Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-27 PEC0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl) January 27, 2020, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Pam Hopkins, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, Brian Gillette (arrived late) Absent: Pete Seibert Main Agenda 2.1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district 5 min. boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1 Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, from the Commercial Core 3 (CC3) District to the Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) District and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0047) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0046 and PEC19-0048. The applicant has requested this item be tabled to February 10, 2020. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to February 10, 2020. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Gillette, Seibert 2.2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Highline Hotel Renovation 2019), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a hotel addition to add 79 accommodation units, convert 19 existing dwelling units to 19 limited service lodge units, create a 12 unit EHU dormitory, remove office space, add conference space and build 16 unit employee housing apartment building, and related uses and improvements, located at 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0048) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0047 and PEC19-0046. The applicant has requested this item be tabled to February 10, 2020. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to February 10, 2020. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Gillette, Seibert 2.3. A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of a hotel addition and an EHU apartment building, located at 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0046) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0047 and PEC19-0048. The applicant has requested this item be tabled to February 10, 2020. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to February 10, 2020. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Gillette, Seibert 2.4. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density 30 min. Control, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, and a request for the review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the stipulation that basement GRFA deductions apply only to floors within six vertical feet of the lowest level of a structure, both in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 775 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 19-0050) Applicant: Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates Staff Planner Erik Gates gave a presentation on the application discussing the property's history and the regulatory history of the code as it related to this property. Discussion was had on why staff recommended approval of one of the applications. Dominic Mauriello: Introduces applicants, starts presentation for why the applicant is requesting the two variances. Foster Gillette makes an appeal to the PEC on why the variances are needed. Mauriello goes through each variance criteria for each request and addresses how each application is meeting the criteria. Shows quotes from a 2004 staff report and PEC meeting on sections that stated that creating non -conforming properties were not an intention of the code change. Perez clarifies that some of the quotes shown were from items that were not adopted by the Council. Mauriello explains criteria 2, 3, and 4. Discussion was had on why there is a 60/40 split, the difference in the zone districts and the intent behind the 60/40. Gates clarifies that only one of the units has been considered the primary since it was built. Jonathan Spence explains the thought process behind some of the code changes in 2016 with regard to the basement deduction. Kjesbo: I was heavily involved in this. I was on PEC when this was passed in 2004. We were thinking it would be by unit to allow deduction and not structure. Council approved it as structure. Spence: The six feet rule helped people because it gave people square footage where none existed before. Explanation of crawl space and height of ceiling vs 6ft separation of basement floors takes place between commissioners. Perez: The reality is the rule is six feet and that is our criteria. Mauriello: Please vote on basement variance first as we will not need to proceed with the second variance if that does not pass. Gillette questions the reasoning behind the applicant's request. Kurz opens for public input. None comes forward. Opens commissioner comments. Kjesbo: I've been doing this since beginning. It's been very clear since 2004 that Council wanted to look at it as one structure. It's clear that it is six feet and granting this would be a grant of special privilege. If we approved this, we would have a lot of new variances coming in for this type of application. Gillette: I agree with Kjesbo. Perez: I agree that it would be a special privilege. It is clearly stated to be six feet and a single structure. I don't see the hardship to overcome this. Hopkins: It breaks my heart; I remember the depressions and recessions. They gave 250 for people to have incentive to fix up buildings. The result of trying to take advantage of property to not increase the bulk and mass of buildings. It was meant to help and has done the opposite in this case. Lockman: I'm in favor of the 60/40, but not the six feet basement variance which would be special privilege. Mauriello asked that the item be continued to the next meeting. Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to February 10, 2020. Pam Hopkins seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Seibert 2.5. A request for review of an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration for 30 min. the Launch Development, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to modify the amount of required parking and the design of the parking garage, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2A, a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3 and Tract E, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19- 0051) Applicant: Battle Mountain LLC Launch Development Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. Prior to submitting for building permit, the applicant shall revise the arrival level floor plan to provide paver detail the delineates a pedestrian path similar to the previous approval. 2. Prior to submitting for building permit, the applicant shall provide a fee -in -lieu payment for the one (1) parking space, consistent with the Section 12-10-16 of the Vail Town Code. 3. Prior to submitting for building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval for a Correction Plat related to any reduction in the required replacement of existing parking spaces. 4. The Transportation Impact Fee shall be paid to the Town of Vail by the applicant prior to issuance of any building permit. 5. 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 on-site employee housing units (EHUs) including a parking management plan. 6. The parking management plan for the on-site employee housing units (EHUs) shall include a parking designation of one (1) space per unit. Planner Spence: The applicants left the last meeting understanding that they needed to make some revisions, which they have done. Tom Braun will discuss the revised proposal Tom Braun: Started by introducing his team. This discussion can get very complicated if you let it, but I'm going to try to simplify this. The applicant has been speaking with Vail 21 to discuss their concerns. Tom then spoke about the original 2018 approval for this project. Had a surplus of parking with the 3rd level. Always expected to lose some of their potential 93 spaces. Fast forwarding to today, we are proposing dropping from 69 to 61 parking spaces. Meeting that in five ways: eliminating an on-site EHU, adding 3 spaces to the entry level, receiving a waiver for one space, recalculating the required replacement parking to lose 1 spot, and paying a fee -in -lieu for the final spot. Commissioner Kjesbo: Are there any spots reserved for Vail 21? Braun: Yes, 24 spaces. Spence: The deed restriction would have to detail how its parking is being met. Gillette: Why aren't we just waiving the parking requirement for the EHU Spence: The Commission had previously indicated that they were not in support of this. No real basis to eliminate this. Also clarified that the elimination of 1 EHU will not be out of compliance as this development was proposing an extra EHU in the first place. Braun: Using the overhead screens, showed where new parking spaces would be located. Also discussed a snow storage parking space that was counted as part of the parking spaces to be replaced. This should not have been counted. Commissioner Lockman: Asked a clarifying question about counting a parking space as snow storage. Planner Spence: When we receive an application showing a parking space as snow storage, we do not interpret that spot as a parking space for zoning purposes. Braun: Then began to discuss his argument for a fee -in -lieu. Replacement parking has ultimately required us to have more parking than we would need if this was a completely new development. The DRB, Council, and master plan have all been in support of this development. Commissioner Perez: Where is your excess parking coming from? Braun: Discussed the requirement for each kind of unit in the development. This leaves 16 units to Vail 21 and a few spaces for the EHUs. Open public comment Keith Kapilla: If the original plan was submitted with 48 parking spots, would they still have the same allowable square footage. Spence: Those metrics are unrelated as square footage is determined by lot size. Susan Cahill Vail 21 HOA rep.: Pleased with the revisions made, and willing to work with the developer with this new proposal Kingsley Brown, Vantage Point owner: Parking is a problem in Lionshead. If you're focusing on making this more pedestrian focused, what is going to be addressed regarding the Lionshead Circle. Where will the underground structure be vented? Bruce Zivic: Professional experience as an architect for 35 years. Has worked with lodging and underground parking. Has been following this project from the onset. Understands the challenges of working collaboratively with your neighbor. In my opinion this is the best solution moving forward. All other problems are relatively small and manageable. Commissioner Lockman: Wanted to make sure the applicant was meeting all parking criteria. Shame about losing an EHU, but ok. Ok with the waiver as well. A little uncomfortable with the replacement parking recalculation but will side with staff's recommendation. Braun: To clarify, we won't be venting exhaust from the basement because of the automated system, only a handful on the entry level need venting. Spence: Will be addressed in the building permit and wont' be blowing into another building. Perez: Appreciates the changes made since the last meeting and appreciates the applicant accepting the additional conditions of the PEC. Thinks this a much more reasonable proposal. Gillette: Still does not want to eliminate parking. Would be in favor of this if all the proposed eliminated spots were fee -in -lieu. Kjesbo: Agrees with the replacement parking recalculation. Will be in support of this as proposed. Kurz: Also appreciates the changes made since the last meeting. This is a much better solution. In favor of this application. Perez: Wants a condition of approval to require parking for the current EHUs. 2.8 are normally required. Quick discussion among the commissioners settled on requiring 2 spaces be dedicated to the EHUs. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (5-1). Ayes: (5) Hopkins, Kjesbo, Kurz, Lockman, Perez Nays: (1) Gillette Absent: (1) Seibert 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. January 13, 2020 PEC Results Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Abstain: (1) Lockman Absent: (1) Seibert 4. Adjournment Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Seibert The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: Attendance City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 27, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: 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 the rezoning of 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1 Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, from the Commercial Core 3 (CC3) District to the Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) District and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0047) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0046 and PEC19-0048. The applicant has requested this item be tabled to February 10, 2020. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 27, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Highline Hotel Renovation 2019), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a hotel addition to add 79 accommodation units, convert 19 existing dwelling units to 19 limited service lodge units, create a 12 unit EHU dormitory, remove office space, add conference space and build 16 unit employee housing apartment building, and related uses and improvements, located at 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0048) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0047 and PEC19-0046. The applicant has requested this item be tabled to February 10, 2020. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 27, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of a hotel addition and an EHU apartment building, located at 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0046) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0047 and PEC19-0048. The applicant has requested this item be tabled to February 10, 2020. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 27, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, and a request for the review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the stipulation that basement GRFA deductions apply only to floors within six vertical feet of the lowest level of a structure, both in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 775 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0050) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC19-0050 Staff Memorandum.pdf PEC19-0050 Staff Memorandum [Attachment Al PEC19-0050 Vicinity Map.pdf [Attachment A] Vicinity Map [Attachment Bl Gillett Variance Narrative 11-11-19.pdf [Attachment B] Applicant's Narrative TOWN of Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 27, 2020 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, and a request for the review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the stipulation that basement GRFA deductions apply only to floors within six vertical feet of the lowest level of a structure, both in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 775 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0050) Applicant: Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates I. SUMMARY The applicants, Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting two variances: The first request is a review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the stipulation that basement GRFA deductions apply only to floors within six vertical feet of the lowest level of a structure. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends denial of this application, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. The second request is a review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for relief from the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this application item, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. A vicinity map (Attachment A) and the applicants' narrative (Attachment B) are attached for review. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, and from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. These variances would allow for each unit of this duplex to have their basement GRFA deduction calculated separately and allow the secondary unit to use greater than 40% of the allowable GRFA. The subject property is located within the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) zone district and was first developed with a duplex structure in 1986. A number of additions to this duplex were legally approved throughout the 1990s to bring the property to its current state. After these additions, the East unit had at least 137 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining while the West unit appears to have nearly reached its maximum development potential in regard to GRFA. Following subsequent code amendments related to the way Vail calculates GRFA in 2005, the East unit is allowed an additional 617 sq. ft. of GRFA, while the West unit is now out of compliance with regard to GRFA and considered legally non -conforming. The goal of these variances is to restore any development potential lost as a result of previous code changes, and to bring the West unit into compliance with the Town Code. An approval of just the variance related to basement deductions would result in the East unit becoming the secondary unit. This leaves 22 sq. ft. of GRFA available for the East unit and 1,232 sq. ft. of GRFA available for the West unit (assuming the West unit does not take more than 60% of allowable GRFA). An approval of just the variance related to the 40% GRFA limit for a secondary unit would result in 617 sq. ft. of GRFA available for both sides to pull from. An approval of both variances would result in 1,255 sq. ft. of GRFA available for both sides to pull from. III. BACKGROUND In 1986, the duplex in question was approved and built to code. At this time, the 40% secondary unit GRFA restriction was in place, and the East unit was considered the primary unit as it was the larger of the two. Through the 1990s, several additions were made to this property. These additions made use of the 425 sq. ft. allowance, 250 ordinance allowance, and interior conversions that were available for this zone district at the time. As a result of these additions, both units ended up close, but not over their maximum allowed GRFA at the time. The East unit remained as the primary unit at the end of the 90s. In 2005 the Town of Vail significantly altered the way it measures GRFA. Of note, the 425 sq. ft. allowance, 250 ordinance, and interior conversions were no longer available for the PS zone district. To offset this, the Town altered its GRFA calculation to incorporate the 250 sq. ft. and 425 sq. ft. allowances. The basement GRFA deduction was also codified at this time with the rational that basement floor area does not significantly contribute to a structure's bulk and mass. The basement deduction as it was originally written simply stated that only the lowest level of a structure could receive the basement deduction. However, due to ambiguity on what constitutes the "lowest level", an edit to the Town Code in 2016 clarified that the "lowest level" is the lowest floor by elevation and any other floor of the structure within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. The difference in basement level height for the two units referenced in this application is eight (8) vertical feet. As a result of these code changes from 2004 to today, the East unit has 617 sq. ft. of GRFA available while the West unit exceeds its maximum allowable GRFA by 237.4 sq. ft. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Vail Land Use Plan (in part) CHAPTER ll: LAND USE PLAN GOALS/ POLICIES (in part) The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows: 1. General Growth /Development 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. Vail Town Code 12-1-2: PURPOSE: (in part) 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.- 5. urposes: 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. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. 12-6D-8: DENSITY CONTROL: (in part) B. Gross Residential Floor Area.- 1. rea: 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site.- a. ite: a. Not more than forty six (46) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first ten thousand (10, 000) square feet of site area, plus b. Thirty eight (38) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over ten thousand (10, 000) square feet, not exceeding fifteen thousand (15, 000) square feet of site area, plus c. Thirteen (13) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not exceeding thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet of site area, plus d. Six (6) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet. 2. The secondary unit shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA). 12-15-3: DEFINITION, CALCULATION, AND EXCLUSIONS: (in part) A. Within the hillside residential (HR), single-family residential (SFR), two-family residential (R), and two-family primary/secondary residential (PS) districts: Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages, attics,- vaulted ttics,vaulted or open to below spaces, basements, crawl spaces, and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area,- except rea,except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. a. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in the definition above. Excluded areas as set forth herein, shall then each be deducted from the total square footage. (6) Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior walls for the purposes of this section) that are unexposed and below existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The lowest level shall be the finished floor level with the lowest USGS elevation, including all floor levels within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. A multi -unit building shall be considered one structure. The percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level exterior wall surface area shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest level exterior walls. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal areas on the lowest level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units also deducted from the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title, but the deduction does not apply to any crawl space or attic. 12-17-1: PURPOSE.- A. URPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon, from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements, or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each zone district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits", and by section 12-3-7, "Amendment", of this title. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: (in part) A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance.- 1. ariance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance.- 1. ariance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. V. SITE ANALYSIS UI rd'.I^:II M 775 Potato Patch Dr. Legal Description: Block 1 Lot 19, Vail Potato Patch Lot Area: 0.494 acres / (21,532 sq. ft.) Zoning: Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Duplex Residential Geological Hazards: None SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use North: Residential South: Residential East: USFS West: Open Space VII. REVIEW CRITERIA Zoning District Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential None Agricultural and Open Space The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed variances facilitate the potential for additional residential expansion to both units. The variance related to the 40% GRFA limit on secondary units will not result in any more GRFA than a strict interpretation of the code currently allows. This variance simply makes GRFA currently available only to the East unit available to the West unit as well. The basement variance will result additional GRFA available to the property based on a strict interpretation of the current code. However, it should be noted that currently a significant portion of the East unit's lower level is underground (i.e. not significantly contributing to bulk and mass) and counted as GRFA. Both variances may help facilitate additional bulk and mass from what currently exists, but should not significantly impact the uses, structures, or views of surrounding properties. Staff finds that the proposal meets this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. It is clear from the development history of this property that the code changes related to the measurement of GRFA have created a nonconformity on this property. While this nonconformity is legal and will not prevent development on the East unit, from reviewing PEC minutes during the 2004 GRFA code change hearings it is evident the Commission wanted to avoid the creation of non -conformities from these changes. However, the degree to which the West unit is out of compliance is rather small (less than 250 sq. ft.). As such, it is the determination of Town Staff that only the variance related to the 40% GRFA limit for a secondary unit is appropriate. This variance would maintain the development potential currently and historically available to the East unit, while bringing the West unit into compliance. Staff has determined that a second variance related to the basement exclusion would be considered a grant of special privilege that grants additional GRFA not available to other properties in the PS zone district. Staff finds that the proposal does not meet this criterion. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variances will not result in additional dwelling units or additional traffic to this property. As such, there are no anticipated effects on light and air, population, transportation and traffic, or any other public services. Therefore, Staff finds that the proposal meets this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions The Community Development Department recommends denial for a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the stipulation that basement GRFA deductions apply only to floors within six vertical feet of the lowest level of a structure, located at 775 Potato Patch Dr., Block 1 Lot 19, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the applicant's request for the review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the stipulation that basement GRFA deductions apply only to floors within six vertical feet of the lowest level of a structure, located at 775 Potato Patch Dr., Block 1 Lot 19, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0050)." 2. Variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control The Community Development Department recommends approval for a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, located at 775 Potato Patch Dr., Block 1 Lot 19, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, located at 775 Potato Patch Dr., Block 1 Lot 19, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0050)." 3. Findings Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve either/both variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon a review of Section Vll of the January 27, 2020 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Narrative Gillett Residence 60-40 Split & Basement Credit Variance k Date Submitted: November 11, 2019 u Mauriello Planning Group Introduction The owners of the units at 775 Potato Patch in Vail are requesting variances from the 60-40 GRFA split of the Primary/Secondary Zone District (Section 12-6D-8: Density Control), and the requirement that basement credit is only given if the lowest level of each unit is within 6 ft. of each other (Section 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions). The variances are requested due to the GRFA amendments which have modified the calculation of GRFA and which have impacted this property negatively with regard to development potential. 775 Potato Patch - east unit. The basement space was created via the Foster Gillett owns the west unit which has Interior Conversion process. This space was not counted as GRFA when recently been called the secondary unit approved. Now, under current regulations, the entirety of this basement (nothing formally designates the Gillett unit space is counted as GRFA, because the finished floor elevation is 8 ft. above the finished floor elevation of the western unit as the secondary unit) at 775 Potato Patch. The unit is non -conforming with the requirement that the secondary unit not exceed 40% of the allowable GRFA for the property. The secondary unit is 43.23% of the allowable GRFA. As a result, there is no remaining development potential for the unit. In this case, the GRFA modifications that have occurred over the years rendered the unit non -conforming and eliminated any future development potential from the secondary unit. Furthermore, the current limitation that basements are deducted from GRFA only if the lowest level of the duplex is within 6 vertical feet of the lowest level of the adjacent duplex unit created a hardship on this property. The existing basements are within 8 vertical feet of each other, and therefore only the West unit is allowed to take the deduction. Both of the basements were legally constructed through the Interior Conversion provision of the code, and which exempted the conversion of crawl space to livable area from GRFA calculations. The Interior Conversion provision of the Code was eliminated for PS zoned properties in 2004 when the entire GRFA chapter was rewritten. The current method of counting the basement, adopted in 2016, on the East unit effectively eliminates available GRFA potential from the property. The owners are requesting these variances to allow for fair treatment of properties under the current GRFA calculations. In this instance, the West unit is being considered the Secondary Unit, though there is nothing in the code that prescribes which unit gets Primary unit Status vs. Secondary unit Status. As such, the current regulations render the West unit non -conforming and eliminated all opportunities for additional development. This is unique to the West unit and created an unfair hardship, depriving the owner of development potential that all other units in the Primary/Secondary zone district are allowed. Furthermore, the East unit is prevented from deducting the basement space from GRFA because of the2016 GRFA chapter rewrite. 2 This variance request is unique in that there is not a development plan associated with the proposed variance. This is because there is no immediate plan to add onto the West unit. The owner of the East unit has been pursuing an addition which would utilize the limited GRFA remaining s, on the property. In their design process, it was discovered that though the site has —= available GRFA due to various code changes, only the primary side has the ability to use the available GRFA because _ �r. = _= the secondary side was rendered non- — - conforming with the 60-40 split requirements. In addition, due to the language on the basement deduction, only the West unit gets credit for the below- grade basement area because its basement is 8 ft. lower than the basement of the East unit. The granting of this variance would allow the owners of both halves of the duplex to split the available 775 Potato Patch - west unit. The basement space was created via the GRFA based on their own agreements on Interior Conversion process. This space was not counted as GRFA when the use of GRFA. approved. Now, under current regulations, 87% (or 977 sq. ft.) of this basement is deducted from GRFA. The following section provides an overall GRFA analysis for 775 Potato Patch, indicating how the changes to the GRFA calculation have negatively impacted 775 Potato Patch. 3 GRFA Analysis Permissible GRFA for a residents is based on the zone district for that property. In the case of 775 Potato Patch, the Town has made several changes to the GRFA allowances for the PS zone district. One of the keys in establishing total GRFA and allowable GRFA for each unit is based on establishing the Primary unit versus the Secondary unit. However, the code does not define Primary or Secondary. It simply states that the Secondary Unit shall not exceed 40% of the allowable GRFA for the entire lot. The issue with the 60/40 split applied to this property is that the designation of Primary/Secondary based on the size of the units has changed. In 2004, the West side would have been considered the Primary unit based on size, whereas in 2016 the East side would be considered the Primary unit based on size. This back and forth works counter to the intents and purposes of land use planning. Zoning regulations would change over time, causing properties to become non -conforming without any material changes to the property. This is a dangerous precedent, and one that should be avoided. The Town never really analyzed the effects of the GRFA changes on the 60/40 status within the PS zoned neighborhoods. Current GRFA Analysis (2018) 775 Potato Patch is zoned Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS), just as all of the other single-family and duplex homes in the Potato Patch neighborhood. The total lot area is 21,531.71 sq. ft. GRFA in the PS zone district for the entire lot as follows: 46% of the first 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area 38% of the next 5,000 sq. ft. of lot area 13% of the next 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area 6% of lot area in excess of 30,000 sq. ft. It then further limits the "secondary" side to no more than 40% of the total allowable GRFA, which allows the primary side to have 60% of the total allowable GRFA. The following is the allowable GRFA for 775 Potato Patch: Primary: 4,409 sq. ft. (60% of total allowable) Secondary: 2,939 sq. ft. (40% of total allowable) Total: 7,349 sq. ft. The following provides the existing GRFA calculations for 775 Potato Patch: East (Ryan): 3,555 sq. ft. (48.37% of total allowable) West (Gillett): 3,177 sq. ft. (43.23% of total allowable) Total: 6,732 sq. ft. (617 sq. ft. unused GRFA remaining) Historical GRFA Analysis I. 1990s GRFA Analysis When the home was originally constructed, and when subsequent additions were done in the late -1990s, GRFA was calculated differently. The calculation was as follows: 4 25% for the first 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area 10% got the next 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area 5% of lot area in excess of 30,000 sq. ft. Primary: 2,641.80 sq. ft. (60% of total allowable) Secondary: 1,761.20 sq. ft. (40% of total allowable) Total GRFA (before credits): 4,403 sq. ft The secondary unit was limited to up to 40% of this calculation before any other credits were applied. In addition to the calculation above, each unit was allocated an additional 425 sq. ft. of GRFA. After the application of the 425 sq. ft. credit to each unit, the allowable GRFA looks like this: Primary: 3,066.80 sq. ft. (58.4% of total allowable) Secondary: 2,186.20 sq. ft. (41.6% of total allowable) Total GRFA (425): 5,253 sq. ft. (4,403 + 850) You will note that at this point the allowable GRFA for the secondary unit exceeds 40%. Per the code, if a unit was an older unit, each unit was then also allowed an additional 250 sq. ft., called a "250 addition." Both of the units took advantage of a 250 on this property. When you add in the 250 additions the allowable GRFA looks like this: Primary: 3,316.80 sq. ft. (57.7% of total allowable) Secondary: 2,436.20 sq. ft. (42.3% of total allowable) Total GRFA (425 & 250): 5,753 sq. ft. (4,403 + 850 + 500) In addition, the Town permitted "Interior Conversions" which allowed owners to use existing space, such as unfinished crawl spaces or attics, to be converted to livable area above the allowable GRFA. Interior conversions were not limited in the amount of GRFA that could be used. Nor were interior conversions subject to the 40-60 split as applied by the Town. When built, both units were very similar in size. Based on the Town's files, after some "250 additions" and "interior conversions" in the 1990s, the GRFA for each unit was constructed as follows: West Unit: 3,070 sq. ft. (49% of existing GRFA and 53% of total allowable) East unit: 3,180 sq. ft. (51% of existing GRFA and 55% of total allowable) Total: 6,250 sq. ft. (5,753 sq. ft. allowable GRFA) Though it appears that the units exceeded the allowable GRFA at the time, all the additions were legally done, approved by the Town of Vail, and were permitted by the Zoning Code of the time. The units were allowed to be nearly a 50/50 split on GRFA. II. 2004 GRFA Modifications In 2004, the Town undertook a massive overhaul of the GRFA regulations in all residential zone districts. The GRFA calculations were modified to increase the allowable GRFA for PS zoned sites. With the amendments, "250 additions" and "interior conversions" were no longer permitted in the PS zone 5 district. The thought was that the calculation would be increased to such a level that they were no longer needed. However, when the Town revised the GRFA in 2004, many secondary units which had legally constructed the 425 sq. ft. credit, a "250 addition" and an "interior conversion" were then rendered non -conforming with regard to the 60-40 split. This was despite the fact that these secondary units had been conforming and had been previously approved by the Town of Vail, but were now rendered non -conforming though they made no material changes to their properties. The non- conforming status was a result in a change of the code and causes a major infringement on the rights of the homeowner. In 2004, the modifications to the calculation of GRFA also changed how GRFA was measured, including measuring to the outside of walls (previously to the interior wall surface) and counting vaulted spaces above 16 ft.in height as floor area. The biggest impact to 775 Potato Patch had to do with the calculation of basement space. The goal at the time was to exempt underground space from the GRFA calculation, recognizing that it did not impact bulk and mass of a structure. The following is the 2005 methodology for the basement exemption: Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of exterior wall surfaces unexposed and below existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level's exterior wall surface area shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest level's exterior walls. The following provides an analysis of the GRFA for 775 Potato Patch based on how the basement deduction was calculated in 2004: GRFA Analysis by Level with 2004 Basement Deduction GRFA Split on Allowable 1 43.23% 1 39.70% Remaining GRFA 1 1,232.011 21.50 1 1,254.51 Gillett - West Side ` Ryan - East Side Total Upper Level 1,588.00 11485.00 3,073.00 Main Level 1,355.00 1,170.00 2,525.00 Lowest Level 1,123.00 850.00 1,973.00 Basement Deduction -977.01 -637.50 -1,614.51 Garage 688.00 650.00 1,338.00 Garage Deduction -600.00 -600.00 -1,200.00 Total Existing GRFA 3,176.99 2,917.50 6,094.49 Total Allowable GRFA 4,409.00 2,939.00 7,349.00. GRFA Split on Allowable 1 43.23% 1 39.70% Remaining GRFA 1 1,232.011 21.50 1 1,254.51 As indicated in the above analysis, in this case, the West side was actually larger than the East side, making it the primary unit rather than the secondary unit, in theory. When Gillett purchased the property in 2005, the West unit was larger than the East Unit at 3,177 sq. ft. (52%) v. 2,917 sq. ft. (48%). The East side complied with the 40% requirement, and the remaining available GRFA was available to the West side. This basement credit definition allowed basement credit to be applied to each unit on the property and applied to the lowest level within each unit regardless of the relationship of the floor elevations of the two units (i.e., it was equitably applied). Available, unused, GRFA remaining would have been approximately 1,250 sq. ft. in 2005. III. 2016 Basement Amendment In 2016, Town staff made a change to the basement deduction, adding (1) a requirement that the credit is applied to the entire structure and no longer on a unit by unit basis and (2) adding in a requirement that to get a basement deduction, the lowest levels of an entire structure have to be within 6 vertical feet of each other. In other words, if one unit's basement level is greater than 6 ft. below that of the other unit, then only the lowest unit gets the basement credit. This is particularly problematic if there is any significant grade change across units, which is very common in the Town of Vail. The following is the current method of measuring basement space: Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior walls for the purposes of this section) that are unexposed and below existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The lowest level shall be the finished floor level with the lowest USGS elevation, including all floor levels within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. A multi -unit building shall be considered one structure. The percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level exterior wall surface area shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest level exterior walls. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal areas on the lowest level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units also deducted from the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title; but the deduction does not apply to any crawl space or attic. In this case, the change had a dramatic impact on the ability to take the basement deduction on the East side (Ryan). While the West side (Gillett) is able to take advantage of the deduction, the East side (Ryan) no longer has that ability, as the finished floor elevation of the West side (Gillett) basement appears to be about 8 ft. below the finished floor elevation of the East side (Ryan) basement. The following provides an analysis of the GRFA of 775 Potato Patch as current regulations require (no basement deduction for the East side): GRFA Analysis by Level 2016 Basement Deduction (none on East side) Gillett - West Side Upper Level 1,588.00 Main Level 1,355.00 Ryan - East Side 1,485.00 1,170.00 Total 3,073.0 :2,525:0d0 7 Gillett - West Side Ryan - East Side Total Lowest Level 1,123.00 850.00 1,973.00 Basement Deduction -977.01 0.00 -977.01 Garage 688.00 650.00 1,338.00 Garage Deduction -600.00 -600.00 -1,200.00 Total Existing GRFA 3,176.99 3,555.00 6,731.99 GRFA Split on Allowable 43.23% 48.37% Total Allowable GRFA 2,939 4,409 7,349 Difference from Existing -237.99 617.01 617.01 In this case, the East side (Ryan) is the larger unit and could therefore be considered primary unit. However, by making this declaration, the West side (Gillett) does not comply with the 40% requirement for a secondary unit, which makes it nonconforming. Available GRFA remaining is approximately 617 sq. ft., a significant reduction from what was allowed previously, before the basement definition was amended. Because these analyses are somewhat confusing, here is a current breakdown of the GRFA for 775 Potato Patch based on the changing regulations: West Side West West Side East Side East Side East Side Total Total Complied Allowed Side % of Allowed Existing % of Allowed Existing with Code Existing Allowbale Allowable 1986- 2,186 2,186 47.0% 2,466 2,466 53.0% 4,652 4,652 YES Original Construction 1999- 2,011 3,070 53.4% 2,291 3,180 55.3% 5,753 6,250 YES Additions to Units 2004 - GRFA 2,939 3,177 43.2% 4,409 2,917 39.7% 7,349 6,094 YES - East Amendments side was Secondary 2018 Current 2,939 3,177 43.2% 4,409 3,555 48.4% 7,349 6,732 NO Code Criteria for Review Section 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS, of the Vail Town Code provides the criteria for review for a variance. These criteria, along with an analysis, are provided below: N 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Applicant Response: 60-40 Split Variance The 60-40 split requirement has little impact on other existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity. In fact, the property has never truly had a 60-40 split of GRFA. Due to the way 425 credits were applied after the 60-40 split was calculated, when the structure was originally constructed it did not have a 60-40 split of GRFA, as indicated below: Primary: 3,066.80 sq. ft. (58.4% of total allowable) Secondary: 2,186.20 sq. ft. (41.6% of total allowable) Total GRFA: 5,253 sq. ft. Futhermore, when both units constructed 250 additions and interior conversions in the 1990s, the West side unit was significantly greater than 40% of the allowable GRFA for a secondary unit. East side: 3,180 sq. ft. (55.3% of total allowable) West side: 3,070 sq. ft. (53.4% of total allowable) Total GRFA: 6,250 sq. ft. (Total Allowable GRFA was 5,753 sq. ft. plus Interior Conversion which was exempt from the calculation) As indicated above, actual constructed GRFA for the property was much closer to a 50-50 split and is a non -conformity created by the change in GRFA regulations. As a result, the variance from the 60-40 split has no impact to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Basement