Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-0508 PECTOWN OF M�' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 8, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order Members Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, John Rediker, and Brian Stockmar 2. Site Visits: a. Hill Building — 254 & 311 Bridge Street b. Gasthof Gramshammer — 231 Gore Creek Drive (postponed) 3. A request for review of a Variance, pursuant to Section 12-713-16, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in landscape area, located at 231 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0009) Applicant: Gasthof Gramshammer Inc, represented by Gies Architects Planner: Matt Panfil Motion: Table to May 22, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Gillette Vote: 7-0-0 4. A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a renovation, located at 254 and 311 Bridge Street (Hill Building)/Lots C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0010) - 60 min Applicant: Mt. Belvedere 45 LLC and 43-45 Riva Ridge LLC, represented by Braun Associates Planner: George Ruther Motion: Continue to May 22, 2017 First: Gillette Second: Kurz Vote: 7-0-0 George Ruther, Director of Community Development, introduced the project. The proposal complies with the underlying Commercial Core 1 District zoning regulations, the Vail Village Master Plan, and the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The application is unique in that it is a renovation of similar bulk, mass, and scale rather than a complete demolition with new construction. The exterior will undergo significant changes. There will be a slight increase in the amount of landscaping, but two overgrown spruce trees will be removed due to their proximity to the structure. The building is located within three view corridors. The applicant will provide more information about any potential encroachments into the view corridors. Should there be any encroachments, the applicant can either request an amendment to a view corridor or request an encroachment into the view corridor. The exterior of the building has not changed significantly over the last 20 years. Ruther referenced a memorandum from Jeff Winston, urban design consultant, which was included in the Planning and Environmental Commission's (PEC) packet. Jeff Winston indicated that the design is consistent with the intent of the Vail Village Master Plan. The existing parking space is legally established and can remain pursuant to Chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordinance. Rediker: Asked why Jeff Winston was asked for an opinion on the proposal. Ruther: The site's prominent location warranted additional review, and Jeff Winston was involved in the adoption of the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Considerations. Rediker: Asked if Winston's analysis was applicable to the second criteria for approval. Ruther: Yes, especially because Winston was able to review the urban design characteristics in great detail. Tom Braun, Braun Associates, Inc., made a presentation on behalf of the applicant. The presentation included discussion on the following: the prominent location of the site, the building's history, and the decision to renovate rather than rebuild. Braun played a video created by the owners discussing the chalet style inspiration for the design, their desire to maintain the character of Vail Village, and also build an environmentally sustainable, LEED certified building. Braun stated that the project is compliant with the underlying zoning and then referenced a comment from the Jeff Winston memorandum that stated the project is improving upon its compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Braun discussed the possibility that there are minor encroachments into the view corridor #1 from the transportation center. Gillette: Asked if the north balcony was in the view corridor when the view corridor was created. Ruther: It was encroaching when the view corridor was established, but the intention was that any future redevelopment of the site would remove the deck encroachment. Louis Bieker, 4240 Architecture, continued the applicant's presentation. Bieker discussed the history of the structure dating back to the 1960s. He believes that the changes that occurred throughout the years have resulted in a loss of the building's identity. The proposed design is based on the owner's desire for a chalet style. The proposal is consistent with many elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Bieker compared and contrasted the proposal to the surrounding structures and then summarized the architectural shortcoming of the existing design. Bieker stated that any possible encroachment into the transportation center view corridor would be limited to the roof and one of the chimneys. Bieker provided highlights of the new design, including: increased articulation, particularly on the underside of the roof, creation of a stair tower from the lowest to top floor, reduction from multiple gables to a single sheltering roof on the south side of the structure, and LEED certification. Rediker: Asked if there are exhibits associated with the view corridors. Gillette: Asked if there is a sun/shade analysis. Bieker: Responded in the affirmative to both questions. Gillette: Asked about how additions relate to the existing main ridgeline. Ruther: Responded that it will be considered Continuing with the presentation, Bieker stated that design is based on a Danish concept called Hygge, which emphasizes comfort and connections with people and nature. In regards to the architecture, the design is based on four elements of Hygge: craft/handmade, comfort, quality, and community. Bieker then discussed how these elements were incorporated into the proposed elevations, material and color choices. The ground floor of the northwest corner of the structure is more articulated and animated because it will be an entrance into the commercial use. Gillette: Stated his concern about the appearance of the stucco material on the second floor, supported by wood on the first floor. Bieker stated that the decorative railings on the upper floors will be consistent. The roof material will also be consistent throughout the structure. He emphasized the level of detail and craftsmanship associated with the design. Hopkins: Stated her concern about the stucco handrail on the south and west elevations. Gillette: Stated his concern about a corner where the stucco from the second floor does not carry down to the first floor. Stockmar: Stated his belief that the color of the stucco should be toned down. Perez: Stated that the ground floor does not seem pedestrian friendly and is too box -shaped. Gillette: Agrees the ground floor design is not as appealing as the upper floors. Kurz: Asked if the owner intends on parking a second vehicle outside of the garage. Greg Gastineau, representative for the owner, stated that the area Commissioner Kurz referenced is Town property and that the owners will respect the property line and not park vehicles outside of the garage. Stockmar: Asked if the "no parking outside the garage" could be memorialized Ruther: Confirmed. Rediker: Asked how many units are in the structure. Gastineau: There are two units, the main unit and a mother-in-law/caretakers unit at the northeast part of the structure. Hopkins: Asked if the small fenced area along the north fagade will be maintained. Bieker: No. Hopkins: Expressed her concern about snow shedding in this area. Bieker: We will have an edged landscape area and make sure proper snow management is in place. Gillette: Asked about the proposed roof material. Bieker: Flat seam copper shingle. Gillette: Suggested the use of asphalt shingles, due to easy snow shedding from metal roofs. Stockmar: Expressed concern about the ability of the foundation and ground floor's to support the changes to the upper levels. Bieker: The team has been working with a forensic structural engineer to ensure the project is feasible. Lockman: Asked for clarification as to which trees will remain and which will be removed. Rediker and Ruther discussed the elements of the Vail Village Master Plan and Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan that are applicable to the PEC review. Public Comment: None Lockman: Finds the building aesthetically pleasing and thinks that the project will change the dynamic of the surrounding area. He is pleased the balcony will be removed from View Corridor No. 4. Hopkins: Agreed that the building is attractive and is happy that it has a historic influence. She is concerned with snow shedding. Perez: Agreed that it is a beautiful building and is also pleased with the removal of encroachments into View Corridor No. 4. Requested the applicant reexamine the exterior of the ground floor and attempt to better activate the space. Kurz: Feels that the existing building appears dated and that the proposed design will change the area in a positive manner. He asked the applicant to consider the other Commissioners' comments about some of the architectural details. Gillette: Agreed that the building is attractive, but suggested the ground level be improved. Also, asked the applicant to confirm that there will not be substantial sun/shade impact. Stockmar: Agreed that the building is attractive, but is concerned about the brightness of the color of the stucco. Rediker: Asked that final design details be worked out prior to the next meeting. Requested the applicant ensure that no new trees will be planted in any of the view corridors. He shares Commissioner Hopkins' concern about the stucco railing on the second floor. He is also concerned about the extensive use of gray stone and is not like traditional Vail stonework. Requested that the applicant identify final materials prior to the next meeting. He is pleased that encroachments will be removed from View Corridor No. 4. He requested a rendering that portrays the proposed eaves location in respect to the view corridor. He is also concerned about snow shedding. Perez identified an error in Vail Village Master Plan, Goal #2, Policy 2.5.2. Gillette and Perez discussed the need for the ground floor to provide more architectural detail. 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zoning text amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Traffic Impact Fee, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0008) - 45 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel Planner: Chris Neubecker Motion #1: Table to May 22, 2017 First: Gillette Second: Stockmar Vote: 2-5 (Opposed: Rediker, Lockman, Perez, Hopkins, Kurz) Motion #2: Forward recommendation of approval, with condition to amend the language as previous suggested by Perez, to exempt remodels on residential units, and the fee shall be set by Town Council "on a rational basis". First: Lockman Second: Kurz Vote: 3-4 (Opposed: Rediker, Perez, Gillette, Stockmar) Motion #3: Forward recommendation of approval, as the ordinance is currently proposed in staff memo. First: Lockman Second: Kurz Vote: 4-3 (Opposed: Gillette, Stockmar, Perez) Neubecker introduced the application. This item was heard a few weeks ago, and tabled to today to allow more research. He presented a development fees matrix showing all of the fees and taxes paid in the development review process. He also discussed why the fee is not based on parking, as suggested by the PEC. Draft ordinance has been modified to simplify, and removing some definitions already in the code. Recommendation is to proceed as previously presented. Lockman: Asked how the fees will be set. Neubecker: Fees are adjusted each year by resolution, rather than require it to be amended by ordinance. This process saves time. Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, reintroduced the project. Codifying the fee was requested by Town Council. For the past 17 years, the Town has been working with developers on agreements to pay the fee on development in limited zone districts (LMU-1 LMU-2, PA -1 PA -2), for only limited types of development. State law requires a rational nexus study, and requires the fees to be applied equally to all zone districts. The fee has been simplified to be based on number of new units, not based on square feet. The sales tax increase that would be required to collect the same amount of revenue would be 0.13%. Gillette: What is current sales tax? What is process to change the tax rate? Kassmel: Current Town of Vail sales tax rate is 4%. To change this would require a vote of the public. Stockmar: Asked about difference in the table on Page 7, which requires no fee for EHUs. This does not match table on page 9. Kassmel: Differences are based on the fee that would be required, if EHUs were required to pay a fee. Town Council decided to waive that fee. The waived fee can not be spread out and paid by other development types. Staff also researched basing the fee on parking. TishlerBise recommended against this fee basis. Parking rates are different in different zones, and single family developments would have to pay significantly more. Stockmar: The shape of Vail is odd. Other communities don't have the same transportation issues, based on the shape of our town. Kassmel: Fee is based on the Town of Vail, based on study by TishlerBise. He compared other communities' fees. Pitkin County is most similar to Vail. Fees are based on what revenue is needed to complete Vail's needed transportation projects. Gillette: He compared the proposed fees to those in Eagle County. We are shoving this fee down the throats of those that have not yet developed. We should be more comparable to Eagle County. Kassmel: If we allow no more development than we have today, there would be no need for these transportation projects. Gillette: What did The Lion pay, and what would be due under the proposed fee? Kassmel: The Lion valuation was $90 million, and paid total fees of $3 million. Actual traffic impact fee was $273,000. Proposed fee would be $45,000, based on number of new units. Solaris was $142 million project; total permit fees were about $2 million, plus employee housing fees. Solaris paid about $20,000 in traffic impact fee. New fee would be about $360,000. This is based on "net new" development. Lockman: Why the disparity between what was paid at Solaris, versus what would be due? Kassmel: Proposed fees are based on net new. The previously development at Solaris had a larger theater, many of the restaurant uses were reduced in size. Previous development at this location also had a grocery store. It's helpful to developer to have a fee schedule that is predictable. Discussed the fees paid at various other developments, including single family. Lockman: A prescriptive fee basis is easier for everyone to understand. Perez: Why is 12% of revenue shown coming from employee housing, but you propose to exempt employee housing? Why are we exempting employee housing? It still has an impact on transportation. This creates a larger burden on the developments. Kassmel: Town Council requested to subsidize employee housing. We have a difficult enough time getting employee housing built. Gillette: State law limits the types of project that can be exempt. Employee housing is one of them. Kassmel: These are the maximum fees. Council could cut the fees across the board. We could exempt certain fees, but then Town would have to come up with the revenue from another source. Rediker: Do these fees automatically increase each year? Neubecker: No. Staff will need to take this to Town Council each year as a resolution to change the fees. Perez: In the ordinance, it does not exempt remodels. Redevelopment implies a remodel. Want to ensure that residential remodels are exempt. Can we add a line to clarify this? Also, want to add language that states that the fee is set by resolution of the Town Council "on a rational basis". Also, clarify that no transportation impact fee shall be assed on a residential remodel. Also, concerned that the definitions of residential development, commercial development and project were removed from the ordinance. Kassmel: Those definitions are already in the code. Gillette: Fee is based on adding a dwelling unit. If it's not broken, don't fix it. This is a community wide problem, and should be spread -out over the entire community. $20 million over 25 years is nothing for this community, but it's a big impact on a developer. Stockmar: This is a regressive fee, paid only by a small number of people in the community. The answer is probably a sales tax. It would be fair, and paid by people including visitors. Hopkins: What are some of the projects this revenue will be used for? Stockmar: Can't be used for maintenance. Sales tax would not limit how we use the money. Kassmel: Money can only be used for infrastructure projects Gillette: We don't need this fee. It has worked up until now. Some of the projects we have done are not necessary. Lionhead bus shelter on Frontage Road does not get used. This is money we don't need. Rediker: Why distinguish between inside and outside the core? Kassmel: Fee is based on the Transportation Master Plan. It's based on the amount of traffic generated by different types of uses. It considers multi -modal uses and trips. People in the core can walk to more shops and restaurants. Rediker: People from the core still drive to the grocery store. Kassmel: This is based on ITE trip rates. On average, people who stay in the core drive less. Perez: What about those that stay at the Ritz and ride the shuttle? They probably take more trips. Kassmel: This is based on averages. Based on what we see from a traffic generation standpoint. Public Comment — None Neubecker: If there is a motion for approval, please include any suggested change to the ordinance in your motion. Stockmar: Why was Town Council reticent to use a sales tax? Kassmel: Not sure if sales tax was discussed. This method of collecting fees is widely used. Perception is that new development causes the need for these projects. This method of revenue has been in discussions with Council for several years to codify this fee, and legally we should follow the recommendations of study. Gillette: Asked if we could just codify the fee as it is in place today. Asked how much revenue could be collected if we codified current fee in the zone districts where the fee exists today. The revenue proposed is not enough compared to the animosity this will create. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Kassmel: Depends on how much new development happens in those few districts that currently have the fee. Stockmar: Let's look at the rational relationship to the fee and impacts. Because of the geography and shape of the Town, a huge burden is placed on the transportation system from those living in East Vail. Would like to find more rational way to find the funding. Frustrated that state law does not allow revenue to be used for maintenance. Would like to look into this more thoroughly, or would support a sales tax which is more equitable. Gillette: If proposed legislation more mirrored the system we have in place, that should satisfy the town attorney. We have always found the money needed in the past. Don't burden the developer more that we already have. Kassmel: Suggested that the PEC could make a recommendation, with an alteration to the ordinance. For example, you could recommend exempting single family and duplexes, in addition to employee housing. Council would need to agree to subsidize these uses. Gillette: System is working now. Town looks great, staff does a great job. That's how I know that it's working now. Kurz: I was previously involved in looking into this issue, in another role in this room. I'm not yet at a point to recommend approval. Perez: Not ready to go to Council; still lot of work to be done. Need to research inside fees inside core vs. outside core, and if it should apply to single family development. Lockman: Agree with proposal as -is. The due diligence has been done. This has already been worked to death. Council wants a fee, not a sales tax. As proposed, net new development pays for the impacts. Other Town revenue will be used for other projects. This will codify a fee that has been vague. Rediker: Agree with Lockman. We are ready to send this forward to Council. Burden on development is minimal compared to impacts of new growth. Not in favor of increasing sales tax. Colorado legislature has determined that this is a fair and equitable way to raise revenue. Perez: Not sure we should have different fees inside the code vs. outside the core. Why do we distinguish? Assumption is that people in the core take public transportation Neubecker: This is based on traffic studies by traffic engineers. In a walkable situation like Vail Village, people drive less. Study is based on national studies and averages. Kassmel: Study is based not on specific properties in Vail, but for example based on resort hotels in general, for example. Stockmar: Is there any community in county, similar to Vail in geography? That layout impacts trips and how the revenue is raised. Others have likely faced a similar situation. I'm on the fence, and need more information. Kassmel: We are OK with tabling. We want to get you the information you need. Lockman: How many undeveloped residential lots are in the core area? Kurz: My concerns have largely been answered. I will move forward to recommend approval. Perez: We have a motion on the table. Rediker — Voted against the motion (#2), because I do not believe the proposed ordinance needs to be revised. 6. Approval of Minutes April 24, 2017 PEC Meeting Results Motion: Approve First: Lockman Second: Rediker 7. Informational Update 8. Adjournment Vote: 6-0-1 (Kurz abstained) The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department TOWN OF VA10 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May8, 2017 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of a Variance, pursuant to Section 12-7B-16, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in landscape area, located at 231 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0009) ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC 17-0009_Pepi_s_Variance _Memo. pdf Attachment A_-_Vicinity_Map.pdf Attachment B_-_Project_Narrative.pdf Attachment C_-_Site_Photographs.pdf Attachment D_-_Plans.pdf Attachment—E---PEC—Results 041116.pdf Description Staff Memo to PEC Attachment A - Vicinity Map Attachment B - Project Narrative Attachment C - Site Photographs Attachment D - Plan Set Attachment E - Minutes from 4-11-16 PEC Meeting 0) TOWN OF VAIL Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 8, 2017 SUBJECT: A request for review of a Variance from Section 12-713-16, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, in accordance with Section 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in landscape area, located at 231 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 513, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0009) Applicant: Gasthof Gramshammer, Inc. / Pepi's Restaurant, represented by Russell Gies, Gies Architects, Inc. Planner: Matt Panfil I. SUMMARY The applicant, Gasthof Gramshammer, Inc. / Pepi's Restaurant, represented by Russell Gies, Gies Architects, Inc., is requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-76- 16, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, and in accordance with Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in the previously approved landscape area, located at 231 Gore Creek Drive. Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the proposed landscaping variance, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Gasthof Gramshammer, Inc. / Pepi's Restaurant, represented by Russell Gies, Gies Architects, Inc. is requesting the review of a variance to allow for a reduction in the landscaping required by Vail Town Code and depicted in plans previously approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on April 11, 2016 (PEC16-0011). The applicant is requesting the right to not install two (2) new planter areas, one 115 square foot area in front of the northeast window of Pepi's Sports and one 25 square foot area directly in front of the sliding glass door system, that were part of the approved plans for PEC16-0011. Instead of the previously approved planter areas, the applicant is proposing to install two (2) 11 square foot planters and to add 14 square feet of landscaping to the retaining wall near the Bridge Street entrance and also 34 square feet of landscaping in front of the beer garden area along Gore Creek Drive. The resulting net reduction in landscaping versus the 2016 approved plans is 70 square feet. A vicinity map (Attachment A), project narrative with applicant's response to variance criteria (Attachment B), photos (Attachment C), plan set dated March 27, 2017 (Attachment D), and minutes from the April 11, 2016 PEC meeting (Attachment E) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND The Tyrolean style Hotel Gasthof Gramshammer was constructed in 1964. Town files indicate a variety of applications have been presented before the PEC and the Design Review Board (DRB) for improvements such as addition of accommodation units and residential dwelling units, basement renovations, landscape modifications, and patio remodels. Most recently, on April 11, 2016, the applicant received approval from the PEC for an addition and remodel to the Bridge Street entrance. The property's current zoning designation of Commercial Core 1 District (CC1) was established as part of the original Town of Vail zoning regulations via Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, adopted on August 7, 1973. