Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-1023 PECE 0PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAILOctober 23, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75S. Frontage Road-Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, John Rediker, and Brian Stockmar Main Agenda A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road (Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek) / Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5, formerly known as part of Lot 1, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Denial First: Gillette Second: Perez Vote: 5-2-0 (Kurz and Stockmar Opposed) Spence introduced the item as being similar to the previously submitted application. The item has returned to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) due to a previous error in the notification procedures. A rezoning application requires all owners within the specific property to be notified rather than just the property management group or homeowners association. Letters from the homeowners association and other individuals have been included with the application. Rediker — Asked Spence if there have been any significant changes since the previous submission. Spence stated that there are no significant exterior changes, but the unit mix within the proposed building has been altered. Rediker asked about the nature of the exterior changes. Spence deferred the question to the applicant. Gillette — Asked about the letter of support from the homeowners association of Phase I and how the homeowners association's opinion has changed from the previous review. Spence deferred to the applicant. Perez — Asked about the Phase I homeowners association's letter reference to "conditional support." Spence deferred to the applicant. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation to the PEC. Since the last appearance before the PEC, the applicant has worked with the Phase I homeowners association to address their comments and concerns. The previous submission included 19 hotel rooms which have been eliminated from the proposal. The suggested conditions of approval have also been modified since the previous plan. The noticeable changes in the unit mix include: an increase from 12 to 15 DUs (Dwelling units), an increase from 15 to 20 AAUs (Attached accommodation units / lockoffs), an increase from 10 EHUs to 15 EHUs (employee housing units), and the removal of the previously proposed 19 AUs (accommodation units). The proposed unit mix revisions comply with the Town Code's minimum required parking spaces. Mauriello reviewed the public benefits associated with the proposal, including an increase to the number of EHUs. Other benefits include: increased number of live beds via the increase in lockoff units, public art, roadway easement, and participation in the Green Globes building sustainability program. Referring to the exterior building elevations, Mauriello described the proposed changes. Referring to the site plan, Mauriello described the proposed changes to the size of the outside deck area and the location of the loading area and pedestrian easement. Mauriello then reviewed the proximity of the proposed structure to the surrounding buildings. The columns on the east side of the structure encroach into the side setback, thus requiring a side setback deviation. Referring to the building's floor plans, Mauriello described the location and quantity of the DUs, EHUs, and AAUs. There is one less parking space than on the previous plan due to the need for additional mechanical equipment. Other deviations include: building height, density, GRFA, and site coverage. Density and GRFA have decreased in non -conformity since the previous plan, but still require deviations. Mauriello provided images from a sun -shade analysis for the proposed structure. Mauriello then discussed the project's relationship to the Tyrolean Condominiums to the west of the property. Mauriello listed all of the variances previously granted to the Tyrolean Condominiums and described the changes made to the proposed structure to help mitigate impacts on the Tyrolean Condominiums. Mauriello concluded by reviewing the nine (9) criteria for approving a Special Development District (SDD) and expressed his belief that the proposal fulfills all of the criteria. In regards to earlier questions from the PEC, Mauriello clarified that the previous approval had a letter from the Phase I homeowners association that permitted the project to go forward, but was not necessarily a letter of support. For this submission, the Phase I homeowners association has provided a letter of support. Hopkins — Asked about the nature of the EHU deed restrictions. Mauriello responded that the EHU deed restrictions are in perpetuity. Hopkins asked what happens when a unit is sold, to which Mauriello responded that the Town of Vail tracks all deed restrictions. Perez, Rediker, and Gillette — Asked for clarification of the proposed building height and how it is measured. Rediker — Asked why there is not a formal development plan in place. He expressed concern about the significant change in the character and nature of the project since the previous approval. Mauriello stated that there is a development plan in the submittal materials. Rediker expressed his opinion that a plan set does not constitute a full development plan. Mauriello stated that the development plan includes all of the required documentation. Rediker asked what conditional uses will be allowed within the SDD. Mauriello responded that the conditional uses would be controlled by the underlying zone district. Rediker expressed concern that the uses approved with this submission could be changed in the future without the PEC's approval. Spence stated that he believed the applicant's plan set and narrative fulfill the requirements for a development plan. Rediker asked for more information about the landscape plan. Spence stated that the review of the landscape plan is the purview of the Design Review Board (DRB). It is the PEC's purview to review the requested deviations against the proposed public benefits. Rediker stated that one of the nine (9) criteria for approval of an SDD specifically references landscaping and therefore wants more information from the applicant regarding the proposed landscaping. George Ruther, Director of Community Development, reminded the PEC that they will be making a recommendation to the Town Council and that the SDD is officially established via ordinance. Mauriello referred to an image of the landscape plan and stated that this proposal has more plantings than the previously approved landscape plan. Mauriello suggested that, if believed to be necessary, the PEC make landscape recommendations to the DRB. Rediker suggested more plantings along the west side of the site. Rediker asked for clarification on the changes to the exterior from the previous approval to the current proposal. Mauriello referenced the images of the building elevations to demonstrate the locations of the proposed changes. Rediker expressed concern about the shading of the sidewalk during certain times of the year. He asked if the sidewalk will be heated. Mauriello stated that the sidewalk is to be moved closer to the structure to allow for future lane adjustments on the South Frontage Road and to provide snow storage. As a result, the sidewalk will now be heated. Rediker asked who will be responsible for maintaining the sidewalk considering some is on Town property and some is on private property. Mauriello stated that the applicant will enter into an agreement to be responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk. Perez — Asked for clarification on the location of the loading dock. Rediker asked how vehicles in the loading zone will be able to maneuver around the site. Mauriello explained that there is a cross access agreement between the subject property and the property to the east. Gillette asked if another egress point for a truck was necessary. Lockman — Asked for clarification on the relationship between the Phase I homeowners association and the applicant. Tom Todd, Attorney for Gore Creek Partners — The applicant has been active in discussion with the neighbors at the Phase I homeowners association and the two parties are working on an agreement. Kerry Wallace, Attorney for Mountain View Residences (Phase 1) —The group has worked with Mr. Todd to address Phase I homeowners association's comments and concerns and are working on completing an agreement between the two parties. Ms. Wallace explained that the letter of support is conditional based upon executing said agreement. In the future Phase I and Phase II will have separate homeowners associations that will work together on certain items. Rediker — Asked if this would result in a legal subdivision of the property. Ms. Wallace stated that her understanding is that it does not require a legal subdivision. Spence concurred with Ms. Wallace. Perez asked if the condo map will be amended. Ms. Wallace confirmed. Gillette — Asked staff who will be required to approve future changes when there are multiple homeowners associations. Public Comment: Pam Keller — Is an original owner of a unit in Phase I and supports the new proposal. David Foster, attorney representing the Tyrolean homeowners association — Stated that the presentation provided is misleading because the owner of the property developed Phase I under the existing HDMF zone district and essentially maxed out the building height and GRFA. By code, there is only 278 square feet of GRFA available. The proposal is essentially the rezoning of a property where people already live. It was the owner's choice to build to the maximum development standards for Phase I in 2008. He believes it is misleading to label Phase II as infill development. He expressed his concern regarding the proposed building height. He is also concerned that the PEC is predisposed to voting a certain way for the project despite the application being considered a new submission. The Tyrolean Condominiums has not been involved in any of the discussions among the applicant and Phase I homeowners association. Mr. Foster questioned the status of the applicant as it appears to have changed since the previous approval. He stated that he does not believe the proposed structure fulfills the nine (9) review criteria for an SDD. There will still be renters coming in every night due to the AAUs (lockoffs), despite the fact that the hotel units have been removed. Mr. Foster discussed the existing non -conforming site coverage on the subject property and that it never received a variance. Mr. Foster stated that there is no conditional use permit for the leasing of parking on the subject property and there is no record of a license or license renewals for the property owner to be able to lease parking spaces. Mr. Foster concluded by reminding the PEC that there is essentially no available space for Phase II and by reviewing the nine (9) SDD review criteria. Mr. Foster believes that the proposal does not comply with the following criteria: (1) compatibility, (2) relationship of uses and density, (3) parking and loading, and (4) conformity with the Town of Vail Master Plan. Mr. Foster stated that the sun shade analysis is misleading because it assumes a 48' tall building can be built in the proposed location, but as the property is out of developable space, no building of any height can be located there. Gillette — Asked if the Tyrolean Condominiums were notified of the new submission. Spence confirmed. Mauriello — Rebutted several comments made by Mr. Foster. Mr. Mauriello's rebuttals included: the belief that the proposal constitutes infill development, the actual height of the building, and the idea that there was a lack of communication with the Tyrolean Condominiums Stockmar — Stated that he is treating this item as a brand new application. The PEC is required to review the nine (9) criteria for establishing an SDD. He has reviewed the criteria and staff's analysis of the criteria. He concurs with staff and will support the proposal. Gillette — Agrees with most of Mr. Foster's analysis. The master plan states there should be development on the property, but it does not state what that type of development should be. He does not believe the public benefit outweighs the deviations required and he does not find the building compatible with the surrounding area. There needs to be a much more significant public benefit for a building 70' tall. Lockman — Thanked the Town for providing a corrected process. Is looking at the application as a brand new application. Lockman stated that he is not sure the application is consistent with the master plan and agrees with Gillette that there is not a sufficient public benefit received from the proposal. He is not ready to support the project due to the building height and use of the building. Hopkins — Expressed concern about the height of the building and its overall compatibility with the surrounding properties. She does not support the proposal at this time. Perez — In looking at the application as a brand new application, believes that the project does not meet all of the criteria for an SDD, especially in regards to compatibility, relationship of uses, and parking and loading. She does not believe there is a sufficient public benefit. Kurz — Agrees with Stockmar and staff's analysis of the SDD criteria. Believes the public benefits outweigh the hardships for neighboring properties. Also believes the loss of the 70 leasable parking spaces had to be considered in the original approval. He supports the project. Rediker — Looked at the application as a brand new application. Does not believe the proposal has fulfilled the SDD criteria. In particular, the scale, bulk, and building height are not compatible with the surrounding area; the proposal is not consistent with the Vail Master Plan; and the design features are not responsive and sensitive to the overall aesthetic to the area in general. Rediker expressed his overall concern about the SDD process in general and he believes it is encouraging the over -development of some properties. Recognizes that there is a public benefit to the proposal, but does not believe it is sufficient to ignore the non-compliant criteria. Gillette — Expressed his opposition to the snow -melted sidewalk. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 5, Public Health and Safety, and Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, related to vegetation removal for wildfire mitigation purposes, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC14-0043) Motion: Table to November 13, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Gillette Vote: 7-0-0 3. Approval of Minutes October 9, 2017 PEC Results Motion: Approve First: Kurz Second: Gillette Vote: 5-0-2 (Perez and Rediker Abstained) 4. Adjournment Motion: Adjourn First: Perez Second: Kurz Vote: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hours prior to meeting time. TOWN OF VA10 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October23, 2017 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road (Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek)/ Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5, formerly known as Lot 1, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Attachment A._Vicinity_Map.pdf Attachment A. Vicinity Map PEC17- 0006 SDD No. 42 Mountain View Residences–Staff–Memo-10- Staff Memorandum 23-2017. pdf Attachment B._Project_Narrative 09-27-2017.pdf Attachment–C.–Plan–Set—September 142017_Part1.pdf Attachment–C.–Plan–Set—September 142017_Part2.pdf Attachment–D.–Vail–Village–Master–Plan—in part.pdf Attachment E._Correspondence Received.PDF Attachment B. Project Narrative 09-27- 2017 Attachment C. Plan Set, September 14, 2017 Part 1 Attachment C. Plan Set, September 14, 2017 Part 2 Attachment D. Vail Village Master Plan, in part Attachment E. Correspondence Received I TOWN OFVAIL' Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 23, 2017 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (lock -offs) and 15 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence FOREWORD The Town of Vail failed to meet the notification requirements of the Vail Town Code, specifically Section 12-3-6(C)(2), that requires notification of all individual owners for certain types of applications, including the establishment of Special Development Districts. The Vail Town Code does allow the notification of adjacent properties that are condominiums or are otherwise held under joint ownership to occur via notification of the managing agent, registered agent or any member of the board of directors but all onsite owners must be notified individually. Proper notice has now been mailed to all individual owners within the proposed Special Development District (Mountain View Residences Phase 1) in additional to the re -notification of all adjacent properties. Failure to meet the notification requirement effectively nullifies all previous meetings held in regard to this application. For this reason, staff encourages the Planning and Environmental Commission to regard this application as a new application. Staff apologizes to the Commission, the applicant and the community for this regretful error. I. SUMMARY The applicant, Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (lock -offs) and 15 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. The applicant is requesting a final recommendation from the PEC to the Town Council at this meeting. The PEC may recommend the Town Council approve, approve with modifications, or deny the applicant's request. The PEC may also table the item to a future meeting to request additional information or resolution of an identified concern. Per Section 12-9A-1, Vail Town Code, the purpose of a Special Development District (SDD) is: To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use, to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas,- and reas,and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. The PEC shall review the proposed application and plans, and evaluate the merits of the proposed SDD based on the criteria in Section VIII of this memo, the impact of the proposal, and the public benefits in regards to furthering overall goals of the community. Based upon staff's review of the plans and the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the PEC forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, of this application subject to the findings in Section VIII of this memorandum. Staff has received considerable correspondence from groups and individuals concerning this application. Some of this correspondence posed questions concerning process and other elements of the Vail Town Code. In these instances, responses were provided either by the Community Development Department or by the Town Attorney. All correspondence received to date, including responses from town staff, are included as Attachment E. The most recent correspondence received, a letter of support form the Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek Owners' Association, Inc (Phase 1), is included at the beginning of the attachment and a summation of the correspondence received is included as a cover page. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Lunar Vail, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (lock -offs) and 15 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. A vicinity map (Attachment A), the revised project narrative (Attachment B), plan set (Attachment C), relevant selections from the Vail Village Master Plan (Attachment D, and public comments (Attachment E) are attached for review. Town of Vail Page 2 The project is composed of the following components: Employee Housing Units (EHUs) The proposed fifteen (15) EHUs will be deed -restricted rental units, limited to residents working at least thirty (30) hours per week in Eagle County. The proposed EHUs range in size from approximately 439 square feet to 1,194 square feet and include eight (8) two-bedroom units, five (5) one -bedroom unit and two (2) studio. The EHUs are located on the first and second floors above the parking garage in the proposed structure. The total floor area of the fifteen (15) units totals 13,922 square feet. EHUs, per the Vail Town Code, are not considered Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and are thus not deducted from a development's available GRFA. In addition, Type III EHUs do not contribute to the calculation of dwelling units for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. Dwelling Units The applicant is proposing fifteen (15) for sale dwelling units to be located on the third, fourth and fifth (dormer) floors of the structure. These units range in size from 1,174 square feet to 2,622 square feet, exclusive of the Attached Accommodation Units. The units proposed are a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom layouts. The total proposed GRFA of the dwelling units inclusive of the Attached Accommodation Units is 32,687 square feet. Attached Accommodation Units (Lock Offs) The applicant is proposing twenty (20) Attached Accommodation Units or lock -offs attached to all fifteen (15) of the dwelling units. Five (5) of the dwelling units have two (2) Attached Accommodation Units. These units may be rented separately and have direct access from common areas without necessitating passing through a dwelling unit. These units range in size from 194 square feet to 461 square feet and are located on the third and fourth levels of the proposed structure. The total proposed GRFA for the Attached Accommodation Units is included in the GRFA calculations for the dwelling units. Attached accommodation units do not contribute to the calculation of dwelling units for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. Existing Parking As part of Phase 1 of the Mountain View Residences, discussed in greater detail in the background section below, a 112 space parking structure was built in 2006 along the northern portion of the property. This three level structure, located predominately below grade, provides required parking for the 23 dwelling units located in the Mountain View Residences Phase 1 building and the required parking for the proposed Phase 2 building. No additional parking is proposed. The total number of parking spaces has been reduced from 112 to 111 due to an increase in mechanical equipment. Town of Vail Page 3 Proposed Deviations Through the Special Development District process, the applicant is requesting deviations from the following required dimensional standards of the underlying High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District: • Setbacks: The applicant proposes a fifteen foot (15') side setback on the east side where twenty feet (20') is required. • Building Height: The applicant is proposing an overall maximum height of 70' where the maximum for a structure with a sloped roof in the HDMF district is 48'. • Density Control: The maximum density in DUs/Acre in the HDMF district is 25 units per acre which equates to an allowable density of 32 units on the subject parcel. The applicant is proposing 38 units or 29.3 DU/acre, 119% of the allowable. • Density Control: Per the HDMF zone district, a maximum of one Attached Accommodation Unit is permitted per DU. As proposed, five (5) of the dwelling units include a second Attached Accommodation Unit. • GRFA: The allowable GRFA in the HDMF district is 76/100 square feet of buildable site area or 42,871 square feet of GRFA for the 56,410 square foot parcel. Phase 1 of the development utilized 42,593 square feet of GRFA, leaving only 278 square feet remaining. The proposed Phase 2 includes an additional 32,687 square feet of GRFA for a total of 75,280 square feet of GRFA for the parcel or 176% of the allowable. Site Coverage: The applicant is proposing site coverage of 70.07% where the maximum allowable is 55%. Although the application makes a distinction between above and below grade site coverage, Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 amended the Vail Town Code's definition of site coverage to include both above and below ground improvements. III. BACKGROUND The subject parcel, together with the adjacent Apollo Park parcel to the east, comprised Tract D of Vail Village Fifth Filing, approved by the Eagle County Planning Commission in November of 1965, prior to the incorporation of the Town of Vail in 1966. In the mid 1970s the Apollo Park development was constructed with 89 dwelling units in four buildings. An aerial view of this development can be found on page 5 of the applicant's narrative, included as Attachment B. In 2006 the Town of Vail Design Review Board (DRB) approved the replacement of buildings C and D of the Apollo Park development with a new structure, Mountain View Residences Phase 1, and the associated parking structure. Subsequent to this approval, Tract D was split through the Minor Subdivision process into two parcels. This subdivision was recorded in 2008 with the Eagle County Town of Vail Page 4 Clerk and Recorder. The eastern parcel contains the remaining Buildings A and B of the original Apollo Park Development, containing 40 dwelling units functioning predominately as a timeshare development, while the western parcel contains the Mountain View Residences Phase 1 structure, and the associated parking structure. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal. Please see Attachment D for relevant excerpts from the Vail Village Master Plan. Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 1— Title, Purpose, and Applicability (in part) 12-1-2: PURPOSE.- A. 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. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. Town of Vail Page 5 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 URPOSE: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(19 77) § 6: Ord. 8(19 73) § 6.100) 12-6H-2: PERMITTED USES.- The SES: 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) 12-6H-3: CONDITIONAL USES.- The SES: 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 itle: Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Town of Vail Page 6 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 SES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district.- Home istrict: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential and lodge uses. Town of Vail Page 7 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) 12-6H-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 19(1976) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.509) Town of Vail Page 8 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. C. PEC Conducts Initial Review: The initial review of a proposed special development district shall be held by the planning and environmental commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. Prior to this meeting, and at the discretion of the administrator, a work session may be held with the applicant, staff and the planning and environmental commission to discuss special development district. A report of the department of community development staff's findings and recommendations shall be made at the initial formal hearing before the planning and environmental commission. Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed amendment, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the Town of Vail Page 9 petition or proposal. The commission may recommend approval of the petition or proposal as initiated, may recommend approval with such modifications as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or may recommend denial of the petition or rejection of the proposal. The commission shall transmit its recommendation, together with a report on the public hearing and its deliberations and findings, to the town council. D. Town Council Review: A report of the planning and environmental commission stating its findings and recommendations, and the staff report shall then be transmitted to the town council. Upon receipt of the report and recommendation of the planning and environmental commission, the town council shall set a date for hearing within the following thirty (30) days. Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed SDD, the town council shall act on the petition or proposal. The town council shall consider but shall not be bound by the recommendation of the planning and environmental commission. The town council may cause an ordinance to be introduced to create or amend a special development district, either in accordance with the recommendation of the planning and environmental commission or in modified form, or the council may deny the petition. If the council elects to proceed with an ordinance adopting an SDD, the ordinance shall be considered as prescribed by the Vail town charter. 12-9A-6: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of special development districts. A development plan shall be approved by ordinance by the town council in conjunction with the review and approval of any special development district. The development plan shall be comprised of materials submitted in accordance with section 12-9A-5 of this article. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the special development district shall develop. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking plan, preliminary open space/landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory uses. 12-9A-9: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the planning and environmental commission. Before the town council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-9A-8 of this article. Town of Vail Page 10 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/ 23 DUs 15 DUs w/ 20 38 DUs per acre of lock -offs buildable 17.8 DU/acre 29.3 DU/acre site area, or 15 EHUs (not Density 32 units on counted a 1.295 towards acre parcel. density) Total=15 DUs Max. 42,593 sq. ft. 32,687 sq. ft. 75,280 sq. ft. 76/100 or GRFA* Buildable 176% of Site Area or allowable GRFA 42,871 sq. ft. Town of Vail Page 11 * Although the EHUs total 13,922 square feet in size, they do not count towards GRFA. ** The existing site coverage became nonconforming with the subdivision of the property in 2006 *** The reduction from 112 to 111 parking spaces is the result of added mechanical equipment. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use 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. 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff has worked closely with the applicant through a series of revisions that have brought the proposal more in line with the character of the neighborhood and Vail in general. The mass, scale, and bulk of the structure is larger than that of the surrounding structures; however, the proposed architectural treatments such as a variety of roof forms and increased horizontal and vertical articulation serve to visually break up the mass, bulk, and scale of the building and help make the design more compatible with Phase 1. The proposed building material and color palettes may be consistent with the identity and character of Vail as a mountain community. Town of Vail Page 12 Max. 55% 22.35%=12,599 14,511 sq. ft. 48.06%=27,111 of total site sq. ft. above grade above grade sq. ft. above grade Site Coverage** area 69.91 %=39,424 70.07%=39,880 (31,026 sq. sq. ft. including 102 sq. ft. sq. ft. including ft.) below grade Below grade below grade Per 49 Required Additional 63 109 Required Parking/Loading Chapter 10 112 Provided Spaces 111 Provided*** 1 Loading Space 1 Loading Space Provided/Required Provided/Required Min. 30% of 63.62% (35,881 40.07% 40.07% total site sq. ft.) (22,996 sq. ft.) (22,996 sq. ft.) Landscaping area Site in Total) (16,923 sq. ft. * Although the EHUs total 13,922 square feet in size, they do not count towards GRFA. ** The existing site coverage became nonconforming with the subdivision of the property in 2006 *** The reduction from 112 to 111 parking spaces is the result of added mechanical equipment. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use 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. 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff has worked closely with the applicant through a series of revisions that have brought the proposal more in line with the character of the neighborhood and Vail in general. The mass, scale, and bulk of the structure is larger than that of the surrounding structures; however, the proposed architectural treatments such as a variety of roof forms and increased horizontal and vertical articulation serve to visually break up the mass, bulk, and scale of the building and help make the design more compatible with Phase 1. The proposed building material and color palettes may be consistent with the identity and character of Vail as a mountain community. Town of Vail Page 12 The subject property is located on a development site in the HDMF zone district, which allows for a maximum 48 foot building height. Many of the Town's taller buildings are located along the frontage road, which buffer surrounding area from the noise and aesthetics of the highway. Though the proposed building height is greater than those in the surrounding area, the applicant has demonstrated that the height is consistent, in general, with the recommended heights of the Vail Village Master Plan and is necessary to meet the development objectives of the town. Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The proposed mix of uses, including EHUs, DUs, AUs and AAUs, is an appropriate program for this location. Located along the frontage road on the periphery of Vail Village, the site allows the density and related height necessary to meet the development objectives of the applicant and the town. Although the proposed building is significantly taller than the adjacent Tyrolean, the building's mass steps down in acknowledgment. The applicant professes that it would not be appropriate to lower the building further as the Tyrolean Condominiums is not developed to its potential, under existing zoning. The proposed project is primarily residential in nature, similar to surrounding uses which are also residential, including Apollo Park and the Tyrolean. It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse impacts resulting from the operation of the project. Staff finds that the proposal meets this criterion. 3. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. The parking dimensions and number of parking spaces provided comply with Vail Town Code. In addition, the proposed loading space meets the requirement in terms of size and number. Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. Staff has reviewed the Vail Comprehensive Plan and found the following documents and associated goals, objectives, statements applicable to this proposal: Vail Land Use Plan (in part) Town of Vail Page 13 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan (in part) Land Use and Development.- Goal evelopment: Goal #4: Provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and public initiated development. Housing.- Goal- ousing: Goal: The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. Actions / Strategies.- 0 trategies: • Research parking requirements for employee housing and consider reducing requirements for employee housing developments. • Expand the number of employee beds in the Town of Vail. Town of Vail Page 14 o Consider increasing incentives in performance zoning for property owners who build EHUs. Vail Economic Development Strategic Plan (in part) Policies.- Goal olicies: Goal #4: Provide support for a quality workforce delivering world-class service to positively impact Vail's economy. Objective 4.1: Work with the business community, Eagle County and other municipalities to address future workforce housing needs. Objective 4.3: Work with the business community and Eagle County to address parking and transportation issues for workers and guests. Chapter Vll. Evaluation and Analysis, Weaknesses.- Inefficient eaknesses: Inefficient Facilities: Older lodging accommodations Vail Housinq 2027 (in part) Mission.- We ission: We create, provide, and retain high quality, affordable, and diverse housing opportunities for Vail residents to support a sustainable year round economy and build a vibrant, inclusive and resilient community. We do this through acquiring deed restrictions on homes so that our residents have a place to live in Vail. Policy Statement.- We tatement: We acknowledge that the acquisition of deed restrictions on homes for Vail residents is critical to maintaining community. Therefore, we ensure an adequate supply and availability of homes for residents and recognize housing as infrastructure in the Town of Vail; a community support system not unlike roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, fire, police, and other services of the municipal government. Ten Year Goal: The Town of Vail will acquire 1,000 additional resident housing unit deed restrictions by the year 2027. These new deed restrictions will be acquired for both existing homes as well as for homes that are newly constructed by both the Town of Vail and private sector developers. Town of Vail Page 15 The proposed development of EHUs realizes several community goals, especially the Vail Housing 2027 Ten Year Goal of acquiring 1,000 deed restrictions. It is important to note that the requirements of inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage are not enough to close the gap in the employee housing deficit in Vail. The proposal to add 15 Type III deed -restricted EHUs will make a contribution toward the goals of providing workforce housing in the town. The significance of providing local workforce housing is critical to reduce the number of employees driving to and parking in town. By doing so, numerous policies of the Vail Economic Development Strategic Plan are realized, such as Goal Number 4, "Provide support for a quality workforce delivering world-class service to positively impact Vail's economy." The proposal specifically addresses Goals 1.1, 1.12, 5.4, and 5.5 in the Vail Land Use Plan in that they speak to the importance of infill redevelopment and meeting employee housing demands. The proposal also speaks to the Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan's statement that the Town recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town. The proposal is representative of a rare infill -development opportunity in Vail that will accommodate a mix of desirable uses consistent with the development objectives of the town. Staff finds that the proposal meets this criterion. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. No natural or geologic hazards are present on the subject site. Staff finds that the proposal meets this criterion. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The architectural approach emblematic of Vail and consistent with Phase 1. While open space is minimal, the applicant has attempted to provide appropriate landscaping. The applicant has provided a high quality design in regards to the site plan and building appearance and has attempted to balance elements such as open space and landscaping with other important community goals that would help improve the overall quality of the community. Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion. Town of Vail Page 16 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. The provided Traffic Impact Analysis has determined that the existing access point is suitable with no necessary modifications to serve the development. The applicant has worked closely with the Public Works Department to accommodate a replacement sidewalk for not only the property's frontage but continuing to the west to Vail Valley Drive. Along the project's frontage will be a 10' detached heated concrete sidewalk that will allow increased snow storage for the South Frontage Road, an improvement over the existing attached sidewalk condition. The sidewalk continuing to the west will also be detached if the Town of Vail is successful in obtaining an easement form the adjacent properties. If an easement is not granted, the sidewalk will be replaced in its current location with a new, heated 10' concrete sidewalk. In addition to the relocated sidewalk, the applicant is providing the Town an easement for a future sidewalk closer to the building if, and when, the Frontage Road is increased to four lanes. To offset the community impacts of traffic generated by the development, the applicant has agreed to pay the Traffic Mitigation Fees for the net new increase in development traffic, which has been calculated at 14.00 PM Peak Hour trips, after taking a multi -modal reduction and excluding the EHUs. The Traffic Mitigation Fees shall be $11,200 per net new PM Peak Hour trip, which results in a total fee of $156,800. Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. The location of the existing garage and the minimum setbacks proposed limit the area remaining for landscaping. The Vail Village Master Plan has identified the area between the proposed structure and South Frontage Road for robust landscaping. As conditioned, the continued evolution of the landscape plan is encouraged with input and assistance from Town of Vail staff and the Design Review Board. Staff finds the proposal, as conditioned, meets this criterion. 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Town of Vail Page 17 The proposal is intended to be constructed in one phase. Staging for any construction related activity will be reviewed by staff to ensure impacts to public rights-of-way and adjacent properties are minimized. It is anticipated that the use of the South Frontage Road right-of-way may be necessary. This right-of-way is controlled by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and will require all appropriate review and permits from CDOT prior to the start of construction. Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION SDDs are an opportunity to allow flexibility in design to a property owner while advancing the goals and objectives of the Town comprehensive plan. Balancing the impact of the development on the surrounding area with benefits to the broader community through the achievement of said goals and objectives is an extremely difficult task. Based on the most recent revisions, staff finds that the proposal has successfully balanced these oftentimes competing interests and that the public benefit outweighs the deviations, as conditioned. Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Town Council for the applicant's request to establish Special Development District No. 42, Vail Mountain View Residences. Motion for Approval — Special Development District: Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 42, Vail Mountain View Residences, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission passes the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards the Vail Town Council a recommendation of approval for an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 15 dwelling units with 20 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), and 15 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 42, Vail Mountain View Residences, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: Town of Vail Page 18 1. Approval of an associated Design Review Board ("DRB') application. 2. Prior to submittal of the DRB application, the Applicant shall work with Town staff to increase the number and size of the new landscape plantings. 3. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall execute and record, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, a pedestrian easement on the east side of the applicant's property for the existing paved path and stairs from the South Frontage Road right-of-way to the Town's recreational path. 4. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall design and construct a continuous 10' -wide separated concrete sidewalk along the South Frontage Road from Vail Valley Drive to the easternmost boundary of the Property. All necessary easements for the sidewalk west of the Property shall be acquired by the Town within 11 months of issuance of the first building permit for the project. The sidewalk shall be designed in general accordance plan sheet C1.01 dated September 14, 2017, and shall be submitted to the Town and approved by the Town prior to construction. The Applicant shall grant a pedestrian/roadway easement on the Property to the Town as shown on plan sheet C1.01 dated September 14, 2017. In such sidewalk, the Applicant shall install a snowmelt system, including the heat source and all necessary components, in compliance with Town standards,. The Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of maintenance and operation of the sidewalk and snowmelt system on or adjacent to the Property, and prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall execute the Town's standard snowmelt maintenance agreement. The Town will be responsible for the maintenance and operation of the sidewalk and snowmelt system that is west of the Property, and prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall execute the Town's standard snowmelt operations reimbursement agreement for that portion of the sidewalk and snowmelt system. 5. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall pay the Traffic Mitigation Fees for the net new increase in development traffic, which has been calculated at 14 PM Peak Hour trips, after taking a multi -modal reduction and excluding the EHUs. The Traffic Mitigation Fees shall be $11,200 per net new PM Peak Hour trip, which results in a total fee of $156,800. 6. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall provide a construction staging plan and parking plan to demonstrate that the construction will not impact public parking or adjacent properties. 7. Within 90 days after the issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall engage the Town's Art in Public Places Board on the Town of Vail Page 19 determination of an acceptable public art installation. The minimum value of the public art installation shall be $50, 000. 8. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project, the Applicant shall pay the recreational amenities tax as required by Section 12-9A-11 of the Vail Town Code. 9. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall execute and record deed restrictions, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, for the EHUs. 10. Prior to obtaining any building permit application for the project, the Applicant shall obtain approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT') for all proposed work within the CDOT right -of way, and shall submit evidence of such approval to the Town. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 42, Vail Mountain View Residences, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vlll of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated October 23, 2017, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. The SDD complies with the standards listed in Section Vlll of this memorandum, or the applicant has demonstrated that one or more of the standards is not applicable,- 2. pplicable, 2. The SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town,- 3. own, 3. The SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas, and 4. The SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Project Narrative, September 14, 2017 C. Plan Set, September, 2017 D. Vail Village Master Plan (in part) E. Correspondence received to date Town of Vail Page 20 Vail Mountain View Residences Phase 2 Special Development District I v a M I ei Mauriello Planning Group Submitted to the Town of Vail: September 27, 2017 Consultant Directory Peter Carlson Gore Creek Group LLC 285 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 952-210-0095 Dominic Mauriello Mauriello Planning Group PO Box 4777 Eagle, CO 81657 970-376-3318 Will Hentschel 359 Design 3630 Osage St. Denver, CO 80211 720.512.3437 Davia Miselis Watershed Environmental Consultants P.O. Box 3722, Eagle CO 81631 970.471.4547 Ron Byrne and Mary Ann Redmond Ron Byrne & Associates 285 Bridge St Vail, CO 81657 970-476-1987 Skip Hudson, PE TurnKey Consulting LLC 587 1/2 Grand Cascade Way Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-314-4888 2 Update for September 2017 Gore Creek Group LLC has been working with the owners in Phase 1 and the neighbors to develop a plan that is beneficial to all parties involved. This submittal reflects our analysis of the alternative proposal agreed to by the Phase 1 owners. As a result, there have been some proposed programming changes to Phase 2. The following provides a comparison of the original program (that programming recommended by the PEC in June of 2017) to the program proposed today: Use Dwelling Units GRFA Lock Off Units Employee Housing Units GRFA Accommodation Units GRFA Original Proposal 12 du 27,356 sq. ft. 15 to (attached to 11 dwelling units) 10 ehu 10,544 sq. ft. 19 au 7,344 sq. ft. September 2017 Proposal Change 15 du +3 du 32,687 sq. ft. +5,331 sq. ft. 20 to (attached to 15 units) +510 15 ehu +5 ehu 13,922 sq. ft. +3,378 sq. ft. 0 au -19 au 0 sq. ft. -7,344 sq. ft. This document has been updated to reflect the proposed changes. Introduction Gore Creek Group LLC is requesting an application for the establishment of a new Special Development District (SDD) for Vail Mountain View Residences to facilitate the construction of a new mixed-use building located at 430 S. Frontage Road. The new building is referred to as Phase 2 of Vail Mountain View Residences, which is proposed to be constructed above the existing parking structure. Phase 1, the existing 23 residential condominiums, is proposed to be included in the SDD, but the condominium building will not be modified with this application. The proposed Phase 2 consists of deed -restricted employee housing, residential condominiums and dwelling unit lock -off units. The project furthers three key identified community goals: the provision of employee housing, the provision of live beds, and encouragement of in -fill development. Numerous changes have been made to the scale of the building, the articulation and architecture of the building, and the mix of uses within the building based on comments from the Planning and Environmental Commission, Town staff, Design Review Board, comments from Phase 1 owners, and comments from Tyrolean representatives over the multiple meetings since May of 2017. The result of the changes is a better project overall despite the loss of accommodation units. The existing Phase 1 Building was completed in 2008 under the High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) zone district and included the following uses: LJ 23 for -sale condominiums with approximately 42,593 sq. ft. of GRFA 112 parking space parking structure 3 Conditional use permit to allow for the leasing of excess parking spaces which were constructed in anticipation of Phase 2 The alternative proposed Phase 2 building includes the following: 15 for -sale dwelling units with approximately 32,687 sq. ft. of GRFA, to be included in a voluntary rental management program 20 lock -offs to all 15 of the dwelling units (five dwelling units have 2 lock -offs) 15 employee housing units with approximately 13,992 sq. ft. of floor area Parking to accommodate the proposed uses with a total of 111 parking spaces for the entire SDD with 49 spaces designated and controlled by Phase 1 A dedicated loading and delivery space to serve both phase 1 and 2 To facilitate the development of Phase 2, a Special Development District is proposed to be established, with the underlying zoning of HDMF. The SDD designation will apply to the entirety of Vail Mountain View Residences property, including the already completed Phase 1. A Phase 2 project was always contemplated on the parcel as evidenced in the HOA documents recorded against the project. The only practical method to achieve the Phase 2 project as contemplated in the HOA documents is an SDD or a comprehensive amendment to the zone district affecting properties throughout the Town of Vail due to the fact that nearly all development potential under the HDMF Zoning was exhausted when Phase 1 was constructed. The HOA documents for Phase 1 put all purchasers on notice that a second phase was contemplated and could have densities of up to 300 units, a number that could never be practically reached but to ensure there was clear understanding about the future. Vail Mountain View Residences presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment within Vail Village. It is adjacent to the pedestrian core, but vehicular access is taken from South Frontage Road, allowing for development to occur with minimal impacts to the Village. As an infill site, with the proposed Phase 2 building constructed upon an existing parking structure that was designed to allow for such development, there are minimal impacts to the natural environment. Public Benefits of the Project: Employee housing far in excess of requirements, all on-site and near the major employment center, addressing one of the documented critical needs of the Town (42.7% of the free- market unit floor area is provided for employee housing versus the 10% required by code) with 100% on-site without public subsidy All EHUs are highly functional and livable dwelling within the core employment center of Vail for single and/or double occupancy Provision of short-term lodging units (dwelling units in a voluntary rental program and lock - off units) within Vail Village, enhancing revenues and vitality Redevelopment of an infill site within Vail Village as suggested by the Vail Village Master Plan Land being donated to the Town (approximately 878 sq. ft.) as requested by the Public Works Department for future roadway improvements east of Vail Valley Drive 111 Paved access path and stairs through the property allowing pedestrians to walk from the South Frontage Road to the recreation path along Gore Creek Reconstructing and heating sidewalk to Vail Valley Drive in front of the neighboring Tyrolean and Public Service properties at no cost to the Town or adjacent properties Pursuing Green Globes Certification, which ensures energy efficiency by exceeding code standards. In addition, the project will exceed the 2015 IECC code and providing two electric car charging stations and energy management system for accommodation units Public art piece still to be determined of a value up to $50,000 Economic vitality and enhanced public and private revenues to Vail Village as a result of new residential and lodging facilities Example of the two- bedroom EHU layout. There are 8 two-bedroom units, 2 studio units and 5 one - bedroom units. 5 Background Vail Mountain View Residences was originally part of Apollo Park, an apartment, condominium, and timeshare project. Apollo Park was originally developed on Tract D, Vail Village 5th Filing as one large project. Apollo Park included 89 dwelling units. In 1978, Buildings A & B were condom iniumized, creating a property line between A & B and C & D. The A & B buildings were subsequently sold as timeshare units. In , 2006, the 49 dwelling units in Buildings C & D of Apollo Park were demolished and Mountain View Phase 1 was constructed on the western portion of Tract D, which was resubdivided to Lot 1, a portion of the original Tract D, following the historical property line. Apollo Park, Buildings A and B, remain on Tract D, with a total 40 units developed on the site. Mountain View Phase 1 was constructed under HDMF zoning, requiring review only by the Design Review Board.. As part of Phase 1, a parking structure of 112 parking spaces was constructed in anticipation of a potential future development phase. Following the completion of the parking structure, the excess parking spaces were leased for public consumption. .++t.Nlry. 2004 Google Earth Image of Apollo Park, Buildings A, B, C, and D. When the Vail Village Master Plan ' (VVMP) was adopted in 1990, it recognizedthat 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 ;< U1 modifications to the HDMF zone district jf ` ropf have occurred since 1990, thereforer - °lgr ' r causing the need to redevelop this 114 2015 Google Earth Image of Mountain View Phase 1 and Apollo Park, property as a Special Development Buildings A and B. District. The surrounding properties, the Wren and Apollo Park, are also non- conforming with respect to density and GRFA. The Tyrolean Condominiums does not comply with I setbacks, GRFA, and site coverage based on variances granted. The adjoining Tyrolean project exceeds the development standards of the HDMF with limited public benefits provided to offset the variances and deviations provided. Zoning Analysis Location: 430 South Frontage Road / Lot 1, A Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village 5th Parcel: 210108246023 Lot Size: 1.295 acres / 56,410.2 sq. ft. Existing Zoning: High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) Proposed Zoning: Special Development District with underlying zoning of HDMF Development Allowed by HDMF Existing Phase 1 Alternative Proposed Phase 2 Mountain View Standard Phase 1 and 2 Lot Area 1 10,000 sq. ft. 1.295 acres/ 56,410 sq. ft. Setbacks Front 20 ft. Side 20 ft. Rear 20 ft. Building Height 48 ft. for sloping (Maximum) roof Density GRFA 45 ft. for flat roof 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 48 ft. No change 20 ft. 20 ft.(w) & varies 15 ft. -20 ft.(e) 20 ft. 69.9 ft. 25 du/acre = 32 du 123 du 15 du with 20 lock offs 76% of lot area = 42,871 sq. ft. Site Coverage 55% of lot area = 31,026 sq. ft. 15ehu*=0 Density = 15 units 42,593 sq. ft. DU: 32,687 sq. ft. EHU*: 13,992 sq. ft. GRFA = 32,687 sq. ft. 22.35% = 12,599 14,753 sq. ft. (above -grade sq. ft. (above- only) grade only) 69.91 % = 39,424 sq. ft. (includes below grade) Landscape Area 30% of lot area = 63.62% = 35,881 NA 16,923 sq. ft. sq. ft. *EHUs do not count towards density or GRFA. 1.295 acres / 56,410 sq. ft. 69.9 ft. 38 units 75,280 sq. ft. _ 133% of lot area 27,352 sq. ft. = 48.5% (above - grade) 39,880 sq. ft. _ 70.07% (includes below grade) 22,996 sq. ft. _ 40.07% I Deviations from Underlying Zoning Section 12-9A-9, Development Standards, provides the mechanism for deviating from the underlying zone district. It states: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the planning and environmental commission. Before the town council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-9A-8 of this article. The Vail Mountain View Special Development District will deviate from the following development standards: ^ Setbacks: The SDD complies with setbacks on the front, rear, and west side. On the east side, adjacent to the Apollo Park property, the proposed setback complies with the 20 ft. setback except for the two column locations which are 15 ft. to 20 ft. from the property line. At the entry level, the building itself is setback an additional 20 ft., for a total of 40 ft. from the property line. All other levels meet the 20 ft. setback requirement. As a result, the columns are the only encroachment into the 20 ft. setback, which is necessary to allow traffic circulation into the parking facilities. The location of the proposed building is adjacent to surface parking on the adjoining property. Building Height: The proposed building exceeds the height limitation of 48 ft. The existing Phase 1 building complies with the 48 ft. height limitation. Due to the structured parking below the proposed building, the building exceeds the height limit. The maximum height of the proposed building is 69.9 ft. which reflects a point on the peak of a gable roof form. The building height is necessary to accommodate the two floors + of public benefits in the building including employee housing, small leasable condominiums, and lock -offs (aka attached accommodation units. Density: The SDD will exceed the maximum density of 32 dwelling units. There are 23 dwelling units within the Phase 1 building. As proposed, Phase 2 includes 15 dwelling units and 15 EHUs (which do not count towards density). As a result, Phase 2 is 15 units, for a total of 38 units for the entirety of the project. This is actually a reduction of the previous development on the site that was demolished prior to Phase 1, which contained 49 units. In addition, the density limitation of HDMF includes the limitation of only one attached accommodation unit per dwelling unit. As proposed, 4 of the dwelling units actually include a second lock -off unit, increasing the potential for short-term rentals within the project. ^ GRFA: The allowable GRFA within the HDMF zone district is 42,871 sq. ft. Phase 1 was constructed with approximately 42,593 sq. ft. of GRFA. Phase 2 is proposed at approximately 32,687 sq. ft. of GRFA, for a total of approximately 75,280 sq. ft. for the entirety of the SDD. EHUs do not count towards GRFA. Exceeding GRFA is not uncommon with most SDDs approved by the Town. I ^ Site Coverage: Mountain View Phase 1 currently exceeds allowable site coverage due to the underground parking structure. As a result, there is very little change to the site coverage for the entirety of the project, only an increase of 456 sq. ft., for a total site coverage calculation of approximately 70.07%. The allowable site coverage of HDMF is 55%. The project only exceeds the requirement due to the provision of below -grade parking. Above -grade site coverage actually complies with this restriction, at approximately 48.5% which has been common deviation granted to other projects with below grade parking facilities throughout the Town and Vail Village. 10 Special Development Districts Deviations such as the proposed are common among Special Development Districts, especially those located within the periphery of Vail Village. Special Development Districts are quite common throughout Vail Village, as indicated on the following map (striped areas indicate SDDs: ZNI" D #3v9 SDD #35 SDD C 9 --Nqm SDD"#17 Kom,-= SDD #3B )D #37 SDD #2 Below is a chart with an analysis of the more recent SDDs adopted by the Town of Vail in Vail Village. The chart includes the deviations from underlying zoning, along with the public benefits associated with the project. It should be noted that some of these SDDs were adopted prior to the change in the calculation for site coverage, which now includes below grade improvements, like parking, not previously counted as site coverage, and many would now likely deviate from site coverage requirements. SDD Four Seasons (SDD #36) Underlying Zoning Deviations from Underlying Zoning Site Coverage - from 65% to 71 % Height - from 48 ft. to 89 ft. 34 EHUs on-site (today most of these would have been required versus a benefit), contribution to streetscape, north -south walkway from Frontage Rd., improvements to Mayors Park, heated walk along Frontage Road, public art contribution (now a requirement) 4 11 SDD Underlying Deviations from Underlying Public Benefits Zoning Zoning , Tivoli Lodge (SDD #37) Manor Vail (SDD #38) Solaris (SDD #39) The Willows (SDD #40) 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 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 HDMF Setback reduction Public art, streetscape improvements, GRFA increase reduction in density Site Coverage - 55% to 67% As indicated in the chart, deviations such as those requested for the Vail Mountain View Special Development District are common. The underlying zoning of the SDD also has implications in the deviations sought. Many zone districts have been updated to reflect current building trends and requirements and in recognition of Town objectives and priorities like the provision of live beds. Building height has been a sensitive subject in Vail from the very beginning of Vail's history. In 1990, with the adoption of the Vail Village Master Plan, it was recognized that taller structures were appropriate along the periphery of Vail Village, along the South Frontage Road. Taller buildings along the periphery help frame the context of the urban core area, provide relief from the impacts associated with Interstate 70, and utilize land area often as parking areas, thus removing unsightly views of parking facilities. The other benefit of encouraging additional building height along the South Frontage Road is that impacts to other private properties are substantially reduced. Private views, though not protected in Vail, are generally unaffected by taller buildings in this location due to the presence of the Frontage Road. Of course, there are impacts to the neighboring structures such as the Tyrolean Condominiums and Vail Mountain View Phase 1. There are four examples of structures developed with additional building height along the periphery, all of which are above 71 ft. in height: ^ Four Seasons - SDD #36 (-89 ft.) 12 Sebastian Hotel (formerly the Vail Plaza Hotel) - SDD #6 (77.25 ft.) ^l Vail Village Inn Phase 3 - SDD #6 (-71 ft.) ^l Solaris - SDD #39 (-99.9 ft.) The pattern of taller buildings along the South Frontage Road has been well established with logical breaks to allow views to Vail Mountain at Vail Road, Village Center Road, the Vail Village Parking Structure, Vail Valley Drive (Blue Cow Chute) and Ford Park. Views over theses properties from either direction of Interstate 70 are adequately maintained. With the Town's 2007 adoption of the EHU requirements for Inclusionary Zoning and Commercial Linkage, the Town did not modify the development standards of the HDMF zone district. However, the provision of on-site employee housing units has an impact on development standards such as height, site coverage, parking, and even GRFA (as the cost of providing EHUs is often off -set through increasing the higher profit-making uses). In this case, the majority of the square footage on Levels 1 and 2 is dedicated to employee housing which clearly has an impact on the ability to meet the standards of the HDMF zone district. The provision of employee housing and short term accommodations in the form of condominiums with attached accommodation units clearly outweighs any deviations proposed through this SDD. 13 Parking Analysis Phase 1 Use DU (17) DU (6) Total spaces for Phase 1 iL Phase 2 DU (7) DU (8) EHU (13) EHU (2) Formula Parking Required -A-IM IML - If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is more 34 than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2spaces If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 2,000 15 square feet or more: 2.5 spaces 49 Formula Parking Required If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is more than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 2,000 square feet or more: 2.5 spaces IT a aweiiing unit s gross resiaenuai poor area is more than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 500 square feet or less: 1.5 spaces Total spaces for Phase 2 Parking Analysis for SDD V 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 14 20 26 63 63 49 112 -2.936 109.064 111 14 Employee Housing Plan Section 12-23-8: Administration, of the Vail Town Code requires the submittal of an Employee Housing Plan for all projects subject to development review. The proposed project exceeds both the total requirement and the onsite requirement for employee housing. A. Calculation Method: The calculation of employee generation, including credits if applicable, and the mitigation method by which the applicant proposes to meet the requirements of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: Inclusionary Zoning: FA Mitigation Rate EHU Sq. Ft. Required "DUM'I'r 32,687 I 10% 3,268.7 The inclusionary requirement is 3,268 sq. ft. As proposed, there is approximately 13,992 sq. ft. in 15 employee housing units, approximately 10,724 sq. ft. in excess of the requirement or 42% of the free-market dwelling unit floor area. B. Plans: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan that demonstrates compliance with section 12-23-3, "Size And Building Requirements", of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan has been provided with this submittal. Units range from 439 sq. ft. up to 1,191 sq. ft. and consist of 2 studio units, 5 one -bedroom units, and 8 two-bedroom units. C. Lot Size: The average lot size of the proposed EHUs and the average lot size of other dwelling units in the commercial development or redevelopment, if any; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. D. Schedules: A time line for the provision of any off site EHUs; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. E. Off Site Units: A proposal for the provision of any off site EHUs shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. F. Off Site Conveyance Request: A request for an off site conveyance shall include a brief statement explaining the basis for the request; 15 Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. G. Fees In Lieu: A proposal to pay fees in lieu shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; and Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. H. Written Narrative: A written narrative explaining how the employee housing plan meets the purposes of this chapter and complies with the town's comprehensive plan. Applicant Analysis: Section 12-24-1: Purpose and Applicability, of the Vail Town Code provides the purpose of the Inclusionary Zoning Chapter: The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that new residential development and redevelopment in the town of Vail provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such residential development and redevelopment. The mitigation rates were established by the Town of Vail Employee Housing Nexus study. These rates are based on a survey of various properties in mountain communities. The Town Vail Land Use Plan offers the following goals with regard to employee housing: 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. In 2008, the Town of Vail established the Employee Housing Strategic Plan, which brought together all of the Town's goals on employee housing into a single plan. It provides the following: In 2006, through the Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future process the community established a housing goal. It is as follows: "The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development." 16 Based upon the community's work, the Vail Town Council has confirmed the Town of Vail recognizes deed restricted employee housing as basic infrastructure. This type of housing allows employees to live within the town, promoting community, and improving the quality of our local workforce, thereby supporting the local economy, and reducing regional transit needs. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan (EHSP) seeks to meet the expectations established by the community and confirmed by the Town Council and provide enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the community's workforce to live in the Town of Vail through a variety of policies, regulations and publicly initiated development projects. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan then outlines the various objectives and policies for implementing the plan. It provides a list of Town Initiatives, one of which is specifically applicable to this project: Incentive Zoning and Density Bonuses The Town will consider workforce housing objectives in all review processes that permit discretion. This means that the Town will work actively with developers as a part of the Housing District, Special Development District review processes and requested changes in zoning to not only meet the requirements of existing code, but to look for opportunities to go beyond code requirements to encourage additional workforce housing to be created. As a part of these review processes the Town will work actively with developers to create incentives to develop housing that exceeds the minimal requirements contained in the code. Additional density may be granted in selected locations through the appropriate review processes, and fee waivers and subsidies may be considered. The Incentives Zoning and Density Bonuses help Vail to "catch up" with existing deficiencies and add to the overall percent of employees living within the Town of Vail. As indicated in this submittal, the proposal complies with and furthers the purposes and goals of the Town's employee housing requirements and master plans. 17 Criteria for Review 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Applicant Analysis: The architecture is consistent with the high quality found on Phase 1 of Mountain View Residences, and is typical of recent redevelopment projects within Vail Village, such as Solaris, the Four Seasons, and the Sebastian. The concept is to use natural materials, such as stone, wood composite siding, and metal panel or stucco, to create a project that is responsive to the environment and the surrounding neighborhood. Varying roof pitches and forms allow for visual interest. Before the redevelopment of the site, there was significant surface parking. The structured parking now allows the site to be redeveloped to the standards that Vail is accustomed to. The building facades, based on comments from the PEC have been highly articulated as demonstrated by the revised plans. The maximum height of the proposed Phase 2 building is 69.9 ft., which exceeds the underlying zoning HDMF maximum height restriction of 48 ft. and is a requested deviation with the establishment of this SDD. Building height is a common deviation for SDDs in Vail Village, especially those located along the Frontage Road, including the Sebastian, Vail Village Inn Phase 3, Solaris, and the Four Seasons. Many older existing HDMF or PA zoned buildings also exceed the 48 ft. maximum height requirement such as the Mountain Haus building. The proposed Phase 2 building, similar to the Phase 1 building, is generally 4 stories with additional livable space in the roof through the use of dormers. Unlike the Phase 1 building, Phase 2 sits upon a parking structure which sits slightly above natural grade. As a result, the height exceeds 48 ft., but is similar in appearance of height to surrounding properties. When looking at compatibility it is necessary to not only look at the existing buildings on neighboring properties, but the relationship of those properties to current development standards. For example, the Tyrolean building is not developed to the full height that it is entitled to. If it were, the transition in building height would appear even more natural compared to the proposed building. Another aspect that has to be taken into consideration are the other aspects of a neighboring property that create impacts. For instance, the Tyrolean property was developed with variances for building setbacks, GRFA, and site coverage causing impacts without a required or apparent public benefit. The Conceptual Building Height Plan found in the Vail Village Master Plan, shows this property as 4 stories along with the Tyrolean Building. This area is flanked to the east with a bubble suggesting 5-6 stories for The Wren and a portion of the Apollo Park property and a bubble to the west recommending 5 stories at the Village Parking Structure. The height diagram is conceptual in nature as indicated in the Vail Village Master Plan. Further proof of its conceptual nature is how the Town Council has implemented the plan for buildings along the South Frontage Road. Portions of the Sebastian property are shown at 3-4 stories where the N buildings were approved at 5-6 stories. Similarly, the Solaris property, is shown by the plan at 5-6 stories along the S. Frontage Road where it is 6-7 stories today. Significant surface parking lots are a characteristic of the immediate neighborhood, which is not a very efficient use of land. It is likely (and in fact, a requirement of the Vail Village Master Plan) that when these properties redevelop, parking will be located within a below grade structure, similar to the proposed Phase 2 project. These existing surface lots dominate the area: Surface parking lots at The Wren and Apollo Park. Future redevelopment of these sites will likely include below - grade parking, with buildings above. The development of property in this neighborhood provides unique opportunities for buffer zones between developments. There is a path from the Frontage Road down to the Gore Creek path that was constructed as part of the Phase 1 building and which will be partially relocated with the Phase 2 building, which allows for a buffer zone between this project and the existing Apollo Park. Additionally, both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects provide the full 20 ft. buffer to the property line for the Tyrolean. The building has also been stepped back from the Tyrolean, building mass removed, and roof elements lowered to help provide additional setback and buffer to the property. These changes were made in May and June of 2017 during the prior hearing process. Vail Mountain View is compatible with and sensitive to the character of the immediate environment providing a welcome identity to the area, improving the character of the immediate area, improving the visual integrity of the area. The proposed SDD is consistent with this criterion. Path from Frontage Road down to the Gore Creek path. 19 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 residential developments, typically townhouse development, zoned HDMF. Surrounding properties, including the Tyrolean, Apollo Park, and The Wren are all zoned HDMF. A brief description of the adjacent residential uses is provided below: i Village Parking Structure i Z' —777 1-70 N. '^ The Tyrolean: There are 9 wholly owned units in the Tyrolean. The site is 0.368 acres. Parking is located within the building. ^ Apollo Park, Buildings A & B: There are 40 units within Buildings A & B of Apollo Park. Of the 40 units, 34 units are in interval ownership and the remaining 6 units are wholly owned, and the buildings sit on a ground lease. The site is 1.292 acres. The units were originally constructed in the early 1970s and exceeds the density allowance of the HDMF zone district. There are 42 surface parking spaces. The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding residential uses, which include wholly owned condominiums, short-term rentals, and interval ownership/timeshare, which are similar in character to the uses proposed. The proposed density is similar to that of the surrounding properties and as would be anticipated by the Vail Village Master Plan (VVMP). The VVMP, adopted in 1990, anticipated that the proposed infill development on this site and adjoining properties would be developed above existing zoning limitations (it was recommended as infill with the knowledge that the properties already exceeded existing zoning limitations). As a result, Mountain View is compatible with the surrounding uses and activity and is consistent with this criterion. 20 3. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. Applicant Analysis: A parking analysis was provided in a previous section of the submittal. As that analysis provided, the entire project, both Phase I and 2 are in compliance with the parking requirements of Chapter 10. The parking being allocated for Phase 1 is shown within the garage plans for the project. The mixed use credit is only being implemented in the Phase 2 portion of the project so that Phase 1 has use of 49 total parking spaces. Mountain View is required one loading berth to comply with Chapter 10 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. The project complies with all loading requirements, including the size and location. Trash and recycle dumpsters will be stored in the garage and pulled out on collection day. Based on the recommendation from Vail Honeywagon, there will be two 3 -yard trash dumpsters and two 3 -yard recycle dumpsters picked up twice a week during low season and three times a week during high season. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. Applicant Analysis: This property is subject to the Vail Village Master Plan. It is not subject to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The Vail Village Master Plan provides both general and specific guidance on the redevelopment of this property. The Vail Village Master Plan provides the following overall goals, objectives, and policies: GOAL #2 TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR - AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY 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. Objective 2.6: Encourage the development of employee housing units in Vail Village through the efforts of the private sector. Policy 2.6.1: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. Policy 2.6.2: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. Policy 2.6.3: The Town of Vail may facilitate in the development of affordable housing by providing appropriate assistance. Policy 2.6.4: Employee housing shall be developed in the Village when required by the Town's adopted Zoning Regulations. 21 GOAL #5 INCREASE AND IMPROVE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEMS THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. Objective 5.1: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities Policy 5.1.1: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core I Zone District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning code. Policy 5.1.5: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. The Vail Village Master Plan encourages an increase in the number of residential units, especially for short term overnight accommodation. and 20 lock -off units, all of which will be able to participate in a voluntary short term rental program. The units have been designed to encourage participation for the dwelling units and the lock -offs. With the proposed on-site management, participation it rental program be high. the short term is anticipated to The Vail Village Master Plan 0 The project includes 15 dwelling units Example of quality of employee housing units proposed in Phase 2 recognizes the need for the development of employee housing in Vail Village. Vail Mountain View Phase 2 includes the provision of 15 deed -restricted employee housing units, well in excess of any requirements. An Employee Housing Plan is provided as part of this submittal, but to summarize the plan, he total employee housing requirement equates to 3,268 sq. ft. As proposed, there is approximately 13,992 sq. ft. in 15 employee housing units, approximately 10,654 sq. ft. in excess of the requirement. This level of employee housing as compared to the number of total units proposed is unprecedented in a project in Vail Village. The Vail Village Master Plan also includes recommendations for building heights within Vail Village. The Master Plan states this with regard to the Building Height Plan: BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN Generally speaking, it is the goal of this Plan to maintain -the concentration of low scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the Frontage Road), as depicted in the Building Height Profile Plan. This pattern has already been established and -in some cases these larger structures 22 along, the Frontage Road serve to frame views over Vail Village to Vail Mountain. The Building Height Plan _ also strives, in some 34 � -- areas, to preserve 3a - s� major views from public - _. - -' 34 - right -of -ways. - --34 - 3.4 -- 34 2 -- Building heights greatly influence the character _ of the built environment in the " _ CONCWTUAL RUR DING V I I I a g e. This is 34 HEIGHT PLAN particularly true in the =_ t Village Core where_ - typical building heights of three to four stories establish a pleasing human scale. The building heights A th' expresse on Is Illustrative Plan are le 10, dv intended to provide general guidelines. - - Additional study should be made during = J specific project review VIEW CORRIDORS 1ELEVATION FROM FRONTAGE ROADI relative to a building's height impact and the``¢° streetscape and relationship to r surrounding structures. BUILDING MASSING (VILLAGE CORE SECTIDNI BUILDING HEIGHT Specific design PROFILE considerations on building heights are found in the Sub -Area section of this -Plan and in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. As indicated in the recommendations regarding building height, generally buildings are to be tallest along the South Frontage Road, then step down to lower heights within the Village Core. Buildings are generally shown to be 5-6 stories along the S. Frontage Road, though the building height shown for the infill of portions of Apollo Park and Vail Mountain View is indicated at 4 stories. The "Conceptual Building Height Plan" further describes a story as 9 ft. of height, not including the roof and indicates varied roof heights are desired. This building 23 height limitation is challenging as the current description of a story as 9 ft. in height is generally considered outdated and produces undesirable units with very little head height, based on current market preferences. Vail Mountain View Phase 1 complies with the Conceptual Building Height Plan and HDMF zoning height restriction of 48 ft. This was appropriate due to its proximity to Gore Creek. However, Phase 2 is located primarily along the South Frontage Road and is a location where additional height is appropriate, as evidenced by recent SDD projects, including Solaris and the Sebastian. In general, Phase 2 complies with the 4 -story recommendation, but does include a portion of the existing parking structure which is slightly above grade. Along the South Frontage Road, the building generally appears as a 4 -story building, with the 5th story within the roof structure, as a loft or dormer level. On the south elevation, facing Phase 1, the building is a 4 -story building, sitting on top of a partially exposed level of parking. The project generally complies with the Master Plan height recommendation, but exceeds the 48 ft. height limitation of the HDMF zone district. As a result, a deviation from the underlying zoning height restriction of 48 ft. is requested, though the project generally complies with the Building Height recommendations. As mentioned under criterion #1, several projects have been developed along the S. Frontage Road two stories above the conceptual roof height plan of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Vail Village Master Plan also provides an Action Plan, showing potential locations for development projects, as described below: ACTION PLAN J The Action Plan indicates potential development and improvement projects that would be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Action Plan is a composite of the Land Use, Open Space, Parking and Circulation and Building Height elements. 24 Areas identified by the Plan as having potential for additional development have previously received Town approvals or have been recognized as being consistent with the various elements of the Master Plan. However, the Action Plan is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of improvements, which may occur, or an indication of Town approval for any specific development proposals. The review of any development proposal will be based upon compliance with all relative elements of the Village Master Plan. Numerical references found on the Action Plan map refer to more detailed descriptions of proposed improvements, located in the Sub -area section of this Plan. These descriptions provide a detailed account of the goals, objectives, and design considerations relative to each of the development and improvement projects. Graphic representation of improvement projects on the Action Plan are not intended to represent design solutions. Sub -area concepts, applicable goals, objectives, and policies of this Plan, zoning standards and design considerations outlined in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan are the criteria for evaluating any development proposal. Furthermore, private covenants exist in many areas of Vail Village and should be a consideration addressed between a developer and other applicable private property owners. The massive area of surface parking associated with Apollo Park and the Wren are indicted for "Residential/Lodging Infill." This is important to note, especially with regard to Apollo Park, in that the Action plan clearly shows additional residential development beyond what currently existed at Apollo Park, as Apollo Park already exceeded the density limitation of the HDMF zone district. Buildings C and D totaled 49 dwelling units, though only allowed 32 dwelling units by zoning. In fact, as proposed at 38 units (for Phase 1 and 2), the project is more in compliance with the underlying zoning with regard to density, though a deviation from this limitation is still required. The increase in density and GRFA was clearly contemplated by the Vail Village Master Plan and therefore complies with the "Action Plan." Finally, the Vail Village Master Plan provides site specific recommendations for the various sub- areas of the Village. This property is within Sub -Area #9, East Frontage Road. The master plan states: EAST FRONTAGE ROAD SUB -AREA (#9) The East Frontage Road Sub -Area is comprised of condominium and time share residential development. This sub -area is unique in that its access is directly off of the Frontage Road, causing little vehicular impact on other areas of the Village. Large areas of surface parking within the sub -area provide the opportunity for additional residential infill development. Given proper attention to design considerations, this sub -area could provide additional density within close proximity to the Village core. At the present time, the sub -area is separated from the Village core by Gore Creek. This sub -area has a pedestrian connection to the Village and Ford Park -via the Village Streamwalk. A sidewalk along the Frontage Road should be constructed to improve pedestrian safety and further connect the Village parking structure to Ford Park. The area between buildings and Gore Creek must be improved to enhance natural environment. #9-1 Parking Lot Infill 25 Residential infill over existing surface parking. Height of building to be limited so as to not impede view corridors from the frontage road (and Interstate 70) to the Village and Vail Mountain. Mass of buildings to step back from the Frontage Road to prevent sun/ shade impacts on the road. Satisfying parking demand on site will necessitate structured parking. A substantial landscape buffer shall be provided between any new development and the Frontage Road without jeopardizing future frontage road improvements. Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 3.4, 5.4, 6.1. The Vail Village Master Plan identifies that the large areas of surface parking provide opportunities for additional residential development. It recommends the construction of a sidewalk along the S. Frontage Road, connecting the parking structure with Ford Park, which has been completed by the Town but which the Town now wishes to relocate. The plan also recommends that the height of buildings in this sub -area be limited to not impede view corridors from the Frontage Road to the Village and Vail Mountain. As indicated in these views from google earth, the Village is not visible at all from I-70 or the Frontage Road. Since 1990 when the Vail Village Master Plan was adopted, significant improvements in technology have kr- Google Earth image street view of site from east -bound 1-70. Google Earth image street view of site from S. Frontage Rd. 26 allow architects to much more accurately reflect the views effected by proposed buildings. As indicated in the following image, Vail Mountain remains visible with the proposed Phase 2. Proposed Mountain View Phase 2 as viewed from west -bound 1-70 As proposed, there will be a substantial landscape buffer between the edge of the road and the proposed structure. The buffer includes an 8 ft. to 10 ft. strip of green lawn area, a 10 ft. wide pedestrian sidewalk, and a 5 ft. to 15 ft. landscape/hardscape buffer in front of the building. At its greatest, the proposed building is approximately 35 ft. from the edge of the proposed roadway. The buffer would be even greater would it not be for the additional roadway improvements being requested by the Public Works Department to accommodate future traffic lane widening east of Vail Valley Drive. The applicant is agreeable to the provision of the Vail Mountain View property (approximately 878 sq. ft. of land) to accommodate the Town's desired road section. As recommended by the Vail Village Master Plan, all parking for the project is structured. As indicated on the landscape plan, significant landscaping is proposed along the north elevation, and the 20 ft. setback along this property is maintained. The proposed project is consistent with the Vail Housing Strategic Plan as evidenced by the letter of support from the Vail Local Housing Authority. Overall, the proposed project complies and is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Comprehensive Plan, and furthers the goals and objectives recommended by these plans. 27 5. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Applicant Analysis: There are no natural or geologic hazards that affect the property. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project by Daiva Katieb of Watershed Environmental Consultants. The report addresses all environmental concerns, including climate, hydrology, atmospheric conditions, geology, wildlife, vegetation, wastes, noise, odors, and visual concerns. The report is included as part of this submittal, but to summarize, the report concludes the project is appropriate and without significant impacts to the environment. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Applicant Analysis: The building is sited above the existing parking structure, utilizing generally the same access as currently exists to the structure. As a result, there is little disturbance to the site. While this SDD request includes a deviation from the site coverage limitation as a result of the underground parking structure, the project complies with site coverage requirements for above -grade improvements and landscape area. When possible, existing landscaping is maintained, and none of the existing landscaping associated with Phase 1 will be modified with the construction of Phase 2. A landscape plan, prepared by Jamie McCluskie of MacDesign, has been included with the submittal. The plan focuses the landscaping along the South Frontage Road, providing a landscape buffer between the road and the units located on the first floor. The goal is to use ornamental grasses and brownstone boulders, similar to the landscape treatments at recent projects like First Chair and Solaris. The SDD produces a functional development plan which is sensitive to the existing landscaping and neighborhood. There are no natural features remaining on this portion of the property since its initial development in the 1970s. As a result, the proposed SDD is consistent with this criterion. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. Applicant Analysis: A traffic letter was prepared by Skip Hudson, P.E. of TurnKey Consulting, LLC. According to his analysis, the current CDOT Access Permit allows for more traffic than is generated by the proposed development. This is due to the fact that the leased parking facility will be converted to parking serving the uses onsite. In addition, the proposed use does not generate 20% more traffic Sidewalk along South Frontage Road than the current site use. As a result, the proposed Phase 2 does not require an additional CDOT Access Permit. The proposed plan removing the hotel provision from the plan further reduces traffic associated with the plan. The general circulation for vehicles is consistent with how the site functions currently. The site is accessed from the South Frontage Road, with vehicles entering the parking structure at two points, the further south garage entrance for Phase 1 and the north garage entrance beneath the porte cochere for Phase 2. 