Deduction Variance Both of the units used the Interior Conversion provision of the code to convert existing crawl space into livable space. Interior Conversions were only permitted after the maximum allowable GRFA at the time (1990s) was maxed out. It did not count towards GRFA and was not subject to the 60-40 split. With the GRFA revisions of 2004, the reason presented for not counting basements towards GRFA was that below grade space did not have an impact on the bulk and mass of a structure and should not be subject to the GRFA limitations. The basement area existed within the structure, whether or not it was counted towards GRFA. The east unit could have dug the crawl space 2 ft. deeper in the 1990s, and the space would be deducted from GRFA calculations today. It was only the 2016 creation of the rule that the lowest level had to be within 6 ft. that created a situation where this space now counts as GRFA. As a result, there is no impact to other existing uses or structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Applicant Response: 9 60-40 Split Variance The duplex at 775 Potato Patch complied with the GRFA regulation when originally constructed. Each side of the duplex legally constructed 250 additions and Interior Conversions through the Town's established process. Due to the various changes in the GRFA calculations since 2004, the secondary unit was rendered non -conforming, eliminating any development potential to that unit. The clear and stated intent was that the elimination of the 250 Ordinance and Interior Conversions would not create non -conformities. The staff memorandum to the PEC (September 8, 2003) specifically stated: The PEC has determined that the "250 Ordinance" and the "Interior Conversion" GRFA bonuses should be repealed in their entirety due to the inequities of property rights that are created by these regulations. In an effort to afford these bonuses to all properties and to not create non -conformities, the proposed GRFA calculation formulas have been increased over the current calculations to compensate for the elimination of these bonuses. The PEC recommendation of approval included two conditions regarding non -conformities, stating (underline added for emphasis) : (4) An amnesty clause should be adopted in conjunction with the adoption of the FAR regulations. The amnesty clause should have no time limit, waive the Town of Vail application fees, and prevent the creation of non -conform in a properties in regard to FAR. (5) Any loss of development potential currently allowed by the existing GRFA regulations that is caused by the adopted of the FAR regulations shall be considered iustification for a variance from the FAR regulations. (Note that the PEC was recommending renaming GRFA to FAR, which was not carried over in the final adoption) The clear intent by the PEC was that non -conformities would not be created by the changes to GRFA. However, in this case, a non -conformity was clearly created, as the secondary unit exceeds 40% of the current allowable GRFA for the property. This non -conformity is unique to the secondary unit on this property, and a variance is necessary to treat this property as all other properties in the vicinity. Per the conditions included with the PEC recommendation of approval of the repeal of the 250 ordinance and the repeal of the interior conversion, the loss of development potential on this property should be considered justification for a variance. Therefore, relief from the 40% limitation, allowing the unit to partake of the GRFA allowed for the property in not a grant of special privilege. Basement Deduction Variance Both of the units, using the Interior Conversion allowance, converted crawl space to livable area prior to 2004. This space, located on the lowest level of each unit, was not counted towards GRFA at that time because it was substantially below grade. However, the current GRFA deduction for basement space only allows the deduction for both basements if each level is within 6 ft. of the other. Though there is very little grade change across this relatively flat site, the structure steps with grade, as is encouraged by the Design Guidelines. This has created an inequity of treatment for the units: the west unit, being slightly lower in finished floor elevation, is able to deduct the basement from the GRFA calculation, while the east unit, being 10 8 ft. above finished floor elevation from the other unit, does not. As a result, 637.50 sq. ft. of the east unit's basement which is entirely below grade, is counted as GRFA. This was an issue when the basement deduction definition was reviewed by the PEC in 2016. In fact, many members of the PEC expressed concern about the 6 ft. limitation being arbitrary. On August 22, 2016, the PEC reviewed the staff's proposed changes to the basement deduction. The following comments were recorded in the minutes: 775 Potato Patch - the lot is generally flat in comparison to most lots in Vail. As is encouraged by the Design Guidelines, the structure steps with the natural grade. Commissioner Stockmar -feels choosing six foot separation allowance is arbitrary and is inclined not to change anything with GRFA at this time. Would like to have a bigger discussion dealing with all of GRFA. Commissioner Gillette - likes the application being applied to all zone district impacted by GRFA. However, six foot rule is arbitrary. Believes all levels that are subterranean should be deducted from GRFA. Commissioner Pratt - does not think this application solves the bigger problem and it contradicts the decision of the PEC on the Michael Suman application and appeal. Allows multiple levels but is not equitable between units. Each side should get credit for buried space. Feels the six foot rule meets the status quo being interpreted by staff, and will send this application to Council. Based on the review of the minutes, many of the concerns of the PEC were focused on the construction of new homes. However, this change had impacts on existing homes. It is common for duplex structures to step with grade. In fact, it is encouraged by the Design Guidelines. These steps often occur between units. There are few flat development sites within the Town of Vail and it is inequitable that the basement deduction is not allowed for both units, especially when the basement is below grade and has no impact on bulk and mass of a structure. It is clearly inequitable to treat half of an existing duplex different than the other half, simply because of the grade change over the site. It is therefore not a grant of special privilege to grant this variance. 11 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Applicant Response: Due to the nature of this variance request, there are no negative effects on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 12 Adjacent Properties POTATO PATCH PARTNERS RLLLP 785 POTATO PATCH DR VAI L, CO 81657-4480 CHAMBERS, JASON R. 3796 PARAN RDG NW ATLANTA, GA 30327-3026 WERTHEIM, HERBERT A. & NICOLE J 4470 SW 74TH AVE MIAMI, FL 33155-4408 JOHN H. DAVIE, JR REVOCABLE TRUST 776 POTATO PATCH DR VAI L, CO 81657-4477 RYAN, SCOTT T. & PAULA J. 2398 SW 76TH LN OCALA, FL 34476-6770 GILLETT, FOSTER L. 950 RED SANDSTONE RD UNIT 43 VAI L, CO 81657-4092 EAGLE DEN PROPERTIES LLC 6477 STRAWBERRY CT LONGMONT, CO 80503-7164 BARTLIT, FRED H. 1899 WYNKOOP ST STE 800 DENVER, CO 80202-1086 13 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 27, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration for the Launch Development, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to modify the amount of required parking and the design of the parking garage, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2A, a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3 and Tract E, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0051) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC19-0051 Staff Memo.pdf Staff memorandum Attachment A. Applicant's Applicant's narrative with attachments January 27 2020.pdf narrative with attachments, January 27, 2020 Attachment B. Previously Attachment B. Previously approved parkinq floor plans June 29 2018.pdf approved parking floor plans, June 29, 2018 Attachment C. Page from original Attachment C. Pace from original narrative concerning parking June 29 2018.pdf narrative concerning parking, June 29, 2018 Attachment D. PEC Meetinq Minutes July 9 2018.pdf Attachment D. PEC Meeting Minutes July 9, 2018 Attachment E. Existinq Parkinq Photos.pdf Attachment E. Existing parking photos. Attachment F. Correspondence Attachment F. Correspondence from Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos with Vail 21 received January 7 2020.pdf from Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos with Vail 21 received January 7, 2020 Attachment G. Correspondence Attachment G. Correspondence from Bruce Zivic with Vail 21 received January 9 2020.pdf from Bruce Zivic with Vail 21 received January 9, 2020 Attachment H. Additional Attachment H. Additional correspondence from Nicholas L. Georaakopoulos with Vail 21.0 correspondence from Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos with Vail 21 Attachment I. Correspondence from Linda Malabo with Vail 21.0 Attachment I. Correspondence from Linda Malaby with Vail 21 Attachment J. Correspondence Attachment J. Correspondence from Keith Kapilla with Vantage Point.Ddf from Keith Kapilla with Vantage Point TOWN OF VAIL! Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 27, 2020 SUBJECT: A request for review of an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration for the Launch Development, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to modify the amount of required parking, the design of the parking garage and the Housing Plan, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2A, a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3 and Tract E, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0051) Applicant: Battle Mountain LLC Launch Development Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY The applicants, Battle Mountain LLC, and Launch Development, Inc., request the review of an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration for the Launch Development, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to modify the amount of required parking, the design of the parking garage and the Housing Plan, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2A, a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3 and Tract E, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1. On January 13, 2020 the applicants presented a proposal before the Planning and Environmental Commission to modify the amount of required parking and the design of the parking garage. The request was to eliminate the required parking for the onsite EHUs (4.2 spaces) and to reduce the quantity of existing parking spaces to be replaced from 52 to 44. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the application was tabled to the January 27, 2020 meeting to allow the applicants to pursue alternative proposals. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Battle Mountain LLC, and Launch Development, Inc. have revised their proposal to amend the previous approval for the construction of a new multifamily development with an automated underground parking system and other associated site improvements. This amendment is necessary due to unforeseen construction challenges that have resulted in the original plan being infeasible. The revised proposal is as follows: 1. A request to modify the approved Housing Plan to reduce the onsite EHUs from three (3) totaling 2,984 square feet, 525 square feet over the requirement, to two (2) units totaling 2,459 square feet. The proposed reduction maintains compliance with Inclusionary Zoning requirements for the development. 2. A request to eliminate the required parking requirement for the two (2) onsite EHUs consistent with Section 12-23-3 D of the Vail Town Code. The two (2) onsite units have a parking requirement per Chapter 10 of 1.4 parking spaces per unit. Section 12-23-3 D allows, at the discretion of the applicable governing body, variations to the parking standards subject to a parking management plan demonstrating an need for fewer parking spaces than would be required. Examples cited in the code include: a. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services. b. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars for each unit. c. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to, rideshare programs, car share programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts. The applicants have proposed two alternatives to be articulated in the deed restrictions for the units. The two alternatives will be that the units will be leased/occupied by individuals without a vehicle or the parking association will allocate one of the "replacement parking spaces" to meet the parking demand. The "replacement parking spaces" are those spaces currently in existence on the site that are required to be replaced per Section 12-10-03 and as referenced in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (LRMP). 3. A request for a reconsideration of the quantity of existing spaces required to be replaced with the redevelopment of the site (replacement parking spaces). The previous approval required the replacement of 52 existing spaces. The applicants assert that the number of existing spaces required to be replaced was inaccurate as the survey was not fully evaluated at the time of the previous approval. The inventory included all parking spaces, regardless of their size, location or functionality. The applicant's revised project narrative provides that the number of spaces required to be replaced should be reduced as follows: a. Three (3) spaces were utilized for snow storage purposes b. One (1) space was not functionable as parking in the adjacent space would block access to the space. For these reasons, the applicants request that the required number of spaces to be replaced be reduced from 52 to 48. 4. A request to revise the internal layout of the parking components of the project including revisions to the arrival level and the reduction in automated parking levels form three (3) to two (2). By reducing the EHU square footage on the first floor, the ski lockers previously provided on the arrival level are to be relocated to the first floor, allowing three additional parking spaces. 5. A request to utilize Section 12-10-21 of the Vail Town Code to allow pay -in -lieu for the one required space that cannot be accommodated onsite. Section 12-10- 21 reads, in part: Properties not included in the Pay in Lieu Zones may apply to the Planning and Environmental Commission for review if the provision of on- site parking on the property would circumvent relevant objectives of applicable comprehensive plan documents including, but not limited to, parking, pedestrianization, and vehicle penetration elements. The applicants have provided a revised narrative with associated attachments related to these requests. This narrative is included with this memorandum as Attachment A. Also included are the approved parking floorplans (Attachment B.), a page from the narrative provided with the original application concerning the replacement of existing on-site parking (Attachment C.), the minutes from the PEC meeting on July 9, 2018 when the project was approved (Attachment D), photos of the existing parking conditions (Attachment E), correspondence from Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos with Vail 21, (Attachment F), correspondence Bruce Zivic, with Vail 21 (Attachment G) additional correspondence from Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos with Vail 21 (Attachment H), correspondence from Linda Malaby with Vail 21 (Attachment 1) and correspondence received from Keith Kapilla, with attachments with Vantage Point Condominiums (Attachment J). III. BACKGROUND The subject property was annexed into the Town of Vail (Town) by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1969, which became effective on August 23, 1969. Vail/Lionshead Filing No. 1 was approved by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Vail on April 27, 1970 and was subsequently recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder on May 10, 1970. In 1973 a two-level parking structure was built on this property and also built on the property immediately to the west to meet the parking demands of adjacent developments including Vail 21, the Lift House and the Lions Pride building, among others. Over the last 25 years, the property has continued to provide this parking, however the exact arrangements regarding leases, easements or other legal instruments are largely unknown. The exception to this statement is Vail 21 whose rights and obligations related to the parking structure were resolved through legal action in 2007. The Town of Vail is not a party to any of these private agreements. Due to structural deficiencies, the top deck of the existing parking structure has been removed with the lower level re -graded and until redevelopment occurs. On July 9, 2018 the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved a Major Exterior Alteratio0n pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, vail Town Code for the construction of a new multifamily structure with below grade parking. This was the third meeting on the proposal. Also, at this meeting, the PEC approved three related applications. These were a setback variance, a removal of the subject property and the adjacent property form the Town of Vail "parking pay -in - lieu" zones, and a final plat to reconfigure property lines between the development lots located at 500 and 534 East Lionshead Circle. The final plat was approved with the following condition that was reflect on the recorded document: Any major exterior alteration or other redevelopment of Lot 1A or Lot 2A shall include, at a minimum, 91 parking spaces for Lot 1A and 52 parking spaces for Lot 2A in addition to the requirements for the altered or redeveloped structures on said lots. Any approval to reduce the number of parking spots to be replaced will require a revision to this plat note through a Correction Plat. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 12, Zoninq Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part) ARTICLE H — Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District 12-7H-1: PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The Lionshead mixed use 1 district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple - family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, timeshares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead mixed use 1 district, in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. This zone district is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. This zone district was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this zone district include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead redevelopment master plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any development/redevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 3(1999) § 1) Vail Comprehensive Plan (in part) Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future — Strategic Action Plan (in part) - The Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan is a visioning document that begins with a set of values that outline what is truly important to the community. The plan outlines goals for land use and development, parks and recreation, environment, housing, transportation, economy, community and public safety topics, including specific vision statements, long-term goals, and actions and strategies over the next 5 years to achieve those goals. LAND USE Goal #4: Provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. • Address the zoning regulations to provide more incentives for developers to build employee housing units. • Use employee housing fund for buy -downs and other programs that will increase the number of employees living within the town. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Goal #2: Energy Management in Buildings and Transportation: Reduce the town's 2007 baseline green house gas emissions. • Support employee housing initiatives in order to reduce trips into Vail. HOUSING 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. • Conduct inventory of all sites with development potential and pursue opportunities for acquiring undeveloped or underdeveloped properties. • Update the Vail Land Use Plan and identify more areas for employee housing. • 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 ECONOMY Goal #3: Maintain a town -wide workforce in which at least 30 percent of people who work in Vail also live in Vail. • Support the local economy by working with the business community to address future workforce housing needs as they relate to business in Vail. Vail Land Use Plan (in part) — The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. One specific measure used to implement the recommendations of the Land Use Plan includes amendments to the Official Zoning Map. Other measures include changes to ordinances and regulations, or policies adopted by the Town. Chapter 11 - Land Use Plan Goals / Policies (in part) 1. General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3. 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. 2009 Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan — The purpose of this plan is to define a strategy that consists of measurable goals, objectives, and actions that will help the Town coordinate efforts to achieve the environmental vision of the community. Goal #6 — Transportation — Reduce the environmental impact of transportation by supporting efforts within the Eagle Valley to decrease total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by commuters and guests by 20% by 2020. V. ZONING ANALYSIS Address: 534 East Lionshead Circle Legal Description: Lot 2A and Tract K, Vail/Lionshead Filing No. 1, a Resubdivision Lot Size: .314 acre (13,677 sq. ft.) Existing Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) Land Use Designation: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Mapped Geological Hazards: None Development Required by Town Proposed Complies? Standard Code Lot Size Min. 10,000 sq. ft. .314 acre (13,677 sq. Complies ft. Minimum Setbacks Front — 10' North: 10' Variance to west Side — 10' South: 10' setback approved with Rear — 10' East: 10' previous application West: 0' Maximum Height 82.5 ft. max 81 ft. max Complies 71 ft. average 71 ft. average Maximum Dwelling 35 DUs/ per acre, or 9 dwelling units (28.6 Complies units/acre 11 units on a .314 du/buildable acre) acre parc el. GRFA Max. 250/100 24,590 sq. ft. Complies Buildable Site Area or 25,917 s . ft.