Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-0522 PEC
TOWN OF M�' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 22, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Members Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, John Rediker, and Brian Stockmar Members Absent: Karen Perez Site Visits: 1. Gasthof Gramshammer - 231 Gore Creek Drive 2. Hill Building - 254 & 311 Bridge Street 3. Vail Mountain View Residences - 430 & 434 South Frontage Road 4. Sharon M Bernardo Trust Residence, 4718 Meadow Drive 2. A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a renovation, and a request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council on an application for encroachments into an existing view corridor, pursuant to section 12-22-6, Encroachments Into Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for encroachments into View Point #1 for modifications to the Hill Building, located at 254 and 311 Bridge Street (Hill Building)/Lots C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0010/PEC17-0012) Applicant: Mt. Belvedere 45 LLC and 43-45 Riva Ridge LLC, represented by Braun Associates Planner: George Ruther Motion: Approve, with condition First: Kurz Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-0 1. Approval of this exterior alteration request (PEC17-0010) is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application and view corridor encroachment application. 2. The applicant shall be required to meet the Commercial Linkage obligations at time of building permit issuance. The applicant shall remit a fee in lieu payment of $6,483.70 to the Town of Vail. 3. The applicant and the Town of Vail shall review all existing pedestrian easements to verify compliance with existing and proposed uses. Any changes to the easements required shall be mutually agreed upon and recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office, prior to the issue of a building permit for the proposed renovation. 4. The applicant shall submit a stamped Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) to the Town of Vail, prior to issuance of the building permit indicating the existing conditions of the Hill Building relative to View Corridor #'s 1, 2, and 4. Then, prior to requesting any certificate of occupancy for the building, the applicant shall submit a second ILC to the Town verifying that the building has been constructed in compliance with the approved building permit set of plans. 5. The applicant shall cause a covenant or similar form of restriction to be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office against the Hill Building property (Lots C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1) prohibiting vehicle parking from occurring on town -owned land or otherwise outside the enclosed parking space within the Hill Building. Further, the garage door to the enclosed parking space shall remain closed when not in use for immediate ingress or egress. The restriction shall be in a form reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. Said restriction shall be recorded by the applicant prior to any request for a certificate of occupancy for the Hill Building. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a report from a qualified roofing consultant that verifies which verifies that the appropriate mitigation measures are proposed for implementation during construction to ensure protection of the pedestrians and the public right-of- way from snow shedding onto any immediate or adjacent pedestrian area. George Ruther, Director of Community Development, provided a summary of the requested encroachments into existing View Corridor No. 1 and reviewed the proposed exterior alterations to the structure. The increases in gross residential floor area and ground floor commercial are minimal. The building slightly increases in height. There is also a slight increase in on-site landscaping. Ruther reviewed the approval criteria. Commercial linkage will be required for the additional 76 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The maintained use of the existing garage space was discussed. Rediker: Asked Ruther for clarification of non -conforming encroachments into view corridors, particularly in regard to View Corridor No. 4. Ruther stated that encroachments are allowed to remain, provided the level of encroachment is not increased. Tom Braun, the applicant's representative, provided a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation highlighted changes that have occurred since the previous PEC meeting on May 8, 2017. Braun provided detailed view corridor exhibits and discussed the reduction of the existing view encroachment into View Corridor No. 4. There are elements of the proposal, particularly the chimneys, which will encroach into View Corridor No. 1. Braun stated his belief that the proposed encroachments do not diminish the view corridor and that they comply with the approval criteria. Braun reviewed the proposed versus existing landscaping, identifying the trees to be removed and replaced as well as the areas where new landscaping is proposed. Referencing multiple images, Braun discussed the sun/shade analysis and the changes between the existing and proposed structure. Braun introduced Louis Bieker of 4240 Architecture to discuss the architectural details of the proposal. Gillette: Asked Bieker to provide more information regarding the sun/shade analysis. Bieker then addressed previous commissioner comments regarding the use of stucco as a hand railing at the second floor. The changes that have been made include a shortened railing and the introduction of a planter area at the southwest corner and a wooden rail cap on the west elevation. The stucco over the proposed storefront on the north side of the structure has also been removed and replaced with a parapet cap that is consistent with the storefront design. Changes to the color palette were also made based on previous commissioner comments. Bay windows were added to the ground floor commercial space in response to previous commissioner comments. Coursing and belting have been added to the new northwest storefront to provide more architectural detail at the ground level. Additional architectural relief is also provided to create a stone base to the building and window setbacks. The roof material will be flat seam copper. The roof will have a shingled appearance rather than a flat seam roof appearance. In response to previous commissioner comments, snow fences and other measures have been provided to avoid snow falling into pedestrian paths. Bieker stated that the proposed stone will have a natural color and varying relief. The stucco will be a "parchment" white, similar to the Sonnenalp and Gorsuch buildings, with a textured finish. Rediker: Asked about the changes at the southeast portion of the structure. Bieker identified an area of the east side, just north of the garage door, of the ground floor commercial that has been altered to provide additional storefront windows. Asked Bieker for more information about snow shedding. Bieker reviewed the snow management plan. Hopkins: Asked how far the doors were recessed into the building. Bieker stated approximately six to eight inches. Stockmar: Asked if heat tape will be used on the roof. Bieker affirmed. The heat tape will be clad in copper and will not be noticeable to the public. Public Comment - Ron Byrne stated his support for the proposed design. He is not concerned about the view corridor encroachments. Lockman: Stated that he felt the applicant has addressed commissioner comments from the previous meeting. He feels that the decrease in encroachment of View Corridor No. 4 helps offset the proposed increased encroachment in View Corridor No. 1. Hopkins: Agreed with Commissioner Lockman that the changes are beneficial to the project. Expressed her continued concern with snow shedding. Kurz: Agreed that the applicant has addressed previously stated concerns and feels that the changes are positive. Expressed his concern about the encroachment into View Corridor No. 1. Emphasized that addressing all the criteria for a view corridor encroachment is necessary. Rediker: Asked for clarification as to the nature and degree of the encroachments into View Corridor No. 1. Ruther stated that the increase in roof height is due to added insulation required by building code and also the flues and spark arrestors are required by code. The proposed chimney caps are an aesthetic solution to exposed flues. Ruther also discussed the purpose and three-dimensional nature of view corridors. Kurz: He feels more comfortable with the encroachment into View Corridor No. 1. Supports the proposal to remove the on -street parking. Gillette: Suggested the applicant could replace the wood burning fireplaces with gas fireplaces and thus not have to increase chimney height. Expressed concern about the sun/shade analysis and the proposal's impact on the vertical walls of adjacent properties. Stockmar: Agreed that the previous commissioner comments have been sufficiently addressed. Expressed his concern about the view corridor encroachments. While view corridors are sacred, there are changes that occur that no one has control over such as the growth of trees. Rediker: Agreed that previous commissioner comments have been addressed. Reviewed the criteria for approval of a view corridor encroachment and stated his belief that the proposal complies with all criteria. Expressed his concern about snow shedding and suggested a condition regarding changes to the snow management plan. Ruther: Suggested a condition that the snow management plan be further reviewed by a professional to ensure protection of the public right-of-way in the areas of concern noted by commissioners. 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to June 12, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 6-0-0 Jonathan Spence summarized the process of approval for a Special Development District (SDD) and the changes the applicant has made since the previous meeting on April 24(?), 2017. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation. Mauriello began by reviewing the anticipated project timeline and discussed the formulation of the proposal. Mauriello emphasized that the proposal will be 38% employee housing units and will provided "mid -price hot beds." Mauriello referred to the Vail Village Master Plan and stated that it anticipated that the redevelopment of the property would require exceeding zoning regulations. Gillette: Asked for clarification what the Vail Village Master Plan stated for the property. Spence: Stated that the Master Plan anticipated redevelopment exceeding density, but not building height. Mauriello continued by reviewing the changes in design since the last PEC meeting. The east setback has been increased from 0' to 15', the building height has been reduced by 2', and the tower feature has been eliminated. Mauriello introduced Will Hentschel, architect of 359 Design, to discuss the architecture of the structure. Hentschel discussed the proposed location of mechanical equipment. The mechanical equipment will be located in the existing parking garage and in a roof trough. Hentschel stated that the separation between the existing (Phase 1) and proposed building ranges from 26' to 85'. Referencing a series of elevations, Hentschel summarized the architectural changes that have occurred. The building stepped down in height on the west end near the Tyrolean building. The top floors of the west end of the structure also step back from the base approximately 3'. Hentschel stated that the team will be looking at Phase I for cues for additional design changes. He then reviewed the level of articulation of the structure's fagades. Hentschel then discussed the floor plans and identified the location and type of the various dwelling and accommodation units. Based on previous commissioner comments, there is now undulation of the interior corridors. Mauriello then continued his presentation by discussing the public benefits of surplus on-site employee housing units and the provisions of "mid -price hot beds." Referencing a series of slides, Mauriello provided responses to questions that were raised at the previous PEC meeting. Topics included: the history of Apollo Park, the Mountain View plat, the history and characteristics of the Tyrolean. Mauriello discussed private views and stated there is no regulatory protection of private views in Vail. He cited a previous court case that supported this statement. He reviewed the building height exhibit. The maximum proposed height is approximately 70 feet. He compared the proposed height to the height of other buildings in Vail. Mauriello then presented a sun/shade analysis. Mauriello identified individuals, agencies, and companies that have provided letters of support for the proposal. He stated that the Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) voted unanimously to support the project. Mauriello stated his belief that the proposal complies with the intent of the Vail Village Master Plan. He discussed SDDs and stated it does not matter if they are an effective tool or not, as that is a policy matter for Town Council. Mauriello concluded by asking for additional feedback in preparation for a recommendation vote at the next PEC meeting on June 12, 2017. Hentschel provided a graphic that depicted the amount of relief and articulation throughout the structure's north fagade. Rediker: Referencing the review criteria, he asked if the applicant will argue that any of the criteria are not applicable to the proposal. Mauriello stated that he does not anticipate any such requests, except in regards to phasing and workable plan because the project will be built in one phase. Rediker asked for clarification as to the number of stories above the parking garage. Mauriello stated that it is 4.5 stories above the existing parking garage. Hopkins: Asked the height of the existing garage above the existing sidewalk. Hentschel responded that it is approximately 6.5'. Hopkins asked if this was consistent throughout the project. Hentschel stated that they will provide the information at the next meeting. Gillette: Asked to see where the 48' maximum building height line would be located on the building. Rediker: Asked for the elevation of the highest point of the building. Mauriello stated that it is 8,281.9'. Asked for comparison of the absolute elevations of other tall buildings in Vail. Gillette: Asked to see the elevations that compare the previous submission to the current submission. Stockmar: Asked for views from the eastbound side of the highway. Rediker: Asked if the applicant has had contact with Public Works regarding the impact of the sun/shade analysis on the sidewalk and South Frontage Road. Mauriello stated that Public Works has asked that the sidewalk be heated. Asked about the proposed loading and delivery areas. Mauriello responded that at the request of the Fire Department, the area at the northeast section of the site that was previously identified as a fire staging area will now be used as a loading zone and the fire staging area will be located elsewhere. Spence added that Public Works has requested that the sidewalk be relocated and that the Vail Village Master Plan calls for landscaping in the front setback where the proposed loading zone is located. Gillette: Asked where the trash receptacles will be located. Mauriello stated that trash storage will be interior. Rediker: Asked for more information about the easement located at the northeast corner of the site. Hopkins: Asked for clarification on the proposed parking. Mauriello stated that the proposed parking spaces comply with Town Code. Kurz asked if this accounts for the locating of mechanical equipment within the garage. Mauriello affirmed. Rediker: Asked about the applicant's level of correspondence with owners of units 4 and 7 of the Tyrolean. Mauriello stated that he did not know. Asked about the landscape plan for the site. Mauriello stated that there will be extensive landscaping along the front setback as well as the other edges of the building. Kurz: Asked staff about the public benefits and if there are mechanics in place to ensure that what may be approved is what is built and that it comply with the established regulations. Ruther stated that there will be incentive for the properties to be rented, and that processes are in place to verify proper occupancy of the EHUs. Gillette: Asked how many square feet would be lost if the top two levels were removed Mauriello stated approximately 10,000 square feet. Public Comment Steve Lindstrom: Representing VLHA, stated his support for the project and finds that it meets the goals of the housing plan. Wendy Weigler: As the attorney for the Tyrolean Condominium Association, wanted to ensure that the PEC received a letter she sent and made herself available for questions. Rediker: Asked about the applicant's statement that a deal was being made with one of the condo owners. Weigler stated that the opinion of one owner does not constitute the opinion of the entire HOA board. Ron Byrne: Attempted to provide public comment. Spence pointed out that Byrne is a member of the applicant team. Byrne was allowed to proceed with his comment. He stated that he is not biased regarding this project. He provided a history of the existing parking garage and stated that a lot of thought about the future redevelopment of the site was considered at the time of construction. Rediker asked Byrne's relation to the development team. Byrne stated he is not a member of the team, but owns the underlying property. Stockmar: Stated that the interior corridor still requires changes. Stated that he understands the economic argument and that the proposal addresses some of the Town's needs, but stated that the proposal would work in other parts of the Town, but not in this particular location. He feels there are still issues to be addressed. Gillette: Stated that he has not changed his opinion since the last meeting. He would like to see more variation in the roof, more reduction in height near the Tyrolean, and would like to see additional information and exhibits regarding the proposed height versus the maximum allowed height in the underlying zoning district. Added that he values EHUs more than hot beds. Kurz: Stated he does not have an issue with the height and massing of the building, but hopes the design of the roofline can be approved. He feels the mix of uses is appropriate and will benefit the Town. He feels that there is an obligation to be as fair as possible to the Tyrolean and that they can reach consent. Hopkins: Concerned about the height and mass of the structure. The structure is blocky and will be visually dominant when arriving in Vail Village from the east. Believes that there needs to be more variety in roofline and other elements. Added that she believes the EHUs can be reduced in size and still be desirable. A major problem with the building height is that it is being added to an existing platform. Lockman: Agreed with Commissioner Gillette's comments that more accurate and detailed building height exhibits are necessary. Stated that the building height is the biggest challenge towards approval and more information is necessary. Is concerned about the criteria regarding compatibility with adjacent properties. Disagrees with the suggestion to snowmelt the sidewalk. Rediker: Agrees with Commissioners Hopkins and Lockman that the building height is a concern. Is concerned with the overall bulk and mass of the building, especially in relation to the existing building on the property. Emphasized the need to address the compatibility regarding design features, compatibility, landscaping, and parking and loading. Agrees with Commissioner Lockman that the sidewalk should not be snow melted. Is most concerned with the compatibility to adjacent neighbors. Agrees with Commissioner Hopkins that the style may not be consistent with Vail's character. Gillette: Pointed out that the Vail Village Master Plan discussed the redevelopment of the parking lot area with a four story building. 4. A request for the review of two (2) variances in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. These variances include: (1) a variance from Section 12-6F-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of an addition with a fourteen foot (14') rear setback where twenty feet (20') is required; and (2) a request for the review of a variance from Section 14-10-4-B Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, to allow a deck within five feet (5') of grade with a three foot, nine inch (3',9") setback where ten feet (10') is required, located at 4718 Meadow Drive Unit B-4, Bighorn Townhouses Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0011) Applicant: Sharon M Bernardo Trust, represented by G PS L Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Approve, with Two Conditions First: Lockman Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-0 1. The applicant shall revise the plans prior to building permit submittal to demonstrate a five foot (5) setback for all proposed improvements including, but not limited to, the deck stairs and hot tub. 2. Approval of these variances is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. Spence introduced the project and described the nature and degree of the requested variances. The building was originally constructed under Eagle County jurisdiction. Spence pointed out the unique property line that was established as part of the original approval. Staff requests that the hot tub be setback 5' from the property line so that the property is not receiving a special privilege. Henry Pratt, owner's representative, stated that the applicant agrees to the requested 5' setback for the hot tub and made himself available for questions. Stockmar: Is familiar with platting issues that were brought in during annexation of many parts of East Vail. The remaining commissioners concurred with staff's recommendations and did not provide additional comments or concerns. Rediker: Stated that he feels all criteria for a variance have been satisfied 5. A request for review of a Variance, pursuant to Section 12-7B-16,Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in landscape area, located at 231 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0009) Applicant: Gasthof Gramshammer Inc, represented by Gies Architects Planner: Matt Panfil Motion: Table to June 12, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-0 Panfil introduced the application. Code requires no net reduction in landscaping. He displayed the previously approved plans that showed the approved location of landscaping. Applicant is proposing to remove some of the landscaping planters as previously approved. Applicant would like to add some landscaping planters and vertical planters on the building walls, instead of approved planters. Also, near the beer tent, some additional landscaping is proposed where existing stairs are located (stairs are not used.) Hopkins — Can planters be added on Town of Vail property? Panfil indicated that it might be possible, but preference is to be on applicant's property. Not sure if Public Works would entertain the idea of off site landscaping. Rediker — In 2016, was there a reduction in landscaping? (Panfil indicated no.) There was some increase in landscaping, and should be built per the approved plan. Rediker — Was it 23 sq. ft. of net new landscaping originally proposed? (Panfil indicated it was approximately that amount.) Rediker — The net reduction is about 70 sq. ft. from what was approved in 2016, is that rig ht? Gillette- What is the net reduction from what was previously there? (Panfil — 26 sq. ft. net reduction.) Stockmar — What is a vertical planter? Russell Geis, Geis Architects — Vertical planters are a series of planters along the wall, fixed to the building. Flowers would be planted in these. Stockmar — Seems like a trivial compromise Geis — We are trying to add landscaping without impacting functionality of the site. Before we did the remodel work, there was an 8x10 planter with a scraggly tree near the new exit door. That planter never enhanced anything. It was a cigarette butt disposal place. We are not reducing the quality of the look on Bridge Street by removing that planter. Amount of flowers planted by Mrs. Gramshammer is not shown in these plans. This is one of the most photographed corners in Vail. Planter in front of the sliding doors does not line up with anything. Piece (of landscaping) near Pepi's Sports is just enough to meet what is needed. We still want to create a beautiful look on the Bridge Street side. Gillette — How big is the planter by the slider doors? Geis — about 18 inches deep. Hopkins — I have worked in the Village for years. Sheika does the most beautiful flowers. Why not add some removable planters along the slider doors? Sheika Gramshammer — When I received a permit to expand the bar, it makes the bar more open. To get the permit, I had to compromise with DRB to put in the planter. Previously we did not have a good emergency exit. Flowers would not grow under the tree that was removed. We can't put in the planters because in winter we have ski racks and in summer we have bicycle racks. A compromise is moveable planters, instead of permanent planters. Trust me, it will be beautiful. Gillette — Will the flower boxes be on the railings? Sheika Gramshammer — This past summer, the flower boxes on the railings were abused. In 1964 we were the first to have flower boxes. It costs me a lot of money each year to plant the flowers. Don't want a permanent planter. Rediker — Why did you agree to a permanent planter a year ago? Gramshammer — My daughter wanted to update the bar. It was hard