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 2, Definitions (in part) LANDSCAPING: Natural or significant rock outcroppings, native vegetation, planted areas and plant materials, including trees, shrubs, lawns, flowerbeds and ground cover, shall be deemed landscaping together with the core development such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features, and like features not occupying more than twenty percent (20%) of the landscaped area. Chapter 7, Article B. Commercial Core 1 (CCI) District (in part) 12-7B-16: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT. Town of Vail Page 2 No reduction in landscape area shall be permitted without sufficient cause shown by the applicant or as specified in the Vail Village design considerations as adopted in section 12-7B-20 of this article. 12-7B-20: VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN- A. Adoption: The Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations are adopted for the purposes of maintaining and preserving the character and vitality of the Vail Village (CCI) and to guide the future alteration, change and improvement in the CCI district. Copies of the Vail Village design guide plan and design considerations shall be on file in the department of community development. Chapter 17, Variances (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements, or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. 12-17-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION: Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the application. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application. A variance may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time Town of Vail Page 3 period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS.- A. INDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance.- 1. ariance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone district. Town of Vail Page 4 c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan — Design Considerations Urban Design Considerations (in part) C. Streetscape Framework To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered.- 1. onsidered: 1. Open space and landscaping — berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes, and plazas and park green spaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. Vail Village Master Plan Chapter V. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Action Steps (in part) Goal #3: To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the village. Objective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. V. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use Zoning District North: Village Master Plan Commercial Core 1 East: Village Master Plan Commercial Core 1 South: Village Master Plan Commercial Core 1 West: Village Master Plan Commercial Core 1 VI. ZONING / SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Existing Zoning: 231 East Gore Creek Drive Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1 Commercial Core 1 Town of Vail Page 5 Existing Land Use Designation: Vail Village Master Plan Mapped Geological Hazards: None Development Allowed / Existing Proposed Change Standard Required Site Area 5,000 sq. ft. 15,856 sq. ft. buildable site area No Change Setbacks No setbacks required by the Urban Design Guide Plan No Change Building Height 43' for up to 40% of building, 33' 53.3% between 33'43' and 46.7% No Change for remainder of under 33'* building Site Coverage Max. 80% 12,563 sq. ft. (79.2%) No Change Landscaping No reduction 863 sq. ft.** allowed 793 sq. ft. - 70 sq. ft. * Approved via Variance, 1998 ** Required per Vail Town Code and depicted in plans previously approved by the PEC on April 11, 2016 (PEC 16-0011) VII. VARIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The subject property is bordered on all sides by similar mixed-use structures and identical Commercial Core 1 District zoning. If approved, the removal of landscaping is counter to established goals and recommendations identified in the Vail Village Master Plan and Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Specifically, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan encourages, "berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes. Also, the Vail Village Master Plan established a goal, "to recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the village." The first objective to accomplish this goal is to, "physically improve the existing pedestrian ways be landscaping and other improvements." (see pages 4 and 5). Staff finds the proposed variance does not meet this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulations is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Town of Vail Page 6 The intent of landscape requirements within the Commercial Core 1 District and Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan area is to provide a colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes. Staff finds that the strict and literal interpretation of the landscaping standards does not impose on the applicant any hardship different from any other similarly zoned site. In fact, in PEC16-0011, the applicant already demonstrated the feasibility of meeting the minimum landscape requirements. The proposed removal of landscape area is not a physical necessity. Staff finds that granting the requested variance would be a grant of special privilege in that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property that do not apply generally to other properties located within the Commercial Core 1 District. Staff finds that the proposed variance does not meet this criterion. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. A net 70 square foot reduction in landscaping would not have an effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, or public safety. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested review of a variance from Section 12-713-16, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in landscape area, located at 231 Gore Creek Drive / Lot 1, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-78-16, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in landscape area, located at 231 Gore Town of Vail Page 7 Creek Drive / Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regards thereto. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- The inds: The granting of this variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district; and 2. The variance is not warranted for the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- b. ode, b. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone district; and c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations will not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Commercial Core 1 District. Motion to Approve Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-7B-16, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in landscape area, located at 231 Gore Creek Drive / Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regards thereto. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- Town inds:Town of Vail Page 8 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district; 2. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. The variance is warranted for the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- b. ode, b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone district; and c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Commercial Core 1 District. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Project Narrative, with applicant's response to variance criteria, dated March 27, 2017 C. Photographs from the applicant D. Plan Set, dated March 27, 2017 E. Minutes from the PEC16-0011 hearing at the April 11, 2016 PEC meeting Town of Vail Page 9 } ------------------- i 1 G v ies Architects P.O. Box 2195 ■ Eagle, Colorado 81631-2195 ■ 970-328-9280 Application Narrative March 27, 2017 Town of Vail Planning, Environmental Commission Variance Request Variance Request from Town of Vail Code Section 12-7B-16 "No reduction in landscape area shall be permitted without sufficient cause shown by the applicant" To the PEC Board: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity There is no impact to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, the removal of the stone planters will enhance the pedestrian flow on Bridge Street. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The removal of the 2 stone planters does not affect the uniformity along Bridge Street; it makes the streetscape uniform. Currently there are no stone planters that project from the face of the existing building; with the addition of these 2 planters that pattern would change. 3. The effect of the requested variance on the light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. There is no anticipated effect on traffic, either vehicular or pedestrian. Snow removal, trash pickup and all other services will not be impacted by the proposed application. No impact or effect on schools, utilities, parks and recreation facilities or other public facilities or facility needs. In fact with the removal of the stone planters along Bridge Street we feel this will help with pedestrian flow during the heavy times of the year. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The 2 main reasons the Landscape Area was reduce in the March 2016 PEC/DRB application was for the following occupant's safety, required by building permitting and ADA: i. The landscape planter on Bridge Street was located directly outside of the hotel second floor egress stairs, the pervious plan made the second floor occupants descend the stairs and empty into the bar area, then exit the building. By removing the planter, we now have a legal means of egress from the upper hotel rooms directly to Bridge Street. The removed planter was 86 SF (see enclosed photo) ii. The landscape planter on Gore Creek was reduced by 54 SF to allow for an ADA access ramp required by the American with Disabilities ACT (ADA) and TOV Building Code. IV Illlllll ,err Jim: IV Illlllll Ol 111 q)jV s I 0011PA V a - W �" o Q 0 � w > V a - SNOI1Vn313 43SOdONd � � R R R R Est3a,!43jv said V:)] m _ = m. _� m� ®x- ` __ _'D� « S 1 gl | a } & � . \ E � \\\ 2 -- » ! § \ \\\ ! @§!!|§!� ( S3�/I�/ 7� +'y •� jl ,� 13401.13b bV9 SId3d s e- ' Q W @ g �' U �araaa vvi t U� C CN L a, ° ` 0 N U) a U C N O L v C Q N ° iN i - z w Q <,< N N U U Wa oci m o IA -p ut nNw Y U UI r^ I Q�1 C pj' U UH Nw 00 80 0 M 00 a Cb 0 @1 �� w.l ON } z U -pN c� E O_ � I W U IU 70 N a J o'A �- �- / 3 Q -q O NW I v <l o r ` N - ii1 aU N aU) U (,4f OQE: vvi t p C3 <J ° ` 0 N U) a o_w oWm N O L v C Q (,9Z) 1332JiS 3041218 N 00109'00" LU W iO rc 3234' N pN X U O N a N x N p � x o_w oWm N N ° p - z w oci m o IA -p ut nNw Y U UI r^ I Q�1 N J U Q wZ 80 U U M z -pN c� X Waw � I W U IU 70 / U Q -q O NW I N - ii1 aU N aU) U (,4f OQE: --_ p 0 x N IY N w N v -0 cN p� �ZO " ,9L 9� 00,60a005 Q N NXN �p _I QWX Z zww Q>y 1 U U g H �< 3� �g o a I OZbL m„00,60,00 N v o_w N ° p - z o IA -p ut Q�1 co M / CrIC I � 8� " ,9L 9� 00,60a005 _I s�t3 �< 3� �g o a I OZbL m„00,60,00 N - I "s w O ° $ w g J C da o N 0 U King — We need to consider shrubs that can take snow on them. We are still working on the landscaping plan. Public Comment - None Final Comments Gillette — Likes the application but concerned with the snowmelt. We have only reduced energy use by 2%. Snowmelt should be limited to 10-20 feet in front of the doors, rest should be plowed. Heating that area is convenient, but not necessary. Pratt — Different take on this issue. I once called Fire Department and they showed up in 45 seconds. Snowmelt is warranted. Mr. King should use innovative ways to try to be efficient. Snow Melt boiler is 10 times bigger than that for the building. Don't think we want to snowmelt the drive to the west. EHUs are concern to me. EHUs should be offered first to Firefighters, then town staff, before offering to the public. Hansen — Ditto on housing units and west side landscaping. Snowmelt, lean towards Henry's comments. You need to be able to get out quickly. I live in East Vail and count on these guys. Truck in front of station with flat tire, why is that there? Lockman- Upgrade to the fire stations is important to public safety. Upgrades are much needed. Landscaping needs to be increased. Without requirement for an environmental report ... there are issues with Gore Creek. Advise Town to lead by example on creek and environmental sustainability, snow storage. Rediker— Henry raised a good issue on the EHUs. Did staff look at these requirements, and can we add to the conditional use with those requirements to be occupied by town staff? Ruther — We can add as a priority to rent to a town employee or fire fighter, but would not recommend keeping it empty if those staff are not occupying unit. King — We offer these units to fire fighters and other emergency personnel first. Rediker — If we get rid of baseboard heat, that will save electricity. If we add more efficient boilers, that will offset some of the power use in driveway. Trucks need to be able to exit the building quickly. Agree with comments on additional landscaping on the west side. Neighbor across the creek is far away, and may not be able to plant in wetlands. Do the best you can with landscaping on west side. 3. A request for an Addition and Exterior Alteration to the Gasthof Gramshammer / Pepi's Restaurant Building in Vail Village, pursuant to Section 12-713-7 Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a revised entrance, new windows and new bar seating area located at 231 East Gore Creek Drive / Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0011) Applicant: Gasthof Gramshammer Inc, represented by Gies Architects Planner: Matt Panfil Motion to Approve with Conditions Motion- Pratt Second -Gillette Vote: 6-0-0 Conditions — 1. Approval of this minor exterior alteration request is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application; and 2. The applicant shall mitigate the employee generation impact created by the new net development in accordance with the provisions of Title 12, Chapter 23, Commercial Linkage, Vail Town Code, and if a mitigation option including a fee in lieu payment is chosen, the applicant shall make the required fee in lieu payment to the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of any building permit. As required by the Town Code, if the applicant chooses to mitigate any portion of the obligation through off site unit(s), these unit(s) shall be available for occupancy prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. 3. The PEC recommends that the applicant and the Design Review Board take steps to increase the alpine character on the Bridge Street side of the building. Matt Panfil introduced the application. He discussed the added landscaping and site coverage on the site plan. A net new 81 square feet of floor area and 24 square feet of landscaping are proposed. The last addition or remodeling to the Bridge Street elevation was in 1988. Applicant would like a refreshed look. The exterior changes will also be reviewed by the DRB. The proposed sliding doors serve a function mentioned in the Vail Village Master Plan, which is to open up more visual transparency to pedestrians. The proposed changes result in a minor increase in the number of tables inside the restaurant. The site coverage will remain below the 80% required by code. Commercial linkage will also apply. Staff finds the proposal in compliance with the CC1 zone district, Vail Village Master Plan, Streetscape Plan, and Urban Design Guidelines. Staff did receive a concern from a nearby neighbor concerning potential for noise. Gillette — Did we do a study on the transparency? Panfil — No there is not a study on the transparency on the existing building vs. proposed. Gillette — I have concerns with the transparency and with the roof form. Pratt — In Vail Village our purview is not limited to bulk and mass. Gillette — I strongly recommend that the DRB look at the transparency, loss of gable roof form, and the loss of muntins and mullions in windows. Pratt — Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan discusses windows, doors, design and trim. Lockman — What is the intent of the language in the Urban Design Guide Plan? Panfil showed portions from the Urban Design Guide Plan on windows and transparency. Ruther discussed the language in the Urban Design Guide Plan. He discussed some other buildings in Town, such as the Gore Creek Promenade and the Wall Street Building. Pratt — Pepi's Sports is an example of what could be done. Gillette — Muntins in Pepi's Sports were examples that were previously mentioned and incorporated into the Wall Street Building. Applicant — Russell Gies, Architect — Existing bar has unusable space. This entrance was originally access to Sheika's bar, now used as ski storage in basement. We wanted to bring more light into the building. The entry that exists is not part of the original design. Original building did not have the protrusion, or these muntins (divisions in the windows). Shed roofs are appropriate on smaller roof forms, per the code. Floor is 39"-41" above Bridge Street. It's not the same as Wall Street Building. We are trying to make it feel like this is part of the original building. Deep recessed windows. Hansen — Have you selected the slider windows? Can you get windows with muntins? Gies — Nana Doors may have muntins. We are going back and forth between sliders and accordion style. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Stockmar — Planter will not go into the right of way? Gies — Landscaping planter will be on private property. Public Comment — None Final Comments — Lockman — I like the idea of 24 sq. ft. net increase in landscaping and it is great to have more commercial capacity in Town. This is a great project. On this application, opening the storefront is great. Agree with Gillette on the loss of the alpine character and to ask the DRB to look into that issue. Hansen — Support project as well. If you wanted to change the whole side of the building, it would not be OK. But for a section of all 18 feet long, it works. This space needs to be fixed. Good design, I support it. Pratt — Thus is a badly needed improvement. Muntins are needed, encourage you and the DRB to look at the muntins. Across the street at new restaurant, seems like everybody is opening up the storefront. It could get cacophonous from music in this small area, potential for a lot of noise. Code enforcement will be able to monitor and enforce noise complaints. Gillette — The applicant should try to get more alpine character on the building. Encourage staff and the DRB to look at that hard. Stockmar — That wall has always bothered me. It is dark on the inside of the building. I like the idea of echoing some of the muntins, so it is not all glass. Rediker — Agree with my commissioners. On site coverage, bulk and mass it meets code. We need to keep the alpine character. Shed roof is getting away from that character. In particular, the four criteria are met, and hope that the DRB notes all of our comments and concerns. Gillette — Look at opening the top rail on the deck. Gies — The deck on the second floor has a solid railing because guests complain about the noise on Bridge Street. Mr. Gies asked if he went to a six or eight panel sliding door system, could he get back to the vertical nature of the building. Gillette — You are losing some of the alpine character. We will ask the DRB to look at the design and see how you can "yodel" it up. TOWN OF VA10 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May8, 2017 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a renovation, located at 254 and 311 Bridge Street (Hill Building)/Lots C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0010) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC17- PEC17-0010 Hill Building Staff Memorandum 0010_Hill_Building_Staff_Memorandum Worksession.pdf Hill_Building_Vicinity_Map. pdf PEC 17-0010_Hi II_B ui Idi ng_P HOTOS. pdf PEC 17-0010_H i I I_B ui Idi ng_A ppli cant_Narrative. pdf Pages_from_P E C 17- 0010_Hill_Building_Plans_Part 1.pdf Pages_from_P E C 17- 0010_Hill_Building_Plans_Part 2.pdf Pages_from_P E C 17- 0010_Hill_Building_Plans_Part 3.pdf J eff_W inston_Letter_Vail_Hill_Building_Renovation_4- 20-17. pdf PEC17-0010 Hill Building - Vicinity Map - Attachment A PEC17-0010 Hill Building Photos - Attachment B PEC17-0010 Hill Building Written Request - Attachment C PEC 17-0010 Hill Building - Proposed Architectural Plans - Attachment D - Part 1 of 3 PEC 17-0010 Hill Building - Proposed Architectural Plans - Attachment D - Part 2 of 3 - Part 1 of 3 PEC 17-0010 Hill Building - Proposed Architectural Plans - Attachment D - Part 3 of 3 PEC17-0010 Hill Building - Urban Design Consultant Memorandum - Attachment E 0. )rowN of vain Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: May 8, 2017 Subject: A request for a final review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a renovation, located at 254 and 311 Bridge Street (Hill Building)/Lots C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0010) Applicant: Mr. Ed Anderson, dba Mt. Belvedere 45 LLC and 43-45 Riva Ridge LLC, represented by Tom Braun, Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther I. SUMMARY The applicant, Mr. Ed Anderson, represented by Braun Associates, Inc, is requesting a worksession to review an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a renovation of the Hill Building, located at 254 and 311 Bridge Street. The proposed renovation maintains the existing uses in the building. The existing uses include retail use on the first floor or ground level of the building and residential uses on the second floor and above levels of the building. The majority of the renovation occurs to the exterior of the building and on the second floor and above levels of the building. To that end, the Exterior Alteration application shall be reviewed for compliance with the zoning regulations prescribed by the Commercial Core I zone district, the applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, and the recommendations of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Mr. Ed Anderson, the owner of the Hill Building, located at 254 and 311 Bridge Street in Vail Village, has requested the worksession to review an Exterior Alteration application, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an upper level renovation and exterior re -skin of the Hill Building. The scope of work of the proposed renovation includes: • No change in existing uses (i.e. ground floor or street level retail, second floor and above residential.) • An extensive renovation to the exterior materials of the building. • Overall decrease of gross residential floor area (- 94 square feet). • Reduction in site coverage (- 371 square feet). • Minor modifications to the massing and overall height of the building (60% 33 ft. or less/40% < 43 ft.). Increase in softscape landscape area (+ 5 square feet). Maintain the existing non -conforming enclosed parking space within the structure. The proposed renovation is in compliance with the development standards prescribed by the Commercial Core I zone district. Though the Hill Building is directly affected by three protected view corridors in Vail Village, the applicant is proposing to comply with said view corridors. The burden of proof will be on the applicant to demonstrate compliance with adopted view corridors. Alternately, the applicant may request approval of a change to the adopted view corridor, or request approval for an encroachment to occur into the view corridor. According to the applicant, "The goal of this renovation is to create a family home and to restore the Hill Building in a manner that acknowledges and responds to its history, the early architecture of Vail Village, and Town's design goals for Vail Village." A vicinity map (Attachment A), site photos (Attachment B), applicant's narrative (Attachment C), the proposed site and architectural plans (Attachment D), and an Urban Design Consultant Review Memo (Attachment E) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND: The Hill Building is one of the few remaining original structures in Vail Village. Since its original construction in the early 1960s, a number of additions and changes have been made to the building. However, no substantial additions or changes have been made in the last 20 years. The ownership of the building remained unchanged for nearly 50 years. The Hill Building has recently sold to new owners. The current zoning designation of the property of Commercial Core 1 District (CC1) was established as part of the original Town of Vail zoning regulations via Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, adopted on August 7, 1973. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS: Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code, Vail Land Use Plan, Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Section 12-78 Commercial Core 1 (CCI) District (in part) 12-78-1: PURPOSE: The commercial core 1 district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The commercial core 1 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The zoning regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended Town of Vail Page 2 to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. 12-78-7: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Subject To Review. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies exterior rooflines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the planning and environmental commission (PEC). VAIL LAND USE PLAN CHAPTER II — LAND USE PLAN GOALS/ POLICIES: The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows: 1. General Growth/ Development 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4. The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 4. Village Core/ Lionshead 4.3. The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural settings, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The Vail Village Master Plan identifies the purpose of the plan as follows: Town of Vail Page 3 "This Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whole. It is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. This Plan emphasizes the critical need to balance and coordinate parking and transportation systems with future improvements to Vail Mountain that will increase the "in and out of Valley" lift capacity. Most importantly, this Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. Furthermore, the Master Plan provides valuable information for a wide variety of people and interests. For the citizens and guests of Vail, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. " The Vail Village Master Plan established six goals containing objectives, policies and action steps. The following goals, objectives and policies are applicable to this major exterior alteration proposal. "GOAL #1 ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. Objective 1.1: Implement a consistent development review process to reinforce the character of the Village. Policy 1.1.1: Development and improvement projects approved in the Village shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and design considerations as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Policy 1.2.1: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Objective 1.4: Recognize the "historic" importance of the architecture, structures, landmarks, plazas and features in preserving the character of Vail Village. Policy 1.4.1: The historical importance of structures, landmarks, plazas and other similar features shall be taken into consideration in the development review process. Policy 1.4.2: The Town may grant flexibility in the interpretation and implementation of its regulations and design guidelines to help protect and maintain the existing character of Vail Village. Policy 1.4.3: Identification of "historic" importance shall not be used as the sole means of preventing or prohibiting development in Vail Village. Town of Vail Page 4 GOAL #2 TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR -AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITYAS A WHOLE. Objective 2.1: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the I I sub -areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Policy 2.1.1: The zoning code and development review criteria shall be consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. Obiective 2.2: Recognize the importance of Vail Village as a mixed use center of activities for our guests, visitors and residents. Policy 2.2.1: The design criteria in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. Obiective 2.5: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Policy 2.5.2: The town will use the maximum flexibility possible in the interpretation of building and fire codes in order to facilitate budding renovations without compromising life, health and safety considerations. GOAL #3 TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE Objective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Policy 3.1.1: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. Policy 3.1.2: Public art and other similar landmark features shall be encouraged at appropriate locations throughout the Town. Policy 3.1.3: Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas." Chapter 7 of the Vail Village Master Plan identifies eleven Vail Village Sub -Areas. Within each sub -area concepts are described which are meant to serve as "advisory guidelines for future land use decisions by the Planning and Environmental Commission". The Hill building is located within Sub -Area #3. Sub -Area 3# is as follows: Town of Vail Page 5 "This pedestrianized area of the Village represents the traditional image of Vail. A mixture of residential and commercial uses, limited vehicular access, and inter- connected pedestrian ways are some of the characteristics that distinguish this area from other portions of the Village. With the exception of embellishing pedestrian walkways, developing plazas with greenspace, and adding a number of infill developments, it is a goal of the community to preserve the character of the Village as it is today. The core area, with it's predominantly Tyrolean architecture is the site of the earliest development in Vail. Over time, a need to upgrade and improve infrastructure such as loading and delivery facilities, drainage, paved surfaces and other landscape features has become apparent. Many improvements to public spaces will be addressed as part of an overall streetscape improvement project. There is also the potential to initiate a number of these improvements in conjunction with private sector development projects. Although it is a goal to maintain design continuity in the Village core, there will be change in the core area's built environment. This is mostly due to the number of properties that have not exercised their full development rights. Most notable among these properties are the Red Lion Building, the Cyranos Building, the Lodge at Vail, and the Covered Bridge Building. If each of these and other properties develop to their full potential, there will undoubtedly be a significant increase in the level of development in the Village core. The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan has been the primary tool in guiding private development proposals in the core area since 1980. The Guide Plan will continue to be used in conjunction with the goals and design criteria outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan. Infill and redevelopment proposals shall be reviewed for compliance with the design criteria, goals, objectives and policies established in these respective plans." Town of Vail Page 6 V. SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Zone District: Land Use Plan Designation Current Land Use: Geological Hazards: 254 and 311 Bridge Street Lots C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1 Commercial Core 1 Vail Village Master Plan Mixed -Use None Development Standard Allowed/Required Existing Proposed Change Lot/Site Area 5,000 sq. ft. 8,494 sq. ft. 8,494 sq. ft. No buildable Change Setbacks No setbacks required by the No Vail Urban Design Guide Plan Change 60% at 33 ft. or 60% at 33 62% at 33 ft. Building less ft. or less or less +1'-2" Height 40% at 33 ft. to 40% at 33 38% at 33 ft. 43 ft ft. to 43 ft to 43 ft Density 25 DUs / acre of 2 units 2 units No buildable Change Parking No parking on site 1 enclosed* 1 enclosed* No Change Gross Residential 6,795 sq. ft. (80%) 7,014 sq. ft. 6,920 sq. ft. - 94 sq. Floor Area (82.5%) (81.5%)* ft. (GRFA) Site 6,795 sq. ft. (80%) 6,693 sq. ft. 6,322 sq. ft. - 371 sq. Coverage (79%) (74%) ft. Landscaping No reduction in landscape area Landscape + 5 sq. ft. allowed reconfigured Note: * One lawfully established enclosed parking space exists on site. This one space may remain, as is, pursuant to continued demonstration of compliance with the provision contained in Chapter 18 of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North South West East: Town of Vail Existing Use Mixed Use Open Space Mixed Use Mixed Use Zoning District Commercial Core 1 Ski Base / Recreation 2 Commercial Core 1 Commercial Core 1 Page 7 VII. REVIEW CRITERIA EXTERIOR ALTERATION It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the PEC that: 1. The proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CC1 district as specified in section 12-713-1, Vail Town Code; and, The commercial core 1 district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The commercial core 1 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The zoning regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. Staff finds that the proposed exterior alterations meet this criterion. 2. The proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and, Staff finds that the application is consistent with the Vail Comprehensive Plan, which includes the Vail Village Master Plan and the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, because the proposal is an upgrade to an existing mixed-use structure. The intent of Objective 1.2 with the Vail Village Master Plan is to, "encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities." In making a determination of consistency with the applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan, the Town sought consultation from Jeff Winston, of Winston LLC. Mr. Winston has served as the Town's Urban Design Consultant for over three decades. A copy of a memorandum from Jeff Winston outlining his thoughts on consistency has been attached for reference. In summary, Mr. Winston concludes the following: The application is consistent with all Urban Design Concepts The proposed building maintains and improves the existing level of consistency with all of the applicable elements of the Vail Village Design Considerations Further consideration should be given to roof materials, fagade materials and windows, fagade transparency, and landscape elements. Most notably, three large spruce trees should be removed IF more transparency and unifying landscape can be created as a result. Staff finds that the proposed exterior alterations meet this criterion. Town of Vail Page 8 3. The proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; and, The proposal is intended to blend into the existing structure and all materials, finishes, and colors will match existing conditions and not negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Instead, staff believes this exterior alteration application positively reinforces and further enhances the character of the neighborhood and Vail Village. It is rare to review an application that so extensively renovates a building in Vail Village which proposes to reduce site coverage, decrease GRFA, increase landscape area, and maintain existing density (du/ac). Staff finds that the proposed exterior alterations meet this criterion. 4. The proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village design considerations, to include, but not be limited to, the following urban design considerations: pedestrianization, vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge, building height, views, service/delivery and sun/shade analysis. The proposal has been reviewed for substantial compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Village Design Considerations. Upon review of the proposal, staff generally finds the proposed exterior alteration meets this review criterion, with one exception. Staff has requested, and the applicant has obliged to provide, additional information to demonstrate compliance with the Town's adopted view corridors. As submitted, it appears a very small portion of the proposed building may encroach into one of the three views affecting this building. If it is determined that in fact an encroachment exists, the applicant has three options in addressing the issue: 1) Redesign the building and all portions of the building from the view corridor, regardless of location or amount, 2) Request approval of a change to the adopted view corridor, or 3) Request approval for an encroachment to occur into the view corridor. Staff will wait until the applicant has accurately and fully demonstrated the location and area of encroachment and which option they would pursue in addressing the issue before sharing its findings with regard to this criterion. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission tables the final review of this exterior alteration application to the May 22, 2017 public meeting of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Site Photos C. Written Request, dated April 10, 2017 Town of Vail Page 9 D. Proposed Architectural Plans including Building Elevations, dated April 10, 2017 E. Urban Design Consultant Review Memorandum, dated April 21, 2017 Town of Vail Page 10 C M gal," A Afth, `,% . I 1� .f : Z!; 77- 7� Attachment C - Written Request Hill Building Renovation Exterior Alteration Application April 10, 2017 Introduction Purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive description and evaluation of renovation plans proposed for the Hill Building located at the top of Bridge Street and base of Vail Mountain in Vail Village. Renovation plans will maintain existing retail use on the main level and residential use on upper levels, but will thoroughly transform the building resulting in significant enhancement to the architecture and appearance of the building. As outlined in greater detail below, renovation plans conform to the zoning standards prescribed by the Commercial Core I zone district (CCI) and have been designed in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The review process for this project involves Planning and Environmental Commission review of an Exterior Alteration application. This report and project information provided under separate cover has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-713-7 Exterior Alterations or Modifications for CCI. This project narrative has been prepared by Braun Associates, Inc. and the design package has been prepared by 4240 Architecture. These photos from the 60's show the Hill Building in its original form. History of Hill Building The Hill Building has played a long and important role in the history of Vail. Blanche Hill owned the property for approximately 50 years and it was the site of one of Vail Village's earliest developments. The original building was a relatively small structure designed by Fitz Hugh Scott. The building epitomized the alpine style evident in many of Vail's original buildings. Vail Hill Building Renovation Exterior Alteration Application Blanche Hill Ski Shop, at the time Vail's first Ski Shop, was one of the original tenants of the building. Residential use was added to the building in subsequent years and this home served as Blanche Hill's personal residence. Since the 60's a number of major additions were made to the building and for the past twenty years the building has remained relatively unchanged. Additions were not always kind to the clean, simple alpine architecture of Scott's original building. Additions were made in a somewhat haphazard manner that resulted in a building lacking in coherency. Building massing, roof lines and forms, and building materials are just some of the elements of the building that are inconsistent with the Town's design architectural and urban design goals for Vail Village. The curved building corner at southwest corner of building, un -aligned roof lines, angled eaves and use of brick are some of the existing building features that are inconsistent with the Town's architectural goals for Vail Village. New owners who recently acquired the property have a long history with and appreciation for Vail. Simply stated, their goal is to create a family home and to restore the building in a manner that acknowledges and responds to its history, the early architecture of Vail Village and the Town's design goals for Vail Village. Overview of Project Parameters and Approach to Design The proposed project is best characterized as a major renovation of the existing building. Basic parameters for the scope of the project include: • Land uses will remain unchanged with retail on the ground floor and a single residence (with a small secondary unit) on upper floors. Hill Building Renovation Exterior Alteration Application • The first level retail store will remain relatively unchanged with only modest changes to the floor area of this space. The exterior of the retail space will however see significant changes to window treatments and a comprehensive re -skin of exterior wall materials. • The upper levels will be removed with the exception of flooring and structural elements of the building. • While there will be major changes to interior spaces and the overall organization of the residence, there will be only a slight decrease from Gross Residential Floor Area. • The overall height of the building is relatively unchanged and there will be only nominal increases to its existing ridge heights. • The most notable changes to the building footprint include a small increase for a new central stair to serve the residence and a reduction of building footprint on the south side of the building. In summary, when compared to a demolition/rebuild, the proposed building renovation is relatively modest in scale. The design approach for the renovation of the Hill Building is twofold; first, the goal is to heal the building and its public surroundings by finding clarity amidst the building's evolution over the past 50 years, and second, to acknowledge the evolution and character of the Town around the Hill Building as the Town has matured into the founders' vision of a European alpine village over the same time span. Because of the Hill Building's significance and interwoven history with Vail Village, the basic form and massing of the building is retained (although an addition to the southwest corner, blocking the view of the mountain from Wall Street, is to be removed). Along Wall Street and at the south facade, the building is stepped back to reduce its apparent mass and create a more favorable street experience for pedestrians. While the original building and subsequent additions were executed in a modern alpine character, the renovation focuses on finding an expression that is in harmony with the traditional European alpine model which the Village has adapted since its inception. In place of today's white -painted board -and -batten siding and horizontal wood railings, materials such as stone, stained timbers, stucco, and decorative millwork have been selected to work together with the building's surroundings and the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. In connection with these material selections, the ground -floor interface with the public realm is enhanced by delineating the retail fenestration from the residential use above, presenting a more inviting experience to pedestrians and helping to increase street activation. All of these refinements have in mind breathing new life into a legacy building which will enhance the experience of Vail Village for years to come. Hill Building Renovation Exterior Alteration Application Zoning Considerations The following addresses how the proposal conforms to relevant zoning standards as prescribed by the CCI zone district: Site Area The minimum lot size in Vail Village is 5,000 square feet. As permitted by Town Code (definition of a "site"), "a site may consist of a single lot of record, a portion of a lot of record, a combination of lots of record". The proposed site consists of two parcels, Lot L consisting of .127 acres and a Portion of Lot C consisting of .068 acres. Total site area is .195 acres or 8,494 square feet. With these two parcels being designated the "site", all zoning standards are applied to the combined parcels, i.e. no setback applies to the common lot line between the two parcels, allowable density is based on both parcels, etc. Setbacks There are no prescribed setbacks in the CCI zone district. There are only minor changes proposed to existing building setbacks. Building setback is reduced slightly on the south side of the building and slightly increased by two expansions on the east side of the building. A number of existing upper floor decks and portions of the roof extend over property lines. In some cases these encroachments are removed. In other cases the decks are retained but with no increase to the extent of existing encroachments. Density Control Allowable GRFA is 6,795 square feet. Existing GRFA is 7,014 square feet. Section 12-713-19 Reconstruction of Existing Uses; Compliance Required allows for any building within CCI to be re -constructed to "the same or substantially the same enclosed floor area provided the building substantially comply with the applicable provisions of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations". 6,920 square feet of GRFA is proposed. This exceeds allowable GRFA by 125 square feet but is 94 square feet less than what could be proposed in accordance with Section 12-713-19. Refer to the section below for how the project complies with applicable provisions of the Guide Plan. Site coverage Site coverage is limited to 80% of site area unless otherwise prescribed by the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations, or 6,795 square feet. Existing site coverage is 6,693 square feet (79%). Proposed site coverage is 6,322 square feet (74%). Hill Building Renovation 4 Exterior Alteration Application Landscape Landscape standards state that no reduction to existing landscaping is to occur unless "sufficient cause is shown by the applicant or as specified in the Vail Village design considerations". The definition of landscaping includes, among other things, planted areas and plant materials, including trees, shrubs, lawns, flowerbeds and ground cover, .... and core development such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features and like features not occupying more than 20% of the landscaped area". Existing landscape area consists of 586 square feet of softscape area and 1,796 square feet of hardscape areas. Given that existing hardscape areas exceeds the 20% of total landscape area, the key factor in conforming to the "no reduction" standard is the change to softscape areas. Proposed softscape area is 591 square feet. While nominal, there is a slight increase to softscape area. Notable changes to existing landscaping include a new planter bed on the south side of the building, removal of a small planter on the west side, re -design and expansion of planters on the north side and removal of planters on the east side to allow for re -design of the residential entry and improved visual access to storefront windows. The removal of four spruce trees on the east side and southeast corner of the property is proposed. Three of these trees are located on Town of Vail land. There are a number of reasons for the removal of these trees: • The trees are likely 50 years old and have simply outgrown their location. • The trees are literally engulfing the existing structure and represent a wildfire and safety hazard. • The trees present a major hindrance to the construction of the renovated building. Trees more suitable for the "urban" setting of the project are proposed for these areas. Two crab trees located at the south side of the building are also proposed for removal. These trees are located on Vail Resorts property. Vail Resorts has provided verbal approval for these trees to be removed. Currently these trees are located in front of a large, blank wall. As proposed, this blank wall will be replaced with a new "storefront" with display windows. Removal of these trees will open up views to these windows. Hill Building Renovation Exterior Alteration Application Existing trees have outgrown their location and present safety and logistic challenges that warrant their removal. Parking and Loading The proposed renovation will have no effect on required parking. An existing garage parking space is located on the property. As a part of the proposed building renovation, the garage will remain and will not increase in size, location or shape. The space is a non -conforming use and is permissible to remain in accordance with Chapter 18 -Non - Conforming Uses of the Zoning Code. The space is can also remain based on the Mall Act of 1972. The Mall Act was adopted by the Town in order to limit vehicular access and strengthen the pedestrian character of Vail Village. The Mall Act did however, acknowledge specific to vehicle use on Bridge Street that vehicle access would be permitted to existing parking spaces. The garage in the Hill Building was in place at the time the Mall Act was adopted and as such access to this space is permitted. Hill Building Renovation 6 Exterior Alteration Application Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan The Guide Plan/Sub-Area Concepts:Gore Creek Drive/Bridge Street The Guide Plan/Sub-Area Concepts of the Urban Design Guide Plan identify physical improvements that are desired for the Village. In most cases improvements address the public domain or encourage private development to be designed in response to the urban design goals of the Plan. There are no such improvements identified by the Plan that are proximate to the Hill Building. Design Considerations/Urban Design Considerations The Urban Design Guide Plan includes two categories of design considerations — Urban design considerations address large-scale land use planning issues as well as form considerations and are primarily the Planning and Environmental Commission. Architectural and Landscape Considerations are reviewed primarily by the Design Review Board. Below is an assessment of how the project addressed the eight Urban Design Considerations: 1. Pedestrianization The Hill Building is bordered by pedestrian -only streets and pedestrian streets with limited delivery traffic. Given the relatively limited scope of this project, particularly there being no change to existing land uses, the proposal will have no change to existing pedestrianization. 