllll Skld ':i]�a IN -- 6ME I�6 31101 2_ C� 6i 661 ! I _•!I IL 'e � 16 � : I AN R. =0 6L lop 66R 61r 6Ru' 661i' It 2s,°`. _ 6"ef— 6'aR 661. 6! -1• 1-' 661E --o ai .. I I I lar l 6� 61'1 11 �� IAL �� wmupae _. 'dllllll Skld ':i]�a IN 31101 2_ e=_m EEL- ( I or A I— I L n HOW eII MEN EMPT, am a= L Mai —Mao 0 ;.7 RIPME Sir 0 0 OW -1 V'A ft OW 011 4 WON 1110 lot 411 am now K 11, M6& - am mm m -m= Sir 1MswilP Small!" imif Mzff- mom Mai Or M 5 IN IF Mao arc ONIL-41 7d I rim 4 4 O 0 L6 r. 0 0 CLO cl� U E 4-1 _0 cr- r-4 r -I ta -c CY z O 4 V C: C 1p LL 3 o 4 4 4 4 4 4 12 0 C CC 'r- el LL z - P olI 0 IL! 0 r 0 0 0 4 4 4 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ c CL V, 6-1 V C lT CL LL Cr' e- Q I-. Z� W d� O� J N W J d a 00 W Q U Q i W Z Q V) W Z d 0� z 0 O el LL Mmm a ! I NOW mom MEW 9M 1 22 c A LL w IMM Min go : 11 =2 M NI -II IIII 11572 BEIM 5 ml§ m C H Z� W �2U d � 0� J N W J d � Q p � w O W Q U H Q j W � Z Q L W Z 0 CL L� 0� � Q H Z� W �2U d � 0� J N W J d � Q p � w O W Q U H Q j W � Z Q L W Z 0 CL L� 0� � Q 2 O � \7 )\ )) / gp4o N v Q� v �a x x 3 H Co Z W CL u CL D O JO N W () Y i K J d Lu ao a i O � Zuw u W Q LU Z H Oi d r CC O� I da u �e s' r m a 0 5 O O 5 O Z� H o U N L U Q � y x H x 3 Zw W H d w NW N D J d 0 Q � p I w O W U U in Q I Q LU In rr) W Z 0 CL L� I CL Q 7, u 2e s' 1 1 H v o N e E � x U m s in v 6 mm3 7 7 Q y x x � I i o 0 o=N o o o pew :'s'sN ' waww��p �a��pp, rip ppa r p pia 6 6 z O F- - OL r, cx zpaq, V -Q -VL c g'301if. ,4Le. koosraA84- ' Vi m ee Js b 6 ► = pVa�e n,z , r'e6 c� v-�. �la.(�--l-��s �vu pry inbe to s f -TIl� b k d i s -moo s �Z r� d `tCo 1-4 rq e- 60')@ .mac prap S d � _.t-.�,r,e 11 e�shbor700A- f jnc&n e-nr « Ke i% 1[ r 5 cf �P-fn� �° mod edemas cpv,d food 6�►�5� ,pay�� ccs tA urs' n �e �, y�afi r s�.P�r�" � � a r�eish�orhaod � t V) Q �p `'lel r-elt re- S �� &,n i _ S u ltirr� G r � � � r n and qAe. V'�ry P�c�a,( r� a in LoVe- W a'`1 t Aaf-K ` a It and rT' 1� cL�' � � Qr^ed Vai be +tqxU�©r'h l L� n , U! l it ,5e-,e,�°? , `Qh r'S i a (JAS 1"T� Vail Knvwivlj �r, ChQrd.cre- r u) '4h OP v i e, u.rr cvn d i rpt, • , w S f k- A&Ae- t%a ( r e-5 �o.�-qje- C h©ice- or Ye -a( e5 -yak Mal be ``ay- Y'tSK1� be -ca Q 5 d tj v) co n � ("-3 -t--qr)e- (e�6 I Matt Panfil From: hmpiii@atlanticbb.net Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 11:55 AM To: George Ruther Subject: New Proposed "Roost" Building Project Attachments: HillsideCondo20l6VailCityLtr.pdf George I am attaching a letter from Adelle regarding the "new" project. By the way, Adelle was a very successful real estate agent for years selling,in the main, residential properties in a borough of Johnstown,Pa that had its "we do not have enough commercial property to subsidize our school taxes,etc." problem.The straight up answer was consolidation with neighboring entities.That was turned down by the residents in a referendum vote.. So, in a democratic way. taxes on a fixed amount of residential real estate had to increase for schools, roads, etc, and we ALL have had to live with it; and we do. In my opinion,that is the way it is supposed to be handled.,not to renege on a "promise" [zoning] that is so necessary in a community as Adelle points out in her letter. I know Vail has this problem of maturity and success. Some states [Col??] make annexation much easier than Pennsyvania's requiring a vote. In addition, I am somewhat concerned about the value of the Hillside condos should this proposed building come into being. Does anybody have a feel for that or have concerns for the effected residents? Stay in touch.please, The sacrifice should be shared by the whole community somehow,not just a few. Thx for your time: Howard[Skip]Picking Hillside "C" From: rein karp [mailto:reinkarp(cDyahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 5:32 PM To: George Ruther Subject: Building in west Vail Sirs; I visit resident relatives in Vail. I do not think the area should be spoiled by a new 6 story hotel. Rein Karp , Seattle From: Kathryn H Schofield[mailto:kathryn.schofield@vvmc.com] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 5:27 PM To: George Ruther Subject: uphold zoning laws Mr. Ruther, I am writing in opposition of the new proposed development on the site of the old Roost Lodge in West Vail. I think this project is way to big and doesn't fit with the neighborhood plans. Also, the zoning regulations would need to be changed to accommodate this development. What is the point of having zoning regulations if they are so easy to change? There must be a better idea of what to put on that land that fits with the current regulations and neighborhood plan. Thank you for your time, Katie Schofield From: Diane P[mailto:rockhound1962CaDgmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 6:45 PM To: George Ruther Subject: Roost Lodge Lot Mr. Ruther, I am writing to oppose the proposed development of the 100 condos on this proprty! ! ! I oppose any variance to the current zoning! Please keep the charm of the community in tact. This proposal to change the character of the community is unacceptable to tell members of our community, the ones in which your office serves. Your support to our community is critical and very much appreciated. Please do not sell us out to the highest bidder. Thank you. Respectfully, Diane Pu From: Andy Gunion[mailto:aaunion(d)ewpartners.com] Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 5:08 PM To: George Ruther Subject: Thoughts on the New Roost Lodge Redevelopment Application George, Please share these thoughts with the appropriate members of your team and with the PEC Commissioners. Thank you and have a good weekend. -Andy- I am writing in regards to the latest development application for the old Roost Lodge site in West Vail, now referred to as the Marriott Residence Inn. My father and I own a condominium in the Hillside complex directly north of the site. My wife and I lived in this condo for approximately ten years and we have been renting this unit to full-time vail employees since we moved to east vail in 2014. Being in the development business myself it is interesting being on the "other side" of the zoning process (developer karma I suppose) and I am highly sensitive to not being an irrational NIMBY or a hypocrite. I have watched my fellow Hillside owners and other neighbors who are not in the development business struggle to understand this seemingly endless stream of reapplications on this site and have seen them become fatigued by what feels like death by a thousand cuts — with each proposal coming back larger and taller. Until this point I have not voiced any serious concern, but the scale of this current proposal is really quite shocking. Increases in density are often an economic necessity to allow redevelopment, but in this case heights are increasing from what was a two and three story building in the Roost Lodge to a five and six story one. Has a tripling of height ever been approved in Vail outside of the village core? I am willing to bet that the consensus among a series of independent, objective planners focused solely on the context of the existing neighborhood would be that the appropriate height on this site is 3 —4 