for Pepi to see the bar changed. We did not think much about the planters. Rediker — Is that the problem, having ski racks that narrow Bridge Street? Gramshammer — Not only our customers use the ski racks. Everybody uses the ski racks. Rediker — You knew before we approved the plans that the planter boxes needed to be there, right? Gramshammer — No. We did not take it seriously. Rediker — Agree that your flowers are beautiful. We were trying to make this area beautiful too. Is there a compromise? Gramshammer — We would have to put the ski racks and bike racks on Town of Vail property. They said no, due to emergency access. Panfil displayed images of the approved plans. Rediker — Can bike racks be located between the approved planter (at Pepi's Sports) and the entrance? Gillette — Landscaping benefits everyone. If you walk down the street, not everyone has landscaping in front of their building. Let's talk to Town of Vail to find places to increase landscaping off site. Stockmar — Significant difference between stone planters and moveable planters. Gramshammer — I will work with you if you work with me. I don't like the permanent planters. If I have something that can move, the only thing you will miss is the yellow flowers. If I can make an assortment of planters Rediker — How many ski racks in the winter are in front of the business? Gramshammer — Three ski racks Rediker — If planters are installed where they were approved, would the ski racks be pushed more toward the Town right-of-way? Panfil — Don't want to speak for Public Works. Hopkins — Town of Vail has huge planter pots all over Vail. Gillette — We should explore a Developer Improvement Agreement to require planters to be installed with flowers for a certain number of years. Gramshammer handed out a photo of Gorsuch Building, showing some planters that are no longer there. Public Comment — None Lockman — I feel this issue should have been addressed when the application was approved last year. We approved this application with landscaping, and that needs to be provided. I see no practical hardship. Hopkins — Think there are a lot of moving parts to the Village. There are all sorts of ways to create the same effect. This calls for something more mobile. There are lots of options in the Village. Pots help accomplish this in one way. Kurz — Split between staying with the decision made when this project was approved. Would like to consider approval of the planters for a year, to get some planters on that side of the building. Gillette — I understand why we do not want a reduction of landscaping in the core. Burden is on owners that have on site landscaping to keep it. Not sure why landscaping has to be on private property. If we can get landscaping back to what was there before the remodel, let's work with Town to find a place to put it on the south side, on Town property. Stockmar — The street is so narrow in winter. If we add something permanent, it's more of a problem. Give us a chance to see what works for the first year, and then come back to us for review. This is an opportunity to add landscaping. Memorialize somehow and review in a year or two; something that can be adjusted and changed. Rediker — Could applicant request moveable, temporary planters? Neubecker — Raised planters are not landscaping per the code. PEC could approve a site plan that shows planters, and that could be enforceable. Planters in pots would also need to be approved by the DRB. Rediker — Will not put off potential ways to make a compromise. Options are to approve, deny or continue. Is the applicant willing to come back at the next meeting with a site plan showing location of the planters? Approval of Minutes May 8, 2017 PEC Meeting Results Motion: Approve First: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0-0 Informational Update A Brief presentation and discussion by Carly Rietmann, Healthy Aging Program Supervisor on Eagle County's Aging Well Community Planning Initiative. Carly Rietmann, of Eagle County, provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the County's Aging Well Community Planning Initiative. Eagle County has the fastest growing population of adults 65+ in Colorado's Rural Resort Region. The number of adults 65+ in Eagle County will quadruple by 2050. Meghan King, of Eagle County, discussed the priority areas for the initiative. Priorities that prompted the creation of action teams include healthcare, connection to resources, housing, and social and community engagement. King also discussed the PIan4Health project's relation to the aging initiative. Rietmann reviewed the next steps for the initiative, which include working the initiative into community projects. Lori Barnes discussed coordinated events planned in the future. Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. TOWN OF VA10 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May22, 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, and a requeest for recommendation to the Vail Town Council on an application for encroachments into an existing view corridor, pursuant to section 12-22-6, Encroachments I nto Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for encroachments into View Point #1 for modifications to the Hill Building, located at 254 and 311 Bridge Street (Hill Building)/Lots C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0010/PEC17-0012) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC17-0010PEC17- Staff Memorandum 0012_Hi II_B ui Idi ng_Staff_Memorandum. pdf Hill_Building_View Corridor.pdf Vicinity Map PEC17-0010_Hill_Building_PHOTOS.pdf Site Photos PEC17-0010_Hill_Building_Applicant_Narrative.pdf Project Narrative Plan_Pages_Part_1.pdf Plan Pages Part 1 Plan_Pages_Part_2.pdf Plan Pages Part 2 Jeff_Winston_Letter_Vail_Hill_Building_Renovation_4- Review Memorandum 20-17. pdf 5-14-17_Hill_Building_Renovation- View Corridor Memo view corridors 4240_edits.pdf 2017-05-18_View Corridor #1_Study.pdf View Corridory Study #1 View Corridor Study_2017-05-15_reduced.pdf View Corridor Study 0. )TOWN OF VAIL Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: May 22, 2017 Subject: 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, and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on an application for encroachments into an existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6, Encroachments Into Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for encroachments into View Point #1 for modifications to the Hill Building, located at 254 and 311 Bridge Street (Hill Building)/Lots C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17- 0010/PEC17-0012) 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 review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a renovation to the Hill Building and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on an application for encroachments into an existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6, Encroachments Into Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for encroachments into View Points #1 for modifications to 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 applicant 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. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of these applications, subject to the findings noted in Section VI II of this memorandum. 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 review of an Exterior Alteration application, pursuant to Section 12- 76-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an upper level renovation and exterior re -skin of the Hill Building. To facilitate the proposed renovation and ensure compliance with the Town's adopted building codes, the applicant is also proposing a 32 inch encroachment into View Corridor #4. 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). • Increase of retail floor area of 76 square feet. • Reduction in site coverage (- 371 square feet). • Minor modifications to the massing and overall height of building (60% 33 ft. or less/40% <43ft.). • 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 of protected view corridors in Vail Village, the applicant is proposing to comply with said view corridors, and is therefore, not proposing to either amend or encroach into the protected view corridors. 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), and the proposed site and architectural plans, (Attachment D) 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 1960's, 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: Town of Vail Page 2 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 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. Town of Vail Page 3 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: "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. Obiective 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. Obiective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Town of Vail Page 4 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. 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. Objective 2.2: Recognize the importance of Vail Village as a mixed use center of activities for our guests, visitors and residents. Policy 2.2.1: The design criteria in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. 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. Town of Vail Page 5 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 Vista Bahn building is located within Sub -Area #3. Sub -Area 3# is as follows: "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 Town of Vail Page 6 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." 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 Allowed/Required Existing Proposed Change Standard 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. Town of Vail Page 7 VI. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING Existing Use Zoning District North: Mixed Use Commercial Core 1 South: Open Space Agricultural and Open Space West Mixed Use Commercial Core 1 East: Open Space Town- Outdoor Recreation Owned Stream Tract 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 12-7113-1, 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 the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purpose of the CC1 District. The exterior alteration proposal will, "maintain the unique character of Vail Village" and enhance the predominantly pedestrian environment. The proposed exterior alteration, with its uniquely designed architecture and bulk and mass, further ensures the arrangement of buildings fronting on the pedestrian way of Bridge Street and Wall Street. A building of this architectural design and scale is precisely what was intended for Vail Village. As proposed, the overall bulk and mass of the building remains the same, or is only slightly larger. In several areas the mass of the building is being reduced as portions of existing structure are being removed. In other areas, such as the roof, the height of the ridgeline is being increased by up to nine inches. Through the addition of 76 square feet net new retail area the applicant is obligated to comply with the commercial linkage requirements prescribed in Chapter 12-23 of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail. Pursuant to the requirements, the applicant shall remit payment to the Town of Vail of a fee in lieu payment in the amount of $6,483.70. The payment is calculated as follows: (76 net new sq. ft./1,000) x 2.4 per 1,000 = 0.1824 net new employees x 20% mitigate = 0.0365 employees x $177,733 = $6,483.70. Town of Vail Page 8 Staff finds the proposed exterior alteration meets this review 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. The applicant appeared before the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission on May 8t" for a worksession. The purpose of the worksession was to present the proposed plans for the renovation of the Hill Building and receive initial feedback from the Commission and public. During the worksession the Planning & Environmental Commission members shared the following comments and/or requested the following information be provided at the time of final review: • A comparison of the sun/shade analysis. • An exhibit demonstrating impacts, if any, to the three adopted view corridors (#1, 2 & 4) • The presence of stucco materials over top of wood on the exterior fagade of the building. • The stucco handrail atop the second floor deck. • The articulation of the ground floor retail exterior facade. • The ability to covenant or otherwise document the prohibition of vehicles parking on town owned land and outside the one enclosed garage space. • A presentation on how snow will be kept from shedding down onto the pedestrian areas around the building. • The apparent brightness of color of the proposed stucco. • The use of gray colored stone on the chimneys of the building. • The request that no new trees be added into already established view corridors. Town of Vail Page 9 The applicant has addressed each of the comments and requests and is prepared to present their response at the public hearing. Therefore, staff finds the proposed exterior alteration meets this review criterion. 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). Therefore, staff finds the proposed exterior alteration meets this review criterion. 4. The proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village design considerations, including, 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 — view corridors. The Hill Building is affected by three adopted view corridors (View Corridors #1, #2 and #4). Staff has requested that the applicant provide additional information to demonstrate compliance with the Town's adopted view corridors. View Corridor #2 will not be impacted. The Hill Building is non -conforming as it relates to View Corridor #4. And, as proposed, a very small portion of the renovated building encroaches into View Corridor #1. An application for approval to encroach into View Corridor #1 has been submitted by the applicant. The request is to allow for a 32 inch encroachment (8 inch increase in building height plus a 24 inch tall chimney cap) of two chimneys beyond what presently exists today. The reason for the increase in chimney height is to fully comply with the Town's adopted building code standards. The applicant has submitted a written response to the view corridor encroachment criteria outlined in Section 12-22-6 C of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail. Staff finds the applicant has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the encroachment meets each of the five criteria for consideration. The Hill Building presently encroaches into View Corridor #4. Section 12-22-7 prescribes direction for non -conforming encroachments into existing view corridors. In summary, removal is encouraged, but not required. If maintained and not removed, the extent of non- conformity shall not be increased. If reduced, but not fully removed, the new reduced extent of encroachment shall be the basis for the remaining non -conformity. The applicant is proposing to reduce the non -conforming condition and reestablish a new non -conforming Town of Vail Page 10 condition. The new non -conforming condition reduces the current condition by nearly 90%. Staff finds that the modifications being made to the building do not cause the structure to encroach into View Corridor #4 to a greater extent than the existing structure. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, a request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a renovation, and recommends the Commission forwards a recommendation of approval for an encroachment into View Corridor #4, 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/PEC17-0012) Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this exterior alteration request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motions: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, the applicant's of 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) Conditions: 1. Approval of this exterior alteration request (PEC17-0010) is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application and view corridor encroachment application. 2. The applicant shall be required to meet the Commercial Linkage obligations at time of building permit issuance. The applicant shall remit a fee in lieu payment of $6,483.70 to the Town of Vail. 3. The applicant and the Town of Vail shall review all existing pedestrian easements to verify compliance with existing and proposed uses. Any changes to the easements required shall be mutually agreed upon and recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office, prior to the issue of a building permit for the proposed renovation. 4. The applicant shall submit a stamped Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) to the Town of Vail, prior to issuance of the building permit indicating the existing conditions of the Hill Building relative to View Corridor #'s 1, 2, and 4. Then, prior to requesting any certificate of occupancy for the building, the applicant shall submit a second ILC to the Town verifying that the building has been constructed in compliance with the approved building permit set of plans. 5. The applicant shall cause a covenant or similar form of restriction to be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office against the Hill Building property (Lots C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1) prohibiting vehicle parking from occurring Town of Vail Page 11 on town -owned land or otherwise outside the enclosed parking space within the Hill Building. Further, the garage door to the enclosed parking space shall remain closed when not in use for immediate ingress or egress. The restriction shall be in a form reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. Said restriction shall be recorded by the applicant prior to any request for a certificate of occupancy for the Hill Building. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this exterior alteration request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section VII of the May 22, 2017 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. That the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CC 1 District as specified in Section 12-7B-1 of the Zoning Regulations; and 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and 3. That the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the view corridor encroachment request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section VII of the May 22, 2017 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would preclude a reasonable development of a proposed structure on the applicant's land. 2. That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would not be such as to defeat the purposes of this chapter. 3. That the development proposed by the applicant would not be detrimental to the enjoyment of public pedestrian areas, public ways, public spaces, or public views. 4. That the development proposed by the applicant complies with applicable elements of the Vail land use plan, town policies, urban design guide plans, and other adapted master plans. 5. That the proposed structure will not diminish the integrity or quality nor compromise the original purpose of the preserved view." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map Town of Vail Page 12 B. Site Photos C. Written Request, dated April 10, 2017 D. Proposed Plans including Building Elevations, dated May 22, 2017 E. Review Memorandum, dated April 21, 2017 F. Response to View Corridor Encroachment Criteria, dated May 14, 2017 Town of Vail Page 13 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 Y Hsi? A Z LU m LUJ d d L17 N M Cl:: LO O O V � W O Cl- N O a 0 z l� W `% Z im L` Ln L1-) N - O N O N O LU � LU � �t O O c /Y� ~ Q CO Ii1 N _ LL C:f Z N LD O J O O N M UO LU 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 -1 AA..Sz.zz 9 L N IZ 8E.6E j6 CD RO OM010011VA igaima L Lc EJ NOliVAON38 Mo 11 n a 111H T T T T T T T T TTT T T T T -T -T 8179. - -- -:�::j �-j 40 0 CM c— C� 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 M..SZ.ZZo9al N„7Z,8Eo6E GS9LO OOtl80100 TVA 7 iiins 3eaiae uE NOIldAON38 9NIO11na 111H Nd O M..SZ.ZZoSaI N„7Z,8E.6E GS91800tl80107 TVA iiins 3aaiae L lE NOIldAON38 9NIO11na 111H s 41M I ONE: opo M..SZ.ZZoSaI N„7Z,8E.6E Im O — § GS018 OOtl80100 TVA - �,. _ N ■�o 1�1�111�� �_ iaaaisagaiaeLLE �d NOIldAON38 Mo11na 111 Q I®I 41M I ONE: opo Im ��111 �,. ■�o 1�1�111�� I®I 41M | � � ' ■ / �>� CI%4 1- }_ NOliVAON38 Mo 11na ]]|H | � � ' ■ / �>� 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—� M. 0 -T E H 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 M. 0 -T E H 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 Hill Building Renovation View Corridor Encroachment May 14, 2017 Three Town of Vail view corridors influence the Hill Building. Slight encroachments to two of these corridors are proposed. Below are responses to review criteria to be considered in evaluating these encroachments. Plans, diagrams and photos regarding all three view corridors have been provided under separate cover. View Corridor #2 The renovation of the Hill Building has been designed to have no affect on this view corridor. View Corridor #4 As depicted on plans, diagrams and photos provided, extension of a roof eave will encroach slightly into the view corridor. However, removal of two upper level decks will significantly "open up" the view corridor, resulting in a net improvement to existing conditions. The existing eave line extends 32" from the face of the building while the proposed eave line will extend 24", further opening the view as compared to existing conditions. 1. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would preclude a reasonable development of a proposed structure on the applicant's land. Response The literal enforcement of this chapter would preclude the renovation of the Hill Building from fully conform to design considerations of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 2. That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would not be such as to defeat the purposes of this chapter. Response Changes proposed to the north side of the Hill Building will enhance View Corridor #2 and as such further, not defeat, the purposes of this chapter. 3. That the development proposed by the applicant would not be detrimental to the enjoyment of public pedestrian areas, public ways, public spaces, or public views. Response The eave encroachment will not be detrimental to the enjoyment of public pedestrian areas. To the contrary, the removal of the two decks will significantly improve the view corridor. 4. That the development proposed by the applicant complies with applicable elements of the Vail land use plan, town policies, urban design guide plans, and other adapted master plans. Response The extension of the eave line is proposed in direct response to design considerations of the Urban Design Guide Plan that encourage prominent roof overhangs. 5. That the proposed structure will not diminish the integrity or quality nor compromise the original purpose of the preserved view. Response The purpose of the view corridor is to protect the view to the Gore Range. The eave encroachment is far above the Gore Range and will not diminish the integrity or quality nor compromise the view. The removal of the two decks and reduction in eave depth will significantly improve the view corridor. View Corridor #1 As depicted on plans, diagrams and photos provided, a very small, barely discernible portion of the existing Hill Building extends into View Corridor #1. Changes to this portion of the Hill Building include: • A slight increase in height to a roof ridge (8") due to meeting code requirements, (*) see notes at end of document), and, • An increase in height to the chimney (8") due to code requirements (*) see notes at end of document, and; • The addition of 24" stone caps to the chimneys. The nature of these encroachments are extremely minor and are proposed as reasonable responses to building code requirements and to better address architectural design considerations of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would preclude a reasonable development of a proposed structure on the applicant's land. Response The literal enforcement of this chapter would preclude the renovation of the Hill Building from a reasonable solution for addressing code requirements and resulting changes to the roof and chimneys. Literal enforcement of this chapter would also preclude the renovation from fully conform to design considerations of the Urban Design Guide Plan with respect to chimney caps. 2. That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would not be such as to defeat the purposes of this chapter. Response Given the minimal changes to the building, the development of the structure will not defeat, the purposes of this chapter. 3. That the development proposed by the applicant would not be detrimental to the enjoyment of public pedestrian areas, public ways, public spaces, or public views. Response The proposed roof ridge and chimney extension of 8" plus the proposed chimney cap encroachments are 24". These encroachments are approximately 800' from the view point. Given this distance and minimal changes to the building, the proposed encroachments will not be detrimental to the enjoyment of public pedestrian areas. 