* Site coverage Max. 70% of site area 8,020 sq. ft. or 59% Complies maximum or 9,754 sq. ft. Minimum Min. 20% of site area 2,760 sq. ft. or 20% Complies Landscaping or 2,735 sq. ft. Required Parking 1.4 per unit or 17 61 spaces** Revision requested spaces *Although the Development Lot includes Tract K, per an agreement with a part owner of the tract, GRFA is limited to that associated with Lot 2A. **The proposed 61 spaces reflect an elimination of the required parking for the onsite EHUs (2.8 spaces) and a reduction in the number of pre-existing onsite spaces from 52 to 48. The original approval included 93 parking spaces that would have resulted in an excess of eighteen (18) parking spaces over what is required by the development (17 spaces) and the replacement of the existing spaces (58 spaces) VI VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING North: Lodging/Multi-Family South: Mixed Use East: Welcome Center West: Lodging/Multifamily Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) General Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) REVIEW CRITERIA -MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria for major exterior alteration applications proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU- 1) zone district. According to Section 12-7H-8, Vail Town Code, a major exterior alteration shall be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria: That the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district; Staff Response: The purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District are stated in Section 12-7H-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code. As stated, the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District is intended to provide sites within the area of Lionshead for a mixture of multiple -family dwellings, hotels, fractional fee clubs, restaurants, skier services and commercial/retail establishments. The development standards prescribed for the district were established to provide incentives for development in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The proposed amendments to the previous approval do not bring the project out of conformance with this criterion. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; Staff Response: Chapter 5: Detailed Plan Recommendations Section 5.7.5 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses specific recommendations for the Lions Pride Building and Parking Deck (Emphasis Added): 5.7.5 Lions Pride Building and Parking Deck The Lions Pride building and the parking deck across the alley are not in primary locations in the retail core but, because they are in very questionable condition (both visually and physically), their redevelopment and compliance with the Master plan should be considered a priority. An opportunity exists to convert the existing alleyway into a true arrival point for these properties and an enhanced pedestrian walkway. The existing parking must be replaced, most likely underneath a new structure, and could be accessed directly from East Lionshead Circle or from the alley. The proposed amendments, specifically the reduction in parking spaces to be replaced, call into question the project's conformance with this plan recommendation. The previous proposal to reduce the replacement parking by eight (8) spaces exceeded a reasonable compromise between the original parking survey and actual conditions. Staff finds that the revised proposal for a four (4) space reduction in the required number of replacement spaces strikes a more reasonable balance. Traditionally, the Town of Vail has not counted areas utilized for snow storage as qualifying parking spaces for meeting a parking requirement. Staff finds this criterion has generally been met. 3. That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and, Staff Response: The proposed amendments to the previous approval to eliminate the parking requirement for the on-site EHUs and the reduce the number of existing parking spaces required to be replaced doers not have a significant negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. Vantage Point Condominiums, located adjacent to the site, has expressed concerns with unauthorized vehicles using their parking facilities. As the proposed parking is utilized predominately for long term residential uses, a reduction is not anticipated to contribute to this condition. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the Vail Comprehensive Plan to determine which elements of the Plan apply to the review of this proposal to amend the previous approval. Due to the limited scope of the proposed changes, staff does not believe that there are other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Department provides the following recommendations related to the applicants' requests: Reduction in onsite EHUs from three (3) totaling 2,984 square feet, 525 square feet over the requirement, to two (2) units totaling 2,459 square feet. As the proposed reduction maintains compliance with Inclusionary Zoning requirements for the development, staff finds this is consistent with the Vail Town Code. 2. Elimination of EHU parking requirement: Community Development is supportive of the proposed amendment to eliminate the required parking for the onsite EHUs. The Vail Town Code allows the PEC flexibility concerning the parking requirement. Due to factors including the project's location, a parking management plan is appropriate. 3. Reduction in parking spaces to be replaced with redevelopment: Community Development finds with the materials presented that the proposed reduction in replacement parking spaces from 52 to 48 is generally consistent with the Vail Town Code and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 4. Modification to the arrival parking level and the automated system: Community Development is supportive of the proposed changes if the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the reduction in parking spaces to be replaced. Internal movements have been analyzed and found to be acceptable. As conditioned, the level will maintain accommodations for pedestrians to traverse the arrival level. 5. Utilization of fee -in -lie provision: Due to site constraints including lot size and the existing water table, staff is supportive of the utilization of this provision. Staff finds that the applicants have exhausted all other onsite remedies in an effort to provide the development generated parking and required replacement parking. Staff's recommendation is based upon the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Motion to Approve: Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicants' request for an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration for the Launch Development, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to modify the amount of required parking, the design of the parking garage and the Housing Plan, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2A, a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3 and Tract E, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC 19-005 1). " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicants' request for an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission imposes the following conditions: Prior to submitting for building permit, the applicant shall revise the arrival level floor plan to provide paver detail the delineates a pedestrian path similar to the previous approval. 2. Prior to submitting for building permit, the applicant shall provide a fee -in -lieu payment for the one (1) parking space, consistent with the Section 12-10-16 of the Vail Town Code. 3. Prior to submitting for building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval for a Correction Plat related to any reduction in the required replacement of existing parking spaces. 4. The Transportation Impact Fee shall be paid to the Town of Vail by the applicant prior to issuance of any building permit. 5. 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 on-site employee housing units (EHUs) including a parking management plan. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the exterior alteration request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the Staff memorandums to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated January 27, 2020, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- That inds: That the proposed Major Exterior Alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the LMU-1 district as specified in section 12-7H-1 of the Zoning Regulations, and 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, and 3. That the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's narrative with attachments, January 27, 2020 B. Previously approved parking floor plans, June 29, 2018 C. Page from original narrative concerning parking, June 29, 2018 D. PEC Meeting Minutes, July 9, 2018 E. Existing parking photos. F. Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos with Vail 21, January 7, 2020 G. Bruce Zivic with Vail 21, January 9, 2020 H. Additional correspondence from Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos with Vail 21 I. Correspondence from Linda Malaby with Vail 21 J. Attachment J. Correspondence from Keith Kapilla with Vantage Point Elevation Amendment to Exterior Alteration and Employee Housing Plan Request for Pay -In -Lieu Parking January 27, 2020 Introduction In December of 2019 application for several amendments to approved plans for Elevation were submitted and on January 13th these applications were presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). These applications were tabled by the PEC. Based on input from the PEC and subsequent meetings with town staff, modifications have been made to these amendment requests. Proposed amendments now include: 1. Change to Employee Housing Mitigation Plan (reduce on-site units from the original project approval of 3 EHU's to 2 EHU's). 2. Waiver to parking requirements for the two on-site EHU's. 3. Change to the number of existing parking spaces to be replaced (a reduction of 4 spaces as compared to a 13 -space reduction that was proposed at the 1/13/20 PEC hearing). 4. Change to project design that reduces the number of parking levels from three to two. 5. Increase to the number of on-site parking spaces (3 additional spaces from what was proposed at the 1/13/20 PEC hearing). 6. Utilization of Pay -in -Lieu Parking for one (1) required parking space Items 1-5 above are addressed by an amendment to the Exterior Alteration approval for the project. Item 6 is reviewed by the PEC in accordance with section 12-10-21 of the Vail Zoning Code. This application is submitted on behalf of Battle Mountain, LLC & Launch Development, Inc., owners and developers of the Elevation. Information provided herein provides background on the 2018 approval of Elevation and the need for these amendments, an overview of proposed parking changes, a summary of proposed amendments to the project, and an evaluation of how the proposed amendments comply with applicable Exterior Alteration review criteria. Background on Elevation and need for amendments Elevation is a small residential condominium project that received Town approvals in 2018. The project consists of nine for -sale condominiums, owner/project amenities, three on-site Employee Housing Units (EHU's), and a mechanized underground parking structure. The project is located on a site that previously accommodated a two-level parking structure. Parking provided for the proposed project included parking required for the new development; and in accordance with town codes, the replacement of previously existing parking. Over the past two years, the development team and their design professionals have evaluated the structural, hydrological, and relational forces inherent in the design of Elevation. How these factors impact project design and how they relate to existing and contemplated projects adjacent to it have also been considered. The approved project included a three-level below grade parking structure (below a six -level building), in order to provide parking that met current requirements. As project design progressed, it was learned that the small building footprint coupled with a tall, yet slender building profile have created unique structural design considerations and sustainable construction challenges. These challenges are explained in a letter by Raker Rhodes, structural engineer of record that was previously submitted. Ultimately it was concluded that these challenges rendered the approved building design to be developmentally unfeasible. Over the past three years significant effort has been put into the design and development of Elevation. And as noted in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (LHRMP), the redevelopment of this site is a major community goal. Launch Development, Inc. is committed to the completion of this project. The intention of these amendments is to modify on-site parking requirements and the proposed parking plan such that parking can be accommodated with just two below -grade parking levels. With just two below -grade parking levels the structural design challenges inherent with three below -grade levels will be resolved and in doing so allow this key redevelopment project to move forward. Details of these changes are described below. Required and proposed on-site parking Current garkinR reauirement In 2018 the parking requirements for Elevation were determined by three factors: 52 pre-existing parking spaces to be replaced as per Section 12-10-3 of the Town code 12.6 spaces for nine condominiums, and 4.2 spaces for three on-site EHU's (4.2 spaces). 68.8 spaces A minimum of 68.8, or 69 on-site spaces were required as per the 2018 project approval Proposed amendments to required parking Based on these proposed amendments, the number of required on-site parking spaces would be reduced from 69 to 61: 48 spaces to replace pre-existing parking, and 12.6 spaces for the nine new condominium units 60.6, or 61 total on-site parking spaces Factors involved in the proposed reduction to on-site parking requirements are outlined in the following section. Proposed parking plan 60 of the 61 required spaces are provided on-site. 8 of these spaces are located on the entry/parking level and 52 spaces are located on the two below -grade levels. One required space is satisfied via the pay -in -lieu parking program. Explanation of the pay -in -lieu provision is provided in the section below. Summary of amendments to the parking plan Several strategies are proposed that collective would reduce on-site parking requirements while maintaining the overall integrity of the project. Recent revisions to building design result in all but one required parking spaces being provided on-site. These strategies involved: Elimination of one on-site EHU Elevation was originally required to provide 2,459 square feet of employee housing mitigation. The 2018 project approval included three EHU's that totaled 2,984 square feet of on-site EHU's. As proposed, EHU square footage exceeded the requirement by 525 square feet. Two on-site EHU's totaling 2,459 square feet are now proposed. Square footage of these EHU's still satisfies housing mitigation as required by Town code. Eliminating one EHU reduces the on- site parking requirement by 1.4 spaces. More importantly, the elimination of this unit facilitates floor plan changes by moving ski storage from the parking/entry level to the lobby level and in doing so allows for three additional on-site parking spaces to be provided (further discussed below). Refer to the proposed entry level and lobby level floor plans at the end of this report for a graphic depiction of these changes. Waiver of parking for EHU's Approved plans for Elevation included three on-site EHU's and the 4.2 space parking requirement was provided on-site. Based on the amendment described above, two EHU's will be on-site. The Town's employee housing regulations include a provision (Section 12-23-3 D.) that allows for a waiver to on-site parking requirements. A waiver is proposed to the requirement to provide on-site parking for the two EHU's. If approved, this waiver would reduce the project's parking requirement by 2.8 spaces. Consideration of a waiver request is the purview of the PEC. In evaluating this request, the PEC is to consider proximity to alternative modes of transportation, deed restrictions on the number of cars permitted for each unit, etc. The two proposed employee housing units located in the center of Vail is an extremely positive community benefit and Elevation is uniquely located in a waythat lends itself to a parking waiver. The subject site is located in the heart of Lionshead and is walkable, not just to Lionshead, but too much of Vail. The in -town bus stop is literally steps away and the regional/ECO stop is just a few hundred feet away. As such, occupancy of these units by people without cars is not only very realistic, it should arguably be encouraged. The parking management plan for these units is quite simple and as per the ordinance will be articulated in the deed restrictions for these units. The management plan will include two alternatives: 1) Elevation will agree that the units will be leased/occupied by individuals who do not have a car, or 2) provisions will be made for the building association to allocate one of the "replacement parking spaces" to meet the parking demands of these units. It is suggested that if this waiver is approved, a condition of approval be made requiring precise wording of the parking management plan be coordinated with staff and reflected in the employee housing unit deed restrictions to be provided when the building is completed. Reduction to number of existing spaces to be replaced Section 12-10-03 of the Town's zoning code states: "Off street parking and loading facilities used for off street parking and loading on the effective date hereof shall not be reduced in capacity to less than the number of spaces prescribed in this chapter, or reduced in area or number to less than the minimum standards prescribed in this chapter". In addition, the LHRMP specifically addresses this site and the pre-existing parking structure. The Plan states that when this site is redeveloped all existing parking is to be replaced in the redevelopment. In 2018 prior to the demolition of the parking structure, an inventory of existing parking was completed. This inventory concluded the Elevation site had 52 existing spaces. The inventory was based on a site survey and on field observations. The inventory included all parking spaces, regardless of their size, location or functionality. For example, many spaces did not conform with dimensional standards, some spaces were used for snow storage, some spaces were located partially outside of the project property and some were not functional. Further evaluation of the pre-existing parking spaces has been completed. Notwithstanding the "short -comings" of many of these existing spaces, it was concluded that most spaces should be replaced by the redevelopment. However, there is a valid basis to eliminate four spaces from the count of pre-existing spaces. Two of these spaces were on the upper deck of the parking structure, the site survey indicated them to be "snow storage" and they were used for snow storage. A third space along the access road is used for snow storage and a four space was functionally unusable due to the layout of the parking spaces (the space is blocked if a car is parked in an adjoining space). The proposed number of pre-existing spaces to be replaced is 48. It is noted that when Battle Mountain LLC purchased the property the parking space "rent role" provided by the seller indicated 47 leased spaces. While antidotal, this number would support the proposed reduction from 52 to 48 spaces. Refer to the existing parking diagram found at the end of this report for a graphic depiction of the four spaces to be reduced from total number of spaces to be replaced. Increase to parking at the entry level Since the PEC review of these amendments in early January, the entry level has been re -designed to provide 3 additional parking spaces. As described above, this was made possible by eliminating one on-site EHU and moving ski storage from the entry level to the lobby level (where the eliminated EHU was previously located). Refer to the entry level and lobby level floor plans at the end of this report for a graphic depiction of how these three spaces were added. Pay in Lieu Parking Provision A provision of the Town's Pay -in -Lieu parking regulation allows, with PEC approval, for properties not located in the pay -in -lieu zone to pay in lieu of providing parking on site. This provision reads: Properties not included in the Pay In Lieu Zones may apply to the Planning and Environmental Commission for review if the provision of on-site parking on the Property would circumvent relevant objectives of applicable comprehensive plan documents including, but not limited to, parking, pedestrian iza tion, and vehicle penetration elements. (Ord. 29(2005) § 29: Ord. 4(2001) § 3) Based on proposed amendments to required parking and the project's proposed parking plan, Elevation is short one on-site parking space. Pay -in -lieu is proposed to provide for this one parking space. The standard outlined above to be used in evaluating this request essentially says pay -in -lieu can be approved if providing parking on-site prevents achieving other goals of applicable comprehensive plan documents. In this case the LHRMP makes multiple references to the importance of this site being re -developed. There are many reasons why the LHRMP encourages the redevelopment of this site, foremost among them are to remove a blighted parking structure and to improve pedestrian flow through the existing vehicle access corridor. As described above, elimination of the third below -grade parking level is necessary to make this project feasible and all of these proposed amendments are intended to allow for the elimination of the third level. Allowing pay -in -lieu for this one parking space is essential to allow this important project to move forward. The basis for approving this request is clearly grounded in the goals of the LHRMP. Other factors that can be considered in evaluating this request include: Unique situation -The obligation to replace existing parking is significant. It is also a very unique situation — as proposed, of the 61 required spaces only 13 spaces are required for the actual development, and 48 are replacement spaces. While a significant burden on the project, Launch is committed to addressing this obligation. That said, it is quite unusual that only 21% of required parking is a result of the actual development. Tract K - Battle Mountain LLC is 50% owner of adjoining Tract K, located at the project's southern boundary. This Tract serves a vital public purpose in providing access to adjoining properties, a fire/emergency easement, and a secondary pedestrian corridor to the core of Lionshead. These public purposes limit the use and development of Tract K. This is relevant in that were it not for these public purposes, it could be possible for the parking structure to be extended into Tract K in which case all required parking could be provided on site. Number of Parking Levels - During public testimony representatives of a neighboring property expressed concern with the depth of the three-level parking structure. Approval of pay -in -lieu (and these other amendments) will allow for a two-level parking structure. Summary of proposed amendments The minimum on-site parking requirement as established by the 2018 approval is 69 spaces. With the changes outlined above, the on-site requirement would be 61 spaces. All but one of these spaces is provided on-site. Below is a summary of the amendments described above: • Elimination of one on-site EHU (reduction of 1.4 spaces) With the two on-site EHU's totaling 2,459 square feet, the amendment complies with employee housing mitigation as required by the town code. • On-site spaces at entry level (addition of 3 spaces) Elimination of one EHU allows ski storage to be move to lobby level, creating room for these three additional spaces. • Waiver of parking for two on-site EHU's (reduction of 2.8 spaces) Subject to approval by the PEC, parking for EHU's can be waived. Elevation is ideally situated for such a waiver. • Reduction to existing parking to be replaced (reduction of 4 spaces) The modest four space reduction to the 2018 parking inventory is reasonable given the site considerations described above. • Pay in lieu parking (1 space) Albeit for just one space, allowing for pay -in -lieu is essential to allowing this project to go forward and in doing so allow for important goals of the LHRMP to be achieved. Review Criteria The criteria used to review these amendments are the same as the criteria used for an Exterior Alteration. In this case, criteria are applied only to the proposed amendments and not to other aspects of the project. 