stories. The Town's staff and elected and appointed officials really need to take a step back and think about what type of precedent something of this scale would set for Vail's peripheral neighborhoods. Buildings of this scale, and larger, have certainly become commonplace in Vail's purposely dense village core, but this application is a dramatic departure from the existing tone and scale of the much less dense neighborhood of West Vail. West Vail is an existing neighborhood where, for the most part, the scale and layout of buildings generally respects neighboring properties, allowing most homes to enjoy a view of the mountains — one of the primary reasons people live in Vail. I believe the scale of this proposed building is similar to that of the large projects recently constructed in the village core (Solaris, Four Seasons, etc.) from the 1-70 side (5-6 stories). We all remember the incredible scrutiny that these projects went though and the extensive public benefits that had to be provided in exchange for their approved mass and scale — and these buildings are located in a much denser, commercial -oriented neighborhood than this Roost site. In the example of Solaris, the public benefits that this project provided were extremely beneficial to the immediate neighborhood within which the project is located — new plaza, entertainment amenities, retail, etc. It is unclear to me if this Roost redevelopment proposal provides any benefit to the surrounding neighborhood and will obviously have an extreme negative impact on views, character, traffic, etc. In addition, thanks to the high sales prices possible in the village these large buildings in the village core were able to afford expensive architectural features that help greatly to mitigate their scale. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, a limited service hotel or local housing project will not be able to afford such rich facades and run the risk of looking very generic and cheap at this large scale. I understand that the proposed project is comprised of components that the Town desires — Full Time Local Housing, Limited Service Hotel and Parking but why do all of these desires need to be jammed together into one massive project that is out of scale for this location? Why has nothing been constructed under the prior three approvals on this site and why does this building keep growing and growing with every revised application? I believe that the out-of-town developer dramatically overpaid for the property and underestimated the costs of construction in the mountains. This is unfortunate, but should this neighborhood be compromised to mitigate these private economic mistakes? I fully appreciate the economic challenges of building a hotel or locals housing in our marketplace. In the case of a hotel I would fully expect the project to require some residential component to reduce the hotel basis, but applying the local deed restriction to the residential units no -doubt reduces the incremental value of each residential unit. This then requires a dramatic increase the number of residential units. In the case of full time locals housing I would expect the developer to require some type of significant public subsidy and/or include a more profitable component — such as a limited service hotel. Combining these two economically difficult uses together has created a beast that smacks of desperation and a project that I'm not sure would be economically viable for the developer even if the Town approves the application as is. I think we'd all prefer not to be back here reviewing a 5th proposal in two years. This application should be rejected wholesale and the Town and the developer should decide what use they want to pursue on this site that is viable for the developer at a scale appropriate for this site. A limited service hotel with some residential units to buy down the basis or a full-time locals housing complex. Not both. In my personal opinion, if the Town is serious about increasing the stock of locals housing in Vail and willing to utilize town funds to that end then this is an ideal opportunity to provide significant subsidies to the developer to allow the site to be developed in that manner at an appropriate scale. On this note, the Timber Ridge redevelopment is only three stories. It could have been built at a larger scale without impacting any neighbors. The Chamonix site is much lower density as well — respecting the existing character of the neighborhood. If the Town is going to seriously consider this proposal then there are a whole slew of questions and concerns to be addressed. These include: • How does this proposal fit into the big picture of existing master plans and the long-term desire of the Town and the neighborhood residents for the character of this area? • Does the Town envision this neighborhood becoming a series of dense, large-scale apartment buildings, with the two and three story structures that exist today redeveloping into 5-6 story complexes over time? • Is the plan to have a row of large scale buildings flanking 1-70 with smaller buildings behind? • Or is this just a one-off spot zoning exercise for this site? • View impact analysis for the neighbors. Sunshade studies—the access road to our complex is steep and will ice up if shaded. Renderings and sections that show this building relative to neighboring properties Fagade would really need to be improved with much more variation in and out and up and down. I have seen very few projects that have successfully executed on making one long building really look like an eclectic row of buildings developed over time — as proposed. Most look contrived and cheap. A lot to think about here as you consider this proposal to build "The Great Wall of West Vail". Thank you for considering these thoughts and I appreciate all of your work and public service that helps to keep Vail such a special place to live in and visit. -Andy Gunion- Roost Lodge Expansion The new proposal to expand the already approved large building size to an even bigger building is not what Vail needs. Just because this pushes buttons on Vail needs list — employee housing, parking, motel beds this is not the way to do it. To create an SDD [ special development district] and change the zoning on a site that already has more than generous zoning to something that creates a humongous building that not only over powers the site, but also the neighborhood and all of West Vail. To try and fit a size 12 building into a size 9 lot defies the character of West Vail. To change the zoning on this site will have repercussions now and in the future. If this done there surely be more pressure in the future to up zone other sites in West Vail. This site already has a large building plan that has been approved. But apparently is not financially feasible. So to enable a developer that cannot make his first 2-3 plans work, to a multi use building that of has to be even larger, unlike anything in West Vail is not a good plan for Vail. As you know Vail Resorts has recently committed to building employee housing and parking. Probably on the Ever Vail site, the Simba ski run site, or somewhere