2. Vehicular Penetration The proposal will have no change to vehicular penetration in or around the site. 3. Streetscape Framework Streetscape framework addresses how landscaping and commercial storefronts can influence the quality of the walking experience in Vail Village. While there is only a nominal change to existing softscape areas, landscape improvements will create better defined planter beds on the north side of the property, add new planter beds to the south side and replace three over -grown trees with new trees and planting beds. Expanded storefront windows will be provided on all sides of the building. Of particular significance are new windows on the east and south sides of the building that will provide architectural interest to the building and visual interest for the pedestrian. 4. Street Enclosure Hill Building Renovation Exterior Alteration Application While proposed renovations will provide some improvement to Streetscape Enclosure, views and how pedestrians move around the building, the limited scope of changes to the building will not result in any meaningful change to Streetscape Enclosure. The second floor at the northwest corner of the building will be pulled back a distance of approximately 6'. This will "open up" the corridor between the Hill Building and the neighboring Plaza Lodge, providing an improved ratio between this walkway and the two adjacent buildings. The second floor of at the southwest corner of the building will also be pulled back. This change will open a wider view plan to Vail Mountain for pedestrians walking south through this plaza area. 5. Street Edge With the nominal changes proposed for the main level of the building there are no significant changes to how the building influences Street Edge considerations. 6. Building Height Only nominal changes occur to the roof. Proposed ridgelines are equal to or only 1-2' higher than existing ridge lines and are well within allowable building heights. The proposed roof conforms to the 60/40 split with 38% of the roof being over 33' and under 43'. 7. View Corridors Adopted view corridors #2 and #4 are proximate to the Hill Building. Proposed changes respect both of these view corridors. View Corridor #2 is from Seibert Circle to Vail Mountain and the purpose of this corridor is to "protect views of the ski runs and ski base as seen from upper Bridge Street". The westerly plan of this corridor runs along the eastern edge of the Hill Building. As depicted on plans provided, the proposed building does not encroach into this view corridor. View corridor #4 is in the corridor between the Hill Building and the Plaza Lodge, the purpose of this corridor is to "protect views of the Gore Range as seen from the alley between Founders Plaza and Seibert Circle". Proposed changes to the north side include the removal of existing upper level decks and in doing so will improve this view corridor. The eave line of the existing building defines the upper extent of the view corridor. The new roof, while at essentially the same height, has more prominent overhangs and as proposed the overhang will extend into the view corridor. This Hill Building Renovation Exterior Alteration Application portion of roof is well above the Gore Range View. It is suggest that during the PEC site visit this aspect of the proposal be evaluated. While technically an encroachment into the view corridor, the proposed building is very much in keeping with the purpose of this view corridor. 8. Sun/Shade Proposed building massing will have a slightly positive improvement to shadow patterns around the building. Sun/shade studies on sheet G006 of the Exterior Alteration plan set indicate morning and afternoon shadow patterns on the Equinox and Winter Solstice. 9. Service and Delivery Uses on the property will remain unchanged as a result of this renovation and as such no changes are anticipated with respect to service and delivery. Vail Village Master Plan Below is a brief summary of how the proposed renovation relates to relevant sections of the Vail Village Master Plan. Goals, Objectives, Policies Foremost among the goals, objectives and policies in support of the renovation of the Hill Building include: Goal #1— Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Objective 1.4: Recognize the "historic" importance of the architecture, structures, landmarks, plazas and features in preserving the character of Vail Village. Illustrative Plan The Action Plan is an element of the Illustrative Plan section of the master plan. The Action Plan identifies improvements envisioned for the Village. The Action Plan includes eleven sub- areas and the Hill Building is located in the #3 CCI Sub -Area. The only improvement in this sub- area that is proximate to the Hill Building is the "Seibert Circle Study Area" which addresses the potential for plaza improvements to the top of Bridge Street. This improvement has been implemented. Hill Building Renovation Exterior Alteration Application g O O a 0 z W LO Z G Ln LO N - O N O N O w o Lu of O (D � /Y� ~ Q CD Ii1 N _ W Z N LD O J O O N M UO w M J M o O Q rn af M M d � q / ,a e =:» O _ \ { \\?\\ 2 ! CD NOliVAON38 Mo 11na ]]|H � � ! , s ( & /p � ! , s ( & IF AA..sz.zi.gaL N IZ 8E.6E RO OM010311VA iiins igaima L Lc NOliVAON38 Mo 11 n a 111H CD CD LD IF LO AA..Sz.zz 9 L N IZ 8E.6E 9 [8 ;OVdOI03 TVA CD iiins L CD NOliVAON38igaimaLc Mo 11 n a 111H LD AA..Sz.zz 9 L N IZ 8E.6E GS918;OVH10311VA iiins igaima L Lc NOliVAON38 Mo 11 n a 111H E Y j, I Ll 10, --Fa -_- - -,�- - - - - -4-4-- ----------- a a M..SZ.ZZo9a6 N„7Z,8E.6E — G9918 OM0100 11VA O 99aia9 L o r a�LL Q N011VA0N38 9Nio11na 111 A �w --Fa -_- - -,�- - - - - -4-4-- ----------- a a AA..Sz.zz 9 L N IZ 8E.6E j6 CD RO OM010011VA igaima L Lc NOUVAON38 Mo 11 in a 111H T T T T T T TTT T T T T -T -T 8179. - - -- -:�::j �-j 40 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- C- -L C� 4, AA..Sz.zz 9 L N IZ 8E.6E GS918;M010311VA iiins igaima L Lc NOliVAON38 Mo 11 n a 111H cn M..SZ.ZZoSa6 N„7Z,8E.6E GS018 OM0100 `11VA �g 0 iiins 3aaiae l6E awg r NOIldAON38 9NIO11na 111H = Q AA..sz.zi.gaL N IZ 8E.6E CD GSRO 0OV80I03 TVA iiins igaima L Lc NOliVAON38 Mo 11 n a 111 H AA..Sz.zz 9 L N IZ 8E.6E GS918;M010311VA iiins igaima L Lc NOliVAON38 Mo 11 n a 111H l T M.SULK L N.N.BME _ L591800tl80107 'IItlA -- r ,.. 133815390188 ,LE W s F= 3aJ = W= N011VA0N3b 9Niaiina 111 m�5�� R., y 3 y ��a2 wee 3m�'pw tl 500 " o � aP�dyo- �p o�5� .o dpC�»dei pew d� ��3f�Ad8 �m modm ewe 935�zi4€433d T— CD 0 L-) 20 0 E�l ,w ✓ s 8 9 III \ 1 1 m 1 T— CD 0 L-) AA..Sz.zz 9 L N IZ 8E.6E GSRO;OVH10311VA iiins igaima L Lc NOliVAON38 Mo 11 n a 111H 0 O z S M..9 Z.ZZo9al N„7Z,8 Eo6E y Fg 0 GS918 OOtl80100 TVA iaaaisa9aiaeL LE NOIldAON38 9NI011na IIIH LU -1 z S M..SZ.ZZo9al N„7Z,8Eo6E j6 0 m a G99 OOOtl80100 TVA _wo 0 o 7 iiins39aiaeL LE wJLL Q NOIldAON38 9NIO11na 111H iy 3e I I I II 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 O 10 / / /-0 I O 10 / / /-0 N z S M..SZ.ZZo9al N„1Z,8Eo6E o6 0 G9918 00tl801a7 IItlA o iaaaisa9aiaeL LE wig NOUVAON38 9NI011na IIIH iy N _ - M 4 s a S ££,r M..SZ.ZZ.90L N.7Z.0£o6£ . g LS9 lB 00Ve0103'11VA § ilMiS 3901H ll£ Wil T-- JLL eS W �e NOIIVAON38 Maims 111H J e JW a aW =W' M.SZ. MOL N.7Z.0£o6£ igCD g § 133aiS 3901H llC W� eS W �e NOIIVAON38 Maims 111H J e JW a aW =W' c « . , © ;, , _ \. ) AA..Sz.zz 9 L N IZ 8E.6E \\ \/\\� ;OVdOI03 \ CD RO TVA iiins igaima L Lc NOliVAON38 Mo 11 n a 111H LU AA..Sz.zz 9 L N IZ 8E.6E GS918;OVH10311VA iijajs igaima L Lc NOliVAON38 Mo 11 n a 111H mllwmmr—� E tAv ;y 02 > AA..Sz.zz 9 L N IZ 8E.6E CD RO M010311VA iiins igaima L Lc NOliVAON38 Mo 11 n a 111H E tAv ;y 02 > Attachment E - Urban Design Consultant Review Memorandum elimina�ry ON P"rReview Memorandum 303-817-4174 jefFre winston@g mail.com 1985 Glenwood Drive Boulder Colorado 80304 Date: April 21, 2017 To: George Ruther From: Jeff Winston Project: Hill Building Redevelopment, 4240 Architects, PEC SUBMITTAL #1 2017-04-10 An unusual project for Vail, this application actually proposes to not only to bring the building into higher compliance with the Design Guidelines, but also to do so by reducing the bulk, mass, and footprint of the buildings. Vail Village Sub -area Concepts The only Sub -area Concept affecting this building is Gore Creek Drive/Bridge Street #11: Increase facade transparency on south side to strengthen pedestrian activity, with entry to street. Potential expansion of building to south property line. Additional vertical expansion maybe considered on south end of building to improve street enclosure proportions but must respect designated Hill street - Gore Range view corridors. Potential second level open balcony deck (sun pocket) to restore activity to street lost from ground floor terrace. These comments identified potential objectives if the Hill Building were to expand, and focus on ways to retain or improve street enclosure, views, and street -level activity. The proposed building design accomplishes all of that. Urban Design Concepts In general, we concur with the application narrative, that the proposed changes to the building do not change, and/or continue to be consistent with (and slightly improve) all the Urban Design Concepts (Pedestrianization, Vehicular Penetration, Streetscape Framework, Street Enclosure, Street Edge, Building Height, View Corridors, Sun -Shade, Service/Delivery). Design Considerations We strongly agree with the application narrative, that the proposed building improvements maintain or improve the existing level of consistency with: Design Review Memorandum Vail Hill Building Page 2 of 3 Roof forms, pitch, overhangs, composition Facades materials, color, transparency Windows Doors Trim Decks and Patios Balconies Lighting/Signage Service There are however, several proposed design considerations that deserve further discussion: Roof materials—the roof is proposed to be of copper. It will be shiny to begin with, but will eventually weather to a dull green/gray. This sets a relatively new precedent for roofs in the Village. Most of the roofs have maintained the "shake -shingle character, which is composed of two characteristics: black or dark gray color, and a texture articulated by fine-grained shadow lines. While not opposed to using a new material that will provide fire safety, low maintenance, and durability, we encourage that the roof be designed with a "thick" appearance giving it the mass of shake -shingles, and that a fine-grained texture pattern be used to help the roof blend in with surrounding roofs as seen from the mountain or other vantage points. 2. Facade Materials, Windows (Uniformity)—the proposed ground floor windows on all 4 sides of the building are identical. However, Vail has an interesting "evolved over time" variety, even within some of the larger single buildings. We would support allowing some variety in the design of windows, and wood paneling, on the varies sides of the building. 3. Materials (Stone)—we support the conversion of the brick chimneys to stone, and encourage the use of traditional "early Vail" stonework: slightly irregular edges snd faces, hidden mortar, and larger stones at the base. The remaining comments are related to helping the building "heal the site," a term from Chris Alexander that refers to the role of each new building to fit into, and improve, the function and quality of its urban context. 4. Facade transparency on the ground floor—the Hill Building sits in an unusually prominent location: between two major pedestrian streets (Bridge Street and Wall Design Review Memorandum Vail Hill Building Page 3 of 3 Street) and fronting on 3 plazas (Seibert Circle to the east, Founders' Plaza to the south, and Concert Hall Plaza to the west). All in all, a major objective of the Urban Design Plan is to give animate and give interest and vitality to Vail's pedestrian streets and plazas. While the proposed improvements to the Hill Building maintain or increase the transparency of the ground floor commercial facades, there are still several ground floor segments, especially those fronting on Seibert Circle, that are solid blank walls or blocked from the plaza by overgrown trees and landscape features. These critical facades do not interact with, and in fact tend to deaden, one whole side the plaza. We encourage further study to explore ways of creating more window and door transparency, more interior -exterior interaction and animation, for this critical facade. Since the single garage door doesn't lend itself to increased transparency, it would be highly desirable to relocate it to a less prominent location (west side?). If truly not possible, perhaps replace the rolling overhead door with a type of door that "implies" more transparency, such as a decorative wood, side -hinged "carriage house" door. 5. Landscape elements—related to the comment above, fronting on Seibert Circle are 3 very mature Spruce trees that present a solid barrier between the Hill Building and Seibert Circle. We support the removal and replacement of these trees IF more transparency and unifying landscaping can be created. jtw TOWN OF VAIO VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 24, 2017 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zoning text amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Traffic I mpact Fee, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0008) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC17-0008_Transportation_Impact _Fee _Memo 5-8-17.pdf PEC 17-0008 Traffic Impact Fee Staff Memo 2017-03-10_VailTransplmpactFeeDRAFT STUDY.pdf Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study - Attachment A PEC17-0008_ Transportation _ Impact_ Fee Ordinance -5-8- PEC17-0008 Traffic Impact Fee Draft 17_Final_Draft.pdf Ordinance - Attachment B PEC17- PEC 17-0008 Development Fee Analysis - 0008_Copy_of_Development_review matrix impact fees -2017- Attachment C 0502. pdf Figure1-CoreAreaMap.pdf PEC17-0008 Traffic Impact Fee Core Area Map - Attachment D 0 TOWN OF VAIL � Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: May 8, 2017 Subject: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulations amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Transportation Impact Fee, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17- 0008) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel Planner: Chris Neubecker SUMMARY The applicant, the Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulations amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Transportation Impact Fee, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulations amendment. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Vail Transportation Impact Fee is intended to ensure that applicants for new developments pay for the transportation related impacts caused by the development. In order to codify this fee, the Town Council has requested the adoption of a new chapter within Title 12 of the Vail Town Code. The Town of Vail has hired the consulting firm TischlerBise to develop an updated Transportation Impact Fee by providing a nexus study to show the connection between new development and the need for new transportation projects (Attachment A). The proposed regulation amendment is intended to codify the traffic mitigation fee, help fund future transportation related projects as identified in the Vail Transportation Master Plan, and allow new development to "pay its way". The 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update recommends completion of a nexus study in order to determine the impacts of development on the Town's transportation infrastructure and recommends codifying the impact fee, including adjusting the fee based on the new transportation needs and cost information. Specifically, the Plan Update states: Complete the Nexus study in 2009 for a traffic impact fee to codify the current practice and adjust the fee if desired based on the new transportation need and cost information Over the past year there have been multiple discussions with the Town Council regarding the codification of a Transportation Impact Fee; the Town Council has directed staff to move forward with the codification process based on the most recent nexus study developed by TischlerBise. The Planning and Environmental Commission's role in the review of the Code language is to make a recommendation on the language that should be incorporated into the Town Code to allow for an implementable Transportation Impact Fee. The PEC may also make a recommendation of an alternate policy for financing the required transportation improvements, but the final determination will be made by Town Council. III. BACKGROUND A Transportation Impact Fee is a development fee assessed to offset costs that a jurisdiction will incur to improve transportation infrastructure as a result of increased traffic from proposed new developments. The Town of Vail has collected mitigating transportation fees for certain development zone districts (including Public Accommodation, Public Accommodation -2, Lionshead Mixed Use -1, and Lionshead Mixed Use -2) since 1999. The fee is not currently a codified amount, but an additional fee agreed upon by the Town and the developer for mitigation of vehicular trip impacts of a proposed development project. In 1999, the fee was set by Town Council to be $5,000 per net new PM peak hour vehicular trip added to Vail's road network. The fee was based on the improvements anticipated by: the Vail Transportation Master Plan; the total anticipated additional vehicular trips at that time; and the probable funding sources including Town of Vail capital funds, CDOT partnering funds, and development impact fees. In 2006, the fee was increased to $6,500 as a direct result of inflation in construction costs, and the fee has not increased since. In 2009 the Town adopted an updated Vail Transportation Master Plan, which included a more detailed and updated estimate of future projected transportation projects and costs. At the same time the Town engaged TischlerBise to develop a nexus study for traffic impact fees that was anticipated to be used to codify a traffic impact fee. The nexus study was completed in 2009, but the Transportation Impact Fee was not Town of Vail Page 2 adopted or codified by the Town Council. The Town Council at the time did not deem it appropriate to burden developers with additional fees during an economic downturn. The nexus study proposed to codify a Transportation Impact Fee based on proposed square footage and net unit increases of all development, not limiting it only to certain zone districts. This would include residential projects, and is typical of nationwide traffic impact fees. The 2009 nexus study identified $134 Million of potential transportation related projects (Traffic, Transit, and Parking), of which $22 Million was identified to be funded from the proposed traffic impact fee. Since the 2009 impact fee was not codified, the Town has continued to rely on development agreements and has not increased the mitigation fee of $6,500 per net new PM vehicular trip generated. The last large development impact fees agreed upon were for The Lion (Lionshead Inn) and the Marriott Residence Inn (The Roost) developments in 2010, and most recently, the Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC) in 2015. Each used the 2006 fee of $6,500 per net new PM peak hour vehicular trip. The VVMC has agreed to pay any new Transportation Impact Fee adopted prior to the start of construction of the East Phase of the VVMC development, if adopted by the Town Council and uniformly applied town wide. With the resurgence in redevelopment, and the Town's outdated mitigation fee, Council has requested that the Town evaluate adopting an updated Transportation Impact Fee. This past March TischlerBise updated the Transportation Impact Fee Study and presented it to Council. The Town Council then requested formal codification of the Transportation Impact Fee, based on the nexus study and presentations. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Section 3-7 Amendment (in part) A. Prescription: The regulations prescribed in this title and the boundaries of the zone districts shown on the official zoning map may be amended, or repealed by the town council in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this chapter. B. Initiation.- 1. nitiation: 1. An amendment of the regulations of this title or a change in zone district boundaries may be initiated by the town council on its own motion, by the planning and environmental commission on its own motion, by petition of any resident or property owner in the town, or by the administrator. 2. A petition for amendment of the regulations or a change in zone district boundaries shall be filed on a form to be prescribed by the administrator. The petition shall include a summary of the proposed revision of the regulations, or a complete description of proposed changes in zone district boundaries and a map indicating the existing and proposed zone district boundaries. If the petition is for a change in zone district boundaries, the petition shall include a list of the owners of all properties within the boundaries of the area to be rezoned or changed, and Town of Vail Page 3 the property adjacent thereto. The owners' list shall include the names of all owners, their mailing and street addresses, and the legal description of the property owned by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed envelopes to each owner to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. The petition also shall include such additional information as prescribed by the administrator. V. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW Section 12-3-7 C2 of the Zoning Regulations identifies the factors that the Planning and Environmental Commission must consider before making a recommendation for a change to the text of the code. These factors include the following: 2. Prescribed Regulations Amendment: a. Factors, Enumerated. Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in this title, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: (1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and The general purposes of the Zoning Regulations are to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. The proposed Transportation Impact Fee will be used to advance the harmonious development of the town through transportation infrastructure projects that improve safety and facilitate movement of vehicles and pedestrians throughout the town, and help to ensure that the established character of the town remains that of a resort and residential community of high quality. Some of the specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations are to "provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities" and to "promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets." The transportation projects financed with this impact fee will help advance each of these purposes. (2) The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The Vail Comprehensive Plan is a series of master plans and documents, including the 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update. The Master Plan Update specifically mentions the updating of this impact fee as one of the next steps in the Plan: "Complete Town of Vail Page 4 the Nexus study in 2009 for a traffic impact fee to codify the current practice and adjust the fee if desired based on the new transportation need and cost information." The proposed text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan by ensuring fairness and consistency in the development review process. Codifying the impact fee will also ensure that the Town's regulatory and land use documents are updated and current, and provide ease of compliance and enforcement. (3) The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and This is not a new impact fee, but it is a codification and update to an existing fee. Since the adoption of the original fee, the Town completed a nexus study to show the relationship between development projects and the need for new transportation projects. The study identifies an update to the fee as the appropriate manner to finance the costs of new transportation infrastructure projects. The existing regulation is no longer appropriate because of the cost of constructing new transportation infrastructure projects, and because the nexus study has provided an update to the impacts generated by new development. (4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and The text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land uses by requiring the costs of new transportation projects to be paid by the new development that is causing the need for these projects. This is consistent with municipal development objectives by having new development pay for its fair share for the impacts it causes. (5) Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. b. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a text amendment the planning and environmental commission and the town council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: (1) That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and (2) That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and Town of Vail Page 5 (3) That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. VI. VAIL CAPITAL PROJECTS As a part of the 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan and the 2009 Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study, the Town identified a list of anticipated transportation capital projects that would accommodate projected growth. The project list and projected development growth has been recently updated, and now includes pedestrian and transit oriented projects. The preliminary total 2016 estimated cost of these multimodal projects is approximately $95M over the next 25 years. The cost of these improvements (Attachment C) is anticipated to be partially paid through the impact fee from the development of approximately 2,000 new residential units and approximately 500,000 square feet of new commercial development that is projected for the future of Vail. The project list has broken down the associated fiscal responsibilities, and split them between project specific costs, Transportation Impact Fee costs, and Town of Vail costs or other revenue sources. In order to implement a Transportation Impact Fee, the anticipated transportation projects have been split into two categories, Project level and System level improvements. Project level improvements are directly related to an individual development and its required access. These types of Project level improvements are generally paid for by the individual developer. System level improvements enhance the carrying capacity of the transportation network system -wide and benefit multiple developments. System level improvements directly benefit new development and may also benefit existing users. The Vail Transportation Master Plan Project List includes both Project level and System level improvements. Of the total $95M of total project costs, approximately $20M is considered Project level, and approximately $75M is considered System level. The majority, 72%, or $54M, of the $75M of total System Level project costs will need to be funded by the Town of Vail or other revenue resources; while 28%, or $21 M, should be funded by the Transportation Impact Fee. The anticipated Project Level costs would be paid 100% by the specific project developments, approximately $20M. VII. DRAFT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY TischlerBise has provided an updated nexus study, The Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study (March 10, 2017), and draft fee schedule for the Town's review. The draft fee schedule is based on anticipated future development, the current estimated cost of the capital projects to accommodate future development, and the appropriate proportioned fiscal responsibility. Since completion of the nexus study, it has been discussed that removing the square footage relationship within the detached unit, single family homes, Town of Vail Page 6 would be beneficial to the implementation of the fee. The proposed revised draft fee schedule is below. Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees Residential Dwellings (per Unit) Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (In the Core Area) $ 5,960.00 Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (Outside the Core Area) $ 7,450.00 Dwelling, Single Family $ 9,686.00 Employee Housing Unit $0 Accommodation Unit (per Unit) Accommodation Unit (In Core Area) $ 5,960.00 Accommodation Unit (Outside Core Area) $ 7,450.00 Commercial (per square foot of floor area) Restaurant & Retail Establishments $ 13.90 Facilities Health Care $ 9.93 Office & Other Services $ 6.20 Core Area is defined as per Figure 1 in the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study (Attachment D) The categories within the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule are further defined below and within Title 12-2-2. Any uses or development types not specifically defined below or within Title 12-2-2 shall be interpreted by the Administrator in accordance with the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study. Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family includes; Dwelling, Two Family Dwelling, Multiple Family Fractional Fee Club Unit Accommodation Unit includes; Accommodation Unit Accommodation Unit, Attached Lodge Dwelling Unit Lodge Unit, Limited Service Timeshare Unit Restaurant and Retail includes; Eating and drinking establishments Retail stores and establishments Theaters Office & Other Services includes; Professional offices, business offices and studios Town of Vail Page 7 Banks and financial institutions Personal services and repair shops Child Daycare Center Health Clubs/ Spa Commercial Ski Storage/Ski Club Religious Institutions For comparison, the following cities and counties have adopted impact fees shown within the table below. The closest relating community to Vail is Pitkin County which last had its Road Impact Fee updated in 2013. Transportation Impact Fee Comparison Per Housing Unit Per 1, 000 Sp Ft Single hamily Multifamily Retail Uffice National Average (1) $3,228 1 $2,202 $5,685 $3,430 Incorporated Durango (1) Ft. Collins 2016 Draft (2) Vail current* Proposed in Core Area of Vail (2) Proposed Outside Core Area (2) Areas in Colorado $2,169 $1,298 $3,810 $2,823 $6,217 $0 $4,095 $2,366 $8,113 $10,569 $5,977 $9,685 not applicablel $5,960 1 $13,900 1 $6,200 $9,686 1 $7,450 $13,900 $6,200 Eagle Co. (1) Jefferson Co. (1) Larimer Co. (2) Pitkin Co. (2) Weld Co. (2) Counties in Colorado $4,378 $3,034 $9,026 $5,164 $3,276 $2,725 $7,120 $4,790 $3,418 $8,812 $4,726 $9,339 $5,115 $10,910 $5,130 $2,377 $3,296 $2,174 Sources: (1) National Impact Fee Survey by Duncan Associations (2012). Single Family assumes Z000square feet. Nonresidential fees per thousand square feet assume a building with 100,000square feet of floor area. (2) Tischler8ise. Single Family in Vail and Pitkin County assumes 4, 000squarefeet. * Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and If the proposed Vail Transportation Impact Fee is adopted, the following is a projection of the amount of funding that would be generated by each development type: Town of Vail Page 8 Development Additionol Type Development Units Fee per Development Unit $5,960 $7,450 $5,960 $7,450 $9,686 $5,960 $7,450 $13,900 $9,930 $6,200 Projected Revenue $4,202,000 $4,127,000 $244,000 $2,310,000 $1,162,000 $1,609,000 $760,000 $4,448,000 $1,390,000 1 $546,000 Percent of Impact Fees 20% 20% 1% 11% 6% 8% 4% 21% 7% 1 3% Attached Housing Units in Core Area 705 Attached Housing Units Outside Core 554 Employee Housing Units in Core Area 41 Employee Housing Units Outside Core 310 Detached Housing Units 120 Hotel Rooms in Core Area 270 Hotel Rooms Outside Core 102 Commercial KSF 320 Hospital KSF 140 Office & Other Services KSF 88 Total => $20,798,000 100% VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS Based on discussions at the previous Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, staff provides the following additional information. Sales Tax Equivalent The PEC requested staff to provide the equivalent sales tax increase that would generate the necessary funding in lieu of the Transportation Impact Fee. Based on 2016 sales tax collection, it would take an additional 0.13% of sales tax to equate to -$21 Million over the next 25 years. This does not take into account the growth of a sales tax base over the next 25 years, nor does it take into account the escalation of the cost of construction and the relating increases in the Transportation Impact Fee. Speculating each of these would not be prudent at this time; we assume at this point that each of the escalations may cancel each other out over time. Any sales tax increase would require a vote of the community. At this time the Town Council has directed Town Staff to implement a Transportation Impact Fee and not an increase in sales tax. Fee based on Parkinq Space Requirements Staff has consulted with TischlerBise on how parking relates to development within the Vail Town Code. Both staff and TischlerBise recommend against relating the fee to parking for the following reasons: Parking requirement for communities reflect not only anticipated parking demand, but also incentives to encourage certain types of development or land uses. For example, in parts of Vail Village and Lionshead, there is no parking requirement for commercial uses. Not all land uses have a parking requirement. Parking requirements are based on the minimum number of parking spaces. Some developments will include more parking than is required by code. Town of Vail Page 9 • A larger burden might be put on single family dwellings as their number of parking spaces would range from 2 to 5, whereas multiple unit developments and hotels range from 0.4 to 2.5 spaces per unit. IX. RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN Staff has had multiple discussions with Town Council with regards to the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study and recommends the following implementation for the administration of this fee. These recommendations have been incorporated within the Code amendments attached: Modify the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule, as shown above, to exclude the incremental detached single family square footage rate, and replace with a single fee rate for all new homes based on number of units. Therefore, the impact fee would apply only to new construction on vacant residential lots or on lots that demolish a single family home and build back with a duplex (or otherwise increase the number of units on a property). The fee would be $9,686 per new detached housing unit. • Upon codification of the fee, Town staff will administer the fee in accordance with the terms and conditions as provided for in the amended Town Code, 12- 26. • The fee shall apply to all development and redevelopment except Employee Housing Units (EHUs). • The fee rate schedule will be adopted by Resolution and will be updated on a yearly basis as needed, based on updated costs estimates of the identified capital projects. • Project level improvements shall not be eligible for credits towards the impact fee, however if a developer constructs a system improvement on the capital improvement list, a credit and/or reimbursement may be provided to the developer for the amount of construction, up to the amount shown within the capital improvement project list. X. VAIL FEE ANALYSIS In order to better understand the true cost of development within Vail, and identify all of the fees and other costs the Town requires, staff has completed an analysis of a variety of project types. The analysis shows that, in general, the town imposes fees and other taxes that equate to approximately 3% of the value of the total construction valuation of a project. One exception shown is for the Solaris project, which paid approximately 7% of the total project valuation; the large discrepancy for this particular project is generated by the large Housing Fee -In -Lieu payment. The Transportation Impact Fee will generally increase the cost of development by 0% to 0.9%. Town of Vail Page 10 XI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the analysis of the review criteria contained in Section V of this memorandum and on the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission make a recommendation to the Town Council to approve the proposed prescribed regulations amendment to Title 12, Chapter 26, Transportation Impact Fees, of the Town Code. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to recommend approval of the proposed prescribed regulations amendments, the Community Development Department recommends the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulations amendment to the Vail Town Code, Title 12, by the adoption of a new Chapter 26, Transportation Impact Fees." Before recommending approval of an application for a text amendment, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: (1) That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and (2) That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and (3) That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. VI. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study, March 10, 2017 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance Attachment C - Development Fee Analysis Attachment D — Core Area Map Town of Vail Page 11 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................2 COLORADO IMPACT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION..................................................................................................................2 ADDITIONAL LEGAL GUIDELINES........................................................................................................................................2 DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE TOWN OF VAIL...................................................................................................................4 Figure 1 — Map of Town Boundary and Vail Core Area........................................................................................5 LOWERFEES IN CORE AREA.............................................................................................................................................5 Lower Residential Trip Generation Rates in Urban Areas....................................................................................5 Less Auto Dependency in Urban Areas.................................................................................................................6 Shorter Trip Lengths in Urban Areas....................................................................................................................6 CURRENT AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION FEES...............................................................................................................7 Figure 2 — Transportation Impact Fee Comparison..............................................................................................8 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES...........................................................................................................................9 Figure 3 — Conceptual Impact Fee Formula..........................................................................................................9 TRIPGENERATION........................................................................................................................................................10 Vehicle Trips to Development in the Town of Vail..............................................................................................10 Figure 4 —Summary of Projected Travel Demand..............................................................................................11 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.....................................................................................................11 Figure 5 —Summary of Transportation Improvements and Growth Share........................................................12 CREDITFOR OTHER REVENUES.......................................................................................................................................13 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FORMULA AND INPUT VARIABLES..........................................................................................13 Figure 6 — Transportation Impact Fee Input Variables.......................................................................................14 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES..................................................................................................15 Figure 7 — Transportation Impact Fee Schedule.................................................................................................15 FUNDING STRATEGY FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS....................................................................................16 Figure 8 — Impact Fee Revenue Projection.........................................................................................................16 APPENDIX A — DEMOGRAPHIC DATA...................................................................................................................17 TRIP GENERATION BY TYPE AND SIZE OF HOUSING.............................................................................................................17 Figure Al — PM Peak Hour Vehicle Attraction Trips by Size of Detached House................................................18 TRIP GENERATION BY FLOOR AREA OF DETACHED HOUSING.................................................................................................19 Figure A2 — PM Peak Hour Inbound Trips by Square Feet..................................................................................20 APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION................................................................................... 21 CREDITSAND REIMBURSEMENTS.....................................................................................................................................21 TOWN -WIDE SERVICE AREA...........................................................................................................................................21 DEVELOPMENTCATEGORIES...........................................................................................................................................22 APPENDIX C: REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 23 Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 INTRODUCTION Although Colorado is a "home -rule" state and home -rule municipalities were already collecting "impact fees" under their home -rule authority granted in the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Legislature passed enabling legislation in 2001, as discussed further below. Colorado Impact Fee Enabling Legislation For local governments, the first step in evaluating funding options for transportation improvements is to determine basic options and requirements established by state law. Some states have more conservative legal parameters that basically restrict local government to specifically authorized actions. In contrast, "home -rule" states grant local governments broader powers that may or may not be precluded or preempted by state statutes depending on the circumstances and on the state's particular laws. Impact fees are one-time payments imposed on new development that must be used solely to fund growth -related capital projects, typically called "system improvements". An impact fee represents new growth's proportionate share of capital facility needs. In contrast to project - level improvements, impact fees fund infrastructure that will benefit multiple development projects, or even the entire service area, as long as there is a reasonable relationship between the new development and the need for the growth -related infrastructure. Project -level improvements, typically specified in a development agreement, are usually limited to transportation improvements near a proposed development, such as ingress/egress lanes. According to Colorado Revised Statute Section 29-20-104.5, impact fees must be legislatively adopted at a level no greater than necessary to defray impacts generally applicable to a broad class of property. The purpose of impact fees is to defray capital costs directly related to proposed development. The statutes of other states allow impact fee schedules to include administrative costs related to impact fees and the preparation of capital improvement plans, but this is not specifically authorized in Colorado's statute. Impact fees do have limitations, and should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure funding. Rather, they are one component of a comprehensive portfolio to ensure adequate provision of public facilities. Because system improvements are larger and more costly, they may require bond financing and/or funding from other revenue sources. To be funded by impact fees, Section 29-20-104.5 requires that the capital improvements must have a useful life of at least five years. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Also, development impact fees cannot be used to repair or correct existing deficiencies in existing infrastructure. Additional Legal Guidelines Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. Land use regulations, development exactions, and impact fees are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without 2 TlschlerBlse FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 just compensation. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, by ensuring development is not detrimental to the quality of essential public services. The means to this end are also important, requiring both procedural and substantive due process. The process followed to receive community input (i.e. stakeholder meetings, work sessions, and public hearings) provides opportunities for comments and refinements to the impact fees. There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on other types of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the exaction and the interest being protected (see Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. There are three reasonable relationship requirements for development impact fees that are closely related to "rational nexus" or "reasonable relationship" requirements enunciated by a number of state courts. Although the term "dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the standard by which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U.S. Constitution, TischlerBise prefers a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: "need," "benefit," and "proportionality." The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Development impact fees may be used to cover the cost of development - related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. That principle likely applies to impact fees. In this study, the impact of development on infrastructure needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on applicable level -of -service standards. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify development -related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. The demand for facilities is measured in 3 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development (e.g. a typical housing unit's vehicular trip generation rate). A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. The calculation of impact fees should also assume that they will be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the state enabling legislation requires that facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees. In other words, benefit may extend to a general area including multiple real estate developments. Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are discussed near the end of this study. All of these procedural as well as substantive issues are intended to ensure that new development benefits from the impact fees they are required to pay. The authority and procedures to implement impact fees is separate from and complementary to the authority to require improvements as part of subdivision or zoning review. Impact fees must increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system. Capacity projects include, but are not limited to the addition of travel lanes, intersection improvements (i.e., turning lanes, signalization or roundabouts) and "complete street" improvements to provide multimodal infrastructure (e.g. bus stops, bike lanes and sidewalks). Whenever improvements are made to existing roads, non -impact fee funding is typically required to help pay a portion of the cost. Development Pattern in the Town of Vail Vail is a resort community of approximately 5,000 year-round residents that surges to approximately 40,000-45,000 persons during peak tourism season when employees and visitors are present. The occupied bed base of the community swells from 5,000 to 35,000 during these peak periods. Figure 1 delineates the core area of Vail. Actual boundaries of the Town extend six miles to the east and four miles to the west of the core area (see map inset). Given its location in a mountain valley, the Town has a compact development pattern and a multi -modal transportation system that relies on pedestrian, bicycle, transit and vehicular travel. Consistent with this setting, the proposed impact fees will fund multi -modal transportation improvements necessary to accommodate projected development within the Town of Vail. 4 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 1 — Map of Town Boundary and Vail Core Area Lower Fees in Core Area Development of attached housing units and hotels in the core area will facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use, thus requiring less vehicular travel. In recognition of lower vehicular travel demand in the core area, proposed transportation impact fees are lower in the core area. This policy recommendation is consistent with the literature summarized in the three subsections below and a recent analysis of mixed-use developments in six regions of the United States. This study found an average 29% reduction in trip generation as a function of "D" variables, including: density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, distance to transit, demographics, and development scale (see Ewing, Greenwald, Zhang, Walters, Feldman, Cervero, Frank, and Thomas 2011). Lower Residential Trip Generation Rates in Urban Areas Single-family housing is generally located in low-density suburbs where there are few alternatives for travel except by private motor vehicle. On average, urban housing has fewer 5 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 persons and vehicles available, thus lowering vehicular trip generation rates per unit when compared to housing in the suburban unincorporated area. Currans and Clifton (2015) developed and tested methods for adjusting ITE trip generation rates for urban settings. They recommend mode -share adjustments based on the number of residents and jobs per acre, which serves as a proxy for urban form. Less Auto Dependency in Urban Areas Urban areas have distinct demographic profiles and physical traits that reduce vehicle trips, such as higher internal capture, design characteristics that promote walking and biking, and superior transit service. Urban areas with grid streets and small blocks offer a variety of routes that encourage walking and biking. Interesting streetscapes with human -scale design features encourage people to walk and bike farther in urban areas, while lowering our perception of distance (Jacobs 2001). Urban areas also have more diverse travel options including public transportation and muscle -powered mobility. A study titled "Trip Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California" documented auto trips for infill development averaged approximately 50% of the modal share, compared to 90% or higher auto dependency in most metropolitan areas (Daisa and Parker, 2009). Lower dependency on private vehicles reduces the need for street capacity and supports an impact fee reduction for new development within the core area of Vail. Shorter Trip Lengths in Urban Areas Mixed land use and better job -housing balance reduces average trip length. By balancing the number of jobs with nearby housing units, urban areas have the potential for reducing journey - to -work travel. The magnitude of effect is dependent on matching job and housing locations of individual workers, which can be aided by offering a variety of housing styles and price ranges. Inclusionary policies, such as requiring at least 10% affordable housing units within each development, can foster a better jobs -housing balance and reduce the need for street capacity (Nelson, Dawkins and Sanchez 2007). Mixed-use areas like the center of Vail exhibit lower vehicular trip rates because of "internal capture" (i.e., many daily destinations do not require travel outside the area). For example, a study titled "Internalizing Travel by Mixing Land Uses" examined 20 mixed use communities in South Florida, documenting internal capture rates up to 57 percent with an average of 25 percent. In addition to a percent reduction for the jobs -housing balance, credit can be given for local -serving retail. Urban, transit -oriented development offers coffee shops, restaurants, general retail stores and services that reduce the need for vehicular trips outside the area (Ewing, Dumbaugh and Brown 2003). The report "Driving and the Built Environment" (TRB 2009) found a strong link between development patterns and vehicle miles of travel, encouraging mixing of land uses to reduce vehicle trip rates and reduce trip lengths. Reductions up to 24% for transit service and pedestrian/bicycle friendliness are recommended for nonresidential development in a 2005 6 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 study titled "Crediting Low -Traffic Developments" (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates 2005). Current and Proposed Transportation Fees Figure 2 provides a comparison of current and proposed transportation fees for new development in the Town of Vail. Current amounts are shown with dark shading and white numbers. Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and reductions given for multi -modal travel. The Town currently assesses transportation -related mitigation fees (see Vail code section in the footnote'). This requirement is specific to certain zone districts and does not provide a codified fee schedule. The current fees are determined and agreed upon by the Town and developers during the development entitlement process. Proposed fees are shown with light shading and black numbers in the table below. For consistency with a national impact fee survey, the fee amount for a detached house assumes construction of an average size unit, which in Vail and Pitkin County is approximately 4,000 square feet (i.e. twice the national average). Fee amounts for nonresidential development are expressed per thousand square feet of floor area. 1 12-7A,H,I,J: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 23(1999) § 1) 7 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 2 - Transportation Impact Fee Comparison Per Housing Unit Per 1,000 Sq Ft Sources: (1) National Impact Fee Survey by Duncan Associations (2012). Single Family assumes 2, 000 square feet. Nonresidential fees per thousand square feet assume a building with 100, 000 square feet of floor area. (2) Tischler8ise. Single Family in Vail and Pitkin County assumes 4,000squarefeet. * Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and 8 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Single Family Multifamily Hetail Unice National Average (1) $3,228 1 $2,202 $5,685 $3,430 Incorporated Durango (1) Ft. Collins 2016 Draft (2) Vail current* Proposed in Core Area of Vail (2)1 Proposed Outside Core Area (2) Areas in Colorado $2,169 $1,298 $3,810 $2,823 $6,217 $4,095 $8,113 $5,977 $0 $2,366 not applicablel $5,960 1 $13,900 1 $6,200 $9,686 1 $7,450 1 $13,900 $6,200 Eagle Co. (1) Jefferson Co. (1) Larimer Co. (2) Pitkin Co. (2) Weld Co. (2) Counties in Colorado $4,378 $3,034 $9,026 $5,164 $3,276 $2,725 $7,120 $4,790 $3,418 $8,812 $4,726 $9,339 $5,115 $10,910 $5,130 $2,377 $3,296 $2,174 Sources: (1) National Impact Fee Survey by Duncan Associations (2012). Single Family assumes 2, 000 square feet. Nonresidential fees per thousand square feet assume a building with 100, 000 square feet of floor area. (2) Tischler8ise. Single Family in Vail and Pitkin County assumes 4,000squarefeet. * Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and 8 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Basic steps in a conceptual impact fee formula are illustrated below (see Figure 3). The first step (see the left part of the equation) is to determine an appropriate demand indicator, for a particular type of infrastructure. The demand indicator measures the number of demand units for each unit of development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for roads is vehicle trips. The second step in the conceptual impact fee formula is shown in the middle section of the equation. Infrastructure units per demand unit are typically called Level -Of - Service (LOS) or infrastructure standards. Road impact fee studies for suburban communities often establish a relationship between lane miles and vehicle miles of travel (note: a lane mile is a rectangular area of pavement one lane wide and one mile long). Because the Town of Vail has a more compact, urban development pattern, multi -modal transportation improvements were identified in a recently approved Transportation Master Plan. In essence, the Town of Vail has combined the second and third step in the conceptual impact fee formula (see the right side of the equation below). The cost of growth -related transportation improvements was allocated to the expected increase in vehicle trips. Figure 3 — Conceptual Impact Fee Formula Demand Infrastructure Dollars Units Units per per per Development Demand Infrastructure Unit Unit Unit When applied to specific types of infrastructure, the conceptual impact -fee formula is customized using three common impact fee methods that focus on different timeframes. The first method is the cost recovery method. To the extent that new growth and development is served by previously constructed improvements, local government may seek reimbursement for the previously incurred public facility costs. This method is used for facilities that have adequate capacity to accommodate new development, at least for the next five years. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life or remaining capacity of an existing facility that was constructed in anticipation of additional development. The second basic approach used to calculate impact fees is the incremental expansion cost method. This method documents the current infrastructure standard for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures. The local government uses impact fee revenue to incrementally expand infrastructure as needed to accommodate new development. A third impact fee approach is the plan -based method. This method is best suited for public facilities that have commonly accepted engineering/planning standards or specific capital improvement plans. Proposed transportation impact fees for the 9 TlschlerBlse FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Town of Vail are derived using a plan -based method, with one cost recovery item for the recently completed 1-70 underpass. Trip Generation Transportation models and traffic studies for individual development projects typically use average weekday or afternoon (PM), peak -hour trips. The need for transportation improvements in Vail was determined through the Transportation Master Plan process using an extensive engineering analysis. In contrast to the engineering analysis, the impact fee methodology is essentially an accounting exercise whereby the cost of growth -related system improvements is allocated to new development within the Town of Vail. For the purpose of impact fees, trip generation is based on attraction (inbound) trips to development located in the Town of Vail. This approach eliminates the need for adjustments to account for pass- through trips (i.e. external -external travel) and trips to destinations outside Vail (i.e. internal- external travel). One of the major trip destinations in Vail is the base of the ski mountain. In addition to people working in Town and those staying over night, the ski mountain draws thousands of 'day skiers' that typically leave their vehicles in a parking garage while in Town. Because parking structures are ancillary uses, impact fees are typically not imposed on the floor area of a garage, but the floor area of nearby development that actually attracts people to the area. Given this practice, future growth of 'day skiers' will not be directly accounted for in the development projections shown in Figure 4. However, the Town and Vail Resorts have agreed the maximum skiers at one time that can be handled by the Town's infrastructure is 19,900, as specified in the agreement titled "Town of Vail & Vail Associates, Inc. Program to Manage Peak Periods." Therefore, if the maximum -skiers agreement or lift capacity is increased without a significant increase in nonresidential buildings, a traffic impact fee for additional day skiers should be contemplated. Vehicle Trips to Development in the Town of Vail The relationship between the amount of new development anticipated within Vail and the projected increase in vehicle trips is shown in Figure 4. Expected development in Vail is based on trends within the Town, Eagle County, and the state of Colorado. The projected increase in development and afternoon, peak -hour trips are consistent with Appendix E in Vail's Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009) and the development stats database, updated by Town staff. Although the specific year is not important to the analysis, the net increase in development is expected to occur by the year 2040. A faster pace of development would accelerate the collection of impact fees and the construction of planned improvements. Conversely, slower development would reduce fee revenue and delay the construction of capital improvements. As shown in the bottom right corner of the table below, planned development in Vail is expected to generate an additional 838 PM -Peak inbound vehicle trips. 10 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 4 — Summary of Projected Travel Demand Development Type Additional Development Units (2) Inbound Trip Rate per Development Unit (3) Additional PM -Peak Inbound Trips Attached Housing Units in Core Area 705 0.24 169 Attached Housing Units Outside Core 554 0.30 166 Employee Housing Units in Core Area 41 0.24 10 Employee Housing Units Outside Core 310 0.30 93 Detached Housing Units 120 0.39 47 Hotel Rooms in Core Area 270 0.24 65 Hotel Rooms Outside Core 102 0.30 31 Commercial KSF (1) 320 0.56 179 Hospital KSF (1) 140 0.40 56 Office & Other Services KSF (1) 88 0.25 22 TOTAL => 838 (1) KSF = square feet of floor area in thousands. (2) Appendix E, Vail Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009) and Town staff (12/06/16). (3) Trip generation rates are from Appendix E, Vail Transportation Master Plan, except detached housing rate, which is derived from ITE formulas and data. Transportation Impact Fee System Improvements Transportation system improvements to be funded by impact fees are shown in Figure 5. Specific projects were identified in the Transportation Master Plan for the Town of Vail and updated by Town staff. Road sections listed below will be constructed as "complete streets" with bus, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements. Town staff prepared the planning -level cost estimates and identified the growth share of projects that will be funded with impact fees, based on the expected increase in vehicular trips. The total cost of transportation improvements needed to accommodate new development through 2040 is estimated to be approximately $95 million in current dollars (not inflated over time). Impact fees will fund approximately $20.8 million, which is 28% of systems improvements. Funding from non -impact fee sources, such as the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT), and the Town of Vail General Fund will cover the remaining cost of system improvements. As shown in the bottom right corner of the table below, the capacity cost of $24,836 per additional trip is equal to the growth share of transportation improvements divided by the increase in PM -Peak inbound vehicle trips. 11 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 5 - Summary of Transportation Improvements and Growth Share Transportation Improvements Estimated Project- System -Level Improvements Percent Funded By Impact Fee Percent Other Revenue Cost by Impact Fee Cost by Other Revenue Town of Vail, Colorado Cost (Millions) Level Cost ID PROJECT DESCRIPTION West Vail Commercial A $ 6.70 $ 6.70 0% 0% $ - $ - Roundabout & Medians B Buffehr Creek Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 52% 48% $ 0.62 $ 0.58 Buffehr Creek NRT connection to C $ 0.50 $ 0.50 0% 0% $ - $ - Marriott Roost D Marriott Roost Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 1.20 0% 0% $ $ E Timber Ridge Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 1.20 0% 0% $ $ - F Lions Ridge Loop Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 35% 65% $ 0.41 $ 0.79 G Red Sandstone Drive Turn lanes $ 1.20 $ 35% 65% $ 0.41 $ 0.79 H Main Vail North Roundabout $ 5.60 $ 35% 65% $ 1.98 $ 3.62 Expansion to Two Lanes I Main Vail Underpass Revesible $ 2.00 $ 35% 65% $ 0.71 $ 1.29 Lane J Gore Creek Drive Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 14% 86% $ 0.17 $ 1.03 K Underpass (Cost Recovery) $ 9.10 $ 22% 78% $ 1.96 $ 7.14 L Underpassto Forest Road $ 7.00 $ 7.00 0% 0% $ - $ - Imrpovements (5 Lane/Walk) M Vail Spa to ELHC Improvements $ 4.50 $ - 46% 54% $ 2.05 $ 2.45 (5 Lane/Walk) N ELHC to LH Parking Structure $ 0.75 $ - 46% 54% $ 0.34 $ 0.41 Entrance Medians O LH Parking Structure Entrance to $ 9.00 $ 2.25 39% 36% $ 3.55 $ 3.20 Municipal Bldg (5 Lane & Rdabt) Village Ctr Road to Vail Valley P Drive (Medians, TC Device, $ 6.50 $ - 29% 71% $ 1.92 $ 4.58 Compact Rdabt) Q PW/WD Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 27% 73% $ 0.33 $ 0.87 R Booth Creek Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 27% 73% $ 0.33 $ 0.87 S GVT Dowd Junction to WV Rdabt $ 8.50 $ 22% 78% $ 1.83 $ 6.67 T Donovan to Westhaven Drive $ 1.50 $ 22% 78% $ 0.32 $ 1.18 Walk U WLHC walk (Vail Spa to S. Frtge) $ 0.75 $ 0.75 0% 0% $ - $ - V VVD Path imrpovements $ 1.20 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.26 $ 0.94 Vail Rd (Willow Way to Forest W $ 0.50 $ 22% 78% $ 0.11 $ 0.39 Rd) Walk X ELHC (LHWCto Dobson) Walk $ 1.00 $ 22% 78% $ 0.22 $ 0.78 Y West Vail Pedestrian Overpass $ 6.00 $ 22% 78% $ 1.29 $ 4.71 Z VMS to Bighorn Path $ 1.50 $ 22% 78% $ 0.32 $ 1.18 AA ELHC (Vantage Point to S. $ 0.20 $ 22% 78% $ 0.04 $ 0.16 Frontage Road) Walk BB Chamonix (Arosa to Chamonix) $ 1.00 $ 22% 78% $ 0.22 $ 0.78 Chamonix (Chamonix to Buffehr CC $ 1.00 $ 22% 78% $ 0.22 $ 0.78 Creek Rd) DD Line Haul Transit Stop $ 1.60 $ 22% 78% $ 0.34 $ 1.26 Improvement Projects EE Vail Bus Stops (10 Shelters) $ 1.50 $ 22% 78% $ 0.32 $ 1.18 FF Arosa Transit Parking $ 2.50 $ 22% 78% $ 0.54 $ 1.96 GG Frontage Road Lighting $ 5.00 $ 0% 100% $ - $ 5.00 Improvements HH Structured Parking Expansion & $ $ 0% 100% $ - $ - Buses Grand Totals $ 95.00 $19.60 28% 72% $ 20.81 $ 54.59 Net New PM Peak Inbound Trips => 838 Capacity Cost per Additional PM Peak Inbound Trip => $ 24,836 12 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Credit for Other Revenues A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from the one-time payment of an impact fee plus other revenue payments that may also fund growth -related capital improvements. The determination of credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis. Vail's transportation impact fees are derived primarily using a plan -based method, with a minor cost recovery component for the recently completed 1-70 underpass. This method is based on future capital improvements needed to accommodate new development. Given the plan -based approach, the credit evaluation focuses on the need for future bonds and revenues that will fund planned capital improvements. Because the Town does not expect to bond finance transportation projects, a revenue credit for future principal payments is not applicable. Some impact fee studies include a credit for gas taxes and/or General Fund revenue. A credit for future revenue generated by new development is only necessary if there is potential double payment for system improvements. In the Town of Vail, transportation impact fees are derived from the growth cost of system improvements, not the total cost of capital improvements. Impact fee revenue will be used exclusively for the growth share of improvements listed in Figure 5. Other, non -impact fee funds, such as the General Fund and gas tax revenue, will be used for maintenance of existing facilities, correcting existing deficiencies and for making improvements not listed in the transportation CIP. Based on expected development in Vail (see Figure 8), future impact fee revenue approximates the growth cost of planned system improvements (approximately $21 million). If elected officials in Vail make a legislative policy decision to fully fund the growth share of system improvements from impact fees, a credit for other revenue sources is unnecessary. Transportation Impact Fee Formula and Input Variables Input variables for the transportation impact fee are shown in Figure 6. Inbound trips by type of development are multiplied by the net capital cost per trip to yield the transportation impact fees. For example, the transportation impact fee formula for an attached residential unit in the core area is 0.24 x $24,836 = $5,960 (truncated) per housing unit. Because the core area of Vail has a walkable, urban development pattern, impact fees for attached housing and hotel rooms are lower in the core area, as supported by the engineering analysis in the adopted Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009). Trip generation rates are from the Transportation Master Plan, except for detached dwellings, which are only expected outside the core area. Inbound trip rates per detached dwelling, by heated floor area, are documented in Appendix A. 13 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 6 — Transportation Impact Fee Input Variables Residential (perHouinq Unit)-. om Attached in Core Area all sizes PM -Peak Inbound Vehicle Trips 0.24 Attached Outside Core all sizes 0.30 Detached 2099 or less 0.33 Detached 2100 to 2599 0.34 Detached 2600 to 3099 0.35 Detached 3100 to 3599 0.37 Detached 3600 to 4099 0.38 Detached 4100 to 4599 0.39 Detached 4600 to 5099 0.40 Detached 5100 to 5599 0.41 Detached 5600 to 6099 0.41 Detached 6100 or more 0.42 Hotel (per room) Hotel in Core Area 0.24 Hotel Outside Core 0.30 Nonresidential (per 1, 000 Sp Ft of floor area Commercial 0.56 Hospital 0.40 Office & Other Services 0.25 Infrastructure Standards Cost per Trip => $24,836 Revenue Credit Per Trip => $0 14 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees The input variables discussed above yield the maximum supportable impact fees shown in Figure 7. Fees for most types of nonresidential development are listed per square foot of floor area. At the bottom of the table are some nonresidential development types that have unique demand indicators. For example, the impact fee for lodging is based on the number of rooms. Figure 7 — Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees Residential(per housing unit Attached in Core Area Attached Outside Core Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Hotel (per room) 7 . - . - I I all sizes all sizes 2099 or less 2100 to 2599 2600 to 3099 3100 to 3599 3600 to 4099 4100 to 4599 4600 to 5099 5100 to 5599 5600 to 6099 6100 or more $5,960 $7,450 $8,195 $8,444 $8,692 $9,189 $9,437 $9,686 $9,934 $10,182 $10,182 $10,431 Hotel in Core Area $5,960 Hotel Outside Core $7,450 Nonresidential (per square foot of floor area) Commercial $13.90 Hospital $9.93 Office & Other Services $6.20 15 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Funding Strategy for Transportation System Improvements Revenue projections shown below assume implementation of the maximum supportable transportation impact fee. Projected revenues essentially match the growth share of the capital improvements plan for transportation (i.e. $20.8 million). Impact fee revenue can be accumulated over several years to construct major projects, but annually completing at least one capital project will ensure benefit to fee payers. The percentage of total impact fee revenue expected from each development type is shown below in the right column. New housing units in Vail will generate approximately 58% of the transportation impact fee revenue. New hotels will generate approximately 11%, while other types of nonresidential development will yield approximately 31% of projected revenue. Figure 8 — Impact Fee Revenue Projection Development Additional Type Development Units Fee per Development Unit $5,960 $7,450 $5,960 $7,450 $9,686 $5,960 $7,450 $13,900 $9,930 $6,200 Projected Revenue $4,202,000 $4,127,000 $244,000 $2,310,000 $1,162,000 $1,609,000 $760,000 $4,448,000 $1,390,000 $546,000 Percent of Impact Fees 20% 20% 1% 11% 6% 8% 4% 21% 7% 3% Attached Housing Units in Core Area 705 Attached Housing Units Outside Core 554 Employee Housing Units in Core Area 41 Employee Housing Units Outside Core 310 Detached Housing Units 120 Hotel Rooms in Core Area 270 Hotel Rooms Outside Core 102 Commercial KSF 320 Hospital KSF 140 Office & Other Services KSF 88 Total => $20,798,000 100% 16 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 APPENDIX A — DEMOGRAPHIC DATA In this Appendix, TischlerBise documents the demographic data used to derive trip rates by size of detached housing. In the Town of Vail, the fiscal year begins on January 151. Impact fees are calibrated using 2016 as the base year and 2017 as the first projection year. Trip Generation by Type and Size of Housing Although the Town of Vail only expects a few detached housing units to be constructed each year, TischlerBise recommends a fee schedule whereby larger units pay higher transportation impact fees. Benefits of the proposed methodology include: 1) proportionate assessment of infrastructure demand using local demographic data, 2) progressive fee structure (i.e. smaller units pay less and larger units pay more), and 3) more affordable fees for workforce housing. Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey responses provided by the American Community Survey (ACS) published by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS). Because PUMS files are available for areas of roughly 100,000 persons, the Town of Vail is included in Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) 400 that includes Pitkin, Eagle, Summit, Grand and Jackson Counties. At the top of Figure Al, cells with yellow shading indicate the survey results, which yield the unadjusted number of persons and vehicles available per dwelling. These multipliers are adjusted to match the control totals for Vail. According to ACS table B25033 (five-year estimates) Vail had 5,277 year-round residents in 2014 and table B25032 indicates Vail had 2,451 households in 2014, or an average of 2.15 persons per household. TischlerBise used ACS tables B25046 and B25032 to derive the average number of vehicles available per household. In 2014, there were 3,738 aggregate vehicles available and 2,451 households, or an average of 1.53 vehicles available per household. The middle section of Figure Al provides nation-wide data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). VTE is the acronym for Vehicle Trip Ends, which measures vehicles coming and going from a development. Dividing trip ends per household by trip ends per person yields an average of 2.17 persons per occupied condominium/townhouse and 3.78 persons per occupied single dwelling, based on ITE's national survey. Applying Vail's current housing mix of 77.7% condominium/townhouses and 22.3% single-family dwellings yields a weighted average of 2.53 persons per household. In comparison to the national data, Vail only has an average of 2.15 persons per household. Dividing trip ends per household by trip ends per vehicle available yields an average of 1.68 vehicles available per occupied condo/townhouse and 1.52 vehicles available per occupied single dwelling, based on ITE's national survey. Applying Vail's current housing mix yields a nation-wide weighted average of 1.64 vehicles available per household. In comparison to the national data, Vail has fewer vehicles available, with an average of 1.53 per housing unit. Rather than rely on one methodology, the recommended trip generation rates shown in the bottom section of Figure Al (see Vail PM -Peak VTE per Household), are an average of trip rates 17 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 based on persons and vehicles available, for single detached housing units by bedroom range. In the Town of Vail, each household in a single detached unit is expected to generate an average of 0.57 PM -Peak Vehicle Trip Ends, compared to the national average of 0.63 trip ends per household. Figure Al - PM Peak Hour Vehicle Attraction Trips by Size of Detached House Calibrated to Demographic Control Totals for Vail, Colorado ACS 2013 5 -Year PUMS Data for PUMA 400 (Pitkin, Eagle, Summit, Grand and Jackson Counties) Bedroom Range Persons (1) Vehicles Available (1) Households (1) PUMA 400 Hshld Mix Unadjusted Persons/Hshld Adj Persons per Hshld (2) Unadjusted VehAvl/Hshld Adj Veh Avl per Hshld (2) 0-2 134 156 75 19.7% 1.79 1.62 2.08 1.38 3 409 376 165 43.4% 2.48 2.24 2.28 1.52 4 248 229 97 25.5% 1 2.56 2.31 2.361 1.57 5+ 1141 1121 431 11.3% 1 2.651 2.39 2.601 1.73 Total 905 873 380 National Averages According to ITE ITE PM -Peak VTE PM -Peak VTE per PM -Peak VTE Vail Code per Person Vehicle Available per Household Hshld Mix 230 Condo / 0.58 4 1 0.58 0.61 1 0.60 0.24 0.31 0.52 77.7% Townhouse 210 SFD 0.27 0.67 1.02 22.3% Wgtd Avg 0.25 0.39 0.63 Recommended Trip Rate by Bedroom Ranae Bedroom Range PM -Peak VTE per Hshld Based on Persons (3) PM -Peak VTE per Hshid Based on Veh Available (4) Vail PM -Peak VTE per Hshld (5) 0-2 0.41 0.54 0.48 3 0.56 0.59 0.58 4 1 0.58 0.61 1 0.60 5+ 0.601 0.67 1 0.64 Total 0.54 0.60 0.57 2.38 2.15 Persons per Household 2.17 3.78 2.53 2.30 - Veh Avl per Household 1.68 1.52 64 (1) American Community Survey, Public Use Microdato Somple for CO PUMA 400 (2013 Five -Year unweighted data). (2) Adjusted multipliers are scaled to make the overage PUMS values match control totals for Vail (ACS 2014 Five -Year data). (3) Adjusted persons per household multiplied by national weighted average trip rate per person. (4)Adjusted vehicles available per household multiplied by national weighted average trip rate per vehicle available. (5) Average of trip rates based on persons and vehicles available per housing unit. Does not show adjustment to inbound trips (64% entering). 18 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Trip Generation by Floor Area of Detached Housing To derive afternoon peak hour inbound trips by square feet of detached housing, TischlerBise combined demographic data from the Census Bureau (discussed above) and detached house size data from the County Assessor's parcel database. The number of bedrooms per housing unit is the common connection between the two databases. In Vail, the average size detached housing unit with two or less bedrooms has 1,594 square feet of heated space. The average three-bedroom unit has 2,667 square feet of floor area. The average size of a four-bedroom unit is 3,698 square feet of floor area. Detached housing units with five or more bedrooms average 5,706 square feet of floor area. Average floor area and number of inbound trips by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A2, with a logarithmic trend line derived from the four actual averages in the Town of Vail. TischlerBise used the trend line formula to derive estimated average PM -Peak, inbound trips by size of detached housing unit, in 300 square feet intervals. Square feet measures heated floor area (excluding porches, garages, unfinished basements, etc.). Based on the size of detached housing units in Vail, TischlerBise recommends limiting transportation impact fees for detached housing to the floor area range shown below. In other words, a detached house with 2,099 or less square feet would pay a transportation impact fee based on 0.33 inbound vehicle trips. Likewise, detached units with 6,300 or more square feet of heated space would pay a maximum transportation impact fee based on 0.42 inbound vehicle trips. 19 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure A2 — PM Peak Hour Inbound Trips by Square Feet 0.35 .N Actual Averages per Hsg Unit Fitted -Curve Values Average dwelling size by bedroom = 0.25 Bedrooms iquare Feet Inbound Trips Square Feet Inbound Trips range is from County Assessor a parcel database. PM -Peak vehicle 0-2 1,594 0.31 2099 or less 0.33 y = 0.0761n(x) - 0.2431 trip ends are derived using ACS 3 2,667 0.37 2100 to 2599 0.34 0 PUMS data and calibrated to Town 4 3,698 0.38 2600 to 3099 0.35 of Vail demographics. Inbound 5+ 5,706 0.41 3100 to 3599 0.37 trips are 64% of trip ends (ITE 3600 to 4099 0.38 4100 to 4599 0.39 PM -Peak Inbound Vehicle Trips 4600 to 5099 0.40 per Detached Dwelling by Size within Vail, CO 5100 to 5599 0.41 5600 to 6099 0.41 0.45 16100 or more 0.42 c 0.40 0.35 .N c 0.30 = 0.25 v CL 0.20 a 0.15 y = 0.0761n(x) - 0.2431 0.10 RZ = 0.9513 0 0.05 0.00 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Square Feet of Heated Area 20 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION Development impact fees should be periodically evaluated and updated to reflect recent data. One approach is to adjust for inflation using an index, such as the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index published by McGraw-Hill Companies. This index could be applied to the adopted impact fee schedule. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly, the Town should redo the fee calculations. Colorado's enabling legislation allows local governments to "waive an impact fee or other similar development charge on the development of low or moderate income housing, or affordable employee housing, as defined by the local government." However, projected impact fee revenue from employee housing accounts for approximately 12% of the growth cost to be funded by impact fees. Given this magnitude, waiving impact fees for workforce housing will create a significant funding gap. Credits and Reimbursements Specific policies and procedures related to site-specific credits or developer reimbursements will be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the transportation impact fees. Project - level improvements, normally required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement (see the impact fee funded improvements listed in Figure 5), it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a site-specific credit. The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. TischlerBise recommends establishing reimbursement agreements with the developers that construct a system improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the Town should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide sufficient documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The Town should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the Town pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient impact fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the Town to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the service area. If the Town collects impact fees for other types of infrastructure, site specific credits or developer reimbursements for one type of system improvement does not negate payment of impact fees for other types of infrastructure. Town -wide Service Area The transportation impact fee service area is defined as the entire incorporated area within the Town of Vail. Even though Colorado's enabling legislation uses the phrase "direct benefit" Vail is a relatively small geographic area with a strong core area. Transportation improvements along the 1-70 corridor will benefit new development throughout the entire Town. 21 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Development Categories Proposed transportation fees for residential development are by square feet of finished living space, excluding unfinished basement, attic, and garage floor area. Appendix A provides further documentation of demographic data by size threshold. Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar vehicle trip generation rates. • "Commercial" includes retail development and eating/drinking places, along with entertainment uses if they are located in a shopping center (e.g. movie theater). • "Office & Other Services" includes offices (e.g. professional, medical and dental), personal services and business services (e.g. banks). Also included in this category are public and quasi - public buildings that provide educational, social assistance, or religious services. Even though churches are a common type of development, they do not have a specific impact fee category due to a lack of sufficient data. For churches and any other atypical development, staff must establish a consistent administrative process to reasonably treat similar developments in a similar way. When presented with a development type that does not match one of the development categories in the published fee schedule, the first option is to look in the ITE trip generation book to see if there is land use category with valid trip rates that match the proposed development. The second option is to determine the published category that is most like the proposed development. Churches without daycare or schools are basically an office area (used throughout the week) with a large auditorium and class space (used periodically during the week). Some jurisdictions make a policy decision to impose impact fees on churches based on the fee schedule for warehousing. The rationale for this policy is the finding that churches are large buildings that generate little weekday traffic and only have a few full time employees. A third option is to impose impact fees on churches by breaking down the building floor area into its primary use. For example, a church with 25,000 square feet of floor area may have 2,000 square feet of office space used by employees throughout the week. At a minimum, impact fees could be imposed on the office floor area. An additional impact fee amount could be imposed for the remainder of the building based on the rate for a warehouse. An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators for a particular development. The independent study must be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner and use the same type of input variables as those in the transportation impact fee methodology. The independent fee study will be reviewed by Town staff and can be accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not reasonable, the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to elected officials for their consideration. 22 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 APPENDIX C: REFERENCES Been, Vicki. 2005. "Impact Fees and Housing Affordability", Cityscape: Journal of Policy Development and Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, 139-185. Blanton, Whit. 2000. "Integrating Land Use and Transportation" Planning Commissioners Journal, Number 40: 9-13. Bochner, Brian, Kevin Hooper, and Benjamin Sperry. 2010. "Improving Estimation of Internal Trip Capture for Mixed -Use Development" ITE Journal 80(8): 24-28, 33. Cherry, Nathan and Kurt Nagle. 2009. Grid/Street/Place: Essential Elements of Sustainable Urban Districts. American Planning Association Planners Press. Currans, Kristina and Kelly Clifton. 2015. "Using Household Travel Surveys to Adjust ITE Trip Generation Rates" Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 85-119. Daisa, James and Terry Parker. 2009. "Trip Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California" ITE Journal. Daisa, James, M. Schmitt, P. Reinhofer, K. Hooper, B. Bochner and L. Schwartz. 2013. "Trip Generation Rates for Transportation Impact Analyses of Infill Developments" Transportation Research Board NCHRP Report 758. Downs, Anthony. 1992. Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak Hour Traffic Congestion. Washington, D.C.: Brooking Institute. Dumbaugh, Eric, and Robert Rae. 2009. "Safe Urban Form: Revisiting the Relationship Between Community Design and Traffic Safety." Journal of the American Planning Association 75(3): 309-329. Ewing, Reid, Eric Dumbaugh and Mike Brown. 2003. "Internalizing Travel by Mixing Land Uses" Transportation Research Record 1780. Ewing, Reid and Robert Cervero. 2010. "Travel and the Built Environment" Journal of the American Planning Association, 76:3, 265-294. Frank, Lawrence and Gary Pivo. 1992. "Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single -Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking" Transportation Research Record 1466. Frank, Lawrence. 1994. Analysis of Relationships Between Urban Form and Travel Behavior. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington. Frank, Lawrence. 2000. "Land Use and Transportation Interaction: Implications on Public Health and Quality of Life" Journal of Planning Education and Research 20, 6-22. 23 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Giuliano, Genevieve. 1989. "New Directions for Understanding Transportation and Land Use" Environment and Planning A, Volume 21: 145-159. Hanson, Susan, and Genevieve Giuliano, eds. 2004. Geography of Urban Transportation. Guilford Press. Holian, Matthew and Matthew Kahn. 2012. Impact of Center City Economic and Cultural Vibrancy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation. Mineta Transportation Institute, Report 11-13. Jacobs, Allan. 2001. Great Streets (sixth edition). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Jones, David. 1985. Urban Transit Policy: An Economic and Political History. Prentice -Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Layton, Colleen, Tawny Pruitt and Kim Cekola (editors). 2011. Economics of Place: The Value of Building Communities Around People. Michigan Municipal League. Lein berger, Christopher. 2009. The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream. Island Press. Litman, Todd. 2015. Analysis of Public Policies that Unintentionally Encourage and Subsidize Urban Sprawl. Victoria Transportation Policy Institute. Mathur, Shishir and Adam Smith. 2012. Decision -Support Framework for Using Value Capture to Fund Public Transit: Lessons from Project -Specific Analyses. Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business, San Jose State University. Moore, Terry, and Paul Thorsnes. 1994. The Transportation /Land Use Connection. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 448/449. Chicago: American Planning Association. Moore, Terry, Paul Thorsnes and Bruce Appleyard. 2007. The Transportation /Land Use Connection (new edition). PAS Report 546-47. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Myers, Dowell (editor). 1990. Housing Demography: Linking Demographic Structure and Housing Markets. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Nelson, Arthur, ed. 1988. Development Impact Fees. Chicago: Planners Press. Nelson, Arthur, Casey Dawkins and Thomas Sanchez. 2007. Social Impacts of Urban Containment. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Nelson, Arthur, Liza Bowles, Julian Juergensmeyer, and James Nicholas. 2008. A Guide to Impact Fees and Housing Affordability. Island Press. 24 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Nelson, Arthur. 2013. Reshaping Metropolitan America: Development Trends and Opportunities to 2030. Island Press. Nelson / Nygaard Consulting Associates. 2005. Crediting Low -Traffic Developments. Nicholas, James, Arthur Nelson, and Julian Juergensmeyer. 1991. A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees. Chicago: Planners Press. Pucher, John and Lefevre, Christian. 1996. The Urban Transportation Crisis. London: MacMillan Press. Reconnecting America. 2008. Capturing the Value of Transit. Federal Transit Administration. Reid Ewing, Michael Greenwald, Ming Zhang, Jerry Walters, Mark Feldman, Robert Cervero, Lawrence Frank, and John Thomas. 2011. "Traffic Generated by Mixed -Use Developments: Six - Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures" Journal of Urban Planning and Development 137(3): 248-61. Resource Systems Group, Fehr & Peers, Robert Cervero, Kara Kockelman, and Renaissance Planning Group. 2012. Effect of Smart Growth Policies on Travel Demand. Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Report S2 -C16 -RR -1. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Ross, Catherine and Anne Dunning. 1997. Land Use Transportation Interaction: An Examination of the 1995 NPTS Data. Georgia Institute of Technology. Schiller, P., E. Bruun, and J. Kenworthy. 2010. Introduction to Sustainable Transportation: Policy, Planning, and Implementation. Earthscan. Schneider, Robert, Susan Handy and Kevan Shafizadeh. 2014. "Trip Generation for Smart Growth Projects" Access 45, University of California Transportation Center. Seggerman, Karen, Kristine Williams, Pei -Sung Lin, and Aldo Fabregas. 2009. Evaluation of the Mobility Fee Concept. Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. Shoup, Donald. 2011. High Cost of Free Parking. American Planning Association. Speck, Jeff. 2012. Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Steiner, Ruth, and Siva Srinivasan. 2010. VMT-Based Traffic Impact Assessment: Development of a Trip Length Model. Center for Multimodal Solutions at the University of Florida. Transportation Research Board. 1994. Curbing Gridlock: Peak -Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion. Washington, DC: National Academy Press Special Report 242. 25 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work. National Academy Press Special Report 257. Transportation Research Board. 2009. Driving and the Built Environment. National Academy Press Special Report 298. Urban Land Institute and National Multi Housing Council. 2008. Getting Density Right: Tools for Creating Vibrant Compact Development. Vuchic, Vukan. 2000. Transportation for Livable Cities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research. 26 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Attachment B ORDINANCE NO. _ SERIES 2017 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 26, ENTITLED "TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES" WHEREAS, to ensure the provision of adequate public transportation services and facilities in the Town, the Town Council wishes to condition certain land use approvals on payment of a transportation impact fee; WHEREAS, it is widely recognized that municipalities may impose exactions (impact fees) on the granting of land use approvals, provided that there is an essential nexus between the exaction and a legitimate local government interest, and provided that the exaction is roughly proportional, both in nature and extent, to the impact of the proposed use or development, pursuant to Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994); C.R.S. § 29-20-203 and related case law; WHEREAS, the Town has conducted and adopted a study to provide the basis for the imposition of the transportation impact fee and to determine the appropriate amount of the transportation impact fee, which study was prepared by TischlerBise on March 10, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the public health, safety, and welfare will be served by adopting regulations delineating the Town's procedure for imposing a transportation impact fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Title 12 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 26, which shall read as follows: CHAPTER 26 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES 12-26-1: FINDINGS AND PURPOSE: A. Findings. The Town Council finds and determines as follows: 1. A legitimate, identifiable public purpose is served by requiring a transportation impact fee for new development and redevelopment projects in the Town; 2. There is an essential nexus between the transportation impact fee imposed in this Chapter and the Town's interest in providing transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; 1 5/1/2017 S:ICOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTIBOARDSIPLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONIPEC MEETINGS 2017105081TPEC17-0008 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEEITRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE 5-8-17 FINAL DRAFT DOCX 3. The Town is acting within its power to provide transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; 4. But for new development and redevelopment projects, the Town would not be considering either the provision or expansion of transportation infrastructure, services or facilities; 5. New development and redevelopment projects are contributing causes to the need for new or expanded transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; 6. The Town would be legally justified in denying applications for new development or redevelopment projects unless the transportation impact fee is imposed, because of the burden the new development or redevelopment projects would place on the Town's transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; and 7. The Town has conducted a study to determine the amount of the transportation impact fee, and the study demonstrates that the transportation impact fee will be roughly proportional, both in nature and extent, to the impacts of new development and redevelopment projects. B. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to impose a transportation impact fee on new development and redevelopment projects in the Town, as set forth herein. VIM_: - -111 12-26-32: APPLICABILITY: A. The transportation impact fee shall be imposed on the following construction, development or redevelopment in the Town: 1. For commercial development (except accommodation units), on any net new square footage to be constructed. 2. For residential development, on each new residential unit to be constructed. 2 5/1/2017 S:ICOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTBOARDSIPLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONIPEC MEETINGS 201710508171PEC17-0008 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE7RANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE 5-8-17 FINAL DRAFT.DOCX 3. For accommodation units, on each new accommodation unit to be constructed. B. The transportation impact fee shall not be imposed on the construction, development or redevelopment of any Employee Housing Unit. 12-26- : FEE: The transportation impact fee shall be in the amount set by resolution of the Town Council. The fee shall be imposed by the Community Development Department, Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council, as part of the last land use approval for the project. The fee shall be payable prior to issuance of the building permit for the project. 12-26- : CREDIT: A. An applicant may apply for a credit as set forth in this Section, which credit shall be applied to offset the transportation impact fee that would otherwise be imposed for the project. B. Credit shall be provided for any dedication or conveyance of land from the applicant to the Town. The amount of the credit shall be the present, fair market value of the land being dedicated or conveyed, as determined by the Town in its reasonable discretion. C. Credit shall be provided for any construction of Town -approved transportation infrastructure or facilities undertaken by the applicant at the applicant's cost that offset the transportation impacts of the project. The transportation infrastructure or facilities may be constructed as part of the project, or in other areas of the Town, as determined by the Town and the applicant. The value of the credit shall be determined by the Town, in its reasonable discretion, considering the total cost of construction and other relevant factors. D. Credit shall be provided for any transportation services provided by the applicant at the applicant's cost, that offset the transportation impacts of the project, as approved by the Town. The value of the credit shall be determined by the Town, in its reasonable discretion, considering actual costs to provide the services and other relevant factors. 12-26- : REVIEW: A. An applicant aggrieved by the application of this Chapter by the Community Development Department, the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board may apply for review by the Town 3 5/1/2017 S:ICOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTIBOARDSIPLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONIPEC MEETINGS 2017105081TPEC17-0008 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEEITRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE 5-8-17 FINAL DRAFT DOCX Council, by filing a written request for review within 10 days of the decision at issue. B. Within 30 days of receipt of the written request, the Town Council shall hold a public hearing. At such hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the applicant to establish that the imposition of the transportation impact fee as assessed would result in an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. C. If the Town Council determines that the application of this Chapter would result in an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, the Town Council may decrease the transportation impact fee (or increase any credit) to ensure that there is no unconstitutional taking. The decision of the Town Council shall be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). D. An applicant aggrieved by the application of this Chapter by the Town Council may seek judicial review pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. 