1. In compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead mixed use 1 district, Response The purpose of the LHMU1 district is: The Lionshead mixed use 1 district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple - family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, timeshares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead mixed use 1 district, in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. This zone district is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. The proposed project involves the redevelopment of a distressed property that is identified by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (the Plan) as a priority for redevelopment. The proposed amendments will not change this outcome. The proposed project remains very much consistent with the purpose of the LHMU1 zone district. 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, Plans for Elevation approved in 2018 were deemed by staff and the PEC to be consistent with all applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The proposed amendments do not change the exterior of the building. As such, the amendment is consistent with this criteria. One specific element of the LHRMP that should be noted is section 5.7.5 Lions Pride Building and Parking Deck. This section states pre-existing parking must be replaced but does not reference the number of spaces to be replaced. While a modest reduction to the number of replacements spaces is proposed, this reduction of 4 spaces is reasonable and the intent of the master plan with respect to replacing existing parking spaces is clearly addressed. 3. That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and Response Plans for Elevation approved in 2018 were deemed by staff and the PEC to have a positive effect on the surrounding neighborhood and to comply with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. The proposed amendments do not change these findings made in 2018. 4. That the proposal substantially complies with the other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Response Plans for Elevation approved in 2018 were deemed by staff and the PEC to have a positive effect on the surrounding neighborhood and to comply with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. The proposed amendments do not change these findings made in 2018. Ep5T 1I0NCT 1C,R0.E 6o,lT�r_�Wn+I (osxicei^u r� rvo a3ey / fi -------------- -------- .— 4 ,ib'6S 3.SSyl.ZS4VJ � — ` I 75 ,C98S=l 10"UZ—b an — Si D'0413"E �g I 'IwEc�r,ro� 5 ---------i� U Ln u 1-- N �miae N Q n.Hnwnr —� — 9-+ a a m .bb'6S 3.SS,lLZ6�10 —�� � 3 E 30.]5 .F9'65=1 AO'/1Z=11 3n %3—I 5V0'04t F bb$=v G. _ 19 ' 0 U Ln u 1-- N �miae N Q n.Hnwnr —� — 9-+ a a m .bb'6S 3.SS,lLZ6�10 —�� � 3 E 30.]5 .F9'65=1 AO'/1Z=11 3n %3—I 5V0'04t F bb$=v -6 tin ca O V'3 Q) O U f6 Q N u (1) CL U f6 � r- €`go< a vv U U Q Q N N N Ln t 'x LU O O N U U > I- O O O N N _ 19 ' 0 III w"$ /O/'��� V I m s \ 8, I _ -6 tin ca O V'3 Q) O U f6 Q N u (1) CL U f6 � r- €`go< a vv U U Q Q N N N Ln t 'x LU O O N U U > I- O O O N N O-n'NIViNnoA 3�11v8 0011VA o lin NOUVA3�3 11 IN INI-1 IN =III°s oao .... > o . ........ . o < ! wo> o__ SH3NIHVd V Sk3HHdWnH d �'SiO3ilH:D�JV CN U) 'O so �� CNL LU T11- LU v --- 000 o0 0 _ &§ >> o od g� a�g a.�aa Eta- alv.l oeo - ...... wag M -n ­-- oo4os000.a -H- (D I M mpo..o§.so H H, -Aa Ed - 21 LM -M .. . .. /H r'77T- P I rR] CN U) 'O so �� CNL LU T11- LU v --- 000 o0 0 _ &§ >> o od g� a�g a.�aa a oeo - ...... wag M -n ­-- oo4os000.a -H- (D M mpo..o§.so H H, -Aa HH -T, -M .. . .. (D < I -WH Mh (D (H) 0 HH -H H ry§mawwomwwwm�w.waow.m= a m_ ° e&ss.e§=o.M3oozs stla°odj°„sEs s w o y � g g e tl31 0 iiol Q J N Z O-n'NIV1Nf10W3�11V8 .... dH.de.adNNda��o��u�s���o«��aH.d3e�aod 001IVA d1 S10311HO2JV NOIlVA3�3 S83H18tld 8SA38HdWnH a W O W LU a� a� a� a� L U U U U Q o o oa D- Ln E oo Ln I� aso=o so=Wa.. ..oa"o N N l0 =3 N H ow�o=���, oo N � N awo.-a, W 3'"' 10,NQo�o�s�w J J 1 s L iB i U U U N N ¢ggam J oQa�a�3w �oea�w-w�smaso�o"-"�a e� w - - - - " �oaim �aweoowa�w� �. "E - dojo ft Naha 0 ❑ ❑ d Ma0o - ac W O W LU a� a� a� a� L U U U U Q o o Q Q 0 Ln D- Ln E oo Ln I� O N N l0 =3 N N � N J J 1 s L iB i U U U N N C: Lu W O W LU « ±gma 1 ) mcy«\ M / xm,mm„e , ^ 2 ° 00 TVA ! / m� n , _� aa,s e_m »§ ! � � � � CL C: O *_p � � W O-n'NIV1NnoA 3�11V8 00 TVA m a ° a r ay �sM NOUVA3�3 � aln3aNOW J 1101 M3 wZSGXls 00(u6�000E 6pLOG.....o ', Sm I d �'S1031IHO2JV m a SN3NiMVd V SA3HHdwnH a o- o - N m N N J tw L CL 0 > W LL y LL LL LL LL LL CO CO CO CO CO Q (n LL LL r BOO O O N MO m n O 00 O �aF N N O M p LLO OD J CO d LL LL LL LL LL LL V% W y W LL LL Cl) Cf)N af)�o COc4 � Cf) Cf) co co c4 o u> u> u> o u> O a p O p w w w w N N N N N N J U UQ UQ UQ UQ r M N N Nco N a Q a a a a a co co co co Z Im m m M O Owl N N N N mr O Mr � - O O (4 O r z ¢ UJ C - UJ a a a a U J 2rO O O OOOOOO p 0LL - YzY _ - zY z> OW 2 Z Y zY - 2 2 0 o r r cro w uri a C, N a a a a a a a o� o I -------------- ------------ 5 —.—. ---- 0 o � i I I I m I II I I I I I� I I I kCI �lll I I I � I _ I I I i I I W y0/ 'off a m z Os2 Qz r 2 OJ a w Q 2 0 �0 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I i o(D 00 z z c4 Q J Q cn 70 U L._.—._.—._.—.—.—._. L.—.—.- W Q rC, r COLI-+egwnN 10OWd k /99L800 11VA m 810 0tl3HSNW 3 489 NOUVAE M3 LL y LL LL LL LL LL CO CO CO CO CO Q (n LL LL r BOO O O N MO m n O 00 O �aF N N O M p LLO OD J CO d LL LL LL LL LL LL V% W y W LL LL Cl) Cf)N af)�o COc4 � Cf) Cf) co co c4 o u> u> u> o u> O a p O p w w w w N N N N N N J U UQ UQ UQ UQ r M N N Nco N a Q a a a a a co co co co Z Im m m M O Owl N N N N mr O Mr � - O O (4 O r z ¢ UJ C - UJ a a a a U J 2rO O O OOOOOO p 0LL - YzY _ - zY z> OW 2 Z Y zY - 2 2 0 o r r cro w uri a C, N a a a a a a a o� o I -------------- ------------ 5 —.—. ---- 0 o � i I I I m I II I I I I I� I I I kCI �lll I I I � I _ I I I i I I W y0/ 'off a m z Os2 Qz r 2 OJ a w Q 2 0 �0 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I i o(D 00 z z c4 Q J Q cn 70 U L._.—._.—._.—.—.—._. L.—.—.- W Q rC, r CO LL CO COLI-+egwnN 10OWd LL CO k /99L800 11VA m 810 0tl3HSNW 3 1189 LL NOUVAE M3 CO LL CO LL CO LL CO LL CO Q LL (o LL LL O¢ r yFp O O O O N O LL T m h co 0 ! 0] co O O M O � 3 li Y �i liIIII ya~ N N N N co0 J LL CO QJ OU mW LL p� LL d LL LL (n (n LL In LL In LL In LL co � 0 V% y> w LL LL co o in in in o in N d O �O (n > O c4 � c4 c4 c4 c4 N N N N N N a o J o w Q U¢ w w U¢ U¢ w U¢ r M N N N N d ¢ z a a co co m a a co co m m a co M Q Owl � 2E N N N N mO O MO � ¢ o r r r Or z Ircf, L - a a a a F- w �O 0 0 0 0 ¢ z o o z 7LL LL LL LU LU x D D w o _ Z Q LU (rpF- 2 2 C M N r r c a a h a a a a a a a a f.-------- — --- -- — — — — — yoo� z O X22¢ r OJ a Q x o O 17'-5" PARKING TRAY z I o ~ I I --F =L--r-�-- CARORTRUCK - �o _ w - LL i I � I I i I I I I I I I j � I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ I I it I I I i� 3 li Y �i liIIII A i I � I I i I I I I I I I j � I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ I I it I I I yoo z O X22¢ r OJ a Q 2 0 C- 0 O 17'-5" PARKING TRAY -L7---F — ? ----L_3 0 M I o ~ I ¢ I F ----L --r—�-- 18'-9" CARORTRUCK — — —.--- iF - -- -- ---- - --.-.-.- T I ----------i-- - i I I I I LL w COLI-+egwnN 10OWd LL k /99L800 11VA I��■� m 810 0tl3HSNW 3 1189 ��i NOUVAE M3 yoo z O X22¢ r OJ a Q 2 0 C- 0 O 17'-5" PARKING TRAY -L7---F — ? ----L_3 0 M I o ~ I ¢ I F ----L --r—�-- 18'-9" CARORTRUCK — — —.--- iF - -- -- ---- - --.-.-.- T I ----------i-- - i I I I I LL w LL LL LL LL I��■� i� LL ��i il_i� co �i=1 Iii F M =1 4a N N N N — ii li�■ O J LL O W O0 O LL LL LL LL LL LL LL d m�C � LL (n c4 c4 c4 c4 CO 40 N O CO CO CO cr (n N m m O a O O CO W W W W N N N NN coo N U U¢ U¢ U¢ Q N N N d Qd Z d d d a CO CO CO v7 CO m m m C 0 O N N N U ¢ ¢ °w� N N N N mF O MF � - w O O O J r Z �� O r a a OOOOOO Op za z U LL LL> r _za W LL O- 2LU 2 2 r r � O � (~Oa u~i a M N c � d a a a a a a yoo z O X22¢ r OJ a Q 2 0 C- 0 O 17'-5" PARKING TRAY -L7---F — ? ----L_3 0 M I o ~ I ¢ I F ----L --r—�-- 18'-9" CARORTRUCK — — —.--- iF - -- -- ---- - --.-.-.- T I ----------i-- - i I I I I a � I��■� i� ��i il_i� �i=1 Iii Hill will �IIIl IIPN�:= Il�lls��i�ll� il��■��Qiiiill�� ii, I ■ — ii li�■ a � CO co co co co LU W W W W CO CO CO CO CO O N N N m CO LL y COLI-+egwnN 10OWd LL k /99L800 11VA m 810 0tl3HSNW 3 1189 ON NOUVAE M3 CO co co co co LU W W W W CO CO CO CO CO O N N N m CO LL y LL LL LL LL LL ON M � (n (n (n (n (n Q m (n LL CO LL (n = SOF y F O 0 Oq 0 O N (O LL a h p CO O F cq M p m a N N N N C%O LJ LL 0 In J mC LL LL W 0- p pLU W LL C)O N a CO NO N N N W N W N NO N (gyp N O O M N N N N d - Owl J J N N N N mO O MO ¢ F- F- LU � LU O Op O O O O J O w 0 a J J F O O J w W LL r LL LL LL LL LL x LJL W - a Y o J F W F F Z ~ CO c LU in a M N a t� CO co co co co LU W W W W CO CO CO CO CO O N N N m CO ON M � O O O O - a a a a a a 70 yoo� z O X22 ¢ r 00 a Q x o O 17'-5" PARKING TRAY o c7 I o ~ I - z w CARORTRUCK - LLi Parking As outlined in a 1972 letter from the Town of Vail, the existing parking structure was built to provide parking for three adjacent projects. Elevation will replace existing parking and provide for the new parking demand from the proposed development. The existing structures and surface parking located on Lot A2 and a portion of Tract K (the Launch project) provides 52 parking spaces. Proposed development of nine condominiums and three EHU's requires 17 spaces for a total of 69 spaces. The parking structure will provide a minimum of 69 on-site spaces. Parking will be provided on three below grade levels and six additional spaces at the main entry to the parking structure. A total of 93 parking spaces are depicted on proposed plans. It should be noted that this is a maximum potential parking number. As project design progresses and more is known about structural, mechanical and other design considerations, it is anticipated that less than 93 spaces will be provided. However, under any circumstance a minimum of 69 spaces will be provided in order to meet zoning requirements. A fully automated parking system is proposed. A fully automated parking garage is a mechanical system designed to minimize area/volume required for parking vehicles. An automated parking garage utilizes mechanics made up of motors, chains, pulleys and pallets to transport vehicles within the parking system rather than the driver doing so. The driver pulls into a loading bay that looks very similar to a garage and parks their car on what is essentially a pallet. The driver then leaves their vehicle and using a nearby kiosk (with a fob or ticket) instructs the system to park the vehicle. The loading bay door then closes and the pallet and vehicle are automatically moved to its designated parking space. When the driver is ready to retrieve their vehicle, they will insert their parking ticket into the kiosk (or use their fob) which would trigger the retrieval of their vehicle. There will be monitors in the lobby that will let the driver know which bay their vehicle will be arriving in. The vehicle will be delivered facing out so that the driver does not have to back up out of the bay; this allows ease of exit as well as expedites the retrieval process. Six enclosed parking spaces are located next to the parking system loading bay. These spaces provide parking for users who want to park on-site but need time before using the parking system. These spaces will allow condominium owners or short-term renter to check in, unload personal items, etc. before parking. Site Design The building's primary pedestrian orientation is to the east with an entry stairs and front door located along East Lionshead Circle. Landscaping along the road is proposed to define spaces and "soften" the building. Pedestrian access is also provided on the south Elevation/534 East Lionshead Circle Development Applications Page 10 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAI0 July 9, 2018, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Brian Stockmar, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, Ludwig Kurz, Pam Hopkins Absent: Rollie Kjesbo 2. Main Agenda 2.1. A request for the review of variance from Section 12-6C-10, Landscaping 30 min. and Site Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the si)dy percent (60%) landscaping requirement, located at 5128 Grouse Lane/Lot 8, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18- 0026) ApplicantStanley & Karen Jeranko, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Justin Lightfield Lightfield introduced the project and described public comment received on this application, which are letters of support. He described the subject property and the access agreement for access on the rear of the property, which provides accesses for Eagle River Water and Sanitation to their property to the south. The access easement takes up about 15 percent of the site, taking away area to be used for landscaping. Minimum required landscaping is 60% of the site. The applicant is requesting a variance to provide less than the required landscaping. ERW SD needs the full 25' road width to allow truck access to the site. John Martin, Architect — Existing asphalt on the site creates a problem. We meet all other site requirements, and site already has some site limitations. Half of the parcel must take access from Grouse Lane, and the other unit will take access from the access road. Home is designed to separate the two dwelling units as much as possible. Majority of the front driveway is on Town of Vail property. Stockmar — Will you meet at parking requirements? Martin — Yes, we are meeting parking requirements. They will be on the site itself. Perez — Please describe the slope challenges of the site. Martin — Building steps down from Grouse Lane, and third level down still does not reach grade. We are working with the grades, but will still have retaining walls. Shape of the lot has more to do with the design than the slope. Lightfield — The height of the proposed residence is 32'-10", within the 33' height limit. Martin- If no landscaping variance, it's an unfair situation for this developer, which would not be the same as other lots without the existing asphalt. Public Comment — John Kuchar — 5124 Grouse Lane. Will this application provide less landscaping than required? (Lightfield, yes, landscaping proposed is 58%) We are not looking forward to construction traffic. Road was built with plans for minimal traffic. Lightfield —Access easement document highlights the construction, repair, and maintenance responsibilities. Kuchar — There is an existing access agreement, it's not clear if it's a 20 year agreement, which expires soon. Stockmar — You will need to ask that question to your own counsel. Perez — Explained in perpetuity means forever. Kuchar — Road is not designed for heavy construction, and in winter how will snow plowing be addressed. We are asking for a 90 day delay on this application. Stockmar — That question is not relevant to the Commission's purview. Chris Mont — Owner of Lot 3. He is in agreement with John on all his points. Who is going to clean the road each day? He is in construction, so he knows how much impact construction can have. He stated no one has done their 20% of maintenance. He uses the access road daily and echoes John's concerns. Perez — You should discuss the legal document with your counsel. Mont — What's wrong with waiting 90 days? Gilllette — The road is existing. It has nothing to do with the Town. There are more hoops for the applicant to jump through, including design review and a building permit. Mont — Not all homes on this road were built using this road. Commissioner Comment — Lockman —Appreciate the staff memorandum on this lot. Criteria for the variance has been met, considering that the site already has paving. It's a challenging site, but it's outside the Towns purview to negotiate on private property. Hopkins — OK with it. Perez — One of the criteria we must look into, the relationship to other structures in the vicinity. The PEC needs to take into account the impact the development has on adjacent property. The PEC also needs to look at physical hardship, and the issue on slope was determined not to be an issue. She has not seen any evidence that they have not been able to meet the standard. Perez stated the concern of granting a special privilege. We can not look at what we approved before. I'm not swayed that it's impossible to provide 388 additional square feet. Kurz — Concur with Lockman and Hopkins. The road can be a physical hardship. Most lots don't have a road built through their property. Most lots are allowed a certain amount of site coverage and landscaping based on lot size. Stockmar —Agrees with most of the other commissioners. The would not be an issue to meet the landscaping requirements if there were no existing road. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 2.2. A request for the review of an amendment to an existing Conditional Use 5 min. Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the replacement of the existing maintenance facility with a new maintenance facility at the Vail Golf Course, located at 1278 Vail Valley D rive/U n platted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0027) Applicant'Vail Golf Course, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Justin Lightfield Lightfield introduced the project. No formal action by the PEC is required. Jeff Bailey -1287 Vail Valley Drive. Thank you for the communication, it has been great. Question on access to the facility, will it change? Bill Pierce — No access will change with the project. Scott O'Connell — No change to access to the facility. No changes to Vail Valley Drive on this site. Chris Wolder —Adjacent property owner. What time of day will construction take place? Roz Cochman -1328 Vail Valley Drive — Concerned about the noise level. Jack Hunn, Consultant — Hope to start late September and finish by April or May 2019. No commissioner comments. 2.3. A request for review of Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-713- 45 min. 7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of a new multifamily structure with below grade parking, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2 and 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0016) Applicant$attle Mountain LLC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. Approval of this project is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. 2. The Transportation Impact Fee shall be paid to the Town of Vail by the applicant prior to issuance of any building permit. 3. 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 on-site employee housing units (EHUs). 4. The DRB shall review the snowfall conditions on the rear setback at time of review. Stockmar - for the record, there have already been two meetings on the project. Braun, representing Battle Mountain LLC, presented to the PEC and stated after the last meeting additional research has been done on the automated parking system. There are four applications today. First, is a minor subdivision (PEC18-0017). Second, Braun presented the "pay in lieu" parking map amendment (PEC18-0019). Third, is the setback variance/west wall (PEC 18-0018). The Launch building will confirm to the setback to the 0' setback line. Braun stated the west wall's plane will be determined at the DRB stage in the process. Fourth, is the exterior alteration (PEC18-0016). Braun stated staff is supportive of the new design and the application still must go through the Design Review Board for final design approval. Braun then presented the automated parking system. He stated the Town Code requires a minimum of 7' clearance. The elevation clearance proposed is 7'6". The system will hold 71 minimum spaces. 