else where a building of this magnitude might be more suitable thus relieving these pressures. So I would humbly suggest that this proposal be tabled until we know what future more suitable proposals will surely come to meet these needs. To commit to a huge mixed use building that over powers all of West Vail. With tiny setbacks, pushing the building into the hillside and wanting exemptions from various codes, taxes and zoning etc. in what are essentially a residential neighborhood seems to be rushed at best. do not think that this proposal is clear to the residents of Vail. Pushing this through without careful consideration of the effects now and in the future by all needs to be done. Is this what we are crying out for? It would be good to put some sort of representation of the true size of this building on site. Maybe using power poles of the appropriate height at the corners with a bright cable between them to show the outline of this building. This would give all Vail residents a true representation of what will go here and maybe increase discussion about these subjects of what is going to happen to West Vail. I do not think an image on a screen would truly show the scale of this massive building on a 2 acre lot. The drawings they show now have the building disappearing off the page in a haze it's so big. This is not the solution or location to Vails housing, parking and motel problems by piggy backing onto an already approved building. Are there other proposals in the works such as the tear down of the West Vail Sports Authority Building and replacing it with apartments or the Holiday Inn back lot and what is Vail Resorts going to do? There does not seem to be a long term plan for West Vail. We do not need to be changing zoning until we have an idea what else may be coming. Give it some time to see. The Town of Vail does not build housing on its own sites of this magnitude why should we allow it here? I wish I could attend the various meetings on this but with such a short notice unfortunately have to be out of state. Like many neighbors in West Vail who are unable to attend. So I am relying on your discretion to slow this down and give it a good think. This can wait. It is August 28 if I get the zoning notice tomorrow it will be the minimum notice length for the PEC meeting on September 12! Sincerely, Greg Bemis On Sep 8, 2016, at 4:50 PM, wendy erb <wen50nycgy hoo.com> wrote: George Thanks for the time you spent with me I will not be able to attend the next Monday, September 12 Meeting of the PEC at 1 PM. Please distribute my following comments addressed to the PEC Committee Members which partially articulates my strong opposition to the current request to establish a new Special Development District and further upzoning of the old Roost site, the newly proposed Marriott, apartments, and parking. Please confirm to me that you have gotten this. Thanks Wendy Erb to the PEC Committee Members Re: Proposal to create a Special Development District for a Marriott Note: I added 2 footnotes *1 & **2 which are at the end, but I couldn't get this to make a superscripts. Regretfully, I will not be able to attend the PEC Meeting on this coming Monday September 12, 2016, but i wanted to comment on the proposal to create a Special Development District for the old Roost site, where there is a proposal to build a Marriott Residence Inn, market rate employee housing and parking. I am not a developer, I am merely a concerned long time resident of West Vail. I have owned my place since 1999. I appreciate the town's desire to have more hot beds to add to its tax base, although arguably the increasing spread of airbnb and similar accommodations could be tapped for this tax revenue. In recent years I seem to run into an increasing number of foreign visitors who are staying in a "holiday house" that provides them with accommodations and partial board during their vacations in Vail. Needless to say I also run into people staying at various airbnb places, and know some people who rent out their places on airbnb. As a long time resident of Vail I am well aware of the need for additional parking and housing for employees Both of these are important goals and issues for the town to address which it has been trying to address for many years, perhaps almost since it became a town 50 years ago. (Yes I remember the old dirt parking lot where the Village parking structure now exists.) In fact, town council has in recent years shown its view of appropriate employee housing in West Vail by the development of the Commons, followed by the North Trail Townhouses, the redevelopment of part of Timber Ridge, now called Lion's Ridge Village and the proposed Chamonix project. What do all of these developments have in common beyond being on the North side of I-70 and west of the main tourist and commercial center of Vail and Lionshead, "the town core"? They all have a relatively low density. The newest project in the works, the much anticipated Chamonix project proposes to put about 50 units on the 3.5 acre site, or just under 14.3 units per acre. If the same metrics were applied to the former Roost site, now being proposed to be a special development district for a Marriott Residence Inn, parking and market rate housing then less than 29 units could be built on the less than 2 acre site (ie 4/7 the size of the Chamonix site and only 1/3 the size of the Lion's Ridge Village site). Instead the developer seeks to build a massive structure, and seeks to have its property declared a special development district so that it can build significantly taller and larger in terms of square footage GRFA than it is currently allowed to build. In fact the proposed structure seeks to have 283 market rate apartments and hotel apartments built on the less than 2 acre site (a residence inn is designed to be like and function like a residence, not just a sleep for a night place, or it would not have the cooking facilities). {Although the largest piece of land the town has built workforce housing on is Middle Creek which is different from the West Vail projects mentioned above because it is walking distance to the Village core, right opposite the village core, and truly nestled into a hillside; the height of the building does not cast a shadow on any town roads or other residences, but rather merely on the hillside above it, which I believe is Forest Service land.} It is important to bear in mind that this site which seeks to become a special development district has already been up -zoned in this century when over 10 years ago it was given the newly created zoning of PA -2 , so that they could put kitchens facilities in hotel suites (after all a residence inn is a hotel suite that is a mini apartment with kitchen facilities, a living room and a separate bedroom or bedrooms suites.) Now if this was being built as part of or adjacent to Vail's commercial core, the Town Core, then the density would be in keeping with the character of the Village, but instead it is proposed to be placed where it will overwhelm the surrounding residential neighborhood. This is the type of development that would make good sense to be built on part of the old proposed Ever Vail site, next to Lionshead. Vail Resorts has even said that it will work with the town to help achieve the workforce housing goals and alleviate the parking problems that Vail has. It should not be for the town to change its zoning to accommodate a developer who paid too much for a property with an existing hotel business on it, and then discovered that it costs more to build in the mountain region than they expected it would cost.