1 The pedestrian circulation around the buildings includes a sidewalk connection from the S. Frontage Road, connecting down to the Gore Creek path. There is pedestrian circulation around the entirety of the site, allowing for direct access from multiple points to the Gore Creek path. There is also a sidewalk along the South Frontage Road, giving pedestrians access over to Ford Park. Pedestrian connection between the Tyrolean & Phase 1 The proposed plan provides easements and sidewalk improvements that accommodate the future road widening desires of the Town thus improving the Town traffic circulation. A heated sidewalk is also provided in front of the Tyrolean Condominiums and the Public Service facility, a benefit to those properties. The proposed SDD is consistent with this criterion. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Applicant Analysis: The landscape plan was developed by MacDesign with an eye towards functionality, use of native species, and maximizing the areas best suited for planting. Through the use of ornamental grasses and brownstone boulders, the entry is given prominence. Large amounts of sod are proposed along the more formal interface with the S. Frontage Road as requested by the Public Works Department to accommodate snow storage. This will be the only site from the Four Seasons Hotel to Ford Park to provide such a snow storage area. This lawn area transitions to a 10 ft. sidewalk followed by formal landscaped areas in front of the building. This buffer area between the South Frontage Road and the existing parking structure/proposed building varies in width from approximately 35 ft. to 23 ft. optimizing views and buffering of the proposed building. When possible, the existing landscaping is preserved, as most of it was planted with the 2006 Phase 1 development. The existing paver pattern is proposed to be continued, creating cohesion between Phase 1 and Phase 2. The proposed 29 loading area is also treat with pavers making it feel more like a plaza area than a loading zone since 99% of the time the space will not be used for loading and will site empty. The project complies with the underlying zoning requirements without any need for a deviation to landscape area requirements. There are no natural features to preserve in this area where the proposed building is being located as the area was previously disturb from development that occurred in the 1970s. As a result, the proposed landscape plan is consistent with this criterion. Pedestrian path and buffer zone between Phase 1 & Apollo Park 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Applicant Analysis: The project will be completed in one phase, therefore this criterion is not applicable. 30 0 3:1% Lu LU 0 Z -i 00 LL Zm 5 0 0 .j 0 u M 0' L L9M00'IIVA 'iSVD 0VO2l 30V1NO2IJ Hinos tv, 11 3SVHd zw Z w > 0 z I O M31A NlViNnowim - ------------ w. w- Ou . ............ . .. >Mo. 0 3:1% Lu LU 0 Z -i 00 LL Zm 5 0 0 .j 0 u M 0' g m ... ...... . ............ . .. P LU os Oso a ca uj C* ...... .... H H LU................... -22 . IL N59 a . ....... . .... (7) LGM 00'11VA 'iSVDGVO�l DSViNO�IJ Hinos «11 3SVHd 14 2 - ------------- - M31A NlViNnowim Wpo --P H -\\\\\/\\\\ NOW, 0 W N 1 c° ®F M q csMoo'iivn '1SV3 OVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv,F II 3SVHd e� mz F : d ; W M t N o IT = W O z co °0 O ° " N a N N N M31A NiViNnow im C D r� N I N N N N O •D .o N O O \ O x N N co w a x e,N N N NN N N N co co co O IT N co °0 O O N N N N N co co I•/•• . O co 1 ./ ♦• •�• N • �• .p • • •�• N O [ •�• $ N i I •` •o Irrr4 1 1 � 1 1 / 1 � r � os •/ LU • • W Z y as / Zd / Oo 1 � / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 �o N ..L..�..�•.�• .� o 0 0� ,_,..._.._.• N .0 ` O O O O N O N O Z W `a w ° J ° F y o_ L9M00'IIVA 5 .3 'iSVD GVO�l DSViNO�IJ Hinos tv, zw >w Ln 11 3SVHd r'n 0 z M31A NlViNnowim - ------------- -- Wo -I-OHO, Hon A4 \88\\\\\\\\\\\\ V, ---------- (37) LGM 00'11VA Ln isvD (IVO�l DSViNO�IJ Hinos tv, 11 3SVHd M31A NiViNnow im Wo -I-OHO, Hon A4 \88 ---------- CT) L9M00'IIVA %'iSVD GVO�l DSViNO�IJ Hinos tv, Ln 11 3SVHd r'n 0 z M31A NiViNnow iivA Wo -I-OHO, Hon A4 \88 ----------- 5 .3 L9M00'IIVA 'iSVD GVO�l DSViNO�IJ Hinos tv, Ln zw Wi Z w 11 3SVHd M31A NiViNnow im w i V, ----------- 5 .3 LGM 00'11VA 'iSVD GVO�l DSViNO�IJ Hinos tv, Ln zw 11 3SVHd Z. w. I 0 zw 0 M31A NiViNnow im'w > w w a OS LGM 00'11VA 5 .3 'iSVD GVO�l DSViNO�IJ Hinos tv, Ln zw 11 3SVHd -Z w. I C4 0 zw 0 z - ------------- - M31A NiViNnow im I C >0 i LGM 00'11VA 5 .3 'iSVD GVO�l DSViNO�IJ Hinos tv, Ln zw 11 3SVHd r'n wz a wj 14 M31A NiViNnow im - ------------- -- i ON - — - — - — - — -- — 41 ON LGM 00'11VA ----------- 5 .3 Ln E 'iSVD GVO�l DSViNO�IJ Hinos tv, zw Ln Z w a 11 3SVHd r'n z wo - ------------- - M31A NlViNnowim > w a N 0 j i . gym% a LGM z �, « | ` $ , 1� VHa \< 22y « § ) M31ANiVlNno■im b s LU « , K :-9- - / ■ ■ » NONE � a a < ( » a \< ^` § ) U. s LU « K :-9- - � � k ,: ®® § n g (. § j . s ». » ± ©2 g A NONE / ■ ■ » NONE � a a < ( » a \< s LU « K :-9- � � ®® k n g . = 2 . s ». » ± ©2 / _ o a o � y Y 0 U w O O M 0 N o 0 U 0 w O O a 0 0 z w LL 0 N o Y 0 w O O NONE ® e V, �Z c_ c� ®F LGM 00'IIVA '1SV3 0VO2l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv, 2 = a m F W = 0 q. II 3SVHd °_` w o g d N M o a M31A NlViNnow ll\/A m m o y m o a o � y Y 0 U w O O M 0 N o 0 U 0 w O O a 0 0 z w LL 0 N o Y 0 w O O NONE ® e V, N U. U. V O 0 N t— H H Z Z > M M M r r CD cc CD N M r W J a HN OC M O O Z H U. W zl w 0' w 2 2o �Z c_ c� ®F LGM 00'IIVA ' 1SV3 OVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ H1f10S tv, ------------ z a m F W w = 0 q. II 3SVHd w o '_` g d N M o a M31A NlViNnow ll\/A m m o y m N U. U. V O 0 N t— H H Z Z > M M M r r CD cc CD N M r W J a HN OC M O O Z H U. W zl w 0' w 2 2o i) 1® LGM 00'11VA 'iSVD GV02l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv, I1 3SVHd 5 .3 FW t Z w M o q. M31A NiViNnow im - -----------rw - - ------------ i) 1® CI-) L99 18 00'11VA 'iSVD GVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv, 5 .3 zw Z w r'n 11 3SVHd z > W M31A NiViNnow im - -------- , wl U > U R V, i) V, ED L9M00'IIVA 'iSVD GVO�l DSViNO�IJ Hinos tv, 11 3SVHd Z w zw w 2 z 0 o Na rn w w, 1. w M31A NiViNnow im - ------------ w a z > 0 o u i) V, ED 1 �z �_ c� ®F M o q L9M0O'IIVA '1SV3 OVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ H1f1OS tv, II 3SVHd : d '¢ = F = W o N t N M31A NlViNnow im °:w o ��� : a i ------------ C G N C i N 1 N co 1 1 A N Go x N N GoG x 0 N N Go IT N co Go 0 N Go i 1 c° ®F M q csMoo'iivn '1SV3 OVO2l 3SV1NO2IJ Hinos tv,F II 3SVHd e� mz F : d ; W M t N o IT = W O z co °0 O ° " N a N N N M31A NiViNnow im C D r� N I N N N N O •D .o N O O \ O x N N co w a x e,N N N NN N N N co co co O IT N co °0 O O N N N N N co co I•/•• . O co 1 ./ ♦• •�• N • �• .p • • •�• N O [ •�• $ N i I •` •o Irrr4 1 1 � 1 1 / 1 � r � os •/ LU • • W Z y as / Zd / Oo 1 � / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 �o N ..L..�..�•.�• .� o 0 0� ,_,..._.._.• N .0 ` O O O O N O N O Z W `a w ° J ° F y o_ ~ `^ 11 3SVHd zw ow ~ `^ 11 3SVHd zw ow �^ IY'1 o e L9M00'IIVA. '1SV3 OVO2I 3SV1NO2IJ H1f10S tv, 11 3SVHd'' ------------ z a p '¢ Z. 0 M31A NIViNnow ll\/A m P a w w w C O N O W �Z c� Mo L9M00'IIVA. '02l 3SV1NO2IJ H1f10S tv, 1SV3 OVLn 11 3SdHdl' y;j = ------------ z a p '¢ Z. 0 M31A NiViNnow ll\/A m P a w w w C G N O W �iiiiiiii .iiiiiiii ■ilii 0 Door Door �Eliot 000r .Door .nog �IIIIIIII -IIIIIIII ■lint ?,dull r�nnnin �nnoo �- 1_I 1_000i I_oiioi r.! � • Iiii■IIIIIIIII � ��IIIIIIIII �IIIIIIIII .IIIIIIII .IIIIIIII _ _ pl�hhhll I�h�lllll nnnr n@m � IIIIIIII hili■ IIIIIIII _ I _ 1_000i I_oiioi _I � � 1®IINIIIII 1®IIlIIIIII, �1 � ��IIIIIIIII �IIIIIIIII .IIIIIIII .IIIIIIII _ _ pl�hhhll I�h�lllll nnnr n@m � IIIIIIII hili■ IIIIIIII _ I _ rill Elm ■ IiLim a MEN MEN 00 EMIR iiiiiiH iiiiiiii =IIIIIIIII HINH iilllll `C®__ MonMEE No; mm - mom ME. 1 mom mom Ioim- z. MEN I tT1 Jill] LIU 1H 11", 1iI 11110mll L9M00'11VA 'iSVD GVO�l DSViNO�IJ Hinos tv, zw Z w 11 3SVHd 2 z r'n 0 M31A NiViNnowim - ------------ I tT1 Jill] LIU 1H 11", 1iI 11110mll -------------- C� I? 3 L/7 pn o w L9M00'IIVA '1SV3 0VO2l 3SV1NO2IJ H1f10S tv, II3SVHd M31A NlViNnow 11\/A n ¢ i z a o w a » w w to t O a > c� C� I? c� I? c� vl of 91 p Ell II o 0 0 0 0 III o 0 0 0 0 W I cl U I c� Z a o Ir II U I = I J U K p t- m > I m a _ 00 N I > a I I II II I I I I I m h Q I I I I I Il I i g o I Cl) I J Q I I I III I I l a I I I I II I s I I I I I I o I I I I o Z ° oI Z °� , I i o Q Z ° 0 a W W Q K K Q K I I I IW Z I I I I I I I Ia IL W m N I d I o O d W N W H N 3 Z TZ _ J991,po AVA 15V3 CIV3JVINO:J=l Hinos nE 113SVNd M31A NIV1NnOkV 71VA = = 4 Q = W ° =i 3 Z c� L./) M o = J991200 'A VA 15V3 4V0?J 3JV1N0?J=l Hinos nE 113SVHd M31A NIV1NnObV 71VA o -= 4 v i a O W O arccw c i 0 =i la I II In =i M'`11 M95 00 INA IMA OWU MUNWA HWOS M Yee 3SVHd Est hu H P� M31A NIVINnOkV 71VA 11 Yee hu H P� I En A- gt Nil in, J 11, �1 J� Ell soN 1W. ELEA still ui w M AM I 1, AllW t7 LL NMI A Alkl' - L.4f) J991,R 00 AVA isv�l CIVOU �levi NG'J=l Hinos n� 11 3SVHd M31A NIVINnOkV 71VA ----------- -------------- 0 0 Alkl' - Pb �;, W—V W7 Z Za) 5.z rc of 0 D-0 ---------------- w fl -o ILL Z - ---- ----- 1 III ill Q-------- _ f•e m« \�, `» - 13Sdd \ }[\\{\ _ z \ M]m NI 1Nnow II A b j; _ \ }[\\{\ \ )\ \(\\§\){)}(\ (� � dID \ / _ 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. Summation of Correspondence Received Related to Proposed Mountain View Special Development District Letters of support 1. Vail Mountain View Residences Phase 1, 10-03-2017 2. Tim Thompson, member of Eagle County Workforce Housing Coalition, Undated 3. Jeff Morgan with Ron Byrne and Associates and member of housing coalition (3 letters, 5-15-2017, 7-26-2017 and 10-17-2017 ) 4. Derek Schmidt, General Manager of The Wren at Vail, 5-15-2017 5. Chris Romer, President and CEO, Vail Valley Partnership, 5-15-2017 6. Rick Smith, CAO, VVMC, 4-11-2017 7. Dan Godec, Citizen of Edwards, 6-06-2017 8. Michael Connolly, General Manager, Triumph Development, (2 letters, 6-07-2017 and 10-18- 2017) 9. Stan Cope, Gemini Resort Management, 5-15-2017 10. David Charles, owner, Mountain View Phase 1, 7-28-2017 11. Adrian Fernandez, owner of Unit #305, Mountain View Phase 1, 7-26-2017 12. Tom Talbot, Vail resident, 7-28-2017 13. Alison Wadey, VCBA, 7-07-2017 14. David Cross, 8-09-2017 15. Michael Rootberg, owner Unit #301, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-11-2017 16. Kim Bell Williams, Housing Director, Eagle County, 10-18-2017 Letter of Opposition 1. Argos Vail, LLC, owner of Unit #6, Tyrolean Condominiums, 6-09-2017 2. Jay Levine and Mary Ann Childers, owners of Unit #403, Mountain View Phase 1, 7-11-2017 3. Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP, representing the Tyrolean Condominium Association, 7-11-2017 4. Dan and Carol Wolfe, owners of Unit #303, Mountain View Phase 1, 7-19-2017 5. Don Cameron and Marie Harrison, owners of Unit #3, Tyrolean Condominiums, 7-24-2017 6. Wizenburg, Leff, Purvis and Payne, LLP, representing the Tyrolean Condominium Association, 05-17-2017 7. Herbert Tobin, owner and HOA president, Tyrolean Condominiums, 7-26-2017 8. Goodman and Wallace P.C., representing a collation on Mountain View Phase 1 owners, 7- 31-2017 9. Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP, representing the Tyrolean Condominium Association, 7-31-2017, notice regarding inability to attend. 10. Eileen Jolly, Mountain View Phase 1 visitor 11. Eduardo Flores Alonso and Jose Alejandro Ortega Aguayo, owners Unit #304, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-14-2017 12. Paul Nigrelli, owner Unit #104, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-14-2017 13. Mark Caplan, owner Unit #306, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-14-2017 14. Cindy Biondi, owner Unit #404, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-14-2017 15. Todd Randall, Mountain View Phase 1 visitor, 8-13-2017 16. Mike and Alice Widmier, Mountain View Phase 1 visitor, 8-13-2017 17. Lisa Widmier, owner Unit #302, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-12-2017 18. Dan and Carol Wolfe, owners Unit #303, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-09-2017 19. Michael and Jill Dardick, owners Unit #205, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-10-2017 20. Scott Herndon, owner Unit #204, Mountain View Phase 1, 8-10-2017 Letter of No Opposition: 1. David Zessin, President Apollo Park at Vail HOA, 5-15-2017 2. David Zessin, President Apollo Park at Vail HOA, 10-16-2017 Letters from Town Attorney 1. Response to Jay Levine and Mary Ann Childers, owners of Unit #403, Mountain View Phase 1, 7-17-2017 3. Response to Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP, representing the Tyrolean Condominium Association, 7-21-2017 Letter from Staff 1. Response to Dan and Carol Wolfe, owners of Unit #303, Mountain View Phase 1, 7-21-2017 Letter from Holland & Hart representing the applicant concerning the rights of Phase 1 owners, 5-17- 2017, with attachments Letter from Ron Byrne to Phase 1 owners, 7-26-2017 and responses Letter from Dominic Mauriello, MPG concerning letter from Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP, representing the Tyrolean Condominium Association, 7-13-2017, with attachments Oct 03 17 05:02p October, , 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Vail Mountain View Residences Proposed Special Development District Dear Commissioners:: I am writing to you as President of the Board of Directors for Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek Owners' Association, Inc., the governing body for and the representative of the owners within the first phase of the Vail Mountain View Residences (VMVR), the overwhelming majority of whom have previously expressed concerns about the proposed VMVR Special Development District (SDD). While VMVR has just been provided the revised plans and has not as yet been able to review them in detail to ascertain agreement with all aspects, VMVR now conditionally supports the revised alternative project based upon the removal of the hotel component and execution of a binding agreement between VMVR and the developer on issues specific to the inter -relationship between Phase I and Phase 2. Over the last several weeks, VMVR expressed concerns about the SDD and the proposed building with specific demands for the hotel component to be removed doe to compatibility and other related concerns. The VTMVR Board of Directors has met on numerous occasions with the proposed developer of the project, Gore Creek, LLC., whose representative Peter Carlson and his team, have worked with VMVR to address many of VMVR's concerns about the project. The developer has been very responsive to VMVR's requests and demands and will be formally introducing his design plan revision at the October 9, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Oct 03 17 05:02p p.3 As we understand it, the design plan revisions will illustrate a project consisting of 15 free-market condominiums with 20 total lock -off units and 15 employee housing units. We believe this proposed design plan revision will be more compatible with the Phase 1 development and the neighborhood in general. The proposal still maintains significant public benefit with the addition of employee housing units, small condominium units, and lock -off units. The Town will still receive the benefit of short-term rentals given the plan to operate a voluntary rental management program within the facility. We believe the design plan revisions will result in a project that strikes an appropriate balance of public benefits in exchange for the deviations being sought from the underlying zoning including the building height, bulk, and mass proposed. We are also working with the developer on an agreement that will confirm a number of reciprocal easements and restrictive covenants between and among all owners within the SDD which will address construction management activities and reciprocal easements for the proj ect, as well as future operational details, most of which have to do with parking, construction and maintenance access, reciprocal enforcement issues and the operation and management of the garage facility It also will entail the withdrawal of Phase H from Phase 1 via an amendment to the Condominium Map. We expect this agreement to be finalized and executed prior to the PEC meeting October 23, 2017. We believe the project, as modified by the design plan revisions and in conjunction with the anticipated agreement between VMVR and developer, will then comply with the nine review criteria for establishing the SID. Subject to the Town's approval of the design plan revisions outlined in this letter, and the formal agreement between VMVR and the developer, our Board of Directors has voted unanimously to support the revised project and encourage the Planning and Environmental Commission to approve this revised alternative project without further delay. Sincerely, Oct 03 17 05:03p VATL MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENCES ON GORE CREEK OWNERS' ASSOC A JON, C. By: .evine, President p.4 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 Daae E. Goatee P.C. Box 292 Ed wards, C® Szb3z June 6, 2017 Mr. Jonathan Spence Vail Planning Board Vail, CO Mr. Spence: I am writing in support of Mountain View Residences in Vail. The project addresses housing needs as defined by the Town of Vail. There are 10 employee housing units representing over 30% of the project. It is unusual that a project contains this amount of affordable housing. The need for housing is well documented with the project target audience being mid-level professional residents, the group who will be tomorrow's leaders in the community. The Town supports hot beds; this project includes 19 hotel rooms which helps events at the Amphitheater. I am past Chairman of BravoVail Board of Trustees. Having rooms available close to our venue helps our visitors. We have abundant hotel rooms in the Village and West Vail but fewer units on the east side of Town. EDU's and hotel rooms make up 50% of the project. Mountain View Residences clearly meet the essential project criteria desired by the Town. The parking garage was built in 2008; it provides all parking onsite and underground. The site was designed for a later project. The garage was appropriately suited for a building over the top; this project is effective use of space. This is an infill project located on the South Frontage Road. There are several examples of height management and density to the west. Where better to place the units? Impact is minimal on surrounding buildings and overall benefit outweighs negative effect. This project appears to fill several needs for the Town of Vail. It brings EDU's and hotel rooms to an underserved location. It creates a barrier between the highway and town and the development team seem to understand what it takes to build a project in Vail unlike other proposed additions. Thank you for your consideration R0-E ctiv y Dan . Godec 970-390-6630 7 June 2017 Jonathan Spence Planning Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Jonathan: Triumph Mountain Properties I am submitting this letter today in advocacy for the approval of the Vail Mountain View Residences Phase 2 development project. For the better part of the last 18 years I have been engaged in the business of managing residential resort property in the geographic area from East Vail to Cordillera, though always with a high concentration of properties within the Town of Vail. A good number of those properties (currently including 4 units in Phase 1 of the Vail Mountain View Residences) are part of our vacation rental program. Additionally, until 2006, Peak Properties, the forerunner of Triumph Mountain Properties, built and re- modeled numerous residential properties in the Town of Vail, a few of which incorporated the requirement of EHUs. Given my background and experience in Vail i am in favor of the proposed project for two main reasons. First, there can be no doubt that our valley is in need of more housing of a standard that works for professional individuals, including those with families. The Town has already demonstrated z, willingness to help address this need through a variety of recent housing initiatives. This project is dedicating 30% of the square footage it intends to build to employee housing - in my time here I am unaware of another project that has dedicated such a large portion of space for this purpose. By approving this project the Town can help set a standard for future similar development projects and take credit for another successful addition to the stock of housing that expands the year round population of the Town. Second, the mix of rentable accommodations (i.e. hot beds) available within the proposed building can also be construed as a public good. The planned hotel rooms will certainly be of a high standard from a finish quality level but can occupy a more moderate price point in the marketplace thus making them an attractive lodging option on a year round basis. For sale condo units with rooms that can be locked off contribute to both the hotel bed base and the bed base of vacation rental condos. My experience working with owners of luxury resort property is that the flexibility of being able to generate rent revenues from a lock off unit will be highly attractive. Many owners of these types of properties are hesitant to commit their entire property to being available for rent, though they would like to have the revenues to offset the costs of ownership (maintenance, property taxes, etc.). They often perceive the wear and tear risk to outweigh the rent rewards. The opportunity to generate rent revenues without having to commit the entirety of their unit to .L rental program should be enticing to those more risk averse owners, thereby increasing the number of available short term beds. Having represented some of the Phase 1 Mountain View units for short term rental since they came out of construction at the very end of 20081 can personally attest to their popularity. The location allows guests to quickly access Vail Mountain in the winter either via Gondola 1 or Chair 6. Similarly, within a 5-6 minute walk one can be at the center of Vail Village to access shopping and dining. Understanding that available inventory in these units is governed by the usage patterns of owners, over the past 8 + years the units we have managed for vacation rentals have generated approximately $2.5 million in taxable rents, contributing nearly $100K in sales tax revenues to the Town and another $35K in revenues to the Vail Marketing District. Given the planned mix of hotel rooms, lock offs, and potentially rentable condos that are included in the current plan it is not unreasonable in my view that the new building could generate at least $2 million per year in taxable rents which would be a nice addition to the Town's sales tax collections. 1 welcome the opportunity to discuss my perspective on this project with the Commission. Regards, Iii June 9, 2017 1'lilnning and Environmental Commission Town ofvail Department etre ollullunity Development 75 South Fronlage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Allis: Johmilhinl Spence, AICD Itc: Voll Mountoin View Residences 1'lum 11 Dcnr Melubms of the Pimmhlg and l nvironmentid Con) Miss iti1l; We the writing to inform you and the To%vil of VaH Owl its owner of the tMper residential unit in the Tyrolean Condominiums, Unit 6, we oppose the plans submitted Ib" Ills development of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase 11 and mmotn' ge you to recommmul dcllial or the proposed special Dcvelopulciit Dlstriel, 0tlr Unit 116 is by Ru' the most Ametect unit in the'ryroiemi building by Philsc It of the Vail Moulllaill View Rosidencc;s. We are concerned ltbout hiercased dcllsity, building height, setbacks, site coverage, and product Ink. We are concerned about the impact fill still, light mid views for our unit. We are atso very Concerned about file ililpnol oil the vilkle of om. unit it' the District is approved, We (to itot believe the approval of this project ily the'fown of Vilii would Cllnviy %with tilt ovet'iill golds ol` the Vigil Master plan to provide more employee housing, additiol)"I lock -oft , and mid -priced hotel r lonis to provide additional revellues to the Town of Vail. Please accept IMS Icttcl' vs ot11' disapprowtl of the Viill MOUIltalll ViCW RCSidCnCCS PhIM Il. Sil 60I'C y, r" Argils Vail, ,LC, Jay Levine and Mary Ann Childers 434 South Frontage Road East, Unit 403 Vail, CO 81657 July 11, 2017 Town Council Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Subject: Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017, Special Development District No. 42 Dear Council Members: My wife and I are owners of Vail Mountain View Residences #403. It has just come to our attention that Lunar Vail LLC has filed an application for establishment of a special development district that includes our property, and, much to our surprise, that a first reading of the ordinance was scheduled for today, July 11, 2017, before being postponed until next week. Given that we were not informed of the application and timetable for this significant project just a few steps from our residence, we write to voice our strong objection to the Town Council's approval of the proposed SDD at this time. Our first concern is with the application itself. It wasn't until March 10th of this year that we first learned in an email from Ron Byrne, that the project, on hold for many years, would be going forward. An email asking for more details, was met with "We are still working on the entitlement process for phase 11." In his email, Mr. Byrne promised: "We will continue to keep you informed as Phase II progresses." After that, not a word from Mr. Byrne. Therefore, we were shocked and dismayed to recently read in the July 3rd Vail Daily about its current status and apparent fast track toward approval. Prompted by this surprising news, we did some research and discovered an application for approval of a special development district requires the written consent of owners of all property to be included in the special development district. According to Section 12-9A-3 of the Town Code: "An application for approval of a special development district... shall include: a legal description of the property, a list of names and mailing addresses of all adjacent property owners and written consent of owners of all property to be included in the special development district, or their agents or authorized representatives." We have not consented to the application for approval of Special Development District No. 42. And have not given our Homeowners Association or any individual the authority to indicate otherwise. Indeed, the developer did not even inform us that the application had been made, much less seek our consent. We can only conclude that the secretive nature with which the developers have proceeded suggests that they are attempting an end -run around the rights of property owners while simultaneously flouting the Town Code. Our second concern is with the potential impact of granting the application for a Special Developement District which includes our home. We have serious concerns about this unprecedented development of "low frills hotel rooms and employee housing" shoe -horned into a complex where owners have made significant investments in Vail and its future. We recognize Vail's need for hotel tax revenue and EHUs. The question is where they are placed, and how they will affect existing homeowners. Our choice of where to invest; where we'd want to be as we move toward spending more and more time in the Vail Valley was predicated on what kind of neighborhood and neighbors we wanted to have. We find as disingenuous the claims made by developers that they could and would insulate them new residents from the old with separate garages, the lack of balconies and/or sliding doors. To us, this appears to be their recognition of the problems they'd create; itself an argument against approval of the SDD. We are also concerned about the "slippery slope" such an SDD would have on neighboring properties, like Apollo Park. Is our entire neighborhood destined to become a hotel and EHU heaven? In conclusion, we are appalled by the apparent attempt to rush through the approval of a Special Developement District without our consent. We suspect that other owners would share these concerns if they too were aware of the facts. Therefore, please regard this letter as our objection to the Town Council's approval of Special Development District No. 42. Given the short notice, we are unfortunately unable to attend the Town Council meeting. However, we are reachable by email at airlevinel@gmail.com or cellphone (312-501-4000). Respectfully, Jay Levine Mary Ann Childers cc: George Ruther, Community Development Jonathan Spence, Community Development Matt Mire, Town Attorney HP LWCI Hoffmann Parker Wilson & Carberry I P.C. Corey Y. Hoffmann Kendra L. Carberry Jefferson H. Parker M. Patrick Wilson Of Counsel J. Matthew Mire Hilary M. Graham Denver Office 511 16t` Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202-4260 (303) 825-6444 Jay Levine and Mary Ann Childers 434 South Frontage Road East, Unit 403 Vail, CO 81657 via email to: Jlevinegcbs.com Vail Office P.O. Box 2616 Vail, CO 81658 (970) 390-4941 July 18, 2017 Re: Letter dated July 11, 2017 to Vail Town Council Dear Mr. Levine and Ms. Childers: Kathryn M. Sellars M. Keith Martin Andrew J. Gomez Daniel P. Harvey I write on behalf of the Town of Vail in response to the above -referenced letter. In that letter, you state your personal objection to Ordinance No. 9, Series 2017, which concerns an application for Special Development District No. 42, Mountain View Residences. The Town appreciates your interest in this ordinance, but your consent to the application was already given, pursuant to the attached Written Approval Letter executed by your homeowners' association. In addition, the applicant's counsel provided an explanation of the written approval, a copy of which is also attached for your convenience. The consent given by your homeowners' association cannot be revoked by one property owner, so the Town must proceed to consider the application under the consent already provided. If you wish to dispute the authorization provided by your homeowners' association on your behalf, please take this matter up directly with your homeowners' association. The Town is not in a position to arbitrate these issues. If you have any questions, please let me know. c: Jonathan Spence, Town Planner, via email Very truly yours, Kendra L. Carberry klcghpwclaw.com 711812017 Q:1 USERSI VAIL WVR ICORR TEVINE-L 071817.DOCX TOWN OF VA JOINT PROPERTY OWNER WRITTEN APPROVAL LETTER The applicant must submit written joint property owner approval for applications affecting shared ownership properties such as duplex, condominium, and multi -tenant buildings. This form, or similar written correspondence, must be com- pleted by the adjoining duplex unit owner or the authorized agent of the home owner's association in the case of a con- dominium or multi -tenant building. All completed forms must be submitted with the applicants completed application. I, (print name) Mary Anne Redmond , a joint owner, or authority of the association, of property located at 434 S. Frontage Road Mountainview Residences on Gore Creek provide this letter as written approval of the plans dated March 27, 2017 which have been submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the proposed improvements to be completed at the address not- ed above. I understand that the proposed improvements include: Application of an SDD overlay zone district which allows the construction of new dwelling units, accommodation units, and employee housing units generally above the current parking structure and related applications and improvements. I understand that modifications may be made to the plans over the course of the review process to ensure compliance with the Town's applicable codes and regulations; and that it is the sole responsibility of the applicant to keep the joint property owner apprised of any changes and ensure that the changes are acceptable and appropriate. Submittal of an application results in the applicant agreeing to this statement. Signature mit "_ f� ), M Print Name Date P/1151 d� v n7 V R 6� Title/Position I/We authorize any and all changes submitted to the Town in reference to the above mentioned project. (Initials) I/We waive all rights to notification and review of submitted changes. I/We do not authorize any changes submitted to the Town in reference to the above mentioned project (Initials) I/We wish to receive notifications and reviews of submitted changes xa FOSTER GRAHAM MILSTEIN & CALISHER, LLP ATTORN EYS AT LAW July 11, 2017 Matthew Mire, Esq. Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 mmiregvailgov.com jmm2hpclaw.com Via E -Mail and U.S. Mail 360 South Garfield Street 61h Floor Denver, CO 80209 T303-333-9810 F303-333-9786 DENVER — BOULDER fostergraham.com Re: Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017; Proposed Ordinance Establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences). Dear Mr. Mire: This firm represents the Tyrolean Condominium Association ("Tyrolean") in the above - referenced matter (the "Proposal"). Vail Town Council ("Town Council") has set this matter for a continued "first reading" on July 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. Town Council's agenda has listed the matter as a "public hearing." Due to the lack of sufficient notice, we will not be able to attend the meeting. As I have conveyed to the town's counsel, due to the lack of proper notice to our client, and the procedural errors that have occurred in presenting the Proposal, I strongly urge Town Council to re -start the review process for the Proposal by providing the proper notice required to protect our client's due process rights and as required by the Vail Town Charter and Code. It is my understanding that the relevant sequence of events leading up to the continued first reading are as follows: • Planning and Environmental Commission ("PEC") began hearing the proposal in March 2017, culminating in a formal hearing. Tyrolean's HOA's Counsel, Ms. Weigler attended two meetings at PEC and submitted a letter of opposition to the PEC, dated May 17, 2017. The matter was continued to June 12, 2017, "...in order to respond to questions raised by staff and for the applicant to provide detailed responses to anticipated questions from Commissioners and the general public." Community Development Department Memorandum to the PEC, May 22, 2017, p. 14. • No prior notice was provided to Tyrolean or Ms. Weigler regarding the June 12th meeting. At that meeting, the PEC recommended approval of the Proposal to the Town Council. {00440013.DOCX/ 1 1 Matthew Mire, Esq. July 11, 2017 Page 2 • On June 20, 2017, eight days after the PEC's recommendation, Town Council took the matter up for a "first reading" of the Proposal. No notice of this consideration of the Proposal by Town Council was provided to Ms. Weigler or Tyrolean. The applicant and the town's counsel requested that the first reading be continued to July 11, 2017. However, at the same time, the June 20th session "is the public hearing" for the Proposal and the floor was opened up to the public for comment; one individual spoke about the Proposal. • At some point in time prior to the June 20th session, council members participated in an on-site visit along with the applicant. Although Ms. Weigler had appeared in this matter on behalf of Tyrolean, Ms. Weigler was not provided notice of the on-site visit; nor was the public invited. • Tyrolean and its counsel only recently learned of the Town Council's hearing on June 20, 2017, and the continued first reading set for July 11, 2017. My client has serious concerns about how the Proposal has been handled. First and foremost, the PEC and Town Council have ignored my client's fundamental due process rights. As property owners who reside adjacent to the Proposal, our client's members have the requisite standing to oppose the Proposal. See, Condiotti v. Board of County Com'rs of County of La Plata, 983 P.2d 184, 187 (Colo. App. 1999). With respect to zoning changes, "'....notice should unambiguously set forth the information which would give adequate warning to all persons whose rights could be adversely affected by any action of the zoning entity, so they may appear and have an opportunity to be heard."' dafay v. Board of County Comm'rs of Boulder County, 848 P.2d 892, 889 (Colo. 1993) (quoting Sundance Hills Homeowners Assn v. Board of County Commis, 534 P.2d 1212, 1214 (1975)). In spite of the fact that Tyrolean, through its counsel, had objected to the Proposal, no notice was given to prior to the June 12th meeting or the June 20th meeting. This is especially concerning in light of the fact that the June 20th hearing was apparently intended to be the "public hearing" for the Proposal, and in fact, was opened to the public to comment. Compounding the lack of notice with respect to the June 12th and June 20th hearings, an on- site visit with Town Council members and the applicant occurred prior to the June 201h hearing. Again, no notice was provided to Tyrolean or its counsel so that it could participate in the on-site visit. This ex parte meeting with council members was not only professionally discourteous, it undermines the fundamental fairness of the process, and raises questions as to whether undue influence was brought to bear upon Town Council. Finally, the sequence of events in presenting the Proposal does not conform with the Vail Town Code (the "Code") or the Vail Town Charter (the "Charter"). Pursuant to Section 12-3-6 of the Code: "[u]pon the filing of an application, petition or appeal, the disposition of which requires a hearing before either the planning and environmental commission or the town council or both .... a date for the hearing shall be set which shall not be more than thirty (30) days from the date of filing of the application or receipt of the document." The PEC recommended approval {00440013.DOCX/ 1 } Matthew Mire, Esq. July 11, 2017 Page 3 of the Proposal on June 12, 2017, thereby triggering a hearing requirement by Town Council. The procedures set forth in the Charter relating to the enactment of ordinances state, in pertinent part: If the ordinance is approved on first reading, it shall be published once in full unless otherwise provided herein. The council shall set a day, hour, and place at which council shall hold a public hearing on the ordinance and notice of said day, hour, and place shall be included in the first publication. Charter, ¶4.10 (d)(emphasis added). Therefore, the Charter also clearly contemplates a public hearing, and that the public hearing shall occur after the first reading. It appears that Town Council and the PEC have tried to meet the thirty -day hearing requirement set forth in Section 12-3-6 of the Code by categorizing the June 201h meeting as the "public hearing." At the same time, however, the first reading did not actually occur, as it was continued to July 11th. All of this has been done without sufficient notice to all interested parties. My client desires to work with Town Council, the PEC, and the applicant to allow all interested parties an opportunity to be heard regarding the Proposal, and to participate in the process (including any site visits with the applicant). Based upon the procedural and due process concerns I have expressed in this letter, I respectfully request that the Town Council re -start the review process by providing the proper and sufficient notice to all interested parties as required to protect our client's due process rights and to comply with the Vail Town Charter and Code. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, FOSTER GRAHAM MILSTEIN & CALISHER, LLP A David Wm. Foster cc: Ms. Wendy Weigler Mr. Herb Tobin Mr. Tom Saalfeld Mayor and Town Council {00440013.DOCX/ 1 1 HP LWCI Hoffmann Parker Wilson & Carberry I P.C. Corey Y. Hoffmann Kendra L. Carberry Jefferson H. Parker M. Patrick Wilson Of Counsel J. Matthew Mire Hilary M. Graham Denver Office 511 16t` Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202-4260 (303) 825-6444 Vail Office P.O. Box 2616 Vail, CO 81658 (970) 390-4941 July 21, 2017 David Foster, Esq. Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP 360 South Garfield Street, 6th Floor Denver, CO 80209 via email to: davidgfostergraham.com Re: Vail Mountain View Residences Dear David: Kathryn M. Sellars M. Keith Martin Andrew J. Gomez Daniel P. Harvey I write on behalf of the Town of Vail (the "Town") in response to your letter dated July 11, 2017 concerning Ordinance No. 9, Series 2017. First and foremost, I disagree with your assertion that the Town has ignored your client's fundamental due process rights. While I am not convinced that your client, a homeowners' association, even has such rights, your client received notice of the April 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission hearing, in full compliance with the Vail Town Code. In addition, Ordinance No. 9 was properly listed as an agenda item for the Town Council meetings on both June 12, 2017 and June 20, 2017, and the agenda was properly posted according to the Colorado Open Meetings Law, C.R.S. § 24-6-401, et seq. Moreover, no action was taken on Ordinance No. 9 at either meeting — instead, the matter was continued to July 11, 2017. And you and I first spoke about this matter on Friday, July 7, 2017, so you had actual notice of the July 11th hearing, but you and your client chose not to appear at that hearing. Second, your argument that the Town Council may only have one public hearing under the Vail Town Code and Charter is without merit. It also completely undermines your argument that your client's due process rights are being ignored. Having two public hearings provides more due process, not less, because the public has additional opportunities to be heard. Finally, as you may have heard, the public hearing and consideration of Ordinance No. 9 was continued again, this time to August 1, 2017. Though not legally required, the Town provided your client with a courtesy notice of the August 1st hearing, a copy of which is attached hereto. The Town looks forward to hearing from your client at the August 1st hearing. 712112017 Q:IUSERSIVAILIMMR CORRTOSTER-L072117.DOCX July 21, 2017 Page 2 Should you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know. c: Jonathan Spence, Senior Planner Very truly yours, OW CeA� Kendra L. Carberry klc(a,hpwclaw. com 7121117 Q:IUSERSIVAILIMMR CORRTOSTER-L072117.DOCX From: Dan Wolfe[ma iIto: wolfdog@saunders-theragy.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:59 PM To: Info Subject: Vail Mountain View Residences Proposed Phase II/Special Development District To Whom it may concern - We are the owners of the Phase I Vail Mountain View Residences, condo - 9303. We are the second owners of the condo, although we are the first ones to actually have inhabited it. We knew from the onset that a Phase II was possibility in the future; however, we have just for the first time seen the plans that will be now be discussed at the August 1st, Town Council meeting. We have some comments/questions: 1. In the information we received regarding Phase II development at Vail Mountain View Residences, there are references to comments made early on in the planning process from residents of the Tyrolean, who are our next door neighbors to the west. As owners in Phase I of Vail Mountain Residences, we were never included in the comment process in the early planning phase. While I'm sure the next door neighbors are interested in what may be developed next door, I would argue that those of us who purchased in Phase I of the project would have more interest and input from the start than anyone else. This is the first time we have been informed of the plans for Phase II and we are upset at the timing and lack of involvement of those of us in Phase I. 2. We were given no indication that Phase II would actually be larger than Phase I. The foot print of the existing garage, on which Phase II is to be built, is smaller than what is now being proposed. The claim is that EHU's do not count. Is that actually the case at this point in time? We are shocked to find out, at this late stage in the planning process, that the size of the proposed Phase II is so large. We were not made aware of this at the time we purchased in Phase I 3. The graphic representation of the view looking north (page 7 of the application) is misleading. It shows the pool oriented perpendicular to the actual orientation. Also, they show a fairly large green space in front (south side of Phase II, as if looking from Phase I). This is a false representation. There is a sidewalk and small planting area between Phase I and the wall of the garage, which would be the start of Phase II. 4. Our understanding when we purchased our unit in Phase I, was that Phase II would not be taller than Phase L Because Phase II starts at an elevation above Phase I, and has 4 above ground levels, Phase II is taller than the peak height of Phase L The proposal states that the maximum height exceeds the height limitation. They offer that the Tyrolean does not reach the height maximum, but if it did, the height difference would not appear as great. This argument is ridiculous. The report also states that the setback requirements are not within specifications. Why would you approve a building that does not meet height and setback requirements. They offer other exceptions as a reason that this should be accepted now. This includes the statement that, " EHU's do not count towards GRFA. Exceeding GRFA is not uncommon with most SDDs approved by the Town, especially where the underlying zoning has not been updated to reflect current town goals for in -fill development." We disagree. Multiple exceptions to a rule or policy do not make it a viable policy, and because a policy has not been updated is not an excuse for ignoring it. It appears that the planning commission has made too many exceptions to existing policies and therefore is not fulfilling their obligation to uphold those policies. While the proposed project appears to meet some of the stated goals related to Vail development, it does so by ignoring several regulations set forth to responsibly manage that development. 5. It is our understanding that the resident units, employee units and hotel units will not have access to the Phase I pool/hot tub. Is that the understanding of the Planning Commission? The owners of Phase I should have been involved earlier. I am wondering what rights we have in this process and how we can be more involved going forward? What is the timeline for approval of the proposed plan? Please let us know how this will proceed and if there is an opportunity to be involved from a remote sight, in the Town Council meeting on Aug 1st? I'd also be interested in the Council's feelings about governance and their responsibility to uphold current policies/regulations vs. making multiple exceptions to those current policy/regulations the norm. Thank you Dan & Carol Wolfe Vail Mountain View Residences - 9303 H From: Jonathan Spence To: "wolfdoa(c)saunders-therapv.com" Cc: George Ruther; Matt Panfil; Patty McKenny Subject: Re: Vail Mountain View Residences Proposed Phase II/Special Development District Date: Friday, July 21, 2017 10:07:16 AM Attachments: imaae001.ipa imaae002.ipa Joint Property Owner MV.pdf Good Morning My name is Jonathan Spence and I am the Town of Vail planner working on the Vail Mountain View Residences application. Please accept my responses below to some of the questions you have raised in your email received July 19, 2017. I am also available by phone to discuss the application in greater detail. 