46 spaces for Vail 21 and Launch with 25 spaces leased to other users, including retail, real estate office, etc. There is no "rush hour" or "peak arrival time" from the residential users. Stockmar asked about the demand of the system. Perez - What percentage of the residential parking are short-term vs. long- term? Braun could not speak to how many permanent residents live in the building Braun mentioned vehicles pull off of the alley, and then enter a code into the key pad, which opens the garage in a matter of seconds. The user then exits the car and the car stages itself in front of the elevator, thereby not holding up any traffic. There are two elevators in the garage and the elevators can work simultaneously. Stockmar asked if the parking system reverses the car when the elevator returns the car to ground level. This would allow the car to pull out rather than backing out. Braun stated yes, the cars will pull forward rather than backing out. Braun stated automated systems have been around for a long duration and many years. The average turnaround time is 90 seconds for the elevator to park a car and return to the top. Braun showed on a site plan there are six spaces for cars to park and drop off supplies. On site staff will verify cars do not utilize drop off parking zones for long term parking. Braun then presented on elevator reliability. CityLift is on site quarterly checking the system and cleans the system quarterly. The system will be designed differently to handle the winter environment, which will be more resistant to moister. The system will also have a dehumidifying system to handle the environment. CityLift will have a contract with a local elevator maintenance company. In most cases, problems are solved in minutes. There has not been a repair prohibiting cars from leaving for more than a few hours with the system. Commissioner Comments - Hopkins — How you unload and load without affecting other cars entering the elevator? How does the circulation work? Braun — It will require some moving around of vehicles. There are six dedicated spaces in the drop-off area. Stockmar stated the normal turn -around, parking patterns, and turning radius analysis would help the PEC and determine when bottlenecks would occur. Stockmar stated he lived with an automated parking system in Tokyo and it never failed in two and a half years. based on past experiences with using similar systems, it works. Gillette — If there is not enough time to get items in or out of your car, the complex will have to hire an assistant. Hopkins — The drop-off and unload area is more likely to back up than the parking elevators. Kurt Rhoden, with Launch Development — Most often systems are using a public parking format. We have the luxury to have an educated parking environment within their community. The community with view a video on the system that CityLift produces. Lockman — Is the trash and recycling accessed inside the garage or in the alley? Braun — They will roll the bin out to the alley and likely go down to the end of the alley to service the other buildings. Perez asked if Braun obtained a height measurement within the Town of Vail regulations. Braun stated they meet the minimum requirements at 7'6". Lockman — Is emergency access available if the elevators back up and cars park in the alley? Braun — Restoring and having 22' of clear moving area. With a worse case scenario there will still be access back into the property. Public Comment - Stewart McNab, representing Lift House Homeowners Association, stated his client's interest is not in the parking garage beneath the Launch Development. His client's interest is in the Lazier section of the parking garage (upper level that has been removed). He mentioned PEC18-0017 replating application. Stockmar clarified McNab was addressing another application, not the current application, PEC18-0016. He asked for the permission from the Commission to proceed with comments since they are interrelated. McNab — The final plat is the appropriate place to address parking places that existed prior to earlier this summer when the parking structure was demolished. Lift House requests a condition that would require on Lot 1A that there be a condition for parking places that existed prior to demolition, that the parking spaces be replaced. McNab indicated the condition will preserve the status quo and will not affect the Launch site. It wouldn't change anything. Preserve the spaces that were there prior to development being proposed. Condition reads: "Any Major Exterior Alteration or other redevelopment of Lot 1A shall include, at a minimum, 95 spaces in addition to the requirements for the altered or redeveloped structure on that lot, so as to conform to the original permits and approval for the Lift House and the Lionshead Arcade buildings for which the parking existing as of June 1, 2018 on Lot 1A was intended to serve." McNab stated there are actually 91 spaces after speaking with Braun. The condition can change to 91 spaces rather than 95 spaces. This recognizes the demo for permit was granted without condition and adding the condition to the new plat will ensure preserving the status quo at time of development. It will not affect the Launch side, because parking is being taken care of. Condition would have the effect of preserving the spaces that were there prior to the development being proposed. Lockman — What was the total allocation of spots across 2A and 1A both top and bottom of the parking structure? Gillette — How did we get to 46 spaces? Braun stated Launch will provide there parking numbers as required and Lazier will provide their parking numbers. The 46 number is the number Launch has committed the residential users on their portion of the property. Gillette — How are we going to get to what we are replacing vs adding? Kurt Rhoden — There were 52 spaces before demolition. We need to replace those 52 spaces. There are also an additional minimum of 71 spaces needed for the development. The 46 is totaled by adding what Vail 21 and Elevation community would need. Perez — Clarified there will be 71 spaces on the eastern side 1/3 and 91 or 95 on the western 2/3. Braun stated 91 spaces existed before demo on Lazier's side of the development. Braun clarified demo occurred prior to the applications coming before the PEC. Braun explained the following in terms of history: June 1 (before demo) — there were 52 spaces at Launch and Lazier had 91. 143 spaces total. Launch is replacing their 52 and providing 17 more for EHUs and condominiums Lazier will replace 91 spaces and provide parking for his 23 units — 30 some - odd spaces. • 143 total spaces before deck was removed Perez asked who was the applicant for the demolition of the garage. Stockmar asked if there was a condemnation of the parking structure. Braun responded the parking structure was not condemned. Battle Mountain LLC was the applicant for demo permit. Battle Mountain LLC is part of Launch. Gillette suggested a change to the condition. Stockmar asked if the PEC needed to include the Gillette suggested change to the condition. Neubecker confirm the language is already highlighted in the Vail Town Code. McNab — The problem is there so no assurance that the project will happen any time soon, whether that be this year, next year, etc. Lazier — Stated that he is concerned of the terminology of the condition since he does not trust the motivation of the Lift House. He stated he hopes to present his proposed project in 30-45 days. He prefers the condition to be in the PEC's language, not Lift House's. He stated there are no traffic flow issues, without many cars coming in and out on a daily basis. The 91 spaces will be part of their proposal. Jamie Crosby, Vail 21 resident— Owns parking lots and apartment buildings. Concerns were the elevator maintenance and getting fixed. Mentioned lack of staging with cars and getting garbage trucks through the site. David Moe — Manager for Vantage Point Condominiums. Stated there was a horizontal crack that went the entire distance of the property. Vantage Point's concern is for their foundation and is seeking assurance that their property will not be affected by construction and building 3 floors underground. The structure was collapsing because it was moving to the south, especially being built 8' from the Vantage Point. Additionally, the proposed sidewalk along the north property line of Launch is a hazard. They believe the sidewalk is a danger due to the cliff of Vantage Point's roof. The area between the two properties is deadly, due to Vantage Point being 6 stories and the proposed building being 7 stories. Neubecker — This will be examined during the DRB review process. Moe — Never had snow falling on cars or people, but he has noticed tons of snow falling between the two buildings. The sidewalk is the main concern. Moe asked for a core sample of the soil 10' deep. Lazier responded well, but Launch did not respond as well Commissioner Comment - Lockman — Largest concern is that parking that was there, stays there. In the Lionshead planning documents, is there a number mentioned in the master planning document for parking? Neubecker —A number is not indicated on the master planning documents. Braun — The master plan specifically states parking must be replaced. He believes the parking condition is not required. Stated a condition is not required since this is an active application. Gillette— Indicated due to high construction costs, the building may not be built any time soon. The condition will verify it is not lost and the condition should be added to the plat and fee -in -lieu applications. Braun — Wanted to clarify conversations with Vantage Point. Braun stated the applicant will reconvene with Vantage Point once a construction team is selected. Stockmar — Clarified the PEC was in commissioner comment on PEC18-0018 and PEC18-0016. Commissioner Comment for all related applications - Gillette —Adding the condition to PEC 18-0019 and PEC 18-0017 makes sense to clarify what parking spaces are being talked about. Kurz —Aggress with Gillette's idea that all applications are appropriate. Kurz will support conditions if supported by Staff. Comfortable with the applications. Concerns have been thought about and addressed. Perez —Agrees with other commissioners and appreciates the background provided. Thanked applicant for addressing concerns made by the PEC. In favor of Gillette's proposed conditions. Hopkins —Agrees with adding parking condition. Also added for DRB to review the roof snowfall hazard to be looked at during DRB review. Lockman — PEC18-0016 applicant listened to the PEC and applicant did a good job describing the automated parking system. More comfortable with setback now. There is less parking now than there was J une 1, 2018. Prefers not to create additional regulations on different applications down the road and the condition should be placed only on PEC18-0017. Stockmar — This is PEC's third meeting on the issues and thanked the applicants. Based on all of the analysis, he is in favor of the development. Vail is a small town with big city problems. The site is challenging because of its size and surrounding buildings. He is comfortable in relying on the Building Department to review plans to address any safety concerns and eliminate structural issues. Comfortable with all four items and is not convinced Gillette's condition is necessary. Brian Gillette moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 2.4. A request for review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 4, Minor 15 min. Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a subdivision to reconfigure the property lines between two (2) development lots located at 500 & 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0017) Applicantiazier Lionshead LLC & Battle Moutnain LLC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. Any major exterior alteration or other redevelopment of Lot 1A or Lot 2A shall include, at a minimum, 91 parking spaces for Lot 1A and 52 parking spaces for Lot 2A in addition to the requirements for the altered or redeveloped structures on said lots. Brian Gillette moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 2.5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed 15 min. regulations amendment to Section 12-10-16 Exempt Areas; Parking Fund Established, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to remove 1A, Lot 2A, Tract K, Tract L and Tract M of a Resubdivision of Vail Lionshead, Block 1, from the "parking pay -in -lieu" zones for parking regulations purposes, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0019) Applicantiazier Lionshead LLC & Battle Moutnain LLC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. Any major exterior alteration or other redevelopment of Lot 1A or Lot 2A shall include, at a minimum, 91 parking spaces for Lot 1A and 52 parking spaces for Lot 2A in addition to the requirements for the altered or redeveloped structures on said lots. Brian Gillette moved to approve with conditions. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 2.6. A request for the review a variance from Section 12-7H-10, Setbacks, Vail 0 min. Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rear setback of zero feet (0') where ten feet (10') is required for a new multifamily structure, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2 and 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0018) Please see item PEC 18-0016 for the staff memorandum concerning this request. Applicant$attle Mountain LLC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. Brian Gillette moved to approve with conditions. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. June 25, 2018 PEC Results Stockmar stated Planner Lightfield's name is misspelled three times. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Abstain: (1) Lockman Absent: (1) Kjesbo 4. Adjournment Stockmar noted the final selection and interviews are taking place next week for the Director of Community position. He stated there is very little interactions between PECs around the state and country. Neubecker stated issues and challenges should be brought up first, then locations can be selected based on what communities have done before in the past. Gillette mentioned the PEC should generate a list of what the Town of Vail PEC has done well and poorly. Stockmar stated when the PEC's agenda lightens up is the ideal time to visit other areas. Exposing the PEC to other experiences is beneficial. Neubecker stated a retreat would be an ideal time to have a discussion. Gillette mentioned ski storage was a good example of learning through the PEC by talking with merchants and owners. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department o. r rr� r q. r i' ` INK y Ann. - ` , -1 - 1414- ILI -J A' _ ti Received January 7, 2020 Dear Mr. Spence, (with copy to the other two board members of Vail 21, Rob Stephens and Linda Malaby) Although I have written to you before as an individual board member about this issue, this time I am writing on behalf of our association (Vail 21). Our association feels that having mechanical parking would be undesirable. We can envision inevitable malfunctions leading to missed flights and even perhaps abandoned rental cars and enormous inconvenience. The mishaps that mechanical parking will bring will reflect badly not only on the related buildings (Launch's, and Vail 21, but also perhaps Lazier's and Arcade, if Lazier's building ends up not being able to fit a ramp and is forced to mechanical parking) but also on Vail as a premier destination. We wish to repeat that it is possible for the town to achieve a low- cost temporary expropriation of the second -to -build property (Lazier's; by essentially forcibly renting for a short time the cubic volume corresponding to Lazier's fraction of the shared ramp) and to force common ramp parking. We feel that the Town of Vail's governmental powers must be deployed in this direction because the gain to be achieved would be very significant compared to the cost. I would be happy to discuss this further, by email or at my cell, 317.332.8213. Sincerely, Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos for the Vail 21 Board of Directors Jonathan Spence From: Bruce Zivic <bruce.zivic@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 7:42 AM To: Jonathan Spence Subject: Vail 21, Automated Parking Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Mr. Spence I am in receipt of a recent letter sent to you from Mr. Georgakopoulos, Vail 21 Board member regarding automated parking. I wanted to add balance to his letter. Recently on December 13, 2019 at the Vail 21 HOA annual board meeting I was then president of the association. At that meeting Mr. Georgakopoulos as a Board member opened discussion to seek legal advise and to solicit the Town to force the two property owners in question to design and build a coordinated parking structure. At the end of this discussion there was no motion by the membership to pursue Mr. Georgakopoulos's proposed course of action. As such, I think its fair to say and it should be noted that Mr. Georgakopoulos in his letter to you does not represent the majority position of the Vail 21 membership. Respectfully Bruce S. Zivic Vail 21, Unit 307 Bruce S. Zivic 10 Wildwood Lane Scarborough, ME 04074 703-395-2777 1 Dear Mr. Spence, (with copy to the other two members of the board of directors of Vail 21, Rob Stephens and Linda Malaby) It has come to my attention that an erstwhile member of the board of Vail 21, Bruce Zivic, who was outvoted by the membership in just about everything and has repeatedly acted inappropriately to me and other members of the association, has written to the Town of Vail in anticipation of today's hearing claiming that the majority of the membership of Vail 21 does not support the board's letter. Nothing could be farther from the truth. First, attached below are the approvals from the other two board members for me to submit that letter, which answer the question that it may not be authorized (the other two board members are Linda Malaby and Rob Stephens, and the text of their emails below approves my letter). Ergo, my letter is unanimously authorized. Second, Mr. Zivic, in part of his general confusion about matters which led to his departure from the board, also confused the issue that we discussed at the annual meeting, which was whether Vail 21 should engage a lawyer and an engineer to produce a study to lobby the Town of Vail to prevent mechanical parking. At no point did anyone say anything in favor of mechanical parking, which is the misleading inference Mr. Zivic's letter would lead its reader to believe. Mr. Zivic's confusion explains why the membership placed no trust him. While the membership did not proceed to vote about the hiring a lawyer and an engineer (and, indeed, no reason to undertake that expense appeared), the membership has consistently been very concerned about mechanical parking and has never supported the idea of mechanical parking. Not even Mr. Zivic himself, arguing at the annual meeting against spending on a lawyer and engineer, claimed that mechanical parking was more desirable than ramp parking. The Town of Vail must ignore Mr. Zivic's misleading letter. Sincerely, Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos Board Member, Vail 21 www.nicholas_georgakopoulos.orggakopoulos.org hgp:Hssm.com/author=16468 The Harold R. Woodard Professor of Law Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Indianapolis My name is Linda Malaby and have served on the Board of Directors for Vail 21 for over 20 years in some capacity. The Board authorized Nicholas Georgakopoulos' original letter to the TOV for today's meeting, not from a majority perspective of the HOA owners, but just from the Board level. For instance, commercial owner Philippe Harari has no interest in the parking structure and he has a 38% interest in the HOA. My acceptance of the letter was to put out the word that the Board and most everyone, would not want to see mechanical parking happen. I don't believe the TOV or Rhoden's group does either but may have no other recourse. But I do not personally feel that Vail 21 or any other entity, government or private, can force ramps vs. mechanical parking on an owner's property. I may be naive in that opinion. Bruce Zivic was the President of the Vail 21 HOA, but resigned in December because Nicholas Georgakopoulos was reelected and Bruce did not want to sit along side of him for another three years butting heads. I believe Bruce and I have served together on the Board for at least ten years now, and he has been instrumental and highly professional in Vail 21 accomplishments to date. Bruce's letter (which I have not read) and Nicholas' email, and my email I am sending today -- are our sole opinions. I believe Rob Stephens will be filling in as President of the Board, so he will most likely be the party to continue conversations with the TOV in the future. Thank you for your time, Linda Malaby Board Member Alone VANTAGE POINT•VAIL CONDOMINIUMS Dear Town of Vail PEC, On behalf of Vantage Point -Vail Condominium Association, we are requesting that the Town of Vail PEC revisit the compliance Burden Ordinance Section 12-71-1-8 in lieu of the request by Launch Development to reduce the 93 parking spaces originally approved by 17 spaces. This will place a significant negative impact on the surrounding properties, mainly Vantage Point -Vail, being the only non -paid resident/guest parking in this area. The following facts show continued reduction in parking will have a negative impact: 1. Originally Vail 21 and Lifthouse were supposed to have 70 spaces per the June 16, 2018, Carver Schwarz letter and ended up with 54. 2. Launch Development was approved with 93 spaces and is now requesting a reduction. 3. In the event of maintenance or disrepair of the automated parking elevator, where are the cars going to go? This was addressed in the attached Nicholas Georgakopoulos letter. 