* 1 (below ) Similarly I find that it is disingenuous to state that the part of the Marriott Residence Inn building that will be 72 feet tall will be placed against the hillside. Yes there is a hillside on the east side of the lot, and Meadow Ridge Road rises on the north side of the property enough that a retaining wall will need to be built to accommodate the large footprint proposed, but the height of the building will far exceed the hillside behind the building, blocking sunlight and views for the surrounding area. The steep road behind will be made icy and dangerous to walk and drive on due to the absence of sunlight hitting the road. Another indicia of the massiveness of the proposed building is the fact that the employee housing units will have a GRFA equivalent size that is greater than the GRFA for the Residence Inn part of the building. Currently, after the last rezoning the property can have a maximum GRFA of 129,896 square feet. However, the building that was last approved was for less than 58 of the maximum GRFA, and even the 2013 proposal was for less than 2/3 of the maximum GRFA. The newly proposed building would have a GRFA of only 70.2 % of the maximum allowable, thus making it "only 91,198 square feet", but only because the additional 95,785 square feet for the 113 employee housing units are not counted in the GRFA calculation. In reality this would be the equivalent of a 186,982 square foot building, 143 % of what is permissible on the site and almost 2.5 times what was approved in the most recent approval. **2 (below) Sadly I fear that an approval of another bigger spot rezoning again for this site has a long term detrimental effect for all of Vail which far outweighs the laudable objectives that the developer has set forth. It raises the question of what's to stop the same thing from happening in any other neighborhood in Vail? Although one might argue that there are not other slightly less than 2 acre lots, but that is not for the town to solve by rezoning this property. A developer can buy up a block of adjacent lots, or I would point to all the parks in east and west Vail. Yes they were bought to be permanently open space with RETT funds, but action could be taken to change the restrictions on the park land and make some or all of them available for sale to developers to build similar projects in the future, perhaps even taller to fit future economic needs. There are properties with aging buildings that might be likewise ripe for similar over development. The nature and spirit of any neighborhood should not be so easily cast aside. Bottom line I am opposed to spot zoning particularly in the absence of a well developed plan for all of West Vail that has been discussed with the neighborhood groups in the same way that comment was solicited for the Chamonix development, the underpass and similar large impact projects. Zoning should not be changed merely to meet the financial needs of each new developer who comes to town even if they "started coming to Vail on road trips while they were in school" and are not just showing up for the first time with a piece of real estate they bought which may have had some homes or existing businesses on it. I strongly urge that the PEC refuse to recommend doing any spot zoning by creating a special development district for this or any other site in West Vail, particularly before there is a well thought out and discussed with the community plan for all of West Vail. It is silly to rush into making such a significant change merely because a developer has a new idea of what to do with a property they acquired, or might want to acquire.. Further they should recommend that the developer go away and not come back until they have a proposal that is smaller, less than or at most equal to what was approved in the past, not greater than the past. That was already a building too large for the area. ***3 ( below) It is not for the town to approve anything a developer wants to build in order to make it attractive for them, especially if they have perhaps overpaid to acquire a property to begin with. The town has a duty to think about the residential property owners in the whole greater area. We should bear in mind that the developer bought an existing business and chose to tear it down, but did not have to destroy their business when they were lacking the financing to build a new project. There is no guarantee that approving anything larger for this property won't just further let the camel's nose under the tent as they seek to further enlarge the project and perhaps then not even build what they propose because their financing falls through again, even if the town waives all of its fees to help a private developer build. The developers request to be exempt from the customary fees and certain other requirements raises an interesting question. If a person wants to build a new house in Vail and build an extra employee housing unit or two as part of it will the town waive all of its fees and allow the house to greatly exceed what otherwise could be built on the site ? Can they also get their taxes reduced by having the Vail Housing authority take a minuscule ownership interest? If it can not be done for a private home, it does not make sense to allow that to be done here to profit an out of town developer. I am Wendy Erb and I live in West Vail and care about West Vail and the environment of the neighborhood. I also care about the overall effect each development had on Vail as a whole and the perception of it that our visitors have. I do not think tis is a good idea. Thanks for your consideration. Footnotes: *1. This would be the equivalent of the town rezoning a lot on Mill Creek Circle, Meadow Drive or Forest road if someone buys a house there intending to renovate and rent it out and make money from their purchase. Perhaps the owners of Hobart House would sell to a new owner who wants to keep renting it out for a profit. If they discover they can't get the rate of return they seek should the town let a new owner build a large than currently allowed 6 story house because the new owner bought a house they intended to fix up and rent out, but discovered it was going to cost too much to make enough money. I think the town would and should deny a request of "please let me build a 5 to 6 story tall house so I can rent it out and make money on my development, oh and by the way I'll throw in some market rate employee housing in the monolith I want to build, but it will be nestled into the hillside if I am building on Forest Road." The same should be true in this case. **2. The failure to count the square footage of employee housing units in calculating GRFA is a curious