1. In the information we received regarding Phase II development at Vail Mountain View Residences, there are references to comments made early on in the planning process from residents of the Tyrolean, who are our next door neighbors to the west. As owners in Phase I of Vail Mountain Residences, we were never included in the comment process in the early planning phase. While I'm sure the next door neighbors are interested in what may be developed next door, I would argue that those of us who purchased in Phase I of the project would have more interest and input from the start than anyone else. This is the first time we have been informed of the plans for Phase II and we are upset at the timing and lack of involvement of those of us in Phase I. Phase 1 of Mountain View Residences are considered by the Town of Vail to be an applicant for the new Special Development District (SDD) that will include Phase 2. The Vail Town Code requires all owners or their authorized representatives to consent to an application for new SDD. The homeowners association for Phase I has consented to this application speaking on your behalf. I have attached the letter provided to the town. If you wish to dispute the authorization provided by your homeowner's association, please take up this matter directly with the association as unfortunately the town is not in a position to arbitrate these issues. That being said, the Town of Vail welcomes comments from all affected parties and citizens of the community in regard to planning applications. I apologize that we were unable to receive your comments earlier in the process. 2. We were given no indication that Phase II would actually be larger than Phase I. The foot print of the existing garage, on which Phase II is to be built, is smaller than what is now being proposed. The claim is that EHU's do not count. Is that actually the case at this point in time? We are shocked to find out, at this late stage in the planning process, that the size of the proposed Phase II is so large. We were not made aware of this at the time we purchased in Phase I The Town of Vail has a number of different standards used to evaluate proposed projects. Two of these standards related to density are Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and number of dwelling units per acre. Per the Vail Town Code, EHUs are not considered for either of these standards as to not dis-incentivize their use. All of the dimensional standards relative to this application are reviewed in the staff report. Please find a link below to the staff report and its attachments. It is the second to the last item on the agenda. https://vail.novusagenda.com/agendal2ublic/Displa AgendaPDF.ashx?MeetingID=663 3. The graphic representation of the view looking north (page 7 of the application) is misleading. It shows the pool oriented perpendicular to the actual orientation. Also, they show a fairly large green space in front (south side of Phase II, as if looking from Phase I). This is a false representation. There is a sidewalk and small planting area between Phase I and the wall of the garage, which would be the start of Phase 11. I would agree that the artist rendering included in the application referenced above took a certain amount of artistic liberty and is not an accurate representation. 4. Our understanding when we purchased our unit in Phase I, was that Phase II would not be taller than Phase I. Because Phase II starts at an elevation above Phase I, and has 4 above ground levels, Phase II is taller than the peak height of Phase I. The proposal states that the maximum height exceeds the height limitation. They offer that the Tyrolean does not reach the height maximum, but if it did, the height difference would not appear as great. This argument is ridiculous. The report also states that the setback requirements are not within specifications. Why would you approve a building that does not meet height and setback requirements. They offer other exceptions as a reason that this should be accepted now. This includes the statement that, " EHU's do not count towards GRFA. Exceeding GRFA is not uncommon with most SDDs approved by the Town, especially where the underlying zoning has not been updated to reflect current town goals for in -fill development." We disagree. Multiple exceptions to a rule or policy do not make it a viable policy, and because a policy has not been updated is not an excuse for ignoring it. It appears that the planning commission has made too many exceptions to existing policies and therefore is not fulfilling their obligation to uphold those policies. While the proposed project appears to meet some of the stated goals related to Vail development, it does so by ignoring several regulations set forth to responsibly manage that development. The SDD process allows an application to request deviations from required standards, including height, setbacks, GRFA etc. The decision makers (The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council) are tasked with determining if such deviations provide benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviations. In addition, the Town Council must also determine that the SDD meets the required standards and findings for approval. These standards and findings are included in the staff report. A link to the SDD portion of the Vail Town Code can be found below: http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=560&chapter_id=34607 5. It is our understanding that the resident units, employee units and hotel units will not have access to the Phase I pool/hot tub. Is that the understanding of the Planning Commission? The Town of Vail is unaware of what the internal relationship between Phase I and Phase 2 is proposed to be regarding access to amenities. The owners of Phase I should have been involved earlier. I am wondering what rights we have in this process and how we can be more involved going forward? What is the timeline for approval of the proposed plan? Please let us know how this will proceed and if there is an opportunity to be involved from a remote sight, in the Town Council meeting on Aug 1st? I'd also be interested in the Council's feelings about governance and their responsibility to uphold current policies/regulations vs. making multiple exceptions to those current policy/regulations the norm. The application received a recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission for approval by a vote of 4-3 on June 12th of this year. The proposal requires two readings of an ordinance before the Vail Town Council. First reading is scheduled for August 1 st with a second reading tentatively scheduled for August 15th. Unfortunately, the Town Council meetings are not set up for remote participation but can be viewed online through the town's website, www.vailgoy.com All correspondence received, both in support and opposition to the project, is forwarded to the Town Council members. Your email of the 19th will be forwarded prior to the August 1St meeting. If you would like to provide any additional information/correspondence, please forward directly to me prior to Wednesday, July 26 so I can include it in the packet. As I mentioned previously, I am available to discuss this application further. Sincerely, Jonathan Spence, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Department OV -email -logo ❑® 970.479-2321 vai Igov. com twitter. com/vai Igov Love -Vail -email 0 Don Cameron Marie Harrison Tyrolean #3 Mailing Address; - 3000 E 51h Ave Denver, CO 80206 camy3000@msn.com 303 564 4491 July 24, 17 Ron Byrne: Ron Byrne Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge St, Vail, CO. ron@ronbyrne.com Dear Ron: It has been brought to my attention that in a city planning and environmental meeting you, inaccurately, said you had an agreement with me concerning the approval of your Mountain View project (this is not correct). I do not approve of the project and was lead to believe that the Town Planner was not going to support it prior to the hearing. We are absentee owners, therefore, I may not have seen if the property was properly posted. However, we did not receive an official notice of the hearing as required in most other communities. I was surprised that it was approved by vote by the planning and environmental commission. If it was approved based on the perception that Herb Tobin, the Julius Roja's family, and I, the owners that were totally impacted, were in support, based on the presentation, this perception was totally false and misleading. Although you mentioned the potential of phase 2, Mountain View, when I purchased the property, my due diligence revealed that you had exceeded a number of the zoning criteria to get your initial approval, and I didn't think the Town would allow any greater deviation from the Town Plan than they already had. I can't speak for the Mr. Rojas or Mr. Tobin, but we are being damaged by a diminution of value by our loss of view and privacy, with potential adjacent owners/occupants having a view into our units, along with a loss of natural light. It's unrealistic to ask us to accept a footprint based on an existing parking structure that was built at an elevation contrary to normally accepted zoning principles without any consideration for elevation and property line setbacks. It is my understanding that our HOA has hired counsel to object to this project, and to pursue any other remedies available to us. Sincerely, Donald Cameron Marie Harrison cc: - Town Clerk City of Vail; Patty McKenny Town Manager of Vail: Patty McKenny Town Attorney Vail; Matt Mire Mayor Town of Vail; Dave Chapin City Planner Vail; Chris Neubecker Town Council Vail,- David ail;David Foster Tyrolean HOA - Tom Saalfeld Herbert A. Tobin Luis Rojas c/o Wendal Porterfield pmckenny@vailgov.com, pmckenny@vailgov.com, mmire@vailgov.com, dchapin@vailgov.com, cneubecker@vailgov.com, david@fostergraham.com, ptarmmgt@vail.net, HTobin@tobinprop.com, wporterfield@opa-law.com, From: Patty McKenny To: Jonathan Spence Subject: FW: Support of Mountain View Residences Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 9:43:31 AM here is another public record! Patty McKenny Acting Town Manager Town of Vail omckennvlacr�vailaov.com �t18Ef�'bliKi~'. From: Jeff Morgan [mailto:jeff@ronbyrne.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 5:45 PM To: Council Dist List Subject: Support of Mountain View Residences Town Council, I am a member for VVP Workforce Housing Coalition, and I fully support the Mountain View Residences Project. Vail Valley Partnership's board has supported this project as I do, and we believe it is appropriate density along the frontage road and adds much needed rental housing in the village core. I believe it is incumbent that the town council hear from business owners/managers, residents, and citizens in support of appropriate developments that add deed -restricted rentals. Thank you for the support of a worthy project U Jeff Morgan Associate Broker Ron Byrne & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street I Vail CO 81657 C: 720-314-0023 E: ieffQronb�zrne.com www.ronb�zrne.com '• C - I • . - 1 • • •l- 111 movZONOW From: Dominic Mauriello To: Patty McKenny; Jonathan Spence; Matt Mire Subject: Fwd: Vail Mountain View Phase 2 Date: Monday, July 31, 2017 7:39:33 AM Hi Patty and Jonathan: David Charles, an owner in Phase 1, asked that this email he sent to the owners in phase 1 be shared with the Vail Town Council. Thank you. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mp-vail.com From: David Charles <daviddcharlesna mac.com> Subject: Phase 2 Date: July 28, 2017 5:09:31 PM MDT To: rbyrneQronbyrne.com Greeting neighbors; I understand the concerns of our fellow residences regarding the construction of phase two. It does come as no surprise, however, that the developer is doing exactly what he said he would do, albeit maybe a little different from each of our own preconceived ideas of what the end project would look like. We knew when we bought our unit that the HOA Board were cronies of the developer and we knew that they had the largest financial interest and we knew that they intended to build a phase 2. We also knew that we would not be a part of the design team, and that we would not have a seat on the HOA Board because of how the bylaws were written. It is, as a rule, and common practice for a developer to keep control of the HOA until the project is complete. So, it should be no surprise that the builder/developer has kept control of the HOA so that he could proceed with his original plans. It was right there in our closing documents. The developer does have the best interest in the quality and care of our project. It does him no good to undermanage or damage his own interests in the property. The building is maintained well, and so far, any requests we have made of management have been promptly handled. Our property is managed very well financially. It is our experience that HOA's managed by home owners themselves are frustrating and often inefficient. So we are glad to have Mary Ann handle this for us and believe the HOA has acted in our interest as well as the developer. In the end, the new phase should appreciate our property values not hurt them. Lawsuits and litigation over unwinnable issues will however, damage the marketability of our units. An issue I really believe we should stand firm on is the pool and common area usage. In a letter to homeowners on March 10th of this year, Ron said that there would be no joint use of the pool and common areas. It would be an overwhelming temptation for hotel guests and permanent residents to use these facilities and we would hate to see a future compromise on the use of common areas and the pool. Please note that my new email is dave e look4dave. com -dave and Joyce charles unit 204 TOBIN PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 To the Honorable Mayor Dave Chapin: My wife Francine and I have owned our unit in the Tyrolean since the early 1990's. We love the Town of Vail and have enjoyed many wonderful times here with our family over the years and have made many friends. By way of background, I am the President of the Tyrolean Condo Association which is located immediately to the West of the proposed Phase 2, Vail Mountain View Residence. Since 1926, my company, Tobin Properties, based in a suburb of Miami, have been active owners and developers of real estate with holdings in the Southeast, Mountain and the Pacific Northwest. I also served for 10 years as Mayor of the Town of Golden Beach in Miami Dade County, where I have resided with my family since 1978. 1 have been on both sides of the table and understand each side with great clarity. Today, I am writing to you representing our association and as an individual unit owner to encourage you to deny the application before you. As I see it, the case to deny is clear. In 2007, the original Mountain View development was approved without any notice to us as a neighbor. There was no consulting or discussion on the part of the developer and we all know that notice is a fundamental part of our laws in this country. The Town also permitted a "subterranean" garage to be constructed using the crown of Frontage Road as the standard. The Mountain View property is substantially below that road, resulting in a garage that is at least two stories above the ground and that is what we look at and again, no consideration for the Tyrolean. In addition, the Town knowingly permitted the developer to beef up this so called subterranean garage's foundations to support a future development, which they were not entitled to build at that time. Frankly, if this had not been allowed by the Town, we would not be here today! In all zoning cases, the rules are set and must be followed. The Town should be more thoughtful about its approach to solving its biggest problem..... workforce housing. All of this should take into account the developers' rights, but also, the rights and quiet enjoyment of the neighbors. This is not what the developer has done in this proposal. What we have here is a building site that is 100% built out according to your ordinances. Yet, the Town has created special development district zoning that allows a developer to have a "second bite" at the apple. In the matter before you, the fundamental incentive to the Town, is to end up with workforce housing. The deep question to you is why you would permit that at the expense of the Tyrolean, or anyone else who has relied on the existing zoning regulations. In all of the critical categories, they dramatically exceed your codes all in the name of 10 workforce housing units. You not only set a dangerous precedent for future developers to feel they can get just about anything in the name of workforce housing. The main issue is that we are irreparably damaged and it will only be worse if you approve. I remember when the Town of Vail's "hot button" was parking (coincidentally around 2006). Tobin Properties recently completed a lengthy entitlement process on 5 acres that we own on the ocean in Grassy Key near Marathon in the Florida Keys. Workforce housing is a critical issue there as development has replaced all of the places where people who work in the stores, restaurants, hotels and homes would live in and now have to address phone fax intemet 1101 Ben Tobin Drive Hollywood, FL 33021 954.989.3000 954.985.1116 www.tobinprop.com Ll !Ni TOBIN PROPERTIES travel from a far place to work and public transportation is nonexistent there. The City of Marathon stuck to their rules and came forth with a balanced outcome good for all. There were no special zone districts as there is here. In my opinion, there is no way that any approving authority should give their blessings to an entitlement process that would affect a neighbor gravely. Neighbors should have to sign off or at least be notified in every category. The Town should know that they lay themselves open to serious legal repercussions; some of which are not pleasant. The SDD zoning is not balanced and not a solid defensible concept. This proposed development is just not going to work. Reducing the size makes this development unfeasible and the developers know that so that is why they asked for so much. You must stop this here and now. The Tyrolean appeals to your common sense and hope that you will deny this unnecessary development. Sincerely, Herbert Tobin Tyrolean HOA, Board President cc: Town Clerk City of Vail - Patty McKenny Town Manager of Vail - Patty McKenny Town Attorney Vail - Matt Mire City Planner Vail - Chris Neubecker Tyrolean HOA Attorney - David Foster Tyrolean HOA—Manager Tom Saalfeld Tyrolean HOA — President Herbert A. Tobin Tyrolean HOA— Member Don Cameron Tyrolean HOA— Member Marjorie Davidoff Tyrolean HOA — Member Peter Clarke Luis Rojas c/o Wendal Porterfield Town of Vail City Council — Mayor Pro Tem Jenn Bruno Town of Vail City Council — Member Dick Cleveland Town of Vail City Council — Member Kevin Foley Town of Vail City Council — Member Kim Langmaid Town of Vail City Council — Member Jen Mason Town of Vail City Council — Member Greg Moffet address 1101 Ben Tobin Drive Hollywood, FL 33021 pmckenny@vailgov.com pmckenny@vailgov.com mmire@vailgov.com cneubecker@vailgov.com david@fostergraham.com ptarmmgt@vail.net htobin@tobinprop.com marieh3000@yahoo.com margie.davidoff@gmail.com peter@brattles.com wporterfield@opa-law.com jbruno@vailgov.com dcleveland@vailgov.com kfoley@vailgov.com klangmaid@vailgov.com jmason@vailgov.com gmoffet@vailgov.com phone fax 954.989.3000 954.985.1116 intemet www.tobinprop.com From: Dominic Mauriello dominic@mpgvail.com Subject: Fwd: Vail Mountain View Phase II Information Date: July 28, 2017 at 2:13 PM To: From: Ron Byrne Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 6:52 PM Subject: Vail Mountain View Phase II Information Dear Michael & Linda, URI We would like to provide some additional information on the future development of what we are calling "Phase II" of the Vail Mountain View Residences ("VMVR"). When we developed the existing units at VMVR, we envisioned and designed the project to accommodate an additional building on top of the parking garage, anticipated to be even larger than the currently proposed Phase II building. The upper garage, with its own entrance, was designed with potential commercial uses such as hotel, employee housing, fractional time shares, and a host of other commercial uses in mind. The lower garage, with its separate entrance, was dedicated for current and future owner residential use, and will continue to be used, maintained and kept in the same clean service condition as in the past. It was important to us, in the original HOA documents, to make all purchasers of units in the initial VMVR building ("Phase I") and future Phase I buyers aware of the Phase II development potential. The recorded title documents, provided to all buyers of interests in VMVR, clearly disclose the existence of reserved development rights and, consequently, future development potential. A copy of the "Notice Regarding Disclosures", recorded on May 17, 2009, at Reception No. 200906994 of the Eagle County real property records, which states, among other things, that reserved rights include "the right to build a new building on the Unbounded Condominium Unit" is enclosed for your reference. The Condominium Declaration for the Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek, recorded on December 5, 2008, at Reception No. 200825629, and provided to all buyers at VMVR, likewise describes in Article 15 the reservation of development rights. Phase I is one of our proudest developments and was done with care and thought with the future planning of Phase IL Phase II will have a separate HOA and will not affect the existing operation of Phase L The pool will continue to be for Phase I only and will not be shared with the Phase II development. The first two floors of Phase II are dedicated to 19 hotel units and 10 Employee Housing Units (EHU). The high quality, boutique hotel units are designed to have minimal impact on the Phase I owners. The entrance to the hotel is located on the north (Frontage Road) side of the building. The lobby has a front desk with full time management and security. The hotel units are modeled alter the successful Limelight Hotel concept in Aspen and Ketchum, lciaho, which incorporate modern, high-end finishes. In addition, they do not have balconies on the south side (courtyard area), which was specifically designed to minimize noise impact on Phase I. The entrances to the 10 Employee Housing Units are from the north side (Frontage Road) of the Building and all units are designed without balconies to minimize traffic and noise impact. The interior of each unit is designed with high-end finishes and amenities to serve the needs of professional, medical, business owner, and successful full-time workers of Vail. These are not low-end housing units, but instead, ideal for the professional work -force housing market. The space plan for majority of the units incorporates 2 master bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The 12 For -Sale residential units will be developed with the same eye towards quality as the Phase I building and units, which we are extremely proud of. In addition, we believe the development of the Phase 11 Building will be a noise barrier to the traffic on Interstate 70 and the Frontage Road since it is located to the north of the Phase I building (between Phase I and the interstate). The developer, Peter Carlson, is a very experienced residential, multi -family, and commercial developer. The project will be on a shortened construction schedule of approximately 14 months, due to the existing garage and foundation, which was completed in 2008. I would be happy to meet with you to answer any of your questions and invite you to go to the Town of Vail Website(http://www.vailgov.com/planning), which has the entire development progress and drawings. Additionally, there are two upcoming hearings with the Town Council on the proposed Phase II project currently scheduled for August 1 and August 15. We look forward to a quality, high-end project that will be a benefit to all. Warmest regards, Ron Byrne Lunar Vail, LLC Adobe vmvr condo declara...08.pdf h1ZW Adobe VMVR Packag...017.pdf Notice of Disclos...cs.pdf VU Mauriello Planning Group July 13, 2017 Vail Town Council `/o Jonathan Spence, AICP 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Response to Letter from David Wm. Foster on behalf of the Tyrolean Condominium Association Dear Town Council: A copy of the letter from Mr. Foster was provided to the applicant for the Vail Mountain View SDD. We were surprised to hear that the Tyrolean representatives were unaware of the meeting schedule for the project. Below is a list of events and related notice and information provided to Tyrolean representatives. Where applicable, I have attached copies of meeting minutes, portions of staff reports, and copies of deck slides from presentations made at the meetings on the project. Events: • On or about March 6, I sent a letter to the Tyrolean's manager Tom Saalfeld, informing the Tyrolean that a potential development project was being designed on the Mountain View property and the plan would be shared with the Tyrolean. This letter was acknowledged by Wendy Weigler on March 21 in an email to me. • On March 23, I sent an email to Wendy Weigler and Tom Saalfeld alerting them that the applicant plans to file an application with the Town of Vail on March 27, 2017. I also indicated that the first hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission was anticipated on April 24, 2017. • On March 27, I sent an email with a Dropbox link to Wendy Weigler and Tom Saalfeld indicating that the applicant had submitted an application to the Town of Vail. The Dropbox link included our entire submittal to the Town. I also indicated that the first Planning and Environmental Commission was scheduled for April 24 at approximately 1:00 pm. • On April 7, I sent an email to Wendy Weigler and Tom Saalfeld inviting them to an open house on the Mountain View project scheduled for April 12, 2017. • On April 12, an open house was held from 5:15 - 6:15 pm at the Grand View conference room at the Lionshead Welcome Center. Tom Saalfeld attended the open house and participated in an overview of the project. • On April 24, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the Vail Mountain View proposed SDD. Wendy Weigler and Tom Saalfeld were both in attendance at the hearing and Tom Saalfeld spoke on the record at the hearing (meeting minutes attached). The staff memorandum (first two pages attached) on the proposal dated April 24, 2017 includes a projected comprehensive review schedule for the project, which includes Planning Commission hearings on May 22 and June 12 and a Town Council hearing on June 20, 2017. The hearing was formally continued to May 22. Mauriello Planning Group • On May 17, Wendy Weigler submitted an objection letter to the Town acknowledging she attended the hearing on April 24. • On May 22, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the Vail Mountain View proposed SDD. Wendy Weigler and Tom Saalfeld were both in attendance at the hearing and Wendy Weigler spoke on the record at the hearing (meeting minutes attached). The staff memorandum (first two pages attached) on the proposal dated May 22, 2017 includes a projected comprehensive review schedule for the project, which includes a final Planning Commission hearing on June 12 and a Town Council hearing on June 20, 2017. Also, during the presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission, discussion of the proposed review schedule occurred (slide from presentation attached), wherein it was noted that a final Planning Commission hearing would be held on June 12 and a Town Council hearing on June 20, 2017. The hearing was formally continued to June 12. • On June 12, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the Vail Mountain View proposed SDD. Tom Saalfeld was in attendance at the hearing and spoke on the record at the hearing (meeting minutes attached). During the presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission, discussion of the proposed review schedule occurred (slide from presentation attached), wherein it was noted that a Town Council hearing would be held on June 20. The Planning and Environmental Commission took its final action on June 12. • On June 20, the Town Council held a public hearing and site visit on the proposal. The Town Council formally continued that hearing to its July 11, 2017 meeting. • On July 10, I sent an email to Wendy Weigler and Tom Saalfeld letting them know that the applicant was requesting the application be continued to the July 18, 2017 Town Council meeting and that the second reading was anticipated for August 1, 2017. • On July 11, the Town Council opened the public hearing on the proposal and continued the hearing to August 1, 2017. • On July 14, I sent an email to Wendy Weigler and Tom Saalfeld indicating that the Vail Mountain View SDD had been continued to the August 1, 2017 meeting of the Town Council and with an anticipated August 15 hearing for second reading of the ordinance as well. It should be noted that all of the agendas for the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council are posted online by the Town of Vail and at Town Hall for every hearing that was held. Notice of the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing on April 24 was mailed to the Tyrolean and published in the Vail Daily newspaper. Sincerely, Dominic E Mauriello, AICP Principal c: George Ruther, Community Development Director Matt Mire, Town Attorney Attachments Follow 2 TOWN OF VA10 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April24, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order Members Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, John Rediker, and Brian Stockmar Members Absent: Ludwig Kurz Legal Update and Training - Matt Mire, Town Attorney — Matt Mire provided general legal training on the topics of liability, legislative and quasi-judicial reviews, conflicts of interest, and ex -parte contact. He indicated that for conflicts of interest, PEC members should consider if they, their spouse, family or company would receive any financial benefit from any decision that they make as a voting member of the PEC. If so, then there is a conflict of interest. Mire discussed the roles and responsibilities of the Planning and Environmental Commission, the requirements to take minutes, voting procedures, and conduct during site visits. Election of Chair - Commissioner Gillette, seconded by Brian Stockmar, made a motion to nominate John Rediker as Chairman of the Planning and Environmental Commission. The motion was approved 5-0-1 (Rediker Recused). Election of Vice -Chair - Commissioner Gillette, seconded by Brian Stockmar, made a motion to nominate Ludwig Kurz as Vice -Chairman of the Planning and Environmental Commission. The motion was approved 6-0-0. Site Visit — Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek — 434 South Frontage Road 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) — 60 min. Applicant: Lunar Vail, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence MOTION:Continue to May 22, 2017 FIRST: Perez SECOND: Lockman VOTE: 6-0-0 Spence introduced the project to the PEC. Spence outlined the process for the review of a request for a new Special Development District (SDD). The PEC will be asked to make a recommendation to the Town Council. Spence then summarized the project details, including the number and type of the proposed units. The structure will be constructed atop the existing parking facility. Deviations associated with the request include: the east side setback, building height, density, gross residential floor area (GRFA), site coverage, and loading dock width. Spence identified an error in the staff memo regarding attached accommodation units (AUs) and how they apply to density. Spence then discussed the history of the subject property as well as adjacent parcels. In 2006 the property was subdivided, creating nonconformities in regards to site coverage and limited the future available GRFA. Gillette asked about the purpose of the 2006 subdivision. Spence deferred to the applicant to answer during their presentation. Rediker asked Spence for clarification of the existing zoning of the subject property and adjacent parcels. Rediker then asked about the criteria for establishing an SDD. Spence summarized the nine (9) standards that are to be considered during the review of an SDD. Spence added that consideration is to be given to the public benefit versus the amount of relief requested. Gillette asked about the process involved in the previous subdivision. Spence responded that it was reviewed and approved by the PEC. Stockmar stated a concern about the relationship between the previous subdivision and the relief being requested. Gillette and Rediker asked that the minutes of the PEC meeting that approved the subdivision be provided before the next meeting. Gillette asked about the amount of relief that would be required if the subdivision did not occur. Spence replied density, height, and possibly GRFA. Hopkins asked if parking would be compliant to which Spence replied in the affirmative. Perez asked about the status of the Apollo Park lease and if there were any plans for its redevelopment. Spence replied that there are no requests at this time. Hopkins asked for clarification of the property lines Dominic Mauriello, representative of the applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation. Mauriello introduced the development team and then discussed the characteristics of the area surrounding the subject property. Mauriello discussed the proposed site plan including circulation and the building footprint. Phase One of the development included 112 parking spaces that also accommodated parking needs for Phase Two. Mauriello summarized the number and type of units proposed. He emphasized that the proposed employee housing units (EHUs) are a public benefit. Mauriello introduced Will Hentschel of 359 Design to discuss the elevations and architectural design of the proposal. Referencing the elevations, Hentschel stated that the north elevation design took into account the surrounding context and other architecture along the 1-70 corridor. The south elevation maintains a base -middle -top design approach. Materials include stone veneer base, wood siding where allowed, metal panels, and glass. Hentschel then reviewed the floor plans for each level. Mauriello continued his presentation by outlining the approval process. He then discussed the public benefits of the project including the provision of EHUs, short term AUs, and public art. Gillette suggested that the applicant consider placing the public art near the creek. Mauriello discussed the history of the subject property and its relation to Apollo Park to the east. Gillette asked for clarification on the existing building and if it encroaches into the side yard setback. Mauriello summarized the requested deviations from the underlying High Density Multi - Family (HDMF) Residential zone district and compared them to other previously established SDDs. Mauriello stated that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been provided. The report did not find any significant impacts to the environment. A traffic study has also been provided. CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation) will not require any new improvements. Mauriello then identified the pedestrian connections. A video of a sun/shade analysis was provided. Mauriello provided more details regarding the layout, size, and location of the EHUs. He then did the same for the AUs and for sale dwelling units (DUs). Gillette asked if anyone knew how many hotel rooms were in the Vail Mountain Lodge. Brian Johnson, property manager of the Vail Mountain Lodge, was in attendance and responded that there are twenty (20) AUs within Vail Mountain Lodge. Hopkins asked about the separation distance between Phase One and Phase Two. Hentschel stated that at its closest point it is approximately 22' between structures. Mauriello discussed the project in relation to the goals, objectives, and action plan located within the Vail Village Master Plan. Mauriello concluded his presentation by discussing the public outreach the applicant has conducted to date. Spence asked Mauriello to discuss why the application to amend the Vail Village Master Plan was withdrawn. Rediker asked for commissioner comment. Stockmar stated his concern about the previous subdivision and what might be anticipated for the subject and adjacent properties. Rediker asked what the sun/shade impact will be to the frontage road. Mauriello explained that there will be some impact and has already discussed with Public Works the necessity for heated sidewalks. Rediker asked about impacts on the road itself. Mauriello stated that measures similar to those taken by Solaris may be required. Rediker asked about the impact on the parking lot to the east. Mauriello replied that the impact tends to occur during summer afternoons but will provide more information at the next meeting. Rediker asked for clarification in regards to the setbacks. He stated that the Vail Village Master Plan references extensive landscape buffering if the subject property were to be redeveloped and asked about any proposed landscaping. Hopkins asked if CDOT regulated the size of the vegetation in the right-of-way. Mauriello responded that there is no proposed vegetation within the right-of-way. Perez asked if there are any noise impact studies in consideration of the proximity of the units. Hentschel replied that no studies have been conducted, but they will meet the Vail Town Code noise requirements. Gillette asked staff if there were design guidelines by which the proposal should be evaluated. Spence stated that there are basic guidelines located within the Vail Village Master Plan, but the property is not located within the Vail Village Urban Design Guideline document. Rediker asked staff if there are other items located within the Vail Village Master Plan that are of concern due to a lack of compliance. Lockman asked about specific details of different zone districts. Perez asked if there is concern about creating SDDs instead of maintaining consistent zone districts. Spence outlined concerns that have been mentioned about SDDs, including a lack of predictability. Lockman asked about the proposed setback deviation. Mauriello stated that the applicant is looking at adjusting the zero foot (0') setback. Gillette stated that in order to address the setback issue, the lot could be re -subdivided. Mauriello stated that this would not be likely. Hopkins commented about the lack of visual interest on the north side of the property and suggested additional pockets of landscape. Rediker opened the meeting for public comment. Chris Romer, President, Vail Valley Partnership (WP), stated the VVP supports the proposal. The VVP finds the bulk and mass is appropriate and meets a need for mid-range hotel rooms and EHUs. Tom Saalfeld., manager of the Tyrolean building, requested sun/shade analysis on the Tyrolean. He stated that there are owners within the Tyrolean concerned about the height and density of the proposed structure. Brian Johnson, manager of Vail Mountain Lodge, stated his support for the project and that he did not feel the proposed hotel units would compete with Vail Mountain Lodge. He does not object to the height of the proposed structure. He does agree that the sidewalk should be heated. Commissioner Comment: Stockmar: Expressed his concern about the proposed height of the structure, especially in relation to the existing building and the Tyrolean building. He is also concerned that the proposed setback is too small. He also suggested the lengthy EHU hallway should be broken up. Hentschel clarified that it was the hallway for the AUs. Stockmar clarified that said hallway should be broken up. Gillette: Expressed concern about the bulk and mass of the structure, including the uniform roofline and fagades. Expressed support for SDDs and adding GRFA and bulk if there is sufficient public benefit. He suggested the structure meet code height toward the west in proximity of the Tyrolean. In regards to public benefit, he would like to see more EHU and less AU floor space. He also believes the setback requirements should be met. Lockman: Concerned about the setback encroachment. Also concerned about the amount of GRFA proposed, which is connected to concerns about the building height and mass. Acknowledges the benefits of adding GRFA in proximity to the commercial core, but believes the Vail Village Master Plan specifically addresses a limit to mass and height. Hopkins: The project creates a tunnel effect on the south side of the structure. Is concerned about the sidewalk and believes it should be heated. Concern about building height as the existing garage is already above grade. She asked for locations of mechanical equipment. Hentschel replied that there will be spaces created within the parapet areas, but they will provide more information at the next meeting. She is also concerned with the lack of animation on the north fagade. Perez: Concerned about the proposed building height Rediker: The Vail Village Master plan recommends four stories, which is an issue especially in consideration of the sloping nature of the property. He is concerned about the height and believes people driving along the frontage roads and 1-70 should be able to see Vail Village and Vail Mountain. He commented on zoning in general and the use of SDDs. Though he is not necessarily against the use of an SDD, he stated the property was designated as HDMF for a reason. Agreed that the north fagade needs additional architectural character and buffering from the frontage road. Also has concerns regarding installation of heated sidewalks due to their environmental impact. In regards to neighboring properties, he finds it helpful to have written comment either in favor of or in opposition to the project. Stated that there are some benefits to the proposal, including the addition of hot beds. Concluded with his belief that the project might be helped by the elimination of some of the EHUs as the project as proposed is too large. 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zoning text amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Traffic Impact Fee, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0008)— 45 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel Planner: Chris Neubecker TOWN OFVAIL' Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2017 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC,represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY The applicant, Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units (EHUs), located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. Process The process to establish a new special development district (SDD) begins with a pre - application meeting with staff to discuss the goals of the proposed SDD and the relationship of the proposal to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Next, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) conducts an initial review of the proposed development in which they can recommend approval of the proposal as requested, recommend approval with modifications, or may recommend denial of the proposal. Finally, the Town Council (TC) reviews the PEC's findings and recommendation. The Town Council shall consider the PEC's recommendation, but is not bound by the recommendation in reaching their decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny the proposal. Timeline The applicant has submitted a project review timeline indicating their preference that this meeting functions as an introduction to the project for the PEC. The applicant's projected timeline* is as follows: • 4/24 PEC Worksession 5/3 Design Review Board (DRB) Conceptual Review 5/22 PEC Public Hearing (recommendation to TC) 6/7 DRB Conceptual Review 6/12 PEC (Back-up final public hearing if necessary) 6/20 TC First Reading/Worksession 7/18 TC First Reading or Second Reading 7/19 DRB conceptual 8/1 TC Final Hearing/Second Reading 8/16 DRB Final Approval * The above timeline is only an estimate by the applicant and is subject to change. Based upon the applicant's submitted timeline and the preliminary nature of this meeting, the Community Development Department recommends the PEC continues PEC17-0006 to the May 22, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting in order to address concerns raised by staff and for the applicant to provide detailed responses to anticipated questions from Commissioners and the general public. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Lunar Vail, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. A vicinity map (Attachment A), a project narrative (Attachment B) and plan set (Attachment C) are attached for review. The project is composed of the following components: Employee Housing Units (EHUs) The proposed nine (9) EHUs will be deed -restricted rental units, limited to residents working at least thirty (30) hours per week in Eagle County. The proposed EHUs range in size from approximately 1,015 square feet to 1,309 square feet and all are two- bedroom units. The EHUs are located on the first and second floors above the parking garage in the proposed structure. The total square footage of the nine (9) units totals 11,153 square feet. EHUs, per the Vail Town Code, are not considered Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and are thus not deducted from a development's Town of Vail Page 2 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. 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 C- 0 +-+ C� •2E O� CIO 0 D U L E O CIO TN Q U m V U w W w o a PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN 8F9mi June12,2017,11:00AM 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, John Rediker, Karen Perez and Brian Stockmar Members Absent: None Site Visits: a. Jackson Residence — 2475 Garmisch Drive b. Manchester Residence — 2794 Snowberry Drive c. Mellgren Residence — 4112 Spruce Way 2. A request for review of a Variance, pursuant to Section 12-713-16, 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 June 26, 2017 First: Gillette Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-2-0 (Rediker/Perez opposed) Planner Panfil relayed to the board the applicant's desire for this item to be continued to the next meeting. Russel Geis, representing the applicant, explained the process and timing for the project and the plan moving forward, necessitating the request for a continuance. Commissioner Stockmar requested clarification in regard to the recently installed bike racks. Stockmar reiterated his earlier concerns. Gillette would prefer permanent planters but is ok with moveable containers. Kurz agrees with Gillette Perez agrees with Gillette Hopkins voiced her support of the temporary planters. Lockman would prefer to see what was originally proposed, but is open to alternatives. Rediker is disappointed with applicants desire not to do what was originally proposed. Would support going forward today but recognizes others may support a continuance. 3. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 14-10-4-B, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, etc., Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the replacement of a nonconforming deck with a proposed side setback of one foot, nine inches (1'9") where a fifteen foot (15') setback is required and a proposed rear setback of twelve feet (12') where fifteen feet (15') setback is also required, located at 4112 Spruce Way/Lot 2, Block 8, Bighorn Subdivision 3d Addition, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0013) Applicant: Anders Folke & Anna Maria Mellgren Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Approve, with Conditions First: Kurz Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 Conditions: 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. 2. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate to planning staff prior to requesting a final planning inspection that the improvement has been constructed per plan. Spence introduced the project to the PEC. The existing deck is a safety hazard. The proposed deck will be one foot (1') from the side property line and will maintain a twelve foot (12') rear setback. The size of the lot essentially requires a variance for any improvement. Gillette: Have the neighbors been notified? Spence confirmed in the affirmative. Mike Connolley, representing the applicant, described the need the replace the deck. There was no public comment. Stockmar: Based on the site visit and photographs, this is clearly a safety issue. Supports the requested variance. All the remaining Commissioners agreed with Stockmar's comments. 4. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 14-10-4-B, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow a deck more than five feet (5') above ground level a four and six -tenths foot (4.6') setback where a ten foot (10') setback is required, located at 2475 Garmisch Drive, Unit 1 / Lot 5 & 6, Block H, Vail Das Schone Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 17-0014) Applicant: Dominique&ChristianeJackson Planner: Matt Panfil Motion: Approve with Conditions First: Lockman Second: Kurz Vote: 7-0-0 Conditions: 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal; and 2. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate to planning staff prior to requesting a final planning inspection that the improvement has been constructed per plan. Planner Panfil introduced the project and the requested variance. Dominique Jackson, applicant, provided a rationale for the requested proposal. Existing deck is too small, a safety issue at the top of the stairs. Stockmar asked if the deck is proposed to be used as a BBQ deck. Jackson explained that gas grills are permitted at the property. Stockmar asked if would be cantilevered or supported with posts. Panfil showed that the deck with be cantilevered. Lockman asked why the existing stairs are so narrow. Jackson said that was what was built. Panfil explained that wider stairs would also be permitted. Panfil explained that if cantilever is not possible then posts would be needed. Jackson further explained the plan. Public Comment - None Commissioner Comment Lockman -Recognizes the practical difficulty and supports the request, pointing to the safety concern. Hopkins -Agrees with Lockman Perez - Agrees with Lockman Kurz also agrees and supports the staff memorandum Gillette agrees Stockmar agrees Rediker agrees with staff's analysis. 5. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 7, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for retaining walls with height in excess of three feet (3') within the twenty foot (20') front setback, located at 2794 Snowberry Drive/Lot 16, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0020) Applicant: Gary & Jeane Manchester Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Approve, with Conditions First: Lockman Second: Kurz Vote: 7-0-0 Conditions: 1. No proposed retaining wall shall exceed a height of six feet (6). 2. The applicant shall obtain a right-of-way (ROW) permit prior to commencing work and a Revocable ROW permit for all private improvements located on public property. 3. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. Spence introduced the project and described the requested variance. Due to the steep slope of the lot, if the applicant were to propose a garage within the front setback, the variance would not be required. However, due to the unique topography of the site, it would be inappropriate to locate the garage in the front setback. Staff supports the requested variance. Seth Bossung of Intention Architecture provided a presentation and summarized the site plan design. Kurz: Asked if the retaining walls were boulders or concrete. Bossung responded that all walls are engineered boulder retaining walls. Lockman: Believes it is a creative site plan that addresses complex grading issues. All other Commissioners agreed. Rediker added that it is a unique site and relief is necessary. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 15 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 19 accommodation units and 10 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Approve, with Conditions First: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 4-3-0 (Rediker, Gillette, and Perez Opposed) Conditions: Approval of Special Development District No. 42, Vail Mountain View Residences, is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. Although building mass and scale and relationship to adjacent properties is largely determined through the PEC review, the DRB shall have the flexibility to require changes to the buildings articulation, building stepbacks and stepdowns that will not affect overall height but may result in changes to the building's perceived mass and scale, in order to create an architecturally unified structure, with unified site development, that is compatible with existing structures and its surroundings,- 2. urroundings, 2. The applicant shall work with Town of Vail staff to increase the robustness of the proposed landscaping, including an increase in the number and size of the new plantings, prior to submittal of an application for review before the Design Review Board;, 3. Prior to submittal of a Design Review Board application, the applicant shall provide Town of Vail staff with information for review and approval concerning the proposed operation and configuration of the loading space. If it is determined by staff that the operation poses too great a conflict with the adjacent pedestrian walkway, an alternative location/operation shall be proposed for review and approval by staff; 4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall cause to be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk, in a format approved by the Town attorney, a pedestrian easement for the paved path and stairs from the South Frontage Road right-of-way to the Town of Vail recreational path,- 5. ath, 5. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct a continuous 10' wide separated concrete sidewalk along the South Frontage Road from Vail Valley Drive to the easternmost driveway that is shared by Mountain View and Apollo Park. The walk alignment, Option A or B, shall be approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department prior to its construction, and shall be designed in conjunction with the ongoing conceptual design of the South Frontage Road improvements in this area as a part of the Vail Transportation Master Plan Update,- 6. pdate, 6. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install a snowmelt system within the above mentioned sidewalk along South Frontage Road and shall enter into the standard snowmelt agreement with the Town of Vail. The applicant shall be responsible for providing the heat source, and the on-going maintenance of the sidewalk and snowmelt system,- 7. ystem, 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall update the Traffic study (March 14, 2017) and Turn lane study April 19, 2017) to include any change of units and/or density. This study shall include the net new development PM peak hour generated trips. The applicant shall implement any changes required as a result of the updated studies as approved by the Town of Vail; 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the Town of Vail Traffic Mitigation Fees for the net new increase in development traffic. The total fee shall be updated based on the updated traffic study. This fee was $6500 in 2005, this fee shall be appropriately increased due to construction cost inflation, and in coordination with the on-going Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study, and for this approval be set at $11,200 per net new development PM peak hour trip, based on the net new 12 Dwelling Units, 15 Lock -Offs, 10 EHU's, and 19 Accommodation Units,- 9. nits, 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a construction staging plan and parking plan showing how the construction of this site will not impact town parking or adjacent properties,- 10. roperties, 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall engage Art in Public Places Board on the determination of an acceptable public art installation with a minimum value of $50,000.00,- 11. 50,000.00; 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the recreational amenities tax, as required by Section 12-9A41 of the Vail Town Code,- 12. ode, 12. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall record deed restrictions with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, in a format approved by the Town Attorney, for the Type III Employee Housing Units, and 13. Prior to submitting any building permit application, the applicant shall submit approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) related to all proposed work within the CDOT right -of way. Spence summarized the previous two meetings and the proposed changes that have occurred since the last presentation to the PEC on May 22, 2017. Most of the previous comments were related to the building's bulk, height, mass, public benefit, and relationship to Phase I of the development. The applicant has included a revised north elevation. Staff has provided conditions that would make the project compliant with the approval criteria. The applicant, represented by Dominic Mauriello, MPG Inc., provided a PowerPoint presentation to the PEC. Mauriello reviewed the project timeline. He described the changes in unit count that have occurred through the PEC review process. He summarized the aspects of the project which the applicant believes are public benefits. The deviations from the code associated with the project include: east side setback, building height, density, site coverage, and loading in the front setback. Will Hentschel, Architect of 359 Design, discussed the architectural design changes that have occurred throughout the PEC review process. Hentschel discussed the compatibility of the proposed elevations with Phase I. Similar features between the two phases include: top floor dormers, exposed timber and other parts of the structure, battered columns, and railings. Other changes include the replacement of the previously proposed metal panels with a stucco finish. The building follows the traditional base -middle -top composition. Hentschel introduced an elevation of the south fagade Mauriello continued his presentation by discussing the impact of the structure and side setback encroachment on the adjacent Tyrolean building. He then described the changes that have been made to the north elevation. Mauriello then provided responses to each of the SDD approval criteria. Referencing images of the adjacent properties, he emphasized that the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area. He then discussed the relationship between uses and programming of the proposal and adjacent uses. The density of the proposal and adjacent properties was compared. Mauriello stated that the proposal complies with the Town's parking requirements. He discussed the two possibilities for a loading space. Gillette asked for clarification as to the Town's loading space requirements Mauriello summarized the ways in which the applicant believes the proposal complies with the Town's comprehensive plan and other planning documents. There are no natural or geological hazards on the site. The plan complies with minimum landscape requirements. The proposal is not generating additional traffic and there are no improvements required. Mauriello discussed the two different options available for the location of the proposed sidewalk. He stated that the project will be completed in one phase with an anticipated short construction time. He concluded his presentation by referencing a slide that depicted increased hallway undulation. Spence indicated that Tom Kassmel of Public Works was available for questions and stated that there are two letters distributed at the beginning of the meeting that were received after the PEC packets were distributed. Perez: Asked for clarification regarding the number of employee housing units (EHUs) associated with the project. Spence clarified that there are 10 EH Us proposed, not 9 as stated on page 11 of the Staff Memo. Hopkins: Asked Mauriello for further explanation of the height exhibits Rediker: Asked Spence if there was concern in approving the SDD without specific terms for height and other standards. Spence indicated that the data in the table on pages 11 and 12 of the staff report are the maximums that will be reviewed by the Town Council. Lockman:Asked Spence for clarification on one of the recommended conditions of approval regarding heating the sidewalk. Spence stated that the applicant has agreed to purchase renewable energy credits to offset the cost of heating the sidewalk. Kassmel: Stated that common practice has been to provide heated sidewalks where tall buildings shade the sidewalks, and cited Four Seasons and The Sebastian as examples. Perez: Asked Kassmel about the impact of the loading zone in its proposed location. Kassmel stated that it is not an ideal location and they do not typically allow loading on a public walkway. Lockman:Asked for clarification on the traffic impact fee. Kassmel stated that CDOT has agreed that there is no net new traffic generated by the project. However, proposed uses on the site will generate additional traffic which may have some broader impact on the system. Rediker: Asked how the sidewalk Options A or B will be determined. Kassmel stated that his team is conducting an ongoing review of both options. Option B may be further off in terms of time, but they want to ensure that it is a viable option for the future. Kassmel stated his preference that the sidewalk be located in order to accommodate Option B in the future. Public Comment - Chris Romer, President and CEO of Vail Valley Partnership (VVP), stated VVP supports the project and feels that the height, density, and other deviations are worth the public benefits. Rick Smith, Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC), stated that his group supports the project because it contains EHUs and VVMC anticipates a strong demand for housing. The project will be a recruiting tool for VVMC. Stan Cope, management of Vail Valley Lodge, stated his support for the project. He believes the tradeoff between height and public benefits is worth it. Molly Murphy, Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA), stated the group's support of the project. They believe the lockoffs are an asset to the project. Steve Lindstrom, VLHA, restated that the group supports the project. The applicant is not asking for financial assistance from the community. Believes it is a good location for resident housing. Tom Saalfeld, managing agent of the Tyrolean, stated his opposition to the project. Concerns include: impact on their view and the height of the building. Stockmar asked Tom Saalfeld if there would be any difference if the building were only 48' tall. Tom Saalfeld responded that the overall size of the building is too big and far exceeds the amount of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) allowed. The owners of the Tyrolean were aware of the surrounding zoning, but did not anticipate an SDD. Tom Saalfeld asked if the EHUs were going to be truly affordable. Jeff Morgan stated his support for the project. He stated he works with Chris Romer and they both agree that the building will provide an aesthetic buffer from the highway. Stockmar: The project seems to comply with the SDD review criteria. While understanding the view of those who oppose the project, he believes there is a large public benefit to this project and therefore supports the project. Gillette: Believes the Tyrolean will lose their view regardless of a building height deviation, but does believe that as proposed, the structure negatively impacts the Tyrolean's access to light and air and would like to see that problem addressed. Lockman: Believes that deviations should not be granted strictly based on the provision of EHUs, even though they are very important to the Town. All criteria must be reviewed based on the context of the site. He has an issue with the overall compatibility based on scale, but it is consistent with the Town's various planning documents. He feels there have been improvements to the design over the course of the review and can support the project. Hopkins: Agreed with Lockman. Asked if there was a way to guarantee a price range for EHUs and lockoffs. Spence responded that the limitation is based on occupancy restrictions only. Hopkins stated that she feels the design has improved, but is also worried about the impact on the Tyrolean's access to light and air. Perez: Stated that she does not believe the proposal meets the compatibility criteria. Does not believe the benefit of the EHUs offsets the deviations requested. Feels the design has improved throughout the process, but is not ready to support the project. Kurz: Stated that while the building is large in regards to bulk and mass, it is located in an area which can accommodate its size. Design changes have helped address the perceived bulk and mass concerns. The public benefits outweigh any negative impacts. Lockman: Suggested the traffic impact study be reexamined. Also, he believes that a heated sidewalk should not be required due to its negative impact on the environment. Gillette: Agreed with Lockman regarding the heated sidewalk. Rediker: Acknowledged that there are a lot of positives associated with the proposal, including the EHUs and additional "hot beds." Disagrees with some of the applicant's arguments regarding compatibility of the project with surrounding area. The project does comply with some objectives of the comprehensive plan, but feels the bulk and mass is far beyond anything anticipated for the site. Also believes the project does not comply with Criteria #2 based on the excessive density of the site. Finally, believes that Criteria #3 has not been met and that the building does not complement the design of the surrounding area or Vail in general. 7. A request for final review of an amendment to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 16, Vail Town Code, for an existing healthcare facility, amending the development plan to allow for the reconstruction of the east wing, including healthcare facilities, ambulance district facilities, heliport building and associated structured parking located at 180 South Frontage Road West (Vail Valley Medical Center)/Lots E, F and 2E, Vail Village Second Filing, and Lot 2E-1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1. (PEC17-0022) Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Continue to July 10, 2017 First: Perez Second: Stockmar Vote: 7-0-0 Spence introduced the topic. This presentation will include an introduction and overview of the master plan for WMC. Tom Braun will describe the approach that staff and the applicant will be taking for this project. Tom Braun, Braun Associates, representing the WMC — Introduced some members of the design and applicant team The East Wing is the east end of the campus, near the current parking structure. New medical facilities and heliport will be included. At least 4 members of the PEC were not on this board or Council when the VVMC master plan was approved. We anticipate four more PEC meetings on this topic. Three applications (including Conditional Use for medical care facility and heliport), a rezoning application and subdivision application as well. Medical Professional Building (US Bank building) is also in the master plan boundary. Braun reviewed the parcels, including the land that will be acquired from the Evergreen Lodge. Future meetings with PEC are anticipated June 26, July 10, July 24 and August 10 or 24 of 2017. Master plan in 2014 and 2015 laid the groundwork for this development. Major goal was to keep medical center in Vail. Plan considers internal drivers (hospital needs) and external drivers (Town and community goals). Decompression, finding more space for existing uses, is one goal; relieve crowded conditions. Intention is not to increase number of patients, but to improve operations and comfort. He described the programming in the East Wing. Net gain 110,000 sq. ft. is proposed. Minimizing traffic on West Meadow Drive was a major goal, by relocating front entry to S. Frontage Road. Rediker — Is parking access changed from the original plan? Braun — Yes, it has changed. Gillette — Was there shared access planned with Evergreen Lodge? Braun — Yes, but that is not in this plan. Stockmar — Has the Stedman Clinic moved? Braun — Yes, to the West Wing. Braun continued to describe the new medical center, arrival experience, and heliport. New heliport location will reduce time and distance between emergency room and heliport. He discussed the parking needs, and general transportation management, including employees taking buses and shuttles to bring workers to medical center. About 197 additional on-site parking spaces are planned. About 605 total parking spaces planned on-site. Loading and delivery was discussed; all will be enclosed. Pedestrian circulation will include a north -south connection along east side of new building. He discussed the land exchange with Evergreen Lodge. Future needs and expansion space will be provided in the helipad building. This space is not programmed. Extra space may allow a location for uses in the medical professional building (US Bank) during redevelopment. Rediker — Is a roundabout planned near the Municipal Centre and VVMC? Spence — On July 10, Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, will attend the PEC meting to describe future road improvements. Nate Savage, Davis Partnership, Architect — Showed 3D images of the architecture. Materials and design elements will be similar to the central wing. Lobby will be open with mountain views. Public pedestrian access will be available from Meadow Drive. Loading bays will allow trucks to drive in, turn -around inside, and pull out of separate garage door. Gillette — Is the elevator tower two stories above the main building? Savage — That is the elevator tower overrun that you are seeing. Helipad tower needs to be at a set height, based on flight patterns and safety. Braun — Described the flight pattern for helicopter flights. Gillette —What design guidelines are used to review the helipad? Braun — The site is not in the Village, and not in Lionshead, so the Town's standard design review process will be used. Savage - Level 2 will have sleeping quarters; level 3 will have internal conference space. Rediker — It will be helpful to see the presentation on flight paths. Last year there was a Flight For Life accident in Frisco. What designs are provided to plan for accidents? Braun — Defer a response until the helicopter expert is here Kurz — Please show secondary entrance on Meadow Drive. There is no parking associated with that? Savage — The south entry is design for pedestrians and bus users. Hopkins — Can that entry be design to look more like an entry? Savage — Yes, but we have limits with the property line. Rediker — Please plan to discuss what happens if the Evergreen Lodge redevelopment does not more forward, and impacts to Evergreen guests. Braun — An aviation easement is planned for a small area over the Evergreen Lodge. Rest of the Evergreen site could be built to maximum allowed height. Rediker — Any connection planned to the medical office building? Braun — That was discussed, but too expensive to build an elevated walkway. Kurz — What happens if land exchange does not happen? Braun — This plan depends on the land exchange to happen. Stockmar — How are you financing this project? Are you protected from an economic downturn? Doris Kirchner, WMC President and CEO — Over past 10 years we have had savings and $75 million capital campaign, We have raised $42 million so far. Kurz — Are you accelerating the schedule? Kirchner- We are on schedule. Our plan is to finish by Fall 2020 Chris Knight, Project One, Project Manager — Goal is Fall 2020 for parking structure occupancy. Kurz — Have used the facility more that I want to over past several months. Congratulations on how you have managed traffic and circulation during construction. Thank you for your efforts. 8. A request for review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a resubdivision of Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing and the creation of Lot F-1, Vail Village Second Filing, located at 180 South Frontage Road West/ Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0016) Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to June 26, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 7-0 9. A request for review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a resubdivision of Lot 2W, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing, and the creation of Lot 2E-1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing, located at 250 South Frontage Road West/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0018) Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to June 26, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 7-0 10. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of Lot 2E, Vail Village Second Filing and Lot 2E-1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing, from Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District to the General Use (GU) District, and a rezoning of Lot F-1, Vail Village Second Filing from General Use (GU) District to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District, located at 180 and 250 South Frontage Road West/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing and Vail Village Second Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0015) Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to June 26, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 7-0 11. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to Section 12-10-19 Core Areas Identified, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to include Lot F-1 in the Commercial Core Area for parking regulations purposes, located at 250 South Frontage Road West/Lot F-1, Vail Village Second Filing, and setting for the details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0023) Applicant: Evergreen Hotel Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to June 26, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 7-0 12. Approval of Minutes May 22, 2017 PEC Meeting Results Motion: Approve First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 6-0-1 (Perez — Abstain) 13. Informational Update 14. Adjournment Motion: Adjourn First: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 7-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hours prior to z _O U U W Y cc O U LU 0 - It v N J cc a a 0 Z O 0 (3 Z Z z � U w o a w w cc _O U)cc Y oC 0 z U) W 2 . O U N J J Y OC O LU— ccz J U U z z O O U LU aLL zU z z zO a N 0 O O H ~ } Q o N r Co LU W Z J (ry a • C- cri 4-j D- U � 4LLJ a� O cri� OQ � U Q U cri U)_ O U • O U O U) O 7C) U O �3: X WF From: Adrian Fernandez To: Jonathan Spence Subject: Maintain View Residences Phase II Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 8:02:31 PM Dear Vail Town Council: I am writing as an owner in Mountain View Residences (Phase 1) to support the proposed Mountain View Phase 2 project (a Special Development District). It was clear to me from the onset when I purchased my unit (Unit 9305), it was recorded on the title that there would be a phase 2 project built on top of the existing garage. I am supportive of the project, the proposed building is well designed, high quality and fits nicely with the site. I encourage you to approve this project. Sincerely. Adrian Fernandez (Owner unit 305) Mary Anne Redmond From: Brooke Thompson Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 8:37 AM To: Mary Anne Redmond Subject: Fwd: Announcing VMVR Phase II Get Outlook for iOS From Mark Kaplan Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 7:49 AM Subject: Re: Announcing VMVR Phase II To: Ron Byrne <ron@ronbyrne.com> Very nice, just back in Vail as of last night, good luck to you Sent from my iPad On Mar 10, 2017, at 4:49 PM, Ron Byrne <ront`yronbyrne.com> wrote: Dear Mark & Linda, I hope you've had the opportunity to come to Vail this winter as it has been a fabulous season. I wanted to let you know that we are currently in the planning stage of the development of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II. When we originally purchased the land that Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I sits on, it was always intended to be a part of a multi -phase project. The parking garage which is located to the north of your building was designed specifically for that purpose. It currently has the infrastructure to accommodate a new building above it, which was originally designed in 2007. After the downturn in the economy, the development was put on hold and we have redesigned it this year. Since the foundation already exists, this new phase can be built very quickly and with minimal impact to you. We take a great deal of pride in Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I. In my opinion, it is one of the best projects in Vail in terms of luxury, privacy and exclusivity. We plan to develop Phase II in the same manner. The new building will be located over the north garage and will act as a large buffer for noise coming from 1-70 and the Frontage Road. It will have no impact of your views towards the ski slopes or Gore Creek. The new building has been designed to have no common areas with your building. The first and second floors will be comprised of 20 hotel suites which are across from your 3rd & 4th floors. 1 believe this will be a great benefit to you should you ever need any additional space for your guests. Each suite will include a small kitchenette, master bath with double vanities and will be graciously decorated. On the north side of the building, which is out of view to you, we will have a few high-end employee housing units. All developments in Vail now require employee housing, and our goal is to build extremely high-end housing units that will cater to working professionals. On the 3rd and 4th floors of the new building, we will have 12 new luxury residences which will be a combination of two, three and four-bedroom penthouse units. These units will be almost identical to Phase I in terms of layout and design. My partner in this endeavor is developer Peter Carlson out of Minnesota. He has extensive development experience and I have known him for over 30 years, purchasing a home from his father on Forest Road twenty years ago. Peter brings great knowledge of construction and development to the project and I think he is a great asset. Every aspect of this development, as well as the continued operation of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I, is incredibly important to us. There will be no use of the current pool and hot tub area of Phase I by Phase II. The parking is designed with the upper garage (north door) being used for hotel suites and employee housing units with only the 12 luxury condominiums using the lower portions of the garage. Mary Anne Redmond, the Association President, has done an excellent job ensuring that the building is kept in excellent shape. We are very proud that the building consistently operates within its budgets, and has in fact built up a substantial reserve. Please feel free to contact myself or Mary Anne if you would like more details on Phase II. We will continue to keep you informed as phase II progresses. Warmest personal regards, Ron Ron Byrne, President & CEO Ron Byrne & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street I Vail CO 81657 970-476-1987 office 970-331-8500 cell www.ronbvrne.com Ron Byrne & Associates 2016 Luxury Property Collection Mary Anne Redmond From: Sent: To: Subject Get Outlook for iOS Brooke Thompson Sunday, March 12, 201712:20 PM Mary Anne Redmond Fwd: Announcing VMVR Phase II From: Dave Keller Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 11:43 AM Subject: FW: Announcing VMVR Phase II To: Ron Byrne <ron@ronbyrne.com> Ron, Pam and I are excited about this news and wish you continued success. Best regards, Dave and Pam David A. Keller President Built to Last I Since 536 Chapel Hills Drive, Ste 150 Office 719.528.6977 Colorado Springs, CO 80920 L•t II•... ii.,I• Click to join us on Pinterest, Facebook and Houzz! This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Dave Keller Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 10:48 AM To: Dave Keller Subject: Fwd: Announcing VMVR Phase II Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Ron Byrne <ron ronb rne.com> Subject: Announcing VMVR Phase II Dear Dave & Pam, I hope you've had the opportunity to come to Vail this winter as it has been a fabulous season. I wanted to let you know that we are currently in the planning stage of the development of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II. When we originally purchased the land that Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I sits on, it was always intended to be a part of a multi -phase project. The parking garage which is located to the north of your building was designed specifically for that purpose. It currently has the infrastructure to accommodate a new building above it, which was originally designed in 2007. After the downturn in the economy, the development was put on hold and we have redesigned it this year. Since the foundation already exists, this new phase can be built very quickly and with minimal impact to you. We take a great deal of pride in Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I. In my opinion, it is one of the best projects in Vail in terms of luxury, privacy and exclusivity. We plan to develop Phase II in the same manner. The new building will be located over the north garage and will act as a large buffer for noise coming from I-70 and the Frontage Road. It will have no impact of your views towards the ski slopes or Gore Creek. The new building has been designed to have no common areas with your building. The first and second floors will be comprised of 20 hotel suites which are across from your 3rd & 4a' floors. I believe this will be a great benefit to you should you ever need any additional space for your guests. Each suite will include a small kitchenette, master bath with double vanities and will be graciously decorated. On the north side of the building, which is out of view to you, we will have a few high-end employee housing units. All developments in Vail now require employee housing, and our goal is to build extremely high-end housing units that will cater to working professionals. On the 3rd and 4d' floors of the new building, we will have 12 new luxury residences which will be a combination of two, three and four-bedroom penthouse units. These units will be almost identical to Phase I in terms of layout and design. My partner in this endeavor is developer Peter Carlson out of Minnesota. He has extensive development experience and I have known him for over 30 years, purchasing a home from his father on Forest Road twenty years ago. Peter brings great knowledge of construction and development to the project and I think he is a great asset. Every aspect of this development, as well as the continued operation of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I, is incredibly important to us. There will be no use of the current pool and hot tub area of Phase I by Phase II. The parking is designed with the upper garage (north door) being used for hotel suites and employee housing units with only the 12 luxury condominiums using the lower portions of the garage. Mary Anne Redmond, the Association President, has done an excellent job ensuring that the building is kept in excellent shape. We are very proud that the building consistently operates within its budgets, and has in fact built up a substantial reserve. Please feel free to contact myself or Mary Anne if you would like more details on Phase II. We will continue to keep you informed as phase II progresses. Warmest personal regards, Ron Ron Byrne, President & CEO Ron Byme & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street I Vail CO 81657 970-476-1987 office 970-331-8500 cell www.ronb_yrne.com Ron Byrne & Associates 2016 Luxury Property Collection Mary Anne Redmond From: Teresa Thomas Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 8:58 AM To: Mary Anne Redmond Subject: FW: Announcing VMVR Phase II From: Pamela Keller Sent: Sunday, March 12, ZU11 1:43 17171 To: Ron Byrne Subject: RE: Announcing VMVR Phase II Ron, This is very exciting news. So glad that you are able to start this next project. It seems like your timing will be excellent. On another matter, would you happen to know a good finish carpenter? We would like to do a small remodel and the one we used last has sadly retired. Best always, Pam Pam Keller Executive Vice President I Sales and Marketing Keller Homes, Inc. Built to Last I Since 1983 536 Chapel Hills Drive, Ste 150 1 Colorado Springs, CO 8og2o Office: 719.528.6977 This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Ron Byrne fmailto:ron_(`bronbyrne.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 3:46 PM To: Pamela Keller; Dave Keller Subject: Announcing VMVR Phase II Dear Dave & Pam, I hope you've had the opportunity to come to Vail this winter as it has been a fabulous season. I wanted to let you know that we are currently in the planning stage of the development of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II. When we originally purchased the land that Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I sits on, it was always intended to be a part of a multi -phase project. The parking garage which is located to the north of your building was designed specifically for that purpose. It currently has the infrastructure to accommodate a new building above it, which was originally designed in 2007. After the downturn in the economy, the development was put on hold and we have redesigned it this year. Since the foundation already exists, this new phase can be built very quickly and with minimal impact to you. We take a great deal of pride in Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I. In my opinion, it is one of the best projects in Vail in terms of luxury, privacy and exclusivity. We plan to develop Phase II in the same manner. The new building will be located over the north garage and will act as a large buffer for noise coming from I-70 and the Frontage Road. It will have no impact of your views towards the ski slopes or Gore Creek. The new building has been designed to have no common areas with your building. The first and second floors will be comprised of 20 hotel suites which are across from your 3rd & 46' floors. I believe this will be a great benefit to you should you ever need any additional space for your guests. Each suite will include a small kitchenette, master bath with double vanities and will be graciously decorated. On the north side of the building, which is out of view to you, we will have a few high-end employee housing units. All developments in Vail now require employee housing, and our goal is to build extremely high-end housing units that will cater to working professionals. On the 3rd and 4d' floors of the new building, we will have 12 new luxury residences which will be a combination of two, three and four-bedroom penthouse units. These units will be almost identical to Phase I in terms of layout and design. My partner in this endeavor is developer Peter Carlson out of Minnesota. He has extensive development experience and I have known him for over 30 years, purchasing a home from his father on Forest Road twenty years ago. Peter brings great knowledge of construction and development to the project and I think he is a great asset. Every aspect of this development, as well as the continued operation of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I, is incredibly important to us. There will be no use of the current pool and hot tub area of Phase I by Phase Il. The parking is designed with the upper garage (north door) being used for hotel suites and employee housing units with only the 12 luxury condominiums using the lower portions of the garage. Mary Anne Redmond, the Association President, has done an excellent job ensuring that the building is kept in excellent shape. We are very proud that the building consistently operates within its budgets, and has in fact built up a substantial reserve. Please feel free to contact myself or Mary Anne if you would like more details on Phase II. We will continue to keep you informed as phase II progresses. Warmest personal regards, Ron Ron Byrne, President & CEO Ron Byrne & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street I Vail CO 81657 970-476-1987 office 970-331-8500 cell www.ronbvrne.com Ron Byrne & Associates 2016 Luxury Property Collection 2 Mary Anne Redmond From: Teresa Thomas Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 9:24 AM To: Mary Anne Redmond Subject: FW: Announcing VMVR Phase II From: Adrian Fernandez Sent: Monday, March 13, LU1/ 9:Ub AM To: Ron Byrne Subject: Re: Announcing VMVR Phase II Thank you Ron for the Update, we will be coming on the summer. On Mar 10, 2017, at 6:48 PM, Ron Byrne <ron@ronbyrne.com> wrote: Dear Adrian, I hope you've had the opportunity to come to Vail this winter as it has been a fabulous season. I wanted to let you know that we are currently in the planning stage of the development of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase 11. When we originally purchased the land that Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I sits on, it was always intended to be a part of a multi -phase project. The parking garage which is located to the north of your building was designed specifically for that purpose. It currently has the infrastructure to accommodate a new building above it, which was originally designed in 2007. After the downturn in the economy, the development was put on hold and we have redesigned it this year. Since the foundation already exists, this new phase can be built very quickly and with minimal impact to you. We take a great deal of pride in Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I. In my opinion, it is one of the best projects in Vail in terms of luxury, privacy and exclusivity. We plan to develop Phase 11 in the same manner. The new building will be located over the north garage and will act as a large buffer for noise coming from 1-70 and the Frontage Road. It will have no impact of your views towards the ski slopes or Gore Creek. The new building has been designed to have no common areas with your building. The first and second floors will be comprised of 20 hotel suites which are across from your 3rd & 4th floors. I believe this will be a great benefit to you should you ever need any additional space for your guests. Each suite will include a small kitchenette, master bath with double vanities and will be graciously decorated. On the north side of the building, which is out of view to you, we will have a few high-end employee housing units. All developments in Vail now require employee housing, and our goal is to build extremely high-end housing units that will cater to working professionals. On the 3rd and 4th floors of the new building, we will have 12 new luxury residences which will be a combination of two, three and four-bedroom penthouse units. These units will be almost identical to Phase I in terms of layout and design. My partner in this endeavor is developer Peter Carlson out of Minnesota. He has extensive development experience and I have known him for over 30 years, purchasing a home from his father on Forest Road twenty years ago. Peter brings great knowledge of construction and development to the project and I think he is a great asset. 1 Every aspect of this development, as well as the continued operation of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase I, is incredibly important to us. There will be no use of the current pool and hot tub area of Phase I by Phase II. The parking is designed with the upper garage (north door) being used for hotel suites and employee housing units with only the 12 luxury condominiums using the lower portions of the garage. Mary Anne Redmond, the Association President, has done an excellent job ensuring that the building is kept in excellent shape. We are very proud that the building consistently operates within its budgets, and has in fact built up a substantial reserve. Please feel free to contact myself or Mary Anne if you would like more details on Phase II. We will continue to keep you informed as phase II progresses. Warmest personal regards, Ron Ron Byrne, President & CEO Ron Byrne & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street I Vail CO 81657 970-476-1987 office 970-331-8500 cell www.ronbyrne.com Ron Byrne & Associates 2016 Luxury Property Collection July 28, 2017 Mayor Dave Chapin, Members of the Vail Town Council I would like to take this opportunity share with you my support of the proposed Vail View Mountain Residences Phase 11. As all of you know one of Vail's original employee housing projects Apollo Park was build across the same site as this new proposed project. In its day this was a place that employees from many different employers could reside and be with in the Town of Vail. Now as then employee housing and parking were challenging. This project would bring affordable employee housing back into Vail Village. These would be long term rental units that employees who work in our local businesses, keeping our guest happy and supporting the infrastructure that made Vail what it is today. Not deed restricted housing but affordable rental units for those who are working on the front lines of Vail. In 1967 my family came to Vail for the first time. After that my skiing career brought me back to Vail many times each year. Then in 1974 1 was able to make Vail my home. In that year I met the Seibert family and Mr. Pete Seibert. I was lucky enough to hear his vision as to how Vail was to become successful. In his vision he saw a place that guests and employees shared many of the same experiences on the slopes and off. This led to a stronger sense of inclusion in the "Vail Experience" which enhanced a vision of sharing our community with the world. I hope you can support this project in its effort to combine employee housing with the modern development that Vail needs. It's only a small number in the needs of our employees but it is a start. Sincerely, Tom Talbot From: Ashley Garton[mailto:Ashley@goodmanwallace.