4. With the reduction in parking spaces for employee housing, where are their guests/friends going to park? 5. It was stated in prior approval that if less than 93 spaces were provided, plan revision would be required. Vantage Point -Vail homeowners have not previously opposed Launch Development, even with it having major obstruction of mountain views and detrimental impact on property values. We have only stressed concerns of structural settlement of our building. However, at this time, Vantage Point -Vail is requesting that the PEC uphold the already diluted parking requirement of 93 spaces which were allowed for the initial site plan approval. The reduction of these vital spaces will impact Vantage Point -Vail homeowners due to the fact that employees, employee friends, Vail 21 and Lifthouse will all be short changed parking spaces. The only non -paid parking option is the Vantage Point -Vail parking garage. Although the main Lionshead parking structure is adjacent to both properties, it is amazing how many people will illegally try to park to save the parking fees. Vantage Point -Vail commends Launch Development and the Town of Vail for the design of the proposed new building. However, at the same time, we are requesting that you address a long-term town parking issue without passing it on to adjoining buildings. Sin ely Keith Kapilla Unit Owner Vantage Point -Vail Representative (248)388-2848 8 Attachments 508 East Lionshead Circle • Vail, CO 81657 970-476-0364 CARVER SCHWARZ MCNAB KAMPER & FORBES, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW SHERMAN STREET PLAZA 1888 SHERMAN STREET. SURE 400 DENvER, CoLoRADOA0203 MAIN UNE: 303.893.1815 FACSIMILE: 303.898.1829 June 6, 2018 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 STEWAw MCNAB SMCNASOCSMKF.COM 303.893.1819 Re: Applications of Battle Mountain LLC and Lazier Lionshead LLC Nos.: PEC18-0016, PEC18-0017; PEC18-0018; PEC18-0019 Ladies and Gentlemen: I write on behalf of the Lift House Homeowners Association, Inc. CAssolciation") in connection with the above -noted Applications to be considered at your meeting of June 11, 2018. All involve parcels transferred from Vail Associates in 1971 with the express requirement that they be used to fulfill the commercial and residential parking requirements for the Lift House, Vail 21 and Lionshead Arcade condominium projects. The Town of Vail enforced this requirement by refusing to issue a Certificate of Occupancy until the Lift House developers (Robert and Diane Lazier) completed their portion of the parking garage that occupies one of the tracts involved. The effect of granting the applications, without at least a condition that parking spaces eliminated in the near term on the parking parcels be fully restored, would be in violation of Section 12-10-3 of the Town Code. A short bit of history is helpful to understanding the issue of concern to the Association. In 1971, Robert and Diane Lazier purchased parols from Vail Associates on which the Lift House and Lionshead Arcade were built. At the same time, they purchased additional parcels, also within Block f of Lot 3, in Vail/Lionshead First Filing. Although we do not have a copy of the purchase contract, contemporaneous correspondence from Vail Associates to the town establishes that the developers of Vail 21 and the two Lazier properties were required to build a joint -use parking structure (the garage located in the area affected by the Applications), to accommodate the packing requirements of the three condominium projects. The attached Exhibits 1 and 2 are letters from Vail Associates to the Town Building Department confirming this requirement. Exhibit 3 is a contemporaneous map depicting the parcels listed in Exhibit 2. In its approval of the plans for the Lift House, the Town incorporated a requirement that completion of the parking structure was a prerequisite of the building obtaining a (00350907.DOC /I ) Planning and Environmental Commission June 6, 2018 Page 2 of 3 Certificate of Occupancy (Ex'tibit 4. f +, page 2). 717 -le Lift House building permit(Exhibit 5) requires that the developer provide 70 off-street parking spaces. When the condominium developers purchased the parcels from Vail Assoc, the garage parcel was conveyed so that the eastern one-third belonged to the Rosenquist group (developers of Vail 21) and the western two-thirds belonged to Mr. and Mrs. Lazier. After Lift House was completed, the Laziers retained ownership of the commercial units in it and their portion of the parking structure and connected surface parking. We understand that all of these properties were transferred to applicant Lazier Lionshead LLC in 2007. The eastern one-third of the parking structure was transferred from the last of the developers of Vail 21 to applicant Battle Mountain LLC in 2017. The Applications arise from Battle Mountain's plan to redevelop the eastern one-third of the garage parcel into a multifamily structure with below grade parking (PEC18-0016). In order to complete the proposed redevelopment, the entire upper deck of the parking structure, including the western two-thirds, will be removed, eliminating half of the parking spaces available to Lift House and Lionshead Arcade. None of the applications make arty provision for replacing the parking spaces lost as a consequence of the redevelopment of"..Battle Mountain parcel. Battle Mountain and Lazier Lionshead have already sought a permit to demolish the upper level of the garage. Representatives of the Association appeared at the hearing before the Design Review Board to object to the destruction of parking spaces, but were told that the Board's jurisdiction did not include parking and that the proper approach was to the Planning Department The representatives were told by the Planning Department that because there was no current plan for the redevelopment of the western two-thirds of the garage, there was nothing to be done. This "catch 22" situation puts the Association in a difficult position of losing spaces that the Lazier interests were required by the Town to provide as a condition of development, with no requirement to replace them in the future. There is no guarantee that any future plan for the western two-thirds of the parking structure will include the replacement of the lost spaces. The net effect is that if the Applicons are gfanted, off- street parking facilities that were in place when the current Town Parking Ordinance was passed in 1982 will be reduced in capacity, in direct violation of Town Code �12- 10-3.' The issue of whether the Town requires that the parking structure in question be used to provide the parking necessary when the three condominiums were first ' "Off street parking and loading facilities used for off street parking and loading on the effective date hereof shall not be reduced in capacity to less than the number of spates prescribed in this chapter, or reduced in area or number to less than the minimum standards prescribed in this chapter." {0036=7.DOC I 1 } 07J7:I972 Letter regarding Lftouse and Parking.pdf Modified on October 25, 2016 July 17, 1972 it f box est . Vail, Colorado 'sins? . soa.a:a:sstis Engelke Architects 2186 South. Holly Street ' Denver, Colorado 80222 aaejec Lift'li�o�wee ' Gentlement Revised pians received July 12, 1972 for the above -subject .fob have . been checked In accordance with the provisions set forth 'lrr the l)ni- form Sul Iding Code, 197W Edition, Voivaes I and II and the 1970 Uni- Form Pl'umbipg Code as emended and adopted by the Town of Vail. The Use Zone is CCils occupancy groups are B-3, F-2, end H; type of construction Is 11 noncosbust i'b i e. The following ttetas s ha 1-i be corrected by revised plans or addendw s 1. Submit a copy of your condomiiilum declaration as requIlred by the Colorado Revised Statute 119-13-•3 to the rove of Yell, as well as to the State so that we may determine t°heownership of common areas, respvnstbillty for maintenance, etc. 2. In accordance with Section 305 (a) and (b), the owner shall employ a special inspector who shall be present at all times during cpnstruction on the following type* of works ' (a) Concrete, Including reintorciny (b) Masonry,. Including reinforcing (c) Structural•steel - (d) Precast concrete This Inspector shall not be anyone employed by the c*ntrector doing the work and shall be approved by this office prior to comateacing the work involved. He should report to th°e building Offtgial fn writing, reporting any Code vlofatioes al►d other requ•F•red Information. ' S. A totrai of 69 pert(iag spaces, 99 x 19+, pfus one loading berth, 12t ,x 251, are req'atred fol• this bpildking. The LlonsHead Arcade 8ult,dla,$ requires 36 parktng spices, plus one los4ing berth. Nit(t tfie so requlrenents, this volt 21 building requ'Ires 53 parkin spaces plus one loedfng berth. Your new parking Derage wfhl require a totai ofa k n a e-s."u thr¢e1 loading berths, �• which may be, Iocate s sewhere on a proper es. EXHIBIT 4 07.17.1872 Letter regarding Ufthouse and Parking pdf MadMed on October 25.2016 ,iuly*5"1 iii Ppge 2 4. 1 would, at this time, like to remind you of our w*otipg of April 27, 1972 when Bob Watt of Vail Associates, Robert Lanier and Chuck Rosenquist, Larry Robinson and 1 m%T with regard to the parkFpg structure. The result of this meeting was the decision that occupancy of these two building would not be allowed until the parking structure is ,completed. 5. Please be Informed that the building site where work Is In prj)�Artssr or materials are being stored must be fenced and imarke•d with "Hard Hat Area - Authorized Personnel Only" signs. 6. Submit a completed Declaration of Land Allocation, 7. Submit complete•g�A�tan¢ Immediately. There are a number of areas that will requite mic`�fianical ventilation, node of which can be checked until these plans are submitted. S. The first floor commercial area will require a minimum of three water closets In each toilet, mems and women's or teents would be acceptable with two water closets and one urinal. These will take care of all comsierclal areas, Including the restaur"t. 9. West wall of corridor I16 and east well of'vestibule 120, hall 106, vestibule ID5, all walls in lobby 102, and vestibule 124 shall be of not less than two hour noncombustible constructlon. •10. All construction shall conform with T31)167 I`1 -A. I1. Elevator shaft shall have a minimum of three square feet of ventiletlon to the outside. 12. Wells between stair end shaft In stair #2 shall be two hour non- combustlble construction. 13. All glass at entry doors and sidelltes shall be tempered or safety glass. 14. All stairways Be" or more in width shall have an intermedlats handrail. 15. On a typical floor plan them appears to be many shifts In the corridor areas. Please note that these *ust be two hour noncom- bustible construction In accordance with Table 17-A. 16. ,On addendum lit, you show a two hour wall at the face of the f;ra- place. In beck of the fireplace you at ready have a precast wall with a hole in it for the chimmttey t*,S* through. This opening_ should be seated up for a two hour ratlny. The two hour wall at the face of the fireplace could then be a one boor wall. 17. In accordance with our Ordinance #6 amending the Uniform Building Code, all exterior wood shall not cover more than 4011 of each - wall area above the first floor, and shall be fire retardant. Ia. 'Reference Chapter 47, all the plywood goof sheeting shell be fire retardant except that area the Board of Appeals,granted a variance for. 4ti !9.� Roof shall be one hour rated In accordance with Section 1906 and Chapter 32. 20. "A -t structural frames shell be protected with two hour fire ratF g which will be In accordance with Toble 43. 21. Reference Chapter 28, the telling over the corridor area next to the stairwell is called with.2 x 6 noncombusttble.jolsts. if t this is used in the corriddr area, two layers of gypsum board g, both sides will be required. if tills door to this attic area Is used as shown on the section, all roof members and studs shal _ z be fire retardant treated. 0% tai Parking As outlined in a 1972 letter from the Town of Vail, the existing parking structure was built to provide parking for three adjacent projects. Elevation will replace existing parking and provide for the new parking demand from the proposed development. The existing structures and surface parking located on Lot A2 and a portion of Tract K (the Launch project) provides 52 parking spaces. Proposed development ✓` rfU�� of nine condominiums and three EHU's requires 17 spaces for a total of 69 U� spaces. The parking structure will provide a minimum of 69 on-site spaces. Parking will be provided on three below grade levels and six additional spaces at pe,ot n & cl the main entry to the parking structure. A total of 93 parking spaces are O depicted on proposed plans. It should be noted that this is a maximum potential parking number. As project design progresses and more is known about structural, mechanical and other design considerations, it is anticipated that less than 93 spaces will be provided. However, under any circumstance a minimum of 69 spaces will be provided in order to meet zoning requirements. A fully automated parking system is proposed. A fully automated parking garage Six enclosed parking spaces are located next to the parking system loading bay. These spaces provide parking for users who want to park on-site but need time before using the parking system. These spaces will allow condominium owners or short-term renter to check in, unload personal items, etc. before parking. Site Design The building's primary pedestrian orientation is to the east with an entry stairs and front door located along East Lionshead Circle. Landscaping along the road is proposed to define spaces and "soften" the building. Pedestrian access is also provided on the south Elevation/534 East Lionshead Circle Development Applications Page 10 is a mechanical system designed to minimize area/volume required for parking vehicles. An automated parking garage utilizes mechanics made up of motors, chains, pulleys and pallets to transport vehicles within the parking system rather than the driver doing so. The driver pulls into a loading bay that looks very similar to a garage and parks their car on what is essentially a pallet. The driver ( then leaves their vehicle and using a nearby kiosk (with a fob or ticket) instructs the system to park the vehicle. The loading bay door then closes and the pallet .J and vehicle are automatically moved to its designated parking space. When the driver is ready to retrieve their vehicle, they will insert their parking ticket into �J the kiosk (or use their fob) which would trigger the retrieval of their vehicle. There will be monitors in the lobby that will let the driver know which bay their vehicle will be arriving in. The vehicle will be delivered facing out so that the driver does not have to back up out of the bay; this allows ease of exit as well as expedites the retrieval process. Six enclosed parking spaces are located next to the parking system loading bay. These spaces provide parking for users who want to park on-site but need time before using the parking system. These spaces will allow condominium owners or short-term renter to check in, unload personal items, etc. before parking. Site Design The building's primary pedestrian orientation is to the east with an entry stairs and front door located along East Lionshead Circle. Landscaping along the road is proposed to define spaces and "soften" the building. Pedestrian access is also provided on the south Elevation/534 East Lionshead Circle Development Applications Page 10 fLL/J J N NI Q N 2 o $LLQ o O Q O N NyQ Q 1 LL LL LL LL LL W f/J fn N a y U. R`� m OrU NNr NN1 - J /p0 O l+lH w w w w w U U U U U m R'i R'i R'i m s � L9918 00 'IIVA wo 4V3HSNOII 3 W9 NOUVA313 fLL/J J N NI Q N 2 o $LLQ o O Q O N NyQ Q 1 LL LL LL LL LL W f/J fn N a y U. R`� m OrU NNr NN1 - J /p0 O l+lH w w w w w U U U U U m R'i R'i R'i m s � a g� $$ g g i w U. g=$U. LL di LL g Q z i i cc cr IL a 22w vs I f r r I r — __rr r I i w I I I I 1 I 4 ED — i r —.Q�7 ® I I I I � I o I I I I xU m L.— -------------._.L.—._.- ¢w ¢w� rac r¢ Received January 7, 2020 Dear Mr. Spence, (with copy to the other two board members of Vail 21, Rob Stephens and Linda Malaby) Although I have written to you before as an individual board member about this issue, this time 1 am writing on behalf of our association (Vail 21). Our association feels that having mechanical parking would be undesirable. We can envision inevitable malfunctions leading to missed flights and even perhaps abandoned rental cars and enormous inconvenience. The mishaps that mechanical parking will bring will reflect badly not only on the related buildings (Launch's, and Vail 21, but also perhaps Lazier's and Arcade, if Lazier's building ends up not being able to fit a ramp and is forced to mechanical parking) but also on Vail as a premier destination. We wish to repeat that it is possible for the town to achieve a low- cost temporary expropriation of the second -to -build property (Lazier's; by essentially forcibly renting for a short time the cubic volume corresponding to Lazier's fraction of the shared ramp) and to force common ramp parking. We feel that the Town of Vail's governmental powers must be deployed in this direction because the gain to be achieved would be very significant compared to the cost. I would be happy to discuss this further, by email or at my cell, 317.332.8213. Sincerely, Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos for the Vail 21 Board of Directors From: Charles Curtis To: Jonathan Spence Subject: Number of parking slots for new Launch parking garage Date: Thursday, June 07, 2018 1:07:17 PM Jonathan, I have a concern about the number of parking spaces planned for the new Launch parking garage. Could you pass on my thoughts to your colleagues at the PEC? The overarching concern is if we're putting too much traffic into the alley between the Launch garage and Vail 21. Here's the basis for this concern: I. Currently the garage delivers upstairs parking to the East Lionshead Circle and downstairs parking to the alley. 2. The new design delivers all traffic to the alley. 3. The alley is long and narrow. It is frequently blocked by garbage trucks and delivery trucks. 4. The new design calls for 93 spaces — a large number above the current parking garage. 5. Lazier, who owns a space twice as large as the Launch project will also likely increase his number of spaces. 6. If Lazier puts 100 spaces in his new development on top of the 93 planned by Launch, we'll have 193 — maybe more — cars fighting their way up and down that alley. 7. The alley is also used by pedestrians who plan to go to Bart & Yeti's, Montauk and the other stores on the upper pedestrian walkway to the General Store. As the town considers the new building for the Launch project, I hope you will keep these concerns in mind. Thank you. Chuck Curtis Vail 21. # 505 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: January 13, 2020 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Pec results 011320.pdf January 13, 2020 PEC Results 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl January 13, 2020, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Pete Seibert Absent: JohnRyan Lockman Main Agenda 2.1. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density 30 min. Control, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, and a request for the review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the stipulation that basement GRFA deductions apply only to floors within six vertical feet of the lowest level of a structure, both in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 775 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 19-0050) Applicant: Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to January 27, 2020. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 2.2. A request for review of an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration for 30 min. the Launch Development, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to modify the amount of required parking and the design of the parking garage, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2A, a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3 and Tract E, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19- 0051) Applicant: Battle Mountain LLC Launch Development Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence: This project has been approved once by the PEC. Now there are 3 new requests: Reduce parking requirements due to the presence of on-site EHUs (staff does support this), reduce the quantity of existing parking spaces required to be replaced (staff does not support this), revise the internal layout of the parking. Sean McGinley: After getting into the weeds when it comes to the engineering of the building, it was discovered that the 3rd underground parking level is not viable. This has added a new constraint to the project. Asking for a reduction of 12 spots total. This can be reached in 3 ways. The original existing parking space count presented to the PEC in 2018 was inaccurate and there were less spots than presented. The second way would take advantage of EHU allowances. Asking for 3 additional spots in addition to these points. Kjesbo: Would, by today's standards, a restriping reduce the number of parking spots? Spence: Yes, but this is common of many developments throughout the Town. Gillette: Had a question about the drive isle in the garage and the viability of double -stacked valet parking. McGinley: Discussed the EHU allowance. Perez: Valet was already expected here and that could potentially be used to reach current requirements, this seems like dipping into the pot again. McGinley: There is now a need to reduce spaces as it is impossible to get a 3rd level of parking. The third level would reach the water table and make the building structurally unsound. Kurz: Looks like you are asking for a reduction of around 15%? Asked a clarifying question to Spence regarding Staff's support of the EHU allowance. McGinley: Explained who their proposed breakdown of parking spots would be for. Public Comment Keith Capella: (Works with Vantage Point) Spent some time reviewing the parking issue. The building is nicely designed. As a whole, we have an issue with the parking. There's nowhere for anyone to go when the parking lot fills. Reducing the employee parking, which is a community benefit, the employees are unlikely to be able to afford the public parking in the winter months. The reduction will have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. Vantage Point is the only place that offers free guest parking in the area and will be inundated with parking attempting to park there if this request is approved. The issue of the high-water table is important, but we have to look at the impacts on our (and surrounding) buildings. Though there is the Lionshead Parking structure, people will always try to avoid payed parking. David Moe: (Works with Vantage Point) 93 was their original number, now 57 is proposed. The reduction of parking will overflow into Vantage Point. Already experiencing overflow parking from the shortage of hospital parking due to its construction. Concerned about the structure of the Vantage Point building as well, both before and after construction. Soil settling post construction will result in cracking at their building. This can be engineered around, but wants to bring up this concern to the PEC. Tim Cook: (Homeowner at Vantage Point) Needs to have valet for this parking structure to work. Doesn't think the proposed parking system could be fully automated. Thinks this is going to negatively impact the area. Why wasn't the water table problem brought up years ago? Lots of work to be done still. Susan Cahill: (President of the Vantage Point HOA) Has gotten lots of calls from residents concerned about the project. Wanted to state that the HOA will be closely looking at this project. Kurz: Where is the 93 number coming from. Spence: During the initial planning process, the applicant stated that they could potentially get 93 spaces out of the land, but promised not to go below 69 spaces ultimately. McGinley: Discussed the CityLift automated system that is proposed. Normal retrieval times are 75-90 seconds. There are two carousals and a backup generator for redundancy. Kjesbo: If this was a new application, would the application be able to make these arguments and would you look at this application the same way. Spence: Yes, the applicant would likely be making the same arguments, but this is a bit different from other projects because of the existing parking that needs to be replaced. Kjesbo: No problem with EHU spaces. No validity for the additional 3 spaces being request. Still confused about the existing parking to be replaced since there is some ambiguity here. Spence: Clarified that Staff analyzed existing parking by looking at the number of spaces out there currently, not by considering how many spots would be there if it were restriped. Gillette: Not in favor of reducing parking. Perez: Also not in favor of reducing parking, but wants to work towards a solution. Can some agreement between the applicant and the town be reached to lease parking spaces at the Red Sandstone parking lot? Encourages the applicant to look at additional options to address their issue. Spence: Agreed that there may be other solutions but would discourage against the Town losing some of its short-term parking. Hopkins: Not in favor of reduction. Seibert: Recused himself from the discussion as he works with the neighboring property. Seibert had made no other comments during the discussion. Kurz: Encouraged the applicant to table the application and re-evaluate. Brian Gillette moved to table to January 27, 2020. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Abstain: (1) Seibert Absent: (1) Lockman 2.3. A request for review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit pursuant 30 min. to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to amend the circulation plan in the vicinity of the Medical Professional Building, located at 108 South Frontage Road West/Unsubdivided and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0052) Applicant: Vail Clinic Inc Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Davis Partnership Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. This Conditional Use approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application(s). 2. All Conditions of Approval from the September 11, 2017 PEC approval remain in effect, as applicable. 3. Prior to applying for ROW permit through the Department of Public Works for the proposed improvements, the applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with the appropriate CDOT approvals. 4. The applicant shall demonstrate through the construction documents that the infrastructure for future snow melting of the drop off aisle and sidewalk will be installed. 5. If the operation and maintenance of the proposed improvements, including snow storage and removal, result in adverse effects on vehicular or pedestrian safety, the Town of Vail may initiate further consideration of this component of the Conditional Use Permit and may require the closing of the valet until such time as alternative measures are implemented. Planner Spence: The CUP for the east portion of the Hospital campus included replacing the parking lot in front of the current Medical Professional Building with a sidewalk and landscaping. The new proposal uses that area for a valet drop off lane and a bus stop. This is not as optimal as the previous plan, but it is the best plan that has been come up with that includes all the goals addressed by this design. Tom Braun: Representing Vail Health. Two colleagues are not here yet due to weather conditions. Tom started by discussing the previous process for the hospital up to this point. The east wing of the hospital addresses many of the community goals identified prior to approval of the hospital. The purpose of the valet is to provide quick access for the Urgent Care building. The purpose of the Urgent Care is to provide medical help without an appointment. Tom discussed the existing conditions of the drop-off. 4-5 cars can be fit in the valet drop-off at one time. An attendant will also be present. The current bus stop is nearly in front of the Four Seasons and the stop is in the drive isle. The new proposal gives the bus a dedicated drop-off lane. W hi le the previous design was better, the new design meets more of the goals of the hospital. Tom Kassmel: We (public works) has been working with Vail Health for a while on this application. Many iterations were discussed when it was decided that a valet was desired. Public Works is ok with this plan, however if it doesn't function properly, it will need to be removed. Not anticipating issues with snow management. Tubes ready for a heated isle will be installed. However, as of now there is no boiler associated with those tubes. Will be installed if snow management ends up being an issue. Tom displayed and continued to discuss the circulation of the site. Perez: A question regarding the 2 ft of sidewalk lost as a result of this. Public Comment Fred Goldburg: Where do the valet cars go? Spence: The valet will bring the vehicle to the main parking structure Gillette: No issues with the proposal and agrees with the staff recommendation. Perez: Wondering how necessary this is. Vail Health was in front of the commission 4-5 times and a valet here was never discussed. Worried about pedestrian safety. Worried about all the busses that need to stop here. Hopkins: Is there a crosswalk? Braun: As of now no, but there could be one. Spence: The crosswalk was going to be discussed with the DRB. Braun: In addressing Perez's concerns, the need for this valet was not there during the initial process. Also prioritizing safety and efficiency within this space. Hopkins: Seems like this wasn't an easy solution. However, it appears that when all of these street improvements come in things will run properly. Seibert: Feels comfortable with this as a CUP. Kjesbo: I n support of this as well. Kurz: Also in support of this. Brian Gillette moved to approve with conditions. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 2.4. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 12- 45 min. 9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to the conditional use permit for the Town of Vail Public Works facility located at 1289 Elkhorn D rive/U n platted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0039) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Erik Gates 1. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon the applicant obtaining approval of an associated Design Review Board application for the design of the building and retaining wall. 2. Applicant shall at all times abide by the Conditional Use Permit regulations in Title 12, Chapter 16, of the Vail Town Code. 3. Any conditional use which is discontinued for a period of two (2) years, regardless of any intent to resume operation, shall not be resumed thereafter,- any future use of the site or structures thereon shall conform to the provisions of Title 12, Chapter 16, Vail Town Code. 4. This property is within a geologically sensitive area pursuant to Chapter 12-21 Hazard Regulations, Vail Town Code. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for construction within the geologically sensitive areas, the owner shall submit a written, signed and notarized affidavit certifying acknowledgment of receiving personal notice of the fact that said building or structure is in an area of geologic sensitivity and notice of the studies conducted to date with regard thereto. 5. Construction of the shoring wall and rockfall berm shall be limited to the months of June to November, unless a consultation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife reveals a need to adjust this window. " 6. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon the continued prohibition of dogs, other than those required to be permitted by law, for Buzzard Park residents and visitors and employees of the Public Works site. 7. No outdoor recreation shall be permitted to occur north of the retaining wall and Buzzard Park during winter months and/or when sheep are observed in the area. 8. This conditional use permit is contingent upon the applicant, the Town of Vail, continuing to work closely with Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the duration of the Public Works Master Plan build -out, and the applicant continuing to convene the bighorn sheep habitat restoration group for as long as is appropriate. Planner Gates provided the commission with a re -introduction to the project and the changes since the prior meeting. Gates discussed the Bighorn Sheep working group and its purpose. More conditions of approval have also been added to address concerns expressed by the commission, including a ban on canines and on recreation above the retaining wall. Greg Hall, Director of PW, spoke to Bighorn Sheep mitigation measures completed and planned. Scott Robson, Town Manager, provided an update on the bighorn sheep habitat working group and its purpose. Robson spoke to the importance of the PW project for continued level service for the community. Robson spoke to habitat improvement, the NEPA process, sheep collars and funding. Gillette: Asked about participation in the task force Robson: Pleased with Forest Service (USFS) representation. Gillette: Asked about the possibility of hiring a biologist to assist with the NEPA process. Robson: Spoke to hiring a biologist in the next few months and spoke to this being necessary to expedite the process. The USFS does not have the ability to move this to the top of the list. Spoke to next steps and possible timelines. Robson discussed how information would be passed along to the public. Perez: Asked about the makeup of the commission and if the charter requires a member of the PEC. Robson: It may be time to look if this charter referenced commission needs to be reformed. Spoke to the task force being science and implementation oriented. Hopkins: Asked about how projects in this area will impact the task force. Robson: Spoke to the task force taking a comprehensive look at the situation including proposed projects in the vicinity. This is a landscape wide approach. Hopkins: Spoke to the sheep being seen in the aspens and the true range of their activities. Kurz: Thanked Robson for his work on this issue and the commitment from management and the TC. Hall: Asked if the commission had any questions concerning the CUP. Gillette: Referenced a letter from Jim Lamont. Asked about timing of construction, possible fencing, landscaping and seasonal closures.. Hall: Provided a timeframe for the anticipated 7 month process. Will coordinate with CPW and wildlife experts. Discussed the demolition plan and the proposed construction of the berm. Hopkins asked for clarification of the berm and its height. Hall provided details on the proposed berm. No Public Comment Siebert: No further comments and appreciates the task force and feels that this should be approved. Hopkins: No Comments Perez: Supports the task force. Thankful for the conditions of approval. Would like to add an additional condition related to following the recommendations of the CPW and other experts. Gillett: Agrees with Perez Kjesbo: Agrees with Perez and the need to follow CPW recommendations. Does not support EHUs and solar fields at this time. Kurz: Supports the application and feels the Town has taken steps in the right direction. Brian Gillette moved to approve with conditions. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 2.5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district 5 min. boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1 Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, from the Commercial Core 3 (CC3) District to the Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) District and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0047) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0046 and PEC19-0048. The applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the meeting of January 27, 2020. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Karen Perez moved to table to January 27, 2020. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 2.6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Highline Hotel Renovation 2019), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a hotel addition to add 79 accommodation units, convert 19 existing dwelling units to 19 limited service lodge units, create a 12 unit EHU dormitory, remove office space, add conference space and build 16 unit employee housing apartment building, and related uses and improvements, located at 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0048) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0047 and PEC19-0046. The applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the meeting of January 27, 2020. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Karen Perez moved to table to January 27, 2020. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 2.7. A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, 5 minutes Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of a hotel addition and an EHU apartment building, located at 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0046) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0047 and PEC19-0048. The applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the meeting of January 27, 2020. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Karen Perez moved to table to January 27, 2020. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. December 9, 2019 PEC Results Brian Gillette moved to approve. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Abstain: (1) Hopkins Absent: (1) Lockman 4. 1 nformational Update 4.1. An informational update on the Town of Vail Housing Department including 30 min. the 2018 Housing Policy Statements, the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan, and a snap shot of progress toward the goal. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 5. Adjournment Karen Perez moved to adjourn. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Ad #: 0000541636-01 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLMT COMMISSION January 27, 2020, 1:00 PM Town Cooncil Chambers Tfi S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Your account number is: 1023233 1. Call to Order 1.1. Attendance PROOF OF PUBLICATION 2Main Agenda 2.1. Arequem foraremmmendationtothe Vail Town Council to,e .no diatrietboundary VAIL DAILY ..cabal pmo-at to Section 12-3-], Amend- ment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of STATE OF COLORADO 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed ofTramC,Lot 1Lot 2, ad Lot 3Vail DaaSchn. COUNTY OF EAGLE Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schon. Filing 3, farm the bdaGbamemialcore3c,C3) trobanmme g Public Accommodation -2 D seam I9-0047 Forth details In regard thereto ( EC19-004]) 90 min. t, I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swearthat I am Publisher ofthe This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19- 0046 and P VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in whole TIN=III Applicant: TNREF II Bravo Veil LLC Widewaters G,,uppinc,repre.ntedbyMauriell°Planning or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Planner: Greg Roy 2.2. Arequeatfor are.ammandationtoth. Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said Vail Town Council of an application e,t,bl,,h,ng special Development Pict No. 42(Highlme Hotel newspaper has been published continuous) Y and Renovation 2019), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Spe- r D.vm.pmantDietri.ta,Vail Town Code ,teallow for the development of a hotel addition toadd ]9a.- uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more modation units, convert 19 existing dwelling ��i�st. 191imitedservme lodge nits create a 12 than fifty-two consecutive weeks next to the first unit EHU dormitory, remove -lilt. space, add con - ference space and build 16 mit mi,housing prior publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and apartment building, amd related uses and improve - ments, located at 2211 North Frontage Road Westwhich,scamp...dofTreatC,Lot1,Lot2,and1.1 that said newspaper has published the requested legal 3 Vail Das Schon. Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das s. one FilingCTit ndaetlmg forth detailamregard notice and advertisement as requested. thereto. (PEC19-0048) This item will be heard concurrently with PEG19- 0047 and PEC19-0046. Applicant: TN REP III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, Group Inc ., represented by Mauriello Planning Group only forjurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule Planner: Greg Roy 2.3. Arequestfor revi.wofanE-riorAl- terati.n, pursuant to Section 12-]J-12, EAerior Al - `provision. For�muond.ft a hotel additonwnd an EHU )low apartment building, located at 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C. L.t 1, L.t That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was 2. and andFiling a ng forth detail �' published in the regular and entire issue of every number of regard thereto.(PEC19-0046) Thi. item will be heardconcurren8y with PEC1 9 said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that 0047 and PEC19-oo48. the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLG Widewahard Group Inc., ad ... tried byMail Plnning newspaper dated 1/24/2020 and that the last publication of Group Plrum- a,dq es forme review of avahn« said notice was dated 1/24/2020 in the issue of said from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Cod., to allow for a variance to the requirement that condor, unit in the Two -Family newspaper. Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not ex- ceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, and a request for In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, the review of a variance tram Section 12-15-3, Defi- ration,Calculdland E.duai.ne,Vail Town Code , 1 /27/2020. to allow for a variance to the stipulation that base - ment GRFA deductions apply only to floors within vertical feet of the lowest level of a structure, both in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-1], Variant s, Vail Town Code, located at ]]5 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regardd Cher thereto. (PE min. ,�p®QV/N�,1v'yq�l pp,i.. t: So30 Applicant: Smtt Ryan Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates A request for review an amendment Mark Wurzer, Publisher fo oved Erior Alteration forme Launch to n approved xte o to a Devel E.a rauopment, pursuant to SMion 12-]H-],7, Exterior Aaena .r M.dni.3una, Vail T.wn code, to the amount of required parking and the de- modify2A, sign of the park in? garage, located at 534 East Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and nsM1ead a Circle /Lot esubdivision of Lots 1, Lior2,3and ractrth'dlock 1, Filing 1, for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day regardiLion EC1 9 - 00051)30 in. Applicant: Battle Mountain LLC Launch Develop - 1 /27/2020. mens Ina Planner: Jonathan Spence 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. January 13, 2020 PEC Pesuhs f Adjournment The applications and information about the propos- Pamela Joan Schultz, Notary Public als are available for public inspection during regular nflmj Dapart -,l5SouthFrontageRoadOM1elop- My Commission Expires: December 5, 2023 public is invited to attend the project orientation and theaitevimtathat preced,the public hearing inthe artm Town of Vail C.mmuniTy Development opmt Depent. Times and order of hems are approximate, subject PAMELA JOAN SCHULTZ at what time the Piabn b9 aneEnvironmental tGom- PUf3Lf0 STATE OF COLORADO n will consider n item. Please call (970) 479 - 2138 far additional mfoarmon. Please call 711 for NOTARY iD t9e PAyt:omnllsHm Expfrea fJeacenber 5, 2a2a _.__ sign language interpretation 48 hour prior in meet- ing time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily January 24, 2020 0000541636 Ad #: 0000536168-01 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM 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 forjurisdictions 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 1/10/2020 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 1/10/2020 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 1/28/2020. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 1/28/2020. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1 ME LISPN MEDINA st>,T� atcutnzoo NOTARY til Rgir�079i9g !A`/vCfi3.¢SGON:Xi'lRI:GAUGil57et,2ffi' THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN Met Me Planning end Environmental Commisslon of the Town of Vall will holtl a puhlic hearing in accordance with secfim 12-3-6, Vail T—n Cade, and anuary 27,2M At 1:00 pm in Me Town of Vail Municipal Building. No new items have been submitted fa this meeting. Tabled or confined items ham previous meetings may be scheduled for IN, mewing date. The applications antl information about thepropo�- Is are available for public inspection duringg oollff ,curs at the Town of Vail Communiry Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public Is Invited to attend site visits. Pleaseca119704n- 2130 a visit www.vailgw com/planning tar addition- al irda nerion. SI gg language ln%rpretatlon available upon request wiM 24-hour nofif_%a dial 711. Published January 10, 2020 in the Vail Daly. 0000536169