and arguably wrong decision. This illustrates how one can get around building limits and construct a building well out of proportion to what would or should be allowable on a site. Using the hypothetical example of rebuilding on Forest Road or in a similar area, perhaps a developer would like to tear down Hobart House and build employee housing for hospital employees and build 7 or 8 stories tall for that? Or, eventually Cathie Douglas will leave her house just opposite the hospital, part of which will be tall. Her cute house built in the early 1960's could be replaced by 6 to 8 stories of hospital housing and have extra parking created that would be conveniently located between the 2 gondolas. Would the town approve a special development district for her site. ***3. The inappropriateness and undesirability of such a large mixed project in this area is perhaps best indicated by the disinterest in the prior proposal of the buying public, the potential residents (or owners with an intent to rent out at presumably market rate). Specifically we can look to when the previous owners could not sell enough apartments in 2006 through 2008 to develop their planned large residence inn and apartments for purchase {albeit that project was smaller than what is currently proposed}. Although in the end the economy turned down, in the 2006 - 2007 ski season the economy was very robust, even overheated as illustrated by the flipping of pre -construction contracts for units at what became the Arrabelle. In contrast here in West Vail the developers could not sell even a significant number of the apartments they offered to the public. I am sure there were a variety of reasons, but I would guess part was that it was not a good fit with the neighborhood. Too big and not attractive. September 8, 2016 Planning & Environmental Commission Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear PEC & Town Council Members: Like many business owners in the Vail Valley, I am constantly faced with the struggle of finding quality managers and professional staff for my restaurants in Beaver Creek and Eagle. I believe one of the major contributing factors for the shortage of a qualified workforce is the lack of reasonably priced housing. I have recently had to relocate management staff from Summit County to fill a void in Eagle County. I saw a presentation regarding the proposed Marriott Residence Inn hotel and apartment project proposed for West Vail. I urge the PEC and town council to approve this project so that construction can begin in a timely manner and we can start to address the very critical housing shortage in Eagle County. Best regards, John C7"Shipp Owner, Roadhouse Hospitality Group Dusty Boot — Beaver Creek; Dusty Boot — Eagle; The Metropolitan, Beaver Creek; Luigi's Pastahouse, Eagle Matt Panfil From: Jorge Duyos <jduyos@jrdandassociates.com> Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 2:13 PM To: George Ruther Subject: Comments for PEC re Marriott Residence Inn - Proposal to create a Special Development District Mr. Ruther — I am an owner of a townhouse at 1839 Meadowridge Road, behind the old Roost Lodge. I have owned my property since 2005, and although I split my time between Florida, Washington, DC and Vail, my family has spent many wonderful moments in our Vail home. My children have had so many memorable experiences there throughout the years, and we sit many a night on the deck looking towards the mountains and enjoying the great views that we currently are afforded. You have received letters of concern from my neighbors and I want to echo their concerns and request that the proposal to create a Special Development District for the old Roost site, where there is a proposal to build a Marriott Residence Inn, market rate employee housing and parking, be denied for all of the sound, logical reasons they have presented. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting on September 12th, but I ask you to share our concerns with the PEC and hope that you will make the right decision. Thank you. Jorge Duyos 786-205-2735 Jorge R. Duyos, P.E., PMP President JRD & Associates, Inc. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 207 Miami, FL 33155 Phone 305-662-7288 Cell 786-205-2735 Fax 305-662-7281 iduyos(a)_irdand associates. com 1 From: K K <xnera(a hotmail.com> Date: September 9, 2016 at 4:04:55 PM MDT To: " _ rug ther9vailgov. com" < _ rug ther9vailgov. com> Subject: Comments on ReZoning Roost Lot in West Vail George, Can you please pass this letter on to the members of the PEC? Thank you! To the PEC Committee Members I am writing comment on the recent proposal to create a Special Development Distinct in West Vail, at the site of the Roost Lodge. I want to say this is a bad idea. I understand the need to create more employee housing, more hotel beds for guests, and more parking. However it is not a good idea to do this all in a spot that would require special zoning to do so! Such a large building would be out of character with the rest of West Vail. It would ruin the alpine 'ski town' ambience that we all know and love. West Vail is a mainly residential area and all the buildings in the area reflect that. All the buildings are blend into the hillside, it is a mountain town and looks like it. Approving such a large structure will make West Vail feel more urban and that doesn't fit at all. The PEC should represent and make decisions for the greater Vail community, not for an out of town developer who obviously doesn't care about ambience and fitting in. Everyone who lives here enjoys living in a small mountain town. I don't see how re -zoning a small lot to cram a lot more people in fits our philosophy in anyway. I would like to see the lot developed, but in a way that fits the rest of the area. It seems to me that other projects in the area (such as the rebuilding of Timber Ridge) have followed the original zoning rules and those new buildings fit in with the rest of the area. Why can't that be done with the Roost Lodge lot? Thank you, Karen Karp West Vail Homeowner John Carney �s September 12, 2016 Dear George, George Ruther CC: Mayor Chapin CC: Vail Town Council Regretfully, I will not be able to attend the PEC Meeting on this coming Monday, September 12, 2016, but I wanted to comment on the proposal to create a Special Development District for the old Roost site, where there is a proposal by Dominic Mauriello and the Mauriello Planning Group (MPG) to build a 170 Marriott Residence Inn, 113 unit multifamily housing and underground parking. Please print the attached letter and circulate among the PEC Commissioners. I have owned 1839 Meadow Ridge Rd, Unit B since and was a permanent West Vail resident between November 1998 and July 2009. In 2009 1 moved overseas and have just returned to the US with my family. We intend to move back to West Vail in 2020 after my current projects in Ohio are complete. In the mean time we will enjoy our West Vail property when time permits. I am currently working on two real estate development projects that are ground up. I understand the importance of new development in communities and the benefits that result. However, the