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 6:25 PM To: Kendra Carberry Cc: Kerry Wallace Subject: Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek - Objection to the SDD Application Dear Ms. Carberry, This office has been retained by a coalition of owners at Vail Mountain View Residences on the Gore Creek. We are currently preparing an objection to the SDD Application filed by Lunar Vail, LLC [Item No. 6 on the August 1, 2017 Agenda]. We believe there are a number of serious issues regarding the alleged "Written Approval Letter" by the Association as referenced in your July 18, 2017 correspondence. We would respectfully request that the Town of Vail table the issue to allow the Association and its owners to address the matter amongst themselves. A brief summary of the issues we believe exist are as follows: 1. Because Declarant control expired in 2010 Ms. Redmond, who is appointed by the Declarant, did not have the authority to sign the Joint Property Owner Written Approval Letter on behalf of the Association. The Town Code requires that the consent of such Agent or Authorized Representative be given only after compliance with applicable provisions of the Declaration. There has been a complete lack of transparency in the provision of information and notice to Association Members. In addition to the two foregoing points the coalition of Unit Owners objects to multiple criteria required to be demonstrated by the applicant per the Town Code. Additionally, in your July 18, 2017 correspondence you refer to an attached explanation provided by the applicant's counsel as to the Written Approval Letter; however said explanation is not attached. Could you please provide the alleged explanation, it would be greatly appreciated? Again, we respectfully request the Town consider tabling the matter to allow the Unit Owners to have a meaningful dialogue with the applicant. We realize this request comes on short notice; however, out of respect for the time constraints on the August 1St Agenda we feel that 90 minutes may be an insufficient amount of time to address the Unit Owners' concerns. As mentioned above, we are currently working on a detailed objection which you will have in hand tomorrow and which we will be discussing with the HOA. If possible, would you have time tomorrow for a phone call with attorney Kerry Wallace to further discuss this matter? We hope to work cooperatively with the Town of Vail to address this matter in an efficient manner. Thank you, Ashley Garton Ash ley()goodmanwallace. corn GOODMANANDWALLACE P.C. The Peak in Valley Law svi tic, Goodman;Ealface_ com Fail OfIrme 105 Edwards Village Blvd Suite D-201 F.O. Box 1896 Edwards, CO 81632 *please reply to this address Teiephone 970,926,4447 Facsintile 970.926.5009 Aspen Met Ttlephoue 970,925.2050 hasELECTRO%RC(ANDOR TnDOMMEM ACCOWA.VrM, MMAY OCNUAW CO F1 tri IN-FORIVATION BGEONGM0 TO TW IVM VrMCH f$ PROnUMBYTMA"r"L(R.N'EY- CL 7 M11611 -ME. M MOKMATION IS l 7E ' D FCR THE "E OF THE NDR''I UAL OR Elm TO RICCH TT IS ADDRE SSED 1F YOU ARENOT THE L\7L%DED RECIPIE\7. YOU ARE HEMY N'=FrED THAT ANYDISCLOSLRE. COPYING, DISTRT UM4, ELECTRONIC STOR M. OR THE TAU GOF A..%Y ACTION PTMIl1\CEOti THE CDh7EN73 OF THIS !,\TrOR1 ATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBI D iF 4O[i HAVE FECER'ED THIS TRA.M.S9SM IN ERROR. PLEASE D&MMATELY NOTu;,k' nW SENDER BY REPLY E.NLULAA'DEYMMM ELYDELETETMSRECORDFROMYOUKCO.IB)L'IFRSYSTEAL H O L LAND & HART . 0m Thomas ]. Todd Phone (970) 925-3476 -'M Fax (970) 925-9367 ttodd@hollandhart.com May 17, 2017 Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Attention: Mr. Jonathan Spence Re: Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II Dear Mr. Spence: Holland & Hart LLP represents Gore Creek Group LLC, the applicant for the pending land use application for the expansion and development of the existing commercial units in the Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek condominium project (the "Project"). The pending land use application seeks approval for the construction of a second phase ("Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II") consisting of a new mixed-use residential and commercial building in the area above the Project's existing parking garage. I am writing to you in reference to a recent question raised relative to the involvement of Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek Owner's Association (the "Association") as well as the existing residential condominium unit owners whose condominium units are located in the first phase ("Phase I") of Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek. Under the Project's governing documents, the development of Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II with a new building was specifically contemplated, and the right to develop Vail Mountain View Phase II was expressly reserved by the Project's Declarant, Lunar Vail LLC. In this regard, under Article 15 of the Project's Condominium Declaration (the "Declaration"), the separate consent of the existing residential unit owners in Phase I of the Project is not required for this expansion and development. Also, a separate Notice Regarding Disclosures (the "Notice") in reference to these matters was also recorded. Lunar Vail LLC has expressly authorized Gore Creek Group LLC to submit and pursue this land use application, as has the Association. Based on the foregoing, we deem consent of the owners in Phase I as being already given, and in existence. As such, the application complies with the submittal requirements of Section 12-9A-3 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Letters from the Project's Declarant as well as from the Association confirming these arrangements are included in the land use application materials. A copy of the Notice, recorded April 4, 2009 under Reception No. 200906994, along with Article 15 of the Declaration are enclosed with this letter. Holland & Hart LLP Attorneys at Law Phone (970) 925-3476 Fax (970) 925-9367 www.hollandhart.com 600 East Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611-1991 Aspen Billings Boise Boulder Carson City Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson Hole Las Vegas Reno Salt Lake City Santa Fe Washington, D.C. HOLLAND & HART . Mr. Jonathan Spence, " May 17, 2017 Page 2 The land use application contemplates the inclusion of the Project in a proposed special improvement district (the "SDD") which will include both Phase I and Phase II of the Project. All the uses and dimensional requirements included in land use application as well as the proposed SDD were specifically contemplated in the Declaration and the Notice, and all residential unit owners in Phase I of the Project took title to their condominium units subject to these reserved expansion rights, so no separate or additional consents or approvals are needed from the residential unit owners in Phase I. In summary, while Gore Creek Group LLC, has full legal authority under the Project's governing documents to submit and pursue the pending land use application, Gore Creek Group LLC nevertheless obtained the Association's acknowledgement of these rights as part of its submission of the application. The Gore Creek Group LLC is keeping the Association as well as the individual unit owners in Phase I informed as the application proceeds with the Town of Vail. Sincerely, d J J-40-4 Thomas J. Todd of Holland & Hart LLP TJT Enclosures 9644997_2 OUNTY TEAKEJCSIMONTONO 200906994 Ps: 4REC: $21.00 DOC:1$:39:43RM 04/17/2009 I nAfter Recording Return to. JCM .Z*S nd St.. gird oor NOTICE REGARDING DISCLOSURES This Notice Regarding Disclosures is made and given this ,3/oday of 2009 by Lunar Vail, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (the "Declarant"). Declarant is the owner of the Commercial Unit as defined in and created pursuant to that certain Condominium Declaration for the Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek as recorded in the records of Eagle County, Colorado on December 5, 2008 at Reception No. 200825629 (the "Declaration') and that certain Condominium Plat recorded in the records of Eagle County, Colorado on December 5, 2008 at Reception No. 200825628 (the "Map"). Capitalized terms used but undefined herein have the meanings given them in the Declaration. Declarant has certain Reserved Declarant Rights as described in the Declaration and Map which include, without limitation the right to build a new building on the Unbounded Portion of the Condominium Unit. If permitted by Applicable Law, such a new building at the Project could include retail space and/or space sold as part of a fractional or interval interest regime. Declarant is recording this Notice against the Commercial Unit as a reminder for all potential buyers of Units at the Project to review the Declaration and, in particular, to understand the Reserved Declarant Rights. In addition, in order to ensure that Owners acquiring title to Units other than through an initial Dced from Declarant havc the benefit of the same knowledge as the initial purchasers from Declarant, the Declarant is including the following disclosures from its own sales contracts in this Notice: Mountain Activities. The Project is located in an area with skiing facilities and other all -season recreational areas (the "Mountain Recreational Areas"). The Mountain Recreational Areas are expected to generate an unpredictable amount of visible, audible and odorous impacts and disturbances ; from activities relating to the construction, operation, use and maintenance of the J DMWEST #6801289 v1 J 200906994 1 of 4 Mountain Recreational Areas (the "Mountain Activities"). The Mountain Activities include, without limitation: (i) movement and operation of passenger vehicles (including, without limitation, buses, vans, and other vehicles transporting passengers over adjacent streets and over, around and through the Mountain Recreational Areas), commercial vehicles, and construction vehicles and equipment; (ii) activities relating to the construction, operation and maintenance of roads, trails, ski trails, skiways and other facilities relating to the Mountain Recreational Areas (including, without limitation, tree cutting and clearing, grading and earth moving and other construction activities, construction, operation and maintenance of access roads, snow -making equipment, chairlifts, gondolas, busses or other transportation systems, operation of vehicles and equipment relating to trash removal, snow removal, snow grooming, and over - the -snow or over -the -terrain transportation purposes, and operation of safety and supervision vehicles); (iii) activities relating to the use of the Mountain Recreational Areas (including, without limitation, skiing, snow -boarding, ski - patrol activities, and other over -the- snow activities, hiking, horseback riding, bicycling and other recreational activities); (iv) ski racing and organized events and competitions relating to the activities described in clause (iii) above; (v) concerts, fireworks displays, and other performances and special events; (vi) restaurants, clubs, restrooms and other public use facilities; (vii) public access to adjacent U.S. Forest Service lands; (viii) public parking facilities and the traffic related thereto; (ix) and other activities permitted by law. The Mountain Activities may occur 365 days a year, during daytime and nighttime. The Project is located in a geologically sensitive area that may be subject to rock slides. Construction Activities. The Unit is located in an area that is subject to or near ongoing construction activities (collectively, the "Construction Activities"). The Construction Activities are expected to generate an unpredictable amount of visible, audible and odorous impacts and disturbances. The Construction Activities may include, without limitation: (i) construction traffic (including, without limitation, construction vehicles, equipment and vehicles used or owned by Seller, adjacent landowners, and the employees, agents and contractors of either of them); and (ii) construction activities (including, without limitation, grading, excavation, clearing, site work and construction of indoor and outdoor improvements) relating to the Project, nearby properties, or the Mountain Recreational Areas. Commercial Activities. A variety of commercial activities may or will be conducted on, or in the area near, the Project (the "Commercial Activities"). The Commercial Activities are expected to generate an unpredictable amount of visible, audible and odorous impacts and disturbances. The Commercial Activities may (but will not necessarily) include, without limitation: (i) operation DMWEST #6801289 v1 2 200906994 2 of 4 of full-service hotel(s) and health spa(s) with associated swimming pool(s), other outdoor recreational facilities and parking facilities; (ii) meetings, conferences, banquets and other group events; (iii) sales and rentals of clothing, skis, ski - related equipment, other over -the -snow equipment, bicycles, and other recreational equipment; (iv) sales of tickets for chairlifts, gondolas, other transportation systems, and other activities and events conducted on the Mountain Recreational Areas; (v) indoor and outdoor restaurant and bar operations (including, without limitation, the sale of food and alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages for consumption on and immediately adjacent to the Project and at other locations) and preparation of hot and cold food (through the use of barbecue grills, fire pits and other smoke and/or odor producing means) and beverages at indoor and outdoor facilities on and immediately adjacent to the Project; (vi) sales of services relating to skiing, other over -the -snow activities, and other recreational activities (including, without limitation, tuning, waxing, repairing, mounting of bindings on, renting, storing and transporting skis, snowboards and similar equipment, ski schools and other forms of individual and group lessons, tours and excursions); (vii) vehicle passenger drop-off and pick-up, locker room, changing room, rest room and lounge purposes in designated areas, and short-term clothing and equipment storage; (viii) parking activities (including, without limitation, activities relating to valet parking or parking relating to adjacent properties); (ix) the installation, operation and maintenance of illuminated and non -illuminated signage; (x) concerts and other outdoor and indoor entertainment, performances and special events, including, without limitation, Octoberfest and similar festivals, and art fairs; and (xi) any other uses or activities permitted by law. The Commercial Activities may occur 365 days a year, during daytime and nighttime. No View Easement. There is no easement or other right, express or implied, for the benefit of any Owner or Unit for light, view or air. Other Properties. Other properties are located adjacent to and nearby the Project (the "Other Properties") and the Other Properties may be developed or redeveloped by Declarant or other parties pursuant to the land uses permitted by the Town's zoning resolutions and other codes and ordinances. DMW EST #6801289 v1 200906994 3 of 4 Executed as of the date first written above. LUNAR VAI a Colorado limited liability co By: Nam Title: s.• J STATE OF COLORADO �r� } ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was cknowled ed before me this ,34-fday of 2009 by d as of Lunar Vail, LLC, Colorado limited liability„,,,,1'. company. r`' 1S D p 'ie. Witness my hand and official seal. = cn��' Z Syi It%y NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: DMWEST #6801289 0 200906994 404 Association takes any such action, or is the losing party in any proceeding related t ctron, then (in addition to all other remedies of Declarant) such Owner, such Cla ssociation shall be responsible for Declarant's costs, including reasonable s fees, and shall also be responsible for any and all consequential damages, g damages as the result of any delay, related to such action. Section 14.5. ransferable. Any Special Declarant Rights or Additional Reserved Right create . erved under this ARTICLE 14 for the benefit of Declarant may be transferred to a n by an instrument expressly describing the rights transferred and recorded in the Records. e. ARTICLE 15 RESERVATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Section l 5.1. Ex1jansion Rights. Declarant expressly reserves the right to subject all or any part of the Real Estate described in Exhibit D attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference (the "Expansion Prggrty") to the provisions of this Declaration upon the substantial completion of Improvements on the Expansion Property. The consent of the existing Owners, First Mortgagees or other holders of Security Interests shall not be required for any such expansion, and Declarant may proceed with such expansion without limitation at its sole option. In addition, Declarant also expressly reserves the right to add unspecified Real Estate to the Project as allowed by the Act. Section 15.2. Development and Withdrawal Rights. Declarant expressly reserves the right to create Units and/or Common Elements (expressly including Limited Common Elements), to combine Units, to subdivide Units, to convert Units into Common Elements (expressly including Limited Common Elements), to convert Common Elements into Units, to allocate Common Elements as Limited Common Elements and to allocate Real Estate as Limited Common Elements on all or any portion of the Real Estate reserved for future development in this Declaration or pursuant to the Map, expressly and specifically including, without limitation, any Commercial Unit (expressly including, without limitation, any part of the same that is not within the Bounded Portion), any Residential Unit owned by Declarant, and the Expansion Property. Any improvements created, constructed or installed pursuant to the previous sentence may be referred to herein as "Additional Improvements." Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Declarant expressly reserves the right (a) to subject Units owned by Declarant, or other portions of the Project that are subject to Development Rights, to a plan of fractional or vacation ownership; (b) to convert all or a portion of any Commercial Unit into Residential Units and/or to create new Residential Units, which may be of a different type than and/or may fonn a different Class than the Residential Units existing as of the datc hereof; (c) to subdivide, combine, or relocate boundaries between any Units owned by Declarant and any adjacent Lim ited Common Elements appurtenant thcreto, including the addition, removal or relocation of any Common Elements therein, provided the same does not impair the structural soundness of or the operation of building systems in such Common Elements; (d) to subdivide any Commercial Unit within the parking garage into individual parking units (which parking units would be deemed to be Commercial Units hereunder), and/or (e) to subject any Commercial Unit that is all or part of a parking garage to a club, membership, or similar program through which owners or mcnibers thereof, which may or may not be Owners, are granted a right to use and access certain Common Elements, In the event that Declarant exercises any Reserved 33 200825629 40 of 65 "Declarant Rights in a manner that causes the creation of Units which are to be used or restricted•as employee housing units pursuant to the ordinances or regulations of the Town of Vail, then Declarant may elect to designate such employee housing units as either Commercial Units or Residential Units, and in either case the employee housing units may be excluded from certain Limited Common Elements appurtenant to other Units in the relevant Class (and from payment of the costs associated therewith) and/or from voting on certain Class issues otherwise associated with the relevant Class, all as determined and designated by Declarant. Declarant may exercise any or all of the Development Rights so reserved at any time within the period described in Section 15.9 with respect to all or any of the Real Estate identified as subject to Development Rights in the Declaration or pursuant to the Map. No assurances are made with respect to the boundaries of any parcels that may be developed or the order in which the parcels may be developed. Exercise of a Development Right with respect to any one parcel does not require exercise of a Development Right on any other parcel of Real Estate subject to Development Rights. No assurances are made that any further development will occur. If all or any part of the Expansion Property is submitted to this Declaration, this right to reserve property for future development shall apply to such property as well. Declarant expressly reserves the right to withdraw all or any portion of the Property that is designated as subject to withdrawal in this Declaration from the Project by recording a document evidencing such withdrawal in the Records. The Commercial Unit, or any portion(s) thereof retained by Declarant atter any subdivision thereof, is hereby designated as being subject to withdrawal rights. The Real Estatc withdrawn from the Project shall be subject to whatever easements, if any, are reasonably necessary for access to or operation of the Project. Declarant shall prepare and record in the Records whatever documents are necessary to evidence such easements and shall amend Exhibit C to this Declaration to include reference to the recorded easements. Declarant alone is liable for all expenses in connection with Real Estate subject to Development Rights for as long as the same remains subject to Development Rights. Section 15.3. Amendment of Declaration. If Declarant elects to submit the Expansion Property, or any part thereof, or Additional Improvements, to this Declaration, or to subdivide or to convert Units or Common Elements, then at such time as a certificate of completion executed by an independent licensed or registered engineer, surveyor, or architect stating that all structural components of the Improvements on the Expansion Property or the Additional Improvements are substantially completed is obtained, Declarant shall record an amendment to this Declaration reallocating the Allocated Interests so that the Allocated Interests appurtenant to each Unit will be apportioned according to the total number of Units submitted to this Declaration. The Allocated Interests apportioned to each Unit in the Project shall be based on the formulae set forth in Section 4.2. Mere subdivision of a Unit shall not change the Allocated Interests of any Unit not included in such subdivision, except as expressly set forth in Section 4.2. The amendment to this Declaration shall contain, at a minimum, the legal description of the Expansion Property, or a part thereof, or a description of the Real Estate on which the Additional Improvements being submitted to this Declaration are located and a revised schedule of the Allocated Interests appurtenant to the Units in the Project. Section 15.4. Supplement to the Math. Declarant shall, contemporaneously with the amendment of this Declaration, file a supplement to the Map showing the location of the Additional Improvements constructed on the Expansion Property or the construction, combination, subdivision, 34 200825629 41 of 65 conversion or allocation of Units or Common Elements allowed by this Article. The supplement to the Map shall substantially confonn to the requirements contained in this Declaration. Section 15.5. lnterpretation. Recording of amendments to this Declaration, and supplements to the Map, in the Records shall automatically: such Unit; and (a) vest in each existing Unit the reallocated Allocated Interests appurtenant to (b) vest in each existing holder of a Security Interest a perfected Security Interest in the reallocated Allocated Interests appurtenant to the encumbered Unit. Upon the recording of an amendment to this Declaration, the definitions used in this Declaration shall automatically be extended to encompass and to refer to the Property as expanded. The Expansion Property, or any part thereof, or the Additional Improvements constructed on the Property as expanded shall be added to and become a part of the Project for all purposes. All conveyances of Units after such expansion shall be effective to transfer rights in all Common Elements as expanded, whether or not reference is made to any amendment to this Declaration or supplement to the Map. Reference to this Declaration and Map in any instrument shall be deemed to include all amendments to this Declaration and supplements to the Map without specific reference thereto. Section 15.6. Maximum Number of Units. The maximum number of Units in the Project shall not exceed 300 Units, or, if allowed by the Act, the maximum number of Units allowed by any governmental entity having jurisdiction over the Property, pursuant to any development plan or approvals for the Property and the Expansion Property. Declarant shall not be obligated to expand the Project beyond the number of Units initially submitted to this Declaration. Section 15.7. Construction Easement. Declarant reserves an easement through, over and across the Common Elements and Units as may be reasonably necessary for the purpose of discharging Declarant's obligations and exercising Declarant's reserved rights in this Declaration without consent of any party. Such easement includes the right to construct underground utility lines, pipes. wires. ducts, conduits, and other facilities across the Property not designated as reserved for future development in this Declaration or on the Map for the purpose of furnishing utility and other services to buildings and Improvements to be constructed on any of the Property reserved for future development. Declarant's reserved construction easement includes the right to grant easements to public utility companies and to convey improvements within those easements anywhere in the Common Elements not occupied by an Improvement containing Units. if Declarant grants any such easements, Exhibit C to this Declaration will be amended to include reference to the recorded easement. Section 15.8. Reciprocal Easements. if property is withdrawn from the Project ("Withdrawn Pro ert ''): (a) the owner(s) of the Withdrawn Property shall have whatever easements are necessary or appropriate, if any, for access, utility service, repair, maintenance and emergencies over and across the Project: and 35 200825629 42 of 65 (b) the Owner(s) in the Project shall have whatever easements are necessary or appropriate, if any, for access, utility service, repair, maintenance, and emergencies over and across the Withdrawn Property. Declarant shall prepare and record in the Records whatever documents are necessary to evidence such easements and shall amend Exhibit C to this Declaration to include reference to the recorded easement(s). Such recorded easement(s) shall specify that the owner(s) of the Expansion Property and the Withdrawn Property and the Owners in the Project shall be obligated to pay a proportionate share of the cost of the operation and maintenance of any easements utilized by either one of them on the other's property upon such reasonable basis as Declarant shall establish in the easeinent(s). Preparation and recordation by Declarant of an easement pursuant to this Section 15.8 shall conclusively determine the existence, location and extent of the reciprocal easements that are necessary or desirable as contemplated by this Section 15.8. Section 15.9. Termination of Develo ment Rights. The Development Rights reserved to Declarant, for itself, its successors and assigns, shall expire thirty (30) years after the date of recording this Declaration in the Records, unless the Development Rights are reinstated or extended by the Association as provided in the Act, subject to whatever terms, conditions, and limitations the .Board of Directors may impose on the subsequent exercise of Development Rights by Declarant. Declarant may at anytime release and relinquish some or all ofthe Development Rights with respect to all or any part of the Real Estate subject to such rights by instrument executed by Declarant and etT'ective when recorded in the Records. Upon the expiration or other termination of the Development Rights, any Real Estate then subject to such rights shall become Common Elements or Units, as applicable. Section 15.10. Interference With Develo ment Ri ts. Neither the Association nor any Owner nor any Class may take any action or adopt any rule or regulation that will interfere with or diminish any Development Rights reserved by this ARTICLE 15 without the prior written consent of Declarant. In the event an Owner, a Class or the Association takes any such action, or is the losing party in any proceeding related to such action, then (in addition to all other remedies of Declarant) such Owner. such Class. or the Association shall be responsible for Declarant's costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and shall also be responsible for any and all consequential damages. including, damages as the result of any delay, related to such action. Section 15.11. Transfer of Development Right . Any Development Rights created or reserved under this ARTICLE 15 for the benefit of Declarant may be transferred, in whole or in part to any Person by an instrument expressly describing the rights transferred and recorded in the Records. Such instrument shall be executed by the transferor Declarant and the transferee. Section 16.1. Cov-—eraee. Commencing not later th nveyance of a Unit to a purchaser and to the extent reasonably avaiI dation shall obtain and maintain insurance coverage as set forth in this a ssociation shall have the power and authority to obtain additional overages not specified herein in the Board's discretion. If such insurance is 36 200825629 43 of 65 xa FOSTER GRAHAM MILSTEIN & CALISHER, LLP ATTORN EYS AT LAW July 31, 2017 Vail Town Council Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Via Hand -Delivery 360 South Garfield Street 61h Floor Denver, CO 80209 T303-333-9810 F303-333-9786 DENVER — BOULDER fostergraham.com Re: Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2017; First Reading, Proposed Ordinance Establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences). Dear Council Members: This firm represents the Tyrolean Condominium Association ("Tyrolean") in the above - referenced matter (the "Proposal"). The Proposal is set for a first reading and public hearing on August 1, 2017. Tyrolean objects to the Proposal as it does not comply with the applicable review criteria. As such, Tyrolean requests that the Proposal be denied. Unfortunately, the undersigned counsel will be out of the country on August 1, and the Property Manager for Tyrolean will also be unavailable. Further, Tyrolean has submitted requests for documents pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. § 24-72-201, et seq., and has been advised that the Town of Vail needs additional time to comply with the request. The documents Tyrolean has requested are relevant to its opposition to the Proposal. Through the Town of Vail's counsel, Kendra Carberry, I have been advised that a second public hearing will take place at the second reading of the Proposal, at which time Tyrolean will be afforded an opportunity to present its opposition to the Proposal. We look forward to the opportunity to address you at that time. Ms. Carberry has graciously agreed to submit this letter for the record at the hearing on August 1St Sincerely, FOSTER GRAHAM MILSTEIN & CALISHER, LLP David Wm. Foster {00440013.DOCX/ 1 1 Mayor Chapin, Mr. Mire, and Members of the Commission July 31, 2017 Page 2 cc: Ms. Wendy Weigler Mr. Herb Tobin Mr. Tom Saalfield Mayor and Town Council {00440013.DOCX/ 1 } 14 VCBA The Vail Chamber & Business Association July 7, 2017 Town of Vail Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear PEC & Town Council Members: 241 South Frontage Road East, Suite 2 Vail, Colorado, 81657 970-477-0075 www.vailchamber.org Members of the Vail Chamber and Business Association board of directors attended a presentation by Mauriello Planning Group of the Mountain View Residences Phase II project proposed for the east end of Vail Village. We are writing to voice our support for this project for the following reasons: 1. We are in favor of the proposed deed -restricted, workforce housing apartments, especially their livability, their location in Vail Village on the in -town bus route, and the fact that they also include dedicated parking. 2. We believe the hotel rooms and lock -off units, as well as the potential for short term condominium rentals, will bring added vitality to the east end of Vail Village, in addition to generating additional sales tax revenue. 3. We feel the proposed height and mass of the building is appropriate for its location on the South Frontage Road. On behalf of our board of directors, I urge you to consider the public benefits of this project as it moves through the town of Vail approval process. A timely yes vote will ensure that efforts to address the workforce housing crisis in Vail continue to move forward. Respectfully, Alison Wadey Executive Director Vail Chamber and Business Association From: dwc19460)aol.com [mailto:dwc19460)aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 10:35 AM To: Council Dist List; Info Subject: Vail Mountain View Phase II Dear Mr. Mayor and Town Council Members, My name is David Cross and I own a home at 126 Forest Road. Previously my wife and I owned a condominium at the Tyrolean for approximately five years prior to moving to Forest Road. As a result, we are long term Vail residents with a vested interest in the orderly and beneficial development within our community. I'm writing in SUPPORT of the Vail Mountain View Phase II Development Project. I believe I have first hand insight as to the benefits this project will provide for the project site, surrounding areas, and for our community. PROJECT SITE....... I was advised prior to purchasing our Tyrolean unit of the potential future development of the Vail Mountain View Phase II site, as were the people to whom we sold. Assuming the quality of the complex design, construction, landscaping, and property management are equal to the Vail Mountain View Phase I site, the proposed project will be an major upgrade to the existing property. The renderings of the proposed project are very attractive and will bring vitality to the area. I understand Ron Byrne will be the project manager and will have an economic interest in the project which will provide the same incentive to him to do a great job, as did the Vail Mountain View Phase I project. That project turned out to be very successful for both the area and community. The proposed project will also help buffer the Highway noise which is a common complaint of residents at both the Tyrolean and the Vail Mountain View Phase I complex. SURROUNDING AREAS....... this side of town is showing its age and this project will upgrade the area and increase property values and the tax base. COMMUNITY BENEFITS...... this project will provide much needed employee housing in an area of town where these resources are scarce. Additionally, where else in the Village area can we increase affordable hotel bed capacity which is currently underserved? The financial impact to our community is obvious, the increased tax revenues will go a long way to underwriting the cost of other much needed community services. I would be there in person to present my views but I will be out of town at the next scheduled Town Council Meeting which will discuss the Vail Mountain View Phase II Project. I'd be most appreciative if this letter would be given due consideration for the approval of the Vail Mountain View Phase II project. Thank you, David Cross Sent from my Whone Dan & Caro1 Wolfe 612,581.5373 dan.wolf qa�am. �il.cnm dreywnlfe@nmail.com 6520 Indian Hills Road, Edina, Mini 55439 August 9, 2017 Town of Vail Council Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail - Planning Department Tammy Nagel Town of Vail - Clerk RE- Objection by Owner at Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. (VMVR) to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42. Dear Town of Vail Council Members: My wife Carol and I are the owners of #303 in Vail Mountain View Residences. We have been coming to Vail for over 30 years, When we decided to buy in Vail, we explored many options including the Arabelle, Solaris and others. We chose VMVR because of the neighborhood, the less dense feeling and proximity to the creek, as well as the knowledge that there would not be additional development east of The Wren, due to the park. We are not anti -development and we are not anti -employee housing. We are for thoughtful development. We bought in Phase I of the VMVR project knowing that a second building would be built. That having been said, we were told at the time that Phase 11 would not be taller than our building. The current proposal is almost 22 ft higher than code allows. We were also told that the building would be built on the additional existing parking structure, using it as the foundation, not cantilevered out over the existing driveway, exceeding the setback to the east. As you know, these are two of the five variations requested in the SDD. You are aware that there are a number of owners in Phase I of VMVR who are contesting the validity of the VMVR Board approval of the SDD, there has also been a lack of transparency, time and ability to have input in the process. At the last council meeting, the City Attorney opined that he felt this dispute was not within the jurisdiction of the City Council, but that it is an issue between the owners and the Board. I disagree, but in any case the fact that there is a dispute, now know by the council, cannot be ignored as part of the process. At a minimum there should be more time given to address what we, as owners of Phase 1, feel is an improper authorization. As far as the SDD goes, the first Criterion for Review is Compatibility. This has to do with neighborhood and environment. We think that we have a very unique neighborhood, bounded by Gore Creek to the south, the frontage road and highway on the north, Ford Park on the east and Vail Valley Drive on the west. There is one single family home, the Tyrolean, VMVR, Apollo Park and The Wren. We are at least a quarter of a mile from Solaris and don't consider VMVR part of that neighborhood. If the 5DD is approved, Phase II at VMVR would be the tallest building east of Solaris. One argument given by the developer has to do with the City approving a number of other taller buildings along the frontage road, i.e.) Solaris, the Four Seasons, etc They argue since other major projects have been allowed to build above the 48 ft code, that in essence, taller buildings along the frontage road are now the norm. If that's true, the code should be changed to reflect that new norm, That way those who purchase property in the area will know what to expect if there is further development on the frontage road, and you could eliminate SDD's related to the 48 It height restriction. On the other hand, 48 ft is the current code and the council has to take that into consideration with this 5DD. I understand that the developer is obligated to try to push the envelope as much as possible in order to maximize return on investment. That does not mean that the city/council is not obligated to take a hard look at Compatibility. The developer has added the incentive of 7 more EHU`s than are required. I understand this is a very attractive offer, since creating EHU's is a priority in the city's master plan. I would actually prefer more EHU's and no hotel rooms, to be honest. However, there needs to be some balance of the neighborhood, height, mass and density of buildings and the benefits. In the developer's presentation, at the last meeting, there was a slide with the following points: 1 ) „Compatibility should not only consider existing buildings but future conditions." 2) That, "Compatibility does not mean "consistency" or being "same" or even reflecting similar character." THOUGHTS REGARDING, #1 The developer said in that same slide that this will "set a new standard for the neighborhood." The presenter again mentioned this in his concluding remarks, stating that perhaps this plan can be used as a template for further development. It is understandable that the developer would like to set the precedent in our neighborhood that is in his/her favor. Any developer at Apollo Park and The Wren, which we know will eventually will be redeveloped, would expect that they would be allowed to develop similar height and density properties if this SSD is approved. We do not wish to set that standard. On the other hand, if in the future you were to deny Apollo Park and The Wren to develop something similar after approving this SDD, you will have created a situation that we will not be happy with either. REGARDING #2 While using the argument that "compatibility does not mean "consistency" or being "same" or even reflecting similar character, the developer turns around and argues that the reason to deviate from the current 48 ft code is that the current plan is consistent with other taller buildings that have recently been built. The next issue is density. We were told at the time we purchased #383, that Phase II would be a similar condo project. The addition of multiple hotel rooms (34 hotel rooms and lock offs), which only count 1/2 in your calculations, will in reality increases the number of people using the same area beyond what which would be experienced with awned condos only. There would be significantly more coming and going with theses units, Even with your counting method, 44.5 units (proposed in Phase Il) plus the 24 condos in Phase 1, would mean 64.5 units, where 49 originally existed an our site prior to Phase 1. The proposed GRFA is 80% greater than allowed. This is not a minor deviation. Finally, The current Phase II plan has a patio/common area that is literally on top of the wall for the Phase I pool. I wonder about the vetting of the planning commission and the council with regard to sensitivity to the neighborhood. We respectfully requestthat the Application for SDD #42 be denied Dan Woli Car ,I Wolfe �-. �,-✓`' � ✓,d �,�� ��s' ^wr" a �+ Town of Vail Council towncouncil@vailgov.com Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail - Planning Department ispence@vailgov.com Tammy Nagel - Town of Vail Clerk tnagel@vailgov.com a Re: Objection by Owner at Vail Mountain Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: I own Unit 204 at VMVR which will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 was approved. I object to the Application as follows: 1. Lack of Notice and Failure of the Applicant to meet the requirement under the Town of Vail Code to procure "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." No notification of this public process was provided at any time to the Residential Owners at VMVR. The Residential Owners at VMVR have been denied the right to meaningfully address the Application through this public process though our property rights are most impacted by the Application. Mary Anne Redmond, the Applicant's employee, did not have apparent or actual authority to submit an Approval Letter for the SDD Application as the authorized representative of VMVR. (See below for more detail). 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact air, light, privacy and the residential feel of VMVR. Phase 2 of VMVR as proposed under the SDD will be a 700 foot tall, high density, mostly transient -occupied building with 34 hotel rooms and lock offs in addition to 22 condos and employee housing units. Phase 2 will be cantilevered over the Phase 1 parking garage entrance blocking access to the parking garage by delivery trucks and taller vehicles. A 2,000 square foot Lobby Deck will overhang the Pool. There has been no proposal provided to date to the Phase 1 Owners on how Phase 2 will interrelate with Phase 1 in terms of assessments, maintenance and use. When I purchased my Unit at VMVR I relied upon zoning restrictions applying to the Declarant's future Development Rights in relation to Phase 2 which Declarant represented to me would be applicable thereby protecting my investment. My awareness of the SDD Application occurred recently when a fellow Owner saw an article in the Vail Daily and reached out to me and other Owners. There has been no effort to vet the SDD Application through the Phase I Owners and in fact there has been a disturbing lack of transparency about it from the Applicant whom is also the Commercial Owner at VMVR. Most disturbing is that on March 27, 2017 Mary Ann Redmond - employee of the Commercial Owner and Applicant for this SDD - signed an "Approval Form" that was submitted to the Town of Vail stating that the Association had approved the SDD. This occurred without an Association Meeting or any notification of the Residential Owners at Phase 1. This "Approval Letter" does not meet the Town Code requirements for such approval and the Application should fail as a threshold requirement of the Application has not been met. As a result of the failure to meet Code and notice requirements, the SDD Application has progressed through the Town of Vail administrative processes without objection or involvement of the Phase 1 Residential Owners despite the great impact the SDD Application will have upon our homes. These actions do not meet the requirements of the Town Code or the spirit of the public process. I also object to the SDD Application as it fails to meet the 9 Criteria for an SDD as follows: 1. Compatibility: This criteria is not met for the following reasons: i. This is small residential project with a parking garage located in an area of the Town of Vail that does not have large buildings around it. The proposed SDD and related plans will allow a taller building than Phase I to overshadow and overpower the Phase I building. This will adversely impact light, air, heat energy created by sun and privacy. ii. A hotel facility coupled with Units that can in essence be used as hotel like rooms (i.e. lock offs) creates a high use that is not consistent with the residential area in which the project is located and adversely impacts Phase I and neighboring properties. This high use creates an adverse carbon footprint for a Town that is moving toward Green certification. iii. Parking is already a major issue and problem for the Phase I portion of the VMVR. Creating a large, dense additional project subject to use by a large volume of people at the same time will highly exacerbate this problem. iv. The Phase II parking garage is proposed to be cantilevered over the current entrance to the Phase I garages making it impossible for trucks and delivery vehicles to even pull into the garage entrance area. A separate loading area is needed for Phase I but is not proposed. V. Pedestrian access is compromised. vi. A 2,000 square foot "lobby deck" is proposed for Phase 11 which will overhang the pool area for Phase I. This creates an incredible invasion of privacy and impact on light and air around this important Phase I amenity. It also creates a life safety hazard as it creates an attractive nuisance for persons to jump off the Phase II Deck and into the Phase I pool. vii. Abuse of SDD - It was represented to the Owners of Phase I and said Owners relied upon the scope of the original project and Town zoning restrictions when they purchased Units at Phase I. To allow GRFA, height, use and density restrictions to be simply circumvented by an SDD undermines the entire zoning process or ability of any purchaser of property in the Vail Village to rely upon what may or may not be built around them. 2. Relationship: The planned uses, activity or density for Phase II are not compatible with existing Phase I. See above. 