4. That the development proposed by the applicant complies with applicable elements of the Vail land use plan, town policies, urban design guide plans, and other adapted master plans. Response The slight extension of the roof line is proposed in order to address energy code requirements for and the chimney caps are proposed to provide a more elegant design solution and be more consistent with architectural design considerations of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 5. That the proposed structure will not diminish the integrity or quality nor compromise the original purpose of the preserved view. Response The proposed roof ridge and chimney encroachment is 8" and the chimney cap encroachment is 24". These encroachments are approximately 800' from the view point. Given this distance and minimal changes to the building, the proposed encroachments will not diminish the integrity or quality nor compromise the original purpose of the preserved view. (*)Section 2113.9 of the International Building Code (IBC) requires chimneys to be two feet taller than any construction measured ten feet horizontally from the chimney. When the roofs of the Hill Building are reconstructed, the existing insulation above the sheathing will be removed and replaced with additional continuous exterior insulation above the plane of the existing roof sheathing. The International Energy Efficiency Code (incorporated into the IBC) requires a minimum of R-49 roof insulation in Eagle County (climate zone 6B). This nominal height increase, due to required insulation, will require the top of the existing northeast chimney to be raised by approximately 8'z" and the top of the existing southeast chimney by approximately 8". Additionally, the proposed design includes 24" high raised stone chimney caps above the flue discharge, as illustrated in the drawings submitted to the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission, dated April 10, 2017. Though the proposed cap design is not required by code, it is intended to be consistent with the other modifications proposed for the building as well as the European alpine -inspired character of Vail Village suggested by the Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Village Design Considerations. 0 E i 1� V ■ )tt •r • �M � �. H's: ; E f iG .� � . ., , - - ,� £-N � � 1 F� .. , .' 't �„ ' � . ' `�` � ' .� 1 �� �� .� . _ ��, �� � � .1 � � 1 s � _'� � 4 �, I . . � �.� �: � y ��1• «�. p .. 1 1�A r , _s� '. _; _ ���� • •����.� r ar � �, .: -. �� . :., � .� �-. �� +��` �_ r ♦ - • � � '` . 1 � l � I w woo l9 4 N T _ v C _ _ 3 Qi a E .- -E m u ° c .-a x L a, E o a o, m O U d U = L cp O U C L L L d m U Q_ N cz C C en # y O c c io a E c a, O u O ` m E a T a c T d [9'f 0_ C 0_ o C l0 �0 C Q� T y L O L i 4- O O aLo O +rp CD w 5 w} L � � � � � � w c w .E •E c TOWN OF VA10 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May22, 2017 ITEM/TOPIC: A request fora 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) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC17- Staff memorandum 0006_SDD_No._42_Mountain_View Residences Staff Memo Second_Meeting.pdf Attachment A_(Vicinity_Map).pdf Attachment B_(Memo from applicant_describing_modifications May_15 Attachment C_(Narrative).pdf PEC17-0006_Mountain_View Plan_Set #2_Part 1.1.pdf PEC17-0006_Mountain_View Plan_Set #2_Part 1.2.pdf PEC17-0006_Mountain_View Plan_Set #2_Part 1.3.pdf Attachment E_(Vail_Village_Master Planin_part).pdf Attachment A Vicinity Map Attachment B Memo from applicant 2017).pdf describing modifications, May 15, 2017 Attachment F_(Correspondence received_by_12.00_PM_on_5.18.2018).pdf Attachment C Original Project Narrative, March 27, 2017 Attachment D. Revised Plan Set, May 22, 2017 Part 1 Attachment D. Revised Plan Set, May 22, 2017 Part 2 Attachment D. Revised Plan Set, May 22, 2017 Part 3 Attachment E. Vail Village Master Plan (in part) Attachment F. Correspondence received to date 0 rowN of vAiL Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 22, 2017 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 7 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 19 accommodation units and 10 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC,represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY This is the second worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). The applicant has submitted revised plans that alter the proposed unit mix and include modifications to the building. These revisions are described in detail in the attached memo from the applicant, dated May 15, 2017 and included as Attachment B. The information in this memo has been updated to reflect these changes. It is the applicant's intent to submit a second revision prior to the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting, where a request for a recommendation to the Town Council will be made. The discussion items included in Section VIII have been modified as a result of the Commission's feedback at the first worksession and the revised submittal to encourage dialogue on key issues. The applicant, Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 7 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 19 accommodation units and 10 employee housing units (EHUs), located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. Staff has received correspondence from members or groups within the community related to this application. This correspondence has been included as Attachment F. Pmcess The process to establish a new special development district (SDD) begins with a pre - application meeting with staff to discuss the goals of the proposed SDD and the relationship of the proposal to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Next, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) conducts an initial review of the proposed development in which they can recommend approval of the proposal as requested, recommend approval with modifications, or may recommend denial of the proposal. Finally, the Town Council (TC) reviews the PEC's findings and recommendation. The Town Council shall consider the PEC's recommendation, but is not bound by the recommendation in reaching their decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny the proposal. Timeline The applicant has submitted a project review timeline indicating their preference that this meeting functions as follow-up worksession to the project for the PEC. The applicant's projected timeline* is as follows: 4/24 PEC Worksession 5/17 DRB Conceptual Review 5/22 PEC Worksession 6/7 DRB Conceptual Review 6/12 PEC Public Hearing (recommendation to TC) 6/20 TC First Reading/Worksession 7/18 TC First Reading or Second Reading 7/19 DRB conceptual 8/1 TC Final Hearing/Second Reading 8/16 DRB Final Approval * The above timeline is only an estimate by the applicant and is subject to change. Based upon the applicant's submitted timeline and the preliminary nature of this meeting, the Community Development Department recommends the PEC continues PEC17-0006 to the June 12, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting in order to address concerns raised by staff and for the applicant to provide detailed responses to anticipated questions from Commissioners and the general public. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Lunar Vail, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 7 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 19 accommodation units and 10 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. Town of Vail Page 2 A vicinity map (Attachment A), a memo from applicant describing modifications (Attachment B), the original project narrative (Attachment C), plan set (Attachment D), relevant selections from the Vail Village Master Plan (Attachment E), and public comments (Attachment F) are attached for review.. The project is composed of the following components: Employee Housing Units (EHUs) The proposed ten (10) EHUs will be deed -restricted rental units, limited to residents working at least thirty (30) hours per week in Eagle County. The proposed EHUs range in size from approximately 354 square feet to 1,291 square feet and include eight (8) two-bedroom units, one (1) one -bedroom unit and one (1) studio. The EHUs are located on the first and second floors above the parking garage in the proposed structure. The total square footage of the ten (10) units totals 10,901 square feet. EHUs, per the Vail Town Code, are not considered Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and are thus not deducted from a development's available GRFA. In addition, EHUs do not contribute to the calculation of dwelling units for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. Accommodation Units The applicant is proposing nineteen (19) accommodation units also located on the first and second floor of the proposed structure. The units range in size from 363 square feet to 414 square feet. The total GRFA for the nineteen (19) accommodation units is 7,147 square feet. The accommodation units, in the HDMF district, are counted as one-half (1/2) of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. Dwelling Units The applicant is proposing twelve (12) for sale dwelling units to be located on the third, fourth and fifth (dormer) floors of the structure. These units range in size from 1,514 square feet to 2,827 square feet. The units proposed are a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom layouts. The total proposed GRFA of the dwelling units is 25,667 square feet. Attached Accommodation Units (Lock Offs) The applicant is proposing seven (7) Attached Accommodation Units or lock -offs attached to seven (7) of the dwelling units. These units may be rented separately and have direct access from common areas without necessitating passing through a dwelling unit. These units range in size from 364 square feet to 521 square feet and are located on the third and fourth levels of the proposed structure. The total proposed GRFA for the Attached Accommodation Units is 2,960 square feet. Attached accommodation units do not contribute to the calculation of dwelling units for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. Existing Parking As part of Phase 1 of the Mountain View Residences, discussed in greater detail in the background section below, a 112 space parking structure was built in 2006 along the northern portion of the property. This three level structure, located predominately below Town of Vail Page 3 grade, provides required parking for the 23 dwelling units located in the Mountain View Residences Phase 1 building and the required parking for the proposed Phase 2 building. Proposed Deviations Through the Special Development District process, the applicant is requesting deviations from the following required dimensional standards of the underlying High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District: • Setbacks: The applicant proposes a fifteen foot (15') side setback on the east side where twenty feet (20') is required. • Building Height: The applicant is proposing an overall maximum height of 70' where the maximum for a structure with a sloped roof in the HDMF district is 48'. • Density: The maximum density in DUs/Acre in the HDMF district is 25 units which equates to an allowable density of 32 units on the subject parcel. The applicant is proposing 45.5 units or 35 DU/acre,140% of the allowable. • GRFA: The allowable GRFA in the HDMF district is 76/100 square feet of buildable site area or 42,871 square feet of GRFA for the 56,410 square foot parcel. Phase 1 of the development utilized 42,593 square feet of GRFA, leaving only 278 square feet remaining. The proposed Phase 2 includes an additional 35,774 square feet of GRFA for a total of 78,367 square feet of GRFA for the parcel or 183% of the allowable. Site Coverage: The applicant is proposing site coverage of 70.07% where the maximum allowable is 55%. Although the application makes a distinction between above and below grade site coverage, Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 amended the Vail Town Code's definition of site coverage to include both above and below ground improvements. Loading Berth Location: The required loading berth is proposed to be located within the front setback between the building and the Frontage Road. Per the requirements of the HDMF zone district, loading and parking are not permitted in the front setback. III. BACKGROUND The subject parcel, together with the adjacent Apollo Park parcel to the east, comprised Tract D of Vail Village Fifth Filing, approved by the Eagle County Planning Commission in November of 1965, prior to the incorporation of the Town of Vail in 1966. In the mid 1970s the Apollo Park development was constructed that included 89 dwelling units in four buildings. An aerial view of this development can be found on page 5 of the applicant's narrative, included as Attachment B. In 2006 the Town of Vail Design Town of Vail Page 4 Review Board (DRB) approved the replacement of buildings C and D of the Apollo Park development with a new structure, Mountain View Residences Phase 1, and the associated parking structure. Subsequent to this approval, Tract D was split through the Minor Subdivision process into two parcels. This subdivision was recorded in 2008 with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. The eastern parcel contains the remaining Buildings A and B of the original Apollo Park Development, containing 40 dwelling units functioning predominately as a timeshare development, while the western parcel contains the Mountain View Residences Phase 1 structure, and the associated parking structure. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal. Please see Attachment E for relevant excerpts from the Vail Village Master Plan Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 1— Title, Purpose, and Applicability (in part) 12-1-2: PURPOSE.- A. URPOSE: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes.- 1. urposes: 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. Town of Vail Page 5 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Chapter 6, Article H, High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District 12-6H-1: PURPOSE: The high density multiple -family district is intended to provide sites for multiple -family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The high density multiple -family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the zone district. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 37(1980) § 6: Ord. 30(1977) § 6: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.100) 12-6H-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district: Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments, located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the main structure or structures on the site,- additional ite,additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. Multiple -family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and condominium dwellings. (Ord. 1(2008) § 9) Town of Vail Page 6 12-6H-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment. Dog kennels. Funiculars and other similar conveyances. Home child daycare facilities, as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this title. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations. Private parking structures. Private unstructured parking. Public and private schools. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public park and recreation facilities. Public parking structures. Public transportation terminals. Public unstructured parking. Public utility and public service uses. Religious institutions. Ski lifts and tows. Timeshare units. (Ord. 2(2016) § 6: Ord. 12(2008) § 9) 12-6H-4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district: Town of Vail Page 7 Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential and lodge uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 8(19 73) § 6.400) 12-6H-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS.- The IMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10, 000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80) on each side within its boundaries. (Ord. 12(1978) § 3) 12-6H-6: SETBACKS The minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20). (Ord. 50(1978) § 2) 12-6H-7: HEIGHT. For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet (45). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty eight feet (48). (Ord. 37(1980) § 2) 12-6H-8: DENSITY CONTROL.- Not ONTROL: Not more than seventy six (76) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. Each accommodation unit shall be counted as one-half (1/2) of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. A dwelling unit in a multiple -family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. (Ord. 14(2004) § 9: Ord. 31(2001) §§ 3, 5: Ord. 50(1978) § 19: Ord. 12(1977) § 2) 12-6H-9: SITE COVERAGE.- Site OVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed fifty five percent (55%) of the total site area. (Ord. 17(1991) § 6: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.507) Town of Vail Page 8 12-6H-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 19(1976) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.509) 12-6H-11: PARKING AND LOADING.- Off OADING: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. No parking shall be located in any required front setback area. (Ord. 19(1976) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.510) Chapter 9 — Special and Miscellaneous Districts (in part) 12-9A-1: PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY: A. Purpose: The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas, and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. 12-9A-4: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES.- A. ROCEDURES: A. Approval of Plan Required: Prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within a special development district, there shall be an approved development plan for said district. The approved development plan shall establish requirements regulating development, uses and activity within a special development district. B. Preapplication Conference: Prior to submittal of a formal application for a special development district, the applicant shall hold a preapplication conference with the department of community development. The purpose of this meeting shall be to discuss the goals of the proposed special development district, the relationship of the proposal to applicable elements of the town's comprehensive plan, and the review procedure that will be followed for the application. Town of Vail Page 9 C. PEC Conducts Initial Review: The initial review of a proposed special development district shall be held by the planning and environmental commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. Prior to this meeting, and at the discretion of the administrator, a work session may be held with the applicant, staff and the planning and environmental commission to discuss special development district. A report of the department of community development staffs findings and recommendations shall be made at the initial formal hearing before the planning and environmental commission. Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed amendment, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the petition or proposal. The commission may recommend approval of the petition or proposal as initiated, may recommend approval with such modifications as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or may recommend denial of the petition or rejection of the proposal. The commission shall transmit its recommendation, together with a report on the public hearing and its deliberations and findings, to the town council. D. Town Council Review: A report of the planning and environmental commission stating its findings and recommendations, and the staff report shall then be transmitted to the town council. Upon receipt of the report and recommendation of the planning and environmental commission, the town council shall set a date for hearing within the following thirty (30) days. Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed SDD, the town council shall act on the petition or proposal. The town council shall consider but shall not be bound by the recommendation of the planning and environmental commission. The town council may cause an ordinance to be introduced to create or amend a special development district, either in accordance with the recommendation of the planning and environmental commission or in modified form, or the council may deny the petition. If the council elects to proceed with an ordinance adopting an SDD, the ordinance shall be considered as prescribed by the Vail town charter. 12-9A-6: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of special development districts. A development plan shall be approved by ordinance by the town council in conjunction with the review and approval of any special development district. The development plan shall be comprised of materials submitted in accordance with section 12-9A-5 of this article. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the special development district shall develop. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking plan, preliminary open space/landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory uses. 12-9A-9: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Town of Vail Page 10 Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the planning and environmental commission. Before the town council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-9A-8 of this article. 12-9A-11: RECREATION AMENITIES TAX: A recreation amenities tax shall be assessed on all special development districts in accordance with title 2, chapter 5 of this code at a rate to be determined by the town council. This rate shall be based on the rate of the underlying zone district or the rate which most closely resembles the density plan for the zone district, whichever is greater. V. ZONING / SDD NO. 42 ANALYSIS Address: 430 and 434 South Frontage Road E Legal Description: Vail Village Filing 5, Lot 1, a resubdivision of Tract D Existing Zoning: High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District Existing Land Use Designation: Vail Village Master Plan Mapped Geological Hazards: Steep Slopes >40% (result of prior development) Standard Allowed / Existing Proposed Mountain View Required (Phase 1) Phase 2*** Phase 1 and 2*** HDMF Site Area Min. 10,000 56,410 sq. ft. No Change 56,410 sq. ft. sq. ft. (1.295 acres) (1.295 acres) Front — 20' Front — 20' Front — 20' Front — 20' Setbacks Side — 20' Side(W) — 20' Side(W) — 20' Side(W) — 20' Rear — 20' Side(E) — 20' Side(E) — 15' Side(E) — 15' Rear — 20' Rear — 20' Rear — 20' Flat or Sloping Roof — 48' Sloping Roof Sloping Roof — Mansard — 70' 70' Height Roof — 45' Sloping Roof — 48' 25 DUs/ per 23 DUs 19 AUs=9.5 44.5 DUs acre of 17.8 DU/acre DUs 34.3 DU/acre buildable 12 DUs w/ Density site area, or lock -offs 32 units on 9 EHUs a 1.295 acre Total=21.5 parcel. DUs GRFA* Max. 76/100 42,593 sq. ft. 35,774 sq. ft. 78,367 sq. ft. or Town of Vail Page 11 * Although the EHUs total 10, 901 square feet in size, they do not count towards GRFA. ** The existing site coverage became nonconforming with the subdivision of the property in 2006 VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use Zoning District North: 1-70 ROW None East: High Density Residential High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District South: Gore Creek Streamtract Natural Area Preservation (NAP) West: High Density Residential High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District VII. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA Before acting on a special development district application, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed special development district. A thorough review of the criteria will be offered at the June 12. 2017 public hearina before the Plannina and Environmental Commission 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Town of Vail Page 12 Buildable 139/100 Site Area or 42,871 sq. ft. Max. 55% of 22.35%=12,599 14,511 sq. ft. 48.06%=27,111 total site sq. ft. above grade above grade sq. ft. above grade Site Coverage** area 69.91 %=39,424 70.07%=39,526 (31,026 sq. sq. ft. including 102 sq. ft. sq. ft. including ft.) below grade Below grade below grade Per Chapter 49 Required Additional 63 109 Required 10 112 Provided Spaces 112 Provided 1 Loading Space 1 Loading Space Parking/Loading Provided/Required Provided/Required Deviation for location requested. Min. 30% of 63.62% (35,881 7,656 sq. ft. 40.04% total site sq. ft.) (22,581 sq. ft.) Landscaping area (16,923 sq. ft. * Although the EHUs total 10, 901 square feet in size, they do not count towards GRFA. ** The existing site coverage became nonconforming with the subdivision of the property in 2006 VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use Zoning District North: 1-70 ROW None East: High Density Residential High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District South: Gore Creek Streamtract Natural Area Preservation (NAP) West: High Density Residential High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District VII. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA Before acting on a special development district application, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed special development district. A thorough review of the criteria will be offered at the June 12. 2017 public hearina before the Plannina and Environmental Commission 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Town of Vail Page 12 3. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS Staff poses the following questions to encourage discussion related to Mountain View Residences Phase 2 and the proposed new SDD: 1. Based on the feedback provided to the applicant at the previous worksession, do the revised plans address the concerns of the Commission? If not, what additional recommendations does the Commission have that could result in a favorable recommendation of this project to the Town Council? 