proposed plan by the MPG for a 170 room Marriott and 113 unit apartment project is out of character for the neighborhood. The scale of the project does not reflect the three-story standard that is prominent surrounding Buffer Creek to the east or west. The current render that I received in the mail reflects a built up, five story building at the west end of the development site and six on the east side. It is common knowledge that developers will ask for more than they want in order to find the "acceptable middle ground" with the municipality. Dominic Mauriello has influence with the Town of Vail and community outside of the impacted West Vail neighborhood due to his previous public service as a Vail town planner and local for profit planning projects. Unfortunately neither the owners of the site or Mr. Mauriello have called upon the West Vail residents in the impact zone for support or input. I find this course of action peculiar for a developer who truly hopes to deliver a positive impact on community. The developers who I work with engage the Mayor, city law director, City Council, Panning Commission and surrounding neighbors prior to proceeding with public hearings. Has this process already taken place? The proposal as it stands should be rejected outright and the Town of Vail should put forth the effort to provide a vision for the future of the site that is inline with both neighborhood and future need. I am asking that the neighborhood residents are engaged and that the Town Council addresses height restrictions, scale, set back perimeters and traffic impact for the old Roost Lodge site to establish a new build envelope to guide potential developers for the Roost Lodge site that is inline with the neighborhood character and suitable use for the property. Kind regards, John Carney 2001 Crocker Road, Suite 420 Phone: +1 (440) 8924900 Email:jc@johncarneyonline.com johncarneyonline.com Westlake, Ohio 44145 From: Coco Turnipseed <cocoturnipseedggmail.com> Date: September 13, 2016 at 7:15:15 AM MDT To: < _ rug thergvailgov. com> Cc: <wen50nycgyahoo.com>, "To: K K" <xneraghotmail.com>, Andy Gunion <agunionewpartners.com>, Greg Bemis <greg bemisgcomcast.net>, John Kirschner <j kvail 9comcast. net>, Jorge Duyos <jdu osgjrdandassociates.com>, "Deena DiCorpo" <thepetboutiqueofvailggmail.com>, Clint Peterson <tearentinogyahoo.com>, Skip Picking <hmpiii gatl anti cbb. net>, Turnipseed Coco <cocoturnipseed a,gmail.com>, John Carney <iohnm carnevavahoo.com> Subject: ROOST DEVELOPMENT My husband Jason and I have owned a property at 1839 Meadow Ridge Road unit D for more than ten years. I am sorry that we were unable to attend the meeting on this past Monday, and that this letter is past the meeting date. But, I still wanted to express our concerns about the development at the old Roost site. We have loved the West Vail community, for many reasons. But, the reason that we have enjoyed it the most is because of the neighborhood feel, and the feel of Vail as it used to be, without the overdevelopment of buildings that are too tall and too dense in population - both of which the new proposed Roost Development are. Therefore, we are again writing to strongly opposed the development in West Vail at the old Roost Lodge (we wrote an email a few weeks ago). I have continued to hear many good and detailed arguments as to why this development is not good for the West Vail community, and we are writing to support these arguments. It is our opinion that without question, the new development is a montrosity of a building that does not fit in with the beauty, character and neighborhood feel of what West Vail has always provided and currently offers. I have grown up coming to Vail my entire life, and I am so hopeful that some parts of the vail Valley will preserve it's original character. Thanks Coco and Jason Turnipseed Matt Panfil From: E Karp <eakarp2@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:00 AM To: George Ruther Subject: new building at the site of the old Roost Lodge I just read where a builder is proposing to build a very large building at the site of the Roost Lodge. Please do not allow a 5 story building. This will destroy the views of the longtime residents who like behind the building. The current building was already taller then what is zoned for that location. The new building, even taller, would not benefit to the neighbor. It will decrease the property value of the surrounding lots. The only advantage will be for the builder to make more money off it, then move one leaving the residents of Vale to deal with their greed. Please do not approve the building. Eric Karp Matt Panfil From: Richard Sletvold <rsletvol@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:43 AM To: George Ruther Subject: Fw: Building across the street THIS IS AN EXTREMELY BAD IDEAI I I I urge the counsel to not think about the $$, but keeping Vail from becoming a overcrowded, Corporate skiing town. It's hard enough for us full time residents to live here. We dont' need another hotel blocking our beautiful views, and crowding our streets just to make another profit. Thannk you for reading, Richard Sletvold From: Karen Karp <karen@upstairsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 9:02 PM To: rsletvol@hotmail.com Subject: Building across the street Hi! Just sending this to see if you will send an email or something to help oppose the massive thing they want to build across the street. Please email to say this is a bad idea: George Ruther, Community Development GRuther@vailgov.com Or if possible, go to the PEC meeting, Monday September 12th at 1:00 pm in the Vail Municipal Building. I am going to try to go. Or write to the Vail Daily. Of course we don't want a massive hotel/apartment building there, though something would be nice to block some of the noise. They are trying to rush this project through the approval process to make it harder for anyone to oppose. The building they want to build requires exceptions to the existing zoning laws and they are requesting exceptions to paying any taxes as well. The building they are proposing is much larger than anything in residential West Vail. It rivals the size of the larger hotels in Vail Village or Lionshead. It just does not fit in. The current zoning law states 25 residential units per acre, yet they want to cram 100 units on less than a 2 acre lot, as well as 150+ hotel units. There is no sense of neighborhood planning for this project. Just the developer trying to include in as much as possible to make as much money as possible. (Am quoting one of my neighbors on a few of the points here) - a few years ago they finagled the rules/zoning laws and height restrictions to get about 30 apts built on the site in addition to the new hotel. They are trying this again to get even more - why were not other sites in the area (such as Timber Ridge rebuild) not maxed in height and building size ? Yes they could have build more there if there was such an urgent need for housing! - Vail's residential neighborhoods were generally originally laid out so that each property respects the scale of its neighbors - Approving this project would