3. Parking and Loading: a. The planned location for the loading zone atop a public walkway is not just atypical, it is unsafe and certain to interfere with surrounding uses and activity. b. Parking is already major issue at VMVR and this will substantially aggravate that issue; c. Delivery trucks and tall vehicles will not be able to access the parking garage or even the parking garage entry area; d. The design will lead to guests at Phase II to park in the Phase I garage entry area blocking Phase I Owner access. This creates an emergency vehicle access issue as well. e. There is no ability to separate the Phase I parking and portions of the Phase II parking leading to major enforcement issues for Phase I on parking abuses and poaching as well as allocation of maintenance responsibilities. 4. Comprehensive Plan: a. The deviations from the code associated with the project include: east side setback, building height, density, site coverage, and loading in the front setback. Each of these proposed deviations directly and negatively impacts existing usage and value of the neighboring Phase I development. b. The proposed deviations concerning height, density, mass, and bulk must all be weighed against the perceived public benefit of the Application. Public comment offered in support of the Application during the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting focused exclusively on the addition of Employee Housing Units ("EHUs"). However, the proposed deviations are certain to exceed permissible Gross Residential Floor Area. As the PEC pointed out, such deviations should not be granted strictly based upon provision of EHUs. The benefit of EHUs does not offset the requested deviations and neighboring owners have not been adequately informed of the extent of the proposed bulk and mass are far beyond anything anticipated for the site. Thus, the Application is not compatible with the surrounding area. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: None known except creation of shadows, cold pockets and lack of air and light to Phase I. 6. Design Features: See above in relation to this criteria not being met. 7. Traffic: a. The Application would increase density in relation to the Phase I development and is therefore practically certain to generate additional traffic. In fact, Tom Kassmel of Public Works noted in the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting that proposed uses on the site will generate additional traffic which may have some broader impact on the system 8. Landscaping: The landscaping is very limited and artistic license was made in the submitted plans in this regard. 9. Workable Plan: There has been no proposal on how Phase II is to integrate with Phase I. The 2 Phases are very different uses, different Common Areas and maintenance responsibilities. Section 12-9A-8 requires the Town Council to make the following findings with respect to the proposed SDD: 1. That the SDD complies with the nine (9) criteria, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 2. That the SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 3. That the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. That the SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. I object to a finding by the Town Council that any of the foregoing matters have been established per what I stated above. I respectfully request that the Application be delayed. Respectfully, Scott Herndon Unit 204 From: CommDev To: Jonathan Spence Cc: Chris Neubecker Subject: FW: Vail Mountain View Residences Date: Monday, August 14, 2017 7:51:35 AM -----Original Message ----- From: Michael [mailto:bigrooty(&_aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:37 PM To: CommDev Subject: Vail Mountain View Residences Dear Town of Vail Town Council, My name is Michael Rootberg, owner of unit #301 in Vail Mountain View Residences. When I purchased my unit in 2009, I was well aware that there would be a future Phase II Development My unit was purchased directly from Ron Byrne, who was a gentleman then and still is now. He has always taken the time to listen to any cares or concerns regarding our building or his proposed future building. The Phase I building that I am in was well constructed and has been well maintained, resulting in a comfortable place to live, with increasing value. Regarding other projects that Ron has handled, since ours, there have been similar positive results. Furthermore, I am writing in support of the current VMVR HOA Board of Directors. The board has always acted in the best interest of the owners, providing timely responses to any issues as well as substantial savings to the owners. Mary Anne Redmond, Board President, has always acted effectively on behalf of the owners, resulting in an Association that has been run extremely efficiently and at a low cost to owners. Ron loves this valley deeply and I believe that any project that he's involved with, will be of high quality and create increased values for both Phase I, as well as, Phase II owners. Therefore, it is my hope that you will recommend the approval of the Vail Mountain View Residences Phase II project. Sincerely, Michael Rootberg Sent from Mike's Wad Town of Vail Council towncouncilkvailgov.com Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail — Planning Department j spencegvailgov.com Tammy Nagel — Town of Vail Clerk tnagel@vailgov.com Re: Objection by Owner at Vail Mountain Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: I own Unit #205 at VMVR which will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 was approved. I object to the Application as follows: 1. Lack of Notice and Failure of the Applicant to meet the requirement under the Town of Vail Code to procure "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." No notification of this public process was provided at any time to the Residential Owners at VMVR. The Residential Owners at VMVR have been denied the right to meaningfully address the Application through this public process though our property rights are most impacted by the Application. Mary Anne Redmond, the Applicant's employee, did not have apparent or actual authority to submit an Approval Letter for the SDD Application as the authorized representative of VMVR. (See below for more detail). 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact air, light, privacy and the residential feel of VMVR. Phase 2 of VMVR as proposed under the SDD will be a 700 foot tall, high density, mostly transient-occupied building with 34 hotel rooms and lock offs in addition to 22 condos and employee housing units. Phase 2 will be cantilevered over the Phase 1 parking garage entrance potentially blocking access to the parking garage by delivery trucks and taller vehicles. A 2,000 square foot Lobby Deck will abut and overlook the Phase I Private Pool. There has been no proposal provided to date to the Phase I Owners on how Phase 2 will interrelate with Phase 1 in terms of assessments, maintenance and use. When I purchased my home at VMVR, it was reasonable for me to rely upon zoning restrictions applying to the Declarant's future Development Rights in relation to Phase 2 thereby protecting my investment. My awareness of the SDD Application occurred recently when a fellow Owner saw an article in the Vail Daily and reached out to me and other Owners. There has been no effort to vet the SDD Application through the Phase I Owners and in fact there has been a disturbing lack of transparency about it from the Applicant whom is also the Commercial Owner at VMVR. The only correspondence I received about Phase 2 at VMVR from the Applicant was in March 2017 through a letter which merely described Phase 2 Plans, while there was no mention or disclosure of the SDD Application. Most disturbing is that on March 27, 2017 Mary Ann Redmond — employee of the Commercial Owner and Applicant for this SDD — signed an "Approval Form" that was submitted to the Town of Vail stating that the Association had approved the SDD. This occurred without proper Meeting requirements or any notification of the Residential Owners at Phase 1. This "Approval Letter" does not meet the Town Code requirements for such approval and the Application should fail as a threshold requirement of the Application has not been met. As a result of the failure to meet Code and notice requirements, the SDD Application has progressed through the Town of Vail administrative processes without objection or involvement of the Phase 1 Residential Owners despite the great impact the SDD Application will have upon our homes. These actions do not meet the requirements of the Town Code or the spirit of the public process. I also object to the SDD Application as it fails to meet the 9 Criteria for an SDD as follows: 1. Compatibility: This criteria is not met for the following reasons: i. VMVR is small residential project with an underground parking garage located in an area of the Town of Vail that does not have large buildings around it. The proposed SDD and related plans will allow a taller building than Phase I to overshadow and overpower the Phase I building. This will adversely impact light, air, heat energy created by sun and pnvacy. ii. A hotel facility coupled with Units that can in essence be used as hotel like rooms (i.e. lock offs) creates a high use that is not consistent with the residential area in which the project is located and adversely impacts Phase I and neighboring properties. This high use creates an adverse carbon footprint for a Town that is moving toward Green certification. iii. Parking is already a major issue and problem for the Phase I portion of the VMVR. Creating a large, dense additional project subject to use by a large volume of people at the same time could highly exacerbate this problem. iv. The Phase II project is proposed to be cantilevered over the current entrance to the Phase I garages making it improbable for trucks and delivery vehicles to pull into the garage entrance area. A separate loading area is needed for Phase I but is not proposed. The cantilevered entrance will change the existing open air aesthetic approach for residents. V. Pedestrian access is compromised. vi. A 2,000 square foot "lobby deck" is proposed for Phase II which will abut and overlook the pool area for Phase L This creates an incredible invasion of privacy and impact on light, air and noise around this important Phase I amenity. It also creates a life safety hazard as it creates an attractive nuisance for persons to consider jumping off the Phase II Deck and into the Phase I pool. vii. Abuse of SDD — It was represented to the Owners of Phase I and said Owners relied upon the scope of the original project and Town zoning restrictions when they purchased Units at Phase I. To allow GRFA, height, use and density restrictions to be simply circumvented by an SDD undermines the entire zoning process or ability of any purchaser of property in the Vail Village to rely pon what ma. or not be built around them and the protection of their long term value preservation. 2. Relationship: The planned uses, activity or density for Phase II are not compatible with existing Phase I. See above. 3. Parking and Loading: a. The planned location for the loading zone atop a public walkway is not just atypical, it is unsafe and certain to interfere with surrounding uses and activity. b. Parking is already major issue at VMVR and this will substantially aggravate that issue; c. Delivery trucks and tall vehicles will not be able to access the parking garage or even the parking garage entry area; d. The design will lead to hotel/lock off guests at Phase II to likely park in the Phase I garage entry area at times blocking Phase I Owner access. This creates an emergency vehicle access issue as well. e. To the extent Phase II parking will utilize the Phase I garage it can lead to major enforcement issues for Phase I on parking abuses and poaching as well as allocation of maintenance responsibilities. 4. Comprehensive Plan: a. The deviations from the code associated with the project include: east side setback, building height, density, site coverage, and loading in the front setback. Each of these proposed deviations directly and negatively impacts existing usage and value of the neighboring Phase I development. b. The proposed deviations concerning height, density, mass, and bulk must all be weighed against the perceived public benefit of the Application. Public comment offered in support of the Application during the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting focused exclusively on the addition of Employee Housing Units ("EHUs"). However, the proposed deviations are certain to exceed permissible Gross Residential Floor Area. As the PEC pointed out, such deviations should not be granted strictly based upon provision of EHUs. The benefit of EHUs does not offset the requested deviations and neighboring owners have not been adequately informed of the extent of the proposed bulk and mass are far beyond anything anticipated for the site when we purchased our units. Thus, the Application is not compatible with the surrounding area. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: None known except creation of shadows, cold pockets and lack of air and light to Phase I. 6. Design Features: See above in relation to this criteria not being met. 7. Traffic: a. The Application would increase density in relation to the Phase I development and is therefore practically certain to generate additional traffic. In fact, Tom Kassmel of Public Works noted in the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting that proposed uses on the site will generate additional traffic which may have some broader impact on the system 8. Landscaping: The landscaping is very limited and artistic license was made in the submitted plans in this regard. 9. Workable Plan: There has been no proposal on how Phase II is to integrate with Phase I. The 2 Phases are very different uses, different Common Areas and maintenance responsibilities. Section 12-9A-8 requires the Town Council to make the following findings with respect to the proposed SDD: 1. That the SDD complies with the nine (9) criteria, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 2. That the SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 3. That the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. That the SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. I object to a finding by the Town Council that any of the foregoing matters have been established per what I stated above. I respectfully request that the Application be denied. Mark M. Caplan o Cstt5wold Road Baltimore, Maryland 21210 410.435.1546 1 W410.435.1553 August 14, 203 7 Town of Vail Council Members 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail — Planning Department 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 51657 Tammy Nagel Town of Vail Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Objection by owner at Vail Mountain 'View Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the fending Application for Special Development District No. 43 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: We own Unit 306 at VMVR which will be part of special development d istrict No. 42 ("5 DO") if the application for SDD No. 42 was approved. We suggest that ymi not approve this application at this paint in time. Our reasoning is fairly simple, The most affected group (the unit owners of Phase 1) have riot been allowed the opportunity for input in any material way. The devcloper must have been concerned that we might have opinions contrary to his request and therefore did not formally notice the other association owners of this application, did not formally send us plans or specifications of the proposed development, and unilaterally, (without a formal vote) had his designee, (Mary Ann Redmond) send to planning a notice of approval by the association. Had the first two occurred, we would have engaged in conversation, suggested changes, and hopefully compromised which would have enabled a non -conflicted notice of approval from the association, which is now riot the Case_ Defer your decision, give us the tune to review, so all have the opportunity to thoughtful and ultimately proud of the result. There are certainly beneficial aspects to the new project but there are also sorue unaddressed challenges. By allo"6ng this application to move forward at this point, you have allowed yourselves to become complicit in the developer's overt attempt to oircumvent the cleat intent of Town of Vail requirements for such approval. Thank you for your consideration. LindFd Mark Caplan NIMC;Nec cc: Kerry Wallace From: Cindy Biondi To: Tammy Nagel; Council Dist List; Jonathan Spence Subject: Objection to Application for TOV SDD #42 Date: Monday, August 14, 2017 9:42:23 AM As owner of Unit 404 at Vail Mountain View Residences (Phase I), I object strongly to the application for SDD #42, which would allow the development of a large, dense building (Phase II) that would strain the resources of our community and be inconsistent with the quiet, residential character of our sweet neighborhood on Gore Creek. I, and my fellow owners at VMVR Phase I, at least deserve a delay of vote so that we all can converse with the project developer about the design of the new building. Issues with inadequate parking, handicap parking access, pedestrian access, building height, setbacks, loading/ delivery access, deck overhang on our pool area, remain to be resolved by the developer. Your quick approval of yet another SDD in Vail would throw zoning regulations out the window and allow the developer (outsider Pete Carlson) to bypass our carefully thought-out local town rules in order to increase his profitability. The precedent that this sets, so close to our beautiful Ford Park, is alarming. What's next? While I wholeheartedly approve of the inclusion of employee housing units in the new phase, I am concerned that the density and size of a new building that dwarfs the Phase I structure is not compatible with our Gore Creek community. Why not require the developer to work within existing town regulations to create a lovely, appropriate space that combines employee housing, boutique hotel, and residential condos to fit within the existing charming neighborhood? When I purchased at VMVR Phase I, I knew there would be an additional building built some day, but assumed that it would follow the TOV zoning rules. Wouldn't you? I appreciate your consideration, and urge you, respectfully, to consider the ramifications of approving another SDD in Vail, and the dangerous precedent that it sets, or continues. Please, let's allow more time to tailor the project to suit the neighborhood, the existing zoning rules, and our beautiful town of Vail. Thank you! Cynthia G. Biondi Owner VMVR #404 Town of Vail Council towncouncil vail ov.com Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail — Planning Department 's ence vail ov.com Tammy Nagel — Town of Vail Clerk tnagel&vailgov.com Re: Objection by Owner at Vail Mountain Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: I am a frequent guest at Unit 302 at VMVR which will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 was approved. I object to the Application as follows: 1. Lack of Notice and Failure of the Applicant to meet the requirement under the Town of Vail Code to procure "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." No notification of this public process was provided at any time to the Residential Owners at VMVR. The Residential Owners at VMVR have been denied the right to meaningfully address the Application through this public process though their property rights are most impacted by the Application. Mary Anne Redmond, the Applicant's employee, did not have apparent or actual authority to submit an Approval Letter for the SDD Application as the authorized representative of VMVR. (See below for more detail). 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact air, light, privacy and the residential feel of VMVR. As a frequent guest of this property, I am aware that the purchase of this unit was painstakingly made considering all the current zoning expectations, and also the expectation that normal legal processes would allow for reconsideration should the community change materially. There has been no proposal provided to date to the Phase 1 Owners on how Phase 2 will interrelate with Phase 1 in terms of assessments, maintenance and use. I also object to the SDD Application as it fails to meet the 9 Criteria for an SDD as follows: 1. Compatibility: This criteria is not met for the following reasons: i. VMVR is small residential project with an underground parking garage located in an area of the Town of Vail that does not have large buildings around it. The proposed SDD and related plans will allow a taller building than Phase I to overshadow and overpower the Phase I building. This will adversely impact light, air, heat energy created by sun and privacy. ii. A hotel facility coupled with Units that can in essence be used as hotel like rooms (i.e. lock offs) creates a high use that is not consistent with the residential area in which the project is located and adversely impacts Phase I and neighboring properties. This high use creates an adverse carbon footprint for a Town that is moving toward Green certification. iii. Parking is already a major issue and problem for the Phase I portion of the VMVR. Creating a large, dense additional project subject to use by a large volume of people at the same time could highly exacerbate this problem. iv. The Phase II project is proposed to be cantilevered over the current entrance to the Phase I garages making it improbable for trucks and delivery vehicles to pull into the garage entrance area. A separate loading area is needed for Phase I but is not proposed. v. Pedestrian access is compromised. vi. A 2,000 square foot "lobby deck" is proposed for Phase II which will abuts and overlooks the pool area for Phase I. This creates an incredible invasion of privacy and impact on light, air and noise around this important Phase I amenity. It also creates a life safety hazard as it creates an attractive nuisance for persons to jump off the Phase II Deck and into the Phase I pool. vii. Abuse of SDD — It was represented to the Owners of Phase I and said Owners relied upon the scope of the original project and Town zoning restrictions when they purchased Units at Phase I. To allow GRFA, height, use and density restrictions to be simply circumvented by an SDD undermines the entire zoning process or ability of any purchaser of property in the Vail Village to rely upon what may or may not be built around them. 2. Relationship: The planned uses, activity or density for Phase II are not compatible with existing Phase I. See above. 3. Parking and Loading: a. The planned location for the loading zone atop a public walkway is not just atypical, it is unsafe and certain to interfere with surrounding uses and activity. b. Parking is already major issue at VMVR and this will substantially aggravate that issue; c. Delivery trucks and tall vehicles will not be able to access the parking garage or even the parking garage entry area; d. The design will lead to guests at Phase 11 to park in the Phase I garage entry area blocking Phase I Owner access. This creates an emergency vehicle access issue as well. e. To the extent Phase II parking will utilize the Phase I garage it can lead to major enforcement issues for Phase I on parking abuses and poaching as well as allocation of maintenance responsibilities. 4. Comprehensive Plan: a. The deviations from the code associated with the project include: east side setback, building height, density, site coverage, and loading in the front setback. Each of these proposed deviations directly and negatively impacts existing usage and value of the neighboring Phase I development. b. The proposed deviations concerning height, density, mass, and bulk must all be weighed against the perceived public benefit of the Application. Public comment offered in support of the Application during the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting focused exclusively on the addition of Employee Housing Units ("EHUs"). However, the proposed deviations are certain to exceed permissible Gross Residential Floor Area. As the PEC pointed out, such deviations should not be granted strictly based upon provision of EHUs. The benefit of EHUs does not offset the requested deviations and neighboring owners have not been adequately informed of the extent of the proposed bulk and mass are far beyond anything anticipated for the site. Thus, the Application is not compatible with the surrounding area. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: None known except creation of shadows, cold pockets and lack of air and light to Phase 1. 6. Design Features: See above in relation to this criteria not being met. 7. Traffic: a. The Application would increase density in relation to the Phase I development and is therefore practically certain to generate additional traffic. In fact, Tom Kassmel of Public Works noted in the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting that proposed uses on the site will generate additional traffic which may have some broader impact on the system S. Landscaping: The landscaping is very limited and artistic license was made in the submitted plans in this regard. 9. Workable Plan: There has been no proposal on how Phase II is to integrate with Phase 1. The 2 Phases are very different uses, different Common Areas and maintenance responsibilities. Section 12-9A-8 requires the Town Council to make the following findings with respect to the proposed SDD: 1. That the SDD complies with the nine (9) criteria, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 2. That the SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 3. That the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. That the SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. My travel to Vail is blessed with a beautiful place to stay, one that we cherish as a group of friends. In fact one of the reasons for travel to Vail is this unique setting. I object to a finding by the Town Council that any of the foregoing matters have been established per what I stated above. I respectfully request that the Application be denied. Sincerely, Todd Randall 5042 Wilshire Blvd, #36058 Los Angeles, CA 90036 From: Jolly, Eileen To: Jonathan Spence Subject: Objection to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Date: Monday, August 14, 2017 5:57:40 PM Mr. Spence and Town of Vail Council Members: I am a frequent visitor to Vail Mountain Residence on Gore Creek, Inc. (VMVR) which will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 was approved. I object to the Application as follows: Lack of Notice and Failure of the Applicant to meet the requirement under the Town of Vail Code to procure "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." No notification of this public process was provided at any time to the Residential Owners at VMVR. The Residential Owners at VMVR have been denied the right to meaningfully address the Application through this public process though our property rights are most impacted by the Application. Mary Anne Redmond, the Applicant's employee, did not have apparent or actual authority to submit an Approval Letter for the SDD Application as the authorized representative of VMVR. (See below for more detail). 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact air, light, privacy and the residential feel of VMVR. When I purchased my Unit at VMVR I relied upon zoning restrictions applying to the Declarant's future Development Rights in relation to Phase 2 which Declarant represented to me would be applicable thereby protecting my investment. Phase 2 of VMVR as proposed under the SDD will be a 700 foot tall, high density, mostly transient -occupied building with 34 hotel rooms and lock offs in addition to 22 condos and employee housing units. Phase 2 will be cantilevered over the Phase 1 parking garage entrance potentially blocking access to the parking garage by delivery trucks and taller vehicles. A 2,000 square foot Lobby Deck will overhang the Pool. There has been no proposal provided to date to the Phase 1 Owners on how Phase 2 will interrelate with Phase 1 in terms of assessments, maintenance and use. My awareness of the SDD Application occurred recently when a fellow Owner saw an article in the Vail Daily and reached out to me and other Owners. There has been no effort to vet the SDD Application through the Phase I Owners and in fact there has been a disturbing lack of transparency about it from the Applicant whom is also the Commercial Owner at VMVR. The only correspondence I received about Phase 2 at VMVR from the Applicant was in March 2017 which merely stated that Phase 2 as initially planned in 2007 was going forward. There was no mention or disclosure of the SDD Application. Most disturbing is that on March 27, 2017 Mary Ann Redmond — employee of the Commercial Owner and Applicant for this SDD — signed an "Approval Form" that was submitted to the Town of Vail stating that the Association had approved the SDD. This occurred without proper Meeting requirements or any notification of the Residential Owners at Phase 1. This "Approval Letter" does not meet the Town Code requirements for such approval and the Application should fail as a threshold requirement of the Application has not been met. As a result of the failure to meet Code and notice requirements, the SDD Application has progressed through the Town of Vail administrative processes without objection or involvement of the Phase 1 Residential Owners despite the great impact the SDD Application will have upon our homes. These actions do not meet the requirements of the Town Code or the spirit of the public process. I also object to the SDD Application as it fails to meet the 9 Criteria for an SDD as follows: 1. Compatibility: This criteria is not met for the following reasons: i. VMVR is small residential project with an underground parking garage located in an area of the Town of Vail that does not have large buildings around it. The proposed SDD and related plans will allow a taller building than Phase I to overshadow and overpower the Phase I building. This will adversely impact light, air, heat energy created by sun and privacy. ii. A hotel facility coupled with Units that can in essence be used as hotel like rooms (i.e. lock offs) creates a high use that is not consistent with the residential area in which the project is located and adversely impacts Phase I and neighboring properties. This high use creates an adverse carbon footprint for a Town that is moving toward Green certification. iii. Parking is already a major issue and problem for the Phase I portion of the VMVR. Creating a large, dense additional project subject to use by a large volume of people at the same time could highly exacerbate this problem. iv. The Phase II project is proposed to be cantilevered over the current entrance to the Phase I garages making it improbable for trucks and delivery vehicles to pull into the garage entrance area. A separate loading area is needed for Phase I but is not proposed. V. Pedestrian access is compromised. vi. A 2,000 square foot "lobby deck" is proposed for Phase 11 which will abuts and overlooks the pool area for Phase 1. This creates an incredible invasion of privacy and impact on light, air and noise around this important Phase I amenity. It also creates a life safety hazard as it creates an attractive nuisance for persons to jump off the Phase 11 Deck and into the Phase I pool. vii. Abuse of SDD — It was represented to the Owners of Phase I and said Owners relied upon the scope of the original project and Town zoning restrictions when they purchased Units at Phase I. To allow GRFA, height, use and density restrictions to be simply circumvented by an SDD undermines the entire zoning process or ability of any purchaser of property in the Vail Village to rely upon what may or may not be built around them. 2. Relationship: The planned uses, activity or density for Phase 11 are not compatible with existing Phase I. See above. 3. Parking and Loading: a. The planned location for the loading zone atop a public walkway is not just atypical, it is unsafe and certain to interfere with surrounding uses and activity. b. Parking is already major issue at VMVR and this will substantially aggravate that issue; c. Delivery trucks and tall vehicles will not be able to access the parking garage or even the parking garage entry area; d. The design will lead to guests at Phase II to park in the Phase I garage entry area blocking Phase I Owner access. This creates an emergency vehicle access issue as well. e. To the extent Phase 11 parking will utilize the Phase I garage it can lead to major enforcement issues for Phase I on parking abuses and poaching as well as allocation of maintenance responsibilities. 4. Comprehensive Plan: a. The deviations from the code associated with the project include: east side setback, building height, density, site coverage, and loading in the front setback. Each of these proposed deviations directly and negatively impacts existing usage and value of the neighboring Phase I development. b. The proposed deviations concerning height, density, mass, and bulk must all be weighed against the perceived public benefit of the Application. Public comment offered in support of the Application during the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting focused exclusively on the addition of Employee Housing Units ("EHUs"). However, the proposed deviations are certain to exceed permissible Gross Residential Floor Area. As the PEC pointed out, such deviations should not be granted strictly based upon provision of EHUs. The benefit of EHUs does not offset the requested deviations and neighboring owners have not been adequately informed of the extent of the proposed bulk and mass are far beyond anything anticipated for the site. Thus, the Application is not compatible with the surrounding area. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: None known except creation of shadows, cold pockets and lack of air and light to Phase I. 6. Design Features: See above in relation to this criteria not being met. 7. Traffic: a. The Application would increase density in relation to the Phase I development and is therefore practically certain to generate additional traffic. In fact, Tom Kassmel of Public Works noted in the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting that proposed uses on the site will generate additional traffic which may have some broader impact on the system 8. Landscaping: The landscaping is very limited and artistic license was made in the submitted plans in this regard. 9. Workable Plan: There has been no proposal on how Phase II is to integrate with Phase I. The 2 Phases are very different uses, different Common Areas and maintenance responsibilities. Section 12-9A-8 requires the Town Council to make the following findings with respect to the proposed SDD: 1. That the SDD complies with the nine (9) criteria, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 2. That the SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 3. That the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. That the SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. I object to a finding by the Town Council that any of the foregoing matters have been established per what I stated above. I respectfully request that the Application be denied. Sincerely, Eileen Eileen O'Neill Jolly, CPCU Sr. Vice President RT ProExec Professional & Executive Liability cell: 619-823-7739 email: emollyr@rtspecialty.com TProExec RT ProExec is a division of R -T Specialty, LLC, in California: R -T Specialty Insurance Services, LLC, License #OG97516 Town of Vail Council towncouncila-vailgov.com Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail — Planning Department 0spence(o-)-vailgov.com Tammy Nagel — Town of Vail Clerk tnagel(o-)-vailgov.com Re: Objection by a frequent visitor to Vail Mountain Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: My wife and I frequently come visit our daughter - Owner of Unit 302 at VMVR that will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 were approved. Our comments and abhorrence of Phase Two as proposed are from the viewpoint of those who greatly enjoy staying at VMVR as well as Vail and it's environment. We simply can't envision a tall high-rise crowding so close to VMVR such that parking for the new structure cantilevers over the current parking entrance and that a lobby will directly overlook the pool we enjoy so privately. The thought of the high-rise overlooking, within a few feet, of the windows of the bedrooms we use and obscuring the lovely view of the mountain slopes is devastating. We can only imagine how this will damage the quality of the air and light breezes that have been a joy on our visits. Parking is already a huge issue even amongst Phase 1 Owners. Phase 1 has 68 bedrooms and less than 30 designated spaces unless the Owners have purchased an additional space. My wife is disabled and there is no handicap parking available at all — a violation of the American With Disabilities Act and making access difficult as there are only three visitor spots and only one is large enough for her to get in and out of the car properly. That spot is hardly ever available. While we are not permanent residents or owners in Vail, we have generally have been impressed with Vail governance and how development has been carefully controlled. As we read through the following protest letter, it does appear that the process for the Phase 2 has truly been underhanded and shady. It is hard to believe how the owners and residents of VMVR have been deliberately excluded from communication and input on Phase 2. We would hope that the entire community at Vail would carefully follow the actions of Town of Vail Council regarding this proposal and hold the Council to the highest standards of governance and honest judgment. Ultimately, the Council's actions will be observed and assessed far beyond the bounds of Vail and it's surrounding area. As regular Tourists/Visitors to Vail, we object along with VMVR Unit Owners to the Application as follows: 1. Lack of Notice and Failure of the Applicant to meet the requirement under the Town of Vail Code to procure "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." No notification of this public process was provided at any time to the Residential Owners at VMVR. The Residential Owners at VMVR have been denied the right to meaningfully address the Application through this public process though our property rights are most impacted by the Application. Mary Anne Redmond, the Applicant's employee, did not have apparent or actual authority to submit an Approval Letter for the SDD Application as the authorized representative of VMVR. (See below for more detail). 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact air, light, privacy and the residential feel of VMVR. When most owners purchased their residences at VMVR I, they relied upon zoning restrictions applying to the Declarant's future Development Rights in relation to Phase 2 which Declarant represented to them would be applicable thereby protecting their investments. Phase 2 of VMVR as proposed under the SDD will be a 70 -foot -tall, (90 to 100 feet tall from the front door of Phase 2 LEVEL TWO exterior front door) high density, mostly transient - occupied building with 34 hotel rooms and lock offs in addition to 22 condos and employee housing units. There has been no proposal provided to date to the Phase 1 Owners on how Phase 2 will interrelate with Phase 1 in terms of assessments, maintenance, and use. My awareness of the SDD Application occurred recently when a fellow Owner saw an article in the Vail Daily and reached out to me and other Owners. There has been no effort to vet the SDD Application through the Phase I Owners and in fact there has been a disturbing lack of transparency about it from the Applicant whom is also the Commercial Owner at VMVR. The only correspondence that Owners received about Phase 2 at VMVR from the Applicant was in March 2017 which merely stated that Phase 2 as initially planned in 2007 was going forward. There was no mention or disclosure of the SDD Application. Most disturbing is that on March 27, 2017 Mary Ann Redmond — employee of the Commercial Owner and Applicant for this SDD — signed an "Approval Form" that was submitted to the Town of Vail stating that the Association had approved the SDD. This occurred without proper Meeting requirements or any notification of the Residential Owners at Phase 1. This "Approval Letter" does not meet the Town Code requirements for such approval and the Application should fail as a threshold requirement of the Application has not been met. As a result of the failure to meet Code and notice requirements, the SDD Application has progressed through the Town of Vail administrative processes without objection or involvement of the Phase 1 Residential Owners despite the great impact the SDD Application will have upon our homes. These actions do not meet the requirements of the Town Code or the spirit of the public process. also object to the SDD Application as it fails to meet the 9 Criteria for an SDD as follows: 1. Compatibility: This criteria is not met for the following reasons: i. VMVR is small residential project with an underground parking garage located in an area of the Town of Vail that does not have large buildings around it. The proposed SDD and related plans will allow a taller building than Phase I to overshadow and overpower the Phase I building. This will adversely impact light, air, heat energy created by sun and privacy. ii. A hotel facility coupled with Units that can in essence be used as hotel like rooms (i.e. lock offs) creates a high use that is not consistent with the residential area in which the project is located and adversely impacts Phase I and neighboring properties. This high use creates an adverse carbon footprint for a Town that is moving toward Green certification. iii. Parking is already a major issue and problem for the Phase I portion of the VMVR. Creating a large, dense additional project subject to use by a large volume of people at the same time could highly exacerbate this problem. iv. The Phase II project is proposed to be cantilevered over the current entrance to the Phase I garages making it improbable for trucks and delivery vehicles to pull into the garage entrance area. A separate loading area is needed for Phase I but is not proposed. V. Pedestrian access is compromised. vi. A 2,000 square foot "lobby deck" is proposed for Phase II which will abuts and overlooks the pool area for Phase I. This creates an incredible invasion of privacy and impact on light, air and noise around this important Phase I amenity. It also creates a life safety hazard as it creates an attractive nuisance for persons to jump off the Phase II Deck and into the Phase I pool. vii. Abuse of SDD — It was represented to the Owners of Phase I and said Owners relied upon the scope of the original project and Town zoning restrictions when they purchased Units at Phase I. To allow GRFA, height, use and density restrictions to be simply circumvented by an SDD undermines the entire zoning process or ability of any purchaser of property in the Vail Village to rely upon what may or may not be built around them. 2. Relationship: The planned uses, activity or density for Phase II are not compatible with existing Phase I. See above. 3. Parking and Loading: a. The planned location for the loading zone atop a public walkway is not just atypical, it is unsafe and certain to interfere with surrounding uses and activity. b. Parking is already major issue at VMVR and this will substantially aggravate that issue, c. Delivery trucks and tall vehicles will not be able to access the parking garage or even the parking garage entry area, d. The design will lead to guests at Phase II to park in the Phase garage entry area blocking Phase I Owner access. This creates an emergency vehicle access issue as well. e. To the extent Phase II parking will utilize the Phase I garage it can lead to major enforcement issues for Phase I on parking abuses and poaching as well as allocation of maintenance responsibilities. 4. Comprehensive Plan- a. The deviations from the code associated with the project include: east side setback, building height, density, site coverage, and loading in the front setback. Each of these proposed deviations directly and negatively impacts existing usage and value of the neighboring Phase I development. b. The proposed deviations concerning height, density, mass, and bulk must all be weighed against the perceived public benefit of the Application. Public comment offered in support of the Application during the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting focused exclusively on the addition of Employee Housing Units ("EHUs"). However, the proposed deviations are certain to exceed permissible Gross Residential Floor Area. As the PEC pointed out, such deviations should not be granted strictly based upon provision of EHUs. The benefit of EHUs does not offset the requested deviations and neighboring owners have not been adequately informed of the extent of the proposed bulk and mass are far beyond anything anticipated for the site. Thus, the Application is not compatible with the surrounding area. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: None known except creation of shadows, cold pockets and lack of air and light to Phase I. 6. Design Features: See above in relation to this criteria not being met. 7. Traffic: a. The Application would increase density in relation to the Phase development and is therefore practically certain to generate additional traffic. In fact, Tom Kassmel of Public Works noted in the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting that proposed uses on the site will generate additional traffic which may have some broader impact on the system 8. Landscaping: The landscaping is very limited and artistic license was made in the submitted plans in this regard. 