4 5/1/2017 S:ICOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTBOARDSIPLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONIPEC MEETINGS 201710508171PEC17-0008 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE7RANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE 5-8-17 FINAL DRAFT.DOCX INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of , 2017 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the day of 2017, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Dave Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk 5 5/1/2017 S:ICOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTBOARDSIPLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONIPEC MEETINGS 201710508171PEC17-0008 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE7RANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE 5-8-17 FINAL DRAFT.DOCX x 0 0 a A o � 0 m m m w ii v O - oU�E a o w E m X E CL -F) � , — a' Q IL a D F p w co v Q � al a a a is O A a E � A c A .N aW c m a LL O N c ! d J �p VI � O A x a c 0 0 y O N M M M a a LL A NI N N � d V LL d (p M M In F C y U� 7 �n �n00000000 O O ' O w C N O (O O N O O O O N M M N N N O d :� M O S O O O W I� O r i O N O M N v F E a a IL 0 co �noo 0000 0 � o ov0000 • � O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a L6 (6 6 6 6 E m i w Q CO m U m mm m m w i Q m m m m m m m Q Q i i m m m m ��w�m�[if Z ooa00000 000 0 0000Q a IL a a E c 3 3 3 IL m LL•� LL •� 9 N 7 a z z ¢ a Z 9 a A 0 a c M D O 0 N C d E al r U c 0 A a a a� w Z c E o 4 c w v E m � � N C C � O 0 E m Z R O 0 .... 0 m 0 0 m M O U U v E (O M e O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v oo In���corn0000000� O Oo Ooo Fo Fo Fo Fo Fo Fo Fo F�co co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o 0 0 0 M QQQ CO COp a. a. [if a. a. W. [if [if [if [if [if [if [if a. a. W W W W L o w Q Q co Q p p p p p O p p p p p p p p p 9o o olo 10 LU x E o ; a o U E y A _ Z O - O / A � m E A0 W M O r D E E U_ y MA A O In C N N N O N dJ A O V N v n 0 N O 7 N V O O O O M O V O O O O O O O O O a- a c? O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �In cocvvin In co��vvin ln�� � O Z p p p p p a a a a a Q Q C C � O 0 E m Z R O 0 .... 0 m 0 0 m M O U U v E (O M e O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v oo In���corn0000000� O Oo Ooo Fo Fo Fo Fo Fo Fo Fo F�co co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o 0 0 0 M QQQ CO COp a. a. [if a. a. W. [if [if [if [if [if [if [if a. a. W W W W L o w Q Q co Q p p p p p O p p p p p p p p p 9o o olo 10 LU x E o ; a o U E y A _ Z O - O / A � m E A0 W M O r D E E U_ y MA A O In al a a `I ........ ............. ............................... a 0 a v x au a a LL O N C NI d J �p VI > O A x a c � o a� E a O N O N O N V �2 N L N N N a a LL c. � LL N N V ffi O c p s O A ,a � X � A In F C o^ U ? � LL t=.1 F O N O N M O N V N M N N N ILa e p ~ 0 0 o rn o 0 o rn o 0 o v O a r O M V M N > A&L. Er O O O O O OO O O999 9 9OOO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d O �����������awwwwwwwwwwww5-a-5-5-5-5-5-5-a-5-5-a-a-a-a-5-5-5-a-5-5-5-5-5-0-a-0-0-0-0-0-0� Z aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa� E / a a p �Ia al a a . . . . . . . . . . a 0 a v x aW a U- 0 O N C NI d J �p VI � 0 O A x a c � o �I o a� y � a a LL . . . . . . . . . . C N � N d 0 LL d c 9 . . . . . . . . . O A ,a x A � F c U LL A N N N M N �2 V N v F IL a o F 0 O o co 0 0 0 V C O N O a� M M V C:? M O (O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O O O N N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 ao�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�0000000000000000000000000000 0 �� 0 00 �o���� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NcoO O M� w w 0 0 0 Z d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d p CO p p N d d m W p W W d O O O O O c O O O O O C,a IL IL a a a a c a F � c �o 00 , �Ia al a a a 0 a v � aW a U- 0 O N C NI d J �p VI � 0 O A x a c � o �I o a� E a N �2 CO CO N d) M d � a a LL N � N d V LL � O O A ,a X � A In F C o^ 0 O .O y= A N CO CO N d) M v F = d N � IL a e o ~ 0 I� r r O N r O O O O M 0 0 0 N O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 N O r O N V M CO N CO u7 N CO M CO M M O V N O O CO M V N CO N V u7 N O .O A O M N N V N O N O N LON X 0 0 0 0 O (O O O O M S O O O O O N N O N O N O O O O O O M M V 0 0 0 O M O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o_o_o_o_o_ oo�00000 oo�0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O ECO W �0_�CO� W W �0_ �CO�� W W 20_wwOCO W �0_�COQ W L��0_�CO W ��0_�QCO Cpm W W �NQCOm Z O p Mo pp 0_0_0 M m m Op m p �" O O O O O O O E O O O O O O O IL 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a E a a a a a a a o U d F � C 9 m VII VI a al a a a a 0 0 O a` M CO L7 L7 O r r N L7 L7 CO I� r r CO I� CO L7 M O N N � V CO N N CO V � O O L7 V M M CO L7 V L7 M CO L7 O M V O CO I� M O V L7 CO M L7 M M M L7 L7 M L7 CO � CO O O O L7 CO CO � L7 V O O L7 L7 CO V I� O M M 000 000c0 vo o�n000 c+�in o�noo N M N E e �n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn V� COO O COO O O O � O V N M CO � M M L7 L7 O CO V Lg V N O L7 � CO � L7 O N L7 Lg LD N O M M M V CO O O L7 CO O r V V C N N O L7 M CO M N V M I� N L7 CO 0 M CO V O— I� O r V CO N O V O O CO M O L7 c O O O M O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O M O 0 0 0 O O V CO 0 0 0 O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O L7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O C a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 c E QQmCOw i�a mw E: FocOwiijjd Qmc0C0wijj jjE: m6D1Ejja QCO1L�L� d w <Fo E M � O [ O a' a' � W M a. Z o p O o p m p p p N M p r O O O O O O O O E O O O O O O O O IL IL a a a a a a a a 0 00l �Ia al a a N N 00 �o � � o00o coo � o00 00000 00 � o�noo 00 � ono a'E N N � N� N 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .06 _ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ E W ��QCO ly� W W �d�QCO� W W ��,.�CO W W �dOQCO� W W �d NQCO� W W Z rMi 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL IL a a a a a c �o 00 �Ia 12 O ca C TOWN OF VA10 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May8, 2017 ITEM/TOPIC: April 24, 2017 PEC Meeting Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name pec results 042417.pdf Description April 24, 2017 PEC Meeting Results TOWN OF VA10 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April24, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order Members Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, John Rediker, and Brian Stockmar Members Absent: Ludwig Kurz Legal Update and Training - Matt Mire, Town Attorney — Matt Mire provided general legal training on the topics of liability, legislative and quasi-judicial reviews, conflicts of interest, and ex -parte contact. He indicated that for conflicts of interest, PEC members should consider if they, their spouse, family or company would receive any financial benefit from any decision that they make as a voting member of the PEC. If so, then there is a conflict of interest. Mire discussed the roles and responsibilities of the Planning and Environmental Commission, the requirements to take minutes, voting procedures, and conduct during site visits. Election of Chair - Commissioner Gillette, seconded by Brian Stockmar, made a motion to nominate John Rediker as Chairman of the Planning and Environmental Commission. The motion was approved 5-0-1 (Rediker Recused). Election of Vice -Chair - Commissioner Gillette, seconded by Brian Stockmar, made a motion to nominate Ludwig Kurz as Vice -Chairman of the Planning and Environmental Commission. The motion was approved 6-0-0. Site Visit — Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek — 434 South Frontage Road 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) — 60 min. Applicant: Lunar Vail, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence MOTION:Continue to May 22, 2017 FIRST: Perez SECOND: Lockman VOTE: 6-0-0 Spence introduced the project to the PEC. Spence outlined the process for the review of a request for a new Special Development District (SDD). The PEC will be asked to make a recommendation to the Town Council. Spence then summarized the project details, including the number and type of the proposed units. The structure will be constructed atop the existing parking facility. Deviations associated with the request include: the east side setback, building height, density, gross residential floor area (GRFA), site coverage, and loading dock width. Spence identified an error in the staff memo regarding attached accommodation units (AUs) and how they apply to density. Spence then discussed the history of the subject property as well as adjacent parcels. In 2006 the property was subdivided, creating nonconformities in regards to site coverage and limited the future available GRFA. Gillette asked about the purpose of the 2006 subdivision. Spence deferred to the applicant to answer during their presentation. Rediker asked Spence for clarification of the existing zoning of the subject property and adjacent parcels. Rediker then asked about the criteria for establishing an SDD. Spence summarized the nine (9) standards that are to be considered during the review of an SDD. Spence added that consideration is to be given to the public benefit versus the amount of relief requested. Gillette asked about the process involved in the previous subdivision. Spence responded that it was reviewed and approved by the PEC. Stockmar stated a concern about the relationship between the previous subdivision and the relief being requested. Gillette and Rediker asked that the minutes of the PEC meeting that approved the subdivision be provided before the next meeting. Gillette asked about the amount of relief that would be required if the subdivision did not occur. Spence replied density, height, and possibly GRFA. Hopkins asked if parking would be compliant to which Spence replied in the affirmative. Perez asked about the status of the Apollo Park lease and if there were any plans for its redevelopment. Spence replied that there are no requests at this time. Hopkins asked for clarification of the property lines Dominic Mauriello, representative of the applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation. Mauriello introduced the development team and then discussed the characteristics of the area surrounding the subject property. Mauriello discussed the proposed site plan including circulation and the building footprint. Phase One of the development included 112 parking spaces that also accommodated parking needs for Phase Two. Mauriello summarized the number and type of units proposed. He emphasized that the proposed employee housing units (EHUs) are a public benefit. Mauriello introduced Will Hentschel of 359 Design to discuss the elevations and architectural design of the proposal. Referencing the elevations, Hentschel stated that the north elevation design took into account the surrounding context and other architecture along the 1-70 corridor. The south elevation maintains a base -middle -top design approach. Materials include stone veneer base, wood siding where allowed, metal panels, and glass. Hentschel then reviewed the floor plans for each level. Mauriello continued his presentation by outlining the approval process. He then discussed the public benefits of the project including the provision of EHUs, short term AUs, and public art. Gillette suggested that the applicant consider placing the public art near the creek. Mauriello discussed the history of the subject property and its relation to Apollo Park to the east. Gillette asked for clarification on the existing building and if it encroaches into the side yard setback. Mauriello summarized the requested deviations from the underlying High Density Multi - Family (HDMF) Residential zone district and compared them to other previously established SDDs. Mauriello stated that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been provided. The report did not find any significant impacts to the environment. A traffic study has also been provided. CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation) will not require any new improvements. Mauriello then identified the pedestrian connections. A video of a sun/shade analysis was provided. Mauriello provided more details regarding the layout, size, and location of the EHUs. He then did the same for the AUs and for sale dwelling units (DUs). Gillette asked if anyone knew how many hotel rooms were in the Vail Mountain Lodge. Brian Johnson, property manager of the Vail Mountain Lodge, was in attendance and responded that there are twenty (20) AUs within Vail Mountain Lodge. Hopkins asked about the separation distance between Phase One and Phase Two. Hentschel stated that at its closest point it is approximately 22' between structures. Mauriello discussed the project in relation to the goals, objectives, and action plan located within the Vail Village Master Plan. Mauriello concluded his presentation by discussing the public outreach the applicant has conducted to date. Spence asked Mauriello to discuss why the application to amend the Vail Village Master Plan was withdrawn. Rediker asked for commissioner comment. Stockmar stated his concern about the previous subdivision and what might be anticipated for the subject and adjacent properties. Rediker asked what the sun/shade impact will be to the frontage road. Mauriello explained that there will be some impact and has already discussed with Public Works the necessity for heated sidewalks. Rediker asked about impacts on the road itself. Mauriello stated that measures similar to those taken by Solaris may be required. Rediker asked about the impact on the parking lot to the east. Mauriello replied that the impact tends to occur during summer afternoons but will provide more information at the next meeting. Rediker asked for clarification in regards to the setbacks. He stated that the Vail Village Master Plan references extensive landscape buffering if the subject property were to be redeveloped and asked about any proposed landscaping. Hopkins asked if CDOT regulated the size of the vegetation in the right-of-way. Mauriello responded that there is no proposed vegetation within the right-of-way. Perez asked if there are any noise impact studies in consideration of the proximity of the units. Hentschel replied that no studies have been conducted, but they will meet the Vail Town Code noise requirements. Gillette asked staff if there were design guidelines by which the proposal should be evaluated. Spence stated that there are basic guidelines located within the Vail Village Master Plan, but the property is not located within the Vail Village Urban Design Guideline document. Rediker asked staff if there are other items located within the Vail Village Master Plan that are of concern due to a lack of compliance. Lockman asked about specific details of different zone districts. Perez asked if there is concern about creating SDDs instead of maintaining consistent zone districts. Spence outlined concerns that have been mentioned about SDDs, including a lack of predictability. Lockman asked about the proposed setback deviation. Mauriello stated that the applicant is looking at adjusting the zero foot (0') setback. Gillette stated that in order to address the setback issue, the lot could be re -subdivided. Mauriello stated that this would not be likely. Hopkins commented about the lack of visual interest on the north side of the property and suggested additional pockets of landscape. Rediker opened the meeting for public comment. Chris Romer, President, Vail Valley Partnership (WP), stated the VVP supports the proposal. The VVP finds the bulk and mass is appropriate and meets a need for mid-range hotel rooms and EHUs. Tom Saalfeld., manager of the Tyrolean building, requested sun/shade analysis on the Tyrolean. He stated that there are owners within the Tyrolean concerned about the height and density of the proposed structure. Brian Johnson, manager of Vail Mountain Lodge, stated his support for the project and that he did not feel the proposed hotel units would compete with Vail Mountain Lodge. He does not object to the height of the proposed structure. He does agree that the sidewalk should be heated. Commissioner Comment: Stockmar: Expressed his concern about the proposed height of the structure, especially in relation to the existing building and the Tyrolean building. He is also concerned that the proposed setback is too small. He also suggested the lengthy EHU hallway should be broken up. Hentschel clarified that it was the hallway for the AUs. Stockmar clarified that said hallway should be broken up. Gillette: Expressed concern about the bulk and mass of the structure, including the uniform roofline and fagades. Expressed support for SDDs and adding GRFA and bulk if there is sufficient public benefit. He suggested the structure meet code height toward the west in proximity of the Tyrolean. In regards to public benefit, he would like to see more EHU and less AU floor space. He also believes the setback requirements should be met. Lockman: Concerned about the setback encroachment. Also concerned about the amount of GRFA proposed, which is connected to concerns about the building height and mass. Acknowledges the benefits of adding GRFA in proximity to the commercial core, but believes the Vail Village Master Plan specifically addresses a limit to mass and height. Hopkins: The project creates a tunnel effect on the south side of the structure. Is concerned about the sidewalk and believes it should be heated. Concern about building height as the existing garage is already above grade. She asked for locations of mechanical equipment. Hentschel replied that there will be spaces created within the parapet areas, but they will provide more information at the next meeting. She is also concerned with the lack of animation on the north fagade. Perez: Concerned about the proposed building height Rediker: The Vail Village Master plan recommends four stories, which is an issue especially in consideration of the sloping nature of the property. He is concerned about the height and believes people driving along the frontage roads and 1-70 should be able to see Vail Village and Vail Mountain. He commented on zoning in general and the use of SDDs. Though he is not necessarily against the use of an SDD, he stated the property was designated as HDMF for a reason. Agreed that the north fagade needs additional architectural character and buffering from the frontage road. Also has concerns regarding installation of heated sidewalks due to their environmental impact. In regards to neighboring properties, he finds it helpful to have written comment either in favor of or in opposition to the project. Stated that there are some benefits to the proposal, including the addition of hot beds. Concluded with his belief that the project might be helped by the elimination of some of the EHUs as the project as proposed is too large. 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zoning text amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Traffic Impact Fee, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0008)— 45 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel Planner: Chris Neubecker MOTION: Continue to May 8, 2017 FIRST: Gillette SECOND: Lockman VOTE: 6-0-0 Neubecker introduced the proposed text amendment to add a chapter to Title 12 for a Transportation Impact Fee. The amendment covers system related and project related impacts. A draft ordinance has been provided to the PEC. The ordinance allows for the Town Council to set the fee annually. Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, described the Transportation Impact Fee in more detail. The origin of the proposal is based on the Town Council's request that a fee that is already being collected be codified in the Town Code. A consultant, TischlerBise, was hired to complete a rational nexus study of the impacts of development on the Town's transportation infrastructure and develop the recommended fees. The purpose of the transportation impact fee is to help offset future transportation infrastructure needs caused by growth and new development. Referencing a PowerPoint presentation, Kassmel discussed the differences and similarities between the existing and proposed transportation impact fee language. Kassmel included state requirements associated with the Colorado Impact Fee Act and different methods for implementing impact fees. He explained the difference between project level and system level improvements. He also described some potential future transportation projects and areas where additional road lanes might be needed over the next 25 years. Kassmel then provided examples of what the transportation impact fee would be for certain types of development. The commissioners asked several questions about how the impact fee would be applied in certain scenarios. Several commissioners expressed concern about how the fee was proposed to be applied on a square footage basis. There were comments that a fee based on the construction of new units would be fair. There was some questions about basing the fee on the number of parking spaces required. Kassmel stated that it would be helpful for the commissioners to provide comments on the language of the proposed ordinance, especially in regards to the findings, purpose, and applicability. Gillette stated his support for finding an alternative means to raise the necessary funds, such as an increase in sales tax. He reiterated his concern that the fee as proposed would be paid by only a few new developments, rather than spread across the community. 4. A request for the review of a variance from Section 11-6-4-A-3, Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10-1, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, to allow for a building identification sign above the 25 foot height limitation, located at 1295 Westhaven Drive (Hotel Talisa)/Cascade Village — Cascade Club Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0007) Applicant: Hotel Talisa, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Chris Neubecker Withdrawn 5. Approval of Minutes April 10, 2017 PEC Meeting Results MOTION: Approve FIRST: Stockmar SECOND: 6. Informational Update 7. Adjournment MOTION: Adjourn FIRST: Perez SECOND: Perez VOTE: 6-0-0 Stockmar VOTE: 6-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Ad Name: 12805617A 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 5/5/2017 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 5/5/2017 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 06/13/2017. 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 06/13/2017. ( �L-& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2019 r PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 8, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 2. Site Visits: a. Hill Building - 254 & 311 Bridge Street b.Gasthof Gramshammer - 231 Gore Creek Drive 3.A request for review of a Variance, pursuant to Section 12-713-16, Landscaping and Site Develop- ment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in landscape area, located at 231 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and set- ting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0009) - 30 min. Applicant:Gasthof Gramshammer Inc, represent- ed by Gies Architects Planner: Matt Panfil 4.A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a reno- vation, located at 254 and 311 Bridge Street (Hill Building)/Lots C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0010)- 60 min Applicant: Mt. Belvedere 45 LLC and 43-45 Riva Ridge LLC, represented by Braun Associates Planner: George Ruther 5.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zoning text amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Traffic Impact Fee, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0008) - 45 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel Planner: Chris Neubecker 6.Approval of Minutes April 24, 2017 PEC Meeting Results 7. Informational Update 8.Adjournment The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regu- lar office 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. Please call 711 for sign language inter- pretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily May 5, 2017 (12805617) Ad Name: 12775976A 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 4/21/2017 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 4/21/2017 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 05/02/2017. 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 05/02/2017. ( �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 May 8, 2017 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request for review of a Variance, pursuant to Section 12-713-16, Landscaping and Site Develop- ment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in landscape area, located at 231 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and set- ting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0009) Applicant: Gasthof Gramshammer Inc., represent- ed by Gies Architects Inc. Planner: Matt Panfil A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pur- suant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a reno- vation, located at 254 and 311 Bridge Street (Hill Building)/Lots C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. ( PEC 17-0010) Applicant: Mt. Belvedere 45 LLC and 43-45 Riva Ridge LLC, represented by Braun Associates Planner: George Ruther 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. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional informa- tion. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification, dial 711. Published April 21, 2017 in the Vail Daily. (12775976)