be further evidence that the town is not actually being run for the benefit of residents, but rather as some strange hybrid government business. More hotel rooms to generate more tax revenues for the town - creating the need for more housing - which means a huge, ugly, cheap building - to the detriment of a neighborhood of long term locals who the town allegedly wants to retain and embrace. If you need more details - please let me know! -----Original Message ----- From: Sorce Family [mailto:sorcefamilv@me.com] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 1:28 PM To: Council Dist List Subject: West Vail Development Hi - My husband and I own on Buffehr Creek, in the Grouse Glenn at Vail Association (1480 Buffehr unit 1a). We are writing with concerns about the magnitude/size of the proposed west vail development. We are not writing in against development. We live in Denver and understand the need for growth and density within growth. We are writing in, however, to express a real concern about ensuring that the look/feel of Vail/Lionshead is pulled through to this development at West Vail. As Denverites we are personally affected by the mistakes of poor development. But we also know the thrill of good development too. Development that accounts for the beauty of its surrounding neighborhoods. That is progressive in its accommodation of the resources people need when living in dense urban locations - such as parking, and pedestrian -friendly pathways and bus routes. Spaces that foster community are vitally important, particularly in this "global small town." We truly hope that as we drive to our "heart's home" in West Vail that we won't pass East Vail, Vail, Lionshead and think - I wish I lived there as opposed to living in the "motel 6 area" of West Vail. Please ensure that the continuity of the character of this special place is of upmost importance. Because it can be done. If it isn't, then it most certainly is a choice of being too cheap to care. And that would just be more than sad, when it is well within everyone's ability to create something fantastic. With hope, Erin and Damian Sorce Sorce Family sorcefamily@me.com H: 303-322-3988 C: 303-819-4303 Note: After 4pm on weekdays and during weekends we will not be checking emails. October 6, 2016 Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear PEC & Town Council Members: Members of the Vail Chamber and Business Association board of directors recently attended a presentation by the Mauriello Planning Group of the proposed Marriott Residence Inn and apartment project planned for the former Roost property. We were impressed with this ambitious project and its plan to address several critical issues facing business owners and the community in Vail: 1. Deed restricted, affordable workforce housing, especially for mid-level management and professional employees 2. Public parking 3. Mid-range, nationally branded hotel rooms or suites Additionally, we felt the size and scope of the project is appropriate for its proposed location in West Vail. On behalf of our board, I urge you to consider the many public benefits of this project as it moves through the Town of Vail approval process. Respectfully, Alison Wadey Executive Director Vail Chamber and Business Association TOWN OF VA10 VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: September 26, 2016 PEC Meeting Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name pec results 092616.pdf Description September 26, 2016 PEC Meeting Results TOWN OF VA10 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 26, 2016, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order Members Present: Chairman Rediker, Brian Gillette, Ludwig Kurz, John Ryan Lockman, Henry Pratt, and Kirk Hansen Absent: Brian Stockmar Adjourned at 1:01 P.M. for a site visit to McDonalds, 2171 North Frontage Road West. Meeting resumed at 1:25pm. 2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 11-6-3 Business Signs, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for two (2) 41.2 square foot internally illuminated menu boxes, located at 2171 North Frontage Road West/Lot 2B, Vail Das Schone Filing 3 (McDonalds), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0033) — 20 min Applicant: McDonalds, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence Action: Approve Motion: Gillette Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0 1. No more than two (2) menu boards shall be permitted. The menu boards shall be located as shown on the site plan dated 08-26-2016. 2. No single menu board shall exceed 41.2 square feet in size, including framing. 3. No additional materials or signage, including, but not limited to, promotional advertisements or riders, shall be attached to the menu boards at any time. 4. The internal illumination of the menu boxes shall not be utilized when the restaurant is closed to the public. 5. Approval of this sign variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. Staff Planner Spence provided an overview of the request and stated that one email in opposition to the application was received by staff. The email was distributed to PEC members. Gillette — asked to clarify DRB comments. Hansen — will all sides be used for signage and what side is counted? Spence — only the visible side is counted since the signs rotate. Allison Kent with Mauriello Planning Group provided a PowerPoint presentation and introduced some of the McDonalds representatives present. Representing McDonalds, Paul Nelson provided additional details about the McDonalds drive-thru service and why the requested signage is critical to their business objective. Mr. Nelson stated that the signage has been reduced in overall size from typical signage applications. Hansen — asked about dual sign ordering and whether dual lane is anticipated in the future. Nelson — dual lanes are not anticipated. Lockman — asked about similar signs in other locations. Nelson — discussed sign arrangements in other locations and how they typically have more structure associated with them. Mike Johnson with Eclipse Signs — spoke to other McDonalds sign applications. Allison Kent — continued with the presentation and provided greater details about the signage request. She mentioned that the sign concepts were provided to the DRB at the last meeting for feedback. Gillette — asked whether there are other drive-thrus in Vail. Kent — mentioned the former Wendy's location in west Vail. Rediker opened to Commissioner questions. Gillette — what other lighting is in the vicinity and how noticeable will the lighting be? Nelson - The signs will be backlit only with no additional lighting. Gillette — can the backlit signs be dimmed? Mike Johnson — it may be possible to dim. Gillette — are the sign panels parallel to the building? Have digital signs been explored? Nelson — not at this time. Gillette — how large is the existing sign? Johnson — 4 panel with a top display with around 60 sq. ft. plus the order box. Pratt — how far off the building are the freestanding signs? Kent — not far off the face of the building, perhaps 5-6 feet. Pratt — why not consider attaching to the side of the store? Johnson — explained