2. The Vail Village Master Plan has specific recommendations, (included as Attachment E), for this parcel related to building height, building stepbacks and landscaping. Does the project, as proposed, respond to these recommendations? 3. Is the proposed public benefit, approximately 7,000 sq. ft. of non -required EHUs and 19 Accommodation Units, commensurate with the requested relief from the dimensional standards, specifically GRFA and height? The property, with the underlying HDMF zoning, currently has only 278 square feet of available GRFA, with 35,744 proposed and the building intends to exceed the height limit of 48' by 22'. Town of Vail Page 13 4. Although not subject to the Urban Design Guide Plan, the project is located within the boundaries of the Vail Village Master Plan. How does the proposed structure relate to its neighbors and the Village as a whole? Is the building's architecture, mass and scale emblematic of Vail Village? Is the proposed building compatible with Phase I of the development, as required? 5. The applicant is proposing a deviation from the underlying zoning to locate a loading zone within the front setback. As this area is identified as a landscape buffer in the Vail Village Master Plan and will be highly visible, is this appropriate? IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission continues PEC17-0006 to the June 12, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting in order to respond to questions raised by staff and for the applicant to provide detailed responses to anticipated questions from Commissioners and the general public. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Memo from applicant describing modifications, May 15, 2017 C. Original Project Narrative, March 27, 2017 D. Revised Plan Set, May 22, 2017 E. Vail Village Master Plan (in part) F. Correspondence received to date Town of Vail Page 14 I u Mauriello Planning Group May 15, 2017 Jonathan Spence, AICP Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Modifications to Vail Mountain View Residences Phase 2 addressing Planning and Environmental Commission comments and staff comments Dear Jonathan and Planning and Environmental Commission, We appreciate the time you have taken in reviewing the proposal for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the construction of the Vail Mountain View Residences Phase 2 project. In anticipation of the worksession review by the Planning and Environmental Commission on Monday, May 22, 2017, we have revised plans to address the comments by both the Town of Vail staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission. This letter serves to summarize the proposed changes. After your review of these changes, we will then re -submit the final package for final review on June 12, 2017. The following list outlines all of the proposed modifications that have been made to the plans based on your review: 1. East setback: The previous plans showed a 0 ft. setback along the shared property line with Apollo Park. The plans have been revised to show a minimum of a 15 ft. setback along this property line. This eliminates any possible issues with building code allowances for openings and/or fire wall requirements and therefore does not restrict future development activities on the Apollo Park property. This change resulted in the loss of approximately 1,433 sq. ft. of floor area with in the building affecting all uses. 2. Employee Housing Unit count and configuration: We have increased the number of EHUs from 9 to 10. There are now 8 two-bedroom units, 1 one -bedroom unit, and 1 studio. There is a total of 10,901 sq. ft. dedicated to deed -restricted employee housing. These changes are a result of converting one hotel unit to an EHU, and modifications to address the east setback. Based on the changes to massing, there was a slight overall reduction in EHU floor area. 3. Hotel Unit count: We have reduced the hotel unit count from 21 to 19. This was due to the conversion of one hotel unit to an EHU and modifications to address the east setback. Based on the changes to massing, there was a reduction in AU floor area. 4. Lock -off count: We have increased the lock -offs from 6 to 7. This was due to internal modifications that allowed separate access to a bedroom. u 1 ;Lcl Mauriello Planning Group 5. GRFA: The total GRFA for Phase 2 has been decreased from 36,955 sq. ft. to 35,774 sq. ft including a reduction in dwelling unit floor area. GRFA for EHUs (which is not included in overall GRFA) decreased from 11,153 sq. ft. to 10,901 sq. ft. The decrease in square footage is due to the modifications to address the east setback. 6. Site Coverage: The modification to the building to address the east setback resulted in a reduction in site coverage. Overall, site coverage was reduced from 72.53% to 70.07%. Above - grade site coverage was reduced from 49.15% to 48.06%. For reference, site coverage includes both Phase 1 and 2 due to the shared underground parking structure. 7. Height: Overall maximum building height was reduced 2 ft. from 71.9 ft. to 69.9 ft. In addition, overall building height was reduced in several areas and additional articulation was added to address roof -line concerns. Finally, the building was stepped down on the west to help address the concern about a smoother transition to the adjacent Tyrolean building. 8. Building separation: The previously shown tower on the west elevation was eliminated, increasing the separation from the Tyrolean at the third floor and above. 9. Loading and Delivery: With the modification to address the east setback, the previously proposed loading space was no longer functional. The loading space has been relocated to the area that was previously shown as fire staging. This is located in the front setback and will require a deviation for location, though it now complies with overall size requirements. 10. Fire Staging: Fire staging is now shown in the area that was freed up with the modification to the east setback. This proposed fire staging area meets all requirements of the Town Code but has yet to be accepted by the Fire Marshal. 11. Plan Modifications to Address Technical Comments: We have addressed the more technical comments provided by staff, including adding dimensions, indicating ADA parking spaces, historic grade mapping, etc. We are continuing to address all staff and Planning and Environmental Commission comments and intend to submit updated plans, the written submittal, the EIR, and Traffic Study, etc., on May 30, 2017, in anticipation of a final review on June 12, 2017. Thank you for your time and consideration on this project. Should you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970.376.3318 or dominic@mpgvail.com. Sincerely, Dominic Mauriello, AICP Principal Mauriello Planning Group FN Vail Mountain View Residences Submitted to the Town of Vail: March 27, 2017 VM I Id Mauriello Planning Group Consultant Directory Peter Carlson Gore Creek Group LLC 285 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 952-210-0095 Dominic Mauriello Mauriello Planning Group PO Box 4777 Eagle, CO 81657 970-376-3318 Will Hentschel 359 Design 3630 Osage St. Denver, CO 80211 720.512.3437 Davia Miselis Watershed Environmental Consultants P.O. Box 3722, Eagle CO 81631 970.471.4547 Ron Byrne and Mary Ann Redmond Ron Byrne & Associates 285 Bridge St Vail, CO 81657 970-476-1987 Skip Hudson, PE TurnKey Consulting LLC 587 1/2 Grand Cascade Way Grand Junction, CO 81501 2 Introduction Gore Creek Group LLC is requesting an application for the establishment of a new Special Development District (SDD) for Vail Mountain View Residences to facilitate the construction of a new mixed-use building located at 430 S. Frontage Road. The new building is referred to as Phase 2 of Vail Mountain View Residences, which is proposed to be constructed above the existing parking structure. Phase 1, the existing 23 residential condominiums, is proposed to be included in the SDD, but the building will not be modified with this application. The proposed Phase 2 consists of deed - restricted employee housing, lodging accommodations, and residential condominiums. The project furthers two identified community goals: the provision of employee housing and the provision of live beds. Employee housing is proposed at 30% of the GRFA of the project, and combined with the live beds, these two community benefits comprise 50% of the GRFA proposed for the project. The existing Phase 1 Building was completed in 2008 under the High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) zone district and included the following uses: 23 for -sale condominiums with 42,593 sq. ft. of GRFA 112 parking space parking structure, intended for lease to the public Conditional use permit to allow for the leasing of excess parking spaces which were constructed in anticipation of Phase 2 The proposed Phase 2 building includes the following: 12 for -sale dwelling units with 29,032 sq. ft. of GRFA, to be included in a voluntary rental management program 6 lock -offs to 6 of the dwelling units 9 employee housing units with 11,153 sq. ft. of GRFA 21 accommodation units (hotel rooms) with 7,923 sq. ft. of GRFA Parking to accommodate the proposed uses To facilitate the development of Phase 2, a Special Development District is proposed to be established, with the underlying zoning of HDMF. The SDD designation will apply to the entirety of Vail Mountain View Residences property, including the already completed Phase 1. Vail Mountain View Residences presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment within Vail Village. It is adjacent to the pedestrian core, but vehicular access is taken from South Frontage Road, allowing for development to occur with minimal impacts to the Village. As an infill site, with the proposed Phase 2 building constructed upon an existing parking structure that was designed to allow for such development, there are minimal impacts to the natural environment. Public Benefits of the Project: 3 Employee housing far in excess of requirements (30% of the total proposed GRFA for the building), all on-site and near the major employment center, addressing one of the documented critical needs of the Town Each EHU is in excess of 1,000 sq. ft., 2-bedroom/2-bath units, with a highly functional floor plan U Provision of short-term accommodation units (hotel rooms) within Vail Village, enhancing revenues and vitality Approximately 50% of the entire building is a use deemed by the town to be a public benefit (employee housing uses plus hotel uses) Redevelopment of an infill site within Vail Village Paved access path and stairs through the property allowing pedestrians to walk from the South Frontage Road to the recreation path along Gore Creek Public art piece still to be determined of a value up to $50,000 Conceptual floor plan of the 9 employee housing units. Units range from 1,015 sq. ft. to 1,309 sq. ft., with 2- bedroom/2-bath configuration. Each unit will have in -unit washer/dryer. III Background Vail Mountain View Residences was originally part of Apollo Park. Apollo Park was originally developed on Tract D, Vail Village 5th Filing as one large project. Apollo Park included 89 dwelling units. In 2006, the 49 dwelling units in Buildings C & D of Apollo Park were a . demolished and Mountain View Phase 1 was constructed on the western portion of Tract D, which was resubdivided to's, 4 Lot 1, a portion of the original Tract D. Apollo Park, Buildings A and B, remain n, Y on Tract D, with a total 40 units developed on the site. Mountain View l.. +�01,a Phase 1 was constructed under HDMFQr �+ zoning, requiring review only by the 0, Design Review Board, because the project complied with all zoning "' F standards of the HDMF district. As of Phase 1, a parking structure of 112 " parking spaces was constructed in anticipation of a potential future 2004 Google Earth Image of Apollo Park, Buildings A, B, C, and D. development phase. Following the completion of the parking structure, the excess parking spaces were leased to the public. When the Vail Village Master Plan (VVMP) was adopted in 1990, it recognized that the HDMF zoning was out of sync with the existing development patterns and the potential for future growth. The VVMP recommended that the zoning be updated. However, no substantial modifications to the HDMF zone district have occurred since 1990, therefore causing the need to redevelop this property as a Special Development District. The surrounding properties, the Wren and Apollo Park, are also non- conforming with respect to density and G RFA. 2015 Google Earth Image of Mountain View Phase 1 and Apollo Park, Buildings A and B. 5 Zoning Analysis Location: Parcel: Lot Size: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning Development Standard Lot Area Setbacks Front Side Rear Building Height (Maximum) Density GRFA Site Coverage 430 South Frontage Road / Lot 1, A Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village 5th 210108246023 1.295 acres / 56,410.2 sq. ft. High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) Special Development District with underlying zoning of HDMF Allowed by HDMF Existing Phase 1 Proposed Phase 2 Mountain View Phase 1 and 2 10,000 sq. ft. 1.295 acres / 56,410 No change sq. ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. (w) & 0 ft. (e) 20 ft. 20 ft. 1 20 ft. 48 ft. for sloping roof 48 ft. 45 ft. for flat roof 71.9 ft. 1.295 acres / 56,410 sq. ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. (w) & 0 ft. (e) 120 ft. i 71.9 ft. 25 du/acre = 32 du 23 du 21 au = 10.5 du 45.5 units 12 du with 6 lock offs 9ehu*=0 Density = 22.5 units 76% of lot area = 42,593 sq. ft. Hotel: 7,923 sq. ft. 79,548 sq. ft. _ 42,871 sq. ft. DU: 29,032 sq. ft. 141 % of lot area EHU*: 11,153 sq. ft. GRFA = 36,955 sq. ft. 55% of lot area = 31,026 sq. ft. Landscape Area 30% of lot area = 16,923 sq. ft. 22.35% = 12,599 sq. 15,122 sq. ft. (above- 49.15% = 27,721 ft. (above -grade grade only) sq. ft. (above - only) grade) 69.91 % = 39,424 sq. 40,903 sq. ft. _ ft. (includes below 72.53% (includes grade) below grade) 63.62% = 35,881 sq. 7,656 sq. ft. 40.04% = 22,581 ft. sq. ft. *EHUs do not count towards density or GRFA It should be noted that in the HDMF zone district, unlike other zone Town of Vail districts such as Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and 2, Public Accommodation, and Public Accommodation 2, accommodation units count toward density as 0.5 of a dwelling unit. This is one example of how the HDMF zone district, which largely consists of properties within the core areas of Vail, has not been appropriately updated to reflect current policies regarding the promotion of short term accommodations. If 6 accommodation units were removed from the density calculation, the resulting density for the entire property (Phase 1 and 2) is 35 dwelling units which only exceeds allowable density by 3 units. Proposed Mountain View Phase 2, lookinq north. 7 Deviations from Underlying Zoning Section 12-9A-9, Development Standards, provides the mechanism for deviating from the underlying zone district. It states: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the planning and environmental commission. Before the town council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-9A-8 of this article. The Vail Mountain View Special Development District will deviate from the following development standards: ^ Setbacks: The SDD complies with setbacks on the front, rear, and west side. On the east side, adjacent to the Apollo Park property, the proposed setback is 0 ft. from the property line. The location of the proposed building is adjacent to surface parking on the adjoining property. The adjoining property is also owned by this applicant with a land lease to the Apollo Park association, so any impact is offset by this ownership condition. ^ Building Height: The proposed building exceeds the height limitation of 48 ft. The existing Phase 1 building complies with the 48 ft. height limitation. Due to the structured parking below the proposed building, the building exceeds the height limit. The maximum height of the proposed building is 71.9 ft. which reflects a point on the peak of a gable roof form. ^ Density: The SDD will exceed the maximum density of 32 dwelling units. There are 23 dwelling units within the Phase 1 building. As proposed, Phase 2 includes 12 dwelling units, 21 accommodation units, and 9 EHUs (which do not count towards density). In HDMF, unlike many other zone districts, accommodation units count as 0.5 of a dwelling unit. As a result, Phase 2 is 22.5 units, for a total of 45.5 units for the entirety of the project. This is actually a reduction of the previous development on the site, which was 49 units. Additionally, if the HDMF zone district was updated like other districts where hotel rooms are excluded from density calculations, the proposed density would be 35 units. ^ GRFA: The allowable GRFA within the HDMF zone district is 42,871 sq. ft. Phase 1 was constructed with 42,593 sq. ft. of GRFA. Phase 2 is proposed at 36,955 sq. ft. of GRFA, for a total of 79,548 sq. ft. for the entirety of the SDD. EHUs do not count towards GRFA. ^ Site Coverage: Mountain View Phase 1 currently exceeds allowable site coverage due to the underground parking structure, which at the time of the original submittal was exempt from site coverage calculations. As a result, there is very little change to the site coverage for the entirety of the project, only an increase of 1,479 sq. ft., for a total site coverage calculation of 72.53%. The allowable site coverage of HDMF is 55%. The project only exceeds the requirement due to the provision of below -grade parking. Above -grade site coverage actually complies with this restriction, at 49.15% I Loading: Mountain View is required just one loading berth for the entirety of the project. One berth is provided. The dimension per Town Code of a loading berth is 12 ft. wide, 35 ft. long, and 14 ft. high. The dimensions of the berth proposed is 10 ft. wide, 35 ft. long, and 14.5 ft. high, so the deviation requested is for 2 ft. in width. In addition, 2 surface parking spaces are provided under the porte cochere that are for temporary parking and loading, which can serve as overflow for any additional loading needs. Deviations such as these are common among Special Development Districts, especially those located within the periphery of Vail Village. Special Development Districts are quite common throughout Vail Village, as indicated on the following map (striped areas indicate SDDs: --� - SDD #2 Below is a chart with an analysis of the more recent SDDs adopted by the Town of Vail in Vail Village. The chart includes the deviations from underlying zoning, along with the public benefits associated with the project. It should be noted that some of these SDDs were adopted prior to the change in the calculation for site coverage, which now includes below grade improvements, like parking, not previously counted, and many would now likely deviate from site coverage requirements. SDD Four Seasons (SDD #36) Underlying Deviations from Underlying Zoning Zoning 0 PA Site Coverage - from 65% to 71 % Height - from 48 ft. to 89 ft. Public Benefits 34 EHUs on-site (today most of these would have been required versus a benefit), contribution to streetscape, north -south walkway from Frontage Rd., improvements to Mayors Park, heated walk along Frontage Road, public art contribution (now a requirement) I SDD Tivoli Lodge (SDD #37) Manor Vail (SDD #38) Solaris (SDD #39) The Willows (SDD #40) Underlying Deviations from Underlying Zoning Zoning PA Height - from 48 ft. to 56 ft. Reduction in landscape area Loading in front setback HDMF Height - from 48 ft. to 57.4 ft. Density - from 133 to 141 units GRFA - 24,691 sq. ft. additional CSC Setback reduction Height - from 38 ft. to 99.9 ft. Density - from 47 to 75 units GRFA - 152,808 sq. ft. additional Site Coverage - 75% to 94% Landscape - increase in hardscape allowance HDMF Setback reduction GRFA increase Site Coverage - 55% to 67% Public Benefits 1 EHU on-site, streetscape improvements 1 EHU on-site, contribution to streetscape improvements, 430 sq. ft. parcel deeded to Town, stream bank improvements, installation of improved access path across site, sidewalk extension 22 EHUs provided offsite, streetscape improvements including heating public streets, public easement over plaza, public ice skating rink, $1.1 million in public art, bowling alley and movie theater, with deed restriction that requires there operation Public art, streetscape improvements, reduction in density As indicated in the chart, deviations such as those requested for the Mountain View Special Development District are common. The underlying zoning of the SDD also has implications in the deviations sought. For example, in many zone districts the density dedicated to accommodation units, fractional units, and timeshare units, do not count towards GRFA. However, in HDMF, accommodation units count toward density. Many zone districts have been updated to reflect current building trends and requirements and in recognition of Town objectives and priorities like the provision of live beds. Building height has been a sensitive subject in Vail from the very beginning of Vail's history. In 1990, with the adoption of the Vail Village Master Plan, it was recognized that taller structures were appropriate along the periphery of Vail Village, along the South Frontage Road. Taller buildings along the periphery help frame the context of the urban core area, provide relief from the impacts associated with Interstate 70, and utilize land area often as parking areas, thus removing unsightly views of parking facilities. The other benefit of encouraging additional building height along the South Frontage Road is that impacts to other private properties are substantially reduced. Private views, though not protected in Vail, are generally unaffected by taller buildings in this location. There are four examples of structures developed with additional building height along the periphery, all of which are above 71 ft. in height: 10 Four Seasons - SDD #36 (89 ft.) Sebastian Hotel (formerly the Vail Plaza Hotel) - SDD #6 (77.25 ft.) Vail Village Inn Phase 3 - SDD #6 (-71 ft.) Solaris - SDD #39 (99.9 ft.) The pattern of taller buildings along the South Frontage Road has been well established with logical breaks to allow views to Vail Mountain at Vail Road, Village Center Road, the Vail Village Parking Structure, Vail Valley Drive (Blue Cow Chute) and Ford Park. Whether the building is a three story structure or a five story structure, views from the South Frontage Road to Vail Mountain are blocked. Views over theses properties from either direction of Interstate 70 are adequately maintained. With the Town's 2007 adoption of the EHU requirements for Inclusionary Zoning and Commercial Linkage, the Town did not modify the development standards of the HDMF zone district. However, the provision of on-site employee housing units has an impact on development standards such as height, site coverage, parking, and even GRFA (as the cost of providing EHUs is often off -set through increasing the higher profit-making uses). In this case, the majority of the square footage on Levels 1 and 2 is dedicated to employee housing, with the remainder being another public benefit, hotel rooms, which clearly has an impact on the ability to meet the standards of the HDMF zone district. The provision of these two public benefits clearly outweigh any deviations proposed through this SDD. 11 Parking Analysis Phase 1 Use DU (23) Total spaces for Phase 1 Phase 2 AU (21) Formula If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is more than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2spaces If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 2,000 square feet or more: 2.5 spaces Parking Required 17x2=34 6 x 2.5 = 15 49 49 Formula ' Parking Required If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is more 4 x 2 = 8 than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces 8 x 2.5 = 20 If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 2,000 square feet or more: 2.5 spaces 28 0.4 space per accommodation unit, plus 0.1 space per 16.323 each 100 square feet of gross residential floor area, with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit EHU (9) If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is more 18 than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces Total spaces for Phase 2 62.323 Parking Analysis for SDD Parking Requirement for Phase 2 Parking Requirement for Phase 1 Parking Requirement for SDD Multi -Use Reduction of 2.5% Total Parking Requirement for SDD Total Parking Spaces Proposed (Existing) 62.323 49 111.323 -2.936 108.387 112 12 Employee Housing Plan Section 12-23-8: Administration, of the Vail Town Code requires the submittal of an Employee Housing Plan for all projects subject to development review. The proposed project exceeds both the total requirement (approximately three times the requirement) and the onsite requirement (approximately six times on the onsite requirement) for employee housing. A. Calculation Method: The calculation of employee generation, including credits if applicable, and the mitigation method by which the applicant proposes to meet the requirements of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: Commercial Linkage Requirement: 'Formula AU (21) 0.7 per AU Inclusionary Zoning: DU Mr G RFA 29,032 I Employees Mitigation Employees to Generated Rate be Housed 14.7 20% 2.94 Mitigation Rate EHU Sq. Ft. Required 10% 2,903.2 The commercial linkage requirement of 2.94 employees can be converted to 350 sq. ft. per employee, resulting in a commercial linkage requirement of 1,029 sq. ft. Adding this to the inclusionary requirement of 2,903 sq. ft., the total employee housing requirement equates to 3,932 sq. ft. As proposed, there is 11,153 sq. ft. in 9 employee housing units, 7,221 sq. ft. in excess of the requirement. B. Plans: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan that demonstrates compliance with section 12-23-3, "Size And Building Requirements", of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan has been provided with this submittal. Units range from 1,015 sq. ft. up to 1,309 sq. ft. and are 2-bedroom/2-bath units with highly functional floor plans. C. Lot Size: The average lot size of the proposed EHUs and the average lot size of other dwelling units in the commercial development or redevelopment, if any; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. D. Schedules: A time line for the provision of any off site EHUs; 13 Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. E. Off Site Units: A proposal for the provision of any off site EHUs shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. F. Off Site Conveyance Request: A request for an off site conveyance shall include a brief statement explaining the basis for the request; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. G. Fees In Lieu: A proposal to pay fees in lieu shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; and Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. H. Written Narrative: A written narrative explaining how the employee housing plan meets the purposes of this chapter and complies with the town's comprehensive plan. Applicant Analysis: Section 12-23-1: Purpose and Applicability, of the Vail Town Code provides the purpose of the Commercial Linkage Requirements: The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that new commercial development and redevelopment in the town provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such commercial development and redevelopment. The mitigation rates were established by the Town of Vail Employee Housing Nexus study. These rates are based on a survey of various properties in mountain communities. The Town Vail Land Use Plan offers the following goals with regard to employee housing: 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. In 2008, the Town of Vail established the Employee Housing Strategic Plan, which brought together all of the Town's goals on employee housing into a single plan. It provides the following: 14 In 2006, through the Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future process the community established a housing goal. It is as follows: "The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development." Based upon the community's work, the Vail Town Council has confirmed the Town of Vail recognizes deed restricted employee housing as basic infrastructure. This type of housing allows employees to live within the town, promoting community, and improving the quality of our local workforce, thereby supporting the local economy, and reducing regional transit needs. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan (EHSP) seeks to meet the expectations established by the community and confirmed by the Town Council and provide enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the community's workforce to live in the Town of Vail through a variety of policies, regulations and publicly initiated development projects. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan then outlines the various objectives and policies for implementing the plan. It provides a list of Town Initiatives, one of which is specifically applicable to this project: Incentive Zoning and Density Bonuses The Town will consider workforce housing objectives in all review processes that permit discretion. This means that the Town will work actively with developers as a part of the Housing District, Special Development District review processes and requested changes in zoning to not only meet the requirements of existing code, but to look for opportunities to go beyond code requirements to encourage additional workforce housing to be created. As a part of these review processes the Town will work actively with developers to create incentives to develop housing that exceeds the minimal requirements contained in the code. Additional density may be granted in selected locations through the appropriate review processes, and fee waivers and subsidies may be considered. The Incentives Zoning and Density Bonuses help Vail to "catch up" with existing deficiencies and add to the overall percent of employees living within the Town of Vail. As indicated in this submittal, the proposal complies with and furthers the purposes and goals of the Town's employee housing requirements and master plans. 15 Criteria for Review 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Applicant Analysis: The architecture is consistent with the high quality found on Phase 1 of Mountain View Residences, and is typical of recent redevelopment projects within Vail Village, such as Solaris, the Four Seasons, and the Sebastian. The concept is to use natural materials, such as stone, wood, and zinc, to create a project that is responsive to the environment and the surrounding neighborhood. Varying roof pitches and forms allow for visual interest. Before the redevelopment of the site, there was significant surface parking. The structured parking now allows the site to be redeveloped to the standards that Vail is accustomed to. The maximum height of the proposed Phase 2 building is 71.9 ft., which exceeds the underlying zoning HDMF maximum height restriction of 48 ft. and is a requested deviation with the establishment of this SDD. Building height is a common deviation for SDDs in Vail Village, especially those located along the Frontage Road, including the Sebastian, Vail Village Inn Phase 3, Solaris, and the Four Seasons. Many older existing HDMF or PA zoned buildings exceed the 48 ft. maximum height requirement. The proposed Phase 2 building, similar to the Phase 1 building, is generally 4 stories with additional livable space in the roof through the use of dormers. Unlike the Phase 1 building, Phase 2 sits upon a parking structure which sits slightly above natural grade. As a result, the height exceeds 48 ft., but is similar in appearance of height to surrounding properties. Significant surface parking lots are a characteristic of the immediate neighborhood, which is not a very efficient use of land. It is likely (and in fact, a requirement of the Vail Village Master Plan) that when these properties redevelop, parking will be located within a below grade structure, similar to the proposed Phase 2 project. These existing surface lots dominate the area: I� Surface parking lots at The Wren and Apollo Park. Future redevelopment of these sites will likely include below - grade parking, with buildings above. 16 The development of property in this neighborhood provides unique opportunities for buffer zones between developments. There is a path from the Frontage Road down to the Gore Creek path that was constructed as part of the Phase 1 building and which will be partially relocated with the Phase 2 building, which allows for a buffer zone between this project and the existing Apollo Park. Mountain View is compatible with and sensitive to the character of the immediate environment and sets a precedent for future development in this neighborhood. It is consistent with this criteria. Path from Frontage Road down to the Gore Creek path. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Applicant Analysis: Vail Mountain View Residences is adjacent to the 1-70 and South Frontage Road corridor to the north. To the south of the property is the Town of Vail stream tract, which is zoned NAPD. Properties further south of Gore Creek are r e s i d e n t i a l developments, typically townhouse development, zoned HDMF. Surrounding properties, including the Tyrolean, Apollo Park, and The Wren are all zoned HDMF. S. Front Rd -� Io Village Parking Structure Tyrolean Stream Tract A brief description of the adjacent residential uses is provided below: Apollo Park A&B 9 r The Wren 01,1 ^' The Tyrolean: There are 9 wholly owned units in the Tyrolean. The site is 0.368 acres. Parking is located within the building. 17 Apollo Park, Buildings A & B: There are 40 units within Buildings A & B of Apollo Park. Of the 40 units, 34 units are in interval ownership and the remaining 6 units are wholly owned, and the buildings sit on a ground lease. The site is 1.292 acres. The units were originally constructed in the early 1970s and exceeds the density allowance of the HDMF zone district. There are 42 surface parking spaces. The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding residential uses, which include wholly owned condominiums, short-term rentals, and interval ownership, which are similar in character to the uses proposed. The proposed density is similar to that of the surrounding properties. As a result, Mountain View is compatible with the surrounding uses and activity and is consistent with this criteria. 3. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. Applicant Analysis: A parking analysis was provided in a previous section of the submittal. As that analysis provided, the entire project, both Phase I and 2 are in compliance with the parking requirements of Chapter 10. Mountain View is required one loading berth to comply with Chapter 10 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. One berth is proposed, along with 2 short-term parking spaces (not included in the overall parking calculation) that can also be used for additional loading needs. The Town Code requires loading spaces to be 12 ft. wide, 35 ft. long, and 14 ft. high. The dimensions of the berth provided is 10 ft. wide, 35 ft. long, and 14.5 ft. wide, a deviation of only 2 ft. in width. Due to the limited need for loading for this project, this berth is appropriate. However, this is a requested deviation as part of this SDD request. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. Applicant Analysis: This property is subject to the Vail Village Master Plan. It is not subject to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The Vail Village Master Plan provides both general and specific guidance on the redevelopment of this property. The Vail Village Master Plan provides the following overall goals, objectives, and policies: GOAL #2 TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR - AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY ASA WHOLE. Objective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Policy 2.3.1: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. W Objective 2.6: Encourage the development of employee housing units in Vail Village through the efforts of the private sector. Policy 2.6.1: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. Policy 2.6.2: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. Policy 2.6.3: The Town of Vail may facilitate in the development of affordable housing by providing appropriate assistance. Policy 2.6.4: Employee housing shall be developed in the Village when required by the Town's adopted Zoning Regulations. GOAL #5 INCREASE AND IMPROVE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEMS THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. Objective 5.1: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities Policy 5.1.1: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core I Zone District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning code. Policy 5.1.5: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. The Vail Village Master Plan encourages an increase in the number of residential units, especially for short term overnight accommodation. Mountain View Phase 2 includes the provision of 21 accommodation units. These are hotel room product available for short term overnight rentals. In addition, the project includes 12 dwelling units and 7 lock -off units, all of which will be able to participate in a voluntary short term rental program. The units have been designed to encourage participation for the dwelling units and the lock -offs. With the on-site management available for the accommodation units, participation in the short term rental program is anticipated to be high. With this project alone, there is an addition of 38 new units available for short term rental, which is a top priority of the Vail Village Master Plan. Along with encouraging the provision, the Vail Village Master plan recognizes the need for the development of employee housing in Vail Village. Mountain Example of quality of employee housing units proposed in Phase 2 19 View Phase 2 includes the provision of 9 deed -restricted employee housing units, well in excess of any requirements. An Employee Housing Plan is provided as part of this submittal, but to summarize the plan, the commercial linkage requirement of 2.94 employees can be converted to 350 sq. ft. per employee, resulting in a commercial linkage requirement of 1,029 sq. ft. Adding this to the inclusionary requirement of 2,903 sq. ft., the total employee housing requirement equates to 3,932 sq. ft. As proposed, there is 11,153 sq. ft. in 9 employee housing units, 7,221 sq. ft. in excess of the requirement. The proposed units average over 1,000 sq. ft. and are 2 -bedroom units, making them highly functional and useable, in addition to being of exceptionally high quality. This is unprecedented in a project in Vail Village. The Vail Village Master Plan also includes recommendations for building heights within Vail Village. The Master Plan states this with regard to the Building Height Plan: 3 LEGM .-------- 3.4 .w.w ware a aanw ,�n.r. now BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN Generally speaking, it is the goal of this Plan to maintain -the concentration of low scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the Frontage Road), as depicted in the Building Height Profile Plan. This pattern has already been established and -in some cases these larger structures along, the Frontage Road serve to frame views over Vail Village to Vail Mountain. The Building Height Plan also strives, in some areas, to preserve major views from public right-of-ways. 20 Building heights greatly influence the character of the built environment in the Village. This is particularly true in the Village Core where typical building heights of three to four stories establish a pleasing human scale. The building heights expressed on this Illustrative Plan are intended to provideeg neral guidelines. Additional study should be made during specific project review relative to a building's height impact and the streetscape and relationship to surrounding structures. Specific design considerations on building heights are found in the Sub -Area section of this -Plan and in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. nor VIEW CORRIDORS [ELEVATION FROM FRONTAGE ROADI y11P" ,Pi-� l 5 by BUILDING BUILDING MASSING [VILLAGE CORE SECTION[ HEIGHT PROFILE 1vu Hund PLM ,n n As indicated in the recommendations regarding building height, generally buildings are to be tallest along the South Frontage Road, then step down to lower heights within the Village Core. Buildings are generally shown to be 5-6 stories along the Frontage Road, though the building height shown for the infill of Apollo Park is indicated at 4 stories. The "Conceptual Building Height Plan" further describes a story as 9 ft. of height, not including the roof and indicates varied roof heights are desired. This building height limitation is challenging as the current description of a story as 9 ft. in height is generally considered outdated and produces undesirable units with very little head height, based on current market preferences. Vail Mountain View Phase 1 complies with the Conceptual Building Height Plan and HDMF zoning height restriction of 48 ft. This was appropriate due to its proximity to Gore Creek. However, Phase 2 is located primarily along the South Frontage Road and is a location where additional height is appropriate, as evidenced by recent SDD projects, including Solaris and the Sebastian. In general, Phase 2 complies with the 4 -story recommendation, but does include a portion of the existing parking structure which is slightly above grade. Along the South 21 Frontage Road, the building generally appears as a 4 -story building, with the 5th story within the roof structure, as a loft or dormer level. On the south elevation, facing Phase 1, the building is a 4 -story building, sitting on top of a partially exposed level of parking. The project generally complies with the Master Plan height recommendation, but exceeds the 48 ft. height limitation of the HDMF zone district. As a result, a deviation from the underlying zoning height restriction of 48 ft. is requested, though the project generally complies with the Building Height recommendations. The Vail Village Master Plan also provides an Action Plan, showing potential locations for development projects, as described below: FOTO PARK `o ACTION PLAN The Action Plan indicates potential development and improvement projects that would be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Action Plan is a composite of the Land Use, Open Space, Parking and Circulation and Building Height elements. Areas identified by the Plan as having potential for additional development have previously received Town approvals or have been recognized as being consistent with the various elements of the Master Plan. However, the Action Plan is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of improvements, which may occur, or an indication of Town approval for any specific development proposals. The review of any development proposal will be based upon compliance with all relative elements of the Village Master Plan. 22 Numerical references found on the Action Plan map refer to more detailed descriptions of proposed improvements, located in the Sub -area section of this Plan. These descriptions provide a detailed account of the goals, objectives, and design considerations relative to each of the development and improvement projects. Graphic representation of improvement projects on the Action Plan are not intended to represent design solutions. Sub -area concepts, applicable goals, objectives, and policies of this Plan, zoning standards and design considerations outlined in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan are the criteria for evaluating any development proposal. Furthermore, private covenants exist in many areas of Vail Village and should be a consideration addressed between a developer and other applicable private property owners. The massive area of surface parking associated with Apollo Park and the Wren are indicted for "Residential/Lodging Infill." This is important to note, especially with regard to Apollo Park, in that the Action plan clearly shows additional residential development beyond what currently existed at Apollo Park, as Apollo Park already exceeded the density limitation of the HDMF zone district. Buildings C and D totaled 49 dwelling units, though only allowed 32 dwelling units by zoning. In fact, as proposed at 45.5 units (for Phase 1 and 2), the project is more in compliance with the underlying zoning with regard to density, though a deviation from this limitation is still required. The increase in density was clearly contemplated by the Vail Village Master Plan and therefore complies with the "Action Plan." Finally, the Vail Village Master Plan provides site specific recommendations for the various sub- areas of the Village. This property is within Sub -Area #9, East Frontage Road. The master plan states: EAST FRONTAGE ROAD SUB -AREA (#9) The East Frontage Road Sub -Area is comprised of condominium and time share residential development. This sub -area is unique in that its access is directly off of the 23 Frontage Road, causing little vehicular impact on other areas of the Village. Large areas of surface parking within the sub -area provide the opportunity for additional residential infill development. Given proper attention to design considerations, this sub -area could provide additional density within close proximity to the Village core. At the present time, the sub -area is separated from the Village core by Gore Creek. This sub -area has a pedestrian connection with the Village and Ford Park -via the Village Streamwalk. A sidewalk along the Frontage Road should be constructed to improve pedestrian safety and further connect the Village parking structure to Ford Park. The area between buildings and Gore Creek must be improved to enhance natural environment. #9-1 Parking Lot Infill Residential infill over existing surface parking. Height of building to be limited so as to not impede view corridors from the frontage road (and Interstate 70) to the Village and Vail Mountain. Mass of buildings to step back from the Frontage Road to prevent sun/ shade impacts on the road. Satisfying parking demand on site will necessitate structured parking. A substantial landscape buffer shall be provided between any new development and the Frontage Road without jeopardizing future frontage road improvements. Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 3.4, 5.4, 6.1. The Vail Village Master Plan identifies that the large areas of surface parking provide opportunities for additional residential development. It recommends the construction of a sidewalk along the Frontage Road, connecting the parking structure with Ford Park, which has been completed. The plan also recommends that the height of buildings in this sub -area be limited to not impede view corridors from the Frontage Road to the Village and Vail Mountain. As indicated in this views from google earth, the Village is not visible at all from I-70 or the Frontage Road. Since 1990 when the Vail Village Master Plan was adopted, significant improvements in technology have allow architects to much more accurately reflect the views effected by proposed buildings. As indicated in this image, Vail Mountain remains visible with the proposed Phase 2. A Google Earth image street view from east -bound 1-70 with the proposed Phase 2 building shown. Google Earth image street view from S. Frontage Rd. with the proposed Phase 2 building shown. 24 Proposed Mountain View Phase 2 as viewed from west -bound 1-70 As recommended by the Vail Village Master Plan, all parking for the project is structured. As indicated on the landscape plan, significant landscaping is proposed along the north elevation, and the 20 ft. setback along this property is maintained. Overall, the proposed project complies and is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan, and furthers the goals and objectives recommended by the plan. 5. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Applicant Analysis: There are no natural or geologic hazards that affect the property. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project by Daiva Katieb of Watershed Environmental Consultants. The report addresses all environmental concerns, including climate, hydrology, atmospheric conditions, geology, wildlife, vegetation, wastes, noise, odors, and visual concerns. The report is included as part of this submittal, but to summarize, the report concludes the project is appropriate and without significant impacts to the environment. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Applicant Analysis: The building is sited above the existing parking structure, utilizing generally the same access as currently exists to the structure. As a result, there is little disturbance to the site. While this SDD request includes a deviation from the site coverage limitation as a result of the underground parking structure, the project complies with site 25 coverage requirements for above -grade improvements and landscape area. When possible, existing landscaping is maintained, and none of the existing landscaping associated with Phase 1 will be modified with the construction of Phase 2. A landscape plan, prepared by Jamie McCluskie of MacDesign, has been included with the submittal. The plan focuses the landscaping along the South Frontage Road, providing a landscape buffer between the road and the units located on the first floor. The goal is to use ornamental grasses and brownstone boulders, similar to the landscape treatments at recent projects like First Chair and Solaris. The SDD produces a functional development plan which is sensitive to the existing landscaping and neighborhood. As a result, the proposed SDD is consistent with this criteria. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. Applicant Analysis: A traffic letter was prepared by Skip Hudson, P.E. of Turn Key Consulting, LLC. According to his analysis, the current CDOT Access Permit allows for more traffic than is generated by the proposed development. This is due to the fact that the leased parking facility will be converted to parking serving the uses onsite. In addition, the proposed use does not generate 20% more traffic than the current site use. As a result, the proposed Phase 2 does not require an additional CDOT Access Permit. The general circulation for vehicles is consistent with how the site functions currently. The site is accessed from the South Frontage Road, with vehicles entering the parking structure at two points, the further south garage entrance for Phase 1 and the north garage entrance beneath the porte cochere for Phase 2. There is also a loading space beneath the porte cochere, and 2 short- term parking spaces available for check -ins and for additional loading opportunities. The pedestrian circulation around the buildings includes a sidewalk connection from the Frontage Road, connecting down to the Gore Creek path. There is pedestrian circulation around the entirety of the site, allowing for direct access from multiple points to the Gore Creek path. There is also a sidewalk along the South pedestrians access over to Ford Park. Sidewalk along South Frontage Road Pedestrian connection between the Tyrolean & Phase 1 Frontage Road, giving 26 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Applicant Analysis: The landscape plan was developed by MacDesign with an eye towards functionality, preserving natural features, use of native species, and maximizing the areas best suited for planting. Through the use of ornamental grasses and brownstone' boulders, the entry is given prominence. Minimal amounts of sod are proposed along the more formal interface with the sidewalk along the S. Frontage Road. When possible, the existing landscaping is preserved, as most of it was planted with the 2006 Phase 1 development. The existing paver pattern is proposed to be continued, creating cohesion between Phase 1 and Phase 2. ~~ t The project complies with the underlying zoning requirements with any need fora deviation. As a result, the proposed Pedestrian path and buffer zone between Phase 1 & landscape plan is consistent with this criteria. Apollo Park 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Applicant Analysis: The project will be completed in one phase. 