9. Workable Plan: There has been no proposal on how Phase II is to integrate with Phase I. The 2 Phases are very different uses, different Common Areas and maintenance responsibilities. Section 12-9A-8 requires the Town Council to make the following findings with respect to the proposed SDD: 1. That the SDD complies with the nine (9) criteria, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 2. That the SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town, and 3. That the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. That the SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. object to a finding by the Town Council that any of the foregoing matters have been established per what I stated above. I respectfully request that the Application be denied. Sincerely, Mike and Alice Widmier Town of Vail Council towticouiici lc vai lgov.com Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail — Planning Department jspencec Lvailgvv.com Tammy Nagel — Town of Vail Clerk tna elc hail ov.com Re: Objection by Owner at Vail Mountain Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: I own Unit 104 at VMVR which will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 is approved. By now you will have received a number of similar letters from my fellow homeowners. Not living in Vail full time, I do not have the same perspective as my neighbors who spend more of their time at VMVR. However, I have been quite taken aback by the emotion and concern that they have shown throughout the past several weeks. The only explanation I have for that type of concern is either when someone feels they have been misled, or when someone feels they have not been fully represented. Unfortunately, both of these have occurred with regard to this SDD Application process. I do not know Ron Byrne nor Pete Carlson. I am, however, a strong supporter of private enterprise, in particular private development I appreciate that even a small, well established village like Vail needs to grow over time. As such, I am willing to sacrifice some personal enjoyment/interests for that to happen, as all villagers should to some extent. That being said, homeowners in the neighborhoods where this development occurs need to have a voice and have their opinions and ideas heard about that growth and development. It does not appear this has been allowed to happen, certainly in any reasonable time frame and with any reasonable notice. The legalities stated below by our counsel clarify this point. However, I find it strange that the current and future developer of this property would attempt to avoid communication with the current homeowners, the most recent communication this past week notwithstanding. It is such an easy thing to do and would have been in the spirit of "the neighborhood". I do suppose that if I were in their shoes trying to get this project off the ground, and to make money doing it, I would want minimal distractions and would rely on my legal protections as much as possible to accomplish that. I ask that the Town Council strongly encourage the developers to properly engage current homeowners and allow reasonable time for our perceived issues to be addressed. We may realize, or may eventually be told that, the greater good trumps the interests of a few, but at least we will have had a voice. Without that, the neighbors and neighborhood will become resentful of each other, until either those negatively affected leave, or the developers are proven right over time. Below please find the primary concerns that I have. I have chosen not to include our association's analysis of the 9 SDD criteria as I am sure you have received it from other VMVR homeowners. My primary concerns are the lack of communication and transparency by the Applicant, and the potentially negative impact on our HOA fees and general enjoyment of our homes, as we understood it to be when we purchased them. I object to the Application as follows: 1. Lack of Notice and Failure of the Applicant to meet the requirement under the Town of Vail Code to procure "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." No notification of this public process was provided at any time to the Residential Owners at VMVR. The Residential Owners at VMVR have been denied the right to meaningfully address the Application through this public process though our property rights are most impacted by the Application. Mary Anne Redmond, the Applicant's employee, did not have apparent or actual authority to submit an Approval Letter for the SDD Application as the authorized representative of VMVR. (See below for more detail). 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact air, light, privacy and the residential feel of VMVR. When I purchased my Unit at VMVR I relied upon zoning restrictions applying to the Declarant's future Development Rights in relation to Phase 2 which Declarant represented to me would be applicable thereby protecting my investment. Phase 2 of VMVR as proposed under the SDD will be a 700 foot tall, high density, mostly transient -occupied building with 34 hotel rooms and lock offs in addition to 22 condos and employee housing units. Phase 2 will be cantilevered over the Phase 1 parking garage entrance potentially blocking access to the parking garage by delivery trucks and taller vehicles. A 2,000 square foot Lobby Deck will overhang the Pool. There has been no proposal provided to date to the Phase 1 Owners on how Phase 2 will interrelate with Phase 1 in terms of assessments, maintenance and use. My awareness of the SDD Application occurred recently when a fellow Owner saw an article in the Vail Daily and reached out to me and other Owners. There has been no effort to vet the SDD Application through the Phase I Owners and in fact there has been a disturbing lack of transparency about it from the Applicant whom is also the Commercial Owner at VMVR. The only correspondence I received about Phase 2 at VMVR from the Applicant was in March 2017 which merely stated that Phase 2 as initially planned in 2007 was going forward. There was no mention or disclosure of the SDD Application. Most disturbing is that on March 27, 2017 Mary Ann Redmond — employee of the Commercial Owner and Applicant for this SDD — signed an "Approval Form" that was submitted to the Town of Vail stating that the Association had approved the SDD. This occurred without proper Meeting requirements or any notification of the Residential Owners at Phase 1. This "Approval Letter" does not meet the Town Code requirements for such approval and the Application should fail as a threshold requirement of the Application has not been met. As a result of the failure to meet Code and notice requirements, the SDD Application has progressed through the Town of Vail administrative processes without objection or involvement of the Phase 1 Residential Owners despite the great impact the SDD Application will have upon our homes. These actions do not meet the requirements of the Town Code or the spirit of the public process. I object to a finding by the Town Council that any of the foregoing matters have been established per what I stated above. I respectfully request that the Application be denied, or that the Application be delayed to allow property owners such as myself the minimal amount of time to understand the true impact on our homes. r �I Nx&RF- �. Town of Vail Council towncouncil a[?,vail ov.com Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail — Planning Department ispence(@vailgov.com Tammy Nagel — Town of Vail Clerk tnage1Q,vailgoy.com Re: Objection by Owner at Vail Mountain Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: VMVR 304, Inc. owns Unit 304 at VMVR which will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 was approved. We object to the Application for the following general reasons: 1. Lack of Notice and Failure to procure "written consent of owners of all property to he included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." We were not informed of this public process to discuss a new SDD at any time (we basically found out through unrelated articles and comments), we have not had an opportunity to express our concerns and input with regard to the proposed Phase II. 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact Phase I and the surrounding area. When we bought our unit we knew that a Phase 11 could eventually be developed, but we always thought that the proposed building would be a residential building similar to that of Phase I, and that the issue will be brought to the owner's association and that our comments and suggestions would be heard. As mentioned in point one above, we were never informed of the zoning change request and we never thought a project would require a SDD ruling (nor that an application was filed). We did not know this would be an extremely high building (almost seven stories when you consider the two levels of the foundation already built adjacent to Phase I). We never expected that the project would have such high density and would include 34 hotel rooms and lock offs in addition to 22 condos and employee housing units. We are deeply concerned that the area destined for Phase II will not withstand a project of such magnitude and that the whole area and adjacent buildings will be extremely negatively affected. The planned uses, activity or density for Phase II are just not compatible with existing Phase I and the area as a whole. We are aware that there is a need in Vail to build more employee units, but we feel this is being used to deviate from the existing code and logic of a project in that space and that area. Such deviations (density, height, air, landscaping, traffic, loading) directly and negatively impact existing usage and value of the neighboring Phase I development. Council members: Put yourselves in our position for a minute. What would you think and do if you recently found out (less than 3 weeks ago), that the President of the Board of the Condominium you Iive in supported an application for a Special Development District that changes the density and zoning as this proposal does without following any governance procedures or notifying the owners in any way? What would you like the Council members vote for? 1. Approve the change without the owners' consent. 2. Deny the change unless owners are heard and taken into consideration. Based on the above we respectfully request that the Application be denied, that the concerns of Phase I owners are heard, and more importantly that whatever ends up being built in the existing foundation of Phase II meets the logic of the limited area and what we want in Vail. Kind Regards, M Eduardo Flores Alonso - Jose Alejandro Ortega Aguayo - Director Town of Vail Council towncouncilkvailgov.com Mr. Jonathan Spence Town of Vail — Planning Department j spencekvailgov.com Tammy Nagel — Town of Vail Clerk tnagelkvailgov.com Re: Objection by Owner at Vail Mountain Residences on Gore Creek, Inc. ("VMVR") to the Pending Application for Special Development District No. 42 Dear Town of Vail Council Members: I own Unit 302 at VMVR which will be part of Special Development District No. 42 ("SDD") if the Application for SDD No. 42 was approved. I object to the Application as follows: 1. Lack of Notice and Failure of the Applicant to meet the requirement under the Town of Vail Code to procure "written consent of owners of all property to be included in the SDD, or their agents or authorized representatives." No notification of this public process was provided at any time to the Residential Owners at VMVR. The Residential Owners at VMVR have been denied the right to meaningfully address the Application through this public process though our property rights are most impacted by the Application. Mary Anne Redmond, the Applicant's employee, did not have apparent or actual authority to submit an Approval Letter for the SDD Application as the authorized representative of VMVR. (See below for more detail). 1 2. The SDD removes zoning restrictions at VMVR leading to a significant change in the VMVR community by allowing a much taller and dense building to be constructed which will adversely impact air, light, privacy and the residential feel of VMVR. When I purchased my Unit at VMVR I relied upon zoning restrictions applying to the Declarant's future Development Rights in relation to Phase 2 which Declarant represented to me would be applicable thereby protecting my investment. Phase 2 of VMVR as proposed under the SDD will be a 700 foot tall, high density, mostly transient -occupied building with 34 hotel rooms and lock offs in addition to 22 condos and employee housing units. Phase 2 will be cantilevered over the Phase 1 parking garage entrance potentially blocking access to the parking garage by delivery trucks and taller vehicles. A 2,000 square foot Lobby Deck will overhang the Pool. There has been no proposal provided to date to the Phase 1 Owners on how Phase 2 will interrelate with Phase 1 in terms of assessments, maintenance and use. My awareness of the SDD Application occurred recently when a fellow Owner saw an article in the Vail Daily and reached out to me and other Owners. There has been no effort to vet the SDD Application through the Phase I Owners and in fact there has been a disturbing lack of transparency about it from the Applicant whom is also the Commercial Owner at VMVR. The only correspondence I received about Phase 2 at VMVR from the Applicant was in March 2017 which merely stated that Phase 2 as initially planned in 2007 was going forward. There was no mention or disclosure of the SDD Application. Most disturbing is that on March 27, 2017 Mary Ann Redmond — employee of the Commercial Owner and Applicant for this SDD — signed an "Approval Form" that was submitted to the Town of Vail stating that the Association had approved the 2 SDD. This occurred without proper Meeting requirements or any notification of the Residential Owners at Phase 1. This "Approval Letter" does not meet the Town Code requirements for such approval and the Application should fail as a threshold requirement of the Application has not been met. As a result of the failure to meet Code and notice requirements, the SDD Application has progressed through the Town of Vail administrative processes without objection or involvement of the Phase 1 Residential Owners despite the great impact the SDD Application will have upon our homes. These actions do not meet the requirements of the Town Code or the spirit of the public process. I also object to the SDD Application as it fails to meet the 9 Criteria for an SDD as follows: 1. Compatibility: This criteria is not met for the following reasons: i. VMVR is small residential project with an underground parking garage located in an area of the Town of Vail that does not have large buildings around it. The proposed SDD and related plans will allow a taller building than Phase I to overshadow and overpower the Phase I building. This will adversely impact light, air, heat energy created by sun and privacy. ii. A hotel facility coupled with Units that can in essence be used as hotel like rooms (i.e. lock offs) creates a high use that is not 3 consistent with the residential area in which the project is located and adversely impacts Phase I and neighboring properties. This high use creates an adverse carbon footprint for a Town that is moving toward Green certification. iii. Parking is already a major issue and problem for the Phase I portion of the VMVR. Creating a large, dense additional project subject to use by a large volume of people at the same time could highly exacerbate this problem. There is currently no handicap parking spaces at all and the plans do not indicate any are being considered. This is violation of the Americans With Disability Act. The current parking only provides 3 guests spaces and this is not sufficient, particularly when our primarily 3 plus bedroom residences are provided with only one and a fraction of a space on average. iv. The Phase II project is proposed to be cantilevered over the current entrance to the Phase I garages making it improbable for trucks and delivery vehicles to pull into the garage entrance area. A separate loading area is needed for Phase I but is not proposed. 11 V. Pedestrian access is compromised. vi. A 2,000 square foot "lobby deck" is proposed for Phase II which will abuts and overlooks the pool area for Phase I. This creates an incredible invasion of privacy and impact on light, air and noise around this important Phase I amenity. It also creates a life safety hazard as it creates an attractive nuisance for persons to jump off the Phase II Deck and into the Phase I pool. vii. Abuse of SDD — It was represented to the Owners of Phase I and said Owners relied upon the scope of the original project and Town zoning restrictions when they purchased Units at Phase I. To allow GRFA, height, use and density restrictions to be simply circumvented by an SDD undermines the entire zoning process or ability of any purchaser of property in the Vail Village to rely upon what may or may not be built around them. It is my understanding that Ron Byrne has utilized all his allowed square footage per the current zoning (save for less than 300 square feet). 2. Relationship: The planned uses, activity or density for Phase II are not compatible with existing Phase L See above. 5 3. Parking and Loading: a. The planned location for the loading zone atop a public walkway is not just atypical, it is unsafe and certain to interfere with surrounding uses and activity. b. Parking is already major issue at VMVR and this will substantially aggravate that issue; c. Delivery trucks and tall vehicles will not be able to access the parking garage or even the parking garage entry area; d. The design will lead to guests at Phase II to park in the Phase I garage entry area blocking Phase I Owner access. This creates an emergency vehicle access issue as well. e. To the extent Phase II parking will utilize the Phase I garage it can lead to major enforcement issues for Phase I on parking abuses and poaching as well as allocation of maintenance responsibilities. 4. Comprehensive Plan: a. The deviations from the code associated with the project include: east side setback, building height, density, site coverage, and loading in the front setback. Each of these proposed deviations directly and negatively impacts existing usage and value of the neighboring Phase I development. 0 b. The proposed deviations concerning height, density, mass, and bulk must all be weighed against the perceived public benefit of the Application. Public comment offered in support of the Application during the June 12, 2017 PEC meeting focused exclusively on the addition of Employee Housing Units ("EHUs"). However, the proposed deviations are certain to exceed permissible Gross Residential Floor Area. As the PEC pointed out, such deviations should not be granted strictly based upon provision of EHUs. The benefit of EHUs does not offset the requested deviations and neighboring owners have not been adequately informed of the extent of the proposed bulk and mass are far beyond anything anticipated for the site. Thus, the Application is not compatible with the surrounding area. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: None known except creation of shadows, cold pockets and lack of air and light to Phase I. 6. Design Features: See above in relation to this criteria not being met. 7. Traffic: a. The Application would increase density in relation to the Phase I development and is therefore practically certain to generate additional traffic. In fact, Tom Kassmel of Public Works noted in the June 12, 7 2017 PEC meeting that proposed uses on the site will generate additional traffic which may have some broader impact on the system 8. Landscaping: The landscaping is very limited and artistic license was made in the submitted plans in this regard. 9. Workable Plan: There has been no proposal on how Phase 11 is to integrate with Phase L The 2 Phases are very different uses, different Common Areas and maintenance responsibilities. Section 12-9A-8 requires the Town Council to make the following findings with respect to the proposed SDD: 1. That the SDD complies with the nine (9) criteria, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 2. That the SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 3. That the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. That the SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. I object to a finding by the Town Council that any of the foregoing matters have been established per what I stated above. I respectfully request that the Application be denied. I will be shocked if the Town Council approves this rezone given the deviate why that Ron Bryne has handled this. I will truly be disappointed in the government of the Town of Vail. The Town needs to remember that it takes an economy in order to employ a workforce and to pay the necessary taxes to maintain the Town. The two largest contributor to the economy of the Town of Vail are: Tourism and Real Estate. By allowing this rezoning to be approved even when you know of the unethical methods that were employed, you are voting against the interests of Tourism and Real Estate. I think that if word gets out that this is how property owners are going to be treated by the Town — there will be imploding consequences in the economy of Vail long term. Word will get out. Sincerely, Lisa Widmier, VMVR Residence #302 D I HOMEt)i NERS7 ASSOCIATION 8547 E Arapahoe Road, #J542 Gre"w©od Vdilage, CO 80112-1435 303.69016038 - 303-690.6511 FAX October 16, 2017 Jonathan Spence, A1CP Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81057 Via a mail: jspence@vailgov.com Dear Mr. Spence: As President of the Apollo Park at Vail Homeowners' Association, l write to notify you that our Board of Directors has reviewed the Mountain View Residences Phase 2 plans amended and submitted to the Town of Vail for the PEC meeting on October 23, 2017. We will not oppose the amended plans as presented. Sincerely, / David J. Zn, President Apollo Park at Vail DJZ:an From: Jeff Morgan To: Jonathan Spence Subject: Supporting Vail Mountain View Residence Phase II project Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:42:06 AM October 17, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission Town Council c/o Jonathan Spence, AICP Senior Planner, Town of Vail Dear Mr. Spence, PEC and Town Council Members: As a member of the Vail Valley Partnership Workforce Housing Coalition, and concerned citizen of the Vail Valley; I am writing you today to ask for your approval on the Mountain View Residences Phase 11 SDD application. Now that the team has made revisions deleting the Hotel aspect of the project and adding more EHUs, we can see the shift in focus towards caring for our workforce. This is 50% of the units onsite and 43% of the free-market GFRA, totaling nearly 14,000 sq ft. The VVP Workforce Housing Coalition is a very large group of engaged business owners, employees, elected officials and other concerned Eagle County residents who are looking for ways to address our housing crisis and provide top level service to our worldwide customers that support Vail. Our continued topics of discussion on the value of public-private partnerships providing Employee Housing and the opportunity for individuals and families to move to the Valley has taken shape with the Vail Mountain View Project. Vail is a blend of a demographics, with an world wide audience, providing world class skiing and summer events/ activities for all to enjoy. We want our guests and locals to live as one in our Valley. If the housing crisis continues in our Valley we will continue to produce unhappy, overworked and segregated employees, that will not give the magical experience we want all of our guests, locals and employee to feel. An over stressed employee will NOT provide top level service to anyone. The TOV has been approached by new EHU project up and down the Valley, there is a strong need that needs to be addressed. Discontent from a few disgruntled citizens, that see no value in the projects, should not take away from the rest of the world's experience coming to Vail. I believe the Vail Mountain View project with its 15 workforce housing apartments paid for completely by the developer is a perfect example of a public-private partnership. The 23 acre project in East Vail is another perfect example of Vail providing it's employees, and the face of Vail, a way to enjoy life in the Valley. We must be prepared to make some accommodations for developers to be successful if we want them to build more than the required square footage of EHUs. I support this project 100% and see it benefiting Vail's missions and goals. Sincerely, .8 Jeff Morgan Associate Broker Ron Byrne & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street I Vail CO 81657 C:720-314-0023 E: Jeff@ronbyrne.com www.ronbyrne.com '• WIN =I'm' • . - 1 • me OTM • - Now From: Jeff Morgan To: Jonathan Spence Subject: Supporting Vail Mountain View Residence Phase II project Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:42:06 AM October 17, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission Town Council c/o Jonathan Spence, AICP Senior Planner, Town of Vail Dear Mr. Spence, PEC and Town Council Members: As a member of the Vail Valley Partnership Workforce Housing Coalition, and concerned citizen of the Vail Valley; I am writing you today to ask for your approval on the Mountain View Residences Phase 11 SDD application. Now that the team has made revisions deleting the Hotel aspect of the project and adding more EHUs, we can see the shift in focus towards caring for our workforce. This is 50% of the units onsite and 43% of the free-market GFRA, totaling nearly 14,000 sq ft. The VVP Workforce Housing Coalition is a very large group of engaged business owners, employees, elected officials and other concerned Eagle County residents who are looking for ways to address our housing crisis and provide top level service to our worldwide customers that support Vail. Our continued topics of discussion on the value of public-private partnerships providing Employee Housing and the opportunity for individuals and families to move to the Valley has taken shape with the Vail Mountain View Project. Vail is a blend of a demographics, with an world wide audience, providing world class skiing and summer events/ activities for all to enjoy. We want our guests and locals to live as one in our Valley. If the housing crisis continues in our Valley we will continue to produce unhappy, overworked and segregated employees, that will not give the magical experience we want all of our guests, locals and employee to feel. An over stressed employee will NOT provide top level service to anyone. The TOV has been approached by new EHU project up and down the Valley, there is a strong need that needs to be addressed. Discontent from a few disgruntled citizens, that see no value in the projects, should not take away from the rest of the world's experience coming to Vail. I believe the Vail Mountain View project with its 15 workforce housing apartments paid for completely by the developer is a perfect example of a public-private partnership. The 23 acre project in East Vail is another perfect example of Vail providing it's employees, and the face of Vail, a way to enjoy life in the Valley. We must be prepared to make some accommodations for developers to be successful if we want them to build more than the required square footage of EHUs. I support this project 100% and see it benefiting Vail's missions and goals. Sincerely, .8 Jeff Morgan Associate Broker Ron Byrne & Associates Real Estate 285 Bridge Street I Vail CO 81657 C:720-314-0023 E: Jeff@ronbyrne.com www.ronbyrne.com '• WIN =I'm' • . - 1 • me OTM • - Now Jonathan Spence From: Michael O'Connor <michael@triumphdev.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 1:58 PM To: Jonathan Spence Subject: Mountain View Phase 2 Support Hello Jonathan. I understand that Mountain View is going back to PEC next week. I also understand that the Mountain View HOA no longer opposes the project - which is key to my support. As a local employer, Triumph believes we need to prioritize opportunities like this for locals' housing. An in -town location with parking and infrastructure already installed, with minimal impacts to views, is the perfect spot. This is a one -of - kind opportunity that we should all say yes to. moc Michael O'Connor Triumph Development w: 970.688.5057 m: 240.793.6405 12 Vail Road - Suite 700 - Vail, CO - 81657 michaelgtriumphdev.com www.triumphdev.com TOWN OF VA10 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October23, 2017 ITEM/TOPIC: October 9, 2017 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name pec results 100917.pdf Description October 9, 2017 PEC Results TOWN OF VA Call to Order Present: Absent: Site Visits: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 9, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, and Brian Stockmar Karen Perez and John Rediker 1. Commercial Ski Storage — Various Locations 2. Open Lands Plan — Trails 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 15 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 19 accommodation units and 10 employee housing units, and related uses and improvements, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road (Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek)/ Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5, formerly known as part of Lot 1, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to October 23, 2017 First: Gillette Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-0-0 3. 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 12-6B-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a single family home with a five foot (5) side yard setback where fifteen feet (15') is required; and (2) 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 two foot, six inch (2'-6") setback where a seven foot, six inch (7'-6") setback is required, located at 307 Rockledge Road / Parcel B, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0040) Applicant: 307 Rockledge LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Matt Panfil Motion: Approve with Conditions First: Stockmar Second: Lockman Vote: 4-1-0 (Gillette opposed) Conditions: 1. Approval of these variances is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal; and 2. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate, via an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC), to the Community Development Department prior to requesting a final planning inspection that improvements have been constructed per plan. Panfil discussed the history of the property, the application, and the criteria for approval of a variance. Stockmar — Asked a question concerning the existing access easement. Panfil — Provided clarification and referred the question to the applicant. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, provided a presentation detailing the property history and the requested variances. A review of the criteria was included. Lockman asked about the private easement. Panfil provided details. Neubecker provided the commission with some guidance concerning the application, and the review criteria on the variance. Determination should be based on criteria in code, not on past approvals or removal of non conformities. Stockmar — Stated his belief that the application meets the criteria for approval. Gillette — Views the request as a special privilege. The private easement on the east side of the property should not be a factor. Hopkins — Stated that it is a difficult site due to its configuration. She supports the application. Lockman — While the PEC should be careful with variances for redevelopment, he supports the application based on the limited building area of the site. Kurz — Stated that he believes the variances are a reasonable request. 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-2-2, Definitions of Words and Terms, Vail Town Code, to amend and clarify the definitions of Commercial Ski Storage, Ski Club, First Floor or Street Level, and Basement or Garden Level; to create a new definition for Ski Storage Lockers; to amend Section 12-14-21 Outdoor Display of Goods concerning ski racks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0042) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker Motion: Table to a Date Uncertain First: Gillette Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-0-0 Neubecker began his presentation by describing existing confusion among businesses, Community Development staff, and Code Enforcement staff regarding ski storage and associated business operations and how such operations relate to Town Code. Referring to the staff memo for the agenda item, Neubecker outlined recommendations from the Ski Storage Task Force and specific questions for the PEC. Recommendations included: the continued use of horizontal zoning which does prohibits ski storage on the ground floor or second floor, establish hours of operation for outdoor ski storage, prohibition of ski racks on pedestrian easements (to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis), and separate definitions for ski storage and ski clubs where the existing Town Code combines both uses into one definition. Neubecker stated that within the staff memo there is proposed language for a text amendment that would incorporate the Task Force's recommendations. Kurz — Asked if the proposed changes address all of the action items established by the Task Force. Neubecker responded that the proposed language represents the recommendations of the Task Force, but staff believes that after further consideration it may be best that some of the recommendations of the Task Force not be incorporated into a text amendment. Lockman — Asked for clarification regarding the placement of ski racks within easements. Neubecker responded that while the Task Force recommended a blanket language prohibiting ski storage in easements, staff's recommendation would be to not include such blanket language and instead review the language of each individual easement. Additional discussion occurred between Neubecker and multiple Commissioners regarding the use of the ground floor for ski storage by hotels and lodges. Gillette — Outlined what he felt were several different issues within the general topic of ski storage. It is important to remember that the Town is a ski town and there will be skis visible to the public. Believes there should be no distinction between rental skis versus for -sale skis versus privately -owned skis. During business hours the ground floor should remain commercial, but does not care if skis are stored inside on the ground floor when the business is closed. There may no longer be enough storage space below grade for all of the skis in Town. Does not believe hotels should be able to have a physical space separate from their structure that serves only ski services and has no accommodation units. Stockmar — Asked for clarification as to the origins of the prohibition of storage on the second floor. Spence responded that part of the prohibition is based on the desire for tax -generating services on the second floor. Gillette — Stated that an additional issue for discussion is the use of ski racks outside of a business. Believes there should be a permitting system for the use of outdoor ski racks, regardless of whether the skis are for rent, sale, or storage. Neubecker outlined the argument of some business owners that allowing inside storage on the ground floor during non -business hours creates a competitive disadvantage to those businesses that comply with the existing regulations. Mike Brumbaugh, Venture Sports — For the properties he manages the concern is that they are placing ski racks on private property, but they may be on pedestrian easements. Gillette asked for his opinion on permits for ski racks. Brumbaugh stated that he would be willing to pay for such a permit if the fee was reasonable. Chris Cremer, SkiHaus — Stated that short-term ski storage is taxable, but long-term, over 30 days, is non-taxable. He feels amending ski storage is like opening a Pandora's Box with some unforeseeable impacts on businesses. He stated that businesses will keep adapting to customers' increased demands for customer service. A lengthy discussion was held regarding the operation of ski storage and associated businesses. Hopkins — Stated that there was once a concern that all of the ground floor business on Bridge Street would be t -shirt shops and is wondering if there is an actual concern that all ground floor businesses would become ski storage if it was permitted on the ground floor. Cremer believes that there is a limited demand for ski storage that would not result in all ground floor businesses switching to ski storage operations. Mike Brumbaugh— Stated that there are very few second floor storage operations that were able to get approved, but the PEC has the ability to deny such operations if they were to be requested today. Jeff Babb, Vail Resorts — Original intent of the Ski Storage Task Force was to clarify existing regulations and to analyze how changing customer expectations will impact such regulations. Believes that it might be necessary to postpone making changes and examine how operations can be improved over the upcoming ski season. Cautioned the PEC about the legality of including language that prohibits ski racks on pedestrian easements. Brent Martin, Four Seasons — Stated that the business intent is to provide what customers demand and it is difficult and expensive to do so. The current code is not up to date with the services today's customers expect. Believes that second floor ski clubs can add to the vibrancy of the town. Gillette — Believes the Town needs to adjust permits and taxes to create a more even playing field. Kurz — It is such a complex issue that it might take additional time to complete any changes. Is encouraged by the discussions that have occurred to date. Asked if the rest of the PEC felt the item was ready to forward to the Town Council or if they felt more time was needed. Asked staff if delaying a recommendation would penalize any businesses this upcoming ski season. Neubecker stated that lack of clarity is never a good thing and asked that if the PEC were to delay a recommendation, to provide additional information necessary for the PEC to be comfortable to make a recommendation. Gillette — Does not believe that what has been presented to the PEC will be effective. Recommendations need to be equitable so that any businesses on the second level would cost more than basement level. Also, a permitting system for outside ski racks should be established. If regulations are not enforceable, do not write them. Lockman — Objective data such as locker occupancy and use of easements would be beneficial. Gillette — Believes the Town should be less concerned about what uses are permitted above the ground floor. Neubecker encouraged the PEC to answer the questions on page 4 of the staff memo. Stockmar — Does not feel he can make a recommendation yet on such a complex topic. Is concerned about rushing to a decision and creating unforeseen consequences. Neubecker asked what information was necessary to make a decision. Stockmar stated that there is no specific information he can cite that is needed, but needs time to take in and analyze the scope of the issues. Lockman — Asked if there were other items within the recommendations that the PEC agreed upon and would be comfortable forwarding to the Town Council. Hopkins stated that if the Task Force believes this would work, it might be beneficial to try these regulations for a year and reevaluate after the upcoming ski season. Hopkins asked Babb if he would be OK if the item was tabled. Babb responded that he does in fact believe that this issue may need more time for discussion and review. Gillette — Suggested another Task Force meeting. Mike Brumbaugh — Stated that there is still a level of uncertainty, especially regarding Code Enforcement, if the status quo were to remain. Jeff Babb — Is comfortable with forwarding the recommendations from the Task Force, except for the language regarding easements. Cremer — Suggested ongoing review of regulations throughout the upcoming ski season. Gillette — Stated he believes the PEC should recommend to the Town Council another round of Task Force meetings, in which second floor zoning regulations and potential changes to taxes and feed should be addressed. There was a lengthy discussion as to whether or not PEC was ready to make a recommendation to the Town Council, and if not, what additional information is needed or other topics need to be resolved by the Task Force. It was generally agreed that easements, the equitable use of outdoor ski racks, and second floor zoning need to be evaluated. 5. Approval of Minutes September 25, 2017 PEC Results Motion: Approve First: Lockman Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-0-0 6. Informational Update Open Lands Plan Update —Trails Tom Braun, Braun and Associates Kristen Bertuglia, Environmental Sustainability Manager Braun discussed a draft plan, and an update to be released on October 19. His presentation was to focus on the format of the plan on a very general level. He stated that it is important for the PEC to review the draft of the plan. The intent of the plan is to review and update the current plan, but not to completely rewrite the plan. The plan includes an Action Plan for use of town land, management of lands, trails, and actions to implement the plan. In this update trails, town lands and environmental sensitive lands, each have their own section. This is a subtle restructuring of the plan. There have been a lot of change since the plan was adopted 22 years ago, including significant growth in the community, and increased use of trails. Braun discussed some of the lands that the Town purchased years ago. The community supported these efforts, and emphasized the need to continue to purchase lands to advance the Town's environmental goals. The 1994 Plan identified techniques to protect land, including designated open space and conservation easements. The plan includes an inventory of lands to see how open lands and town lands can advance some of the goals of the community. Biodiversity is one of the recommendations of the plan. The team has performed an inventory of private, vacant lands, to see if any of these lands could advance the goals of the plan and community. Gregg Barrie, Town of Vail Senior Landscape Architect, was introduced to discuss trails. He stated that trail improvements were the second priority of the 1994 Plan. There are many different opinions on the Vail Trail towards east Vail. The team gathered information at the community scoping sessions, but did not get enough feedback to make specific recommendations on trails. The team then conducted more scoping sessions only on trails, ranging from long time locals to new residents. The team asked how the Town can accommodate all the varied wants and needs of the community. Another opportunity for feedback from the community will be held Wednesday, October 11. The goal is to have a more detailed trails plan that the 1994 Plan, including a trails vision, standards for trails (hiking and biking, trails, mixed use trails, etc.), identification of where trails can be improved, maintenance recommendations, and discussion of wildlife impacts from trails. There will be a component on how the Town can work with other jurisdictions. The Town will also work with Bill Andree from the Division of Wildlife. The trails plan will be a long and thoughtful process. Gillette — Are all trails multiuse? Barrie — Most are multiuse. Vail Mountain has a special use permit, and they have some trails for designated uses. The Town can work with the United States Forest Service to recommend certain trails for specific uses. Braun — Last year we had some meetings with pro and anti -trail users on opposite sides of the room. The intent is for the trail discussion to be more of a community discussion on trail issues. Stockmar — Did you discuss electrically assisted bikes? E -bikes will start to create an issue. Barrie — Some Forest Service trails allow motorized use, some allow only non - mechanized use. The plan will lean towards non -motorized. Braun — Action Plan will focus on action items and specific lands and actions to implement the goals. The plan update will address 12-14 items from the old plan that have not yet been addressed. There are a handful of parcels that the Town could potentially acquire for other community uses. The updated plan will discuss funding sources, Eagle County participation, and collaboration with Vail Resorts. Most trails in Crested Butte, Moab and Fruita are not built by the city, but by the participation of trail users groups. Barrie - Vail Valley Mountain Bike Association has pulled in several different groups, businesses, the hospital, etc, to adopt a section of the North Trail. The Forest Service review process would be needed to realign a section of the trail. This section could be done with volunteers, and a variety of funding sources. Gillette — A mini -excavator would be efficient to do trail work. Why doesn't the Town of Vail acquire this equipment and do the work? Barrie — It's Forest Service land. Cougar Ridge was a different story. If the work were to stay within 100 yards of the existing alignment, the NEPA process can be avoided. Town Council support would also be needed in order to spend money outside the town. 7. Adjournment Motion: Adjourn First: Gillette Second: Lockman Vote: 5-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hours prior to meeting time. Ad #: 0000133998-01 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLMT Your account number is: 1023233 PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 10/20/2017 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 10/20/2017 in the issue of said newspaper In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 10/23/2017. Mark Wurzer, Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 10/23/2017. Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission Expires: November 1, 2019 PAMELA J. SCHULTZ NOTARY PUDLtC. STATE. OF CQL4F�A� NGTA.RY I #799946309Y5 66y CortmisalOn E)Tres Nwomhar 1, 2018 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 23, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order 2. Main Agenda 60 min. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Devel- opment Districts, Vail Town Code, establishing Spe- cial Development District No_ 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), located at 430 and 434 South Front- age Road (Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek)/ Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5, formerly known as Lot 1, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence 5 min A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amend- ments to Title 5, Public Health and Safety, and Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, related to vegetation removal for wildfire mitigation purposes, and setting forth details in regard thereto_ (PEC17- 0043) Staff requests that this item be tabled to the Novem- ber 13, 2017 meeting of the Planning and Environ- mental Commission. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jonathan Spence 3. Approval of Minutes October 9, 2017 PEC Results 4. Adjournment The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment 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 Com- mission will consider an item_ Please call (970) 479- 2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meet- ing time_ Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily October 20, 2017 Ad #: 0000128236-01 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLMT Your account number is: 1023233 PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 10/6/2017 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 10/6/2017 in the issue of said newspaper In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 10/6/2017. Mark Wurzer, Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 10/6/2017. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail wil hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12- 3-6, Vail Town Code, onOctober 23, 2017 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Towi Council, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Devel- opment Districts, Vail Town Code, establishing Spe cial Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain Vie%n Residences), located at 430 and 434 South Front- age Road (Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek)/ Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5, formerly knowr as Lot 1, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village Fil ing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PFC17-0006) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Towi Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amend- ments to Title 5, Public Health and Safety, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, relat- ed to vegetation removal for wildfire mitigation pur- poses, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 17-0043) The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Developmen Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970-479- 2138 or visit www.vailgov.com/planning for addition- al information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification, dial 711. Published October 6, 2017 in the Vail DailN 0000128236