that there are electrical panels in the way and a concrete retaining wall. Gillette — is the sign visible from anywhere? Spence — visible from Chamonix Lane. Rediker — asked about the customer order display (COD) and why that can't be separate from the signage. Johnson — logistically not enough space to separate the COD from the signage. Gillette — opportunity to install landscaping to shield visibility of the signage from Chamonix? Spence — landscaping would be off the McDonalds property. Spence — displayed an aerial view of the vicinity to show property boundaries. Spence pointed out there is existing landscaping on the west side of the Gart property. Lockman — asked question about the COD and whether the COD is being applied toward the quantified signage. Kent — clarified that the digital display would not be used for additional info. Kurz — asked about the 50 sq. ft. of unused signage as presented by Ms. Kent. Spence — clarified the town code signage allotments. Rediker — opened public comment. No public comment. Mentioned for the record the email of opposition to the proposed signage. Closed public comment. Gillette — agrees the drive thru is a unique situation and is adequately screened by landscaping in the vicinity. OK with the sign size proposed in the application. Pratt — believes the criteria for a variance is met and is a unique business. Is OK with the illumination, but thinks the sign is too large. In general OK with the variance. Kurz — believes the criteria for a variance is met and will provide for better customer service to McDonalds' customers. Is OK with the size as proposed in the application. Hansen — supports the application. Would like to add a condition that this signage shall only be allowed on the north side of the building. Lockman — supports the application as proposed Rediker — supports the application as proposed. Pratt — doesn't think the COD counts as signage. Gillette — this is the only zone district that allows a drive thru in Vail? Kent — confirmed. 3. Approval of Minutes September 12, 2016 PEC Meeting Results Action: Approve, with changes Motion: Kurz Second: Lockman Vote: 6-0 Pratt — Correction to first paragraph on page 5: housing project NOT on this site. 4. Informational Update Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center Management Plan Update - Jonathan Spence - Nicola Ripley — provided an informational update and recap of the year to date with visitation. Mentioned there are ADA issues in the park that need to be resolved. Signage is an issue as people have difficulty finding the gardens. Drainage has become a big issue coming from the softball fields. Hansen — is anything being proposed to help with signage? Ripley — Town has made recent improvements, but particularly from the Village people have difficulty finding the park. Rediker — how many winter visitors are there daily? Ripley — approximately 20-25 visitors. Rediker — what events are drawing people to the facility? Ripley —educational, lectures, photography workshops, Rediker — were there ADA issues last winter that made accessibility a challenge? Ripley — yes, some accessibility issues were encountered Rediker — are you looking to the Town for assistance? Ripley — making the Town aware that there are ADA issues Gillette — does Vail Transit have any shuttle services that could help? Do other properties have accessibility issues? George Ruther — none known. This location is more isolated. Ripley — a summer shuttle through the park would be encouraged. Gillette — town should provide town -wide ADA service to these locations. Rediker — thinks winter access is more of an issue than summer. Ruther — Public Works is exploring different ideas to help. Hansen — are there facility expansion plans for the next 5-10 years? Are special events only considered from non -profits? Ripley — future improvements are not known at this time. Special events have primarily been non-profit, though there are weddings and similar facility rentals that aren't necessarily non- profit. Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan - George Ruther George Ruther provided an overview of the Vail Housing Strategic Plan. 5. Adjournment Action: Adjourn Motion: Lockman Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. 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 Ad Name: 12421691 A Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM Your account number is- 1 OP2P33 MW nay PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } }ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE } I, Mark Wurzer, 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 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 10/7/2016 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 10/7/2016 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 10/11/2016. General Manager/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 10/11/2016. ( �L-& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2019 r PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October10, 2016, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 2.A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special De- velopment District No. 41 (Marriott Residence Inn), pursuant to Section 12- 9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the devel- opment of a limited service lodge and deed re- stricted employee housing units and a conditional use permit for public or commercial parking facili- ties or structures, located at 1783 North Frontage Road West/Lot 9, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0030). Applicant: Vail Hotel Owner ESHV, LLC, repre- sented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Matt Panfil 3.Approval of Minutes September 26, 2016 PEC Meeting Results 4. Informational Update 5.Adjournment The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regu- laroffice hours at the Town of Vail Community De- velopment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orienta- tion and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be re- lied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional in- formation. 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 October 7, 2016 (12421691) Ad Name: 12390082A Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33 MW nay PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } }ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE } I, Mark Wurzer, 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 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 9/23/2016 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 9/23/2016 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 09/28/2016. General Manager/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 09/28/2016. ( �L-& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2019 Nx � r 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 October 10, 2016 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. No new items have been submitted for this meet- ing. Tabled or continued items from previous meetings may be scheduled for this meeting date. 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 September 23, 2016 in the Vail Daily. (12390082)