27 ------------------------------ Cl) Ln rn L99 18 00 'IIVA 'iSVD GVO�l DSViNO�IJ Hinos tv, 11 3SVHd - - - - - - - - - - - - - d M31A NiViNnow im ----------- > . ........... . ... . .... . ..... .. .. 0 U ------------------------------ g 2s 2 . ........... . ... . .... . ..... .. .. "..2hd LU ca LU 2. O................... . ..... 22 h.- n CD L9M00'IIVA 'iSVD tv, Ln 11 3SVHd r.n A----------- - M31A NiViNnow im . - ------------ �-Oo o 00.0 \\�\\\\\\ n j\\\\\\\\\\\\\\}\\ 5 8 110 3 CT)Z c_ �^ ®' L991,8 001 IVA '1SV3 OVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ H1f10S tv, -- F w r O O 1 I Ae 113SVHd I w N o t.n� o I 0 1 1 M31A NiViNnow im P a w Q m S 4m m N V O O 0 0 �afl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �I II o 1 I ® I o I 1 I o I 0 0 �afl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �I II o 1 I o I 1 I I 0 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I 3 CT) c_ �^ ®' L99L6001SVA '1SV3 OVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ H1f10S tv, -- F N w N 0 0 Ae 113SVHd w N �� M31A NiViNnow im P a w Q m S 4m m N V CT) L991,8 001 IVA 'iSVD GVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv, -------------- 11 3SVHd M31A NiViNnow im - ---------- o_ \\}\\/\/\ \E0 L9M00'IIVA 'iSVD tv, 11 3SVHd M31A NiViNnow im . - A----------- - ----------- o_ \\}\\/\/\ \E0 -g L9M00'IIVA IN 'iSVD GVO�l DSViNO�IJ Hinos «IN 11 3SVHd C� t'n ------------ - M31A NiViNnow im 0_ 0 .q 8mn \\\\\\\\\\\ .. 8x \\}\\ (D (D -0 V, -m h M'� 0 --mup -wo'.-P. CD t'n L9M00'IIVA 'iSVD GVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv, 11 3SVHd M31A NiViNnow im ------------ -m h M'� 0 --mup -wo'.-P. -F L9M00'IIVA 'iSVD GVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv, j c 11 3SVHd t'n - ----------- M31A NiViNnow im 14 > O m 2. H !.-A sa� a3 8x W nw Ln 'isv�l CIV 11 3SVHd tn V, ED V, 3 � Z c=LGM �^ L/� A®' K, o 00'IIVA '1SV3 CIV3SV1N021I H1f10S tv, 113SVHd A 0 N LU a a a M31A NiViNnow im omm S d 1 a O O G 0 0 3 O S 0 O A O U 2 2 �E -- I , o' III N LU L6 © d L Lo __ Z d d y dJ u u Q Q © N O K o 0 W x 0 w O i F O 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ ❑ M T T • / 0 _ --J—L4 • • / 0 _ / M -O N L6 L6 d d y dJ u u Q Q a K o 0 W x 0 w O i F O 0 0 � 0 Q . i O iO- O m ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ ❑ M T T • / II� � • • / II O / M -O ® o 0 I o o I o I o I LU LU OO IL d Z t7 Z -- Q --�-- •hJ - - Q -- IL -- -❑ II I I I o f I - --- - _ --- LtD - - ------ I - _'��❑" 0 0 me e.o N � ■ ■❑❑❑ I z. w a 00 o o U 7 2 2 ■ ■❑❑❑ �^ K, o LGM 00'IIVA '1SV3 CIV021 3SV1N021I H1f10S tv, 113SVHd 0 N a a a M31A NiViNnow im omm S ■ ■❑❑❑ I z. w a 00 o o U 7 2 2 ■ ■❑❑❑ z. w oa o° w o o U 7 2 2 ■ ■■❑■ •_�_-___ �/ ISO m i I _ I I �I I , z. w oa o° w o o U 7 2 2 ■ ■■❑■ •_�_-___ �/ ISO m i cn:z L L9M00'IIVA 'iSVD 0V02l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv, 11 3SVHd k ------------- aoa M31A NiViNnow im ----------- II .1k k i) M i) CD Mo Ae L9M00'IIVA 'iSVD GVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv, 11 3SVHd M31A NiViNnow im ----------- i) M i) U R V, (37) Ln L99 18 00 'IIVA isvD (IVO2l 30V1NO2IJ Hinos tv, -p 11 3SVHd > 0 M31A NiViNnow im - ------------ - ----------- u U R V, �1) V, w M® :e L9M00'IIVA 'iSVD GVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv, 11 3SVHd -F C4 M31A NiViNnow imz ----------- 0> u- �1) V, w M® :e 1 TZ c_ (3 / m M L9918 OO'IIVA isvD OVO2l 3OV1NO21I Hinos tv, II 3SVHd M31A NiViNnow im F m m S F x w o N t N w a i N 1 N 1 1 N co a � x` N co N x N co N co IT N Go 0 0 N co 1 (37) Ln L9M00'IIVA isvD (IVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv, 11 3SVHd ------------- -- M31A NiViNnow im - ------------ I kJ ry i a 9! dAMft, A LA's t r aT III r .i�. w A IN ` F � ' AiRrva t nl�lvr rd ,.a Mw = — : a,- r I'= T' + aao �, w �-A-w L9M00'IIVA isvD (IVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv, 11 3SVHd M31A NlViNnowim - ----------- �-A-w � Z c_ �^ I M LGM 00'IIVA '1SV3 CIV3SV--N021I H1f10S tv, II 3SVHd = N 0 w N m M31A NlViNnow 11\/A 3 m m S m m N `„ O W m� gill ce°En LL a 8 it &5 e� I` r O N V a 1L 0 N a z 0 p a W J W t— N a W 1 �Z c_ m M L9M00'IIVA isvD OVO2l 30V1NO2IJ Hinos tv, II 3SVHd m@ = wN m F 0 M31A NlViNnow ll\/A m r W W a m S 3m m N O W I` r O N V a 1L 0 N a z 0 p a W J W t— N W ` �IIIIIIIII - _ I 1 IMI I�_11WIII uolu IIIIIIIIIII1IIII =_: ' ■IIIIIIIII _�����u� I�� �_ ■H■Dm! - �� �IIIIII�I ■ .IIIIIIII WIT111=1 _ I ,�IIIIIIIII �IIIII III ■IIIIIIIII ■ ■ 'I■IIIIIIIII ■IIIIIIIII ■IIIIIIIII _ _ i Mir =1I mi II _I =I =I _I _i1 =I _ SII■ ■ O - � M1111I' �lllfl■i � _I .111111 III�I � .IIIIIIII .IIIIIII il_I _ o ■Itim■�� ■� ■ �I .IIIIIIII �I — =I .11111111 =IMIMI ■_ IL Am Z;R[U.i M'� 1 II M11=1 _ I 1 IMI ails 010 ■ ■H■Dm! Ell= =I e e MIMI An ■ Mir =1I mi _I =I =I _I _i1 =I _ SII■ ■ O - .,_,] _..: _ _ MIMI =I SII■ ■ O - . .......... Milli ru milli WWII SII m;;;; mini Milli =III m VIII � viii � mm mm Ili yy Eff MI SII 011� M�IIIII ill Mill 1r'mm1m m 11111' mmim W- 0 _1111 _1111 - AUHI Milli M Mill milli 0 Mill Milli Mi Milli ru milli WWII SII m;;;; mini Milli _1111 _1111 - AUHI Milli M Mill milli 0 Mill Milli Mi Milli milli SII _1111 _1111 - AUHI Milli M Mill milli 0 Mill Milli Mi �1) V, w M® :e L9M00'IIVA 'iSVD GVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv, 11 3SVHd -F C4 M31A NiViNnow imz ----------- 0> u- �1) V, w M® :e 1 TZ c_ (3 / m M L9918 OO'IIVA isvD OVO2l 3OV1NO21I Hinos tv, II 3SVHd M31A NiViNnow im F m m S F x w o N t N w a i N 1 N 1 1 N co a � x` N co N x N co N co IT N Go 0 0 N co 1 (37) Ln L9M00'IIVA isvD (IVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv, 11 3SVHd ------------- -- M31A NiViNnow im - ------------ I kJ ry i a 9! dAMft, A LA's t r aT III r .i�. w A IN ` F � ' AiRrva t nl�lvr rd ,.a Mw = — : a,- r I'= T' + aao �, w �-A-w L9M00'IIVA isvD (IVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv, 11 3SVHd M31A NlViNnowim - ----------- �-A-w � Z c_ �^ I M LGM 00'IIVA '1SV3 CIV3SV--N021I H1f10S tv, II 3SVHd = N 0 w N m M31A NlViNnow 11\/A 3 m m S m m N `„ O W m� gill ce°En LL a 8 it &5 e� I` r O N V a 1L 0 N a z 0 p a W J W t— N a W 1 �Z c_ m M L9M00'IIVA isvD OVO2l 30V1NO2IJ Hinos tv, II 3SVHd m@ = wN m F 0 M31A NlViNnow ll\/A m r W W a m S 3m m N O W I` r O N V a 1L 0 N a z 0 p a W J W t— N W ` �IIIIIIIII - _ I 1 IMI I�_11WIII uolu IIIIIIIIIII1IIII =_: ' ■IIIIIIIII _�����u� I�� �_ ■H■Dm! - �� �IIIIII�I ■ .IIIIIIII WIT111=1 _ I ,�IIIIIIIII �IIIII III ■IIIIIIIII ■ ■ 'I■IIIIIIIII ■IIIIIIIII ■IIIIIIIII _ _ i Mir =1I mi II _I =I =I _I _i1 =I _ SII■ ■ O - � M1111I' �lllfl■i � _I .111111 III�I � .IIIIIIII .IIIIIII il_I _ o ■Itim■�� ■� ■ �I .IIIIIIII �I — =I .11111111 =IMIMI ■_ IL Am Z;R[U.i M'� 1 II M11=1 _ I 1 IMI ails 010 ■ ■H■Dm! Ell= =I e e MIMI An ■ Mir =1I mi _I =I =I _I _i1 =I _ SII■ ■ O - .,_,] _..: _ _ MIMI =I SII■ ■ O - Vail Village Master Plan VI. ILLUSTRATIVE PLANS The Illustrative Plans provide an overview of the long range goals and objectives for future development of the Village. Each plan depicts a key element that contributes to the character and function of Vail Village. These elements include land use, open space, circulation and building heights. Together these plans reflect the Master Plan's goals, objectives and policy statements. They provide the criteria for evaluating development proposals and planning for future public improvements. A summary plan, referred to as the Action Plan, is a composite of the identified changes end improvements from each of the Illustrative Plans. The Action Plan graphically summarizes proposed public and private sector changes for Vail Village. LAND USE PLAN There is a well-defined overall pattern of land use throughout the Village that establishes one of its more pleasant characteristics. The greatest variety and intensity of uses are found within the Village Core Area and along the pedestrian ways of East Meadow Drive. The mixed use character of these areas make significant contributions to the vitality of the pedestrian experience in the Village. Land uses surrounding these areas are predominantly residential with a mixture of lodging, condominium, and low density residential development. Other land use designations in the Village include heavy service, public facility/parking, and ski base/recreation. Maintaining the general pattern of existing land uses is a stated goal for Vail Village. While some changes in land use are indicated by this Plan, they respect the existing character that has been established throughout the Village. Changes to existing land uses have been recommended in response to other goals of The Village Plan. Specific improvements and developments associated with these changes in land use are expressed in greater detail on the Action Plan and in the Sub -Area section of this Plan. Land use categories in Vail Village include the following: Low Density Residential: The Mill Creek Circle area was the initial subdivision of Vail and is the only neighborhood in the Village made up of exclusively low density residential development. Development in this land use category is limited to two units per lot. There are a total of 19 duplex zoned lots comprising approximately 6.5 acres in this land use category. Medium/High Density Residential: The overwhelming majority of the Village's lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. Approximately 1,100 units have been developed on the 27 acres of private land in this category. In addition, another 110 units are approved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail". Mixed Use: This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount of office use -are found in this category. With nearly 270,000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. Ski Base/Recreation: Located at the base of Vail Mountain in the Golden Peak area and immediately adjacent to Vail Village, this designation is intended to provide for the facilities and services inherent to the operation of a ski area. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient, and aesthetically -pleasing transition between the ski mountain and surrounding land use categories. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Ski Base/Recreation land use category may include skier and resort services, ski lifts, ski trails, base facilities, public restrooms, ticket sales, clubs, public plazas, outdoor cultural/art events and sports venue, open spaces, parking and loading/delivery facilities, and residential, retail, and restaurant uses. Public Facility/Parking: The only property in this category is the Town -owned parking structure and adjacent surface parking lot. Existing uses include: public and charter bus parking, transportation 16 Vail Village Master Plan facilities and a limited amount of office and retail activity. Potential changes to the character of these uses would be the introduction of other public purpose activities such as a visitor center, performing arts center, etc. OPEN SPACE PLAN Four different classifications of open space are indicated on the Open Space Plan. The types of open space vary from greenbelt natural open space to the more urbanized open space created by the Village's numerous public plazas. While the role of each of these forms of open space varies, they all contribute to the recreational, aesthetic, and environmental features of the Village. For the purposes of this Plan, open space is defined as conditions at the existing natural grade of the land. The following further defines each of these four types of open space: Greenbelt Natural Open Space: Greenbelt Natural Open space is designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas from the development of structures and to preserve open space in its natural state. Areas designated as Greenbelt Natural Open Space are dominated on the south by undeveloped portions of Vail Mountain adjacent to the Village. Stream tracts in the Village are also designated as Greenbelt Natural Open Space. Development in these areas is limited to recreation related amenities such as ski base facilities, pedestrian walkways, bikeways, and passive recreation areas. Parks: Parks occur on publicly owned or leased land and are developed to varying degrees. A. Ford Park is a major park facility located at the easterly edge of the Village. It provides recreational activity for the entire community with a variety of developed improvements, including structures, and less developed open areas. B. Active Recreation areas such as tennis courts and tot lots provide opportunities for specific recreational activity on sites with developed improvements. C. A number of pocket parks are either existing or planned throughout Vail Village. Pocket parks provide valuable open space for both active and passive recreation as well as contrast from the built environment. Planted Buffers: Planted buffers provide visual relief from roadways and surface parking areas and establish entry ways into the Village. Buffers indicated on this Plan are important landscape features and should generally be preserved. Plazas with Greenspace: Plazas with greenspace are "urban open space." They contribute significantly to the streetscape fabric of the Village. Formed in large part by the buildings and spaces around them, plazas with greenspace provide relief from the built environment, a place for people to gather or relax, areas for special entertainment or other activities and possible location for landscaping, water features, benches and public art. PARKING AND CIRCULATION PLAN The Parking and Circulation Plan recognizes the established pattern of parking and circulation throughout Vail Village. The parking and circulation system is an important element in maintaining the pedestrianized character of the Village. This is accomplished by limiting vehicular access at strategic points, while allowing for necessary operations such as bus service, loading/delivery and emergency vehicle access. The Town's bus system is crucial to controlling and limiting vehicular access to Vail Village. The bus system greatly reduces the reliance on private automobiles, resulting in a reduction of vehicular traffic in the Village's pedestrianized areas. 17 Vail Village Master Plan Aesthetic, as well as functional considerations are important to the Village's circulation system. A long standing goal for the Village has been to improve the pedestrian experience through the development of a continuous network of paths and walkways. As a result, the irregular street pattern in the Village has been enhanced with, numerous pedestrian connections linking "plazas with greenspace" and other forms of open space. Located in and along this network are most of the Village's retail and entertainment activities. While the majority of the circulation system within the Village is in place, a number of major improvements are proposed to reinforce and increase existing pedestrian connections, facilitate access to public land along stream tracts, and further reduce vehicular activity in the core area. BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN Generally speaking, it is the goal of this Plan to maintain -the concentration of low scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the Frontage Road), as depicted in the Building Height Profile Plan. This pattern has already been established and -in some cases these larger structures along, the Frontage Road serve to frame views over Vail Village to Vail Mountain. The Building Height Plan also strives, in some areas, to preserve major views from public right-of-ways. Building heights greatly influence the character of the built environment in the Village. This is particularly true in the Village Core where typical building heights of three to four stories establish a pleasing human scale. The building heights expressed on this Illustrative Plan are intended to provide general guidelines. Additional study should be made during specific project review relative to a building's height impact and the streetscape and relationship to surrounding structures. Specific design considerations on building heights are found in the Sub -Area section of this -Plan and in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. ACTION PLAN The Action Plan indicates potential development and improvement projects that would be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Action Plan is a composite of the Land Use, Open Space, Parking and Circulation and Building Height elements. Areas identified by the Plan as having potential for additional development have previously received Town approvals or have been recognized as being consistent with the various elements of the Master Plan. However, the Action Plan is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of improvements, which may occur, or an indication of Town approval for any specific development proposals. The review of any development proposal will be based upon compliance with all relative elements of the Village Master Plan. Numerical references found on the Action Plan map refer to more detailed descriptions of proposed improvements, located in the Sub -area section of this Plan. These descriptions provide a detailed account of the goals, objectives, and design considerations relative to each of the development and improvement projects. Graphic representation of improvement projects on the Action Plan are not intended to represent design solutions. Sub -area concepts, applicable goals, objectives, and policies of this Plan, zoning standards and design considerations outlined in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan are the criteria for evaluating any development proposal. Furthermore, private covenants exist in many areas of Vail Village and should be a consideration addressed between a developer and other applicable private property owners. 18 Vail Village Master Plan L o. IAN �411 7 il!'. Itfl If 19 Vail Village Master Plan 20 V, it Village Master Plan zz r. Z- I p -9*7 21 rV —CYMVn 21 Vail Village Master Plan Ott �• ; i�� A6 1�j cv Al d Pia J �l :l l Vail Village Master Plan 0 LIN 0 0 oG w C� a z 0 cc U- 2 2 cc LL 0 a J w W cc 0 0 0 U W_ 0 "I 46 0 23 III z�6 o�66 1 �_�� - < m=� z 0 U w w cc 0 w t� J J z_ t!a a 0 z O 5 m Vail Village Master Plan sem. �. NiAl! i - r i i l r r t •'i''I'�irlr'i ji. 1 • r" - r sem. �. NiAl! i - r i i r r t •'i''I'�irlr'i ji. i ���• j �+il��'Mi r3� � '' r P7 � f rhe l oil J lfr 1 . �'�r .i. it ■ 5 24 i Vail Village Master Plan VII. VAIL VILLAGE SUB -AREAS A major goal of this Plan is to address the Village as a whole and at the same time be sensitive to the opportunities and constraints that may exist on a site specific basis. To facilitate long range planning unique to each area of the Village, ten different sub -areas are delineated in this Plan. Sub -areas were determined based on a number of different considerations. Foremost among these were: • design and site characteristics • geographic or physical boundaries • land uses and ownership patterns Each of the ten sub -areas have been evaluated relative to the overall goals, objectives, and policies outlined for Vail Village. The potential improvement projects, referred to as sub -area concepts, which have emerged from this evaluation are graphically represented on the Action Plan. These sub -area concepts are physical improvements intended to reinforce the desired physical form of the Village as outlined in the various elements of the Master Plan. The 10 sub -areas (which follow), provide detailed descriptions of each sub -area concept and express the relationship between the specific sub -area concepts and the overall Plan. The applicable goals and objectives are cited for each of the sub area concepts at the end of each description under "special emphasis." The sub -area concepts described in this Section are meant to serve as advisory guidelines for future land use decisions by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council. Compliance with the sub -area concepts does not assure development approval by the Town. It is important to note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for those proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Plan. The Urban Design Guide Plan includes additional design detail that is to be used in conjunction with the Vail Village Master Plan sub -area concepts. 25 Vail VillaQe Master Plan EAST FRONTAGE ROAD SUB -AREA (#9) The East Frontage Road Sub -Area is comprised of condominium and time share residential development. This sub -area is unique in that its access is directly off of the Frontage Road. causing |Ude vehicular impact on other areas of the Village. Large areas of surface parking VvbhiD the sub- area provide the opportunity for additional R*e|denUa| infill development. Given proper attention to design consk1aratiunG, this mUb-an3o could provide additional density within do0a proximity to the Village none. At the present t|rne, the sub -area is separated from the Village core by Gore Creek. This sub -area has a pedestrian connection with the Village and Fond Park -via the Village StnearnVva|k. Asidewalk along the Frontage Road should be constructed to improve pedestrian safety and further connect the Village parking structure to Fond Pmrk, The area between buildings and Gone Creek must beimproved b3enhance natural environment. #9-1 Parking Lot Infill Residential infill over existing surface parking. Height of building to be limited so as to not impede vhaVx corridors from the frontage road (and Interstate 70to the Village and Vail Mountain. Mass of buildings to Step back from the Frontage Road to pnevantsun/ahade impacts on the road. Satisfying parking demand on site will necessitate structured parking. A substantial landscape buffer shall be provided between any new development and the Frontage Road vv|thqWt jeopardizing future frontage road inlpFOx8rDeD(s. Special emphasis on 1.2. 2.3, 2.8, 3.1' 51 Obiective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Policy 1.2.1: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Policy 1.2._2, Development and improvement projects shall be coordinated to minimize the unintended negative consequences associated with construction activity in a pedestrianized, commercial area. For instance, the noise abatement, project completion guarantees, temporary parking, traffic control, etc. Objective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Policy 2.3.1: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. Objective 2.6: Encourage the development of employee housing units in Vail Village through the efforts of the private sector. Policy 2.6.11: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. Policy 2.6.2: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. Policy 2.6.3: The Town of Vail may facilitate in the development of affordable housing by providing appropriate assistance. Policy 2.6.4: Employee housing shall be developed in the Village when required by the Town's adopted Zoning Regulations. 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 3.1.1. Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. Qbiective a* Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. Policy 3.4.1: Physical improvements to property adjacent to stream tracts shall not further restrict public access. Policy 3.4.2: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. Policy 3.4.3: The "privatization" of the town -owned Gore Creek stream tract shall be strongly discouraged. Policy 3.4.4: Encroachment of private improvements on the town -owned Gore Creek stream tract shall be prohibited. Policy 3.4.5: The Town shall require the removal of existing improvements constructed without the Town's consent within the town -owned Gore Creek stream tract. Obiective 5.4: Improve the streetscape circulation corridors throughout the Village. Policy 6.4.1: The Town shall work with the Colorado Division of Highways toward the implementation of a landscaped boulevard and parkway along the South Frontage Road. Policy 6.4.2: Medians and right -of -ways shall be landscaped. Obiective 6.11: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Vail Town Council c/o Jonathan Spence,AICP Senior Planner,Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear PEC and Town Council members: New workforce housing in Vail Village?A resounding YES from members of the newly formed Eagle County Workforce Housing Coalition! We are very pleased to support the Mountain View Residence Phase II project and the developer's application for a Special Development District in Vail. It is clearthat our workforce housing crisis requires a multi -pronged approach. We are very much in favor of the 10 livable workforce housing units proposed with this project, recognizing that the town of Vail will reach its ambitious goal of 1,000 deed restricted housing units by taking small bites out of a very large apple. Further, locating these units on the east end of Vail Village and on the in -town bus route will help reducetraffic and parking,making them highly desirable and more environmentally sustainable. We believe demand for these units,that also include dedicated parking, will be tremendous. Finally, a public-private partnership such as this that requires no financial investment from taxpayers is a win for everyone. Seeking creative solutions to the housing problem that plagues every municipality and business owner in Eagle County is the waywe will collectively solve it. We must look for ways to increase the numberof workforce housing units at every opportunity. We urgeyou to approvethis well -considered plan in a timely fashion so that construction can begin this fall. Respectfully, PE CO ��ne C', Df - V104�; �� � 81620 May 15, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission Town Council c/o Jonathan Spence, AICP Senior Planner, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Spence, PEC and Town Council Members: As a member of the Workforce Housing Coalition, I am writing you today to ask for your approval on the Mountain View Residences Phase 11 SDD application. The Workforce Housing Coalition is a very large group of engaged business owners, employees, elected officials and other concerned Eagle County residents who are looking for ways to address our housing crisis. One of our recent topics of discussion was the value of public-private partnerships in addressing this crisis. I believe this project with its 10 workforce housing apartments paid for completely by the developer is a perfect example of a public-private partnership. We must be prepared to make some accommodations for developers to be successful if we want them to build more than the required square footage of EHUs. I support this project 100% and see it beautifying our view of Vail from the highway. Sincerely, Jeff Morgan Associate Broker Ron Byrne & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street Vail CO 81657 WENDY E. WEIGLER wweigler�4wlpplaw. com www.cohoalaw.com May 17, 2017 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Tyrolean Condominium Association Special Development District for Vail Mountain View Residences Dear Members of the Commission: Winzenburg, Leff, Purvis & Payne, LLP represents the Tyrolean Condominium Association ("Tyrolean"). I had the opportunity to attend the April 24, 2017 Commission meeting, along with Tom Saalfeld of Ptarmigan Management, who briefly addressed the Commission. We appreciated the thoughtful consideration given by the Commission and we share many of the concerns raised by the Commission. The proposed development of Phase II of Vail Mountain View Residences ("Phase IP'), in our opinion, has the greatest impact on the Tyrolean building, as the neighboring property. The Tyrolean and its owners formally object to the application of Gore Creek Group, LLC for a Special Development District ("SDD"), submitted on March 27, 2017 (the "Application"). Tyrolean is the condominium association for the Tyrolean Condominiums, consisting of nine (9) residential units and four (4) parking space units, which was originally developed in 1981. When Phase I of Vail Mountain View Residences was developed in 2008, Tyrolean was not notified and had no opportunity to be heard or object to the parking structure constructed directly next to the Tyrolean. Although the permitted design requirement for the garage was a "subterranean" parking structure, the parking structure actually looms 25 feet above ground on the west side that borders the Tyrolean, as reflected in Pictures 1 and 2. Focused on Communities 8020 Shaffer Parkway, Suite 300 Littleton„ Colorado 80127 303.863.1870 Fax 303.863.1872 WWinzenburg Leff Purvis & Payne, LLP May 17, 2017 Page 3 of 7 Picture 2 — 2nd Floor Deck It is our understanding that the parking structure was constructed in such a manner that would support an additional building above it, again, without notice to Tyrolean or any opportunity to be heard. The approval of the parking structure alone, let alone Phase II, substantially impaired the Tyrolean owners' use and enjoyment of their property, constituting a de facto taking of property. The Application includes a letter from Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek Owners' Association ("Phase I"), stating that, pursuant to its governing documents, the consent of the Association is not required for the proposed expansion and development. However, the Town of Vail Code (the "Code"), at WWinzenburg Leff Purvis & Payne, LLP May 17, 2017 Page 4 of 7 Chapter 9, Article A, Section 12-9A-3, requires that the Application include "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the special development district, or their agents or authorized representatives." Despite what the governing documents of Phase I say, written consent of the owners within Phase I is a requirement under the Code. The Application fails to meet this requirement. Because the proposed development is located within the High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District, the Application is required to comply with the underlying HDMF zoning, as set forth in Chapter 6, Article H of the Code, in addition to the design criteria for an SDD, as set forth in Chapter 9, Article A. The SDD criteria requires conformity with the Vail Village Master Plan. These three standards — HDMF, SDD and Master Plan — are addressed in turn. A. UNDERLYING HDMF ZONING 1. Building Height. The most significant deviation requested in the Application, and that most affects Tyrolean, is the increase in building height from the Code requirement of 48 feet for a sloping roof, to 71.9 feet. A building almost 24 feet above the maximum height would wall in several units in Tyrolean, block views and create significant shade onto Tyrolean. Picture 3 — 3rd Floor Deck WWinzenburg Leff Purvis & Payne, LLP May 17, 2017 Page 5 of 7 2. Densily. The next significant deviation in the Application is the increase from the Code maximum of 32 dwelling units to 45.5 dwelling units for the combined Phase I and Phase II, which does not include the proposed 9 Employee Housing Units (EHU). Although the EHU are not counted in the Code's density calculations, the reality is that they certainly will impact the quality of life for Tyrolean owners. The proposal to have all of the EHU and hotel units on the first and second floors, which are the floors closest to Tyrolean, will have a dramatic impact on Tyrolean, in terms of noise level and foot traffic. Similarly, the deviation in gross residential floor area (GRFA) from the Code's maximum of 42,871 square feet to 79,548 square feet — almost twice the Code maximum — will have an irrevocable impact on Tyrolean for the same reasons. B. SDD DESIGN CRITERIA 1. Compatibility. The Application does not reflect design compatibility and sensitivity to the Tyrolean, as the adjacent property. The Application fails to comply with this standard, and simply seeks approval based on the argument that there have been similar deviations approved in the Town of Vail. 2. Relationship. The Application fails to establish that the proposed uses, activity and density are compatible with the surrounding uses and activity, namely the Tyrolean. Tyrolean's 9 wholly owned units would not have a workable relationship with Phase II's 12 for -sale units, with 6 lock -offs, 9 EHU and 21 hotel rooms. The proposed density is not at all similar to the Tyrolean, as represented in the Application. C. CONFORMITY WITH MASTER PLAN 1. Goal 92. The Application cites Objective 2.3 of Goal 92 and states that Phase II will increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. However, the Application shows that participation in a short term rental program is voluntary for the 12 dwelling units. There is no way to predict whether the owners of those units would participate in the rental program. Additionally, the Application fails to explain whether the hotel units will be deed -restricted, to guarantee availability for short term rental. The Application, therefore, is not necessarily consistent with Objective 2.3. 2. Goal #5. The Application cites Objective 5.1 of Goal #5, which is to meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. The existing parking structure has 112 parking spaces, the excess of which have been available for lease to the public. The parking requirements for Phase II will use up all of the excess parking spaces, resulting in no available parking for the public. Therefore, Phase II is not consistent with Objective 5.1 and WWinzenburg Leff Purvis & Payne, LLP May 17, 2017 Page 6 of 7 may actually create more demand for parking, if the parking spaces being leased are no longer available. 3. Building Height. The Application is inconsistent with the Building Height Plan, which anticipated a limit of 4 stories for this property. Phase II will be 5 stories, with the ground floor already elevated at least 10 feet. If mechanical components are located on the roof, it will be even higher. The result will be an inordinately tall building that is not consistent with the Building Height Plan. Picture 4 — Ground Level WWinzenburg Leff Purvis & Payne, LLP May 17, 2017 Page 7 of 7 In summary, the Application seeks such significant deviations that it all but ignores the standards set forth for HDMF, SDD and in the Master Plan. As pointed out by the Commission, the existing zoning is in place for a reason. The applicant's suggestions that the zoning is inappropriate and should be changed, and that other developments had deviations so this one should as well, do not further the Master Plan or the development objectives of the Town. The negatives of Phase II clearly outweigh the potential public benefits. As such, Tyrolean respectfully requests that the Commission decline to approve the Application. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, WiNzENBuRG, LEn', PuRvIs & PAYNE, LLP WENDY E. WEIGLER cc: Jonathan Spence, Senior Planner Tyrolean Condominium Association c% Ptarmigan Management May 15, 2017 The Vail Town Council Vail Planning & Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mayor Chapin, Council Members and PEC members: I'm writing to voice my support for the proposed Mountain View Residences Phase II development. I believe the project brings a good balance of hot beds and employee housing units along with the additional new condominiums. Also, Vail and all of Eagle County continue to desperately need livable workforce housing, especially located close to our largest employment centers. Having the proposed 2 -bedroom apartments for rent in Vail Village and on the in -town bus route will be a positive addition to our town and will help to fill a crucial need. It is my opinion that this project brings numerous public benefits to the east end of Vail Village and I urge you to approve it. Thank you for your time, and for your dedication to the town of Vail. Sincerely, Stan Cope Gemini Resort Management Lodge Tower Vail Mountain Lodge Residences at Solaris APOLLO PARK AT VAIL HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION 8547 E. Arapahoe Road, #J542 Greenwood Village, CO 80112-1456 303-690-6038 - 303-690-6511 FAX May 15, 2017 Jonathan Spence, AICP Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Via e mail: jspence@vailgov.com Dear Mr. Spence: As President of the Apollo Park at Vail Homeowners' Association, I write to notify you that our Board of Directors has reviewed the plans for Mountain View Residences Phase II. We will not oppose the plans as presented. Sincerely, David J. Zessin, President Apollo Park at Vail DJZ:an East West Destination Hospitality May 15, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission Town Council c/o Jonathan Spence, AICP Senior Planner, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear PEC and Town Council Members: I am in favor of Phase II of the Mountain View Residences currently before the town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. As the general manager of a neighboring property, I believe this project will go a long way toward enhancing the Golden Peak area. In addition to the workforce housing units, I am excited to see new and modern hotel and condominium inventory proposed for this location. It will bring much needed activity and vibrancy to our end of the village. Please approve this project. Thank you, - Derek Schmidt General Manager, The Wren 500 South Frontage Road 1 Vail, Colorado 81657 Phone: 970.476.0052 1 Fax: 970.476.4103 April 11, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission Town Council c/o Jonathan Spence, AICP Senior Planner, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear PEC and Town Council Members: Vail Valley Medical Center WWW.VVMC.COM 181 West Meadow Drive, Vail, CO 81657 PO Box 40,000, Vail, CO 81658 On behalf of Vail Valley Medical Center, I am writing to you to voice our support for the proposed Mountain View Residences Phase 2 project, As you are likely aware, it is a challenge for VVMC and most all employers to find available housing in the Vail Valley, especially in Vail. We were encouraged to see the plans for the second phase of the Mountain View Residences include nine functional and livable EHUs, on the periphery of Vail Village and on the in -town bus route. A project like this and other projects of its kind are important for employers' staff, particularly mid to upper level managers and professionals so they have the opportunity to both work and live in Vail. More projects like this are seriously needed in Vail and will help assist employers in hiring and retaining quality staff who will continue to provide critical services to residents and guests of Vail. We view this project as yet another step forward in Vail's plan to acquire 1,000 deed -restricted workforce -housing units, without spending a dime of taxpayer dollars. We hope you'll consider this critical public benefit as the Mountain View project moves through the town's approval process. We urge you to approve this project in as timely a manner as your schedules and processes allows. Respectfully, i eik �S Smith gth Chief Administrative Officer Vail Valley Medical Center T. wall racy POR TOIRSMIPI May 15, 2017 Vail Planning & Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear PEC members: A� of Cha-brr of Con.*xrcc FxavKv" 2016 Chamber of the Year Vail Valley Partnership (VVP) is the regional chamber of commerce representing Eagle County, Colorado. Our organization has over 840 member organizations, representing over 80% of the local workforce within the valley. As you are aware, the Mountain View project proposes both a mid-range hotel product and much needed workforce housing, both of which are aligned our list of community priorities. As such, the Vail Valley Partnership encourages your committee to move forward with the proposed Mountain View project and we look forward to continuing discussions to give our full and enthusiastic endorsement. We feel this project addresses several critical issues facing Vail and Eagle County: The dire need for deed -restricted workforce housing with 10 deed restricted apartments Mid -priced, or entry-level, lodging options with 19 units Through our lens of economic vitality and business success, this project is exactly what is needed in Eagle County. The project's location within the town of Vail and in close proximity to the Vail Village commercial core is another plus. We believe it is important to provide housing within developed areas and within easy access to transit and close to jobs. This is a good example of appropriate in -fill and is similar to other projects along the Frontage Road. Additionally, we believe now is the time to take bold steps to address the needs of the Vail community, both business and residential, relative to both workforce housing and addressing entry-level lodging options. This project checks every box and does so with a thoughtful and impressive design, careful consideration of the surrounding neighborhood, and located in the highly desirable town of Vail. This type of project is a win for Vail as far as the Vail Valley Partnership is concerned. . We strongly and respectfully urge the members of town council to consider the many public benefits of this project as it moves through the approval process. Best regards, Chris Romer President & CEO Vail Valley Partnership PO Box 1130, Vail, CO 81658 Vai1ValleyPartnership.com / VisitVailValley.com / Vai1ValleyMeansBusiness.com / VailonSale.com TOWN OF VA10 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May22, 2017 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of two (2) variances in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. These variances include: (1) a variance from Section 12-6F-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of an addition with a fourteen foot (14') rear setback where twenty feet (20') is required; and (2) a request for the review of a variance from Section 14-10-4-B Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, to allow a deck within five feet (5) of grade with a three foot, nine inch (3',9") setback where ten feet (10') is required, located at 4718 Meadow Drive Unit B-4, Bighorn Townhouses Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0011) ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC 17-0011 _Staff_Memo. pdf Attachment A_Vicinity_Map.pdf Attachemnt B Applicant_s_Narrative.pdf Attachment C_Photos_Part 1.pdf Attachment C_Photos_Part 2.pdf Attachment D Archtectural_Plans.pdf Description Staff Memorandum Attachment A Vicinity Map Attachment B Applicant's Narrative Attachment C Part 1 Attachment C Part 2 Attachment D Archtrectural Plans kt rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 22, 2017 SUBJECT: A request for the review of two (2) variances in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. These variances include: (1) a variance from Section 12-6F-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of an addition with a fourteen foot (14') rear setback where twenty feet (20') is required; and (2) a request for the review of a variance from Section 14-10-4-B Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, to allow a deck within five feet (5') of grade with a three foot, nine inch (3',9") setback where a ten foot (10') setback is required, located at 4718 Meadow Drive Unit B-4, Bighorn Townhouses Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17- 0011) Applicant: Sharon M. Bernardo Trust, represented by GPSL Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicant, Sharon M. Bernardo Trust, represented by GPSL Architects, requests the review of two (2) variances in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. These variances include: (1) a variance from Section 12-6F- 6 Setbacks, to allow for construction of an addition with a fourteen foot (14') rear setback where twenty feet (20') is required; and (2) a request for the review of a variance from Section 14-10-4-B Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., to allow a deck within five feet (5') of grade with a three foot, nine inch (3',9") setback where a ten foot (10') setback is required, located at 4718 Meadow Drive Unit B- 4, Bighorn Townhouses Subdivision. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of this application, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. A vicinity map (Attachment A), the applicant's narrative (Attachment B), property photos (Attachment C) and proposed architectural plans (Attachment D) are attached for review. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Sharon M. Bernardo Trust, represented by GPSL Architects, is requesting two (2) variances pursuant to Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. These variances include: (1) a variance from Section 12-6F-6 Setbacks, to allow for construction of a two-story addition with a fourteen foot (14') rear setback where twenty feet (20') is required; and (2) a request for the review of a variance from Section 14-10-4- B Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., to allow a deck within five feet (5') of grade with a three foot, nine inch (3',9") setback where a ten foot (10') setback is required. The subject property, located in the Low Density Multiple - Family Zone District, is a two-story townhome originally built in 1969 under Eagle County jurisdiction. III. BACKGROUND The Bighorn Townhouses construction was completed in 1969 and the associated plat was approved by the Eagle County Commissioners and recorded in 1968. The property was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. Upon incorporation into the Town of Vail, the Bighorn Townhouses were zoned Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF) District with corresponding required rear and side setbacks of ten feet (10'). Ordinance No. 50, Series 1978, increased the required side setback in the Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF) District to twenty feet (20'), resulting in the required setback for a ground level deck being increased from five (5) to ten feet.(10'). This ordinance increased setback requirements in all residential zone districts existing at that time. The entirety of the Bighorn Townhouses property was previously impacted by the red avalanche hazard (high severity) which prohibited any expansion of the existing units. The Vail Town Council, via Resolution No. 5, Series of 2014, approved an amendment to the hazard map that removed the property from all hazards. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Vail Land Use Plan (in part) CHAPTER ll: LAND USE PLAN GOALS /POLICIES (in part) The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through 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: 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. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part) ARTICLE 12-6F: LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE -FAMILY (LDMF) DISTRICT (in part) 12-6F-1: The low density multiple -family district is intended to provide sites for single- family, two-family and multiple -family dwellings at a density not exceeding nine (9) dwelling units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The low density multiple -family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with low density occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards 12-6F-6: Setbacks: In the LDMF district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20). CHAPTER 12-17: 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. CHAPTER 14-10-4: ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS, DECKS, BALCONIES, STEPS, BAY WINDOWS, ETC (in part) 14-10-4 C. Balconies, decks, terraces, and other similar unroofed features projecting from a structure at a height of more than five feet (5) above ground level may project not more than five feet (5) nor more than one-half (1/2) the minimum required dimension into a required setback area, or may project not more than five feet (5) nor more than one- fourth (1/4) the minimum required dimension into a required distance between buildings. A balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be deemed a roof for the lower balcony or deck. V. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 4718 Meadow Drive, Unit B-4 Legal Description: Tract B, Bighorn Townhouses, Unit B-4 Zoning: Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF) District Land Use Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Current Land Use: Multi -Family Residential Geological Hazards: None (Formerly impacted by avalanche hazard prior to hazard map amendment) Standard Allowed / Required LDMF Existing Proposed Site Area Min. 10,000 sq. ft. 48,458 sq. ft. (1.112 No Change acres) Front — 20' Front — 20' Front — 20' Setbacks Side — 20' Side(W) — 20' Side(W) — 20' Rear — 20' Side(E) — 20' Side(E) — 3'9" Rear — 20' Rear — 20' Height Flat or Mansard Roof — 35' Sloping Roof — 23' Sloping Roof — 23' Sloping Roof — 38' 9 DUs/ per acre of buildable 8 DUs No change Density site area, or 10 units on a 1.112 acre parcel. GRFA Max. 44/100 Buildable Site 1,612 sq. ft.* 2,201 sq. ft.* Area or 21,321 sq. ft. * Site Coverage Max. 35% of site area 6,608 2,472 sq. ft. 3,060 sq. ft. sq. ft. based on Tract B Parking/Loading :52,000 GRFA=2 spaces 17 Required ±20 spaces 2_2,000 GRFA= 2.5 spaces Landscaping Min. 40% of site area 7,552 86% (16,299 sq. ft.) 84% (15,982 sq. ft.) sq. ft. based on Tract B *The Bighorn Townhouses HOA has allocated GRFA based on a combination of lot and unit size in relation to additional GRFA that was available following the hazard map amendment. The proposed addition is allowable with the inclusion of an eligible 250 GRFA addition. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use North: Multi -family Residential South: US Forest Service East: Open Space West: Multi -family Residential VII. REVIEW CRITERIA Zoning District Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF) None Outdoor Recreation (Designated Open Space) Residential Cluster The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed addition and deck affords the applicant the same opportunities as the other units in the Bighorn Townhouses complex that were constructed a greater distance from the property lines. The proposed addition and deck will have no effect on other existing or potential uses and structures. Therefore, Staff finds this proposal will not negatively affect the other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity in comparison to existing conditions. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and 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 a grant of special privilege. The original home was constructed under Eagle County jurisdiction in 1969. It is unknown what, if any, setback regulations were in effect at that time. The home was subsequently zoned Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF) District upon annexation into the Town of Vail in 1974. Potential development was further restricted in January of 1979 when the side setback was increased in the Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF) District from ten feet (10') to twenty feet (20'). The subject property, unlike other homes in the Bighorn Townhouses complex, is situated in close proximity to the rear and side property lines, a result of the triangular nature of the lot. As such, these variances are necessary to pursue similar building activities on the subject property. In contrast to demo/rebuild where compliance with today's standards is required and expected, the circumstances related to this property, namely the proximity of existing construction to the south east property line as a result of the unusual lot shape in tandem with the imposition of regulations after the home was constructed, warrant relief. The proposed addition and deck will improve the functionality and value of the home, an upgrade supported by Land Use Plan Goal 1.3. Staff believes the proposed variances are consistent with the goals of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and purposes of the Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF) District as identified in Section IV of this memorandum. In order not to result in a grant of special privilege, staff has recommended a condition of approval that all improvements meet a minimum setback of five feet (5'), the required setback upon annexation. Although the adjacent property is Town -owned designated open space, staff believes a minimum five foot (5') setback is warranted so as not to result in a grant of special privilege and to maintain a reasonable separation between the improvements and the users of the adjacent property. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed relief from the setback regulations is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity and to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege, as conditioned. 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. The proposed variances will facilitate an addition and deck within the side setback that will not alter population; will not affect any existing transportation or traffic facilities, public facilities, or utilities; and will not affect public safety in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed variances conform to 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 approval, with conditions, for variances from Section 12-6F-6, Setbacks, and Section 14-10-4-B Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of an addition with a fourteen foot (14') rear setback where twenty feet (20') is required and a deck within five feet (5') of grade with a three foot, nine inch (3',9") setback where a ten foot (10') setback is required, located at 4718 Meadow Drive Unit B-4, Bighorn Townhouses Subdivision., and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve these variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicants' request for variances from Section 12-6F-6, Setbacks, and Section 14-10-4-B Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of an addition with a fourteen foot (14) rear setback where twenty feet (20) is required and a deck within five feet (5) of grade with a three foot, nine inch (3',9') setback where a ten foot (10)setback is required, located at 4718 Meadow Drive Unit B-4, Bighorn Townhouses Subdivision., and setting forth details in regard thereto. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve theseis variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall revise the plans prior to building permit submittal to demonstrate a five foot (5) setback for all proposed improvements including, but not limited to, the deck stairs and hot tub. 2. Approval of these variances is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve theseis variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon a review of Section Vll of the May 22, 2017 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- The inds: The granting of these variances will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF) District. 2. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. These variances are warranted for the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variances that do not apply generally to other properties in the Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF) District. 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 Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF) District. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Narrative C. Photos D. Architectural Plans O4q- / ooh ap 1 �f -;. ft.-. a A Town of Vail Planning and environmental Commission c/o Town of Vail Community Development Department 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 April 25, 2017 Members of the PEC: The Bighorn Townhomes were completed in the late 1960's. The development site was comprised of Parcels A, B, C and D along with a fifth parcel designated as the "parking easement". The existing homes sit on parcels A and B. In 1975, the first avalanche study of the area placed much of the site in either the blue or red hazard zones, rendering the remaining parcels unbuildable. In 1990, a report by Art Mears, pulled the hazard boundaries back somewhat, but by then, Parcels C and D had been conveyed to the TOV and designated as Open Space. A 2011 study by Mr. Mears, based on updated observations and calculations pushed the Hazard zones well back up the hill and away from this property. The zoning classification for Parcels A and B (now called Tracts A and B) is LDMF. Under this zoning, allowable GRFA is calculated at 44% of the "buildable area" of the site. By removing the hazard zones from the property, the buildable area on Tracts A and B increased to the full area of each lot; from 24,558 sf to 33,510 sf. Even though Tract B was the primary beneficiary of the change in the hazard report by Mr Mears, the HOA has agreed that the windfall GRFA will be divided among all 8 property owners based on the relative size of their deeded lots. Lot B-4 is 4,656 sf or 13.89% of the total combined area for tracts A and B (24.7% of Tract B). This results in an increase in the allowable GRFA for lot B-4 of 547.1 sf over the pre 2011 allowable. At some point lot B-4 also took advantage of the "250" rule. Based on past procedure at the TOV, the approval for the additional 250 sf evaporates when additional allowable GRFA is found that exceeds 250 sf. However, in order not to penalize the Owner of Lot 4 relative to the windfall GRFA, a new "250" will need to be approved. Lot 4 in Tract B is a triangular shaped lot. The north edge is encumbered with a 10'-6" access easement that allows the other three owners in the 4-plex access to their units. The west side is the zero lot line party wall with unit #3. The other remaining property line is encumbered with a 3' pedestrian easement. The 20' property setback required in the LDMF zone district also runs along this property line which borders what is now the TOV owned open space. GPSL ARCHITECTS, P.C. 953 S. Frontage Road West, Suite 230 ■ Vail, CO 81657 ■ tel: 970.476.1 147 info@gpslarchitects.com ■ www.gpsiarchitects.com PEC Variance request letter- April 25, 2017 page 2 Therefore, the nature of lot B-4 is such that an addition to the 2 story existing unit can only go on the east side or the south side. Unfortunately, the property setback line is very close to the existing SE corner of the building so any addition in either direction would unavoidably encroach into the setback. The HOA has previously denied the applicant permission to expand eastward due to the visual impacts it would have on the other units on the property. This leaves southward expansion as the only option. We are seeking a variance from the PEC to allow construction a distance of 6'-0" into the rear setback. In accordance with section 12-17-1 of the Vail Town Code, there are many practical difficulties and physical hardships on this lot that warrant relief from strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the Town Code: 1. The fact that the buildings were sited and built prior to TOV zoning and therefore prior to the imposition of setbacks. 2. The triangular shape of the lot and the loss of buildable area due to the outsized impact of the 20' property setback. (The setback reduces buildable lot area by 47.5%.) 3. The access easement to the north removes an additional 15% of the lot's buildable area leaving an even smaller triangular buildable area. Net buildable area on this lot is only 36.8% of the lot. 4. The denial by the HOA of building expansion to the east (a variance would be necessary to build there too). 5. The property rear setback running across the lot backs up to open space instead of neighboring residential units. And finally, we are also seeking a variance for relief from section 14-10-4, B. For the same reasons stated above, the lot does not allow significant accessible space adjacent to the building to construct an exterior deck that is within 5' of grade. To minimize the degree of relief needed, we are asking only that the existing spa tub and adjacent stairs down to grade be allowed to extend deeper than 10' into the rear setback. Before acting on a variance application, the PEC shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Applicant response: The entire SE property line of Bighorn Townhome Tract B borders Town of Vail owned open space which extends southward onto the mountain. Other than the unit on Lot 3, which is already shifted well to the north relative to the existing unit on Lot 4, and is therefore not affected by the proposed addition, there are no other neighbors/uses within the immediate vicinity. As for the dedicated open space, there are no other potential uses for this land. PEC Variance request letter- April 25, 2017 page 3 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 a grant of special privilege. Applicant response: The buildings predate the imposition of the zoning and the setbacks that are now imposed on the property. The 20'setback that now runs along the SE property line of the development has a significantly greater impact on Lot 4 than the other lots. Lots 1, 2 and 3 all have adequate room to expand without encroaching into a setback. Lot 4 is a triangular lot, constrained to the north and west by property lines and easements. Any expansion on Lot 4 will quickly encroach into the rear setback. There is unused GRFA available to all lots in the Tract. All Owners in Tract e, except Lot 4, can easily add to their units without the need for a variance. Therefore, the granting of the requested variance is necessary to give the Owner of Lot 4 the some opportunities for using his available GRFA as the other Owners have. Therefore the granting of this variance is not a grant of Special Privelege. The proposed 6' encroachment onto the rear setback is miniscule in proportion to the depth of the open space and is the minimum necessary to allow use of the available GRFA. 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. Applicant response: The requested variance and addition to the existing unit will have no effect on light and air to the neighbors or the open lands to the south. There is no change to the distribution of population as the number of bedrooms in the unit is not proposed to increase. There is no impact on transportation and traffic related to this variance request. There is no impact on public facilities or public utilities. There is no impact on public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Applicant response: These indefinite factors and criteria cannot be responded to in advance. Thank you. v " "NA, r Mr"n M, �! s�7 ��� A t ♦moi m �v.ti r-� a •�� � ,.. � �.,;� ,4 _ �M. r r / �' 4' kdla—+,-.T. .A' �� fir. '✓ - boll ell We � I•i p , } Aw Sit syr ��ft Y El - T !ate P� _. �" � �" ' ��•�' yam'' - `-_ — _ _ s 4w, - . 5-7 YA 71:1,4 . IV &8a 9 l�b�l 'S2WOHNMOi NJOH919 �-gt t -9 11N(1 '��I Ja MOa d�W 12IL-b #e S4gP a m p 011�{d M:IN �N�f NOUI�1f �_ JI���;�, X w Q s o ��mW NO W d J gUNO d �I�i00zz j FK 2'000 FWm22FF � V Q N = V X000000 U d OOCV CVmm <QQQQ4 O h N W w Z v F d ® O�j 2KN W� m W N N Z iJ Q W Z �.m mQo wUO �q �000 d aN V = w p� a��� wo�6 003 w Y--1 Z �N� ZFK V NN�p 2NK6 Nm;O = QOQ6 fmJp F KOK6 Z W ppf y4i;6 z yslg3y`r��p QL �m < r qtr � aN,m w 1w m� o NNpp IIII LU O O qq 9 71C�OO O �I roory OOry m l/ mN K Lu wm O � Q � a � O kk K IaL � w LLIQL� oo N 1 Bo �8 °gm S a8oN� 4 i �LL���g �o� �a ggT ° Bo o° z _o °No o =mo mFg -- �� E s AN t ff�� 0 g 6w z z�N f� �? orcgm m,i > llJ �m� 5aaw �w z��w Q4QQQ0004ro zk- °dao U0�°3°UUUpOwLLLL2dww�� ° X0000 °10 o 0? 0 so��" ii�zy�SZzz�z00 i °Q�uw°zoaw o E �- �rc� o. a ttKKtt� owww o> oo KK u�iE�mmm� N Q N w N ��°QL as °off ��rr Jaz zQ- >>33;;3� Qa'w Z Q m'mpo& QQQQQQQQdm�o3.rd° o� 333380°poLL�LLLL��wi zzudozz°zoo Sw a rcrcrcrcrc rcrc °ss�°ko°°> p � iii 3� E oae�o�oo '�Ien y �8^ 9 l�b�l 'S2WOHNMOi NJOH919 � °¢ gbgt t-9 -LING '��I Ja MOa'd2W 12IL-b �a 0111,71d M:IN �fN1,f NOUI�lf 1,71 J J W Q W O O 8 I �hi I \ ) - � � I � G @-L 2=Wo Nvo N*240H« G # A� 2-g 2 m V6aY:Iw Qz# <|)! Ol±yg t4/\ g\y \Ol±lfgf I �hi I \ ) - � � I � m a 9 1�!U 'S2W0HNMOl NZ40HeIG 85 1€ �s-9 11Nf1 '�nI�Q MOQd�W �dlLb�$9ggra m (� w oil`dd MSN aN`d NOIUIaa'd &me 9 l')'duel 'S2WOHNMOi N*24OHeIG $$� t-9 11N(1 rdlLb p 0111,71d M:IN �fNI,f N0111�lf1,71 WJ (9 M M I . \g £; G y� 2=woHNvo N�oHa G ). ! \ tI § ,)A . ! /H #-G 2 m <§#z; Ol±yg GS\ g\y NOI±lggy . ]` � � 6 m M M i M i Q G G C C d • v x' t rl SUNY G 13 o a N 'N U.ti NY4 Gw O . Q O A G C b U N 6 IL. U z m� sN NY yo L � Z L) d . W J Z b • � � a Q s mYumov U O W m = LJ K O M z o a m i m w O J W Q y U s i Q 02( a I z : _ z I LONG. WPLK �— o a—J:.3.9 I' (n \ 'a0 Ca \ 55 w a lo., N. Q les ptiiA� N.. zz \ z•LII _ Iz :R;4Id Id Ilk z eHEE7 C ff 125 c - i -.—: TOWN OF VA10 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May22, 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 22, 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: ITEM/TOPIC: May 8, 2017 PEC Meeting Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name pec results 050817.pdf Description May 8, 2017 PEC Meeting Results TOWN 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 VA110 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May22, 2017 ITEM/TOPIC: A Brief presentation and discussion by Carly Rietmann, Healthy Aging Program Supervisor on Eagle County's Aging Well Community Planning Initiative. ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Local_Municipalities_Aging_Well_PPT.pdf Presentation AgingWeIIOverviewLetter.pdf Aging Well Program Letter an on 19! rO T O l�^lJ O ct r� r� O ct •� ct O ct ct � O • O ct U� N c bJJ � 4-j U •� U O O � O U � � � W � i o � N O C5 aQ > � U _ 42, V N cz cn ccz �J O N •z, cz � 4-4 o Q czcn m a) 0-0 U) Q O 70 •� O a�cn cn .O cn O — 4-j 70 O •O LL cz U cz cz cn O bIJ -0 b.IJ O 70 O O cn .O � U 70 O c LL cz U C/) cz cz O O 70 O � 24 0 N cz 1 u I i' u i■ W U Ct bQ ,-- . r ct O ,— N M 4 c� O U un a� Q 0 � U i' u i■ W U Ct bQ ,-- . r ct O ,— N M 4 c� • a10 un a� Q i' u i■ W U Ct bQ ,-- . r ct O ,— N M 4 • a10 un ori• a �a Q7. V C y — G 'O U� V N N O 7 0L2 V 5 T NLnp d (n C N Q 0 fl C u u N C7 Q E V C ` C 0 U (o E N `r O Q O �• V V AN ME OEM A N C M20 Y N N Y d c O N 7 d V) c c O d ON n 9 � G E L v E L c E c o C .0 0 4+ CL 'a ? a•� r z O c m V C7 7 w 7 Z 9 �a 4-' � � ' Oma-, 4-, = v� � ct Ct U 00 �+ Q 4-1 U ---1 -d • r c U O T -W � •� U N ct"ct4-J cl 3 ct � c oo c �1ct r -o -4 U - Z a O •• U U cn Cl7 ° ,� • • • a E bA O � a P4 a O N ct U ct O O U O bhp U � U O O .� a O a.� U� bIJ 4--4 o 4-4 ct a� • ct U O U bhp � O a U� o ct a� U H .� .� cd ct a� N ct U c • �--� J •� U •� 4-J ct • bhp aU U •�P-rP��v�U.� U0 0 0 0 ^A l ^O CA T ct T O CA ct O � 4� O O ct a O � y� V� O O 00 a3,--+ 000 N Ct , r --a �--� M 000 00 0O N c C O , M r, 00 O ct 3 O ct , a Aging Well Community Planning and Action Initiative EAGLE COUNTY Public Health Dear Council Member, The overall goal of embarking on an Aging Well Community Planning Initiative is to create systems that allow Eagle County older adults to independently age in place, improve quality of life and reduce health care costs. The fastest population growth in Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin counties will be among residents older than 65. Our region's overall population is projected to almost double between 2010 and 2035. The number of adults age 60 and older is predicted to more than quadruple. Eagle County has already seen rapid growth in the 65+ population since 2000. The 2010 Census shows that the population of people over 65 has increased by 135% since 2000, putting Eagle County third in the state for the greatest growth during that decade. According to the Centers for Disease Control, these increases in the number of people older than 65 may lead to increased health-care costs. Health-care cost per capita for people 65 years old in the United States and other developed countries, is three to five times greater than the cost for people less than 65. Rapid growth in the number of older adults, coupled with continued advances in medical technology, is expected to create upward pressure on health and long-term care spending. Public financing of long-term care is projected to increase 20%-21% between 2000-2020 in the United States. The CDC believes these increases will be less if public health interventions decrease disability among older adults, helping them to live independently. Eagle County Public Health & Environment and community partners are working together to create a long-term community -wide plan that support our growing older population. The plan addresses specific priorities for Eagle County identified by residents since 2015. We've identified existing assets and gaps that need to be addressed to support a thriving community for aging well. This plan includes goals, objectives and action steps set by our steering committee and residents to help us better serve the needs of our older adult community. We hope this presentation clearly presents the work that has been accomplished so far, the work currently being done and we ask for your support to help us along the way. Respectfully, Pat Nolan, Carly Rietmann and Meghan King The Eagle County Aging Well Core Team Ad Name: 12805592A THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33 Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will Vail Daily hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on May 22, 2017 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request for the review of two (2) variances in ac- cordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, PROOF OF PUBLICATION Variances, Vail Town Code. These variances in - clude: (1) a variance from Section 12-6F-6 Set- backs, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of an addition with a fourteen foot (14') rear setback STATE OF COLORADO } where twenty feet w of a required; and S a on quest for the review of a variance from Section 14-10-4-B Architectural Projections, Decks, Balco- 1 SS nies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, I to allow a deck within five feet (5') of grade with a COUNTY OF EAGLE } three foot, nine inch (3',9") setback where ten feet (10') is required, located at 4718 Meadow Drive Unit B-4, Bighorn Townhouses Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified (PEC17-0011) Applicant: Sharon M. Bernardo Trust, represented representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper by GPSL Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence printed, in whole or in part and published in the County A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town of Ea le, State of Colorado, and has a eneral circulation g g Council on an application for encroachments into an existing view corridor, pursuant Section therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously 12-22-6, Encroachments Into Existing Vi ew Corri- Vi cors, Vail Town Code, to allow for encroachments into View Points #1 and #4 for modifications to the and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of Hill Building, located at 254 & 311 Bridge Street /Lot C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and set- more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first ting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0012) Applicant: Mt. Belvedere 45 LLC and 43-45 Riva Ridge LLC, represented by Braun Associates publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and Planner: George Ruther that said news a has ublished the re uested le al notice paper p 1� q g The applications and information about the propos- and advertisement as re uested. q 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. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, Please call 970-479-2138 for additional informa- tion. Sign language interpretation available upon only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home request with 24-hour notification, dial 711. Rule rOVlslon. Published May 5, 2017 in the Vail Daily. 1� (12805592) 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 Ad Name: 12825266A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM Mown Council Chamber Vail Town Council Chambers Your account number is- 1OP2P 33 75S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order Site Visits Vail Daily Gastof Gramshammer - 231 Gore Creek Drive Hill Building - 254 & 311 Bridge Street PROOF OF PUBLICATION 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 STATE OF COLORADO } Building)/Lots C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0010)- 60 min. l SS Applicant: Mt. Belvedere 45 LLC and 43-45 Riva I Ridge LLC, represented by Braun Associates COUNTY OF EAGLE } Planner: George Ruther 3.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on an application for encroachments into I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified an existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6, Encroachments Into Existing View Corri- representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper dors, Vail Town Code, to allow for encroachments into View Points #1 and #4 for modifications to the printed, in whole or in part and published in the County Hill Building, located at 254 & 311 Bridge Street /Lot & L, Block SC, Vail Village Filing 1, and set- of Ea le, State of Colorado, and has a eneral circulation g g o ting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0012) - 60 min. Applicant: Mt. Belvedere 45 LLC 43-45 Riva therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and Ridge LLC, represented by Braun Associates Planner: George Ruther and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of 4.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first Council of an application to establish Special De - velopment District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and g Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice 1� q g the development of a mixed use building consist - da of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommo- and advertisement as requested. dation 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)- 30 min. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Planner: Jonathan Spence 5.A request for the review of two (2) variances in Rule. rovision accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, li Variances, Vail Town Code. These variances include: (1) a variance from Section 12-6F-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was of an addition with a fourteen foot (14') rear setback where twenty feet (20') is required; and published in the regular and entire issue of every (2) a request for the review of a variance from Section 14-10-4-B Architectural Projections, Decks, number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town code, to allow a deck within five feet (5') of grade with a three foot, nine inch (3,9") setback where consecutive insertions; and that the first ublication of said P ten feet is required, located t 4718 Meadow notice was in the issue of said news a er dated 5/19/2017 and p p Drive Unit t B B-4, Bighorn Townhousses Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. 17-0011)- 30 that the last publication of said notice was dated 5/19/2017 in (PECmin. licant: Sharon by GPSL ArchitectsM Bernardo Trust, represented the issue of said newspaper. Planner: Jonathan Spence 6.A request for review of a Variance, pursuant to Section 12-713-16, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, to allow for a In witness whereof, I have here unto set m hand this day, y y reduction in landscape area at the Gasthof 06/13/2017. Gramshammer/Pepi's Restaurant, located at 231 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0009) - 45 min. Applicant:f Gramshammer Inc, represent- ed by Gies Architects /p�/Joh —T, ^ Planner: Matt Panfil 7.Approval of Minutes May 8, 2017 PEC Meeting Results General Man ager/Publisher/Editor Vail Dail 8. Informational Update A Brief presentation and discussion by Carly y Rietmann, Healthy Aging Program Supervisor, on Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for Eagle County's Aging Well Community Planning Initiative. - 20 min. the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 06/13/2017. 9.Adjoumment 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 Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the My Commission expires: November 1, 2019 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 Published in the Vail Daily May 19, 2017 (12825266)